Transgender issues: Why blurring the line between men and women is not the problem

[icehorse]

No. They wouldn't even be remotely close because I'm not assigning lopsided roles to the participants. What youndescribed really wouldn't even be a debate if it's just skeptics and apologists.
And we've already been over you doing this thing of claiming people agree with you even though they clearly do not.


It's clearly not because early on you started accusing people of apologizing for the activists.

let's agree to disagree

 

[YmirGF]

All this was probably more important for me to ramble about than you to read, so sorry!!
But that's kinda why I could see elements of truth in what was mentioned. Old school males in some environments did repress thoughts, actions or discussions. Thankfully it seems much less prevalent now, although 'now' has plenty of it's own issues...lol

It's also part of why I dislike un-nuanced conversations generally, or people taking positions of moral authority. We are all just flawed humans, hopefully but not always learning from our experiences. 15 year old me was pretty dumb, but that comes with the territory. I've got less excuses these days.

(That's why I value your posts, incidentally. I enjoy that you articulate your perspective clearly, as it helps me get the benefit of it. Ultimately, I'm all about 'whats in it for me.... hehehe)

Frankly speaking, I think we need a lot more "dumb" kids like you @lewisnotmiller

 

[Kfox]

It was definitely about erasure.

What's erasure? What does that mean? Look! The person I was discussing with spoke of trans people fighting for their existence; not their identity.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

let's agree to disagree

How about we don't because we don't agree and you have a habit of saying disagreement is agreement.

 

[YmirGF]

Not quite.
I'm saying men who are pretending to be something other than men (e.g. women, non-binary, etc.) are still men. I'm not reducing anyone's experience by saying that; I'm just stating the facts.

Women have very good reasons to be wary of men, no matter if they are pretending to be something else or not.
Especially if those men are attempting to access single sex spaces we created for women specifically to help keep them safe from men; as I keep repeating: "Good men stay out so bad men stand out." Good men have no interest in violating women's single sex spaces because they know perfectly well it will make women feel extremely uncomfortable and vulnerable. We created women's restrooms, changing rooms, prisons, safe houses, rape shelters, domestic violence shelters, and child safeguarding rules, etc. for a very good reason: to keep us safe(r) from bad men.

What is boggling, to me, at least, is that a scant few years ago anyone saying the above would not have raised an eyebrow. Now, you get derided and castigated. I'm beginning to think that our society collectively lost its mind during the lockdowns.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What is boggling, to me, at least, is that a scant few years ago anyone saying the above would not have raised an eyebrow. Now, you get derided and castigated. I'm beginning to think that our society collectively lost its mind during the lockdowns.

Probably because it insists trans women are men and it totally falls apart and fails because if that is how we approach it then trans men will be in the women's rooms, and they often amd frequently appear amd dress masculine, so in essence you're having bearded, hairy men (who are pumped full of testosterone) in women's rooms.

 

[Augustus]

Debating Strawman Proposal: I propose that we could label some OPs as "ideas only" or some such designation. The idea being that responders (in good faith), must restrict themselves to debating ONLY ideas. When in doubt, the debaters should ask for clarification or perhaps steelman the other posters. In addition, it would be understood that no one in the debate is an "authority". So this would preclude:

- ad hominems
- strawmen
- intersectionality or lived experience arguments
- arguments based on identity politics
- appeals to authority
- shifting the goal posts

We would agree to gently police each other. So again - in good faith - even if a poster is on "your side" of a debate, if you spot a post that strays from the above rules, you would point that out. It would probably be good to agree to some minimally-confrontational approach, e.g., "that post seemed to me to be an appeal to authority, can you clarify that?"

The problem is few people deliberately argue in bad faith, most claimed fallacies are errors made by the reader, and most people think they were the virtuous one argue in good faith until some bad-faith troll transgressed against them.

People often see attacks on their ideas and thinking as personal attacks
People often see strawmen because they didn't understand the point being made
People often see shifting the goalposts when someone clarifies their original point that was misunderstood
People often don't understand that what they see as an "appeal to authority" is simply an inductive argument that in favour of a position and that needs to be addressed
etc.

Short form social media on emotive topics is going to produce these, and many more, problems because of its nature and people's different motivations for engaging.

What you write and what someone else reads are often very different, and no one is beyond reproach in the way they interact with others and deal with information gaps, miscommunications, differences in opinions etc.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What you write and what someone else reads are often very different, and no one is beyond reproach in the way they interact with others and deal with information gaps, miscommunications, differences in opinions etc.

Good point. That is most of the art world even before social media.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

The problem is few people deliberately argue in bad faith, most claimed fallacies are errors made by the reader, and most people think they were the virtuous one argue in good faith until some bad-faith troll transgressed against them.

People often see attacks on their ideas and thinking as personal attacks
People often see strawmen because they didn't understand the point being made
People often see shifting the goalposts when someone clarifies their original point that was misunderstood
People often don't understand that what they see as an "appeal to authority" is simply an inductive argument that in favour of a position and that needs to be addressed
etc.

Short form social media on emotive topics is going to produce these, and many more, problems because of its nature and people's different motivations for engaging.

What you write and what someone else reads are often very different, and no one is beyond reproach in the way they interact with others and deal with information gaps, miscommunications, differences in opinions etc.

I think I agree with what you're saying.

In regards to the post you quoted from @icehorse , I suspect he means well and has good intentions, but I also think the suggestions listed might be going a bit too far for the scope of a more general internet forum, especially if one wants to appeal to a wider audience.

Rather, I think the spirit of what I was saying in this thread, which led to @icehorse making his own post about things - was that I don't see it as bad for a few posters, if they feel called to, to stick to kind of a more formal standard when applied to themselves when it comes to debate, and I said that I've seemed to notice that sometimes, the nature of RF at any given time seems to attract similar, like-minded people to that nature. So while it isn't always the case, I was stating things such as, if a few people apply a more professional standard to some debates, it may attract new members interested in professional debates as well, and so on and so forth.

I say this. But if anyone quotes my post, and suggests a broad set of debate rules for all RF posters, I'd say they're missing my point.

What I'm writing here may be beyond the scope of the subject of the post I'm quoting. However, I just wanted to clarify broadly, because it just seems like some ideas are starting to branch off from that post I made that @icehorse quoted, that seem to be different than what I said. @Ella S. said she was planning to stop debating, and I kind of just provided a post that was a deep way of me saying, "Well I'll still be here, debating, hoping to attract members to my threads." It's funny how sometimes, streams of conversation are prone to take on a different life of their own.

 

[wellwisher]

Everyone is arguing about the difference between biological sex, which has an objective metric; chromosomes, and the newer term, gender, which is more subjective. There are now 107 genders which is more than the sum of the parts; shows the subjectivity. But that aside, both agree there is about 2% of the population where the line blurs.

The question becomes why are Lefty teachers force feeding gender onto all children, behind their parents backs, while not emphatically telling them, this new gender should only apply to about 2% of the student body? What is the end game here, since the brain washing approach is designed to cause more than 2% subjectivity.

Surgical gender/sex change is not natural and will require a lifetime of artificial additives and modifications which mean big bucks for medical and drug industries. This brain washing approach, suggests greedy adults conning children, to become lab rats for medical study and practice, leading to kickbacks.

This topic is about how blurring the line between men and woman is not the problem. The problem is the brain washing leading to the over 2% child abuse. I would suggest liability laws with no statute of limitations for all who share in this exploitation of children.

The con artists have everyone arguing the pros and cons of sex and gender, as their stealthily exploit the >2% children who get confused, brain washed and become lab rats in the smoke screen.

 

[crossfire]

Everyone is arguing about the difference between biological sex, which has an objective metric; chromosomes, and the newer term, gender, which is more subjective. There are now 107 genders which is more than the sum of the parts; shows the subjectivity. But that aside, both agree there is about 2% of the population where the line blurs.

The question becomes why are Lefty teachers force feeding gender onto all children, behind their parents backs, while not emphatically telling them, this new gender should only apply to about 2% of the student body? What is the end game here, since the brain washing approach is designed to cause more than 2% subjectivity.

Surgical gender/sex change is not natural and will require a lifetime of artificial additives and modifications which mean big bucks for medical and drug industries. This brain washing approach, suggests greedy adults conning children, to become lab rats for medical study and practice, leading to kickbacks.

This topic is about how blurring the line between men and woman is not the problem. The problem is the brain washing leading to the over 2% child abuse. I would suggest liability laws with no statute of limitations for all who share in this exploitation of children.

The con artists have everyone arguing the pros and cons of sex and gender, as their stealthily exploit the >2% children who get confused, brain washed and become lab rats in the smoke screen.

What approach would you suggest to lower or stop the violence against transpeople?

 

[YmirGF]

What approach would you suggest to lower or stop the violence against transpeople?

Make it so transgender folks do not have to become sex workers might be a good start. Maybe put them on disability or something? Just an idea as most, but not all, of the actual violence is against sex workers. (No doubt, I am wrong, wrong, wrong.)

 

[icehorse]

The problem is few people deliberately argue in bad faith, most claimed fallacies are errors made by the reader, and most people think they were the virtuous one argue in good faith until some bad-faith troll transgressed against them.

People often see attacks on their ideas and thinking as personal attacks
People often see strawmen because they didn't understand the point being made
People often see shifting the goalposts when someone clarifies their original point that was misunderstood
People often don't understand that what they see as an "appeal to authority" is simply an inductive argument that in favour of a position and that needs to be addressed
etc.

Short form social media on emotive topics is going to produce these, and many more, problems because of its nature and people's different motivations for engaging.

What you write and what someone else reads are often very different, and no one is beyond reproach in the way they interact with others and deal with information gaps, miscommunications, differences in opinions etc.

does all that mean we shouldn't try to communicate better?

 

[icehorse]

Rather, I think the spirit of what I was saying in this thread, which led to @icehorse making his own post about things - was that I don't see it as bad for a few posters, if they feel called to, to stick to kind of a more formal standard when applied to themselves when it comes to debate, and I said that I've seemed to notice that sometimes, the nature of RF at any given time seems to attract similar, like-minded people to that nature. So while it isn't always the case, I was stating things such as, if a few people apply a more professional standard to some debates, it may attract new members interested in professional debates as well, and so on and so forth.

And @Augustus -

No doubt it's not always easy to properly assess the quality of posts in a debate. But sometimes it's dead obvious. You've both said that few people are arguing in bad faith. I think that's a reasonable starting point. So if we start from there, then whenever we read a post that includes phrases like:

"you're a bigot"
"you're a transphobe"
"you say exactly what the alt-right says"

this can extend to:

"you're ignorant"
"you don't know what you're talking about"

Notice a pattern here? Instead of debating ideas, all these "you're X" phrases shift from debating ideas to attacking posters.

This is not subtle rocket science, I think it would be good if we ALL pushed back on "you're X" posts.

==

I also think it's reasonable to try to be logical. When a post confuses me I often ask the poster to "connect the dots". This is meant to be a non-confrontational way to ask for clarification. FWIW, as a habitual contrarian, I'm rarely granted the same courtesy.

==

For now, my last two related points are:

1 - I offered a strawman proposal. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree, but the intention is to collectively find a middle ground we can agree on. It seems that so far no such brainstorming has really occurred?
2 - I proposed a voluntary approach, to be used on a thread by thread basis.

 

[crossfire]

Make it so transgender folks do not have to become sex workers might be a good start. Maybe put them on disability or something? Just an idea as most, but not all, of the actual violence is against sex workers. (No doubt, I am wrong, wrong, wrong.)

I started a separate thread for this here:

Corollary to Transgender Issues: strategies to stop the violence

This is a corollary thread to the Transgender Issues: Blurring the lines between the genders is not the problem. https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/transgender-issues-why-blurring-the-line-between-men-and-women-is-not-the-problem.271908/ This is asking a more pointed question: what...

www.religiousforums.com

I'm really interested in hearing what strategies the conservative-leaning folk might have to offer!

 

[BlueIslandGirl]

Probably because it insists trans women are men and it totally falls apart and fails because if that is how we approach it then trans men will be in the women's rooms, and they often amd frequently appear amd dress masculine, so in essence you're having bearded, hairy men (who are pumped full of testosterone) in women's rooms.

I'm not concerned with how people look, I'm concerned with men being in women's single sex spaces. All women, regardless of how they look, are welcome in women's single sex spaces.

Men pretending to be something other than men are still men. Humans are mammals. There isn't a single mammal on Earth who can change sex, including humans. Therefore, it doesn't matter how human men identify, or what they wear, they are still men. And they need to stay out of women's single sex spaces. And sports. Etc. And stop forcing those of us who understand reality to lie and pretend they are not men.

And my focus is on men because they are the ones who commit the vast majority of violent crimes, including sexual assault, and are far stronger than women (so will beat most women at sports, etc).

 

[Alien826]

Rather, I think the spirit of what I was saying in this thread, which led to @icehorse making his own post about things - was that I don't see it as bad for a few posters, if they feel called to, to stick to kind of a more formal standard when applied to themselves when it comes to debate, and I said that I've seemed to notice that sometimes, the nature of RF at any given time seems to attract similar, like-minded people to that nature. So while it isn't always the case, I was stating things such as, if a few people apply a more professional standard to some debates, it may attract new members interested in professional debates as well, and so on and so forth.

Excuse me if I jump in. I haven't read the whole thread, but I have been participating in internet forums for longer than I like to think.

I remember a forum where there was a specific type of thread for a one on one debate. This was rigidly enforced by moderators. They would have a parallel thread for everyone else to comment. Barring this, I don't think we are going to see formal debate in a free wheeling forum like this one. The best suggestion I can make is for two members, or a small group, to agree to respond only to each other, ignoring any other responses. It can be hard to simply ignore these other posters, but possible I would think.

I'll add a few suggestions.

If you feel uncomfortable, leave the thread. Nobody can stop you. Or just ignore individual posters.

Nobody ever settles anything on this type of forum. If you think you have come on here to convert thousands to your personal view of "truth", forget it. Get a soap box and find a corner where the police won't move you on.

Try to lighten up. It actually doesn't hurt you to have someone be rude to you or ridicule your treasured "truth" when only words are involved. If you can't, don't indulge in debate, of any kind.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm not concerned with how people look, I'm concerned with men being in women's single sex spaces. All women, regardless of how they look, are welcome in women's single sex spaces.

Men pretending to be something other than men are still men. Humans are mammals. There isn't a single mammal on Earth who can change sex, including humans. Therefore, it doesn't matter how human men identify, or what they wear, they are still men. And they need to stay out of women's single sex spaces. And sports. Etc. And stop forcing those of us who understand reality to lie and pretend they are not men.

And my focus is on men because they are the ones who commit the vast majority of violent crimes, including sexual assault, and are far stronger than women (so will beat most women at sports, etc).

Trans men are not women. Have you known any? They're tend to be typical guys and even especially masculine. To see them you would see a man invading a woman's space, and he is pumped full of testosterone and maybe even capable of penetrating a woman with what's just there.
On the other hand it's possible you've been in yhe restroom with a transwoman and had no idea.

 

[BlueIslandGirl]

Trans men are not women. Have you known any? They're tend to be typical guys and even especially masculine. To see them you would see a man invading a woman's space, and he is pumped full of testosterone and maybe even capable of penetrating a woman with what's just there.
On the other hand it's possible you've been in yhe restroom with a transwoman and had no idea.

Again, it's not possible for humans to change sex. So a woman pretending to be a man is still a woman. Hormones do not change that, neither do surgeries. Hormones can certainly change a person's behavior to some degree but that doesn't change a person's sex.

 

[Firenze]

Again, it's not possible for humans to change sex. So a woman pretending to be a man is still a woman. Hormones do not change that, neither do surgeries. Hormones can certainly change a person's behavior to some degree but that doesn't change a person's sex.

So, you’re in favor of trans men whose behavior is influenced by male hormones and a surgically functioning penis to share a restroom with you because, you know, they’re still women?