"Her penis" - not at all Orwellian - argh

[icehorse]

Fantastic non-answer.

No, they're really not. They really are not. I would be willing to bet that you've passed transpeople on your daily dozens of times, and seen them as their preferred gender expression. To put it simply for you, you've very likely seen transwomen as women, and transmen as men. Because social interaction isn't a genital inspection like you're treating this issue.

And it's really as simple as that. Respecting people for who they are, not what you think they are or should be.

Ok, so:

- I've never made any claims concerning my ability to spot trans people in public.
- I've never suggested genital inspections.
- I've never disrespected trans people, but I criticize many of trans activists' IDEAS.
- I've never suggested how I think trans people should be, except if they're abusing women.

You're arguing against claims I've never made. If that's not strawmanning, what do you call it?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Ok, so:

- I've never made any claims concerning my ability to spot trans people in public.
- I've never suggested genital inspections.
- I've never disrespected trans people, but I criticize many of trans activists' IDEAS.
- I've never suggested how I think trans people should be, except if they're abusing women.

You're arguing against claims I've never made. If that's not strawmanning, what do you call it?

For what it's worth, I wouldn't call the quoted post a strawman, in my opinion.

A strawman is when someone sets up a fake argument to knock down. It involves a very specific practice.

Thinking up a scenario that could happen, but didn't necessarily - and talking through it to prove a point - isn't a strawman, in my opinion.

Suppose that someone says that apples are bad for you because they contain pesticides.

Example of something that is not a strawman:

"If I saw you on the side of the street, I bet you would buy apples if you were hungry."

Example of a strawman:

"So you support insects. <Goes into argument about how insects are bad>"

 

[icehorse]

For what it's worth, I wouldn't call the quoted post a strawman, in my opinion.

A strawman is when someone sets up a fake argument to knock down. It involves a very specific practice.

Thinking up a scenario that could happen, but didn't necessarily - and talking through it to prove a point - isn't a strawman, in my opinion.

Suppose that someone says that apples are bad for you because they contain pesticides.

Example of something that is not a strawman:

"If I saw you on the side of the street, I bet you would buy apples if you were hungry."

Example of a strawman:

"So you support insects. <Goes into argument about how insects are bad>"

Well I'm open to hearing what you would call that post then?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Well I'm open to hearing what you would call that post then?

I'd call it "Pathos", honestly:

Pathos - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Which isn't a logical fallacy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But as for your criticisms of me, you're all hat and no cattle.

No.

You can talk about intersectionality, and standpoint theory, and how oppressed you are, and how bad the west is - i'm sure you'll have a grand old time

That's called bull****. Id say you know better than all this nonsense you keep spewing but at this point I'm not sure. I think you actually believe it's not you, it's everybody else.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

- I've never disrespected trans

You do that frequently when you weaponize others. You do that when you want treatment delayed and denied. You disrespected a lot trans people who are also autistic.
You're actually quite rude, demeaning, dismissive, patronizing and belligerent based on your posting history.

I've never suggested how I think trans people should be,

Yes. You have. Id explain it but you'll scream strawman and learn nothing.
You're like a Christian who ignores apostates to insist we left the Church just so we could sin.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

You are arguing against claims I have not made. It's as simple as that.

So when a trans woman wants to go to a women's prison or compete against women in sports, that MAN is punching down, it's abhorrent.

I would fear for a trans man punching up, but it would be her choice.

Would you care to reconfigure?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Ok, so:

Okay, so?

- I've never made any claims concerning my ability to spot trans people in public.

Your lack of statement on this is not prerequisite to me illustrating a point to you of your hypocrisy. You're so quick to call hypothetical transwomen MEN and refer to hypothetical transmen as "her", yet if confronted by real individuals in a real scenario, you'd never know.

- I've never suggested genital inspections.

And yet your arguments against trans existences as valid hinge and revolve around a genital-centric view of biological sex and conforming gender expression and identity.

- I've never disrespected trans people,

Yes you have.

but I criticize many of trans activists' IDEAS.

Like what, the radical idea of wanting to exist in peace without perverts obsessed with what's in or not in their pants?

- I've never suggested how I think trans people should be, except if they're abusing women.

Except for the whole MAN and "her" thing, huh?

You're arguing against claims I've never made. If that's not strawmanning, what do you call it?

Again, I'm not arguing against your claims there. I'm illustrating the ridiculousness of your bigotry and the breadth of ignorance in your stance.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

(This is where you say "your mind reading skills aren't very good” with the embarrassingly frequent use of jazz hands.)

It seems his thing now is to accuse everyone with a criticism against him of strawmaning him.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This 5 minute video on the subject is an interesting view which incorporates facts and not just opinion.

I'm not going to let a random YouTube video, posted by a right-wing nut job organisation, make your arguments for you.

I accept your concession to the point.

 

[LadyJane]

It seems his thing now is to accuse everyone with a criticism against him of strawmaning him.

That and ad hominems. I remember when I began hearing they/them and wanted to understand what was happening. Are there two? Is it twins? Looked it up and within two minutes had it sorted. (Star Trek explained it in forty five seconds.) We’ve been saying they at times we mean he or she or they forever. It’s not that far of a stretch. It’s not the big deal people are making it out to be and they’re embarrassing themselves. It’s a convenient bandwagon for those who need a scapegoat. A target for discrimination.

When a patron takes two steps of reasoning and reaches a conclusion they lose sight of the patrons who are taking four or five. This alone allows leeway for sympathy. But reiterating the same points over and over takes a conversation in circles. Asking the same questions and requesting the same definitions from each individual poster to avoid seeing what they refuse to see is as frustrating as it is cringeworthy.

The ignorant and offensive comments on this thread make it nearly impossible to sympathize. The disproportionate fear of people who represent a fraction of the population is unfounded and unnecessary. It’s none of my beeswax. But I’ve seen the change in people when they reach the places they were always meant to be and that alone proves to me they damn well aren’t “pretending” to be anything but who they are. I can’t imagine why anyone would want to stand in the way of that.

One has to wonder if the constant use of “argh” is a sign of irritation that comes from lack of understanding.

 

[icehorse]

No.

That's called bull****. Id say you know better than all this nonsense you keep spewing but at this point I'm not sure. I think you actually believe it's not you, it's everybody else.

Everybody else isn't with you, and your woke nonsense is crumbling.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Lol, I think you need to read the room and leave the echo chamber.

 

[Revoltingest]

And @LadyJane -
But as for your criticisms of me, you're all hat and no cattle.

That insult doesn’t apply to urban girls.

 

[icehorse]

You do that frequently when you weaponize others. You do that when you want treatment delayed and denied. You disrespected a lot trans people who are also autistic.

Project much?

You have often claimed that GAC is well researched, proven, and tested. It is none of those things. You claim it's carefully administered. We agree that that ought to be what's happening, but it's frequently not. Videos and transcripts from WPATH itself document how top WPATH leaders promote and perform untested procedures, use pseudoscience research techniques, and do indeed rush to treatment. They also acknowledge how many of their patients have comorbidities such as autism, and cannot and do not understand the implications of GAC.

So it is YOU, when you support GAC that are weaponizing confused young kids and their families. Pushing for them to rush into dangerous, unproven treatments that carry a lifetime of medical complications and expenses. And once again, GAC has no high quality evidence to support its effectiveness!

You're actually quite rude, demeaning, dismissive, patronizing and belligerent based on your posting history.

I will admit to not swallowing your nonsense. When you start engaging in good faith, you'll be treated with more respect. I will ask you again, for the umpteenth time, to provide a link to studies that compare GAC drugs to talk therapy only. As long as you keep dodging this request, you're hurting kids with GD. You want me to respect you for that?

Yes. You have. Id explain it but you'll scream strawman and learn nothing.

No I have not. What I've said over and over again is that we have to be able to distinguish between trans people and trans activists. And ALL of my attacks are aimed at the activists and that part of the medical community that engages in GAC for kids.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

They also acknowledge how many of their patients have comorbidities such as autism, and cannot and do not understand the implications of GAC.

Excuse you/them?

 

[icehorse]

And yet your arguments against trans existences as valid hinge and revolve around a genital-centric view of biological sex and conforming gender expression and identity.

How do my arguments do that?

I'm illustrating the ridiculousness of your bigotry and the breadth of ignorance in your stance.

Here's some bigotry I'll cop to: I am strongly attached to the idea that women's rights should not be curtailed in pursuit of trans people's rights. I am also strongly attached to the idea that GAC is dangerous, unproven, and often rushed.

 

[icehorse]

That and ad hominems. I remember when I began hearing they/them and wanted to understand what was happening. Are there two? Is it twins? Looked it up and within two minutes had it sorted. (Star Trek explained it in forty five seconds.) We’ve been saying they at times we mean he or she or they forever. It’s not that far of a stretch. It’s not the big deal people are making it out to be and they’re embarrassing themselves. It’s a convenient bandwagon for those who need a scapegoat. A target for discrimination.

When a patron takes two steps of reasoning and reaches a conclusion they lose sight of the patrons who are taking four or five. This alone allows leeway for sympathy. But reiterating the same points over and over takes a conversation in circles. Asking the same questions and requesting the same definitions from each individual poster to avoid seeing what they refuse to see is as frustrating as it is cringeworthy.

The ignorant and offensive comments on this thread make it nearly impossible to sympathize. The disproportionate fear of people who represent a fraction of the population is unfounded and unnecessary. It’s none of my beeswax. But I’ve seen the change in people when they reach the places they were always meant to be and that alone proves to me they damn well aren’t “pretending” to be anything but who they are. I can’t imagine why anyone would want to stand in the way of that.

One has to wonder if the constant use of “argh” is a sign of irritation that comes from lack of understanding.

All hat and no cattle.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

How do my arguments do that?

The very title of your thread and consistent limitations of personhood to reproductive organs through an oversimplified view of genetics and complete ignorance of social elements beyond that. Let's illustrate.

I am also strongly attached to the idea that GAC is dangerous, unproven, and often rushed.

Give some examples of Gender Affirming Care.

 

[icehorse]

The very title of your thread and consistent limitations of personhood to reproductive organs through an oversimplified view of genetics and complete ignorance of social elements beyond that

The existence of rare exceptions to biological categories does not render those categories wrong.

Give some examples of Gender Affirming Care.

Once again:

The evidence supporting "gender affirming care" is of very low reliability