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

[icehorse]

Interesting perspective.

So can you summarize the article? I think (but I'm not sure) it's saying steelmanning is a bad practice?

 

[Firenze]

So can you summarize the article? I think (but I'm not sure) it's saying steelmanning is a bad practice?

You can read it for yourself.

 

[Firenze]

So can you summarize the article? I think (but I'm not sure) it's saying steelmanning is a bad practice?

You can read it for yourself.

 

[YmirGF]

So can you summarize the article? I think (but I'm not sure) it's saying steelmanning is a bad practice?

It sounded like the main complaint is that so-called "steelmanning" is a form of deflection rather than engagement (though I just skimmed the pretty dull article).

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

It sounded like the main complain is that it is a form of deflection rather than engagement (though I just skimmed a pretty dull article).

I agree (minus the article being dull).

 

[YmirGF]

I agree (minus the article being dull).

I am becoming quite fond of you!

 

[icehorse]

You can read it for yourself.

I did read it. I found it confusing and maybe a little bit circular? So I'm wondering what your take is?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I did read it. I found it confusing and maybe a little bit circular? So I'm wondering what your take is?

It didn't present a circular argument. That's whwn you define something by what's being defined. Many dictionaries do this with their entries for feminine and masculine, where we find definitions such as things that are feminine or things pertaining to men. That doesn't actually define the words or tell us anything about them, amd they assume much of the reader (such as English being the readers native tongue).

What Is a Circular Argument?

If someone says you’re making a circular argument, it’s because the argument you’re making is circular. Does that make sense?…

www.grammarly.com

 

[Firenze]

I did read it. I found it confusing and maybe a little bit circular? So I'm wondering what your take is?

My take is that it is often the case that the chosen argument is not always the best, resulting in the very strawman fallacy it presumes to avoid. The way to decide on the best argument to rebut is to ask the opponent, which I haven't seen much of here.

 

[icehorse]

My take is that it is often the case that the chosen argument is not always the best, resulting in the very strawman fallacy it presumes to avoid. The way to decide on the best argument to rebut is to ask the opponent, which I haven't seen much of here.

We can review recent trans related threads.

I'll give you $10 for every time one of my opponents asks me to clarify, if you give me $10 for every time I ask them to clarify, or connect the dots..

 

[Firenze]

We can review recent trans related threads.

I'll give you $10 for every time one of my opponents asks me to clarify, if you give me $10 for every time I ask them to clarify, or connect the dots..

‘Please clarify’ is not the same as ‘what is your best argument’.

 

[Augustus]

I did read it. I found it confusing and maybe a little bit circular? So I'm wondering what your take is?

Imo its argument was:

Steelmanning is not simply accurately restating an argument but making your opponents points better than they have done.

Downsides:

1. This idea we can make their arguments better than they can can come across as condescending or conceited
2. Even if we accept it is a good practice in theory, few people have the knowledge and communication skills to be able to do this consistently without either strawmanning the argument or projecting their own values and worldview over those of their opponent.

So, hypothetically, in a thread like this some problems may come down to different understandings of what makes something transphobic. An attempt to steelman might accurately restate the opponents argument, but then apply it to their own definition of transphobia rather than their opponents.

Steelmanning is thus often not an attempt to understand the opponent on their own terms, but an attempt to render their position in manner open to be refuted on one’s own terms while outwardly projecting a degree of rational impartiality not afforded to one’s opponent.

 

[icehorse]

Steelmanning is not simply accurately restating an argument but making your opponents points better than they have done.

Maybe not better than, but highlighting the best aspects of. In any case, that's perhaps a quibble.

But I have always taken steelmanning to be an exercise in good faith, in trying to genuinely understand the other person's thinking. Certainly, that's the spirit in which I intended it.

Another approach would simply be to act as a neutral journalist and summarize the other person's ideas.

So, assuming an interest in proceeding, how to do so? What are other techniques that could be used to achieve at least mutual understanding if not agreement? To me, it has to start with mutual understanding, no?

 

[Augustus]

So, assuming an interest in proceeding, how to do so? What are other techniques that could be used to achieve at least mutual understanding if not agreement? To me, it has to start with mutual understanding, no?

While I’m not going to pretend I do this consistently, if I was to assume a goal of maximising mutual understanding, I’d say the following matter most:

Thick skin, empathy and the utmost charity in interpretation of the ideas of others. All while accepting some people will always be in obtuse and you can’t get past that.

To maximise mutual understanding requires an acceptance of asymmetry, and one to focus on doing what they can do without expecting reciprocity.

I can’t reach mutual understanding unless I understand them on their terms. That’s all I can control, the rest is up to someone else.

 

[icehorse]

I can’t reach mutual understanding unless I understand them on their terms. That’s all I can control, the rest is up to someone else.

I think this is something we can make explicit in a given situation. We can ask whether mutual understanding is something the other person wants to pursue.

I also think it's important to make each person's values explicit. I think if two people's values are too different it will make any conversation hard to have. I think core values drive a LOT of how we think, speak, and behave.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes.
And, most women pretending to be men don't get a phalloplasty.
And, most phalloplasties have complications.
And, for those who don't have complications, to use the rolled up skin as a fake penis requires the use of a pump.
And, none of them look anything like a real penis.
Seeing a phalloplasty wouldn't scare me. And indeed I'd prefer that women pretending to be men use the women's room; they are much safer there than in the men's.

Women are extremely good at detecting sex. There are many clues. Most women pretending to be men don't "pass" just like most men pretending to be women don't "pass". Also I remember reading a study that showed that women are much better than men at detecting someone's sex, and do it in microseconds without even thinking about it. There is obvious evolutionary advantage for women to detect men quickly given that men pose much more of a threat to them than women, and men are far less vulnerable to other men than women.

Let us know when you're ready to come back from lala land!

What you propose is totally ridiculous and impractical. You want men in the women's room. (It doesn't matter what you personally wish to call us; you're out to lunch if you think you can always tell. That's just total bs, no one can.) Yeah, that's not going to freak out any women. Nice one. I'm staying in the men's room, where I belong. You should consider a trip to therapy for your severe restroom trauma. You have no business putting your issues on others. It's not normal or healthy to be terrified or paranoid in restrooms. That's your problem, not everyone else's.