The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: DJQuag on June 02, 2021, 02:41:54 PM

Title: New trans laws
Post by: DJQuag on June 02, 2021, 02:41:54 PM
Gonna be real for a second, I don't and never have gotten the whole trans thing. Think it's like when my Dad couldn't understand gay marriage. Probably a generational thing.

Anyway I've got no issue with anyone doing whatever they want with their own body so I'm cool with it all, and I'm also kind of curious about the recent rash of laws aiming at trans issues. Is this just an acceptable blowback against BIDEN STRONG 2020 or are right wing politicians in right wing states trying to get votes locked in with...their electorate.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on June 02, 2021, 02:59:20 PM
I haven't been following the issue, so could you give a few examples of such laws?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on June 02, 2021, 02:59:29 PM
A lot of them have been going at it for a while with completely unenforceable "bathroom" laws aimed at imaginary cross dressing rapists.

It is all about riling the base and getting donations and volunteers. It's a new version of "the queers are coming for your children" and we're the only ones who will stop them!
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: msquared on June 02, 2021, 03:01:06 PM
Florida just passed a law preventing Trans people to participate in a sport other then their birth sex.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: DJQuag on June 02, 2021, 03:29:27 PM
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/04/15/politics/anti-transgender-legislation-2021/index.html

Yeah, whether you agree with the message or not 2021 is definitely a year for conservatives to suddenly get worried about trans people.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: DJQuag on June 02, 2021, 03:35:18 PM
Florida just passed a law preventing Trans people to participate in a sport other then their birth sex.

Yeah this is Christie thinking he's going to be the next Trump.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: msquared on June 02, 2021, 03:41:47 PM
DeSantis not Christie.  Christie is NJ not FL.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: DJQuag on June 02, 2021, 03:46:19 PM
DeSantis not Christie.  Christie is NJ not FL.
[/quote

Truth, my apologies. Remember I'm keeping an eye on it all as an ex pat from across the ocean lol.]
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on June 02, 2021, 07:18:52 PM
Okay, so it is more but not necessarily new. Fair enough, thanks for the link.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: DJQuag on June 03, 2021, 06:01:19 AM
Hey so I've been off and on here for close to 20 years and I know I've been a pain in the ass at times, and I'm sorry for that. In other news just injected myself with enough insulin to kill a herd of elephants, they won't be able to inject enough sugar intravenously without swelling my brain stem up too much, I'm out, I'm done, and I've legitimately never been more happy In the past 20 years.

Don't know what's up next, I'm not religious, so whether it's back to black or some other crazy thing I don't know but I'm gonna find out real soon. Best of luck to all ya'll.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: DJQuag on June 03, 2021, 06:07:47 AM
And I might be American, but at least I didn't shoot up some people on the way out. Yay for me and bucking cultural trends.

Do kinda wish I had access to a gun though, would have been much quicker and cleaner.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: oldbrian on June 03, 2021, 08:50:59 AM
Did DJQuag just commit suicide?  Mod, do you have a way to check on him?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: yossarian22c on June 03, 2021, 10:16:41 AM
Did DJQuag just commit suicide?  Mod, do you have a way to check on him?

Doubt the Mod has anyway to do that. Anyone know his real name? I think he was an American living in the UK. Anyone know more specific?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on June 03, 2021, 02:54:32 PM
I didn't know we still had a mod. If we do, they could identify the IP address and narrow down a location. Plus I think there should be an email on file.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: cherrypoptart on June 04, 2021, 12:15:50 PM
Horrific and sad. I try to be as nice as I can to everyone. You never know what they are going through. Will miss him. Never know what to say but saying nothing seems even more wrong. Of course I hope he's okay but if not it's just terrible. Try to hang in there everyone.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: wmLambert on June 09, 2021, 03:54:51 PM
There is only one science about trans athletes. XX or XY? Everything else is psychological babble designed for the political benefit of the proponent. Even when the Soviets used to dope their female athletes with testosterone, they knew the XX/XY test was a baseline.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Wayward Son on June 09, 2021, 05:04:59 PM
Did you know there was a woman who was banned from participating in women's sports because her testosterone levels were too high, as high as a man's?  And yet she had XY chromosomes.

Biology is not nearly as simple as you make it out to be. :)
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: wmLambert on June 09, 2021, 05:52:02 PM
Did you know there was a woman who was banned from participating in women's sports because her testosterone levels were too high, as high as a man's?  And yet she had XY chromosomes.

Biology is not nearly as simple as you make it out to be. :)

Yes it is. XX or XY. A Female doped with extra testosterone will develop man-like symptoms. There are many degrees of progesterone vs. testosterone, but the baseline is still XX vs. XY, is it not? How many USSR Olympians got broomed for being doped? Anyone ever argue the doping was not the cause of the problem? Of course a female athlete with high testosterone will be banned. It is hard to prove there was no doping up the line. Anomalies are just that - not any basis of common usage.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Wayward Son on June 09, 2021, 06:45:04 PM
As I stated before, in this case the woman's own natural testosterone levels were in the level of a man's, without any doping.  She proved this to the committee.  But the committee still banned her, because they were so high.

So if a woman's testosterone levels can be as high as a man, what does "baseline" mean?  The average?  The normal?  If biology is so simple as being either XX or XY, how can there be exceptions?  Is it "mostly XX" and "mostly XY?"  If you have all these people who are in neither category, or in both, how can you consider that "simple?"  Or do those people simply not count?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: cherrypoptart on June 15, 2021, 08:02:28 PM
It seems like DJQuag showed up as one of the users on in the last 15 minutes so that's hopeful and if it's the good news it should be then welcome back!
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: DJQuag on June 15, 2021, 09:42:25 PM
It seems like DJQuag showed up as one of the users on in the last 15 minutes so that's hopeful and if it's the good news it should be then welcome back!

Ain't it just like a conservative to have them find some some out the way BS to call you out.

I came through, mostly due to a couple instances that wouldn't favor the people involved once it went down to UK DOL legislation. I'm choosing not to press that issue because while I'm a piece of *censored* whom deserves to die, I never have and never will hurt anyone besides myself. And the idiots thought they were just doing their job.

I mean, what kind of an *censored* can't even kill himself? Well I'll sort that out soon but, as always, nice hearing from you gentlemen/women.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Wayward Son on June 16, 2021, 12:54:46 PM
DJ, I am very sad to hear that you feel that you deserve to die.  I doubt you deserve it anymore than anyone else--and far less than some I could name who inexplicably are still around. :)  So if only to act as a counterweight to those people, I'd like you to stick around.  I, for one, would miss you.  :-[

Just remember the immortal words of William Goldman, words which I used with my son until he is ready to smack me:  "Life is pain.  Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell something."

Somehow that always makes me smile. :)
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Crunch on June 28, 2021, 12:13:19 PM
First, I wanna say how damn relieved I am to see DJQuag post again. Seriously dude, if you need some help, please reach out. Lots of resources for you.

Now, on to the show ....

A lot of them have been going at it for a while with completely unenforceable "bathroom" laws aimed at imaginary cross dressing rapists.

It is all about riling the base and getting donations and volunteers. It's a new version of "the queers are coming for your children" and we're the only ones who will stop them!

Imaginary (https://meaww.com/viral-video-shows-woman-traumatized-after-a-man-walked-around-exposing-penis-at-women-spa).

Quote
A video of a woman raising her voice against a 'man' has gone viral. The unnamed woman in the viral video shared on Instagram has alleged that a spa in Los Angeles, California, allowed a 'man' to walk around while exposing his penis, in the women's section.

However, when the woman confronted the staff members of the WI spa after being traumatized to see the naked 'man' roaming around while minor girls were also around, they defended him. A worker seen in the video allegedly told the woman that the unidentified 'man' was permitted inside the spa because of his “sexual orientation.”

The dude was walking around the women's only area, among young girls, waggling his penis around for them to view. Exposing yourself to others is a crime, with children present (as happened here) it's typically a felony.

There was no imagination here, it happened. The trick now is that any pervert can whip it out in front of women and children as long as he puts on a quick dab of lipstick and says the magic words, "I identify as a woman".

I think you all know, deep in your heart, that this is wrong. You're just scared to say it. So scared, in fact, that you'll sign off on the sexual assault of children to avoid even the appearance of intolerance. Men forcing women and children to look at their penis is not something we should normalize.

Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Wayward Son on June 28, 2021, 03:46:31 PM
Quote
The trick now is that any pervert can whip it out in front of women and children as long as he puts on a quick dab of lipstick and says the magic words, "I identify as a woman".

It's that kind of B.S. that The Drake was talking about:  a shallow stereotype that has no relationship with reality and is only designed to stir up fear and misunderstanding.

NO trans person that I have met or know about has ever one day just put on a quick dab of lipstick and started calling herself a woman.  ::)  In every story I had heard, it was a process that took years for the person to finally acknowledge, even if she knew it from an early age.  Years of questioning, denial, unease, emotional turmoil, and doubt.  NO ONE wakes up one morning and suddenly decides, in an instant, "gee, I'm really a woman inside."

Which is how you can tell the perverts from the actual trans people.  How many perverts do you think will dress up as the opposite sex, put on make-up, risk and typically take ridicule and abuse, just so, years later, they can expose themselves to some little girls for a few minutes?  How many will risk losing friends, family and loved ones, endure hatred from those who hate such people, being thought of as perverts, unnatural, weirdos and freaks, just so they can pretend to be trans and get away with exposing themselves a few times?  It's so very, very much easier to act like everyone else, a normal heterosexual, and wait for opportunities when you can indulge in the perversion.  Who would go through all that constant suffering for opportunities that may never materialize?

If you are truly concerned with preventing perverts from exposing themselves and just saying they are trans, then make trans an official status.   That way, only people who are willing to make it their actual lifestyle will be considered trans, and they will have documentation to that effect.  That will prevent the few dumb perverts from trying to use trans as an excuse to expose themselves, without unduly burdening actual trans people from having to deny who they really are.

But even now, how many judges would buy that a person who was cis all his life is suddenly trans, just after he exposed himself to a bunch of kids?  Only one ignorant of reality, and then more likely than not he wouldn't believe in trans people to begin with. :)  Either way, the pervert is in big trouble.

Quote
I think you all know, deep in your heart, that this is wrong. You're just scared to say it. So scared, in fact, that you'll sign off on the sexual assault of children to avoid even the appearance of intolerance. Men forcing women and children to look at their penis is not something we should normalize.

And I think you know, deep in your heart, that you are projecting.  That you don't understand how a man could feel that he is actually a woman, and it scares you.  So you file it under "perversion," "insanity," "abnormality," and believe it doesn't need to be acknowledged and shouldn't be acknowledged, because it's "unnatural" and "against nature."  And you look for any excuse so that you can force reality into your preconceptions of how the world should be, into the reality that you want it to be, and not what reality actually is.  And I doubt you really care how many people get hurt because of your preconceptions. 

See, that's how you tell people what they really feel deep in their heart. :P
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Crunch on June 28, 2021, 05:17:05 PM
Quote
So scared, in fact, that you'll sign off on the sexual assault of children to avoid even the appearance of intolerance.

See post just above. I rest my case.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on June 28, 2021, 06:56:37 PM
WS, it seems that your reply to Crunch is mostly specious. I'm not particularly taking Crunch's general position on this, but the post you responded to raises the issue that sexual molestation and living one's own gender are essentially indistinguishable in the classic locker room scenario. You can suggest that people should have a "trans ID" (I'll avoid critiquing how fraught with internal contradictions this proposal is), but even then I don't see how that addresses the issue that a person with a 'legitimate ID' could still conduct themselves in the way Crunch's article outlines. They don't need to be intentionally provocative to be doing something that would have been open and shut "sex pervert" stuff 30 years ago. I'm not really trying to take a position on how best to deal with this, but your handwaving makes Crunch's position look more credible, not less (more, in fact, than it has a right to).
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: fizz on June 29, 2021, 07:54:47 AM
I'll point out that a pervert that wanted to expose himself to other men or *little boys* could already do this in the exact same circumstances, and nobody seems to be terribly in panic about it as society have already found the ways to deal with that, with the usual limits that nothing in life is ever perfect.

The problem here is divided in many parts:

1. the nudity problem. One thing is a lewd act, like masturbating or touching in public, or other sexually suggestive behaviors. This is already well regulated by plenty of actual laws everywhere.

More or less innocent/temporary nudity is a bit more culturally sensitive... for example, here in Italy, it's quite rare to ever see genitals even in locker rooms: showers are individual stalls with tents, and if somebody have to change underwear first they wrap a towel around their pants.
Apart for the usual intolerant  people, here it would not be a problem what happened in that post because exposing genitals would cause troubles whatever the gender of the offender and the space where they would do it.

On the other hand, if you go to northern/eastern countries, it's quite easy to see men and women changing without any special protective care even in the open, on beaches or in parks or whatever (and I'm not talking of specific nudist beaches or things like that... those are for going around regularly naked, not only some brief moments while changing or stuff like that).

I remember at university one year I went to an international camp in Germany: we lived in a big communal area, and me as the only Italian and a bunch of Spanish boys and girls were a bit shocked the first days by the carefree attitude of the others, seeing a lot of male and female genitals (and breasts) being bared without anybody especially caring. After a bit, we got used to it. The rules are simple: you don't stare to people that get naked, you keep it discreet when you have to get naked.
There too it would be only a problem for people having specific issues against trans people, because on any beach kids can already see genitals as a matter of course (and it does not seem to be especially traumatizing).

2. what happened. Now, I don't know exactly what happened in that spa locker room, but that woman was especially vehement in attacking the trans person by strictly categorizing them as a man.

It's possible that the trans behaved badly in there (even if they were not a "fake trans using it as a trick to expose to women", category that seems to be more theoretical at this point than real, they may have been an a-hole... only because somebody belong to a discriminated category, does not mean that they can't be a-holes).

It's also possible though that she was a woman that had an axe to grind (there is the whole category of TERFs... see the previous note about belonging to discriminated category not excluding being a-holes). After all, we don't know much about the true reaction of all the other people present there... most of the articles i checked talk about the online reaction (that of course draw attention of the kind of people that
already agree with those ideas) or go directly to rants about "affront to god and nature" and such things...

3. what happens to trans people now. Trans people right now are heavily, heavily despised by a large share of the population. They are seen by those as, as an article I found online wrote, affronts to god and nature, intrinsically perverts, disgusting and a lot of other things. When they have to deal with other men, this often results in violence toward them at staggering rates.
Having to go in a man's locker room or bathroom "dressed as a woman" would then expose these people to real concrete danger.

I'm sure a lot of people that deny the existence of the "trans" category see this problem having a simple solution: don't go around as recognizably trans.
Well, sorry, but for those of us that are starting (the road is still long) to recognize the right of everybody to express their inner self that's not a solution.

Everybody freedom is a bit like a bubble: it expand till it does impact the freedom bubble of another person. Some may say, I don't want to have trans people around, have to see them doing things I consider immoral, seeing their genitals and so on. But other people say I want to be able to be myself, express myself as the gender I feel to be, for whatever reason, and don't be in danger because of it.
Finding the right balance between these things is a matter on one side for the social community, and on the other side for the state to write down as laws and rules, and this should be done based on priority of dangers, level of damage to the one whose freedoms are denied, and ideally even if unavoidably only very little on number of discomforted people (plus, of course, practicality of the solution).

When the public attitude is changing, unavoidably this process is going to be fraught with false starts, errors, trials and so on, till we reach a new equilibrium. During this process there may be debate and trials and errors, as as humans are humans, there will always be some a-hole trying to use a new rule to their advantage (like they always used any rule to their advantage).

Still, we should not allow people whose real point is "I want my personal freedom of wanting everybody to conform to my personal set of rules and morals or at the very least not offend my eye by behaving differently anywhere I may see or be aware of them even when nobody is really harmed by it" to change the discourse by exaggerating small dangers or inflate little practical difficulties.

My solutions to these problems? Oh, I don't know... talking ooma (out of my ...), without any access to reports, already existing law codes, psychologists consultations and so on, I would likely mandate the realization of a special dedicated space for trans people (or I guess any people uncomfortable with public nudity) people in any place where you *have* to expose yourself, like open-space showers and so on.
You could make it mandatory for new buildings, with a grace period for updating existing ones, and requiring a "trans may use the space they prefer but must not expose their genitals when doing it".

We had here something similar with accessibility rules here: all public places have to have a closed, single person, dedicated accessible (usually mixed) bathroom. Any other bathroom you may have, must be in addition to at least this single one (of course, if there aren't others, anybody may use it, not only disabled people). It took some years to get most buildings up to code, but now it's available everywhere.

Where the problem is simply a restroom with closed stalls, I don't see any problem in letting trans people go wherever they feel more comfortable. If they harass somebody, it's already illegal and they could do it even with the restroom limited to binary sexuality if they wanted to, if they don't and somebody still feel offended, though.

About the sport thing instead, oh, i don't know enough about sports... personally I would allow anybody do whatever they want, maybe introducing some "weight category" like they have in boxing where it could lead to serious problems, like with contact sports (I would note that in those categories this would also help cis-but-small boys compete in such activities).
But I don't really know about what's involved, I would say this would be a matter of discussion for a serious non-political panel of medics and biologists... maybe setting some basic biological parameters to determine which category you may compete in?
I repeat, i don't know, but if the objective is finding a way that allow everybody to self express freely and still compete fairly, instead of simply "either male, female or get out of here", something can be worked out.
 
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on June 29, 2021, 08:15:07 AM
I'm still trying to figure out the scenario where sex crimes laws on molestation, exposure, assault, are not enough to stop the would be assailant, but the bathroom law is. The only possible, highly theoretical, situation would be a passive fake trans in stealth mode trying to sneak a look at others. Which lands squarely in the "does a tree falling in the forest make a sound if there is no one to hear it" category.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on June 29, 2021, 09:27:54 AM
I'm still trying to figure out the scenario where sex crimes laws on molestation, exposure, assault, are not enough to stop the would be assailant, but the bathroom law is. The only possible, highly theoretical, situation would be a passive fake trans in stealth mode trying to sneak a look at others. Which lands squarely in the "does a tree falling in the forest make a sound if there is no one to hear it" category.

I think some of these responses are hyperfocused on whether the 'man' in the women's locker room was exhibiting lewd or suggestive behavior, or whether 'he' was just going about his business. But I don't think Crunch's argument was contingent on the particulars of the behavior itself. The argument seems to be that merely exposing yourself (i.e. becoming naked nearby to) to women and children in a women's locker room was previously a well-understood crime, regardless of intent. Now it becomes 'acceptable' depending on the intention of the biological male getting undressed, which seems like where the argument must lie. Does the intention in fact matter when it comes to exposing oneself in front of women and children? Crunch argues no. The fact that an actual pervert could lie about being trans just to get out of legal danger is relevant but perhaps beside the point that Crunch is raising.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on June 29, 2021, 10:42:54 AM
Maybe. But some such law as written would put post operative trans individuals into that same female locker room, no? Tying to birth certificate and such.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on June 29, 2021, 10:58:43 AM
Maybe. But some such law as written would put post operative trans individuals into that same female locker room, no? Tying to birth certificate and such.

Post operative seems to also be getting stuck in the "how does the person feel inside" POV, whereas the question put forward is simply a mechanical one: exposing one's male genitals to the ladies. It doesn't seem to me that this particular question requires ascertaining the history of the person or whether they've had an operation or not. So it's not even a question of whether someone who grew up as a man can now "get to see everything" if they've had a sex change operation. In fact, if I understand Crunch's position correctly, I expect he would have a problem with a birth-female who had sex change operation to become a man going into the ladies locker room, despite having done so countless times prior to the operation.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: fizz on June 29, 2021, 11:24:42 AM
The argument seems to be that merely exposing yourself (i.e. becoming naked nearby to) to women and children in a women's locker room was previously a well-understood crime, regardless of intent. Now it becomes 'acceptable' depending on the intention of the biological male getting undressed, which seems like where the argument must lie.

In the word of Crunch:
Quote
The trick now is that any pervert can whip it out in front of women and children as long as he puts on a quick dab of lipstick and says the magic words, "I identify as a woman".

No, no, I think you're the one misreading his argument here.


Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on June 29, 2021, 11:28:28 AM
In the word of Crunch:
Quote
The trick now is that any pervert can whip it out in front of women and children as long as he puts on a quick dab of lipstick and says the magic words, "I identify as a woman".

No, no, I think you're the one misreading his argument here.

I suppose we can let Crunch answer for himself whether I've made a mistake or not. My assumption has been that while some very few people may expose themselves for 'perverted reasons', I sort of interpreted Crunch's point to be that anyone who would 'whip it out' in front of women and children is ipso facto a pervert.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: fizz on June 29, 2021, 11:36:17 AM
I would also reiterate that the "women and children" thing is really "women and little girls", because if you have a locker room where you *can* get completely naked in front of strangers, you can already expose yourself to young kids, and this seems to be a non issue in the presented terms.

Also, the ipso-facto pervert argument, as I stated earlier, is only true in some countries: in other countries, simply doing it a bit discreetly in considered safe enough to be quite normal and have been so since forever.
 
And my counter argument is then that changing a bit our mores is worth it to be able to stop denying the inner being of a lot of people that traditionally risk being badly beaten for their status.

And if some people really are so unbearably offended by it, we can prepare other solutions like the private spaces I was referring to, instead of simply denying the problem. But I hear only complaining, not (practical, ethical) alternatives...


Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on June 29, 2021, 12:17:56 PM
If exposed genitals is the issue, wouldn't it be better to simply make a rule and have facilities restrict the exposure of any genitalia? I don't really want to see guys hang dong either. Or, free market wise, just have privately run businesses post their rules and let people decide if they want to go there.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Wayward Son on June 29, 2021, 01:56:11 PM
Quote
So scared, in fact, that you'll sign off on the sexual assault of children to avoid even the appearance of intolerance.

See post just above. I rest my case.

Which just shows the depth of Crunch's intellectual, rhetorical and logical skills.  ;D

Try responding to arguments instead of ignoring them sometime, Crunch ;)
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Wayward Son on June 29, 2021, 02:18:54 PM
Quote
But I don't think Crunch's argument was contingent on the particulars of the behavior itself. The argument seems to be that merely exposing yourself (i.e. becoming naked nearby to) to women and children in a women's locker room was previously a well-understood crime, regardless of intent.

And this is where you err, Fenring.  Intent has always been key to any crime.

Consider the scenario where a father is showering in a men's locker room adjacent to a women's locker room.  He hears his daughter suddenly crying in tremendous pain.  In a panic, he runs out of the men's locker into the women's, to discover that his daughter has a fallen and has a compound fracture of her arm.  He immediately picks her up and carries her out to get medical attention.

Would you say that the father was a pervert, getting his kicks out of exposing himself to women and girls?  Do you believe he is guilty of sexual perversion?  In fact, do you think he should be charged with a crime at all?

And, as fizz pointed out, do you believe that allowing this behavior to go unpunished means that we are opening the door to allowing any sexual pervert to walk into a woman's locker room and expose himself, by just saying he heard his daughter crying? ;)

Perhaps in the past it was always assumed that the only reason a man would expose himself to a group of women in a woman's locker room is because he was a sexual pervert, and so it was automatically categorized as a crime.  But in those cases, intent was assumed.  Mens rea applied to exposure even then.

Now, I'm not saying that we should allow all trans people to expose their genitals in women's locker rooms, regardless of how the other people in the room feel.  Certainly trans people should be willing to accommodate others in such a situation. But to make the huge leap from a person who considers herself a woman exposing herself means that now every sexual pervert has license to do so shows that Crunch is using emotion and perhaps fear-mongering more than reason and logic in his argument. 
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on June 29, 2021, 04:14:20 PM
And this is where you err, Fenring.  Intent has always been key to any crime.

That's not true at all. Intent [to harm] is only one precondition of crime, but other criteria can include negligence or willful negligence, and failure to comply with regulations or orders (in certain circumstances). Now, the action leading to the criminal consequence needs to have been intentional, but the actual crime may have been unintentional. So if a fatality happens as a result of your criminal negligence, you need to have been the one to decide on not taking the necessary precautions; but obviously there was no intent for the actual event to occur that led to the death. But you are more making it sound like you need to actually intend harm to violate the law, and that's not correct.

Quote
Consider the scenario where a father is showering in a men's locker room adjacent to a women's locker room.  He hears his daughter suddenly crying in tremendous pain.  In a panic, he runs out of the men's locker into the women's, to discover that his daughter has a fallen and has a compound fracture of her arm.  He immediately picks her up and carries her out to get medical attention.

Would you say that the father was a pervert, getting his kicks out of exposing himself to women and girls?  Do you believe he is guilty of sexual perversion?  In fact, do you think he should be charged with a crime at all?

You're arguing that all crime is essentially circumstantial, rather than a blanket statement about breaking rules. Well obviously, since literally everything in life is circumstantial. That's basically a tautology. But again, you are trying to make it sound like any action at all is considered to be entirely neutral until you hear the rationale behind it, and I don't think that's correct by any means. Certain things are wrong by default, even though extraordinary exceptions can occur. The fact that these are extraordinary doesn't diminish your point that certain things, in context, are in fact not wrongdoing, but it does mean that this is not the normal standard of judging conduct. Someone flashes a woman in the park, it's a pretty clear line to "that person is a sex pervert." It is theoretically possible that the flasher was actually abducted by terrorists who made him do that at the point of a gun, and if so this extraordinary explanation could be offered in a court of law. That doesn't mean we're bigots to think of such a flasher as a pervert when we see him do it. It's pretty much a standard and reasonable interpretation such as it is. So you are offering a rare and life-or-death scenario requiring a man to do something that would otherwise be seen as a transgression. Well, fine, he had a special reason to do it. That's not a normal situation, and laws can only really cover the broad strokes of normal situations. Rare and weird situations is why we need courts and interpretation.

Quote
And, as fizz pointed out, do you believe that allowing this behavior to go unpunished means that we are opening the door to allowing any sexual pervert to walk into a woman's locker room and expose himself, by just saying he heard his daughter crying? ;)

As I mentioned, I am not outright taking Crunch's position on this, but rather reacting to the lack of addressing Crunch's point as he made it. I don't think his argument is stupid, which is not the same as saying it's clearly right. The fundamental question is, can you do a thing that was previously illegal, and have it be considered ok because of an explanation offered by the person doing it about their inner life? It's an entirely unknowable void (their inner life), and one which you have to accept on the spot, no matter how you feel, according to the theory that you have no business judging a trans person's choices. That in itself does sound logically untenable as a basic position.

Quote
Perhaps in the past it was always assumed that the only reason a man would expose himself to a group of women in a woman's locker room is because he was a sexual pervert, and so it was automatically categorized as a crime.  But in those cases, intent was assumed.  Mens rea applied to exposure even then.

You'd have to ask a criminal lawyer if this is in fact true. I have my doubts that only people who considered themselves sexual perverts (i.e. had the overt intent to sexually molest) would be prosecuted for this type of thing, but I really don't know. It seems to me like you're making a big assumption here.

Quote
Now, I'm not saying that we should allow all trans people to expose their genitals in women's locker rooms, regardless of how the other people in the room feel.  Certainly trans people should be willing to accommodate others in such a situation. But to make the huge leap from a person who considers herself a woman exposing herself means that now every sexual pervert has license to do so shows that Crunch is using emotion and perhaps fear-mongering more than reason and logic in his argument.

I like this answer more. The question at its core is what position to take on trans people who want to walk around naked in the women's locker room. If you feel that they 'should be willing' to accommodate others, does that translate from a should into a must? Because what if, contrary to your desire, some of them don't feel they should? Then they can go ahead and have at it? I think that is the border Crunch was addressing.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Wayward Son on June 29, 2021, 05:47:50 PM
Quote
Now, the action leading to the criminal consequence needs to have been intentional, but the actual crime may have been unintentional. So if a fatality happens as a result of your criminal negligence, you need to have been the one to decide on not taking the necessary precautions; but obviously there was no intent for the actual event to occur that led to the death. But you are more making it sound like you need to actually intend harm to violate the law, and that's not correct.

I'll grant you that unintentional crimes can still be crimes, and this instance could very well fall under such a circumstance.  It was pretty obvious, given the facts, that the trans person did not intend to shock those women who saw her naked, nor was it to get some sexual kick out of doing so.  But it does not change the fact that the women and girls did see male genitals in a circumstance where they neither expected nor desired to see them.

However, it still does not follow that a person who does not intent to shock women with her nakedness means that those who do will get license to do so.

Quote
That doesn't mean we're bigots to think of such a flasher as a pervert when we see him do it. It's pretty much a standard and reasonable interpretation such as it is. So you are offering a rare and life-or-death scenario requiring a man to do something that would otherwise be seen as a transgression. Well, fine, he had a special reason to do it. That's not a normal situation, and laws can only really cover the broad strokes of normal situations. Rare and weird situations is why we need courts and interpretation.

What you are neglecting to acknowledge is that the broad strokes of the situation have changed.

Years ago, when homosexuality and transsexualism were illegal, the normal reason a person would flash a woman was for sexual kicks.  Saying it was because the person was a transsexual would simply have been confessing to another crime.

But with the normalization of transsexualism, and especially in this particular case, the reason for the exhibition was not for sexual kicks, unless it was an extraordinary circumstance.  Which means these situations that once were weird and rare are now normal.  The law simply hasn't kept up with the changing circumstances, and still treats those who do it for one reasons (transsexualism) as if they were doing it for another reason (sexual perversion).

Once we recognize that the courts should not treat extraordinary circumstances as if they were the normal circumstances, then we can acknowledge that, when the normal circumstances have changed, they should not be treated as the previous normal circumstances.

And they certainly should not be construed as justifying or legalizing the previous normal circumstances.  Saying that they do shows that the person acknowledges no difference between the old circumstances (sexual perversion) and the new (transsexualism).

Quote
It's an entirely unknowable void (their inner life), and one which you have to accept on the spot, no matter how you feel, according to the theory that you have no business judging a trans person's choices. That in itself does sound logically untenable as a basic position.

As I pointed out, you can judge a person's inner life by the way they consistently act, especially over the years.

A man who calls blacks "ni**ers" for years and says they should be segregated from white people is a bigot, even if you don't know his inner life. :)

A man who likes looking at naked women and gets a kick out of it, but not so with men, and has done so for years, is a heterosexual, even if you don't know his inner life.

A male who calls himself a female, dresses as a female, wants to be called a female, has declared that he is a female, and has done so for years, is a transsexual, and you don't need to know her "inner life" to know that is true.

To deny it after months or years of demonstrative behavior has more to do with whether you want to accept a person's "inner life" than if it is true or not. ;)

Quote
If you feel that they 'should be willing' to accommodate others, does that translate from a should into a must? Because what if, contrary to your desire, some of them don't feel they should? Then they can go ahead and have at it? I think that is the border Crunch was addressing.

No, it wasn't.  I think, if you read again the entire post, he was not addressing the question of how to balance the conflicting needs of trans people and cis people in a locker room setting.  He was providing what he thought was an example of how allowing trans people to behave as they see themselves to be will allow an excuse for sexual perverts to molest (if only visually) women and girls.  How it will lead to allowing sexual perverts free reign.  I saw no implication that there should be any accommodation for trans people.

Feel free to quote me any such passage. :)

Of course, if Crunch would like clarify this position on this, I would be delighted if he would.  If I misunderstood his position, I would like to know that.  But so far, all I've heard is "See, you're defending sexual assault of children!"  ::) 

So I wouldn't hold my breath.  :D
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: cherrypoptart on June 29, 2021, 06:35:27 PM
Not to be crass, but the "point" is that high school girls were exposed to a stranger's penis.

Does it really matter if it was a woman's penis instead of a man's penis?

It almost seems like it's all some sort of joke or a Monty Python skit.

In a British accent:

"You're offended? Why? That's not a man's penis. That's a woman's penis. If you're offended then you shouldn't be; you should be ashamed of yourself. And that goes for your little girls in the sauna too. All women have the same right to show little girls their penises as men do."

"I am SO sorry!!! It's just... well... it looked like a man's penis."

"Oh really? So "they all look alike" to you, eh? I wonder where I've heard that before. Sure enough, scratch a transphobic person and you find a racist underneath."

"Huh?!..."

Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Aris Katsaris on June 29, 2021, 06:48:52 PM
Quote
Not to be crass, but the "point" is that high school girls were exposed to a stranger's penis.

So if high school boys were exposed to a stranger's penis, that's okay?
Or if high school girls were exposed to a stranger's vagina?

If a woman was flashing her vagina to girls in a park, or a man flashing his penis to boys, wouldn't they be perverts too, just as much as if a man was flashing his penis to girls?

I don't quite get your mores, I guess.

I understand the women in the specific sauna or whatever wanted a penis-free zone or whatever. Then the simple solution would be to have the rules of the place talk about people with penises vs people with vaginas.

Of course, then the women would still get bearded trans men in their space. People that look like this (https://www.sfaf.org/collections/beta/my-life-with-anorexia-as-a-trans-man/). Those trans men would have vaginas though, so I guess that's okay?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Wayward Son on June 30, 2021, 11:44:16 AM
I was thinking about this subject last night, when I suddenly remembered something I had buried in my memories.

I, too, once sexually assaulted a young girl.

I feel ashamed to admit it, as I did at the time, but, as Fenring argues, a crime is a crime, regardless of intent.

It was years ago, when my family was visiting a friend of my father’s.  I was hanging around with their young daughter—she must have been three or four at the time, maybe two, it’s hard to remember—and I had to go to the bathroom.  She followed me in.

Rather than kick her out, since I had to go really bad, I just unzipped my pants and did my business right in front of her.

It traumatized her as you would expect.  I remember her saying, “I don’t have that.”  And me, worldly-wise, simply said, “I know.”

Anyway, I finished my business, washed my hands, and that was the end of it.  We never spoke of it again.

I’ve never done anything like that since then, and never will.  But I am still ashamed of it.

I suppose that one of you could report me as a sexual pervert and have me put on a list of sexual offenders now.  Except that I’m pretty sure the statute of limitations has run out on this crime.  It happened sometime around 1965 or 1966.  Maybe as late as 1967.  As I said, it’s hard to remember, since I was around four or five at the time.

Now I can imagine how Crunch would argue that excusing such a crime would open us up to having any pervert just claim he has the mentality of a five-year-old and getting off scot-free for exposing himself.  After all, how can someone prove a person is mentally more mature than a five-year-old when we can’t know a person’s intent or inner thoughts?  There is no way, is there?  ;)

Of course, this also means that a lot of people who “played doctor” when they were younger are also guilty of sexual assault.  Because, after all, just showing your junk in front of young girls is a felony.  :)

As I said, I don’t advocate that trans people be allowed to show their genitals in front of anyone they want to.  Even in a locker room, consideration should be shown to other people.  But let’s agree that one incident of a trans person walking through a women’s locker room is the same as sexual assaults like touching a woman’s privates or worse.  And that a few people excusing such an incident does not mean that tomorrow every pervert who wants to expose himself to women and girls will have the right to do so.  Can’t we all just use some common sense? :)
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on June 30, 2021, 02:45:17 PM
Thanks for the anecdote, WS. As it was a conciliatory gesture I would like to add that I think you're being too hard on yourself about it. Just on the legal side of it I suspect there's a large difference even in law depending on the circumstance and individuals involved. For instance a young boy (like an 8 year old) running around naked in front of his family is up to them to decide whether it's ok or not; but that same boy running around naked into a girl's locker room would be treated much more harshly. Perhaps due to his age they'd just yell at the parents and let it go. And a third case, an 8 year old running nude out of the water at a lake or watering hole in a small rural town...likely no big deal, even if there happened to be others nearby. Now take each of these cases again with an adult, and I think we would find that even an adult would not be treated the same was under the law walking around naked (a) in a public city park, (b) at a beach in France, (c) in a women's locker room in the U.S., or (d) in front of their kids at home. Morally speaking, I think more needs to be taken into account than just "could what I did be interpreted badly". That is too far. An example of what I mean is certain excesses of the Metoo movement (of which to an extent I'm a proponent). In the effort to make public the horror of abuse and sexual assault, many people have seen fit to accuse themselves (or others...) of "rape" in order to prove some kind of point. I've heard cases of this that take the form "I once slept with a girl, except that I didn't specifically ask "is this ok" every step of the way, so I raped her. I am a bad man." This sort of excess is IMO a vice nearly as bad as denying bad actions, as it has an equal and opposite effect of distorting perceptual reality.

I can't judge you or what you did, and thanks for sharing it. But just based on my limited opinion, I hope you're not beating yourself up over something that was really not a big deal, if it was even wrong at all (I don't know if it was). While it's true that crimes can be crimes regardless of intent, sins (if you'll allow the term) take understanding and intent very much into account. While a sin is still a sin if you're ignorant of its implication, it's far far lesser than if you knew exactly what you were doing and did it anyway, to the point where a simple "then go and sin no more" should be enough as a way forward from it.

As I said, I don’t advocate that trans people be allowed to show their genitals in front of anyone they want to.  Even in a locker room, consideration should be shown to other people.  But let’s agree that one incident of a trans person walking through a women’s locker room is the same as sexual assaults like touching a woman’s privates or worse.  And that a few people excusing such an incident does not mean that tomorrow every pervert who wants to expose himself to women and girls will have the right to do so.  Can’t we all just use some common sense? :)

To me the only question is how much of a defense is given to such an act, and how significant the power base is of those who do it. We have seen in very clear terms historically, and right now, that a rather small group of radicals can in fact penetrate the mainstream consciousness, go viral if you will, and affect government and law in serious ways. The conservatives are no doubt terrified of this happening in regard to trans people and the laws involved, and I don't blame them in the least. It would be good if things were as you suggest, that we can be reasonable and try to make everyone feel at ease. But that doesn't seem to be how radical movements actually go about things. And worse still, the moderates in such movements tend to be elbowed out (or killed, depending on the movement) by the extremists who care for nothing but their own agenda. Moderates don't have the sheer determination to win in the same way zealots do, and will rarely use the same means.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Aris Katsaris on June 30, 2021, 05:59:12 PM
Thanks for the anecdote, WS. As it was a conciliatory gesture I would like to add that I think you're being too hard on yourself about it.

I think WS was joking in his self-condemnation.

I'm not sure if you're also joking by pretending to not get that he was joking, but thought to mention it anyway.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on June 30, 2021, 06:22:05 PM
Thanks for the anecdote, WS. As it was a conciliatory gesture I would like to add that I think you're being too hard on yourself about it.

I think WS was joking in his self-condemnation.

I'm not sure if you're also joking by pretending to not get that he was joking, but thought to mention it anyway.

Now that I'm re-reading it, maybe you're right. It didn't occur to me on a first read that it could be a joke, because IMO it would be incredibly tone-deaf to make mock of what would or wouldn't traumatize a woman/girl. I'll just hope WS was being serious.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Wayward Son on July 01, 2021, 06:53:42 PM
Well, I was over-dramatizing my reaction a bit, for dramatic effect.  I do feel remorse over the incident, and would gladly go back and undo it, but I do recognize that I was young and stupid and not entirely culpable for my actions.  Heck, I once shot my dad in the back of the neck with a toy B-B gun when I was older than that.  :)  I definitely wasn't the brightest bulb in the pack.

As far as traumatizing her, I certainly hope I did not.  I rather doubt it.  She was very young, and had no idea of the "significance" of the body part. :)  Also, I'm sure she was exposed to it later on, if only from various animals that she encountered, such as dogs.  And in no way did I show or imply the secondary function of the member, beyond the use for waste management.  I didn't know it myself at the time. :)  In the end, the most I think I did was introduce her to the fact that boys and girls are different, and provided a real-life example of that difference--at my own expense.  :-[

Of course, I was not the one who should have broached this subject, and I hope her parents were not offended by what I did.  That, too, I regret.

People do have different views on the subject.  I went to U.C. Santa Cruz, where my dorm had co-ed bathrooms, and the beaches there were all clothing optional. :)  I heard a story once that the city council had tried to bar being bare on the beaches.  This lead to a protest where some of the women in the group protested bare-chested.  They could do this because, while the council banned nakedness on the beach, they had neglected to do so for the downtown area. :)  They eventually compromised, in that you could go naked on the more isolated beaches, but to do so on the popular beaches would subject you to the anti-lewdness ordinances.  As far as I know, you can still drive along the coast there and see now and then men and women scampering about in the buff.  It has not lead to a complete breakdown of society there yet, depending on your definition of societal breakdown. :)

Which illustrates another reason that Crunch was overblowing the entire incident.  Depending on where you are, these felonies happen every day, and no one gets overly excited by them.  Some places don't even consider them much of a crime, and depending on the location, not even a crime at all.  So why are we supposed to condemn an entire group of people who are trying to gain the right to be themselves because a few might expose themselves, in an entirely non-sexual and non-malicious way, while trying to exercise that right.  And it's this lack of maliciousness that makes his stance so offense.  He equates a pervert who knowingly and maliciously tries to shock and offend women with someone who thinks himself as being just another woman.  It would be like equating my childhood naiveté with a flasher.  It is really smearing those trans people.

I may have been kidding about my childhood incident, but it was kidding on the square.  I regret it, but probably not as much as I may have implied.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: NobleHunter on July 08, 2021, 12:30:12 PM
I'm shocked--shocked!--to learn that the incident Crunch referred to may have been completely fabricated. Turns out no one can find this mysterious trans person chilling naked in the woman's locker room. I'm just so terribly surprised that the story which could have been made up to further the anti-trans agenda was in fact made up to further the anti-trans agenda. No one could have seen this coming.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Wayward Son on July 12, 2021, 11:00:00 AM
The more I read about this story of the man at the spa, the more I realize Crunch has been suckered. :)

According to this article (https://www.ibtimes.sg/wi-spa-viral-video-staged-spa-employees-lapd-find-no-evidence-trans-person-day-video-was-shot-58712), the Wi Spa in LA is "a high-end spa that is well known for being LGBTQ-friendly."

Well-known for being LGBTQ-friendly....

This brings up a lot of questions.  Why did she go into this expensive spa?  People don't usually wander into spas at random, especially expensive, high-end ones.  Usually they know something about them.

Why did she bring her daughter there when she didn't know anything about this spa?  Oh, wait, none of the articles I saw mention she had a daughter with her.  She was worried about other people's daughters, whose parents probably knew where they were taking them.  Parents who probably weren't worried about their children seeing the naked bodies of adults of either sex.

So really what this story is about is that this woman was outraged--OUTRAGED!--that people can go to a private business where trans people are treated like their preferred gender in front of minors with their parent permission.  That this is an example of how sexual perversion will run rampant if we allow transgender people to live their lives as they want.  ::)

In other words, this was, almost doubtlessly, a faux-outrage set-up by a transphobic woman designed to fool people.  It causing protests and some violence was just the icing on the cake. >:(

What do you think she will do next?  Go to DeAnza Springs Resort and start yelling about how they are allowing under-age children to see adult men parading around naked, which we all know is a felony?  Because, after all, DeAnza Springs Resort is a well-known nudist colony in San Diego County, not far from LA.  But Liberals have told us that this sort of thing wouldn't happen if we allowed nudist colonies.  ::) ;D

I did notice that the original article did not mention this salient fact, so I understand how Crunch was fooled.  I'm certain that he did not intend to fool us about the situation by leaving out this important fact.

But you do owe all of us an apology for this, Crunch.

Let us know that you did not intend to make any of us believe that this was an incident in a normal spa, that could happen anywhere.  That you did not realize that this was an incident in a private establishment well-known for being trans-friendly and that any reasonable person would expect such behavior in it, and would therefore give implicit consent to it by entering.  That you did not know that this spa was special in this way, and so was not a good example of how this type of behavior could become common.

Because, otherwise, you accused me of excusing criminal sexual perversion based on a lie you knew about.

And that is inexcusable behavior for any decent human being.

I look forward to your reply, Crunch.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: msquared on July 12, 2021, 11:13:52 AM
I wonder if she works for Project Veritas?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Crunch on September 03, 2021, 05:19:25 AM

I look forward to your reply, Crunch.

Well, I had to wait for the full story to come but now it is.

Quote
Sources with knowledge of the case but not authorized to speak publicly say four women and a minor girl came forward to allege that Darren Agee Merager was partially erect in the women's section of Wi Spa.

Right. You denied a young girl was involved but now we know that you were lying. The dude was aroused. He was getting off on it.

Quote
Besides being a suspect in this case, Merager is facing multiple felony charges of indecent exposure over a separate incident in Los Angeles.

Well, well, well. Seems like a pattern is emerging.

Quote
Law-enforcement sources revealed that Merager is a tier-one registered sex offender with two prior convictions of indecent exposure stemming from incidents in 2002 and 2003 in California. She declined to comment on the convictions. In 2008, she was convicted for failing to register as a sex offender.

Well what do you know, this is a convicted serial sex offender. And you're excusing it, defending it even, in the name of political correctness. Pretty sick.



Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Wayward Son on September 05, 2021, 10:30:40 AM
Political correctness, my @ss.  You are the sick puppy here, Crunch.

Let me explain in case you don't realize it.

The issue here is NOT what the particular individual did in the women's locker room.  The issue here, which YOU brought up, is whether this particular incident is showing how perverts will be able to use allowing trans people in women's bathrooms to display themselves, as the idiot Right has been preaching for years.  Or as you put it:

Quote
There was no imagination here, it happened. The trick now is that any pervert can whip it out in front of women and children as long as he puts on a quick dab of lipstick and says the magic words, "I identify as a woman."

... So scared, in fact, that you'll sign off on the sexual assault of children to avoid even the appearance of intolerance. Men forcing women and children to look at their penis is not something we should normalize.

The point here is no one was forced to look at this.  This was a well-known spa for trans people.  Anyone who went in there with their daughters should have known that they may see someone with male genitals in the women's locker room.  Just like anyone going to a nudist colony would expect to see male genitals.  Like anyone going to a nude beach would expect to see male genitals.  No one forced them to go to that spa.  No one was compelled.  It was their choice.

Now if this guy is a known pervert, if this guy isn't living a trans lifestyle all the time, then yes, throw him in jail for indecent exposure.  I see no reason to protect such perverts.

But what was the result of this incident?  Did the woman who made it go viral ask for his arrest?  No, she asked for her money back.  Because she didn't like that trans people were using the facility.  She didn't like that people with male genitals were allowed in the women's locker room.  She didn't like what she knew what she might see.

And, as a result, there was a violent protest calling for the place to be closed down.  Because these people didn't like the idea that there was a place where trans people could use the facilities that corresponded with their preferred sex.

They were blaming trans people for this pervert.  And, by statement or implication, so were you.  Because you brought this up as an example of how allowing trans people to use the facilities of their choice would lead to perverts using it with impunity.

They can still arrest this guy for indecent exposure if they want to.  I have no problem with that.  But I do have a problem of calling it the fault of trans people or this facility.

If this is the proof you're using for how allowing trans people to use women's facilities will allow perverts to expose themselves, then you'd better start calling every nudist a person defending perverts, and every person who's ever gone to a nude beach a person defending perverts.  Because, believe it or not, your premise that a male just exposing his naked body is always a crime is WRONG.  It is NOT a crime.  And saying it is, just to pick on trans people, is a perversion of logic and morals.  It's bullying a persecuted minority mainly because you can.  And I HATE bullies like that.

So you can take your "political correctness" and shove it where the sun don't shine.  Because you're the one using prejudice and illogic to bring irrational hatred against a group that has never done you any harm.  If there's a pervert around here, it's YOU.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Seriati on September 08, 2021, 06:22:11 PM
The issue here is NOT what the particular individual did in the women's locker room.  The issue here, which YOU brought up, is whether this particular incident is showing how perverts will be able to use allowing trans people in women's bathrooms to display themselves...

To be fair they're both issues, there isn't just one "the issue," in this context.  Everything about trans rights is caught up in other rights with no easy answers.

On this point though, it seems ridiculous to argue that persons that are motivated by illegal and deviant sexuality are not going to use this kind of privilege to achieve their actual goals.  Such individuals already use every single institution of society, from religion, to schools, to volunteer situations, to helping families out to achieve their goals, why on earth would they not use this?  Seriously, if you get pleasure from exposing yourself to the opposite sex why wouldn't you use this as a "get out of jail free card"?

The fact that this individual was charged is pretty clear evidence that someone with actual knowledge of the situation thinks that there was something inappropriate going on. 

It's better to call out a fake transexual than to defend one as significant to trans rights.  What's the alternative, the no true Scotsman defense?   How'd that work out for Catholic Priests and Boy Scout Leaders?
 
Quote
..., as the idiot Right has been preaching for years.

More accurately, as the Right "preached years ago."  No one but the Left has been preaching for at least a decade, and their intolerance and hate is growing at an astronomical rate.

Quote
The point here is no one was forced to look at this.

Didn't you once claim that Say Anything was an example of sexual abuse?  How can it not be sexual abuse to expose yourself for sexual gratification in this context?  Arguing they don't have to look at someone whose sexual gratification depends on making them look is the very essence of blaming the victim.

Quote
This was a well-known spa for trans people.

Transpeople and Exhibitionists are not the same thing, why on Earth would you "go there"?  Seriously, take a step back, you've jumped the shark if you're serious about trans rights.  Consent to changing in a mixed trans locker room, is not consent to non-consensual visual sex acts.

Quote
Now if this guy is a known pervert, if this guy isn't living a trans lifestyle all the time, then yes, throw him in jail for indecent exposure.  I see no reason to protect such perverts.

Did you miss that Crunch was pointing out that the guy is in fact a known pervert with prior convictions?  Other articles from the same day certainly pointed out that he was charged in connection with this event.  Depending on the article you have several dozen criminal convictions, including priors for indecent exposure for sexual purposes, and the guy is a registered sex offender.

Quote
But what was the result of this incident?  Did the woman who made it go viral ask for his arrest?  No, she asked for her money back.  Because she didn't like that trans people were using the facility.  She didn't like that people with male genitals were allowed in the women's locker room.  She didn't like what she knew what she might see.

She didn't like a sexually aroused man using her and her daughters as his live porn.  Has nothing at all to do with sharing a locker room for the purpose of changing clothes.  I've never once been in a men's locker room where someone was sitting around staring at other men undressing and getting aroused.  It's just not done and it has nothing to do with who is straight and who is gay.

Quote
They were blaming trans people for this pervert.  And, by statement or implication, so were you.  Because you brought this up as an example of how allowing trans people to use the facilities of their choice would lead to perverts using it with impunity.

That seems to be exactly what was happening here.  Why do we have to turn it into a trans rights issue before the facts are known?

Quote
They can still arrest this guy for indecent exposure if they want to.  I have no problem with that.  But I do have a problem of calling it the fault of trans people or this facility.

Whose fault is it when someone reports a crime and the facility and the trans-community assume that it's not a crime but rather intolerance?  The idea you seem to be espousing is that those with a chip on their shoulders are entitled to abuse others without the facts and not be responsible.

Quote
If this is the proof you're using for how allowing trans people to use women's facilities will allow perverts to expose themselves, then you'd better start calling every nudist a person defending perverts, and every person who's ever gone to a nude beach a person defending perverts.

Neither example makes the least bit of sense.

Quote
Because, believe it or not, your premise that a male just exposing his naked body is always a crime is WRONG.  It is NOT a crime.  And saying it is, just to pick on trans people, is a perversion of logic and morals.  It's bullying a persecuted minority mainly because you can.  And I HATE bullies like that.

Do you see no irony in bullying someone yourself here?  If you had facts then you'd be entitled to be self-righteous, but in this circumstance?  Not so much.  Crunch found the pervert in the haystack and you want to chew him out as a matter of trans rights?  A pervert abusing the system is not the fault of the trans community or their allies, going off half cocked and defending a pervert actually is their fault.  It's like someone defending the sexually molesting catholic priest rather than other priests that are not molesters, but even worse because in this case you should have some doubt about this person actually being trans at all.   

Quote
So you can take your "political correctness" and shove it where the sun don't shine.  Because you're the one using prejudice and illogic to bring irrational hatred against a group that has never done you any harm.  If there's a pervert around here, it's YOU.

And see that's stunning.  You're literally defending a multiple felon, registered sex offender, because rather than listen to the victims as to why they reported him - you know for getting erect and staring at the changing females in the room - you jumped on the "facts don't matter band wagon" because this could have been about an actual trans phobic encounter, even though it actually wasn't.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Wayward Son on September 08, 2021, 07:18:29 PM
It's the jumbling of issues from which the transphobia comes from, Seriati.

The original "complaint" was that the woman couldn't get her money back because she saw a person with a penis in the women's locker room.  This caused protests against the spa.  Is that not correct?

AFAIK, there was no mention of an erect penis in the original complaint.  And it is a well-known trans-friendly spa, so how could she be surprised to see a penis in the women's locker room?  ???

I certainly don't remember Crunch mentioning an erect penis.  I do recall him saying that just walking naked in front of women is a felony, and anyone who would defend such a person is defending perverts.  And saying that was exactly what I was doing.

Furthermore, even if the penis was erect, why is this the spa fault?  The person who displayed his genital thusly is the one responsible for it, not the spa.  If the spa allows biological males in the women's locker room so long as they keep their junk in the normal condition, and everyone knows this can or will happen, how are they to enforce the status of that junk? :)  They can throw the person out afterwards, or hand them over to the police, but that's about it.

So why were there protests against the spa?  Why blame them for allowing trans people to use the women's locker room?  And as I asked before, if this happened at a nudist colony, would there be right-wing protests calling for the closing of all nudist colonies because they allow exhibitionists to display themselves in front of girls? Do you somehow believe that that has never happened, that these perverts, who you believe are perfectly willing to dress and act like women all of the time, would pass up this easier opportunity?  If so, why haven't we seen such violent protests for the past 90 years or so? ???

The outrage is not because this was a spa where males were allowed to walk naked in front of females.  It's because this was a spa where trans people were allowed to walk naked in front of females.  That's the source of the outrage, for the protesters and for Crunch.

The guy's been charged.  He'll have his day in court.  He's being treated just as if he were a cis man walking into a women's locker room and showing his erect junk.  It could happen at any bathroom anywhere at any time.  So why is this somehow trans people's fault since it happened at a trans spa?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on September 08, 2021, 11:07:35 PM
The outrage is not because this was a spa where males were allowed to walk naked in front of females.  It's because this was a spa where trans people were allowed to walk naked in front of females.  That's the source of the outrage, for the protesters and for Crunch.

That's an awfully forward assumption. I don't see how you could be sure that the issue is whether the person is trans or not, versus, as you yourself put it, that there's a biological male being mixed in with biological females in a changing room. It seems really self-evident why there are people who protest against this sort of thing, and I find it odd that you don't immediately see the reason. Advocacy for trans people in women's changing rooms is going to sound identical to some people as saying just let men into women's changing rooms, like it or not. You can disagree with that designation, but making it about trans rights may be mistaking the matter.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Seriati on September 09, 2021, 10:59:47 AM
It's the jumbling of issues from which the transphobia comes from, Seriati.

The original "complaint" was that the woman couldn't get her money back because she saw a person with a penis in the women's locker room.  This caused protests against the spa.  Is that not correct?

No.  That's not correct.

I repeat, that is not correct.

That's how it was reported by certain people, which generated a controversy.

Quote
AFAIK, there was no mention of an erect penis in the original complaint.  And it is a well-known trans-friendly spa, so how could she be surprised to see a penis in the women's locker room?  ???

Why don't you read that again.  Why would someone at a trans-friendly spa be surprised to see a penis?  They wouldn't be.

They would be surprised to see a man with an erection staring at them while they're changing or partially nude.  Heck they might report something like that to management....

Quote
I certainly don't remember Crunch mentioning an erect penis.

And how much research exactly did YOU do on the point before you ASSUMED it was a transphobic attack?  It wasn't an obscure story, it was widely reported, but a large large number of the reports were silent on significant details - that's a big tip off that there's more there than the writer wants you to see.

Quote
Furthermore, even if the penis was erect, why is this the spa fault?  The person who displayed his genital thusly is the one responsible for it, not the spa.

Because it was reported to the spa and they decided to treat it as trasphobia rather than deal with a sexual predation.  That's exactly how the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts become "responsible" for the actions of predators in their ranks. 

Face it, it's human nature to explain away a situation where two people are telling contradictory stories (a classic he said, she said, for example) in the way that involves the least action on their own part.  They don't know what happened so they extend the benefit of the doubt to the person that they believe is more aligned with themselves.  It's not hard to see why a trans-friendly spa would choose to believe the person that they believe is trans rather than the person they believe is the bigot.

If the spa was aware that the individual was registered sex offender with multiple sex and non-sex related convictions would they have handled it the same way?  Very doubtful.

Quote
If the spa allows biological males in the women's locker room so long as they keep their junk in the normal condition, and everyone knows this can or will happen, how are they to enforce the status of that junk? :)  They can throw the person out afterwards, or hand them over to the police, but that's about it.

They should in fact remove the individual if the situation appears deliberate.  No one should be held accountable merely for getting an erection, but combine that with lewd looks and it takes on a different connotation. 

Here they could also have refunded the money to the person that was assaulted (that's just good business though).

Quote
So why were there protests against the spa?

Because like you, people on the other side assumed the situation and were offended.

Quote
Why blame them for allowing trans people to use the women's locker room?

Because that's the "but for" proximate cause of the issue.

 
Quote
And as I asked before, if this happened at a nudist colony, would there be right-wing protests calling for the closing of all nudist colonies because they allow exhibitionists to display themselves in front of girls?

Nudist colonies face legal problems all the time, and not just from the right.  Whether you get it or not people on the left are just as nasty about issues in their back yard.  They want nudist rights for people in other communities, or even other neighborhoods.  I've lived around elite leftists for decades and they are overwhelming virtue signally persons that are also racists, sexists and homophobes.  Everyone of them puts a sign in their yard supporting gay rights until their kid starts dating someone of the same sex, they pass any number of ordinances and restrictions to prevent any poor black or brown kids from being able to intermingle with their own kids and if those fail they pull their kids out of school and send them to private schools or private club activities and then they put a BLM poster in their yard to show their solidarity.

Quote
Do you somehow believe that that has never happened, that these perverts, who you believe are perfectly willing to dress and act like women all of the time, would pass up this easier opportunity?

First of all, it's only your delusion that requires they dress as women all the time.  Do you think the spa conducted a background interview of every person to confirm that their decision was a full time choice?  Again, you're mixing up trans people with predators.  Predators do what it takes, and yes they would dress full time if they had to in order to maintain access.

But more relevant, nudist colonies, Boy Scouts, even the Catholic Church are much harder targets specifically because they've been hit before and are on guard.  Every adult that spends time with a Boy Scout troop (even a parent that goes on a camping trip) has to go through training to spot and report harrasment. Effectively the Boy Scouts view every adult as a mandatory reporter.  Do you think any woke spa believes that's necessary? 

For the moment, trans-friendly policies implemented by the ideological are hampered by attitudes like you're expressing that to take precautions is somehow offensive to trans people.   But ask yourself why?  Why on earth would trans-people want to protect predators?  They don't.  They don't want to be falsely accused of being predators for living their lives, but that's actually a different issue.  Your overreaction is literally counterproductive.  The goal should be to create a trans-friendly environment WITHOUT opening the door to the level of abuse we've seen in other organizations that didn't believe they had to be on guard.  People on your team need to wake up and relax the ideology to accept that some people will abuse ANY situation and that implementing reasonable safeguards in advance will protect trans people and prevent backsliding counter reactions.

Or do you think that everyone still has exactly as much respect for the Catholic Church as they did before the scandals were revealed?   You already know the answer, some people will ALWAYS hate that church and even it's innocent members.  Is that really where you want to see transfriendly policies end up?

Quote
If so, why haven't we seen such violent protests for the past 90 years or so? ???

Because the point is nonsense and nudists have going out of their way to keep their activities private.

Quote
The outrage is not because this was a spa where males were allowed to walk naked in front of females.  It's because this was a spa where trans people were allowed to walk naked in front of females.  That's the source of the outrage, for the protesters and for Crunch.

So would you see  problem with a spa that advertised that women and children are nude and that men are permitted to watch them and masturbate?

Why are you reducing the issue to eliminate considering an uncomfortable problem?  Whether or not the "other" side has bad or good motives - and you really don't know - your defense is still wrong.  You're hurting trans people by refusing to accept that predators can be differentiated from them. 

Quote
The guy's been charged.  He'll have his day in court.  He's being treated just as if he were a cis man walking into a women's locker room and showing his erect junk.  It could happen at any bathroom anywhere at any time.  So why is this somehow trans people's fault since it happened at a trans spa?

I can't even fathom the pretzels you're working through in your mind to frame that question.  Maybe point out the "nudist" spa that allows men and female children to be in the same area and has no issue with the men having erections and staring?  Can you even find one outside of Thailand?

By the way "cis" is a nonsense word crafted to sound negative.  Maybe if you're going to hold to your ideals you should reconsider using it, unless you think other words that are negative that describe people's gender, race and sexuality are also okay to use?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on September 09, 2021, 02:36:04 PM
I'm not sure why the risk to opposite sex kids is any different than the risk to same gender kids that already exists. We currently don't scrutinize men going into the men's locker room to make sure they won't expose themselves to little boys in an inappropriate way.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Seriati on September 09, 2021, 05:59:47 PM
I'm not sure why the risk to opposite sex kids is any different than the risk to same gender kids that already exists. We currently don't scrutinize men going into the men's locker room to make sure they won't expose themselves to little boys in an inappropriate way.

And I'm not calling for scrutinizing trans-people either.  I guarantee you though that a spa takes seriously any man who seems to be trying to arouse themselves in a men's locker room.  That's not a gay phobia position.  I mean honestly, if you know any gay men ask them how arousing them find an average men's locker room.  Usually the answer is not at all.

I think most people could handle a uni-sex locker room without much risk.  You're not in the locker room for the purpose of seeking arousal, and you are not in there because you're consenting to other people using your body as a visual prop for arousal.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: oldbrian on September 10, 2021, 09:47:03 AM
Seriati:
Quote
By the way "cis" is a nonsense word crafted to sound negative. 

This is the only time I have ever seen words appropriated from science where they are actually used correctly.  Or metaphorically correctly, at least.

Trans means crossed over or twisted, cis means straight.
Trans fats are such because the chemical bonds make them 'bent'.  Cis fats are straight.
 If anything, 'trans' is the word which is negative in connotation. 

The fact that you think 'cis' was made up just a few years ago, and never looked into where it came from is very ironic, since you are excoriating Wayward for not digging deeper into the story.

Crunch presented the story in the worst possible light, and that light was most definitely anti-trans.  (Whether the outrage was anti-trans or not, Crunch's presentation certainly was.)  I guarantee that if Crunch knew about the erection detail he would have included it.  Unless he was planning to do exactly what you did: get someone to argue against the anti-trans context, and then bring up the pervert aspect and pretend he (Wayward) was arguing on behalf of the man all along.

You used to be a much better interlocutor, Seriati. You were one of the posters I looked forward to hearing from, even though I disagreed with most of your positions.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on September 10, 2021, 09:54:04 AM
Trans means crossed over or twisted, cis means straight.
Trans fats are such because the chemical bonds make them 'bent'.  Cis fats are straight.
 If anything, 'trans' is the word which is negative in connotation. 

The fact that you think 'cis' was made up just a few years ago, and never looked into where it came from is very ironic, since you are excoriating Wayward for not digging deeper into the story.

I doubt Seriati meant that the word was literally made-up, as in not a real word, but rather that its syntactic usage has been made up in order to employ it as a negative-sounding prefix. Fwiw, I've never, ever heard it used in a way that sounded even neutral. The only purpose I've seen in its employment is to establish a position of privilege (or of ignorance), according to the theory.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDeamon on September 10, 2021, 10:10:00 AM
Seriati:
Quote
By the way "cis" is a nonsense word crafted to sound negative. 

This is the only time I have ever seen words appropriated from science where they are actually used correctly.  Or metaphorically correctly, at least.

Trans means crossed over or twisted, cis means straight.
Trans fats are such because the chemical bonds make them 'bent'.  Cis fats are straight.
 If anything, 'trans' is the word which is negative in connotation.

Then why not actually use the word that has been in use for decades? What's wrong with "Straight" itself? Oh right, they want "straight" in this context to just identify sexual preference, not-gender identity. While cis was to denote gender identity.

But then when they talk of "the cis-gendered," every context I've seen someone use that phrase in a "pro-trans writing" I've come across, they automatically assume "straight" for the sexuality.

Which means that while the specifics of Seriati's comment may have been off base, the sentiment was dead on as to how "the larger community" has adopted it in common usage. Cis is being used as a slur. The only exception is when they use it to reference themselves as "non-cis" in an attempt to avoid "abnormal," "non-normal", or "non-standard." Although going back to that previous point, why not just identify as "non-straight" in that context? That's basically how they're using cis in any case.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: NobleHunter on September 10, 2021, 12:38:31 PM
Then why not actually use the word that has been in use for decades? What's wrong with "Straight" itself? Oh right, they want "straight" in this context to just identify sexual preference, not-gender identity. While cis was to denote gender identity.

But then when they talk of "the cis-gendered," every context I've seen someone use that phrase in a "pro-trans writing" I've come across, they automatically assume "straight" for the sexuality.

Which means that while the specifics of Seriati's comment may have been off base, the sentiment was dead on as to how "the larger community" has adopted it in common usage. Cis is being used as a slur. The only exception is when they use it to reference themselves as "non-cis" in an attempt to avoid "abnormal," "non-normal", or "non-standard." Although going back to that previous point, why not just identify as "non-straight" in that context? That's basically how they're using cis in any case.

If Cis implied straightness, the term cishet wouldn't exist. While cis gay might be used for clarity's sake, I've never seen cis used in isolation when the author means cishet. Straight has too many other meaning to be useful when you want to talk about non-trans people.

It may be used as a slur but so is gay, queer, and lesbian.  Given that every word queer people use to identify themselves gets turned into a slur eventually, whining about "cis" seems petty. It is really surprising that a word used by an oppressed (or at least a discriminated against) minority to refer to the majority can be imbued with negative meaning?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on September 10, 2021, 01:13:35 PM
It may be used as a slur but so is gay, queer, and lesbian.  Given that every word queer people use to identify themselves gets turned into a slur eventually, whining about "cis" seems petty. It is really surprising that a word used by an oppressed (or at least a discriminated against) minority to refer to the majority can be imbued with negative meaning?

It seems to me you may be confusing categories here, NH. I'm sure 'gay, queer, lesbian' and many other potentially neutral terms are used as slurs by certain social circles; probably those antagonistic to progressive-type people. Let's call them 'right wing' for short but that's a loaded term. But those terms are distinctly never used in a derogatory way by liberal people, whereas TheDeamon's point appears to be that it's left-wing people using the term 'cis' with a negative connotation. So let's not mix up apples and oranges here. One section of society should stick to its own principles and be consistent.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: NobleHunter on September 10, 2021, 06:09:53 PM
Liberal people never use slurs against queer people? That would be nice.

I'd also assume that the only people who are using "cis" as a slur are trans people. So trying to generalize them to "left wing" is a stretch.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on September 10, 2021, 06:43:28 PM
Liberal people never use slurs against queer people? That would be nice.

Well you specifically said that "gay, queer, and lesbian" were the slurs being used, as a comparison to another supposedly neutral term, "cis". But to date I have heard these terms being used as slurs by liberal people so seldom that it's difficult to remember if I've really ever heard it at all. I didn't say that no one uses slurs at all, but we're specifically discussing whether these allegedly neutral terms in fact see play as slurs by the progressive left. I occasionally hear 'gay' used in the sense of "man that's so gay" as in bad, but in such cases I never really sense even a subtle jab at homosexual people in that kind of usage. I think West Coast bro slang uses the term like this sometimes. 'Queer' is totally out of the colloquial lexicon as far as I can tell, other than in direct reference to the queer community, and honestly the only people who ever use it are self-identified queer folk. As far as lesbian goes...you really hear people use the term as a slur by liberals? Seriously? And in Toronto of all places?

Quote
I'd also assume that the only people who are using "cis" as a slur are trans people. So trying to generalize them to "left wing" is a stretch.

I think you would find the opposite is true if it was possible to do a large data sampling; far more non-identifying people seem to make it their business to speak on behalf of those communities using inflammatory language than the actual communities seem to (in my experience, at least). I have some LGTB-community friends I've talked with on occasion about this, and it has been pointed out that it's often white knight crusaders who turn things ugly, so for instance if we examined things closely (which would take some exploratory investigation) I suspect we might well find that it's non-trans activists who are the most vehement and pugilistic, compared to the actual trans people they have taken it upon themselves to 'represent.'
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Seriati on September 10, 2021, 07:29:28 PM
Seriati:
Quote
By the way "cis" is a nonsense word crafted to sound negative. 

The fact that you think 'cis' was made up just a few years ago, and never looked into where it came from is very ironic, since you are excoriating Wayward for not digging deeper into the story.

You used to be a much better interlocutor, Seriati. You were one of the posters I looked forward to hearing from, even though I disagreed with most of your positions.

Apologies for reordering your post.  You are right to call me out on how I said that, and I do apologize as I was aware that cis was a word when I made the post.  I was not aware that it had ever been used as a prefix prior to it being used in cisgender.  However, with further research it turns out it was used in the late 1800s to craft the word "cislunar" (cis fats appears to have been crafted after cisgender).  Cislunar actually refers to objects orbiting between the earth and the moon.   Still I should have said cisgender is a made up word (which is still less useful than it appears because all words are made up words), the beef is that it's a very recent word designed to label others.  Adopting the identity of being trans- is a choice of how one labels oneself, for others to label you as trans- can be insulting and inaccurate.  That's one of the more common uses for cis-gendered today, as a label to others and intended to be dismissive.

Literally it exists because certain people didn't like that we had a label to identify people who are transgendered because it made them appear to be different, atypical and not normal (all of which is objectively true just because of the comparative infrequency, but says nothing about it being negative).  The people that did that understood that the power of language is that a label inherently develops associations, many of which are negative, so they intentionally crafted a label to rename the default.  The correct words are male and female, or man and woman, when differentiation was needed, trans- and sometimes non-trans- were used. 

When you play this game, the new word has to sound negative or be negative, and be incapable of being deemed to be "normal" or of holding the neutral connotation.  Why?  Because if it's neutral or positive, then it recreates the exact feeling of exclusion that caused it to be formed in the first place.  We can't refer to biological male, for example, because it implies that others are less, if you invented a new word like "gender positive" to describe those people it automatically makes those that don't identify that way feel bad.  The new word has to be less than neutral sounding or it becomes a positive.  Effectively, it becomes a weapon.  You're not the normal, I'm trans- and you are cis- and we're both normal.  Similarly it can't just be a trans "range," even though that's far more accurate, so trans- becomes the biggest group it can be (e.g., everyone who's not 100% identifying with their birth gender so that "cis-" can be the smallest and narrowest possible group (e.g., only those who are 100% identifying with their birth gender).  But that's actually incredibly repressive when you consider what gender actually means these days, are "tom boys" no longer part of "cis-" girls and now "trans-"?  Does it feel right to judge every activity against an imaginary list of "boy stuff" and "girl stuff"?  Didn't we just fight against that for decades?

Of course then you've taken something where there are a broad range of potential experiences and defined them as binary options.  Cisgendered and transgendered are both too small terms for what they cover, they can only have meaning if they are self referential, but they inherently require other labeling.  Cisgendered is frequently used as a term to apply to others rather than by a person to describe themselves.  That's a useful feature if you're trying to create sides and maintain sides, or if you want to shut down discussions, as is frequently the case anytime privilege comes into a conversation.  All of which is really short hand for inventing a word so that it can be used to attack.

Or to put it more bluntly, can you correctly label someone transgendered without being offensive if they reject that label for themselves?  I think you know the answer is that it would be wrong to do so.  Yet, labeling others as cisgendered is one of the primary ways it's actually used.  The only other way it can be used undermines the very idea that trans-people have they gender they identify with (i.e. that they are real boys and girls), in exactly the same way the words that they rejected and replaced did.

Quote
Crunch presented the story in the worst possible light, and that light was most definitely anti-trans.  (Whether the outrage was anti-trans or not, Crunch's presentation certainly was.)  I guarantee that if Crunch knew about the erection detail he would have included it.  Unless he was planning to do exactly what you did: get someone to argue against the anti-trans context, and then bring up the pervert aspect and pretend he (Wayward) was arguing on behalf of the man all along.

I don't have the issues that Crunch seems to have with trans-people in locker rooms.  You'll note I didn't jump in on this until the updated information was posted.  At that point it was clear that we were not talking about trans-rights but rather about separating out predators.  Wayward's post - which I commented on - was made after those additional facts had come out.  Even in Crunch's first post he expressed both issues, and in the update it was clear it was the second.

Take an honest look at those posts again.  Trying to argue about this specific circumstance (which Wayward was) and dismissing that it was a predator issue by doubling down on it being a trans-phobia issue is a bad form of argument.  The presence of this guy doesn't prove that Crunch is correct, but it does prove that ignoring the issue and jumping on every similar situation as "transphobic" without all the facts is a very bad plan.  Everyone should be happy a predator is caught, whether they're pretending to be trans- or even actually trans.  People strongly advocating for trans-rights need to do a better job of looking at what's actually occurring rather than committing to what they expect to see or fear is occurring, or else everyone's worst nightmares are going to become more likely.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Aris Katsaris on September 10, 2021, 09:09:32 PM
I've never once heard "cis" being used as a slur or an insult.

If the word "cis" is supposedly a slur or an insult, what would the non-slur,  non-insulting word be?

Let me guess, is that word supposed to be the word "normal"?

My current theory is that some people get upset at the word "cis", merely because they're upset at the sort of people who use the word "cis" -- namely people who wanted a word different than "normal" to indicate people whose gender assigned at birth matches their gender self-identitication.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on September 10, 2021, 10:43:20 PM
If the word "cis" is supposedly a slur or an insult, what would the non-slur,  non-insulting word be?

There is no non-insulting version of "entitled a-hole". I'm not saying this is the only way the term is ever used, but I've seen it plenty.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 11, 2021, 09:24:20 AM
Let's remember that it's not the intentions of people using words that matter but most importantly what's determinative is if they are perceived as insults.

https://everydayfeminism.com/2013/07/intentions-dont-really-matter/

"After all, in the end, what does the intent of our action really matter if our actions have the impact of furthering the marginalization or oppression of those around us?

In some ways, this is a simple lesson of relationships.

If I say something that hurts my partner, it doesn’t much matter whether I intended the statement to mean something else – because my partner is hurting.

I need to listen to how my language hurt my partner. I need to apologize.

And then I need to reflect and empathize to the best of my ability so I don’t do it again."

------------------------------------------------------

If a word is perceived as an insult than it is an insult regardless of everything else. It's not up to the user to determine if it's an insult. It's up to the person who hears it.

Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Aris Katsaris on September 11, 2021, 11:25:08 AM
Quote
Let's remember that it's not the intentions of people using words that matter but most importantly what's determinative is if they are perceived as insults.

Certainly if a person perceives (in good faith) a word as an insult, I should attempt not to use it when discussing with them, in order to not be a jerk.

Some words that were not initially insults eventually started being treated as such, and became such, and so decent people stopped using them in order to not be jerks.

However, I'm cis (or cisgendered, if you like) and I currently don't find any insult in being called cis/cisgendered. Any more than I find it insulting to be called male or white or het/straight. I'm stating right here, that I do NOT find it insulting for people to refer to me as cis (or male, or white, or het), and I have never (before this forum page) seen a single person that found it insulting to be referred to as cis.

So, given my confusion at this occurrence, I should similarly, in good faith, be able to ask *why* you perceive "cis" as an insult, and what word you would prefer instead to refer to this aspect of yourself.

Can you answer, please, plainly?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 11, 2021, 11:43:09 AM
I don't really have a dog in this fight. I'm just pointing out that according to the rules of political correctness it doesn't matter what a word actually means or how it's intended. The only thing that matters is how the person on the receiving end feels about it. I have no idea what people should be called instead of cis. Obviously you can't call them normal because that's insulting to everyone else. It's pretty much getting to the point where the only way not to offend someone is to not say anything. Oops, I almost forgot, silence is violence so we're now officially at the point where there is literally no way to not offend someone no matter what you say or don't say.

We're not the only ones thinking and talking about this either.

https://aninjusticemag.com/is-cisgender-a-slur-5eefe584e1bb

"I have seen the word “cisgender” used on social media with apparent intent to silence, marginalize, or isolate individuals deemed to be cisgender based solely on the evidence of their profile photo. (This happens to me every time I write about transgender-related topics on Medium. Every. Time.) Sometimes the audience for that usage understands that intent and resists it, thereby tacitly agreeing that “cisgender” is functioning as a “slur” in that context.

But I’ve also seen the word used in a sincere effort to neutrally describe the social reality of gender: some people’s gender identity corresponds to the sex and gender they were labelled at birth (i.e. they’re cisgender)."
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Aris Katsaris on September 11, 2021, 11:51:17 AM
You don't have a "dog in this fight"? Do you personally find it insulting if I call you "cis", yes or no?

You're doing lots and lots of waffling about the issue. It seems that you don't actually find the word insulting, you're speaking that HYPOTHETICALLY other people might be insulted.

Here's the thing you don't get -- by the rules of "political correctness" (as you call them), we care about what hurts actual people. If silence hurts them, yes, silence is bad. If a word hurts them, yes, that's bad.

Why it's bad? Because of the consequences of it hurting people, each given time.

So, anyone here who actually feels hurt, injured, etc, when we refer to non-trans people as "cis"? Yes or no?

It's simple as that. An actual question, that demands an actual answer. No more whiny waffling please. Anyone reading this, please speak if you're honestly feeling hurt by the word, and then we can discuss possible alternatives.

There: I'm listening to your hurt. I'm asking what can be done to alleviate it. I don't know what else would you like me to do.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 11, 2021, 12:08:49 PM
Nobody has ever really called me cis. I guess it just doesn't come up that much in casual conversation or even in my online conversations. If you're calling me cisgendered now then I guess it doesn't really bother me that much. Apparently it does bother some other people though like the writer of the last article I referenced who feels it's used as a shutdown. I have to be careful though not to just worry about whether something bothers me personally or not and be mindful of how everyone else feels about it.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Aris Katsaris on September 11, 2021, 12:13:31 PM
Nobody has ever really called me cis. I guess it just doesn't come up that much in casual conversation or even in my online conversations. If you're calling me cisgendered now then I guess it doesn't really bother me that much. Apparently it does bother some other people though like the writer of the last article I referenced who feels it's used as a shutdown. I have to be careful though not to just worry about whether something bothers me personally or not and be mindful of how everyone else feels about it.

In some of these groups, "white" will also be used as a shutdown, and "straight" will also be used as a shutdown.

IIRC people have actually used the fact that I'm Greek as a shutdown, in other forums, when I'm discussing American politics.

People may hypothetically use the fact that I'm an atheist as a shutdown, if I try to discuss Christianity with them.

That's bad behavior, but it doesn't make the word "Greek" a slur, or the word "atheist", and it doesn't make "white", "straight" or "cis" slurs either.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 11, 2021, 01:05:45 PM
Even just the fact that articles like this asking if cisgender is a slur exist proves that some people consider it a slur.

https://aninjusticemag.com/is-cisgender-a-slur-5eefe584e1bb

I don't consider it a slur if it's applied to me because I'm not very politically correct. It's a word with a definition and if the shoe fits then it gets worn. I can't think of a better word either because as noted "normal" doesn't work.

But I don't get to decide what's a slur and what isn't, not for others. No one person and no one group of people do, particularly the ones choosing to use the words. Only the people hearing the words get to decide if it's a slur or not, each one for themselves.

I guess my only point is that anyone here who thought it might be a slur isn't alone. I may not be with them (and I'm not against them either) but others think along the same lines.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDeamon on September 11, 2021, 02:53:40 PM
You don't have a "dog in this fight"? Do you personally find it insulting if I call you "cis", yes or no?

As the one who brought it up, I should point out my answer would range from "Not really, but it depends on he larger context."

You can call me cis all day long and I'll probably not care. I'm just observing that from some of what I've run across in other venues, there are people who are using it as a slur, or as part of the general process of "othering" people they disagree with.

I don't get the need for labels for every aspect of my life, and being a child of the 80's and 90's when the zeitgeist seemed to moving towards doing away with labels entirely(something I agree with), I find the entire thing to be a gigantic step backwards. But I can understand the desire of people "to have tribe" and identify with it, and for many of them, they probably do need that support mechanism. But where micro meets macro, that can become a serious problem when their "tribal identity" revolves heavily on applying labels to everyone else, and "othering" the people they disagree with rather than seek common cause.

Quote
You're doing lots and lots of waffling about the issue. It seems that you don't actually find the word insulting, you're speaking that HYPOTHETICALLY other people might be insulted.

Is "the n-word" insulting? Why do black rappers seem to constantly use it, if it is? Why do white supremacists like to use it?

A word can exist in multiple states at the same time. I guess we could call it the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of Language if that makes it less unclear to you.  :o 

Quote
Here's the thing you don't get -- by the rules of "political correctness" (as you call them), we care about what hurts actual people. If silence hurts them, yes, silence is bad. If a word hurts them, yes, that's bad.

Why it's bad? Because of the consequences of it hurting people, each given time.

You're not up to speed on "silence is violence" then. Being silent on an issue which doesn't even touch on your daily life, is also violence now. Because you're not acting to change the system to make things better for the oppressed persons you never notice(and possibly never even see) in most of your daily life.

Quote
So, anyone here who actually feels hurt, injured, etc, when we refer to non-trans people as "cis"? Yes or no?

See previous comment about the uncertainty principle as it relates to language.

Quote
It's simple as that. An actual question, that demands an actual answer. No more whiny waffling please. Anyone reading this, please speak if you're honestly feeling hurt by the word, and then we can discuss possible alternatives.

While it didn't "hurt me" as I have far thicker skin than that, I'm 100% certain I have seen "cis" and derivative terms from there being used as slurs by people who either identify as being trans, or otherwise believe they are advocating for the trans community.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Aris Katsaris on September 11, 2021, 08:26:16 PM
Quote
I don't get the need for labels for every aspect of my life, and being a child of the 80's and 90's when the zeitgeist seemed to moving towards doing away with labels entirely(something I agree with)

I'm also all in favour of doing away with labels. E.g. I look forward to the day when people won't need identify other people as 'men' or 'women' at all, because there'll probably be a dozen variations in body types with a choice of 0-to-many, for breasts, penises and tentacles.

And at some point in time people won't need to identify as trans or cis either, for the same reason that we don't have special labels for people who dye their hair, or people who apply makeup vs people who don't.

When changing one's gender is as uncontroversial as changing one's hair color, labels will be done away with as useless. Nobody really oppresses trans-haired people or violates their rights, so the trans-haired and the cis-haired don't need labels to talk about them and their plights.

Quote
You're not up to speed on "silence is violence" then.

I'm not interested in defending every stupid catchy slogan that comes out of the broken minds of idiots. Instead of people saying something sane like "Silence is Wrong", or "Silence is Complicity" they need to say something stupid like "Silence is Violence", because for some people conflation is everything, so if something's wrong it must somehow be "violence".

It's a *censored*ing stupid slogan, and I don't care for it.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDeamon on September 12, 2021, 01:50:00 AM
Quote
You're not up to speed on "silence is violence" then.

I'm not interested in defending every stupid catchy slogan that comes out of the broken minds of idiots. Instead of people saying something sane like "Silence is Wrong", or "Silence is Complicity" they need to say something stupid like "Silence is Violence", because for some people conflation is everything, so if something's wrong it must somehow be "violence".

It's a *censored*ing stupid slogan, and I don't care for it.

It's deeper than that, it's a justification for violence in response. But being silent, you're being violent, since you're "being violent," they're now "allowed" to destroy you.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on September 12, 2021, 11:45:57 AM
Can a word exist in different states in different context?

Quote
Words are not inherently meaningful. They derive their meaning from four elements of language: the intent of the user, the understanding of the audience, the context in which they’re used, and the historical ‘baggage’ by a particular word.

I think this description is right. "You my N" said to a close friend is indeed quite different from "Shut up, N" said to a guy on the street.

Just like "a-hole" or "dick", etc.

Sometimes the same two people saying the same thing will be different because of the audience. Audience matters, and it includes everyone in earshot. Earshot including everyone who was there, saw a recording of the usage, or heard about it. Audience has grown exponentially, which is why most of these words are just better not used.

"cis-male" need not be pejorative, but it certainly can be. Especially when used in a group context, like "F all cis-males"
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: msquared on September 12, 2021, 12:16:20 PM
TheDrake,

Come on what are you talking about? Context? They don't need context.  Things are either one way or another. White or black.  No shades of grey. Either with us or against us.  Only Blue Lives matter (except when they are the Capitol Police and they they do not matter).
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on September 12, 2021, 12:47:29 PM
TheDrake,

Come on what are you talking about? Context? They don't need context.  Things are either one way or another. White or black.  No shades of grey. Either with us or against us.  Only Blue Lives matter (except when they are the Capitol Police and they they do not matter).

You might choose to read TheDrake's example more carefully before thinking you're the voice of reason. The N-word was not particularly contextual in its original usage; it was simply negative. That it has to an extent been deliberately owned to subvert its negativity (assuming that's what happened) is an evolution of its usage. So now it can be contextual. But I doubt context mattered very much in 1840 in order to determine how to understand the word. A word like "cis" may be harder to track, because it's the inverse of the N-word in its origin; the N-word was widely used and commonly understood, whereas a niche usage emerged in the late 20th century altering its meaning. Where for "cis" it seems like it originated as a niche word that was not popularly in use, and was seemingly neutral in its original context, and has only recently entered a popular consciousness. The argument being made is that its new usage seems to be largely negative, or at least some of it is negative.

Your comment may sound to you like you're obviously being reasonable, so you may not even be aware of playing a motte and bailey language game of telling people their lying eyes don't see what they see. 'No, it doesn't really mean that, it's contextual.' Sometimes things really do mean that.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Aris Katsaris on September 12, 2021, 02:19:28 PM
Right now, I'm still waiting to hear a workable alternative to the word "cis", if people think that "cis" has acquired a slur-meaning.

If we're not given such, this discussion feels fundamentally dishonest at its root, because it feels that it's not that people want other people to use a different and better word to refer to the concept, it's that they don't want them to discuss the topic at all, or they want to find some excuse to attack them for it.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on September 12, 2021, 02:35:23 PM
Right now, I'm still waiting to hear a workable alternative to the word "cis", if people think that "cis" has acquired a slur-meaning.

The issue is deeper than that, because you're not even asking why a term like that is necessary in the first place. What term do you use to designate that you have the standard amount of arms and legs? "Able-bodied" generally means you're physically capable, but there are no common-use terms to specifically designate that one has the standard assortment of limbs, or organs, or any other characteristic. If people started calling you one of the "two-armed" it would be super-weird, even if technically true. You'd ask why they're even saying that, or at least if you had any sense you'd ask. I know all of this must be taken with a grain of salt when asking you specifically since you're a transhumanist, but just for now you should pretend you're not because we're discussing language among people who actually do believe in such a thing as normal.

So the question is why one should have to create designations like "cisgender" to reference people who are of the standard disposition. There are many, many categories in which people can be of a standard disposition, and we don't seem to need special terms to refer to that. Rather, we resort to special terms to designate exceptions. Naturally, the greater the majority the easier it is to make this distinction. If 99.99% are of one sort, and 0.01% in a minority, it should suffice to create a term for the minority group. We don't need to 'name' the majority group because it's self-evidently the normal group. If the divide is more like 70/30 then it because much less obvious to just consider the 70% group 'standard', whereas in fact it's merely a majority. In that case it makes sense to see if there are proper terms to distinguish between them. But in the case of trans vs cis, the vast, vast majority are cis, and so it seems there should really not be a need for that group to be named. The question, again, is why name it, and why refer to it as commonly as I hear it referred to? I could go into examples of just how preposterous its use has become in some contexts, but I think it's enough to question its use in the first place. It's seemingly not a term that was needed in the lexicon for practical purposes, so that almost suggests that its use does fill a practical necessity, but I think one that divides rather than adds anything.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: NobleHunter on September 12, 2021, 03:00:41 PM
You've got cisgender for the same reason you have words like able-bodied or heterosexual or right-handed or hearing or brown eyed, etc. It is useful to have a word that can take the place of not!minority.

It's worth noting in this case, the word exists to make it easier for the minority to discuss the majority. It's not surprising cis people are pushing back against it but I think you should ask yourself why you want it to be hard for trans people to talk about cis people.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Aris Katsaris on September 12, 2021, 03:01:17 PM
I know all of this must be taken with a grain of salt when asking you specifically since you're a transhumanist, but just for now you should pretend you're not because we're discussing language among people who actually do believe in such a thing as normal.

Perhaps I'm being uncharitable here, but I think that this effectively admits that the actual problem people have with the word "cis" is NOT that the word "cis" is denormalizing or otherizing or insulting people, but *just as I thought* that it actually has the opposite effect, by treating cis-ness as equivalent to trans-ness.

Is the *actual* problem, not that "cis" is somehow insulting, but that it tries to normalize the existence of trans people?

Quote
So the question is why one should have to create designations like "cisgender" to reference people
who are of the standard disposition.

Do you have the same issue with the words "heterosexual"/"straight"? Or are somehow the percentages in that case sufficient to merit the words?

Because of the internet bringing people together even though they may be physically apart, the world you inhabit is not the world that trans people inhabit. Trans people will know lots of other trans people and communicate much more with non-standard gender identities than an average person would. The point of "cis" is to have a simple way to refer to people with "standard" gender identities, without having to say "person with a typical gender identity" or something like that.

And no, "non-trans" wouldn't do, for a variety reasons, largely the same reasons that "non-gay" wouldn't work well as an alternative to "straight".
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDeamon on September 12, 2021, 10:37:43 PM
So the question is why one should have to create designations like "cisgender" to reference people
who are of the standard disposition.

Do you have the same issue with the words "heterosexual"/"straight"? Or are somehow the percentages in that case sufficient to merit the words?

As someone who subscribes to the idea of the Kinsey spectrum for sexuality, that actually is a valid designation to subscribe to. Although it gets tricky when it comes down to where people perceive themselves on that spectrum.

But even as someone who subscribes to the idea of there being a spectrum of sexuality, I have to balk at the trying to treat it like the color spectrum and giving a name to each and every gradation of the (proverbial) colors running from infra-Red to ultra-Violet (plus white, black, and greys). That's taking both being OCD and creating tribes "just a bit" too far.

That's just the sexuality side of thing, that isn't even touching on the gender side of things. But from what I've seen, from interactions with my Niece's Husband (who was born female), and other interactions I've had with people in the larger trans community online, a LOT of what they're trying to turn into "Trans issues" strike my own sensibility as being "gender role" issues that have nothing to do with what happens to be between your legs. (And really, even what you prefer to wear can just as easily fall under "gender role" more-so than actual gender)

Outside of their conflating and greatly confusing the long-standing feminist issue of gender roles, they have legitimate and illegitimate issues that do need to be resolved. However, there are hard limits that they need to acknowledge. The entire issue has "shades of grey' all over the place, because of the matter of how individual rights interact with one another. Although so far as proverbial canaries in the coal mine go, that Trans-Rights activists are the ones causing a number of Gay and/or Lesbian bars in various major cities to close because of their lack of accommodation for trans-people also speaks to some wider issues brewing.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on September 13, 2021, 02:30:24 AM
Hetero/gay is already a problematic (and inaccurate) designation, but it serves at least because in the very practical situation when you're in the hookup scene, there's a large probability the guy you're hitting on is gay (large enough to matter). The inaccuracy should be obvious, however, so the terms are contrary to what "cis" achieves: they're muddy terms but needed to solve practical issues in both the dating scene as well as in matters of law. For cis/trans this doesn't seem much to be the case, again, due to the sheer numbers involved.

But the worst issue - definitionally - of trans is the idea that normal people are not in some sense a mishmash already. So by calling themselves 'trans' and others 'not-trans' there is already an inaccurate and likely pernicious assumption being made of people who for various reasons don't see fit to say they "are" a woman/man as the opposite of their biological sex. And the assumption then carries over into "and therefore you're not entitled to participating in this conversation because of your privilege." Well the starting point is bad in the first place, since everyone is a mix of masculine/feminine traits, and until now no one needed to quantify how much of each. The lack of desire to do so may be equivalent for many as the lack of diversity among those traits; it's really no one's business. So "cis" ends up being a term devoid of any real meaning, whilst simultaneously acting as a dividing line where the unworthy may not speak their mind. And this is only a surface level analysis, mind you, as the issues go deeper.

I'm all for finding out the ways in which we're different. As an artist the last thing I would do is to want to gloss over things that are special about each person. But a social movement can do things in all the wrong ways, often with false understandings. I'm not denouncing anything outright at this moment, but only mentioning a bit of background behind why I think it's pretty obvious why 'cis' is being used as a slur. That's not the same as me trashing the concept of trans people being given compassion and respect.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Aris Katsaris on September 13, 2021, 07:25:33 AM
Fenring, your argument goes all over the place and in contradictory directions.

(1) That the categories supposedly aren't meaningful because EVERYONE is a mismash, so everyone is trans/cis in some way
(2) That the label "trans" is okay to use, because they're an extreme minority, but the word "cis" isn't okay, because they're the vast majority.
-- But by your argument (1) how do you even count whether they're majority or minority, as you claimed that everyone is both & neither?
(3) And that the label "cis" is bad, because it's used to shut down people.
-- But that would make labels in general bad. Which yeah, they are bad, BUT THE LABEL "CIS" NOT MORE SO THAN ANY OTHER LABEL ANYWHERE, regardless of how fuzzy or clear, regardless of whether it's about a minority or a majority.

Quote
Hetero/gay is already a problematic (and inaccurate) designation, but it serves at least because in the very practical situation when you're in the hookup scene, there's a large probability the guy you're hitting on is gay (large enough to matter). The inaccuracy should be obvious, however, so the terms are contrary to what "cis" achieves: they're muddy terms but needed to solve practical issues in both the dating scene as well as in matters of law. For cis/trans this doesn't seem much to be the case, again, due to the sheer numbers involved.

"In matters of law"? I don't see any reason that the labels hetero/gay are needed in matters of law, or for that matter why trans/cis would be needed in matters of law either.

In regards to the "dating scene", both terms are useful, since many people likewise care about whether they'll be hitting on a trans woman or a cis woman, since they may have a strong preference for one particular type of genitalia in their sexual partners.

If you are making a dating app, you would want someone to be able to click a check box that indicates they're interested in cis women only but not trans women.

People encounter trans people so rare that it doesn't matter, you say effectively? Well, here's some news to you: from the point of view of trans people themselves, they *constantly* face people who encounters them, i.e. encounter a trans person. From the point of view of trans people, they're not an extreme minority rarely encountered, they're a minority that they have to deal with 100% of the time. Because it's them.

The distinction cis/trans is useful, practically, for the same reasons that the distinction man/woman matters.

Quote
And the assumption then carries over into "and therefore you're not entitled to participating in this conversation because of your privilege."

Again, an utterly irrelevant confusion with a *different* issue.

That we shouldn't call cis people "cis", because then it will be used to argue they aren't entitled to participate in this conversation, is the same argument as e.g. not calling men (either trans or cis) "men", because then calling them men would mean they aren't entitled to participate to conversations about female issues, and not calling American people Americans because that'd be used to mean they aren't entitled to participate to discussions about other countries, and so forth.

Again, you conflate TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUES - (a) the badness of trying to shut down the participation of others in a discussion, and (b) the identification of a certain category of people itself.

If this was a general discussion about the badness of labels, FINE. But when you're just using all these general arguments to in the end focus just on the label "cis", that seems disingenuous.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDeamon on September 13, 2021, 09:53:32 AM
In regards to the "dating scene", both terms are useful, since many people likewise care about whether they'll be hitting on a trans woman or a cis woman, since they may have a strong preference for one particular type of genitalia in their sexual partners.

If you are making a dating app, you would want someone to be able to click a check box that indicates they're interested in cis women only but not trans women.

People encounter trans people so rare that it doesn't matter, you say effectively? Well, here's some news to you: from the point of view of trans people themselves, they *constantly* face people who encounters them, i.e. encounter a trans person. From the point of view of trans people, they're not an extreme minority rarely encountered, they're a minority that they have to deal with 100% of the time. Because it's them.

The distinction cis/trans is useful, practically, for the same reasons that the distinction man/woman matters.

And making that distinction gets you labeled as hateful by some "trans-rights" activists, with a great deal of uncertainty if those activists are themselves Trans, or somebody going "white knight" on their behalf.

But the previous allusion made to gay and lesbian bars shutting their doors after the trans community put pressure on them is an illustration of part of that issue. It seems lesbians in particular aren't too keen on hooking up with trans-women. Might have something to do with a penis being involved in those encounters. Likewise, gay men looking for a hookup don't seem to be taking well to finding out their hookup was a trans-man and discovering a vagina rather than a penis.

And of course, then there are the often very violent responses many trans-women in particular encounter when they "hook up" with a straight male, and their partner discovers they have a penis too. Where honestly, in those scenarios I want to mindful that I don't "victim blame" but by the same token, I'm honestly not sure who the victim is the above scenarios.

Responses violent enough to justify documentation are arguably not justified in any case. But on the flip side, I could see a legitimate basis for the person who thought they were meeting someone whose equipment matched their presented gender to claim they were potentially warding off what suddenly turned into a sexual assault in their eyes.

However, you hear it from some of the trans-rights advocates, they completely refuse to acknowledge that the person "on the other side" could be viewing that encounter as a sexual assault. After all, if someone identifies as a woman and is either going through transition, or transitioned as far as (legally and) medically possible, they "should be treated as exactly the same" by everybody. (I have encountered multiple people who hold to such views, even saw one get banned in another online venue I frequent after they refused to stop certain behaviors when they discovered people weren't going to knuckle under for them)

Trans-rights is a complicated mess on its own, but it has a contingent who want to declare that:
1) You cannot define their gender for them.
2) You cannot define their sexuality for them.
3) They get to define their gender for you.
4) Insofar as their gender definition overlaps your stated sexual preference, they get to define your sexuality for you.

If you're a lesbian, and they say they're female, you're a terrible person if you refuse to date/have sex with them and their penis.
If you're a gay male, and they say they're male, you're a terrible person if you refuse to date/have sex with them and their vagina.
If you're a straight female and they say they're male, you're a terrible person if you refuse to date/have sex with them.
If you're a straight male, and they say they're female, you're a terrible person if you refuse to date/have sex with them.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: oldbrian on September 13, 2021, 10:24:23 AM
Seriati:

A lot has been posted in the meantime, so I will just say: thank you for the clarification and well thought out post.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on September 13, 2021, 10:48:56 AM
Fenring, your argument goes all over the place and in contradictory directions.

I suppose it may sound contradictory if you don't understand it...

Quote
(1) That the categories supposedly aren't meaningful because EVERYONE is a mismash, so everyone is trans/cis in some way

True, and this is likewise true for straight/gay, BUT because there's a real and quite common social scenario where one's sexual predilection comes up in a big hurry it is really necessary to have a rule of thumb about how to proceed. So the terms, while muddy, have a significant practical use. And again, this is largely because of the numbers involved (i.e. there are many gay people).

Quote
(2) That the label "trans" is okay to use, because they're an extreme minority, but the word "cis" isn't okay, because they're the vast majority.
-- But by your argument (1) how do you even count whether they're majority or minority, as you claimed that everyone is both & neither?

I never said anything about whether "trans" is ok to use. Presumably the people who would want to use such a term would be those people in question, not me, so I don't need to ok someone else using a self-descriptive term. What I said was that applying some special term to refer to the vast, vast majority is in most contexts strange and unnecessary. But the answer to your question is simple: *I* don't need to count them, because to the extent that certain people feel the need to specify they are trans, there's your count. They self-identify. What I'm saying is it remains inaccurate for them to apply a label to those who chose not to make that self-identification. And if you're trying to make this concordant with straight/gay, again, it's less about "are you straight in your inner self", and more about "are you here for guys or gals". The need is completely practical for the most part.

Quote
(3) And that the label "cis" is bad, because it's used to shut down people.

It's not quite that it's bad, per se, but it has been used badly. And I was at any rate questioning why its use is particularly required (at least to the extent it has been) in the first place.

Quote
-- But that would make labels in general bad. Which yeah, they are bad, BUT THE LABEL "CIS" NOT MORE SO THAN ANY OTHER LABEL ANYWHERE, regardless of how fuzzy or clear, regardless of whether it's about a minority or a majority.

I'm not thrilled with labels in general, no, but that's not the particular point I was making. And I think now you are confused about the points I've been making. I was saying both that "cis" has been used as a slur, and as a bit of evidence there is the fact that its use seems out of proportion to any practical utility, as contrasted with straight/gay for which there were many practical reasons one needed a distinction.

Quote
"In matters of law"? I don't see any reason that the labels hetero/gay are needed in matters of law, or for that matter why trans/cis would be needed in matters of law either.

Are you playing dumb to win an argument or something? You are really unaware that in many (and historically, most) places it was illegal to conduct oneself as a homosexual? Having labels to distinguish straight/gay certainly comes into play when discussing the people whom the law is either favoring or sidelining (or worse).

Quote
In regards to the "dating scene", both terms are useful, since many people likewise care about whether they'll be hitting on a trans woman or a cis woman, since they may have a strong preference for one particular type of genitalia in their sexual partners.

Again, the term is redundant if you want to be technical here. Either the person is trans, or they are not. There is no need to announce you're not when 99.999% of people are not, likewise it should not be the standard to go around announcing to people that I don't have Zika to put them at ease, notwithstanding the fact that there may be a few stray cases in Florida. Change the numbers and the logic changes; if it's covid, which is quite prevalent, or AIDS as it was in the 80's, and then it does become logical to announce you don't have it (or show your card as it was with AIDS). If you are part of a vast minority you can make yourself known as the case comes up, but a vast majority should not need a term to identify themselves with. If someone asks you can tell them, but there's no practical need for the most part to use the term in everyday life.

Quote
If you are making a dating app, you would want someone to be able to click a check box that indicates they're interested in cis women only but not trans women.

The discussion wasn't about whether there are any conceivable cases where "cis" is a term that could have legitimate play. The argument was that the method of its employment seems to be a slur sometimes, and my particular argument was that if it was only being used neutrally and for practical purposes it would see a lot less airtime than it does.

Quote
The distinction cis/trans is useful, practically, for the same reasons that the distinction man/woman matters.

Except that men and women are 50/50 on the planet. You're free to reject my numbers argument, but nothing you're saying is inconsistent with it.

Quote
Quote
And the assumption then carries over into "and therefore you're not entitled to participating in this conversation because of your privilege."

Again, an utterly irrelevant confusion with a *different* issue.

Maybe you missed the original point of this sub-thread: this *is* the issue.

Quote
That we shouldn't call cis people "cis", because then it will be used to argue they aren't entitled to participate in this conversation, is the same argument as e.g. not calling men (either trans or cis) "men", because then calling them men would mean they aren't entitled to participate to conversations about female issues, and not calling American people Americans because that'd be used to mean they aren't entitled to participate to discussions about other countries, and so forth.

It's not really like that at all. Part of the reason is that general use of the terms. "Men" and "American" predate any niche usage, which perhaps could still emerge from time to time. They're part of a popular lexicon. "Cis" was not, and has only come to be part of it in context of...what? That's the question, actually. You don't need to ask why people are referred to as "men" or "American", but asking why a newly minted term (in the popular parlance) is being used is an entirely valid question.

Quote
Again, you conflate TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUES - (a) the badness of trying to shut down the participation of others in a discussion, and (b) the identification of a certain category of people itself.

Don't see how I was conflating anything. These are non-contradictory claims, and neither are reliant on the other for my purposes anyhow.

Quote
If this was a general discussion about the badness of labels, FINE. But when you're just using all these general arguments to in the end focus just on the label "cis", that seems disingenuous.

I think it seems disingenuous because you haven't understood my argument yet. Maybe try again?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on September 13, 2021, 01:26:46 PM
Quote
And making that distinction gets you labeled as hateful by some "trans-rights" activists,

Context again. If someone says they are male, and you ask if they are trans male, that's just bad. If you are talking about equality for trans males, no problem. If you are calling them trans males because you don't want them using the men's room, yeah they probably don't like that much.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: yossarian22c on September 13, 2021, 01:53:24 PM
Quote
And making that distinction gets you labeled as hateful by some "trans-rights" activists,

Context again. If someone says they are male, and you ask if they are trans male, that's just bad. ...

Except in the context of dating. Outside of that context I don't really care how people dress or which bathroom they want to use.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Aris Katsaris on September 13, 2021, 02:02:59 PM
Quote
Quote
"In matters of law"? I don't see any reason that the labels hetero/gay are needed in matters of law, or for that matter why trans/cis would be needed in matters of law either.

Are you playing dumb to win an argument or something? You are really unaware that in many (and historically, most) places it was illegal to conduct oneself as a homosexual? Having labels to distinguish straight/gay certainly comes into play when discussing the people whom the law is either favoring or sidelining (or worse).

So when you said that the label "homosexual" (or gay) is needed to solve practical issues in both the dating scene as well as in matters of law, you meant that it's *needed* when the law is designed to solve the "practical isssue" of how to oppress gay people.

Well, excuse me, but I actually thought that you meant there was some matter of law where it's actually supposedly *good* and *useful* for the label to exist. That was the whole point of the paragraph, and since I couldn't think of one, I was reasonably confused when you spoke about the usefulness of the term in matters of law.

So, okay, I concede the point: It's useful for tyrannical evil regimes that want to oppress people, to use the term "homosexual" in matters of law.

That's pretty much the exact opposite of what your argument was supposed to be about, which was presumably about the terms gay/straight being useful, fullstop, not "useful to evil tyrants, and harmful to everyone else".

Quote
It's not really like that at all. Part of the reason is that general use of the terms. "Men" and "American" predate any niche usage, which perhaps could still emerge from time to time. They're part of a popular lexicon. "Cis" was not, and has only come to be part of it in context of...what?

Presumably has come to be part of it, in the context of the existence of trans people and becoming more commonly known and trans issues becoming more publicized, via internet, etc. whereas even 20 years ago they weren't remotely to this extent.

The term "straight" or "heterosexual" wasn't a part of popular lexicon either, a century ago, I think. Now it is. Presumably because the population, via television etc, knows about the existence of gay people a bit more than it did a century ago.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on September 13, 2021, 02:06:42 PM
Quote
Quote
"In matters of law"? I don't see any reason that the labels hetero/gay are needed in matters of law, or for that matter why trans/cis would be needed in matters of law either.

Are you playing dumb to win an argument or something? You are really unaware that in many (and historically, most) places it was illegal to conduct oneself as a homosexual? Having labels to distinguish straight/gay certainly comes into play when discussing the people whom the law is either favoring or sidelining (or worse).

So when you said that the label "homosexual" (or gay) is needed to solve practical issues in both the dating scene as well as in matters of law, you meant that it's *needed* when the law is designed to solve the "practical isssue" of how to oppress gay people.

Sorry, didn't bother reading beyond this. If you're not going to discuss in good faith then you're wasting my time.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Aris Katsaris on September 13, 2021, 03:04:14 PM
If you're a lesbian, and they say they're female, you're a terrible person if you refuse to date/have sex with them and their penis.
If you're a gay male, and they say they're male, you're a terrible person if you refuse to date/have sex with them and their vagina.
If you're a straight female and they say they're male, you're a terrible person if you refuse to date/have sex with them.
If you're a straight male, and they say they're female, you're a terrible person if you refuse to date/have sex with them.

TheDeamon,that's  lots of words to just say "some people will always be self-serving jerks and use supposed politics to pressure/guilt other people into doing what serves them".

People are allowed to date/have sex with whatever person (and whatever body type) pleases them. Even if you're a gay man, you may not be into bears but only into twinks. Even if you're a lesbian, you may be into butch and not into femme. Or vice versa. You can date short or tall, fat or thin, circumcised or uncircumcised, and you're definitely allowed to date people with penises or people without penises.

Quote
Responses violent enough to justify documentation are arguably not justified in any case. But on the flip side, I could see a legitimate basis for the person who thought they were meeting someone whose equipment matched their presented gender to claim they were potentially warding off what suddenly turned into a sexual assault in their eyes.

I wonder would you feel the same ("see a legitimate basis"), if a woman violently attacked a man, if the man they thought they were meeting was wearing a wig in all the photos' they sent but was in reality bald, and the woman suddenly so realizes the guy is bald?

That suddenly becomes a sexual assault (they were going on a date with someone they thought had a full set of fair), so by the same argument, so there's a "legitimate basis" to claim the woman was "potentially warding off what turned into sexual assault in her eyes"?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Aris Katsaris on September 13, 2021, 03:06:45 PM
Sorry, didn't bother reading beyond this. If you're not going to discuss in good faith then you're wasting my time.

You're the one not discussing in good faith.

I have been utterly HONEST, DIRECT, and HAVE DONE THE BEST I COULD TO UNDERSTAND YOU, AND TO NOT MISREPRESENT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

You have repeatedly waffled, and you have repeatedly refused to explain the meaning of your words, in that mess of contradiction, confusions, and inanities you present as a supposed argument while leaping from random point to random point and ending up not saying anything meaningful at all.

You are disingenuous and dishonest.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: NobleHunter on September 13, 2021, 03:11:32 PM
Sodomy was illegal for centuries before the term "homosexual" was even invented. It's been argued that the idea of a Sodomite as a meaningful identity rather than just a person who engages in certain actions, was a result of 18th century anxieties over the self and masculinity. The idea that there needs to be a label for legal or dating purposes has no historical basis.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: yossarian22c on September 13, 2021, 03:16:19 PM
...

That suddenly becomes a sexual assault (they were going on a date with someone they thought had a full set of fair), so by the same argument, so there's a "legitimate basis" to claim the woman was "potentially warding off what turned into sexual assault in her eyes"?

Are you really equating baldness with someone surprising someone with penetrating sexual equipment when they weren't signing up for such an experience? Is consent culture around sex dead?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on September 13, 2021, 03:31:57 PM
You're the one not discussing in good faith.

I have been utterly HONEST, DIRECT, and HAVE DONE THE BEST I COULD TO UNDERSTAND YOU, AND TO NOT MISREPRESENT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

No, and although I very rarely say this, you are lying now. You took a direct statement from me, and then wrote this about it:

Quote
So when you said that the label "homosexual" (or gay) is needed to solve practical issues in both the dating scene as well as in matters of law, you meant that it's *needed* when the law is designed to solve the "practical isssue" of how to oppress gay people.

You are literally telling me that what I said is that what I am arguing for is the need to oppress gay people. You didn't argue that it's an unintended conclusion of what I wrote, you're saying that I SAID IT. Since there is no conceivable way you could believe I wrote that, my only conclusion is you are lying about what I said in order to...to do what? I won't put up with it. I don't know why you're pretending that what I wrote is so hard to understand. I don't trust your motives any more. I'll avoid you for a while now, thanks.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Aris Katsaris on September 13, 2021, 03:39:07 PM
Are you really equating baldness with someone surprising someone with penetrating sexual equipment when they weren't signing up for such an experience? Is consent culture around sex dead?

I don't think we're envisioning the same sort of scenario.

Looking at actual court cases where the "trans panic" defense has been used on the part of defendants to justify violence, they've been cases that range from "I flirted with a woman in a bar, and then I realized they were actually a man, so I had to beat him to death with my buddies " to "this person gave me a blowjob, which I fully consented to at the time, but two days later I realized she had a penis and wasn't a 'real' woman', and I was so grossed out in hindsight that I had to murder him."

You're instead envisioning a case, where what? A trans woman ties a person to a bed, and then tries to rape them with her penis? Well, yes, that'd be rape and bad. It'd also be rape if a cis woman tried to rape a man with a dildo when he hadn't consented to such. Or in any other way. Penis not actually required.

I can certainly see a person slightly freaking out if their partner suddenly produces an unexpected dildo (or penis), if they're themselves not into that and the two haven't discussed it in advance. But no, I wouldn't justify immediately resorting to violence.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Aris Katsaris on September 13, 2021, 04:42:07 PM
You are literally telling me that what I said is that what I am arguing for is the need to oppress gay people. You didn't argue that it's an unintended conclusion of what I wrote, you're saying that I SAID IT. Since there is no conceivable way you could believe I wrote that, my only conclusion is you are lying about what I said in order to...to do what? I won't put up with it. I don't know why you're pretending that what I wrote is so hard to understand. I don't trust your motives any more. I'll avoid you for a while now, thanks.

You first got upset and called me dishonest because I did NOT immediately get that you meant "for purposes of societal oppression" when I asked what the supposed usefulness is for the usage of the term "homosexual" in law, and now you get upset and call me dishonest for accepting your claim that you indeed meant "for purposes of societal oppression".

So I no longer know what the bleeping heck you meant, or if you meant anything at all, or if you're pretending at a meaning, or if you're pretending at getting offended -- all I know is that when I asked you what you meant you called me dishonest because I didn't get that you meant X,and when I restated the X you said you meant, you again called me dishonest because obviously you couldn't have meant that X you just said you meant.

We can't communicate -- either because you're utterly UTTERLY dishonest, or because of mental insufficiencies (in you or me or both), or both of the above.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on September 13, 2021, 04:47:02 PM
Quote
You first got upset and called me dishonest because I did NOT immediately get that you meant "for purposes of societal oppression" when I asked what the supposed usefulness is for the usage of the term "homosexual" in law, and now you get upset and call me dishonest for accepting your claim that you indeed meant "for purposes of societal oppression".

Is there a rule on this site about people intentionally attributing malicious statements to other people that they did not make?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Aris Katsaris on September 13, 2021, 05:13:16 PM
Fenring said
Quote
they're muddy terms but needed to solve practical issues in both the dating scene as well as in matters of law

I asked:
Quote
"In matters of law"? I don't see any reason that the labels hetero/gay are needed in matters of law, or for that matter why trans/cis would be needed in matters of law either.

Fenring said
Quote
Are you playing dumb to win an argument or something? You are really unaware that in many (and historically, most) places it was illegal to conduct oneself as a homosexual?

I summarize:
Quote
So when you said that the label "homosexual" (or gay) is needed to solve practical issues in both the dating scene as well as in matters of law, you meant that it's *needed* when the law is designed to solve the "practical isssue" of how to oppress gay people.

Well, excuse me, but I actually thought that you meant there was some matter of law where it's actually supposedly *good* and *useful* for the label to exist. That was the whole point of the paragraph, and since I couldn't think of one, I was reasonably confused when you spoke about the usefulness of the term in matters of law.

So, okay, I concede the point: It's useful for tyrannical evil regimes that want to oppress people, to use the term "homosexual" in matters of law.

----

So can someone (someone other than Fenring), explain what I'm supposedly getting wrong in what Fenring is saying?

The way I see the above discussion Fenring said the terms are needed to solve practical matters in matters of law. When I asked, he explained (and was indignant that I needed to ask) that he was talking about the legal oppression of gay people, and that's what he meant. Then I restated it, and he got upset again.

What am I *censored*ing misunderstanding? Someone other than Fenring, please.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: jc44 on September 14, 2021, 06:02:31 AM
So can someone (someone other than Fenring), explain what I'm supposedly getting wrong in what Fenring is saying?

The way I see the above discussion Fenring said the terms are needed to solve practical matters in matters of law. When I asked, he explained (and was indignant that I needed to ask) that he was talking about the legal oppression of gay people, and that's what he meant. Then I restated it, and he got upset again.

What am I *censored*ing misunderstanding? Someone other than Fenring, please.
I can't read anyone's mind, but I can see that the term "homosexual" would be useful in law in lists of things that it is illegal to discriminate against or to convert an "ordinary" crime into a hate crime.  So good for striking down the sort of laws given in the example.  It does not seem implausible to me that that is what Fenring meant. His initial phrasing suggests to me that he wasn't in favour of the oppression, and given he knew that he couldn't then comprehend that you didn't know it too - I have found that if you know what you meant when you wrote something it is often terribly hard to work out why anyone else can't see that.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDeamon on September 14, 2021, 08:51:01 AM
Quote
Responses violent enough to justify documentation are arguably not justified in any case. But on the flip side, I could see a legitimate basis for the person who thought they were meeting someone whose equipment matched their presented gender to claim they were potentially warding off what suddenly turned into a sexual assault in their eyes.

I wonder would you feel the same ("see a legitimate basis"), if a woman violently attacked a man, if the man they thought they were meeting was wearing a wig in all the photos' they sent but was in reality bald, and the woman suddenly so realizes the guy is bald?

That suddenly becomes a sexual assault (they were going on a date with someone they thought had a full set of fair), so by the same argument, so there's a "legitimate basis" to claim the woman was "potentially warding off what turned into sexual assault in her eyes"?

False equivalence. The presence, or absence, of a full head of hair has no meaningful impact on the sexual interactions of most people. Although I will acknowledge that there may be people with a specific enough "kink" that the wig would seriously be a make or break deal for them, they're very much the outlier. Of course, trans-persons are outliers in most respects to start with as well. (It isn't until you start merging "non-conforming gender-roles" with "trans people" that you start to swell their ranks)

Gender roles are not gender identity.

But getting back to your question. A "better framing" for the scenario in question would probably be more comparable to your hooking up with a hot date for the night and you go back to their place, only for them to lead you into "a play room" straight out of 50 Shades of Grey, and they try to restrain you from leaving because "it's perfectly normal" so far as they're concerned and "nothing for you to freak out over."
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on September 14, 2021, 11:25:50 AM
Regarding consent, etc. You can solve that problem by posting a sign "trans individuals are welcome in this locker room, as a result you might glimpse a penis". But that's never the proposed solution, the proposed solution is "we can't allow trans individuals into that locker room". It's also only about terrible predatory men, we don't hear about how awful it might be if someone caught a glimpse of a vagina in the men's room. It's a weird juxtaposition that extreme feminists and anti-trans individuals appear to agree that being in ownership of a penis means you are a rapist waiting in the wings and we must make rules to guard against you.

You can even codify that if you want to, California already has a hundred different things that people are required to post in establishments, from "employees must wash hands" to "beware: carcinogens!"

Meanwhile, most sexual crimes are committed by people known to the individual in question. You should be more worried about a kid's uncle or teacher than somebody lurking in the spa bathroom.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Aris Katsaris on September 14, 2021, 12:02:57 PM
So can someone (someone other than Fenring), explain what I'm supposedly getting wrong in what Fenring is saying?

The way I see the above discussion Fenring said the terms are needed to solve practical matters in matters of law. When I asked, he explained (and was indignant that I needed to ask) that he was talking about the legal oppression of gay people, and that's what he meant. Then I restated it, and he got upset again.

What am I *censored*ing misunderstanding? Someone other than Fenring, please.
I can't read anyone's mind, but I can see that the term "homosexual" would be useful in law in lists of things that it is illegal to discriminate against or to convert an "ordinary" crime into a hate crime.  So good for striking down the sort of laws given in the example.  It does not seem implausible to me that that is what Fenring meant. His initial phrasing suggests to me that he wasn't in favour of the oppression, and given he knew that he couldn't then comprehend that you didn't know it too - I have found that if you know what you meant when you wrote something it is often terribly hard to work out why anyone else can't see that.

Except, read the quotes: when I asked what he meant by "needed to solve practical matters in matters of law" he said "You are really unaware that in many (and historically, most) places it was illegal to conduct oneself as a homosexual?"

So he doesn't seem to be talking about it being needed so that the law makes it illegal for civilians to discriminate against homosexual people, he (clearly, and utterly unambiguously to me) seemed to be talking about it being needed by the law so that it could be made illegal to "conduct oneself as a homosexual".

This has in turn nothing to do with whether Fenring approves or disapproves of the law doing this -- I didn't claim he approved of the law doing that. At most I condemned his bile at me for simply not immediately understanding that when he said "needed" he meant "it is needed by evil people in order that they do an evil thing", since usually that's not the implied usage of the word needed. (When we say that something is needed without specifying an actor, we usually mean needed by good people to do good things instead)

If he was talking about anti-discrimination legislation it would have made better sense if he had said "Are you really unaware that in many places there's anti-discrimination legislation?", rathan than speak about the many places where homosexuality is illegal.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: oldbrian on September 14, 2021, 12:24:04 PM
TheDeamon:
Quote
A "better framing" for the scenario in question would probably be more comparable to your hooking up with a hot date for the night and you go back to their place, only for them to lead you into "a play room" straight out of 50 Shades of Grey, and they try to restrain you from leaving[/b] because "it's perfectly normal" so far as they're concerned and "nothing for you to freak out over."
   emphasis mine

Are you happy with the way you 'framed' this?  Do you want to maybe re-edit it for clarity?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Aris Katsaris on September 14, 2021, 12:37:53 PM
and they try to restrain you from leaving

If they try to restrain you from leaving, and you're merely using violence to free yourself from a captor who's trying to keep you captive against your wishes -- then why is anything else relevant in this situation, being cis or trans, having a bondage room or an ordinary bedroom, producing expected or unexpected genitalia?

In any of these cases the usage of violence would be legitimate, in order to free yourself from a captor.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDeamon on September 14, 2021, 03:13:24 PM
TheDeamon:
Quote
A "better framing" for the scenario in question would probably be more comparable to your hooking up with a hot date for the night and you go back to their place, only for them to lead you into "a play room" straight out of 50 Shades of Grey, and they try to restrain you from leaving[/b] because "it's perfectly normal" so far as they're concerned and "nothing for you to freak out over."
   emphasis mine

Are you happy with the way you 'framed' this?  Do you want to maybe re-edit it for clarity?

It was the "quick" option, as the other option is they follow you out of the room and start calling you names and other things while you're in the process of trying to leave. And the "restraint" in this case, even though the context was BDSM, was just physically obstructing your path, not physical contact.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: oldbrian on September 15, 2021, 11:42:20 AM
TheDeamon:
So you are indeed equating finding out something unexpected with being blocked from leaving an uncomfortable situation.

Interesting.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDeamon on September 16, 2021, 04:52:41 PM
TheDeamon:
So you are indeed equating finding out something unexpected with being blocked from leaving an uncomfortable situation.

Interesting.

Well, alternate option is you invited them into your own home, and they're refusing to leave.

Also keep in mind that most people aren't going to be very rational when presented with that scenario. Doesn't justify outright physical violence, but it certainly informs what they're encountering. But when there are trans-persons who want to treat any negative response to such a "surprise" as being the abnormal thing. They're setting themselves up for more of the same. And an awareness campaign that will never end, because no matter what they try to claim, such experiences are not normal in most venues.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: oldbrian on September 17, 2021, 08:33:59 AM
But the initial situation that Drake theorized was not in any way coercive.  You changed it to not only a shocking revelation (I'm into BDSM!) but also into coercion (no, you can't leave).  And then held onto that coercion when it was pointed out that the two are very different things.

So, it being a metaphor, you are comparing 'gay panic' or 'trans panic' with the natural self-defense impulse of a person under coercion.  IE, that it is perfectly understandable, and even a natural right, to defend yourself with violence when the girl you are chatting up in the bar reveals that she is trans.

Also, 'not rational in that situation' does not automatically equal 'getting violent', which was the whole point of the example.  That people seem to think something kinky is an attack on them personally, rather than a weird thing that they are just not into.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDeamon on September 17, 2021, 11:45:12 AM
But the initial situation that Drake theorized was not in any way coercive.  You changed it to not only a shocking revelation (I'm into BDSM!) but also into coercion (no, you can't leave).  And then held onto that coercion when it was pointed out that the two are very different things.

The initial situation theorized, and I was the originator, as I recall. Was basically that you went to a bar and picked up a one night stand(longer term relationship scenarios are possible, in which case you've progressed into the "having sex stage" instead). You have moved things into an appropriate venue for the relevant activities. Then the pants(or equivalent) come off, and "the equipment revealed" doesn't match the gender you thought you were getting hot and heavy with just moments before.

How is that not "a shocking revelation" in your book? While progressing from foreplay to actual sex is not the time to be learning about such things. "Jilted lover" type responses are almost to be expected at that point.

I would also expect a strong negative response if someone sprung an already equipped BDSM sex-play room on their partner out of the blue in the context of a relationship where it has never come up before.

And as for the "no you can't leave" in the context of the Transperson vs the BDSM person who is going "Wait, just let me explain" (because they know they're not mainstream, and could face public ridicule if word gets out) is that the Transperson will instead call you nasty names, compare you to Nazis, and threaten you with legal action because they're part of a protected minority group.

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-42652947 (https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-42652947)
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: oldbrian on September 17, 2021, 04:36:40 PM
Got it.  When you said ' back to your question [Drake]. A better framing would be...'  I thought you were reframing his metaphor, but you were actually reframing yours.

So then the only question is what you meant by 'legitimate response'
Is the Jilted Lover response a valid excuse for turning violent?  I know a couple of trans people and my understanding is that you always let the other know before it goes that far, just to avoid these situations.  Just like telling the cop that you have a weapon in the car when you get pulled over.
It is possible for both parties to be in the wrong.


ETA:
from your bbc article:
Quote
"If you have a trans woman who transitions very early on, she may be physically identical to a cis woman at a surface level."

A "cis woman" or "cisgendered" person is someone whose gender identity matches the one they were born with.

This is the only usage of 'cis' I have ever seen, although I admit to being very isolated social media-wise.  Basically Ornery and facebook and I have only a few 'friends' on FB.  just to explain my position in the whole 'cis is only used as an insult' thing earlier.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on September 17, 2021, 05:14:38 PM
This is the only usage of 'cis' I have ever seen, although I admit to being very isolated social media-wise.  Basically Ornery and facebook and I have only a few 'friends' on FB.  just to explain my position in the whole 'cis is only used as an insult' thing earlier.

Probably depends on your friend and association network. I've heard it used countless times by now.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: wmLambert on November 03, 2021, 05:39:49 PM
The only science abut this is XX or XY. All else is political raving.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDeamon on November 03, 2021, 08:35:23 PM
The only science abut this is XX or XY. All else is political raving.

XX Male Syndrome would disagree with you, although that has an estimate incidence rate of 1:20,000 among males. The most common form of it (about 80% of cases) involve the SRY Gene being expressed on the X Chromosome, when it is only supposed to be found on the Y Chromosome. (The SRY Gene is the one that triggers development of a penis)

Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: msquared on November 03, 2021, 08:45:47 PM
TheDeamon

Remember God only created Man and Woman. No other options are allowed.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDeamon on November 03, 2021, 08:53:24 PM
TheDeamon

Remember God only created Man and Woman. No other options are allowed.

Well, tell that to the people with XX chromosomes who were born with a penis.  ::)
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: msquared on November 03, 2021, 09:09:36 PM
In case you couldn't tell I was sort of parodying the extreme religious view that there are only XX and XY.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Wayward Son on November 04, 2021, 04:06:41 PM
The only science about this is XX or XY. All else is political raving.

You're ignorance of science is quite extensive, I see.  Why don't you try learning a little before spouting out nonsense. (https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/03/11/pathways-to-sex/) :)
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on November 04, 2021, 05:00:35 PM
The only science about this is XX or XY. All else is political raving.

You're ignorance of science is quite extensive, I see.  Why don't you try learning a little before spouting out nonsense. (https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/03/11/pathways-to-sex/) :)

It seems quite typical that people here post links as if to slam dunk their interlocutors, when in fact reading the link seems to undermine the certain position they were presenting. Note that I am referring only to this link and not to any other general knowledge base:

Quote
At this point, this organ is called the bipotential gonad — it is identical in males and females. Two genes, Fgf9 and Wnt4, teeter in a balanced antagonistic relationship — Wnt4 suppresses Fgf9, and Fgf9 suppresses Wnt4 — in the bipotential gonad, and anything that might tip the balance between them will trigger development of one sex or the other. A mutation that breaks Fgf9, for instance, gives Wnt4 an edge, and the gonad will develop into an ovary; a mutation that breaks Wnt4 will let Fgf9 dominate the relationship, and the gonad will develop into a testis (with a note of caution: the changes will initiate differentiation into one gonad or the other, but there are other steps downstream that can also vary).

[...]

So far, then, we’ve got a nice little Rube Goldberg machine and an epistatic pathway. Sf1/Wt1 and other early genes induce the formation of a urogenital ridge and an ambiguous gonad; Sry upregulates Sox9 which upregulates Fgf9 which suppresses Wnt4, turning off the ovarian pathway and turning on the testis pathway.

[...]

The Sertoli cells produce AMH, or anti-Müllerian Hormone, which is responsible for causing the female ducts of the reproductive system to degenerate in males (if you don’t remember the difference between Müllerian and Wolffian and that array of tubes that get selected for survival in the different sexes, here’s a refresher). Defects in the AMH system lead to persistent female ducts: you get males with partial ovaries and undescended testicles.

[...]

Just to complicate matters, while testosterone is the signal that regulates the male ducts, testosterone must be converted to dihydrotestosterone (DHT), the signal that regulates development of the external genitalia. Defects in the enzyme responsible for this conversion can lead to individuals with male internal plumbing, including testes, but female external genitalia. Sex isn’t all or nothing, but a whole series of switches!

I think that's enough for now. The author is pretty specific that there's a rube goldberg machine at work, with multiple switches where processes trigger other processes. This is not a refutation of the premise that XX/XY are the 'normal' sexual outcomes, because that premise does not require a premise that arriving at the final recipe is a one-step simple process. Who would ever argue that in the first place? And note throughout that when the process goes in a different direction, resulting in results other than the typical, he refers to it as defects in the system. Well I don't think anyone would ever suggest that a system never has defects. It's like talking about whether it's normal to have two hands and two feet, and arguing that this is completely false because some people are born without hands or feet. The presence of defects in formation is a trivial thing to bring up in a discussion of what the system is set up to produce. Now if you had linked an article showing that unusual sexual results are a feature rather than a bug, that would be a different story.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDeamon on November 04, 2021, 05:29:03 PM
The only science about this is XX or XY. All else is political raving.

You're ignorance of science is quite extensive, I see.  Why don't you try learning a little before spouting out nonsense. (https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/03/11/pathways-to-sex/) :)

While I was having fun lampooning Lambert's comment, he wasn't far from the mark all the same. As I pointed out with respect to the "XX Males" they are exceedingly rare, roughly 1 in 20,000 males. (Which means roughly about 1 in 40,000 of the general population) Further, for most of those 1 in 20,000 men, they identify as male, not trans.

While the science does clearly demonstrate that there are a great many developmental "switches" that are involved in determining the gender someone is born with, and that they do sometimes go wrong. There is no scientific basis to assert the claim that gender is "whatever a person wants it to be" or that there are legitimate biological imperatives driving the actions of most of the people who have decided they're trans. The people who do have clear biological markers that can be identified are in reality an extreme minority and what is being witnessed is several orders of magnitude above and beyond what those supporting numbers would even begin to suggest.

I strongly suspect that what is being witnessed is some kind weird psycho-social response to environmental triggers, and not some hidden genetic trigger in play that was just waiting for its moment to strike.

As a likely psycho-social issue, the question then devolves into what is happening in their environment that is leading to what is being observed. Is is purely social in nature? Or is it something else in their environment, like exposure to certain artificial chemical compounds? (Such as certain reasonably common plastic compounds that have shown some strong correlations to reduced testosterone levels?)

I strongly suspect we're seeing a mix of all of the above, and it is the longer-term implications of a social aspect helping drive things which is of major concern to me. If only because of the reproductive and potential longer-term health implications for the people who get pulled into that social vortex. I guess in some ways, you could argue it is Darwinism working at its finest as "the unworthy" voluntarily remove themselves from the gene pool, but that's also a rather horrific stance to take at the same time.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Wayward Son on November 04, 2021, 05:48:04 PM
But, Ferning, in a binary system, where there is only 0 or 1, on or off, male or female, XX or XY, where is there room for defects??  ;)

You're either male or female, XX or XY, right?  If you're XXX, or if you are XY and have testosterone levels as high as an XX, or if you have gonads for both sexes, are you XX or XY?  Which category do you fit into?  And, most importantly, who decides?

Lambert tells us that science says there is only XX or XY.  That is all there is to it.  If you're XX, you are the male gender.  You like sports and dress in pants and are aggressive and don't wear make-up.  If you are XY you can dress in a dress and are not very aggressive and can wear make-up.  He tells us it's biology.  XX or XY is all you need to know.  There is no room for variation.  No room for an XX to feel like an XY, or vice versa.  No room for girly men or manly women.  Just XX or XY.

What this mini-lecture illustrations is that there is nothing but variations.  With all these steps involved, how often does it happen perfectly?  The defects he lists are just the major ones, the ones that have such a profound influence on the outcome that it is obvious that something did not go correctly.  But think of all the minor defects that can occur.  Ones that aren't immediately obvious, or even detectable in most cases.  Different levels of hormones or different development of the brain.  Ones that may influence a person's personality or perceptions of their own sexuality.

A vast majority of us probably have at least one of these minor defects.  Does that mean then that these minor defects are "features?" ;)

Real science says sex is not binary, but a continuum. Most people, a vast majority, can be divided into the two sexes, if you ignore the subtle differences between individuals in the two categories.  But there are those who still don't fit neatly into either category.  Those with major differences from either sex.  Jamming them into one or the other sex is like jamming a triangle into either a circular or square hole.  Sure, if you use a hammer, you might get them into one hole or the other, but that doesn't mean they should be there or that they fit. :)

There is far, far more to sex that just XX and XY, according to science.  It is far more complicated than that.  You can't hide behind "science" when you espouse that political position.  Because that fits into science like a triangle into a square hole. :)
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: rightleft22 on November 04, 2021, 06:02:31 PM
I agree with TheDeamon
When discussing gender its important to be specific if your referring to gender-biology and gender-identification.

Gender identification may have very little to do with gender-biology. Unfortunately most of the dialog mix the two which clouds and confuses the issue.

For many I think only the Objective Reality can be allowed to be real as anything Subjective is to messy or fearful to be real. 

Other then the Religious Fundamentalist I wonder how many people really care about others gender identity and or are threatened by it.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDeamon on November 04, 2021, 06:09:39 PM
Lambert tells us that science says there is only XX or XY.  That is all there is to it.  If you're XX, you are the male gender.  You like sports and dress in pants and are aggressive and don't wear make-up.  If you are XY you can dress in a dress and are not very aggressive and can wear make-up.  He tells us it's biology.  XX or XY is all you need to know.  There is no room for variation.  No room for an XX to feel like an XY, or vice versa.  No room for girly men or manly women.  Just XX or XY.

History tells us that if you pick the right cultures in the right centuries the wearing of Pants would mean you were "dressing like a woman." While the wearing of certain types of "dresses" in modern parlance would have you "dressing like a man" instead. The wearing of high heeled shoes also originated with Butchers, a predominately male profession throughout history. Declaring someone's gender identity based purely on what they like to wear is exceptionally toxic in my book.

Quote
Real science says sex is not binary, but a continuum. Most people, a vast majority, can be divided into the two sexes, if you ignore the subtle differences between individuals in the two categories.  But there are those who still don't fit neatly into either category.  Those with major differences from either sex.  Jamming them into one or the other sex is like jamming a triangle into either a circular or square hole.  Sure, if you use a hammer, you might get them into one hole or the other, but that doesn't mean they should be there or that they fit. :)

[citation needed] Which kind of science is suggesting that "sex is not binary but a continuum" as you claim? If this a biology based study, or some psychology/"social sciences" study group making these findings that you're buying into?

Just because someone has slapped a "science label" onto their profession doesn't make them a scientist. Even if it is in vogue to slap the "science" label onto all kinds of things in various university departments these days. Universities aren't entirely reliable arbiters on that front at times, and they're historically just as likely to get swept up in trends as everyone else. Largely due to their being at the mercy of "their patrons" and money talks. At least until the so-called science in question manages to discredit itself. If a patron is willing to fund it, why are they going to say no to accepting the money? (especially if it is a very large sum of money)

Quote
There is far, far more to sex that just XX and XY, according to science.  It is far more complicated than that.  You can't hide behind "science" when you espouse that political position.  Because that fits into science like a triangle into a square hole. :)

Now are we talking about Sex, gender, or sexuality?

The Biological Sciences are quite clear that we have Male, female, and non-viable reproductive anomalies which typically end up somewhere in between.

The Sexuality side does indeed reflect that there is a whole spectrum in play.

As to gender, well, I already kind of touched on that above. Pick your era, gender roles and norms have little to do with science(beyond the typical physical differentiation that tends to happen involving testosterone resulting in the men typically being larger and physically stronger), and far more to do with the societies in which the people live.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Wayward Son on November 04, 2021, 06:10:42 PM
Quote
Now if you had linked an article showing that unusual sexual results are a feature rather than a bug, that would be a different story.

Also remember, Fenring, that to the developmental process, there are no features or bugs.  There is just chemistry.  "Feature" and "bugs" are what we assign to the outcome dependent on what we believe is the "proper" outcome.  But the process does not recognize outcome.  It has no intelligence.  It just happens.  Natural selection determines if it a feature or a bug, and that depends to a large extent on the circumstances, aka the environment.

So a "defect" is just as natural as a "correct" process.  It's all the same according to our bodies.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Wayward Son on November 04, 2021, 06:18:40 PM
Quote
Which kind of science is suggesting that "sex is not binary but a continuum" as you claim? If this a biology based study, or some psychology/"social sciences" study group making these findings that you're buying into?

If you are talking about reproductive ability, then, yes, there is basically only two sexes in humans, male and female.

But there are not exclusively determined by just the XX or XY chromosome.

And I very much doubt that Lambert was limiting himself to only reproductive ability in this thread on trans laws.  ;D

Quote
The Sexuality side does indeed reflect that there is a whole spectrum in play. ...

Pick your era, gender roles and norms have little to do with science(beyond the typical physical differentiation that tends to happen involving testosterone resulting in the men typically being larger and physically stronger), and far more to do with the societies in which the people live.

Precisely. :)
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDeamon on November 04, 2021, 06:21:27 PM
Quote
Now if you had linked an article showing that unusual sexual results are a feature rather than a bug, that would be a different story.

Also remember, Fenring, that to the developmental process, there are no features or bugs.  There is just chemistry.  "Feature" and "bugs" are what we assign to the outcome dependent on what we believe is the "proper" outcome.  But the process does not recognize outcome.  It has no intelligence.  It just happens.  Natural selection determines if it a feature or a bug, and that depends to a large extent on the circumstances, aka the environment.

So a "defect" is just as natural as a "correct" process.  It's all the same according to our bodies.

Well, more concerning for me is the rat population experiments that have been carried out in the past. Or the Lemmings as the other example.

Sometimes I have to wonder if some of what we're seeing is some hidden biological switch that is pegged to population densities, and once a certain threshold is reached, the impulse to go (proverbially) charging off a cliff starts to take hold.

You can call that a "feature" if you want to. But if we humans have a series of "lemming genes" just waiting to be activated under the right trigger conditions, I want them found, and turned off.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Wayward Son on November 04, 2021, 06:34:52 PM
Fortunately I've heard that the lemming phenomenon was created by the Disney cameramen at the time.  It sounds like it is not a natural occurrence.

I agree, though, that population density may be a factor in homosexuality, as shown by the rat experiments.  Of course, that could be considered just another natural response to the environment. :)

Bottom line: biology is complex and weird.  :o
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: rightleft22 on November 05, 2021, 10:34:55 AM
I wonder what the role the easy access to Porn is playing in sexuality-identity.  That the watching of porn creates a such a impersonal experience that one detaches the act from traditional notions of sex. The sextual act becoming detached from gender-biology and even gender-identity. Sex as something you do, with no 'meaning' or identification beyond that. 

Sex is not binary, but a continuum....  in the context that sex is not associated with biological gender or even identify but the act.  is Attraction binary or a sexual desire to fornicate with that which we are attracted. Not a either or but a 0. The sextual act a psychological phenomenon with little or no connection to gender?

The current discussion reminds me of 'The Forever War' by Joe Haldeman. The group of soldiers who are sent into space to fight the Taurans and due relativistic time effects four years of military service means that several centuries elapse on earth.  Each time the soldiers return home society norms have changed.  Returning after 2 years their time they discover that to curb overpopulation homosexuality has become officially encouraged by many of the world's nations and heterosexuality is seen a deviant behavior.

Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: NobleHunter on November 05, 2021, 10:49:07 AM
Sex as a continuum is part of the continuing realization that earlier scientific efforts to sort biological realities into neat and tidy categories is doomed to failure. Real life rejects all attempts to reduce it to something that fits nicely in a model you can explain to twelve-year-olds. The two-sex model might be more useful that the old one-sex model but tit still doesn't fully describe the human experience.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on November 05, 2021, 11:51:17 AM
Quote
Just because someone has slapped a "science label" onto their profession doesn't make them a scientist. Even if it is in vogue to slap the "science" label onto all kinds of things in various university departments these days. Universities aren't entirely reliable arbiters on that front at times, and they're historically just as likely to get swept up in trends as everyone else. Largely due to their being at the mercy of "their patrons" and money talks. At least until the so-called science in question manages to discredit itself. If a patron is willing to fund it, why are they going to say no to accepting the money? (especially if it is a very large sum of money)

Lots of people are offered large sums of money and routinely turn them down out of integrity, risk/reward analysis, and many other factors. That's like saying, why wouldn't we expect all cops to take bribes?

The peer review system is designed to work against rogue individuals who care only about their own wealth or prestige, though it has its failings currently. We've certainly seen researchers of one cloth or another taking money from Exxon to "prove" global warming isn't happening.

It is far less likely for a University researcher to be swayed in such a manner. It is also true that researchers might come up with questions that have a hard time finding funding. This would certainly be true when there is a wealth of existing information pointing against the researchers hypothesis. If you decided you wanted to run a study to demonstrate that smoking is not detrimental to your health, you would find a hard time getting funding for that. Likewise, if you want to run a study demonstrating that homosexuality is a pathological case, you won't get funding for that. Not because of political correctness or social justice warriors, but because there are sufficient studies of animal populations to demonstrate that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, but it is instead a part of nature.

A bigger question is why we should care about any of these questions? Unless you are a competing athlete, where there is still plenty of room for healthy debate, or an individuals doctor - why should you care how someone else identifies or wants to live their life?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: rightleft22 on November 05, 2021, 01:22:16 PM
Quote
why should you care how someone else identifies or wants to live their life

Growing up in the 70's and 80's in a 99% all white religious community where family values and the idea of Sin seems to spend most of its time revolving around the act of sex. Probably a lot of reasons for that that had little to do with biology and more with 'being' chosen' and virtuous, acceptable to God where God = community.   The thing I was taught consciously and unconsciously was to at some level fear sex and the 'other' who didn't.  Sex could not be trusted to be left in the hands of sinners, and sinners in regards to sex were the threating others.

A something more pavlovian then conscious. Nothing like the a perceived threat to ones attachment to identity to get the fear juices flowing and keeping a community inline.

My bet that in 50 years, baring any major economic, war and environment disaster, few will care about how other identify.  Then again a minority religious fanatical views may gain the upper hand and takes us back to the good old days. 
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on November 05, 2021, 02:17:39 PM
Also remember, Fenring, that to the developmental process, there are no features or bugs.  There is just chemistry.  "Feature" and "bugs" are what we assign to the outcome dependent on what we believe is the "proper" outcome.  But the process does not recognize outcome.  It has no intelligence.  It just happens.  Natural selection determines if it a feature or a bug, and that depends to a large extent on the circumstances, aka the environment.

Sorry, but this is an absurdly reductionist position - nothing has any purpose, anything goes, since the universe is random. First of all, it is not a "scientitic fact" that nothing happens for any reason. It's just one of the possibilities, but the one you are hanging your hat on despite there being no evidence that it's correct. So to argue that there are no features or bugs, just chemistry, already assumes a bunch of stuff not in evidence. But putting aside the onolotogical realities of the universe (or the metaphysics of it), you are also playing a motte and bailey game with the phrase "it just happens", as if you're pretending to place no value judgement on one outcome versus another. By your logic, eyes are not "for seeing" since that's a purpose-oriented definition, therefore there's nothing wrong with eyes that can't see, that's just another element in the wonderful spectrum of the varieties of people out there. This is essentially the position you're taking in regard to the article you yourself linked, where the author describes certain outcomes (that you are calling a "continuum of sex") as defective processes. The final destination of your argument is that since there is an infinite variety of mutations a human can have, and a near-infinite amount of things that can go wrong in processes, that there is no right or wrong outcome for any human system, just variety. If this is your position then I would argue it is as far from science and also as far from common sense as an argument could possibly get. It's a postmodern nightmare of redefining everything into just an opinion.

Quote
So a "defect" is just as natural as a "correct" process.  It's all the same according to our bodies.

Everything is "natural", your argument is semantically absent of content in this case. By calling something "natural" and treating that as if it somehow lends credibility to an outcome, you're just saying that if something exists then it's all the same "to our bodies". Well no one who lives actually agrees with that, including you, so not sure where you think this type of argument can lead.

As others have mentioned, that sexual preference can have a continuum is not only a reasonable proposition but it's almost obvious. People have known that for centuries or more. That gender can have a spectrum is not really something we "know" but rather something that has been decided, since the entire premise is based on definitions. Change definitions and sure, you can make claims about gender that accord with the other claims made within the same definition system. That's not empirical, though, as TheDeamon points out. But regarding biological sex, no, it's not a continuum. Your own article points out as much through its flowchart of discrete system elements. And it's not even a spread of sexes, so much as a spread out potential outcomes when the binary system tries to play itself out. This is much like any system that is set up to reach a destination but can potentially go elsewhere if things are messed up. It's like regulation of neurotransmitters: someone with a deficiency can have severe bad effects. Trying to claim that this isn't actually a problem but is rather just part of a spectrum of brain setups, is confusing levels of analysis. At the atomic level none of it is 'wrong', it's just particles. At the level of human life and good living being severely depressed is a problem - a malfunctioning system - not just another mode of being that can't be judged as right or wrong.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: NobleHunter on November 05, 2021, 03:11:14 PM
But why is depression a problem? Or at least, are you suggesting that an intersex person has a problem in the same way a depressed person does?

I would propose that there are human conditions (such as depression) which can be labelled as negative conditions based on the way they are intrinsically experience by an individual. Other conditions, which may be equally far from the baseline, are labelled as negative--despite the intrinsic experience being neural or positive--for the convenience or comfort of either society or the people running it. Being trans sucks not because it's inherently bad but because society wants it to suck. I think it was Mill who pointed out that if beliefs about sex and gender were actually rooted in empirical fact, there would not have been so many laws about it.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on November 05, 2021, 03:19:45 PM
But why is depression a problem? Or at least, are you suggesting that an intersex person has a problem in the same way a depressed person does?

Not in the same way, but I think it's going to be pretty obvious to a person with an unusual arrangement of sexual organs (or any other deviation from normal) is going to have to come to terms with it somehow. Maybe they will be super well-adjusted, just like many people find a way to be when something sub-optimal happens. Doesn't necessarily mean they need correction, just like a depressed person may not choose to use meds. The argument of "well if this is how I am then this is how I am" is a coping situation; how do you deal with what you're dealt. But diagnosing 'problematic results' doesn't not have to have a moral or a judgemental component. So I would be against saying that someone is deficient as a person or anything like that. But to suggest that 'hey, you could such and such a situation, do you want it remedied' is a pretty normal type of line to take. It would not make any sense to take a person born with two hands, two feet, and ask them if they want that remedied, whereas someone born with a misshapen foot or some other issue, yeah, it would be pretty normal to ask if the parents want it corrected. All scenarios are not equivalent, even though they are all "natural". Cancer is natural too, but we take that 'alternative' pretty seriously as something to be halted. That's a question of life or death, of course. What you're asking is what the final and inclusive definition is of defining something as a problem. That's probably a deep rabbit hole.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDeamon on November 05, 2021, 03:34:21 PM
Fortunately I've heard that the lemming phenomenon was created by the Disney cameramen at the time.  It sounds like it is not a natural occurrence.

It actually turns out to be a bit more interesting than that. But you're right, they don't commit mass suicide. Although they do have dispersal/migration events that are triggered by overpopulation, much as happens for elk, deer, and other animals. And with some of those dispersal events, it is very common for large numbers of them die while crossing bodies of water.

Source: https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=56

Quote
I agree, though, that population density may be a factor in homosexuality, as shown by the rat experiments.  Of course, that could be considered just another natural response to the environment. :)

As per the link above, even the Lemmings can turn cannibal under the circumstances.  ???
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDeamon on November 05, 2021, 04:00:16 PM
I would propose that there are human conditions (such as depression) which can be labelled as negative conditions based on the way they are intrinsically experience by an individual. Other conditions, which may be equally far from the baseline, are labelled as negative--despite the intrinsic experience being neural or positive--for the convenience or comfort of either society or the people running it. Being trans sucks not because it's inherently bad but because society wants it to suck. I think it was Mill who pointed out that if beliefs about sex and gender were actually rooted in empirical fact, there would not have been so many laws about it.

But why turn "Science" into a pretzel in order to try to fix an underlying social problem.

Society's relationship with sex is complex for a number of reasons.

Patriarchal societies can be solidly blamed for their obvious interest in trying to assure certainty as to who the father is/was.

Many societies developing taboos involving Sodomy without respect to gender of the participants is entirely reasonable when viewed in the context of societies that didn't have an understanding of germ theory. The sodomites had health problems to contend with that others generally didn't, so that speaks to such behavior "incurring the wrath of the gods."

Likewise taboos against sexual promiscuity outside of a "closed system" mesh well when considered against the backdrop of "lack of germ theory" once again. Monogamous couples who remain faithful to one another don't normally get infected with STDs. People who are not faithful and "play the field" on the other hand, are more likely to get a STD. They might not have understood the ​"why and how" behind what they were seeing, but they could certainly see the correlation and possibly attach a divine element to it.

Likewise, that correlation also helps point to the tendency of multiple cultures placing a premium on virgins. Virgins are likely to be "clean" of STD's as they likely haven't done anything to be exposed to one. As they're inexperienced lovers, they're also more likely to remain faithful(lower risk of them bringing in an STD from outside "the closed system") and of course, if they're being monogamous, that also means paternity of the child is also not going to in question.

There also are the social/competitive reasons that can be overlaid on top of that, which introduces "power dynamics" into the mix, and there is always someone out there looking for a way to amass power to themselves so they can exert it over others, and the people who follow after that aren't going to question it critically because that's simply "how it has been done."

And more recently, then there are the laws relating specifically to sex and children/adolescents. Some of which have a basis in science, but a lot more having to do with parents or politicians creating "moral panics" over "think about the children."
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: wmLambert on November 05, 2021, 05:03:30 PM
...why we should care about any of these questions? Unless you are a competing athlete, where there is still plenty of room for healthy debate, or an individuals doctor - why should you care how someone else identifies or wants to live their life?

Because it literally destroys the entire system. Science is simple: XX or XY.

An individual can think anything - but that does not mean that thinking has merit. A contest between idiots may be relevant. but a race between a paraplegic and an Olympic sprinter is nonsensical. When I studied the Philosophy of Persuasion at UofM, much of this gobbledygook made sense. You can make anyone believe virtually anything. The human psychology allows mechanisms that enable such things. Understanding how it works does not mean it makes sense.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Wayward Son on November 05, 2021, 05:20:37 PM

Sorry, but this is an absurdly reductionist position - nothing has any purpose, anything goes, since the universe is random. First of all, it is not a "scientitic fact" that nothing happens for any reason. It's just one of the possibilities, but the one you are hanging your hat on despite there being no evidence that it's correct. So to argue that there are no features or bugs, just chemistry, already assumes a bunch of stuff not in evidence. But putting aside the onolotogical realities of the universe (or the metaphysics of it), you are also playing a motte and bailey game with the phrase "it just happens", as if you're pretending to place no value judgement on one outcome versus another. By your logic, eyes are not "for seeing" since that's a purpose-oriented definition, therefore there's nothing wrong with eyes that can't see, that's just another element in the wonderful spectrum of the varieties of people out there. This is essentially the position you're taking in regard to the article you yourself linked, where the author describes certain outcomes (that you are calling a "continuum of sex") as defective processes. The final destination of your argument is that since there is an infinite variety of mutations a human can have, and a near-infinite amount of things that can go wrong in processes, that there is no right or wrong outcome for any human system, just variety. If this is your position then I would argue it is as far from science and also as far from common sense as an argument could possibly get. It's a postmodern nightmare of redefining everything into just an opinion.


Actually, I think I covered all your objections in my initial statement.

Note that I said, "to the developmental process, there are no features or bugs.  There is just chemistry."  I limited it to the developmental process.  When you "zoom out" to the final product of the development, then there certainly are better and worse outcomes, as I admitted when I said, "Natural selection determines if it a feature or a bug."

But as far as biology is concerned, "defects" are as much an expected outcome as "perfect" outcomes.  Eyes that can't see will occur as well as eyes that can see; they are both natural outcomes, although the former (fortunately!) happens at a far lower frequency than the latter.  But--and this is the point--since they are both natural outcomes, neither can be excluded when talking about biology.

Which means that, when you are talking about the sexes in a biological sense, you can't exclude those who are "defective," whether it is physical or psychological or whatever.  Defects are just as natural as non-defects.

So scientifically (biologically), one can't say there is only XX and XY, because it ignores all the variations in between.

Acknowledging that does not mean that these variations cannot be considered "good" or "bad" or "defects" or "superhuman abilities." :)  But those judgements are based on macroscopic evaluations, based on society, environment, and other structures.  After all, those eyes that don't see are not a defect if you live in an environment without light, like those fishes that live in the mid-west aquafer.  In fact, not having eyes is actually a benefit, since it takes less energy to develop without them, as some of the species have discovered. :)

Oh, and while there could be some supernatural component to the developmental process, it has yet to reveal itself, and so occam's razor dictates that we treat is as mere chemistry until we are forced to add that extra assumption. :)
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: NobleHunter on November 05, 2021, 07:10:14 PM
Quote
But why turn "Science" into a pretzel in order to try to fix an underlying social problem.

Science makes challah bread look like a baguette. A pretzel would still be a simplification. The science most people are taught is simple because that's either age appropriate or good enough to get by. Science itself is incredibly complex, especially when it comes to biology. It's the "gender critical" people who are abusing science to justify transphobia.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDeamon on November 05, 2021, 08:01:44 PM

Sorry, but this is an absurdly reductionist position - nothing has any purpose, anything goes, since the universe is random. First of all, it is not a "scientitic fact" that nothing happens for any reason. It's just one of the possibilities, but the one you are hanging your hat on despite there being no evidence that it's correct. So to argue that there are no features or bugs, just chemistry, already assumes a bunch of stuff not in evidence. But putting aside the onolotogical realities of the universe (or the metaphysics of it), you are also playing a motte and bailey game with the phrase "it just happens", as if you're pretending to place no value judgement on one outcome versus another. By your logic, eyes are not "for seeing" since that's a purpose-oriented definition, therefore there's nothing wrong with eyes that can't see, that's just another element in the wonderful spectrum of the varieties of people out there. This is essentially the position you're taking in regard to the article you yourself linked, where the author describes certain outcomes (that you are calling a "continuum of sex") as defective processes. The final destination of your argument is that since there is an infinite variety of mutations a human can have, and a near-infinite amount of things that can go wrong in processes, that there is no right or wrong outcome for any human system, just variety. If this is your position then I would argue it is as far from science and also as far from common sense as an argument could possibly get. It's a postmodern nightmare of redefining everything into just an opinion.


Actually, I think I covered all your objections in my initial statement.

Note that I said, "to the developmental process, there are no features or bugs.  There is just chemistry."  I limited it to the developmental process.  When you "zoom out" to the final product of the development, then there certainly are better and worse outcomes, as I admitted when I said, "Natural selection determines if it a feature or a bug."

But as far as biology is concerned, "defects" are as much an expected outcome as "perfect" outcomes.  Eyes that can't see will occur as well as eyes that can see; they are both natural outcomes, although the former (fortunately!) happens at a far lower frequency than the latter.  But--and this is the point--since they are both natural outcomes, neither can be excluded when talking about biology.

Which means that, when you are talking about the sexes in a biological sense, you can't exclude those who are "defective," whether it is physical or psychological or whatever.  Defects are just as natural as non-defects.

So scientifically (biologically), one can't say there is only XX and XY, because it ignores all the variations in between.

Acknowledging that does not mean that these variations cannot be considered "good" or "bad" or "defects" or "superhuman abilities." :)  But those judgements are based on macroscopic evaluations, based on society, environment, and other structures.  After all, those eyes that don't see are not a defect if you live in an environment without light, like those fishes that live in the mid-west aquafer.  In fact, not having eyes is actually a benefit, since it takes less energy to develop without them, as some of the species have discovered. :)

Oh, and while there could be some supernatural component to the developmental process, it has yet to reveal itself, and so occam's razor dictates that we treat is as mere chemistry until we are forced to add that extra assumption. :)

But from an evolutionary biology standpoint, which is the more proper frame to be viewing things from. Either a development is beneficial (improves the odds of propagation of posterity)--"a feature," or detrimental (no posterity result)--"a bug."

Homosexuality vs heterosexuality is actually somewhat neutral on that front, while it bias slightly against propagation, it doesn't actively hinder it either. That point is doubly valid for the numerous iterations between "completely straight" and "completely gay."

But where the Transsexuals' are concerned, it is very much a dead end. Both for the ones who come by it genetically, gestationally, or for the ones who come by it through social factors the moment they pursue HRT. Now there could be potential arguments about is being vestigal/atavistic DNA that is somehow being triggered, as there are examples of viable gender-bending animals in nature. Although they all seem to be Amphibians, lizards, or fish. (Although it was interesting when looking into that, where one set of frogs was discovered to be able to change genders after they were exposed to pesticides... Which would make a potential environmental argument for what we could be seeing playing out among our fellow humans. Where a chemical exposure flipped some DNA/RNA triggers and and sent them down an alternate and incomplete path.)

When one theory about humans in particular is that our ability to see color was atavistic DNA mutation to a pre-Jurassic state, while most of the rest of our Mammalian counterparts are still stuck with only seeing black and white--because it gave our mutual ancestors better night vision and thus enhanced ability to hide from the dinosaurs.

Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: wmLambert on November 10, 2021, 08:09:33 PM
I could have given more discussion with XX vs.XY. Scientific fact is lost on some people. Yes there are physical anomalies, but very, very few. I could have noted the Aberent sexual revolution in the late 70's, when several activists gained control of the American Psychological Association, and deep-sixed all the research that didn't agree with their own ideas. Those thousands of research studies disappeared as if they were never written.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: LetterRip on November 10, 2021, 08:28:50 PM
But from an evolutionary biology standpoint, which is the more proper frame to be viewing things from. Either a development is beneficial (improves the odds of propagation of posterity)--"a feature," or detrimental (no posterity result)--"a bug."

Vast majority are neutral.

Quote
Homosexuality vs heterosexuality is actually somewhat neutral on that front, while it bias slightly against propagation, it doesn't actively hinder it either. That point is doubly valid for the numerous iterations between "completely straight" and "completely gay."

May actually be beneficial in moderate percentages in social species by improving the odds of survival of nieces and nephews, especially in resource scare times (eg most of history).

Quote
But where the Transsexuals' are concerned, it is very much a dead end. Both for the ones who come by it genetically, gestationally, or for the ones who come by it through social factors the moment they pursue HRT.

Nope.  Evolution is at the level of genes, not organisms.  You can pass on your own genes, or you can help a sibling or cousins offspring.  It would only be a 'dead end' if universally expressed.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Wayward Son on November 11, 2021, 07:04:41 PM
Quote
When one theory about humans in particular is that our ability to see color was atavistic DNA mutation to a pre-Jurassic state, while most of the rest of our Mammalian counterparts are still stuck with only seeing black and white--because it gave our mutual ancestors better night vision and thus enhanced ability to hide from the dinosaurs.

You do know that both dogs (https://www.pedigree.com/dog-care/dog-facts/do-dogs-see-only-in-black-and-white) and cats (https://www.wired.com/2013/10/cats-eye-view/) see a limited range of color, not just strictly black and white.  Which probably means other mammals have a limited range, too.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: LetterRip on November 12, 2021, 08:19:44 AM
Quote
When one theory about humans in particular is that our ability to see color was atavistic DNA mutation to a pre-Jurassic state, while most of the rest of our Mammalian counterparts are still stuck with only seeing black and white--because it gave our mutual ancestors better night vision and thus enhanced ability to hide from the dinosaurs.

Dinosaurs were extinct 65 million years ago.  A distant pre-primate ancestor (agnathan vertebrates - a 'fish') of humans had tetrachromatic (4 color) vision (540 million years ago) and more recent mammilian ancestors actually lost the capability during the time of the dinosaurs due to switching to nocturnal (color vision doesn't work well at night so a mutation that loses the capability won't be selected against).  Primates didn't regain color vision till 30 million years ago after dinosaurs went extinct and a return to diurnal.  Also monochromatic vision is 'black and white', primates, their post tetrachromatic ancestor and humans have never been monochromatic - always at least dichromatic.  (However we don't rely on our color vision at night).

Most of the theories on primates gaining trichromatic vision is related to finding food (possibly 'ripe fruit', possibly young, less bitter leaves, etc.)

So not sure where that 'dinosaur' theory came from but it is nonsensical.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: LetterRip on November 12, 2021, 09:25:09 AM
Primates didn't regain color vision

Should be 'regain trichromatic vision' since they always had at least dichromatic vision.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 22, 2021, 05:51:44 PM
https://news.yahoo.com/jk-rowling-condemns-activists-for-posting-her-address-to-twitter-perhaps-the-best-way-to-prove-your-movement-isnt-a-threat-to-women-is-to-stop-stalkingus-165542194.html

"I’ve now received so many death threats I could paper the house with them, and I haven’t stopped speaking out," she wrote in part. "Perhaps — and I’m just throwing this out there – the best way to prove your movement isn’t a threat to women, is to stop stalking, harassing and threatening us."

I wonder if this might even be appropriate for the vigilante justice thread.

Was her crime really so terrible that this is the justice it deserved?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Wayward Son on November 22, 2021, 06:56:10 PM
No, it wasn't.  ::) >:(

But it's par for the course these days.  :'(

Every controversial stance that gets wide circulation on the internet results in threats, either physical, death threats, or both.  Name one person who is famous and controversial who hasn't gotten them.  P.Z. Myers has gotten them (https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2021/11/10/cops-are-useless/), and do you even know or care who he is? :)  It's like a knee-jerk reaction these days--say something that a bunch of people strongly disagree with, and get threaten.  >:(

And it doesn't matter which side you're on, or if you're not even on a side.  The anonymous nature of the internet empowers some jerk or other to feel that he can threaten someone without consequences.  And he is almost always right.  >:(

I feel bad for her.  I like her books.  She seems like a nice person.  And even if I disagree with what she says, she shouldn't be threatened for it.

I wish there was something we could do about it.  (Perhaps remove the anonymous nature of the web?  ;) )
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on November 22, 2021, 11:33:11 PM
I tend to agree. Death threats are serious and I don't know what level of consequence there should be, but it seems like at best people get deplatformed only to prop up a replacement account within minutes. I would like to see it prosecuted as a crime, but I think the distinguishing factor is when someone says "I will kill you" versus "I want you dead, or I hope you die."

If just wishing someone would get a pipe bomb in the mail got someone in legal trouble constituted a death threat, courts could never handle the strain.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDeamon on November 29, 2021, 02:06:25 PM
So not sure where that 'dinosaur' theory came from but it is nonsensical.

The dinosaurs comments was to give a time frame, not a causation. Although mammals of the era are widely understood to have been small, even by current standards, and mostly nocturnal all the same.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: DJQuag on December 01, 2021, 06:29:05 AM
Fun fact - most dinosaurs were smaller sized. The big ones get coverage because their bones look good in museums, but it was an entire ecosystem and even the little ones were still dinosaurs. Including the birds!
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on December 15, 2021, 07:50:58 AM
I wish there was something we could do about it.
There is.

Point out to your transgender friends that a human being is allowed to define the word "woman" in whatever way (like say, same as "AFAB") that that human being wants to define it.

You'll do that now won't you?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Wayward Son on December 15, 2021, 11:13:00 AM
I do like to point out that "male" and "female" are culturally defined, and therefore subject to change, to those who think that biology alone defines gender.  So I am doing that. :)

However, I was talking about people being threatened on the internet for taking controversial stands, regardless of the stand. :(  So I don't quite see how defining the word "woman" would help.  ;)
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on December 15, 2021, 02:33:56 PM
well JKR tried to define "same-sex attraction" and look what it got her

and now Dawkins is on her side there

you've lost, TRA
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on December 15, 2021, 03:31:26 PM
Darryl Dawkins, the basketball player?

Quote
Point out to your transgender friends that a human being is allowed to define the word "woman" in whatever way (like say, same as "AFAB") that that human being wants to define it.

The problem is when there are legal and social implications. Should Joe's definition of a woman according to the equipment issued at birth trump how Jane's definition of a woman and how they define themselves?

What happens when the operator of a female-only gym wants to bar a transgender individual from joining?

What about a scholarship offered by the Society of Women Engineers earmarked for a woman?

If two individuals are in opposition of the usage of a term, that creates a tension that ultimately has to be resolved with a winner and a loser. Because there are real ramifications that extend beyond everybody getting to decide for themselves.

Nobody ought to physically threaten Rowling for her backward and insulting views, but her publishers certainly might threaten to drop her and there's nothing wrong with that.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on December 15, 2021, 04:30:44 PM
the real question is why I can't choose to fear the transgender

I wish to fear all TRAs, too.

Do I have your permission to fear the transgender and TRAs?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Wayward Son on December 15, 2021, 04:40:12 PM
Out of curiosity (and to help clarity in this conversation), what does TRA stand for?  ???
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on December 15, 2021, 05:29:49 PM
You're free to fear any group that you want, including clowns and carnies. If you act on that fear, then there's a potential problem depending on your impact on the freedom of those individuals.

TRA is a term meaning "Trans Rights Activist", the only place I see it is a twitter hashtag, I haven't encountered it before. It seems to be employed by people who resist any part of trans recognition, but sometimes used by those who are in favor. The crowd that use it tend to frame parental support for trans children as abuse, any recognition of an individual's choice as a moral failure of society, and in many cases a psychological mental health aberration.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on December 15, 2021, 06:27:23 PM
I was constructively fired from Safeway because I fear the transgender.

The transgender make me physically ill.

I was about to vomit.

I require an Accommodation. I cannot work when I see a transgender co-worker. I'm perfectly willing to work around that thing (meaning, transgender human being)'s schedule. I just need to know when NOT to come in to work.

Seem fair?

Pete at Home would understand

"transgender butch lesbian". Chew on that, and tell me how a Google image search would distinguish between a "transgender butch lesbian" and a "heterosexual male".
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDeamon on December 15, 2021, 07:05:28 PM
"transgender butch lesbian". Chew on that, and tell me how a Google image search would distinguish between a "transgender butch lesbian" and a "heterosexual male".

Have you seen many butch lesbians? Most men wouldn't meet that criteria.

It's part of why my joke has always been "Lesbian trapped in a man's body" without the butch modifier, although I guess if one had to be attached it would be "non-fem" for whatever that's worth.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: yossarian22c on December 15, 2021, 07:06:54 PM
Pete at Home would understand

Always fun when “new” members name drop people who haven’t been around in years.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on December 15, 2021, 07:16:23 PM
Pete at Home would understand

Always fun when “new” members name drop people who haven’t been around in years.

Lol, yeah, I was wondering who it was. Hey Ephrem, maybe you can go check out my Last Chance Ender thread, as maybe you'd have some insight into the Mormon beliefs and how they translate into Card's metaphysics in the Ender series. I was kind of sad you weren't around when I started the thread.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on December 15, 2021, 07:47:52 PM
I like South Park's views on the LDS religion
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on December 15, 2021, 07:53:46 PM
The Eastern Orthodox Christian Church has "won".

Fr. Matthew Tate's Church of the Annunciation has "won".

Fr. Tom Hopko's https://www.oca.org has "won".

And I, John Mark Moseley, am a prophet.

test me
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on December 16, 2021, 04:34:54 AM
You make me want to vomit, EM, you narrow minded prejudiced troglodyte. Go back to the cave you clambered out from.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Aris Katsaris on December 16, 2021, 09:37:55 AM
I require an Accommodation. I cannot work when I see a transgender co-worker. I'm perfectly willing to work around that thing (meaning, transgender human being)'s schedule. I just need to know when NOT to come in to work.

Seem fair?

Is this some sort of joke I'm not getting?

But in case it's serious -- no, it doesn't seem "fair". What if people wanted "accommodations" because they couldn't work when they saw female co-workers, or male co-workers, or black co-workers, or white co-workers?

That doesn't seem like a workable system of "accomodations".

It seems more like a personal issue you need to work on with a therapist.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Wayward Son on December 16, 2021, 11:23:23 AM
If it actually makes you physically ill, Ephrem, you definitely need an accommodation.  No reason to have your teeth rot out of you mouth.

Best would be to put you in the back room, either doing paperwork or moving items in the store room.  If that isn't good enough, we'll have to find you another job that doesn't require you to interact with the public.  No one can expect you do to a job you are physically unable to perform.

One thing no one can do is require another person to change who they are to accommodate you.

If we could do that, let me tell you how I feel every time Donald Trump opens his fat mouth.  ;D
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on December 16, 2021, 12:15:05 PM
I'll get a lawyer then.

I'll take this to SCOTUS then, if necessary, I'll get help from Jerry Falwell Jr.

I already filed the ethics complaint with Safeway Corporate.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on December 16, 2021, 12:16:59 PM
(this is a very stupid way to test me but whatever)

(I'm not Pete at Home I just have a very good memory I was a lurker way back when)
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: rightleft22 on December 16, 2021, 01:05:42 PM
Ephrem Moseley
not sure I follow: Are you saying that a company should accommodate you (or anyone) because you have a 'physical' revulsion to working with someone who is trans?

Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: yossarian22c on December 16, 2021, 01:20:29 PM
Ephrem Moseley
not sure I follow: Are you saying that a company should accommodate you (or anyone) because you have a 'physical' revulsion to working with someone who is trans?

Which would be weird unless your job involved sexual relations with your coworkers.

But I think he was just trying to post a reductio ad absurdum argument with some humor and just failed all around.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Wayward Son on December 16, 2021, 04:28:41 PM
I'll get a lawyer then.

I'll take this to SCOTUS then, if necessary, I'll get help from Jerry Falwell Jr.

I already filed the ethics complaint with Safeway Corporate.

You do that.  Try to get the courts to rule that being physically incapable of performing a job is grounds to make trans people change their lifestyle.  With this court, you might stand a chance. :)

Then paraplegics can become warehouse stockers.  Blind men can be traffic cops.  And deaf people can be music critics for major newspapers.  ;D  After all, if unreasonable accommodations are mandated, there are no reasonable limits for anything.

Trumpists make me physically nauseous, so I'll be able to follow suit right after your suit. :)

So go ahead.  You and Falwell Jr. should definitely file suit.  And don't forget Falwell's pool boy.  (Falwell always includes his pool boy, you know. ;) )
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on December 18, 2021, 12:38:08 AM
Ephrem Moseley
not sure I follow: Are you saying that a company should accommodate you (or anyone) because you have a 'physical' revulsion to working with someone who is trans?
Yeah, just schedule me around that thing's schedule, that's all I ask

I prefer not to vomit at Safeway
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on December 18, 2021, 12:39:29 AM

You do that.  Try to get the courts to rule that being physically incapable of performing a job is grounds to make trans people change their lifestyle.  With this court, you might stand a chance. :)
Slam-dunk.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on December 18, 2021, 12:41:59 AM

One thing no one can do is require another person to change who they are to accommodate you.
strawman that thing can dress however it wants to that doesn't mean I must be forced to look at it
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on December 18, 2021, 01:00:21 AM
I mean, it's like everyone is assuming that everyone will follow my lead.

Which I guess makes sense.

People are asking me for my autograph now.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on December 19, 2021, 02:21:55 AM
You make me want to vomit, EM, you narrow minded prejudiced troglodyte. Go back to the cave you clambered out from.
smile
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Wayward Son on December 20, 2021, 05:38:05 PM

One thing no one can do is require another person to change who they are to accommodate you.
strawman that thing can dress however it wants to that doesn't mean I must be forced to look at it

Hey, I have to look at you, and you make me want to puke.  What can I do about that? ;)
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on December 20, 2021, 08:58:45 PM
Hey, I have to look at you, and you make me want to puke.  What can I do about that? ;)
well, all I want to do is to be permitted to leave whenever I see a transgender co-worker

so: you have my permission to leave!
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on December 20, 2021, 10:55:12 PM
I'm just trying to piece together what the ironic running joke is meant to point out.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on December 20, 2021, 11:01:21 PM
it's no joke

Heaven and Hell are forming, right before our eyes

High-value women decide who gets to go to Heaven: polygamy will make a return

Those high-value women will do that based on who they think will be the best fathers for children

The best fathers for children value anything that benefits children over their own sexual pleasure

High-value women never choose a man who values his own sexual pleasure above all else

those who don't get the high-value women suffer eternally: they could have had that, and they lost, eternally
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on December 20, 2021, 11:12:25 PM
Another illucid response from EM.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on December 20, 2021, 11:12:45 PM
If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on December 20, 2021, 11:47:20 PM
well fine but I just wonder why women are so giddy around me lately and why I'm being asked for my autograph that never happened before

if, as an ugly male, you want to attract a stunningly beautiful female, then Christianity is the way to do it

that is my life experience
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on December 21, 2021, 12:59:49 AM
well fine but I just wonder why women are so giddy around me lately and why I'm being asked for my autograph that never happened before

if, as an ugly male, you want to attract a stunningly beautiful female, then Christianity is the way to do it

that is my life experience

Doesn't seem to be working for the incels.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on December 21, 2021, 01:10:31 AM
Christian males don't have sex before marriage
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: DJQuag on December 21, 2021, 03:53:12 AM
Ya'll probably know my posts, and how I tend to respond and speak.

Take it from someone who knows, this "Ephrem Moseley," fellow is on something lol. That or it's a really crappy troll gambit.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on December 21, 2021, 08:44:54 AM
Ya'll probably know my posts, and how I tend to respond and speak.

Take it from someone who knows, this "Ephrem Moseley," fellow is on something lol. That or it's a really crappy troll gambit.
ad hominem

attack the argument please
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: alai on December 22, 2021, 05:41:44 AM
well JKR tried to define "same-sex attraction" and look what it got her

and now Dawkins is on her side there

you've lost, TRA
I realize that the right is endlessly enthusiastic about restricting the democratic franchise, but unless it's literally down to three people -- at least two of them Brits, oddly enough -- this seems like poor evidence for the claim made.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Wayward Son on December 22, 2021, 07:45:52 PM
Hey, I have to look at you, and you make me want to puke.  What can I do about that? ;)
well, all I want to do is to be permitted to leave whenever I see a transgender co-worker

so: you have my permission to leave!

Well, if you can demonstrate that you consistently cannot control your stomach when you see this coworker, and are not malingering, I see no reason that they should not accommodate you.

OTOH, if you mean it figuratively, then you don't need a court decree to take care of the situation.  Just leave, as you suggest.  Quit.  Find another job with coworkers you can stand.

Of course, if a transgender person joins that job, too, then you can quit that one also.  Just keep leaving jobs until you find one you can tolerate.

It seems pretty silly, but if that's the life you want to live, it's a free country.

Heck, feel free to move to Russia or Iran if you'd like.  I'm sure they don't have such problems.  You have all sorts of options.

The only option you don't have is to force your petty morality/religion on another person.  Not in this country. :)
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: alai on December 22, 2021, 09:54:29 PM
Well, if you can demonstrate that you consistently cannot control your stomach when you see this coworker, and are not malingering, I see no reason that they should not accommodate you.
Perhaps Epsom Mosley's personal commitment to transphobia is such that they consider the use of emetics in the cause to be a legit tactic?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Wayward Son on December 24, 2021, 01:34:44 AM
Thinking about it, there are a few other strategies you should consider.

Have you talked to your doctor about it?  He may be able to prescribe Pepsid or Prilosec to control the acid in your stomach.

Have you also considered talking to a psychiatrist?  There are medications to help control anxiety which may help.  And I'll bet there are therapies that might help you discover the root cause of your problem.  Perhaps some past trauma or some silly story you heard in childhood that makes you fear trans people and find them disgusting.  Mental health problems can be helped.

You should seriously consider doing these things before bringing it up in court.  I think they would be far more effective.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: alai on December 24, 2021, 01:37:33 AM
Or write to JK Rowling, see if she's lending out any of her spare castles to fellow transphobes on a charitable basis.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 17, 2022, 11:35:22 PM
Let's see.

JK Rowling, Mark Hamill, John Cleese, Richard Dawkins, Patton Oswalt, and me.

Well it's a start. I know, it's only six people.

(I am writing to you all now from the friendly incarceration in CATC in Portland, Oregon)

(CATC is a longer-term psych ward that is for people like me after a hospital ER)
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 18, 2022, 12:17:03 AM
If your political opponents are attacking each other, don't get in the way.

The left will devour themselves over this.

To a transphobic person, it might be a little sad to see the sports teams that were built up for women and girls get taken over by... well... great people who are also women and girls but happened to be born as men and boys.

Of course it's nice that the trans people will have a place, more often than not in the winner's circle, in high school and college sports and I suppose if you lament that the girls who were born girls and the women who were born women will be getting the shaft, as it were, that just makes you a hateful person. Better to just  accept it and be pleased with political progress. The more political progress the woke left makes, the more liberals they leave scratching their heads wondering which side they should be on.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: alai on January 18, 2022, 04:34:09 AM
If your political opponents are attacking each other, don't get in the way.
The right wing will have to do a lot better camo job than they're doing right now for this strategy to work.  Oh, and somehow have us forget everything they've had to say on the topic.

Of course it's nice that the trans people will have a place, more often than not in the winner's circle, in high school and college sports and I suppose if you lament that the girls who were born girls and the women who were born women will be getting the shaft, as it were, that just makes you a hateful person.
Things resembling this particular straw man, for example.

Can't really advise "get out the way" while indulging yourself in "see how much I'm enjoying getting in the way???" in the very next breath.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 18, 2022, 08:33:41 AM
No sane person cares about transwomen in sports.

That's a distraction.

The real issue is AFAB women getting raped in prison by transwomen.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Wayward Son on January 18, 2022, 10:38:27 AM
No sane person cares about transwomen in sports.

That's a distraction.

The real issue is AFAB women getting raped in prison by transwomen.

So you'd saying that rape in prison is primarily a trans problem?  ???

What planet have you been living on???  ::)
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 18, 2022, 12:55:09 PM
More people are going to be directly affected by transwomen and transgirls in grade school, high school, and college sports. Seeing their daughters and themselves not get their Squid Game's fair shot on the playground is going to hurt them personally in a way that women getting raped by women in prison is less likely to do. When you see in a swim competition all of the women coming within a second or two of each other and the transwoman winning by a huge difference of ten seconds or something, many people have just the gut reaction of wondering how fair that really is.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: rightleft22 on January 18, 2022, 02:11:52 PM
My brother in law makes these kind of, what I call, rotten apple arguments where
100 apples one of which is rotten means the whole basket/notion/idea/moment is rotten... I win.
Very frustrating to engage with 
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Grant on January 18, 2022, 02:29:59 PM
My brother in law makes these kind of, what I call, rotten apple arguments where
100 apples one of which is rotten means the whole basket/notion/idea/moment is rotten... I win.
Very frustrating to engage with

Nutpicking. 
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: alai on January 18, 2022, 02:40:40 PM
No sane person cares about transwomen in sports.

That's a distraction.

The real issue is AFAB women getting raped in prison by transwomen.
English-language note:  trans functioning as an adjective here.  Traditionally those come with spaces.  Thisisnotgermanwearespeakinghere.

From observational studies of TERFs and "traditional" disparagers of trans people , the "real issue" is anything that gets them to a cleft-stick argument.  On the one hand they need a talking point where it'd be bad if trans people transitioned too little or too late.  On the other, they need one where it'd be bad if trans people transitioned too much or too soon.  Then it just remains to inch -- or gish-gallop, according to taste -- the two together until there's literally no way trans people can win either way.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 18, 2022, 08:38:27 PM
So you'd saying that rape in prison is primarily a trans problem?  ???
No, I did not say that.

Instead, I said it was a problem.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 18, 2022, 08:40:26 PM
fair shot on the playground is going to hurt them personally in a way that women getting raped by women in prison is less likely to do
wow!

I disrespectfully disagree.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 18, 2022, 08:42:35 PM
My brother in law makes these kind of, what I call, rotten apple arguments where
100 apples one of which is rotten means the whole basket/notion/idea/moment is rotten... I win.
Very frustrating to engage with
Believe me, I understand. It's the same kind of argument with rotten police officers.

The problem is not with transwomen. It's with predators *pretending* to be transwomen.

The vast majority of predators are AMAB.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 18, 2022, 08:47:47 PM

English-language note:  trans functioning as an adjective here.  Traditionally those come with spaces.  Thisisnotgermanwearespeakinghere.
nah that's a trick on the path to arguing TWAW.

Transwomen are NOT women.

Well, according to at least six people.

You don't get to define language for others. The words I use mean exactly what I want them to mean.

So transwomen it is for me.

Quote
From observational studies of TERFs and "traditional" disparagers of trans people , the "real issue" is anything that gets them to a cleft-stick argument.  On the one hand they need a talking point where it'd be bad if trans people transitioned too little or too late.  On the other, they need one where it'd be bad if trans people transitioned too much or too soon.  Then it just remains to inch -- or gish-gallop, according to taste -- the two together until there's literally no way trans people can win either way.
agreed, there is no way transwomen can win either way

they are correct that JK Rowling's POV leads to suicide: personality suicides, if not literal ones

am I banned yet?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 18, 2022, 08:49:23 PM
Of course, I'm not saying the convict women getting raped by transwomen in prison are hurt less personally.

I'm saying that it's more likely for people to personally know females who get beaten in sports by transwomen, or to be beaten themselves, so it's going to seem like a bigger issue because it affects more people. It's numbers, not severity.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 18, 2022, 08:50:38 PM
Of course, I'm not saying the convict women getting raped by transwomen in prison are hurt less personally.

I'm saying that it's more likely for people to personally know females who get beaten in sports by transwomen so it's going to seem like a bigger issue because it affects more people. It's numbers, not severity.
wow!!!
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 18, 2022, 08:57:45 PM
I'm not sure what your issue is with this. I'm not saying women getting raped in prison isn't a problem. But there aren't twenty states right now passing laws about it. That's not what people are getting upset about at PTA meetings. And there are already laws against it. Nobody is arguing that transwomen should be free to rape women in prison, but people are arguing that if transwomen in sports beat everyone they are competing against by huge margins, margins never seen previously, ten seconds or more in track or swimming, by multiple stones in weightlifting or what have you, that's fair and square, as it should be, and the system is working as intended. If the girls no longer have a fair shot at an athletic scholarship when there is a transwoman in the mix, there is nothing wrong with that at all. In fact, it's magnificent. That's progress.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: alai on January 18, 2022, 08:59:14 PM
Transwomen are NOT women.

Well, according to at least six people.

You don't get to define language for others. The words I use mean exactly what I want them to mean.
You do you, Humpty-Dumpty.  But trans is most definitely an adjective.  Source:  the English language.

You realize this is of course a dangerously Centrist Dad position.  Trans people will be mildly annoyed at the phrase-embedded space, and give up on you as a standard-issue hopeless case at the statement of dismissal.  But the hardcore trads and the TERFs will both despise you for even using that degree of recognition, and will instead insist of decades-old alternatives.  Or ones they've made up themselves to be yet more slurry still.

Quote
agreed, there is no way transwomen can win either way
You don't sound so sure about trans men.  Or just not nearly as interested.  But my statement was deliberately about trans people generally;  the TERFs definitely have a panic on both fronts in mind.  The "trad" transphobes, who knows about.  Tolstoy's unhappy families.

Quote
am I banned yet?
From?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on January 18, 2022, 09:04:12 PM
When it comes to prison rape, you do realize that male staff are the significant threat to women, right? And that women can also sexually assault fellow women?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 18, 2022, 09:05:26 PM
I'm not sure what your issue is with this. I'm not saying women getting raped in prison isn't a problem. But there aren't twenty states right now passing laws about it. That's not what people are getting upset about at PTA meetings. And there are already laws against it. Nobody is arguing that transwomen should be free to rape women in prison, but people are arguing that if transwomen in sports beat everyone they are competing against by huge margins, margins never seen previously, ten seconds or more in track or swimming, by multiple stones in weightlifting or what have you, that's fair and square, as it should be, and the system is working as intended. If the girls no longer have a fair shot at an athletic scholarship when there is a transwoman in the mix, there is nothing wrong with that at all. In fact, it's magnificent. That's progress.
one situation has a solution, and the other one doesn't, from the POV of the woman in question

I mean, start your own sports league

you don't get to choose your cellmate as far as I can tell
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 18, 2022, 09:06:33 PM
When it comes to prison rape, you do realize that male staff are the significant threat to women, right? And that women can also sexually assault fellow women?
yup

doesn't mean we should add more opportunities for predators who pretend to be transwomen to get their jollies
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: alai on January 18, 2022, 09:07:32 PM
The problem is not with transwomen. It's with predators *pretending* to be transwomen.
That might be a problem in some contexts.  Question is, is it a real one, so much as one that just looms huge in transphobic imagination and talking points?  And in what sense is it addressed by slandering, erasing, and denying the rights of (actual) trans people?

The vast majority of predators are AMAB.
Maybe you really are of the Radical Feminist flavour.  If gender-identity isn't the problem, but (an essentialist take on) biological sex, why are you fixating on the "gender" presentation, as opposed to the actual "sex" problem?  (Not that I'm trying to recruit you to Mary Daly's "radical male population reduction" solution, I wish to stress.)
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 18, 2022, 09:13:38 PM
You do you, Humpty-Dumpty.  But trans is most definitely an adjective.  Source:  the English language.
then: I do not claim to speak English as you do. I have forked it into a dialect that I like.

Quote
You realize this is of course a dangerously Centrist Dad position.
it's worse than that

not only am I a transphobe, it shouldn't surprise you that (using your language of course, which I am familiar with) I am a homophobe, a racist, a sexist, and best of ALL, a fascist. Look to the left...

Quote
You don't sound so sure about trans men.  Or just not nearly as interested.  But my statement was deliberately about trans people generally;  the TERFs definitely have a panic on both fronts in mind.  The "trad" transphobes, who knows about.  Tolstoy's unhappy families.
not as interested; transmen are not nearly as much as a problem because the vast majority of predators are AMAB

my problem is with PREDATORS do you understand? IOW heterosexual men pretending...

do you understand?

transwomen are collateral damage, sadly, no other option, someone must lose here

Quote
From?
you name it, I've been it, I'm seeing how long I can last here
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 18, 2022, 09:19:07 PM
That might be a problem in some contexts.  Question is, is it a real one, so much as one that just looms huge in transphobic imagination and talking points?  And in what sense is it addressed by slandering, erasing, and denying the rights of (actual) trans people?
Yes. It is a fact that AFAB women have been raped by persons AMAB claiming to be a "woman"

We can EASILY drive that kind of rape to zero. EASILY.

Collateral damage yes, and I do not care, they're mentally ill (using my language of course)

Quote
Maybe you really are of the Radical Feminist flavour.  If gender-identity isn't the problem, but (an essentialist take on) biological sex, why are you fixating on the "gender" presentation, as opposed to the actual "sex" problem?  (Not that I'm trying to recruit you to Mary Daly's "radical male population reduction" solution, I wish to stress.)
JK Rowling explained this far better than I ever could...
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: alai on January 18, 2022, 09:33:00 PM
then: I do not claim to speak English as you do. I have forked it into a dialect that I like.
Technical term is idiolect.  (No really, that's not a insult by portmanteau, or such like, much as it might sound like it.)

Quote
Quote
You realize this is of course a dangerously Centrist Dad position.
it's worse than that

not only am I a transphobe, it shouldn't surprise you that (using your language of course, which I am familiar with) I am a homophobe, a racist, a sexist, and best of ALL, a fascist. Look to the left...
When I said "you realize of course", to spell it out a little more clearly -- as is evidently required! -- it was intended as a gentle hint otherwise.  The use of "transwoman" (or "transman", indeed) is seen as not nearly transphobic enough by the hardcore types.  So you're in danger of striking them as an obnoxiously accommodating moderate.  Which I don't think is the vibe you're going for.

Quote
do you understand? [...]

do you understand?
Are you stuck in a loop?

Quote
transwomen are collateral damage, sadly, no other option, someone must lose here
Why must they?  You're dismissive of cherry's more mix-and-match suite of concerns, and don't give a damn about trans men.  So what on earth argues for some broad-spectrum anti-trans agenda -- or even attitudes -- if the physical spaces for women thing is your only worry?  And to reiterate the point you seem determined to miss:  what do you plan on doing about the vastly predominant risk to the physical safety of women -- to wit, cis males.

If the answer is "because I really want them to lose", just skip straight to it.

Quote
you name it, I've been it, I'm seeing how long I can last here
From here?  Huh.  Weird.  I'd bet money both the honorary patron and the (now site?) admin are both well to the right of you on this issue.  While Crunch insists there was a Vast Purge of people even further to the right than them in the previous server-move, I find that strains credibility.  I'm not going to share my theories as to how you might get banned as a) I don't want to be seen to be encouraging you, and b) I don't want to actually encourage you.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: alai on January 18, 2022, 09:38:33 PM
We can EASILY drive that kind of rape to zero. EASILY.
And why is this tiny fraction the only ones you care about "driving" anywhere?  Especially if it's just by semantic trick that doesn't reduce the total at all.

Quote
Collateral damage yes, and I do not care, they're mentally ill (using my language of course)
They're "pretending" and they're "mentally ill"?  Have you lost track of your own theory here?

Quote
JK Rowling explained this far better than I ever could...
Well, that's damning her with faint praise, on this issue and otherwise.  But JKR is indeed of the TERFy sort -- loosely speaking at least:  certainly a self-identifying left-wing feminist, and one with a long of the "second wave" analysis of a number of issues, if not precisely "radical".
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 18, 2022, 11:42:49 PM
Are you stuck in a loop?
No, I am trying to get an answer, and you seem to be evasive to me.
Quote
Why must they?
Because no AFAB should ever be imprisoned with an AMAB. Never. They lose, or transwomen lose.

Too dangerous because any AMAB predator has the ability to present himself as a transwomen. Further, AFAB predators are a rounding error as compared to AMAB predators.

Hell, such a AMAB predator could claim to be a transgender butch lesbian! No changes required at all! I guess that never occurred to you.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: alai on January 18, 2022, 11:47:38 PM
Further, AFAB predators are a rounding error as compared to AMAB predators.
You're insisting on continuing to miss the entire actual "rounding error" point here.  (I'm genuinely unsure whether deliberately or by other means.)  Why care so much about largely hypothetical trans offenders, and so clearly very little about cis male ones?

Rather than trying to hijack a trans thread into a "because sexual offenders!" one, you could alternatively try having an actual serious discussion on sexual offending generally.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 18, 2022, 11:50:06 PM
And why is this tiny fraction the only ones you care about "driving" anywhere?  Especially if it's just by semantic trick that doesn't reduce the total at all.
Fair question. It's because we are currently in the middle of a cultural shift. Either TWAW or they're not; each culture must decide that.

If it's completely accepted that TWAW, in the same way that gay marriage is now accepted to be marriage (as compared to the 70s), then all AMAB predators rejoice, yes? The numbers here are directional. They ARE NOT STATIC, I apologize for shouting, but I thought that this was obvious.
Quote
They're "pretending" and they're "mentally ill"?  Have you lost track of your own theory here?
No, you've misunderstood. The ones pretending are the predators. They can pretend to be transgender butch lesbians right now.

Now, being a predator is certainly a mental illness, but that wasn't the group I was referring to. I was instead saying that all transgender people are mentally ill, just as they were considered to be pre-70s.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 18, 2022, 11:51:59 PM
You're insisting on continuing to miss the entire actual "rounding error" point here.  (I'm genuinely unsure whether deliberately or by other means.)  Why care so much about largely hypothetical trans offenders, and so clearly very little about cis male ones?
because the numbers ARE NOT STATIC, plus "transgender butch lesbians" pretending makes predators salivate (if and only if that is culturally accepted), I believe it's fair to say.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 19, 2022, 06:50:51 AM
And the thing about all the high school and college girls and even the pro athletes who are getting shut out of their own sports by transwomen is that they can't really say anything, not without severe consequences from the tolerant liberal mob. This is happening in the most liberal bastions of America so many of these people would be liberals themselves, are in almost all other regards, but they are getting an up close and personal experience about the sacrifices lofty ideals on paper entail in real life. And there is no recourse because there can be no discourse. They see what happened to Rowling among many others and there's nothing to stop any of that and a whole lot worse from happening to any of them if they dare to dissent. That's going to push their resentment and quest for justice underground where it will remain buried until they get into the privacy of the voting booth when they can finally unleash their fury at having all of their years of training come to naught, without a fair shot at valuable opportunities or even the possibility of seeing their dreams come true.

It's an incredibly valuable lesson and though the cost may seem high now, in comparison to the price many others around the world paid to learn it, these girls and young women are getting off cheap. People in Venezuela and Cuba wished they could have learned their lesson about liberalism so early in life, that when they come from the hard left, the end results of the promises of equality and social justice when they finally get delivered are never quite as good as they sounded in the beginning.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: rightleft22 on January 19, 2022, 08:56:40 AM
Quote
And the thing about all the high school and college girls and even the pro athletes who are getting shut out of their own sports by transwomen
Do we have data on this?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDeamon on January 19, 2022, 12:34:13 PM
I'm saying that it's more likely for people to personally know females who get beaten in sports by transwomen so it's going to seem like a bigger issue because it affects more people. It's numbers, not severity.
wow!!!

It's documented fact now. A transwoman competing in a high school swim meet beat their competitors by a wide margin. In fact, the margin was so wide they set new records for the competition while doing so, from my understanding of things. Leading to a lot of upset officials and especially parents.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDeamon on January 19, 2022, 12:53:36 PM
I'm saying that it's more likely for people to personally know females who get beaten in sports by transwomen so it's going to seem like a bigger issue because it affects more people. It's numbers, not severity.
wow!!!

It's documented fact now. A transwoman competing in a high school college swim meet beat their competitors by a wide margin. In fact, the margin was so wide they set new records for the competition while doing so, from my understanding of things. Leading to a lot of upset officials and especially parents.

Had to make a correction on that, after chasing the story down.

https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/controversy-of-the-year-transgender-swimmer-lia-thomas-swims-fastest-times-in-the-nation/
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on January 19, 2022, 01:00:29 PM
This certainly brings up some interesting questions about our gender segregated sporting world, not just for students but also professionals and international athletes. Particularly when you consider professionals who aren't just sad about not getting a blue ribbon prize, but they are going to lose significant real dollars in terms of prize money. It seems there are a few options.

1. Have the trans individual compete alongside their birth gender. This would potentially mean some havoc in some sports with respect to locker room etiquette. Individual sports - less so. If you're on the swim team, you can go change in another room. It will certainly look odd to see someone dressed like a girl and looking like a girl on the podium with the boys, but that's probably not the worst.

2. Tell the trans individual they don't get to do sports anymore. That seems pretty abusive to me. I know you love soccer, but now that you identify as a woman you can't play anymore?

3. Let them compete with their identified gender. This leads to what we're already talking about which is problematic with respect to competition.

4. Create their own special category. No one has ever tried this one out yet, but would certainly rile up the transwomen are women crowd.

5. Handicap them in some way. Add or subtract time. Only works in races. Imperfect, but could scale it to the respective records for men versus women.

6. Desegregate sports. Just take the ten fastest athletes regardless of gender and say here you go. Most of this time you'll have boys dominate the top spots, but I would expect some women to pop into the "A" class and be able to beat some of the boys - and not all of them would be trans.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on January 19, 2022, 01:17:48 PM
Unfortunately, TheDrake, all of those options are either untenable or unacceptable, once one is intent on conflating personal comportment guidelines (how you treat someone you meet in daily life) with official policies. For instance, the proposition "treat and address this individual as if they are a woman", which is often argued to be a matter of goodwill, politeness, etc, is not the same as the proposition "this person must be treated as a woman in any relevant matter in any capacity of life." Once both of these become mandatory (putting aside that the latter is impossible in some contexts, e.g. medical) it's a no-way-out scenario where someone loses. I'm talking about a narrow realm of life, mind you, of which sporting is one example. In the case of socially talking with people in a cafe and whatnot it shouldn't matter.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: rightleft22 on January 19, 2022, 01:24:18 PM
Quote
I'm saying that it's more likely for people to personally know females who get beaten in sports by transwomen
Really? 
How prevalent is the specific sport/trans issue? Is this sport issue the most important concern with regards to Trans debate?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: alai on January 19, 2022, 01:34:46 PM
1. Have the trans individual compete alongside their birth gender. This would potentially mean some havoc in some sports with respect to locker room etiquette. Individual sports - less so. If you're on the swim team, you can go change in another room. It will certainly look odd to see someone dressed like a girl and looking like a girl on the podium with the boys, but that's probably not the worst.
Not a great solution with trans male athletes, clearly.  (Yes they exist, despite the singular obsession of trad transphobes with trans women.)

Quote
2. Tell the trans individual they don't get to do sports anymore. That seems pretty abusive to me. I know you love soccer, but now that you identify as a woman you can't play anymore?
For a lot of pro sports, where in effect pretty much all women are told this, this is brutally workable solution.  But not exactly progress, to put it mildly.

Quote
3. Let them compete with their identified gender. This leads to what we're already talking about which is problematic with respect to competition.
I don't know exactly what the US collegiate rules on this, but I don't believe they're anything like as lax as "identified gender".  So that's an odd sort of straw man the trans-panickers are floating, in that they're using it to attack "self-identification", but the situation in sports is actually the even trickier one of residual benefit.

Quote
4. Create their own special category. No one has ever tried this one out yet, but would certainly rile up the transwomen are women crowd.
Or multiple special categories, in the extreme case.

Quote
5. Handicap them in some way. Add or subtract time. Only works in races. Imperfect, but could scale it to the respective records for men versus women.
In principle this'd work in any sport with a quantifiable scoring system, which given the requirement for winner and losers, is essentially all sport.  Almost certainly hugely controversial on an ongoing basis -- but in this area, what isn't?

Quote
6. Desegregate sports. Just take the ten fastest athletes regardless of gender and say here you go. Most of this time you'll have boys dominate the top spots, but I would expect some women to pop into the "A" class and be able to beat some of the boys - and not all of them would be trans.
Works great for equestrianism, which isn't segregated by gender (or sex) at all, but famously into "I'm an old-money toff!" and "obviously I don't compete in equestrianism".  Also ultramarathon running (not sure about UM cycling), it's been claimed.  But for a lot of sport this would be a lot like "pro sports situation normal", per the earlier case.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on January 19, 2022, 01:36:51 PM
Of course it isn't prevalent. But we're gonna talk about it anyway for some reason. Supposedly, if Susie from Oshkosh gets second place to Laura, a transfemale, it is crippling to her self-esteem and limiting her opportunity to be a star. It is much more important than the blow to Laura's self-esteem and eliminating her opportunity to participate in sports altogether.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: alai on January 19, 2022, 01:48:49 PM
Well, this the Ornery American forum, right?  Second place is "first loser".
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on January 19, 2022, 01:57:17 PM
I'm not sure why this didn't occur to me before, but a lot of transpeople are taking or have the option to take hormone treatments of some kind, right? I've heard some talk about issues with kids (like young teens or even pre-teens) trying to obtain such things. For adults obviously it's their choice what to take, but let's say for instance a transwoman is taking some kind of hormone in order to affect her biochemistry. I don't know if it would estrogen or something totally different (I know zero about the pharmacology in this topic), but whatever it is the person is taking, how could that legally be distinguished from steroids or other biochemistry-altering drugs? Sure, one imagines that someone wishing to be more feminine might be taking something that, if anything, would make them less 'manly' (e.g. testosterone) rather than more, but I wouldn't be able to guess if that maps 1-to-1 with making you 'weaker', for lack of a better term. Would a transwoman taking hormone treatments pass an objective drug test for sports?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Wayward Son on January 19, 2022, 02:07:26 PM
So you'd saying that rape in prison is primarily a trans problem?  ???
No, I did not say that.

Instead, I said it was a problem.

Ok, it's a problem.  So are people who irrationally hate trans people.  How big a problem?  How serious a problem?  How many rights of a person should be ignored/trampled upon to solve this problem?

But I guess you answered that:

Quote
one situation has a solution, and the other one doesn't, from the POV of the woman in question

So there is a simple, easy solution to this problem, right?  So why not do it?

But then there is the question of what happens to trans people who are shucked off men's prisons.  Wouldn't they also be subject to rape?  In fact, being trans, wouldn't they be targeted more often for rape and other persecution than if they were in a women's prison?  And what does that do to the trans person, being forced to live like a gender she doesn't believe she is?  That causes a great deal of mental suffering, as I've heard.  Isn't that just transferring the problem from one group to another?  To a group, in fact, that you don't believe are the actual perpetrators of the original crime of raping women?

Ah, yes, but you acknowledge that problem:

Quote
transwomen are collateral damage, sadly, no other option, someone must lose here

Seems like the real problem is lack of imagination on your part.

But what about transferring the problem to another group?  You've considered that, too.

Quote
Collateral damage yes, and I do not care, they're mentally ill (using my language of course)

Of course.  You're not concerned about them because they are "mentally ill."  And mentally ill people don't deserve the consideration and empathy we give "normal" people, do they?  They are less than normal people, aren't they?  Kinda sub-human, right?  I mean, you just said that you don't consider them worth the care of other people.  That puts them at a lower level, doesn't it?  A "sub" level, if you will.

Which, I strongly suspect, is the real reason you're so concerned about women being raped by pseudo-trans people in women's prison.  Because you're looking for any excuse to treat them as less-than-human.  And even though this isn't a problem that they themselves are causing, you have no problem if they are the ones punished for it because they are mentally ill.  And you have no problem punishing people who are mentally ill even if it isn't their fault.

In other words, you are full-fledged trans bigot.  No wonder why your coworker made you physically ill.  Because you don't think of him as a fellow human.

You really should consider talking to a psychiatrist.  I think she'd be able to help you.  Far more than she'd be able to help those you consider "mentally ill." :)
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on January 19, 2022, 02:32:19 PM
Quote
Collateral damage yes, and I do not care, they're mentally ill (using my language of course)

Of course.  You're not concerned about them because they are "mentally ill."  And mentally ill people don't deserve the consideration and empathy we give "normal" people, do they?  They are less than normal people, aren't they?  Kinda sub-human, right?  I mean, you just said that you don't consider them worth the care of other people.  That puts them at a lower level, doesn't it?  A "sub" level, if you will.

Ok, let's play devil's advocate for a moment and assume hypothetically that we are, in fact, talking about mentally ill people. Are you actually suggesting that people with a mental illness specifically centered around perception should have their desires based on this perception met with approval and also legal backup? For instance let's say a group of people suffering from paranoid schizophrenia were convinced that the government was spying on them 24/7, had chips in their heads, and had alien bodies hidden in a warehouse. Would you actually endorse adopting public policy to do mandatory inspections of warehouses for alien bodies, medical scans of people for microchip implants, and detailed sweeps of all public areas (and even private domiciles) for illegal surveillance devices? Would you actually advise people on a private social level to agree that they have microchip implants, to agree that the men in black are everywhere, and to demand something be done about the aliens? Now I know what you just wrote involves "consideration and empathy" but that's not actually what you're talking about, right? You're talking about not only being kind to these people, which to most decent people is a no-brainer, but also requiring others to agree with the perceptions, values, and desires of these people and in addition to change public policy and (in this case) sporting rules to accomodate them. So I ask again - would you make the same concessions to suit the perceptions of schizophrenic people who suffer from things ordinarily referred to as delusions?

After going through this exercise, the question at hand should simply be whether in fact it is true that the people in question are mentally ill. If they are not, I think the only proper answer would be to simply say they're not ill and don't have perceptual problems. The rest of your assertion seems to be a motive-speculative inference from the assertion that they're mentally ill. And let's be fair, 'Emphem' might well be playing a speculative logic-game with you, so on those grounds rather than assume villainous motives for a persona that most likely doesn't actually exist, I'd deal with the argument as presented.

So far a lot of the rhetoric around trans people specifically uses language such as "compassion" but actually means "give them everything they want". I'm not outright advocating against either of these, but they're different and shouldn't be conflated. There is a suspiciously absent category of left-wing people who believe in being charitable and kind while also politely disagreeing with the propositions presented.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on January 19, 2022, 02:42:45 PM
Quote
actually means "give them everything they want"

They're not asking for pony rides and a trip to Disneyland. Their ask is "treat us with dignity and equality". This runs into sticky ethics in this sports world, which I'm sure is why those who oppose trans rights and consider them mentally ill love to zero in on it - it is the easiest argument to make that allows them to deny equality without seeming arbitrary about it. Thus the highly contrived "secret plan to rape everyone in the ladies room" or "secret plan to expose themselves" angle. Just another "this is happening everywhere, but its really hard to find" paranoia.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Wayward Son on January 19, 2022, 02:50:09 PM
The question is not so much whether or not they are truly "mentally ill."  Ephrem admits that they would be "collateral damage."  This says that he acknowledges that there may be, and probably is, harm to trans people by transferring them out of women's prison.  But he excuses it by saying they are "mentally ill."

So it's not really a question about whether or not to accommodate a mental illness or not.  It is a question of whether to inflict harm on a group he considers to be mentally ill because of actions by people outside that group.  And, according to his statement, he apparently feels that is sufficient justification.

And while it is fine that he may believe trans people to be "mentally ill," by his definition, don't you think that he should defer to the actual experts when it comes to public policy?  Or should every person be able to define who is or is not "mentally ill" by their own criteria and force the rest of us to follow it?  How exactly would that work? ;)
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on January 19, 2022, 02:56:42 PM
So it's not really a question about whether or not to accommodate a mental illness or not.  It is a question of whether to inflict harm on a group he considers to be mentally ill because of actions by people outside that group.  And, according to his statement, he apparently feels that is sufficient justification.

Not allowing someone to do something they were previously already not allowed to do is a stretch of the definition of "inflicting harm", depending on the circumstance. If we're talking about not treating a black person as a slave then yes, we must admit a historical bad practice that requires a change. To create a parallel you'd have to say that historically it was wrong to not have biologically born males participating in women's sports (for example), and that failing to redress this inflicts harm. I feel that in this case the word "harm" becomes a subjective moral evaluation, and that's where the difficulty lies. The term "mentally ill" would be a relevant factor if the harm done to someone is only a harm because of that illness (i.e. that they would not feel harmed if they were not mentally ill). So it sort of does bear in on the facts here.

Quote
And while it is fine that he may believe trans people to be "mentally ill," by his definition, don't you think that he should defer to the actual experts when it comes to public policy?  Or should every person be able to define who is or is not "mentally ill" by their own criteria and force the rest of us to follow it?  How exactly would that work? ;)

I agree that this becomes mired in both definition and in advocacy, but my point was simply that it becomes a different discussion if the objective is to define whether a given person's perspective is 'admissible' in the sense that others must take it seriously. So again it's revelant whether we're talking about mental illness or not, because in the case of certain mental illnesses you are specifically told not to feed into delusions.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: alai on January 19, 2022, 03:02:04 PM
For adults obviously it's their choice what to take, but let's say for instance a transwoman is taking some kind of hormone in order to affect her biochemistry.
Yup, typically estrogenic hormones and androgen-antagonists (testosterone blockers and similar).

Quote
I don't know if it would estrogen or something totally different (I know zero about the pharmacology in this topic), but whatever it is the person is taking, how could that legally be distinguished from steroids or other biochemistry-altering drugs?
Estrogens in fact are steroids.  But they're not anabolic (or obviously, androgenic) steroid, or corticoids, etc, so they're not on the (very long and very detailed) "banned substances" (and banned functional specific categories) list.

Quote
Would a transwoman taking hormone treatments pass an objective drug test for sports?
AFAIK, yes.  A cis male or cis female taking a ton of estrogenic or anti-androgenic would pass a drug test, though I imagine the tech would certainly pick them up, and think "huh, that's weird, better put that in my report to my supervisor!"
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on January 19, 2022, 03:04:20 PM
They're not asking for pony rides and a trip to Disneyland. Their ask is "treat us with dignity and equality".

I'm obviously not on Ephrem's side on this topic, but what you're saying here is again a mushy non-policy that can act as a motte and bailey. "Treat me with diginity" can mean anything the person saying it wants it to mean. It can mean don't be rude to me, or it can mean that I will try to get you fired unless you use the language I prefer. In the particular case of sports they're asking to compete amongst people who are (let's say) comparatively disadvantaged compared to them in order to treat them with dignity. Just to be silly for a moment, I could argue that I've felt belittled all my life due to being short (not the case, but let's say it was) and that in order to treat me with dignity I should be allowed to compete in children's leagues since I feel like a child at heart, and short to boot. Or maybe people who have been fat-shamed should be allowed to wrestle in a lower weight class since they don't feel fat on the inside. These are silly examples, of course, and it's hard to create a direct mapping, but overall the issue isn't just about being nice to people, but in this particular discussion about whether to allow for active practive to change, which involves professional category standards, in order to make a very few people feel better. I'm not against people being made to feel better, but actually you sort of picked a bad example because it actually is kind of like asking to go to Disneyland. I'm reminded of the Seinfeld episode where Kramer was "dominating" in the kids' karate class. That was like a disney adventure for him (until the kids cornered him in an alley!), being allowd to compete with them on even footing. Again, a silly example but not totally inapplicable. In most respects he was more of a child than they were...
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: alai on January 19, 2022, 03:23:35 PM
There is a suspiciously absent category of left-wing people who believe in being charitable and kind while also politely disagreeing with the propositions presented.
TERFs fairly consistently identify as left wing.  I assume you're disqualifying them as not meeting the "charitable and kind" standard (though that seems very flexible and subjective, so I hesitate to say!)  Their feels, so very hurt.

Ephrem admits that they would be "collateral damage."  This says that he acknowledges that there may be, and probably is, harm to trans people by transferring them out of women's prison.  But he excuses it by saying they are "mentally ill."
Or that they're "pretending".  Or is it somehow both?  I don't think he needs or even aims to be consistent, he's just angrily venting.  Or outright trolling: it's increasingly hard to tell the difference.

Quote
And while it is fine that he may believe trans people to be "mentally ill," by his definition, don't you think that he should defer to the actual experts when it comes to public policy?
Actual experts?  And to defer to them?  Get out of here, commie technocrat!  See Brexit:  "We've had enough of experts."  Or "Fire Fauci."  Or one of our own "literally" laughing at a fact-check article about a (quasi-)academic claim about psychosis by...  asking a range of psychology academics.  People feel not just entitled to their own facts, but of their own parallel Académie, if it can be had.

Quote
Or should every person be able to define who is or is not "mentally ill" by their own criteria and force the rest of us to follow it?  How exactly would that work? ;)
It works by selling a whole lot of Michael Savage and Ann Coulter books.  And padding out no few posts in this very parish.  Liberal?  Neurotic.  Critical of #45?  Deranged.  Act broadly in line with the current best-available medical science?  Pandemic mass formation psychosis.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on January 19, 2022, 03:28:12 PM
There is a suspiciously absent category of left-wing people who believe in being charitable and kind while also politely disagreeing with the propositions presented.
TERFs fairly consistently identify as left wing.  I assume you're disqualifying them as not meeting the "charitable and kind" standard (though that seems very flexible and subjective, so I hesitate to say!)  Their feels, so very hurt.

I meant they are suspiciously absent from the public debate in most circles. Obviously they exist (I would not call them TERFs since that term is loaded in a political turf war and even using it already means you are dedicated to a very specific ideology) but I mean that this perspective seems suspiciously absent a lot of the time. In the case of certain celebrities we hear about it because maybe they don't fear reprisal in the same way 'nobodies' do.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 19, 2022, 03:31:42 PM
How exactly would that work? ;)
conversion therapy
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on January 19, 2022, 04:00:12 PM
Not allowing someone to do something they were previously already not allowed to do is a stretch of the definition of "inflicting harm",

Previously, they were allowed to play sports with the gender they identified as. Now, they can't. It really depends on how you frame it in either direction. Personally, I think there's harm being done by schools that focus more on athletic fame and prowess than learning, but I don't think we'll get the math team or the chess club to interest the boosters.

Would it be okay for transwomen to even play chess interscholastically though? Or will the same argument be made that it limits opportunities for women to win stuff?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: alai on January 19, 2022, 04:12:56 PM
These are silly examples, of course, and it's hard to create a direct mapping, but overall the issue isn't just about being nice to people, but in this particular discussion about whether to allow for active practive to change, which involves professional category standards, in order to make a very few people feel better.
If you're scoping the "very few people" as professional and Olympic-level sportspeople themselves, that's a pretty small number even to start with.  But it affects all trans people and even all trans-sympathetic people indirectly.  Kinda tough to say just not, "can't compete in organised sport" -- probably weren't able to anyway -- but "people like you have no pathway whatsoever to compete".

I meant they are suspiciously absent from the public debate in most circles. Obviously they exist (I would not call them TERFs since that term is loaded in a political turf war and even using it already means you are dedicated to a very specific ideology) but I mean that this perspective seems suspiciously absent a lot of the time. In the case of certain celebrities we hear about it because maybe they don't fear reprisal in the same way 'nobodies' do.
You should have a vacation in the UK.  Covid and visa rules permitting, of course!  Come to Europe, and see the sights:  like "because of my feminist views" regularly figuring as a wrapper for the most mindboggling amounts  of naked transphobia.  In academia, in print media, on TV, in the courts, on the internet.  (Just gonna say "mumsnet".)  I'll specify that it's branched out from its strict-sense "radical feminist" origins, but the only reason it's loaded otherwise is that people looking to both categorically and physically exclude trans people don't "identify with" that being the way they'd like those precise views to be framed.

conversion therapy
The Poe's-Law-ometer continues to deviate sharply.

Would it be okay for transwomen to even play chess interscholastically though? Or will the same argument be made that it limits opportunities for women to win stuff?
Chess is another interesting example of a "semi-integrated 'sport'".  A number of women have competed in men's/open/unrestricted events, though there's a parallel women's-only structure.  Clearly not (nor ever going to be) an Olympic event, so there's no overall framework for what they have to do.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDeamon on January 19, 2022, 05:42:13 PM
Quote
I'm saying that it's more likely for people to personally know females who get beaten in sports by transwomen
Really? 
How prevalent is the specific sport/trans issue? Is this sport issue the most important concern with regards to Trans debate?

Not very prevalent yet, but it has only been able to become an issue in the past few years. That it is already results in Transwomen breaking records in women's athletics just simply serves as a canary in the coal mine for what's coming as it becomes more common.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDeamon on January 19, 2022, 05:49:32 PM
Of course it isn't prevalent. But we're gonna talk about it anyway for some reason. Supposedly, if Susie from Oshkosh gets second place to Laura, a transfemale, it is crippling to her self-esteem and limiting her opportunity to be a star. It is much more important than the blow to Laura's self-esteem and eliminating her opportunity to participate in sports altogether.

No, it's more about how a male athelete who is otherwise "middle of the pack" and nothing special as a male, comes as being trans. Sits things out for 2 years as per NCAA guidelines as they undergo HRT and whatnot. Then return to the female athletic scene, and dominates the rankings.

Can't see anything going wrong with that in the long run. Can't cut it in the highly competitive male athletic field. Be brave, declare yourself a woman, then enjoy the accolades as you can reap the benefits of having gone through puberty as a male while you destroy all those highly competitive natural-born women on the athletic field.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on January 19, 2022, 06:43:14 PM
Of course it isn't prevalent. But we're gonna talk about it anyway for some reason. Supposedly, if Susie from Oshkosh gets second place to Laura, a transfemale, it is crippling to her self-esteem and limiting her opportunity to be a star. It is much more important than the blow to Laura's self-esteem and eliminating her opportunity to participate in sports altogether.

No, it's more about how a male athelete who is otherwise "middle of the pack" and nothing special as a male, comes as being trans. Sits things out for 2 years as per NCAA guidelines as they undergo HRT and whatnot. Then return to the female athletic scene, and dominates the rankings.

Can't see anything going wrong with that in the long run. Can't cut it in the highly competitive male athletic field. Be brave, declare yourself a woman, then enjoy the accolades as you can reap the benefits of having gone through puberty as a male while you destroy all those highly competitive natural-born women on the athletic field.

That seems like a thing people are going to do? Change their gender identity to get some college trophies? I'll stipulate anything is possible of course, but is this really a scenario you see playing out more than once or twice?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on January 19, 2022, 06:47:32 PM
That seems like a thing people are going to do? Change their gender identity to get some college trophies? I'll stipulate anything is possible of course, but is this really a scenario you see playing out more than once or twice?

I wouldn't be the one to propose this particular scenario is the thing to watch out for...but as a general principle I think more people than you'd hope for would absolutely ok with perpetrating a total fraud if it got them ahead. This scenario would be a pretty involved and demanding act to carry out, but even so there are enough sociopaths or other weirdos out there who only care about results that my general principle of 'if it can be done they will do it' would apply.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: alai on January 19, 2022, 07:06:59 PM
I think it might be a stretch to say it's a "total fraud" if the "involved and demanding act" -- I think taking at least four years under current Olympic rules, potentially more sport-by-sport -- is actually carried out in punctilious complaint with the requirements, even if done purely for that reason.  And bear in mind the framework for said rules is to make sure that there is no such advantage, so the person is making a pretty drastic decision on the basis that they can outsmart same.  If US collegiate rules are looser (as I said I dunno) they also seem less of a dramatic reward, too.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDeamon on January 19, 2022, 07:25:23 PM
I think it might be a stretch to say it's a "total fraud" if the "involved and demanding act" -- I think taking at least four years under current Olympic rules, potentially more sport-by-sport -- is actually carried out in punctilious complaint with the requirements, even if done purely for that reason.  And bear in mind the framework for said rules is to make sure that there is no such advantage, so the person is making a pretty drastic decision on the basis that they can outsmart same.  If US collegiate rules are looser (as I said I dunno) they also seem less of a dramatic reward, too.

Scholarships, and other perks now thanks to recent court rulings.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 19, 2022, 07:30:22 PM
it's about having the best possible chance at an Olympic medal

anyone who wins a gold medal can do whatever they want for the rest of their lives, pretty much
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: alai on January 19, 2022, 07:33:48 PM
Scholarships, and other perks now thanks to recent court rulings.
This sounds like a mighty sketchy theory to me, but who am I to underestimate the difficulties of funding one's access to higher education in the US's apparently crazily inequitable system.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 19, 2022, 07:49:39 PM
if transwomen are women, then are transwomen not taking estrogen also women?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on January 19, 2022, 08:03:31 PM
Quote
anyone who wins a gold medal can do whatever they want for the rest of their lives, pretty much

First, even a trans-athlete would have to be pretty good to be number one in the world. Then, let's stack up all the gold medal winners who go on to have crappy lives. Do you know how many of those are given out? Endorsements? Eh, maybe. For something high profile. Not Judo. The biggest would be gymnastics, which I just don't see happening unless parents had them working on a balance beam when they were six. So the super secret plan is to live as a transgender what... sprinter? Starting in say, 11th grade.

Of course in this weird world you're imagining, there are more than one transgender athletes chomping at the bit aren't there? I mean it won't be just one, since its such easy money. So you've still got to beat the other ones to get a medal. You might not even manage to make the final heat.

I mean you do realize that its not like men run twice the speed of the women, right? It's a 10% boost, but you still have to be a real good athlete to roll out and win an Olympic gold. All the while you're doing exactly what transgender people find miserable - living as the opposite gender from who you are. But you're going to have that stress and find a way to compete at the elite level?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Lloyd Perna on January 19, 2022, 08:12:33 PM
The benefit isn't making money in the Olympics.  Its college scholarships and the advantage it gives athletes getting into the best schools.  Lia Thomas swims for University of Pennsylvania (Ivy League)  4 year tuition there is worth $256,885.  Nevermind the value of the degree itself and the job opportunities an Ivy League education comes with.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on January 19, 2022, 08:29:01 PM
What are they waiting for?

Quote
All the transphobic buzz that surrounds Thomas usually makes the same point: If we allow her to compete with women, then suddenly trans women will take over sports and make it impossible for cis women to compete.

By now the NCAA has allowed trans athletes for more than 10 years. In that time, very few have made it to the college level. Fewer still have had as promising a season as Thomas.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: alai on January 19, 2022, 08:40:20 PM
if transwomen are women, then are transwomen not taking estrogen also women?
Are you asking in the context of "for purposes of being able to compete in Olympic (or collegiate, etc) sport"?  Or merely for teeing yourself up for loudly asserting the opposite, yet again?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on January 19, 2022, 08:43:59 PM
I think it might be a stretch to say it's a "total fraud" if the "involved and demanding act" -- I think taking at least four years under current Olympic rules, potentially more sport-by-sport -- is actually carried out in punctilious complaint with the requirements, even if done purely for that reason.  And bear in mind the framework for said rules is to make sure that there is no such advantage, so the person is making a pretty drastic decision on the basis that they can outsmart same.  If US collegiate rules are looser (as I said I dunno) they also seem less of a dramatic reward, too.

Scholarships, and other perks now thanks to recent court rulings.

Sometimes it can be a lot easier than the Olympic scenario anyhow. I have applied for more than one job already where "do you identify as a visible minority, non-binary, etc etc" was a question, and where I knew for a fact this would definitely be an important factor in the hiring process. What kind of fool thinks this kind of incentive wouldn't encourage...exaggerating? Maybe hard to claim you're black if you look white (although I've known an actual black girl who was white skinned) but not hard to say you're non-binary for instance. Even without suggesting any other political agenda, we know people lie on job applications all the time.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on January 19, 2022, 11:07:06 PM
Wait a minute, you thinking living as a woman for at least a year and taking hormone treatments as required by NCAA rules as anywhere near telling a fib about being non-binary? What would happen when you got the job, exactly? Are you stuck with a pronoun like "they"? You'd better make sure before you live out your own version of "Soul Man". Plus you jumped from scholarships to a job application. Do you secretly think that every time a form asks if you are hispanic then you're going to the bottom of the pile if you say no? Do you really want to bet on whether the person screening the application is racist or woke? People do lie on job applications, and they are far more likely to improve their odds by claiming experience they don't have (often gross exaggeration). Or they claim education they don't have. I know people who've tried both. It didn't end well. The person who claimed a degree they never finished was asked to bring in proof after being hired and got fired when they couldn't. The person I interviewed who claimed to have worked with a certain technology couldn't answer basic questions about it. They didn't get called back. What is someone going to do, establish a whole internet presence and lifestyle based on a dubious hedge in interview points?

Rachel Dolezal certainly got an advantage getting hired by the NAACP claiming she was black. She got a full ride to Howard University out of the ruse. I don't think you'll find many people choosing to invent that complete of a fake identity, including adopting mannerisms and speech patterns. And the end where did she wind up? Disgraced when her parents called her out after she reported fake hate crimes. Charged with welfare fraud. Think there are a lot of people out there interested in emulating her?

Are there more subtle cases? Sure, there's a practice of people portraying themselves on social media as a member of another race. That might hold up as long as you've got 20,000 followers. Once you start getting into six digits - somebody is going to notice and call you out. Are there people out there willing to risk it? Sure. But there's a huge difference between ticking a box on a form - that most people won't know about or challenge you on. Look how long it took for things to catch up with Elizabeth Warren, and committing to gender conversion therapy.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: alai on January 19, 2022, 11:30:44 PM
The person I interviewed who claimed to have worked with a certain technology couldn't answer basic questions about it.
To tangent shamelessly, I'm getting bad 'Nam flashbacks from the other interview seat here.  It's amazing what sort of niche question you'll get asked with something you worked on years ago, by way of verifying lack of CV porkies!  Next time I'm going to play the "I'd have to refresh my memory on that one, go again!" card...
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 19, 2022, 11:48:22 PM
Are you asking in the context of "for purposes of being able to compete in Olympic (or collegiate, etc) sport"?  Or merely for teeing yourself up for loudly asserting the opposite, yet again?
I'm trying to get clarity on the implications of TWAW.

Can a "transwoman" ever refuse to take estrogen?

Or, do all "transwomen" who wish to participate on a female sports team necessarily have to take estrogen? And if so, why?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 19, 2022, 11:53:30 PM
Think there are a lot of people out there interested in emulating her?
About racial identity? Yup. I read a story somewhere that college applicants are choosing to identify as "Native American" to get a leg up on admissions.

To be AMAB and be considered a "woman"?

Yes, yes I do, in fact. Of course, if our culture is on-board with the TWAW idea.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: alai on January 19, 2022, 11:59:42 PM
I'm trying to get clarity on the implications of TWAW.
The implications are mainly, you don't have a god-given right to nickle-and-dime someone's identity.  Especially when it's with a clear agenda of denigrating it.

Quote
Or, do all "transwomen" who wish to participate on a female sports team necessarily have to take estrogen?
In what?  Say a Sunday-morning five-a-side league?  In college, pro, or Olympics sport?  In which sport?

Quote
And if so, why?
Why what, precisely?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on January 20, 2022, 02:51:59 AM
Wait a minute, you thinking living as a woman for at least a year and taking hormone treatments as required by NCAA rules as anywhere near telling a fib about being non-binary? What would happen when you got the job, exactly? Are you stuck with a pronoun like "they"?

I think you are mistaken about what being non-binary means. It does not mean you have to wear a dress for the rest of your life. In fact it does not mean anything specific, there is an entire spectrum of gender/sexual identities, and another spectrum of how they may or may not present. A male-looking person can walk into a room dressed as a woman, and non be non-binary; he can be a cross-dressed. And likewise a male-looking person can walk into a room in a suit, and identify as a female who likes to wear suits. The pronouns are also entirely that person's choice. A trans-woman can prefer "she", or "they", or other things too. In fact I don't see a good reason why a non-binary person couldn't say "I identify as a woman but prefer to keep my gender from birth since I'm just used to it." That's their call. You gonna call someone a fake trans because they don't dress in a way you consider feminine enough?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 20, 2022, 04:03:12 AM
I agree about the non-binary classification being essentially meaningless, or to put it another way meaning whatever anyone wants it to mean. A guy could think that Brad Pitt and Denzel Washington are a couple of very good looking gentleman, attractive even, and consider that to be enough to make them "non-binary" even if they would never consider themselves to be totally gay and would never want to have sex with a man. It could even go the other way where sometimes you are attracted to women and sometimes in your life you aren't attracted to anyone at all so you go from heterosexual to asexual. And since you aren't allowed to question anyone's gender identity or even how they define their own terms no questions about this will be permitted.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: alai on January 20, 2022, 04:17:05 AM
I think you've confused the possible range of application of non-binary pronouns and and the Kinsey scale there (and latterly the asexual (and aromantic?) scale(s)), cherry.  Though who am I to judge, that might quite differently for poptarts than what I might expect.

As for no questions being permitted, perhaps better to think of it being more of, no answers are to be demanded, especially not in a hostile or denigrating manner.

But yes, my understanding is that "non-binary" can cover "about 50/50", "opting out of this gender BS for at least this specific purpose", "decline to specify", and many other such possibilities.  It can also include people leaning to one "side" of the spectrum or other, but to confuse matters some people will prefer a different hedge of that, like "non-binary female", and such variations.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 20, 2022, 05:10:39 AM
The no questions allowed means that you aren't permitted to question anyone else about their gender identity. If you see a man walking into the women's restroom, or sauna, or onsen, or what have you, you have to just let it be.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on January 20, 2022, 11:12:37 AM
AFAIK, yes.  A cis male or cis female taking a ton of estrogenic or anti-androgenic would pass a drug test, though I imagine the tech would certainly pick them up, and think "huh, that's weird, better put that in my report to my supervisor!"

Just came across this sort-of related article:

https://www.insider.com/michael-phelps-trans-athletes-womens-sports-doping-comparison-2022-1

Quote
Though Thomas has fulfilled that prerequisite and is abiding by NCAA protocols, many scrutinized her participation in women's events due to her recent dominance in the pool. Phelps even likened the situation to doping.

"I can talk from a standpoint of doping. I don't think I've competed in a clean field in my entire career," the Olympic legend said. "It has to be a level playing field. I think that's something that we all need. That's what sports are, and for me, I don't know where this is going to go, I don't know what's going to happen."

"I believe we all should feel comfortable with who we are in our own skin," he added. "But I think sports should all be played on an even playing field. I don't know what that looks like in the future."
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on January 20, 2022, 11:27:51 AM
The no questions allowed means that you aren't permitted to question anyone else about their gender identity. If you see a man walking into the women's restroom, or sauna, or onsen, or what have you, you have to just let it be.

Does it mean that? Or does it mean that when the person says they are trans you should now go mind your own business? Which probably you should do in the first place. I've been on this earth for 51 years, and the only time I saw a male walk into a female restroom it was a mistake. Oh, and I've seen boys shoved into girls lavatories against their will.

Are you living somewhere that you have to be vigilant for all these men trying to sneak into the ladies room, cherry? Or is this just some kind of hypothetical moral exercise like the trolley problem?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on January 20, 2022, 11:38:58 AM
The no questions allowed means that you aren't permitted to question anyone else about their gender identity. If you see a man walking into the women's restroom, or sauna, or onsen, or what have you, you have to just let it be.

Does it mean that? Or does it mean that when the person says they are trans you should now go mind your own business? Which probably you should do in the first place.

In the context of the discussion where we were mentioning the probability/improbability of people lying in order to get a job or into a sporting category, I think cherry wrote that as an example of how the logic seems to be that you aren't allowed to question someone's gender identity. Yes, it does seem to be an over-focus on the bathroom issue, but unless I'm mistaken that was just an example rather than the main issue. What I had suggested earlier was that a person could easily lie on a job application about being non-binary, and the trans culture appears to be such that you're not permitted to question that (and how could you, really). So it wouldn't matter if I announced I was trans, but walked in looking like a man and dressed like a man, since the other party wouldn't be in the position to judge whether to accept my statement about myself. In the context I was suggesting, it would mean you could very possibibly get a job because you checked off a non-binary box on the application, and there would be no potential for a follow-up on that without someone getting hauled into HR for harassing you about your identity.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on January 20, 2022, 11:47:54 AM
Any place that adds a bizarrely high weight to identity for hiring practices probably isn't a place you want to work in the first place. If it gives somebody a 3 point advantage, why worry about it? It's just not that important compared to all the other uncertainty and unfairness in hiring, including misrepresentation, nepotism, connectedness, fraternal relations, cronyism, racism, sexism, ...
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on January 20, 2022, 11:56:00 AM
Any place that adds a bizarrely high weight to identity for hiring practices probably isn't a place you want to work in the first place.

I think you may not be aware of how many places have such practices at this point. Not Walmart, no. But educational institutions, arts institutions (big time), industries such as tech (in this case possibly more geared toward hiring women and visible minorities rather than non-binary). Saying you wouldn't want to work there is tantamount to saying you shouldn't be in that line of work. Thanks a lot, man, really helpful.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDeamon on January 20, 2022, 01:59:54 PM
In the context of the discussion where we were mentioning the probability/improbability of people lying in order to get a job or into a sporting category, I think cherry wrote that as an example of how the logic seems to be that you aren't allowed to question someone's gender identity. Yes, it does seem to be an over-focus on the bathroom issue, but unless I'm mistaken that was just an example rather than the main issue. What I had suggested earlier was that a person could easily lie on a job application about being non-binary, and the trans culture appears to be such that you're not permitted to question that (and how could you, really). So it wouldn't matter if I announced I was trans, but walked in looking like a man and dressed like a man, since the other party wouldn't be in the position to judge whether to accept my statement about myself. In the context I was suggesting, it would mean you could very possibibly get a job because you checked off a non-binary box on the application, and there would be no potential for a follow-up on that without someone getting hauled into HR for harassing you about your identity.

Depending on who you talk to in the trans community, it might not have actually been a lie. I've stumbled into a group of trans-persons elsewhere who are firmly of the view that if you have ever wondered what life would be like as a member of the other gender, then you are trans. CIS-gendered people are evidently not allowed to think about such things. If you do, you must be gender fluid, and that makes you part of the trans community.

That definition does have pushback even within that circle, but the view is out there.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: alai on January 20, 2022, 02:12:45 PM
Depending on who you talk to in the trans community, it might not have actually been a lie. I've stumbled into a group of trans-persons elsewhere who are firmly of the view that if you have ever wondered what life would be like as a member of the other gender, then you are trans. CIS-gendered people are evidently not allowed to think about such things. If you do, you must be gender fluid, and that makes you part of the trans community.
But given that most people would say that trans is a spectrum, that's potentially a lot like saying "if you've ever had a sexualised thought about someone of the same (or opposite!) sex, you're a little bit bi".  Whether that be 0.000001 or 5.999999 on Kinsey...
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on January 20, 2022, 04:53:57 PM
Any place that adds a bizarrely high weight to identity for hiring practices probably isn't a place you want to work in the first place.

I think you may not be aware of how many places have such practices at this point. Not Walmart, no. But educational institutions, arts institutions (big time), industries such as tech (in this case possibly more geared toward hiring women and visible minorities rather than non-binary). Saying you wouldn't want to work there is tantamount to saying you shouldn't be in that line of work. Thanks a lot, man, really helpful.

I think your attribution of the weight is probably overwrought, but I can't be sure which one of us is right since neither of us have been hiring tenured professors and the fact that nobody would outwardly attribute the decision to "we just gotta have a black woman". We can certainly see that impact in, for instance, Supreme Court nominations or Vice Presidential running mates. And there is clearly some weight. But I also look at those professions and I don't see them being dominated by a desire to flip-flop majorities. I see people trying to achieve equity, meaning a broad representative diversity.

As I say, impossible to build a comprehensive argument that doesn't devolve into opinion.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on January 20, 2022, 05:23:56 PM
I think your attribution of the weight is probably overwrought, but I can't be sure which one of us is right since neither of us have been hiring tenured professors and the fact that nobody would outwardly attribute the decision to "we just gotta have a black woman". We can certainly see that impact in, for instance, Supreme Court nominations or Vice Presidential running mates. And there is clearly some weight. But I also look at those professions and I don't see them being dominated by a desire to flip-flop majorities. I see people trying to achieve equity, meaning a broad representative diversity.

As I say, impossible to build a comprehensive argument that doesn't devolve into opinion.

True. But I don't think you have to strain too hard to find these types of hiring practices. We already know from multiple sources that tech companies (such as Google) almost literally fall over themselves trying to hire women to create parity. It is not even slightly doubtful that many people are hired because they're women in such companies, since their HR departments are so fixated on ways to attract more women to work for them. Now this is a slightly different gear to shift to from general diversity hires, which is already one step removed from non-binary hires, so I would agree there are levels of significance between these that are not equivalent. That is happens is not really disputable IMO. The sort of diversity hire I'm talking about seems to be a newer thing, maybe last 5-10 years max, and in the arts world unless I'm mistaken I think the diversity hires where they outright state they will prefer these candidates must be less than 5 years old.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: rightleft22 on January 20, 2022, 06:03:59 PM
Working for a number of tech companies over the last 20+ years the topic of diversity has been more prevalent in the last 5 years.
With regards to hiring, the person must be qualified. That said if multiple persons have equal qualifications their is 'weight' added to the more diverse candidate. This is not a HR directive but more a subconscious weighting of wanting the Company to be seen as diverse.

When I got my first tech job thier was many qualified candidates... my whiteness and past military service tip the scales.
When involved in hiring process Qualifications got them to the interview, but how they communicated and ability to learn is what tipped the scales. 
When I tried out for the volleyball team, others more skilled then myself didn't get chosen, I got the spot because I was tall. 

The thing is when anyone chooses someone thier have always been unspoken weightings applied, sometime racist, sometimes sexist, sometimes genetic. I doubt the process has ever been 'fair'. Sometimes your on the right side of the tracks and sometimes find your self on the wrong side. Sure it not a great experience to discover the pendulum has sifted away from you.   Life is suffering not fair
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on January 20, 2022, 07:24:52 PM
Working for a number of tech companies over the last 20+ years the topic of diversity has been more prevalent in the last 5 years.
With regards to hiring, the person must be qualified. That said if multiple persons have equal qualifications their is 'weight' added to the more diverse candidate. This is not a HR directive but more a subconscious weighting of wanting the Company to be seen as diverse.

In smaller companies I don't think it's as huge an issue because they don't have the major PR issues that bigger companies have, neither do they often have the budget for significant HR/diversity departments. If your HR is like two people you're not going to have much focus on that unless one of those two happens to be a crusader, and even then they'll need the CEO's blessing. Bigger companies are good at throwing money after stuff and not being able to verify exactly what it's going towards big-picture.

That being said, "qualified" ends up being a sloped issue because the candidate pool is total disproportionate. If you look to hire 50/50 among devs or software engineers you're going to hit a wall. But many positions are open that seem to be populated with mostly women. In the tech company where my wife works the CS team (client success, i.e. human relations and guidance) is female dominated, while of course product and engineering are male-dominated. So while they might go with mostly merit if an equally qualified male and female engineer showed up, they will rarely get equal amounts of candidates. Therefore if HR has an axe to grind in parity company wide or even within a department, they will either have to admit failure or else hire the less qualified people. That's just a truism. I don't have data on how often they actually go ahead with the inferior hire for diversity versus just giving up. I heard some hullaballo about the Canadian government boasting about a perfect 50/50 parity and some people suggesting this meant they were basically bragging about hiring inferior people. But I don't actually know how this bears out in reality...cause why would I study the Canadian government's inner workings?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on January 20, 2022, 08:00:29 PM
To answer that, you'd have to figure out who is judging inferiority. Rarely do we have objective measures in hiring. Does someone rate a candidate lower because they are a woman and they don't feel the same connection or rapport (or vice versa, if the interviewer if female). I've certainly found indications that is sometimes true for me. Oh, you went to the same college, oho! Let's spend 10 minutes of the interview talking about Gallagher Hall and what years we were there. There are so many subjective pressures all around in interviewing, I don't understand why we need to fixate on ONLY diversity as a reason why somebody might hire an "inferior" candidate. Its a crapshoot. Just look at the guys drafting NFL players with a thousand hours of footage, statistics, in-person observation, references, background checks...
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on January 20, 2022, 08:57:16 PM
To answer that, you'd have to figure out who is judging inferiority. Rarely do we have objective measures in hiring. Does someone rate a candidate lower because they are a woman and they don't feel the same connection or rapport (or vice versa, if the interviewer if female). I've certainly found indications that is sometimes true for me. Oh, you went to the same college, oho! Let's spend 10 minutes of the interview talking about Gallagher Hall and what years we were there. There are so many subjective pressures all around in interviewing, I don't understand why we need to fixate on ONLY diversity as a reason why somebody might hire an "inferior" candidate. Its a crapshoot. Just look at the guys drafting NFL players with a thousand hours of footage, statistics, in-person observation, references, background checks...

Yeah, it can be a grey science. But it's not like there are zero objective ways to tell who is more qualified in most fields, at least on paper. If it's a question of N or N+1 maybe it's too hard to say the worse person was picked. Like I said, I'd have to literally be on the hiring committees to give you numerical data about this. But my lack of doing hiring for Google doesn't actually say anything other that I can't report better than this; it doesn't mean that because I couldn't tell you how one could sift software engineers objectively that it isn't done objectively.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 20, 2022, 09:47:49 PM
The implications are mainly, you don't have a god-given right to nickle-and-dime someone's identity.  Especially when it's with a clear agenda of denigrating it.
So then I have a God-given right to declare myself a "transgender butch lesbian" so I can go into my local 24 Hour Fitness and gawk discreetly in the womens' showers?

And follow the prettiest one out?

And if she's a lesbian, no problem at all. If she's not, then I'm back to being a "heterosexual male".

It'd be fun to flip-flop between "transgender butch lesbian" and "heterosexual male" based on the person I want to have sex with, don't you agree?

I mean, predators will game the system!
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: alai on January 20, 2022, 10:26:53 PM
So then [...]
I think we have to review basic English usage.  That would normally introduce some line of argument at least vaguely related to the thing you're supposedly responding to.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 20, 2022, 11:47:42 PM
I think we have to review basic English usage.  That would normally introduce some line of argument at least vaguely related to the thing you're supposedly responding to.
I thought we had established that I define words differently than the English language you speak

I don't know if you have the ability to understand my language

I wonder if Wittgenstein's "private language" plays into this

personally it is obvious to me that we all speak in our own idiolect, based on our own life experiences (black swans)
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Aris Katsaris on January 21, 2022, 05:38:19 AM
"So then I have a God-given right to declare myself a "transgender butch lesbian" so I can go into my local 24 Hour Fitness and gawk discreetly in the womens' showers? And follow the prettiest one out?"

No, because among other things God doesn't exist, so He isn't there to give you any rights.

Also you seem to imply that as a man, you have the God-given right to "gawk discreetly" at people in the men's shower. What the hell?

Do you somehow think that a "natural-born" woman has the "God-given right" to gawk discreetly at women in the women's shower, and "follow the prettiest one out"?

Also, btw, aren't you simirarly telling ALL OF US that a trans man (often a bearded butch muscly dude) should be *according to you* have the God-Given right to "gawk discretely" at women in the women's showers, and "follow the prettiest one out"? You think that'd not be scary, even with the absence of a natural-born penis?

If you think that Assigned Women At Birth should all use the women's showers, aren't you telling us that this includes the big butch muscly trans men (since you consider them women)? Is a surgically constructed penis less scary than a natural born penis?

How does this work out?

The answer to "Trans men/women shouldn't use the facilities of their identified gender" has always been "Well, which facilities should they *censored* be using? Because the other way around work even less, no?"

Similarly with women's sports. You don't want to have trans women compete in the women's divisions --- but having trans men compete in the women's division doesn't work either, does it? They *want* to compete in the boy's division, but these muscly bearded dudes are often forced to play in the girl's division, because of laws that it's only their assigned-at-birth gender that matters.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: rightleft22 on January 21, 2022, 09:40:46 AM
I think we have to review basic English usage.  That would normally introduce some line of argument at least vaguely related to the thing you're supposedly responding to.
I thought we had established that I define words differently than the English language you speak
I don't know if you have the ability to understand my language
I wonder if Wittgenstein's "private language" plays into this
personally it is obvious to me that we all speak in our own idiolect, based on our own life experiences (black swans)

Alfred Korzybski might argue that the one engaged in dialog with someone must be clear as they can be to how they are choosing and defining thier words so that they may be understood. Living it up to the listener to guess.... they are more likely to mistake the map for the territory.

Quote
One day, Korzybski was giving a lecture to a group of students, and he interrupted the lesson suddenly in order to retrieve a packet of biscuits, wrapped in white paper, from his briefcase. He muttered that he just had to eat something, and he asked the students on the seats in the front row if they would also like a biscuit. A few students took a biscuit. "Nice biscuit, don't you think," said Korzybski, while he took a second one. The students were chewing vigorously. Then he tore the white paper from the biscuits, in order to reveal the original packaging. On it was a big picture of a dog's head and the words "Dog Cookies." The students looked at the package, and were shocked. Two of them wanted to vomit, put their hands in front of their mouths, and ran out of the lecture hall to the toilet. "You see," Korzybski remarked, "I have just demonstrated that people don't just eat food, but also words, and that the taste of the former is often outdone by the taste of the latter."
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Lloyd Perna on January 21, 2022, 09:48:18 AM
Quote
Alfred Korzybski might argue that the one engaged in dialog with someone must be clear as they can be to how they are choosing and defining thier words so that they may be understood. Living it up to the listener to guess.... they are more likely to mistake the map for the territory.

I agree wholeheartedly.  Please tell me.  What is a woman?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: alai on January 21, 2022, 01:37:23 PM
The answer to "Trans men/women shouldn't use the facilities of their identified gender" has always been "Well, which facilities should they *censored* be using? Because the other way around work even less, no?"
Bear in mind that in EM's little world, "identification" is a bad-faith pretence that changes from minute to minute.  But it's not he'd he happy with "solemn legal declaration" (the way self-cert actually works in all jurisdictions I'm aware of), or with psychological and medical panels making that determination (older system in a number of places, still in place in some of them).  This is an ultimately futile discussion, as he'd not be content with anything short of General Order 66.

Quote
Similarly with women's sports. You don't want to have trans women compete in the women's divisions --- but having trans men compete in the women's division doesn't work either, does it? They *want* to compete in the boy's division, but these muscly bearded dudes are often forced to play in the girl's division, because of laws that it's only their assigned-at-birth gender that matters.
I assume EM is very comfortable with the "sucks to be them, don't let them play in either" 'solution'.  Get some conversion therapy, go back to your GAAB, compete in that.  Or if you're biologically and medically intersex, just sucks full-stop.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on January 21, 2022, 01:49:14 PM
I assume EM is very comfortable with the "sucks to be them, don't let them play in either" 'solution'.  Get some conversion therapy, go back to your GAAB, compete in that.  Or if you're biologically and medically intersex, just sucks full-stop.

Just to play devil's advocate again, why does it seem so sacrosanct to you that each individual has a god-given right to compete in professional sports? Why is it actually anathema to say that due to someone's special (chosen?) circumstances they don't really fit into either major competitive category? Not that I'm against people with aspirations pursuing those, and I say that especially as an artist, but I've always personally felt that a career in sports is so peculiar, so narrow, and such a dead-end aspiration for most people, that...I dunno, I guess I don't think of it as a failure state when an individual doesn't end up being a sports pro. Even careers in the arts, which are hard enough to make a living at, have at least a half-decent chance for you to end up in that career in at least some capacity. But the vast vast majority of people could never make money athletically. I guess I'm thinking of this in the "what were the chances, really, that you could ever have done this in the first place" vein. Failing to win the lottery isn't really a life failure, sort of thing.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: alai on January 21, 2022, 02:29:18 PM
Just to play devil's advocate again, why does it seem so sacrosanct to you that each individual has a god-given right to compete in professional sports?
Why does that seem that's my position?  I thought it was fairly clearly -- or at least explicitly, I should have long learned the life lesson never to assume I've been clear! -- several removes away from it.  I'm pretty comfortable with the Olympic (for example framework approach:  "IOC recognises that it must be within the remit of each sport and its governing body to determine how an athlete may be at a disproportionate advantage compared with their peers."  But even moreso the broader point in the same document:  "Every person has the right to practice sport without discrimination and in a way that respects their health, safety and dignity."  Strike "sport" and replace with whatever.  Hence my comment to EM about nickle-and-diming denigration:  he very clearly doesn't give a damn about any of these individual issues, it's all just talking points to the mill.

Quote
Why is it actually anathema to say that due to someone's special (chosen?) circumstances they don't really fit into either major competitive category?
Actually in every two-category sport I'm aware of, everybody is in one or the other (or both: see chess, golf, darts(!)...), whether or not it matches how they identify.

Quote
But the vast vast majority of people could never make money athletically.
I made exactly the same observation just slightly upthread.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 21, 2022, 02:56:07 PM
because among other things God doesn't exist
Pascal's Wager and the most optimistic version of the Simulation Argument, where God does exist, and is sifting the wheat (those who get literal eternal joy) from the chaff (example: TWAW belief, perhaps)
Quote
Also you seem to imply that as a man, you have the God-given right to "gawk discreetly" at people in the men's shower. What the hell?
no, you are assuming there that TWAW, which of course depends on your own definition of the word "woman".

STRIKE THAT

edit: whoops, I misread, but no, I have the *ability*, but I do not gawk, I'm not gay, I'm disgusted by other men's penii.

but: so do gay predators

I'm not a predator
Quote
Do you somehow think that a "natural-born" woman has the "God-given right" to gawk discreetly at women in the women's shower, and "follow the prettiest one out"?
no

Allegory of the Cave applies; those who believe TWAW are those in chains perhaps

Quote
Also, btw, aren't you simirarly telling ALL OF US that a trans man (often a bearded butch muscly dude) should be *according to you* have the God-Given right to "gawk discretely" at women in the women's showers, and "follow the prettiest one out"? You think that'd not be scary, even with the absence of a natural-born penis?
no I'm saying that predators (and solipsists) believe that they have that right, and they'll take the path of least resistance
Quote
If you think that Assigned Women At Birth should all use the women's showers, aren't you telling us that this includes the big butch muscly trans men (since you consider them women)? Is a surgically constructed penis less scary than a natural born penis?
not at all, let's create a third transwomens' shower room, and a fourth one for the transmen, why not?

hurt feelings? too expensive?
Quote
Similarly with women's sports. You don't want to have trans women compete in the women's divisions --- but having trans men compete in the women's division doesn't work either, does it? They *want* to compete in the boy's division, but these muscly bearded dudes are often forced to play in the girl's division, because of laws that it's only their assigned-at-birth gender that matters.
what the mentally ill want doesn't matter: TRUTH is not necessarily KIND, ask Plato about that

what happens when narcissists who have political power over others and try to solve injustice?

what if the most powerful human is a narcissists and thus works at making everyone share that person's beliefs?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 21, 2022, 03:05:27 PM

Alfred Korzybski might argue that the one engaged in dialog with someone must be clear as they can be to how they are choosing and defining thier words so that they may be understood. Living it up to the listener to guess.... they are more likely to mistake the map for the territory.
funny, I'm re-reading "Science and Sanity" these days

Quote
One day, Korzybski was giving a lecture to a group of students, and he interrupted the lesson suddenly in order to retrieve a packet of biscuits, wrapped in white paper, from his briefcase. He muttered that he just had to eat something, and he asked the students on the seats in the front row if they would also like a biscuit. A few students took a biscuit. "Nice biscuit, don't you think," said Korzybski, while he took a second one. The students were chewing vigorously. Then he tore the white paper from the biscuits, in order to reveal the original packaging. On it was a big picture of a dog's head and the words "Dog Cookies." The students looked at the package, and were shocked. Two of them wanted to vomit, put their hands in front of their mouths, and ran out of the lecture hall to the toilet. "You see," Korzybski remarked, "I have just demonstrated that people don't just eat food, but also words, and that the taste of the former is often outdone by the taste of the latter."
I know but I expect others to ask me questions when they misunderstand me

how do they know? well, they think, THAT'S OBVIOUSLY WRONG EPHREM, and/or they get triggered by that

the ones who where disgusted should ask questions; those who are triggered are incapable of that

the Oatmeal comic on the backfire effect applies

I read that part of "Science and Sanity" just yesterday! may God send me to Hell if I'm lying
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 21, 2022, 03:08:55 PM
Bear in mind that in EM's little world
I stop reading when there's ad hominem

attack the ARGUMENT please and not me
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 21, 2022, 03:17:53 PM
because among other things God doesn't exist
Pascal's Wager and the most optimistic version of the Simulation Argument, where God does exist, and is sifting the wheat (those who get literal eternal joy) from the chaff (example: TWAW belief, perhaps)
Quote
Also you seem to imply that as a man, you have the God-given right to "gawk discreetly" at people in the men's shower. What the hell?
no, you are assuming there that TWAW, which of course depends on your own definition of the word "woman".

STRIKE THAT

edit: whoops, I misread, but no, I have the *ability*, but I do not gawk, I'm not gay, I'm disgusted by other men's penii.

but: so do gay predators

I'm not a predator
Quote
Do you somehow think that a "natural-born" woman has the "God-given right" to gawk discreetly at women in the women's shower, and "follow the prettiest one out"?
no

Allegory of the Cave applies; those who believe TWAW are those in chains perhaps

Quote
Also, btw, aren't you simirarly telling ALL OF US that a trans man (often a bearded butch muscly dude) should be *according to you* have the God-Given right to "gawk discretely" at women in the women's showers, and "follow the prettiest one out"? You think that'd not be scary, even with the absence of a natural-born penis?
no I'm saying that predators (and solipsists) believe that they have that right, and they'll take the path of least resistance
Quote
If you think that Assigned Women At Birth should all use the women's showers, aren't you telling us that this includes the big butch muscly trans men (since you consider them women)? Is a surgically constructed penis less scary than a natural born penis?
not at all, let's create a third transwomens' shower room, and a fourth one for the transmen, why not?

hurt feelings? too expensive?
Quote
Similarly with women's sports. You don't want to have trans women compete in the women's divisions --- but having trans men compete in the women's division doesn't work either, does it? They *want* to compete in the boy's division, but these muscly bearded dudes are often forced to play in the girl's division, because of laws that it's only their assigned-at-birth gender that matters.
what the mentally ill want doesn't matter: TRUTH is not necessarily KIND, ask Plato about that

what happens when narcissists who have political power over others and try to solve injustice?

what if the most powerful human is a narcissist and thus works at making everyone share that person's beliefs?

minor edit I'm OCD
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: alai on January 21, 2022, 04:07:43 PM
I stop reading when there's ad hominem
Your Latin and your rhetoric needs almost as much work as as your (anything at all approximating standard) English, it seems.  "Hurts your feelings" isn't the same as "ad hom argument".  I described your position, and if it were inaccurately, you'd be able to say so and how, as opposed to merely pouting about it.

I do believe the "stop reading" part.  Probably sooner and more frequently than described.

minor edit I'm OCD
My sympathy on that, but it doesn't seem to be in a way that's relevant to proofreading.  That was eye-bleeding the first time, and if anything worse as near-identically reposted, but now as a nested quote.  You realize you can actually edit the markup to make it remotely readable, right?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 21, 2022, 04:34:10 PM
no, you attacked me

please define "little world"

was that positive, neutral, or negative?

ATTACK THE ARGUMENT, not me
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on January 21, 2022, 05:38:16 PM
EM: You defined yourself to be in a little world, that follows whatever rules you decree and whatever you decide language to be. Little is probably the most charitable adjective to be used. Your arguments have been explored, examined, and refuted. You bring no evidence to support your claims, such as "transgenders are mentally ill" other than the thoughts and feelings you've had in your world of one.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 21, 2022, 06:57:18 PM
EM: You defined yourself to be in a little world
No I did not. I advocated pruning off the people who have beliefs that ultimately end up with pedophilia being accepted. I am NOT calling anyone transgender a pedophile. What I am saying instead is that TWAW goes in a direction that pedophiles, the predators, want.

Fundamentalist Christianity, OTOH, goes in a direction that pedophiles do NOT want.

Fundamentalist Christianity goes in a direction of a theological caste system, because any sexual relationships outside of a church marriage are shamed.

Fundamentalist Christianity opens the door to colonizing the universe.

That is NOT a "little world" at all.

It's just evolution. Either Charlotte Clymer and those like her are treated by historians as Nazis, or JK Rowling and those like her are treated by historians as the Nazis of this age. The only other alternative are eternal conflict, or a cultural divorce: Clymer's ilk gets half of the states, and those who want Fundamentalist Christianity get the other half.

Broad is the way to destruction according to God Himself. So, I seek the narrow path that leads to life instead. That path severely restricts condoned sexual relationships.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on January 21, 2022, 07:01:53 PM
A world of fundamentalist Christians, if that's how you'd like it defined is indeed miniscule. And shrinking daily, thanks be to science.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 21, 2022, 07:17:34 PM
A world of fundamentalist Christians, if that's how you'd like it defined is indeed miniscule. And shrinking daily, thanks be to science.
Not in my lived experience.

This is something that cannot be accurately studied by an atheist. Too much skin in the game.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: alai on January 21, 2022, 08:46:07 PM
That path severely restricts condoned sexual relationships.
Ya, you and the TERFs ain't gonna get on too well on that one.  They're worrying trans men might actually be non-gender-role-conformant lesbians being unduly socially pressured out of that identity.  You'd evidently like to persecute them on all fronts.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: alai on January 21, 2022, 08:51:25 PM
ATTACK THE ARGUMENT, not me
I did; read it again until understanding ensues.  Or if you fail at that -- or decline to try -- why trouble to respond, just to say you're not gonna respond?  My comment wasn't even a direct reply to you, so why feel the need to chime in?  Unless you're an aspirant mini-mod, or simply incredibly sensitive.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Aris Katsaris on January 22, 2022, 07:17:43 AM
Pascal's Wager and the most optimistic version of the Simulation Argument, where God does exist, and is sifting the wheat (those who get literal eternal joy) from the chaff (example: TWAW belief, perhaps)
"Pascal's Wager" doesn't work for a multitude of reasons, including that cognitively honest people don't choose their honestly held beliefs based on what rewards they'll get for so believing.

Also pretty sure an omnipotent omnibenevolent God wouldn't have needed to create people with gender dysphoria in the first place.

Most likely probability: your God doesn't exist. There also exists a possibility of course (though a tiny one) that he created the trans people you find so appalling to test you (yes, you personally) about how you'll treat them, and you're currently treating them appallingly, with sneering contempt, in which case he'll condemn you to hell or something.

I oppose you being condemned to hell, btw. That's also morally appalling.

Quote
edit: whoops, I misread, but no, I have the *ability*, but I do not gawk, I'm not gay, I'm disgusted by other men's penii.
Quote
not at all, let's create a third transwomens' shower room, and a fourth one for the transmen, why not?

hurt feelings? too expensive?

Yeah, see, I'm more generally appalled by all the American scenes in American shows/films where people seemingly have to shower communally or whatever. In my country, even when I was in the army for my 1-year mandatory conscription, there were separate cubicles in the showers. You didn't have to get completely naked in anyone else's presence.

Your fear "oh no trans people can gawk other people in the showers" is to me *weird* -- it implies that it's somehow okay for ANY people to gawk ANY other people in the showers, as long as they're the same gender.

Make individual cubicles in your showers. And then you won't have to look at either people's vaginas or penises, regardless of whether they're cis or trans.

Or go the other direction and just decide that nudity isn't a taboo anymore. Creating separate rooms for more categories doesn't work. Trying to fit everyone into *two* categories doesn't work. There'll be eventually people with multiple penis, vaginas and tentacles.

Quote
what the mentally ill want doesn't matter: TRUTH is not necessarily KIND, ask Plato about that
So close to the truth and so far away. It's exactly because TRUTH and GOODNESS are two separate things, that the mere facts of the universe (there's XX chromosome, there's XY chromosome, there are people born with vaginas, there are people born with penises) don't need constrain how we choose to deal with other people.

People who say "Trans women are women" don't disagree with you on the facts about whether these people have XX or XY chromosomes -- they're instead saying you should treat trans women like you should treat non-trans women. (I hate the stupid confusion between IS and SHOULD. I try to avoid the IS word because it leads to so much confusion, when people mean SHOULD. But that's a LINGUISTIC issue caused by people who don't communicate clearly)

ALL categories, ALL words, including words like "man" and "woman" are social categories.
You are correct that there are facts of the matter: That person has a penis, that person has a vagina, that person has XX chromosomes, that person has XY chromosomes. What categories human society derives from them however, and how human society deal with those categories in separate situations is a human society concern, not a Truth of the universe.

You can for example make it a rule to have a shower for people who phenotypically look male, and a shower for phenotypically look female. That would means that trans men & trans women will be joining those showers only after they've done surgery/been in hormones/etc.

If you say something that everyone with XY chromosomes is a man -- then well, I've heard the rumor that Jamie Lee Curtis actually has an XY chromosome though she's externally looking like a woman and been considered a woman all her life because of a medical condition.

In that case would you force Jamie Lee Curties to shower with the men, just because she has an XY chromosome?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on January 22, 2022, 10:21:05 AM
"Pascal's Wager" doesn't work for a multitude of reasons, including that cognitively honest people don't choose their honestly held beliefs based on what rewards they'll get for so believing.

This may sound like a truism to you, but in fact I do not think it's the case that people choose their honestly held beliefs in the first place, let alone for the reasons you believe they do. You are ignoring the place genetics has in placing people on the political spectrum in the first place, which I believe it does. And further, your notion that 'honest' people don't have their perceptions shaped by the environment and its reward system is highly questionable. It's almost as if you don't think most people base their entire life plan on the options available in the economic system they inhabit.

Quote
Most likely probability: your God doesn't exist.

You don't have the capacity to compute probabilities on this topic :)

Quote
Quote
what the mentally ill want doesn't matter: TRUTH is not necessarily KIND, ask Plato about that
So close to the truth and so far away. It's exactly because TRUTH and GOODNESS are two separate things, that the mere facts of the universe (there's XX chromosome, there's XY chromosome, there are people born with vaginas, there are people born with penises) don't need constrain how we choose to deal with other people.

He didn't say truth and goodness, he said truth and kindness. The difference between his version and yours is miles away. He's separating truth and goodness because (he is saying) truth involves sometimes telling people things they don't want to hear and which will be uncomfortable for them. Kindness in this context appears to mean 'making them feel good'. However goodness is an overarching term meaning doing the best thing for someone (or for everyone), which according to Ephrem's argument is probably similar or the same thing to truth. So within the confines of this sub-discussion truth and goodness are not two separate things. And certainly within the Christian tradition they are in fact identical, and you could toss "love" into the mix and say they are all interchangeable terms referring to the innate property of the creator.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Aris Katsaris on January 22, 2022, 11:17:32 AM
"Pascal's Wager" doesn't work for a multitude of reasons, including that cognitively honest people don't choose their honestly held beliefs based on what rewards they'll get for so believing.

This may sound like a truism to you, but in fact I do not think it's the case that people choose their honestly held beliefs in the first place, let alone for the reasons you believe they do.

I said "cognitively honest people don't choose their honestly held beliefs based on what rewards they'll get for so believing."

You somehow made up in your mind that I said people do choose them, and that I gave you which reasons they have. When I clearly said that they DON'T.

So I don't know what you're talking about.

Quote
You are ignoring the place genetics has in placing people on the political spectrum in the first place, which I believe it does. And further, your notion that 'honest' people don't have their perceptions shaped by the environment and its reward system is highly questionable. It's almost as if you don't think most people base their entire life plan on the options available in the economic system they inhabit.

Nothing you are saying relates at all to anything I said.

I neither ignored the role of genetics in determining politics, nor the role of "the enviroment and its reward system" in shaping perceptions.

I don't know how you make up these things about what I supposedly said or what I supposedly think.

Quote
You don't have the capacity to compute probabilities on this topic :)

Well, I think you'd compute the probabilities for the god Poseidon to exist to be under 50%, no? Probably you'd even say they are under 10%. Am I wrong in this?

I similarly compute probabilities for the christian god Ephrem seems to believe in.

Quote
He didn't say truth and goodness, he said truth and kindness. The difference between his version and yours is miles away. He's separating truth and goodness because (he is saying) truth involves sometimes telling people things they don't want to hear and which will be uncomfortable for them.

Yes, that's understandable, the way I'm saying that God doesn't exist, which you people might not want to hear, might be uncomfortable for you, but ultimately I consider it good for you to hear, since it's true.

Quote
Kindness in this context appears to mean 'making them feel good'. However goodness is an overarching term meaning doing the best thing for someone (or for everyone), which according to Ephrem's argument is probably similar or the same thing to truth. So within the confines of this sub-discussion truth and goodness are not two separate things. And certainly within the Christian tradition they are in fact identical, and you could toss "love" into the mix and say they are all interchangeable terms referring to the innate property of the creator.

When a nazi officer tries to come find the Jews you have hidden in the attic, is it good to tell him the truth of the matter? If not, it seems that truth and goodness seem two different things in at least this one matter.

Let's speak about a less extreme example which doesn't even involve any genocide: You see a fat woman in the street. Is it Good to go and tell her "You are fat. You disgust me with how fat you are. If I had to rate you 0 to 10 on an attractiveness scale, you'd get a 0." Is that a Good thing to do, even if it's True?"
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 22, 2022, 03:05:20 PM
I did; read it again until understanding ensues.  Or if you fail at that -- or decline to try -- why trouble to respond, just to say you're not gonna respond?  My comment wasn't even a direct reply to you, so why feel the need to chime in?  Unless you're an aspirant mini-mod, or simply incredibly sensitive.
I'm an aspirant mod, no mini about it.

How do I apply?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 25, 2022, 04:30:30 PM
https://twitter.com/MsGabriel/status/1486082962601000960?s=20

TRAs hahahahaha I told you so
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: alai on January 25, 2022, 05:15:31 PM
TERFs hahahahaha I told you so

You realize just how transparently obvious it is that if trans people instantly disappeared from the planet -- or your therapist successfully carried out some sort of successful conversion therapy on you specific to your transphobia, as opposed to your other issues -- you'd be equally enraged at this person for their "sexist" leftist progressive (cis-)male-exclusion?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 25, 2022, 07:34:45 PM
you'd be equally enraged at this person for their "sexist" leftist progressive (cis-)male-exclusion?
nice try at mind-reading but you're wrong

I don't mind cis-male exclusion

have at it, cis-females
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: alai on January 25, 2022, 08:22:07 PM
Maybe they'll make a RadFem out of you yet.  (Or make fascists out of themselves, one does occasionally wonder.)
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 26, 2022, 12:24:27 PM
labels are stupid THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY they lead to misunderstandings

the solution is clarification from the abstract label to concrete situations in reality

like the Trolley Problem. I don't do anything in that case. Is that murder?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: rightleft22 on January 26, 2022, 12:47:22 PM
labels are stupid THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY they lead to misunderstandings

the solution is clarification from the abstract label to concrete situations in reality

like the Trolley Problem. I don't do anything in that case. Is that murder?

What are labels if not words... Clarification after clarification and still we mistake the words as the thing itself thus the absurdity that is language.

Like the Trolley Problem. I don't do anything in that case. Is that murder? 14 words to describe what is a very complex moment in time and question. Is that enough clarification to answer it?

In a world with a 280 character limit attention span world is enough to react to a moment in time...
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: alai on January 26, 2022, 03:38:59 PM
Some labels, words, and indeed entire sentences and paragraphs are definitely stupider than others, however.

I dunno quite how we got onto the Trolley Problem-- OK, yes I do.  The Brownian motion of EM's random darting from point to unrelated point to no purpose whatsoever.  But if we could get him to talk even about that for three posts running, we might be able to measure the exact size of his omission/commission cognitive bias.  Or high-minded deontological principles, as he might prefer to "stupidly label" those.

Insofar as it's diagnostic of anything, I've heard it said the only red flag is people that are a little too quick to answer, and untroubled by the dilemma if asked.  So what it says if one volunteers an opinion without being asked...
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 26, 2022, 03:51:41 PM
TRAs don't like this new news I don't wonder why

https://twitter.com/MForstater/status/1486428631593369606?s=20
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 27, 2022, 12:25:02 PM
How do I tell the difference between a “real trans” and a porn sick man who identifies as “trans-gender” in order to get a sexual thrill from being in women only spaces?

https://twitter.com/angijones/status/1486633304082116608?s=20
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: rightleft22 on January 27, 2022, 12:50:31 PM
How do I tell the difference between a “real trans” and a porn sick man who identifies as “trans-gender” in order to get a sexual thrill from being in women only spaces?

https://twitter.com/angijones/status/1486633304082116608?s=20

Why do you care. How many encounters have you had with someone that needed you to understand the difference?
How many people in real life meetings, out of the blue start telling thier story about how they identify? What sexual position they like...
Why do we care so much about who someone is attracted to, who they preferer to hang out with,  how someone sees themselves, what they do in bed.

In the first half of life I defined myself, my sense of identify to what I did, my job, who I hung out with, groups I affiliated with... I am this, I am that...
And in the second half spending a lot of time detaching myself from those 'identities' - I have a job I am not my job, I have a sexual preference I am not my sexual preference, I have a gender, I am not my gender... Only to be told now that to be woke I must identify with of all things pronouns. WTF I am not a pronoun!

All this stress we create for one another when the answer is to treat everyone as we would like to be treated and or treat ourselves.

Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 27, 2022, 05:32:41 PM
Why do you care.
Because I don't want my daughter to have the possibility of encountering male anatomy in the showers at the 24 Hour Fitness she goes to.

Also, I don't want for male heterosexual predators have novel ways of abusing women in pretending to be a "transgender butch lesbian". So ban all of the transwomen from female-only spaces, that's all. That's obviously important in women's prisons, if you care at all about preventing rape in such prisons.

Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: rightleft22 on January 27, 2022, 05:51:40 PM
Why do you care.
Because I don't want my daughter to have the possibility of encountering male anatomy in the showers at the 24 Hour Fitness she goes to.

Also, I don't want for male heterosexual predators have novel ways of abusing women in pretending to be a "transgender butch lesbian". So ban all of the transwomen from female-only spaces, that's all. That's obviously important in women's prisons, if you care at all about preventing rape in such prisons.

I play because I'm board even knowing others on this site have better countered your reasoning

There world is not the same as when I was young and a flash of tit or penis shocked the world or we pretended it did. Today my nephews and nieces don't pretend to shock and the world will be theirs in time if it isn't already. That is as it should be, we had our time and the pretending took so much energy.

Yes rape in prison I'll pretend you and I really care enough to do more then shake our heads solemn sadness that such things happen in prison...
Perhaps we should neuter everyone who goes to prison that might solve the problem or rape - but of course its only the trans that rape in prison, so maybe only them, unless such surgery transformation is what they wish for.

 
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 27, 2022, 06:13:19 PM
I play because I'm board even knowing others on this site have better countered your reasoning

There world is not the same as when I was young and a flash of tit or penis shocked the world or we pretended it did. Today my nephews and nieces don't pretend to shock and the world will be theirs in time if it isn't already. That is as it should be, we had our time and the pretending took so much energy.

Yes rape in prison I'll pretend you and I really care enough to do more then shake our heads solemn sadness that such things happen in prison...
Perhaps we should neuter everyone who goes to prison that might solve the problem or rape - but of course its only the trans that rape in prison, so maybe only them, unless such surgery transformation is what they wish for.
believe what you want Plato's Allegory of the Cave applies

will historians consider you and your kind the Nazis of this era, or will it be me and JK Rowling and Richard Dawkins and John Cleese and Dave Chappelle and Mark Hamill and Patton Oswalt and people who agree with this:

https://twitter.com/mbmpolicy/status/1486696658045919234?s=20&t=ihS3yvRuPnPrz2AvDO_pLA

we shall see

the "winners" get access to the quote-unquote "high value" women and the Nazis get canceled out of existence (which I personally wouldn't mind; the Internet is written in ink after all and I've doxxed myself everywhere).
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 27, 2022, 06:42:03 PM
note: the EHRC, I'm told, is responsible for regulating the 2010 Equality Act in the UK

you TRAs have lost in the UK

hahahahahahaha
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: alai on January 27, 2022, 10:51:15 PM
note: the EHRC, I'm told, is responsible for regulating the 2010 Equality Act in the UK
And earlier equality legislation.  I assume you were against them, before you were fore them.  And until you're against them.

you TRAs have lost in the UK
I have no idea what your standard for "winning" and "losing" might be, here.  Come back and crow when the UK legislates in favour of your "forcible conversion therapy all round" position.  Or anywhere else indeed, depending on how you feel about associating with them by way of your approval.

Why do you care.
Seems to be his USP.  As gay people are to Westboro, the trans are to EM's fundy-poiy-fascist-not-nazi church of one.  Even though it requires the most amazingly clumsy calumniation by cases.  Hates trans being for not being on cross-sex hormones...  or for being on them.  Slurs them for getting surgical procedures, and for not.

Haters, as they say, gonna hate.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 28, 2022, 11:38:16 AM
"...it's a way of marginalizing a normal person"
- Norm MacDonald (on the term "cismale")

I measure "winning" by finding new TERFy stuff like that

https://twitter.com/SwerfingtheUSA/status/1483808042315563008?s=20&t=xCSZ9ZYljd9MlBR9n4D4qQ
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 28, 2022, 11:58:29 AM
See, if transwomen are not women, then that opens the door to gay marriage is not marriage.

And that opens the door to "hey, how come the fundamentalist (read: unchanging for ~1600 years) Christians were always right about those issues?

And then, perhaps, a theocratic fascist government, which is what I unapologetically want.

And that's why the polarization is so, well, polarized, more & more every day.

Those who took anti-fundamentalist-Christian positions for years or decades can't back down now without losing major, major, major face.

Surely you all see that?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: NobleHunter on January 28, 2022, 12:00:07 PM
Quote
And that opens the door to "hey, how come the fundamentalist (read: unchanging for ~1600 years) Christians were always right about those issues?

You really shouldn't believe the lies people tell about themselves.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 28, 2022, 12:05:50 PM
Quote
And that opens the door to "hey, how come the fundamentalist (read: unchanging for ~1600 years) Christians were always right about those issues?

You really shouldn't believe the lies people tell about themselves.
Don't you get normative with me. I'll believe what I choose to believe thank you very much.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: rightleft22 on January 28, 2022, 01:42:44 PM
Quote
And that opens the door to "hey, how come the fundamentalist (read: unchanging for ~1600 years) Christians were always right about those issues?

You really shouldn't believe the lies people tell about themselves.
Don't you get normative with me. I'll believe what I choose to believe thank you very much.

Taken literally - Don't believe the lies people tell - Don't tell me what I choose to believe  - I read as I believe what I choose to believe in lies or not.... thank you very much. Which I know is not what you meant but makes a kind of sense with regards to many of the arguments you make with such certainty...
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: alai on January 28, 2022, 05:10:32 PM
Which I know is not what you meant but makes a kind of sense with regards to many of the arguments you make with such certainty...
It's a brave person that says anything definitive about what EM does or doesn't mean.  In another thread he appears to be trying to argue that it doesn't matter if he's wrong about everything (which is handy, as he is!) because in the future the theocrats will build us all Cylon heavens, and most especially Cylon hells, liberally apply spackle (as Bill Byson tells me is the correct local idiom), and "make good".  But the error bars on that estimates are larger than the estimated probability, so yours is as good as mine, or indeed better.

I'd certainly not rule out the "lying for a good cause (or at least in line with my own prejudices)" interpretation, even self-consciously.

See, if transwomen are not women, then that opens the door to gay marriage is not marriage.
*cocks ear to the back of the room*  Oops, think you're losing the TERF crowd!

Quote
And that opens the door to "hey, how come the fundamentalist (read: unchanging for ~1600 years) Christians were always right about those issues?
Read:  blundering around in the dark for so long they don't even begin to understand their own history.  (And no, it does not.  Because of hilariously discontiguous syllogisms, and basic errors of fact.)

Quote
Surely you all see that?
Surely we all see through you.

"...it's a way of marginalizing a normal person"
- Norm MacDonald (on the term "cismale")
Poor Norm, practically still warm in his grave, and being approvingly quoted by fascists.  And I thought Orwell had it tough on this forum.  Cis, also an adjective.  Also a very straightforward concept.  But I'll stipulate that you should be marginalised (if not that you're a normal person).

Quote
I measure "winning" by finding new TERFy stuff like that
Tee-hee, that idiolect of yours again!  Very much in line with the "did my own research" trope.  Scroll internet.  Find things that agree with feels.  Feel affirmed.  Repeat.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 28, 2022, 05:51:10 PM
Which I know is not what you meant but makes a kind of sense with regards to many of the arguments you make with such certainty...
What did I mean?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on January 28, 2022, 06:01:32 PM
What did I mean?

Indeed.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 29, 2022, 12:01:07 PM
Bueller? Bueller?

Okay. I suspect that I'm the one who knows what I meant.

I meant: don't tell me what I "should" or "should not" believe.

That won't work. I will be believing what some refer to as "lies" if those "lies" maximize my own personal happiness. What some think is a "lie" I refer to as a "truth".

Like, for example, it is a fact that "God is love" in my reality.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Aris Katsaris on January 29, 2022, 12:43:53 PM
Bueller? Bueller?

Okay. I suspect that I'm the one who knows what I meant.

I meant: don't tell me what I "should" or "should not" believe.

That won't work. I will be believing what some refer to as "lies" if those "lies" maximize my own personal happiness. What some think is a "lie" I refer to as a "truth".

Like, for example, it is a fact that "God is love" in my reality.

Ok, you've made that clear enough by now -- but I'll say this definitely sounds more like make-believe rather than actual belief. I *think* that i you actually believed in those things, you'd not be self-aware you believe them because of ulterior motives like your happiness -- instead you'd think such things to be true.

That you recognize you have certain beliefs because of different reasons (they promote your happiness), just seems to me to mean that you don't actually have those beliefs. There's probably a big dinstinction in your mind between thoughts like "God is love" and "This table exists.", and I'd argue the second one is true belief and the first one... well, as I said, it sounds more like make-believe the way you describe it.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 29, 2022, 01:57:35 PM
I believe God exists. Why? Because it's a reasonable possibility from the Simulation Argument. There is no reason to expect that such a God would choose to reveal Himself to today's atheists or agnostics.

I believe that God is love. Why? Because I am doomed otherwise, as I choose to define the concept of love; that concept has to do with how Jesus Christ loved everyone, even the hypocrites and the money-changers.

That's a house of cards that leads me to conclude that sexuality is solely meant for procreation. I admit that.

I am not the only one who holds those beliefs.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on January 29, 2022, 01:59:31 PM
I am not the only one who holds those beliefs.

I bet you are! If you do at all. Personally I find it almost inconceivable that because of the simulation argument you believe in God.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 29, 2022, 09:13:22 PM
I bet you are! If you do at all. Personally I find it almost inconceivable that because of the simulation argument you believe in God.
do you believe that atheists have decided to be agnostic solely due to the Simulation Argument?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on January 29, 2022, 09:56:20 PM
do you believe that atheists have decided to be agnostic solely due to the Simulation Argument?

No, I think the simulation argument is mostly useless.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 29, 2022, 11:37:33 PM
No, I think the simulation argument is mostly useless.
Then as soon as I can purchase VR hardware to convincingly put your brain in a vat, I am going to kidnap you and you'll find yourself with a personal relationship with "God".
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on January 29, 2022, 11:45:55 PM
Then as soon as I can purchase VR hardware to convincingly put your brain in a vat, I am going to kidnap you and you'll find yourself with a personal relationship with "God".

What would that matter if my brain is already in a vat?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 30, 2022, 11:22:02 AM
What would that matter if my brain is already in a vat?
Well, I'm not certain.

Are you already in Hell?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 30, 2022, 11:53:06 AM
There's probably a big dinstinction in your mind between thoughts like "God is love" and "This table exists.", and I'd argue the second one is true belief and the first one... well, as I said, it sounds more like make-believe the way you describe it.
There is not and you don't understand how deeply confirmation bias and the brain post-processing perceptions can affect beliefs.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Aris Katsaris on January 30, 2022, 02:18:52 PM
Quote
There is not and you don't understand how deeply confirmation bias and the brain post-processing perceptions can affect beliefs.

I do believe I understand all that.

What I don't understand is how you can *recognize* that your belief is simply a result of confirmation bias, a result of it simply making you happy to so believe, and still consider it your belief on the same level as your belief in, e.g. the blueness of the sky, or the existence of tables.

But hey, I don't think I care enough to probe further. Frankly you seem to me even more insane and more double-thinky than usual for theists, but I just don't care that much.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: edgmatt on January 30, 2022, 09:00:17 PM
You care enough to post some insults, so, I'd say you care at least a little.   :P
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 31, 2022, 11:07:58 AM
I do believe I understand all that.

What I don't understand is how you can *recognize* that your belief is simply a result of confirmation bias, a result of it simply making you happy to so believe, and still consider it your belief on the same level as your belief in, e.g. the blueness of the sky, or the existence of tables.

But hey, I don't think I care enough to probe further. Frankly you seem to me even more insane and more double-thinky than usual for theists, but I just don't care that much.
If I'm wrong, I don't wanna be right. It's more fun to believe that I'll live forever in eternal joy. I really do believe that I will live forever in eternal joy. And I'm not the only one. I bet OSC does, too. I bet tons of Christians really, really, REALLY, do, just like me.

And, it's possible, and that is an inarguable fact. No one can calculate the probability, of course, but it's non-zero.

I just love non-zero probabilities coupled with eternal optimism, that's all.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Aris Katsaris on January 31, 2022, 11:47:07 AM
Quote
I really do believe that I will live forever in eternal joy. And I'm not the only one. I bet OSC does, too. I bet tons of Christians really, really, REALLY, do, just like me.

I respect people like C.S. Lewis who believed in Christianity, because they thought that the reason to believe in Christianity is because it was true.

From The Screwtape Letters, as spoken by the demon Screwtape, advising his demon nephew:
Quote
On the other hand we do want, and want very much, to make men treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own advancement, but, failing that, as a means to anything — even to social justice. The thing to do is to get a man at first to value social justice as a thing which the Enemy demands, and then work him on to the stage at which he values Christianity because it may produce social justice. For the Enemy will not be used as a convenience. Men or nations who think they can revive the Faith in order to make a good society might just as well think they can use the stairs of Heaven as a short cut to the nearest chemist's shop. Fortunately it is quite easy to coax humans round this little corner. Only today I have found a passage in a Christian writer where he recommends his own version of Christianity on the ground that “only such a faith can outlast the death of old cultures and the birth of new civilisations”. You see the little rift? “Believe this, not because it is true, but for some other reason.” That's the game,

Your affectionate uncle. SCREWTAPE.

Like the demon Screwtape suggests, you seem to be believing in Christianity, not because it's true, but for some other reason - because it makes you happy to believe it.

You aren't trying to convince people Christianity is true, you're (at best) trying to convince them that it has a non-zero probability of being true. Well yes, nearly everything have a non-zero probability, if you want to be strictly technical about it, but frankly, and to the extent that it even makes sense to try to compare infinitesmall probabilities -- I think I'd probably consider the existence of a Santa Claus working to make toys in North Pole accompanied by elves more likely than the existence of Christianity's God.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 31, 2022, 12:02:40 PM
sigh semantics arguments bore me I'm only trying to speak in your language please realize that that can make me hard to understand

Christianity *is* TRUE, but, it's based on unprovable personal experiences

wait:

I'm currently in an inpatient psych ward, three days ago I asked everyone in my church to pray that I found an outpatient bed, and I will let your imagination figure out why tomorrow is my last day here

(I did read Screwtape 20 years ago; great book)

I AM NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE ANYONE THAT CHRISTIANITY IS TRUE

instead

I AM CONVINCING MYSELF because I have Borderline Personality Disorder and I always seem to doubt God. Four years ago I had an "awakening" where I went from 0.01% convinced to, say, 51% all in one day.

(boy was that a wonderful day)

Before I started posting here, I was at 99.99% convinced

today I am 99.99999% convinced

see?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Fenring on January 31, 2022, 12:06:39 PM
Good post, Aris. I'll throw in a quibble, take it as you like: it's a bit of a false binary to say that a thing is either seen as true, or else merely as a means to an end and therefore not true in itself. In the Lewis quote it seems like he's highlighting a binary like this. But if we were sidestepping Christianity for a moment and talking straight metaphysics, it could indeed be possible, er, depending on how the universe is constructed, for a thing to be actually true (i.e. real) if and only if you believe in it, and false if not. You could call that objective subjectivity. And actually I think Christianity has a little of this going on. Not about whether God exists pe se, but about whether certain things in fact work how people say they do.

That being said, I'm not even sure Lewis is talking about the true vs means to an end binary as a binary. I think his point is about people placing values higher than God and trying to use religion merely as a means to get the thing they want. I don't think it's about the ontology of it. It's more like how people can become idolaters even while thinking of themselves as devoutly religious.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: rightleft22 on January 31, 2022, 12:44:59 PM
Quote
it's possible, and that is an inarguable fact.

That something is possible is the fact.

Its possible that I'm so good looking all woman desire me... that possibility is a inarguable fact.  Weather the reality of that statement is a fact hasn't been confirmed as fact no matter how much I believe it or want it to be true.

You seem to be jumping the shark. 
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 31, 2022, 02:18:05 PM
I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said something like, you don't want religion to be false because then crazy people will murder you if (1) they are convinced that they can get away with it and (2) they're pissed off at you.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 31, 2022, 02:20:56 PM
also I was successful at attracting a 22-year-old babe--most beautiful and interesting woman I've ever personally met

(I hope you're watching this thread Starr)

that was before she tricked me into seeing her ID

I'm 55

sigh
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 31, 2022, 04:54:50 PM
Yay Aussies, and hopefully the USA will follow:

https://www.couriermail.com.au/education-queensland/extremely-harmful-parents-forced-to-sign-contract-about-childs-gender-identity/news-story/ca775ead41998d72937d7d4f02e30623

Your world is crumbling TRAs. Yet another nail in the coffin.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on January 31, 2022, 05:07:52 PM
A private Christian school denounces homosexuals and transgenders. I'm not terribly surprised, but I don't think it is going to crumble anything.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 31, 2022, 05:13:25 PM
A private Christian school denounces homosexuals and transgenders. I'm not terribly surprised, but I don't think it is going to crumble anything.
tell that to the trans/gay students who attended/want to attend

petition against it has over 50k signatures
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on January 31, 2022, 05:18:08 PM
A petition is a nice way to vent, I wonder how many of them even live in Queensland. I wonder how many of them are interested in Christian school.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 31, 2022, 05:22:42 PM
A petition is a nice way to vent, I wonder how many of them even live in Queensland. I wonder how many of them are interested in Christian school.
I wonder if this kind of thing will become the norm for schools in the US.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on January 31, 2022, 06:03:41 PM
Where have you been? There are loads of anti-LGBT religious schools in the US.

A court case is pending in Kentucky (https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/suit-filed-against-christian-school-expelled-girl-after-rainbow-birthday-n1122001)
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 31, 2022, 06:27:58 PM
Where have you been? There are loads of anti-LGBT religious schools in the US.

A court case is pending in Kentucky (https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/suit-filed-against-christian-school-expelled-girl-after-rainbow-birthday-n1122001)
I said "schools" without a qualification though
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on January 31, 2022, 07:37:42 PM
Where have you been? There are loads of anti-LGBT religious schools in the US.

A court case is pending in Kentucky (https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/suit-filed-against-christian-school-expelled-girl-after-rainbow-birthday-n1122001)
I said "schools" without a qualification though

There is not now, nor ever will be, a public high school demanding students take a pledge against being gay or transgender.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 31, 2022, 08:46:10 PM
There is not now, nor ever will be, a public high school demanding students take a pledge against being gay or transgender.
Ah a prophet!!!

There is a non-zero probability, sir, that the world will in my lifetime be under the control of a theocratic fascist regime.

Yes?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on January 31, 2022, 09:04:00 PM
There is not now, nor ever will be, a public high school demanding students take a pledge against being gay or transgender.
Ah a prophet!!!

There is a non-zero probability, sir, that the world will in my lifetime be under the control of a theocratic fascist regime.

Yes?

Barring a seismic shift in public opinion and law, I'll grant you that possibility. If the American Taliban rises up, then sure.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on January 31, 2022, 09:10:02 PM
"barring"?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Aris Katsaris on February 01, 2022, 05:38:02 AM
There is a non-zero probability, sir, that the world will in my lifetime be under the control of a theocratic fascist regime.

There's a "non-zero probability" for a tyranny of sentient cross-dressing alien purple giraffes as well. But I wouldn't bet on it.

You know to use lots of phrases that end up meaning nothing while *sounding* as if they mean something. "non-zero probability" is one of those.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on February 01, 2022, 10:34:49 AM
There's a "non-zero probability" for a tyranny of sentient cross-dressing alien purple giraffes as well. But I wouldn't bet on it.

You know to use lots of phrases that end up meaning nothing while *sounding* as if they mean something. "non-zero probability" is one of those.
Are you telling me that all non-zero probabilities will never come true?

ALL of them? ALL of them can be rounded down to zero?

Cause it only takes one to bite you in the ass is all I'm saying. Just one.

I wonder what the probability of that happening is.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on February 01, 2022, 11:26:10 AM
There is a non-zero probability that gender as a concept will be dismissed and that procreation will be done via cloning and that all Christians attempting to procreate naturally will be put to death.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on February 01, 2022, 11:33:18 AM
There is a non-zero probability that gender as a concept will be dismissed and that procreation will be done via cloning and that all Christians attempting to procreate naturally will be put to death.
That would be my hope. It is the dream of a Christian to be martyred.

Please tell me where I need to go to be culled.

Are you/do you hope to be one of the cullers?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on February 01, 2022, 11:57:50 AM
There is a non-zero probability that gender as a concept will be dismissed and that procreation will be done via cloning and that all Christians attempting to procreate naturally will be put to death.
That would be my hope. It is the dream of a Christian to be martyred.

Please tell me where I need to go to be culled.

Are you/do you hope to be one of the cullers?

Nah, I'd rather be one of the cloners. I will decide which genetic material is most fit based entirely on woke culture.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Aris Katsaris on February 01, 2022, 01:54:01 PM
Are you telling me that all non-zero probabilities will never come true?

ALL of them? ALL of them can be rounded down to zero?

Cause it only takes one to bite you in the ass is all I'm saying. Just one.

I wonder what the probability of that happening is.

No, I'm the one who is actually aware that different events have different probabilities, so I never said that "all non-zero probabilities will never come true".

It's you who seeks to conflate everything into a single mass of "non-zero probabilities" -- whether it's 99.9% or 0.1% you don't seem to care, as long as they're non-zero.

But as long as we're discussing probabilities, I'll tell you however, that a global fascist theocratic regime has a lot more probability of being Islamic than Christian -- since for starters, there are already fascist theocratic Islamic regimes, it's only the "global" adjective they're lacking.

Unfortunately for you, Iran doesn't hate trans people as much as you do, so don't be sure a fascist theocratic regime would be doing things you like.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on February 01, 2022, 04:25:04 PM
Nah, I'd rather be one of the cloners. I will decide which genetic material is most fit based entirely on woke culture.
Great choice! I assume you'll be participating actively and extensively in the, um, "natural" way of reproducing?
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on February 01, 2022, 04:35:48 PM
No, I'm the one who is actually aware that different events have different probabilities, so I never said that "all non-zero probabilities will never come true".

It's you who seeks to conflate everything into a single mass of "non-zero probabilities" -- whether it's 99.9% or 0.1% you don't seem to care, as long as they're non-zero.

But as long as we're discussing probabilities, I'll tell you however, that a global fascist theocratic regime has a lot more probability of being Islamic than Christian -- since for starters, there are already fascist theocratic Islamic regimes, it's only the "global" adjective they're lacking.

Unfortunately for you, Iran doesn't hate trans people as much as you do, so don't be sure a fascist theocratic regime would be doing things you like.
Excellent point. Let me restate what I meant in my haste to continue this very enlightening conversation:

"Are you telling me that all non-zero probabilities less than 0.000001% will never come true?

There is an endless number of those probabilities, correct? Not infinite mind you, but endless over the lifetime of our universe if not solar system.

And if one of those improbabilities comes true, it might be one based on a very popular book over the last, say, 6000 years or so?"

And re Iran, I will take my chances, just as everyone is. I've decided to maximize my happiness in the here-and-now because I feel that there is a non-zero-greater-than-1%-probability-in-my-lifetime that medical technology will go exponential and provide anyone with the ability to live as long as he/she wishes, barring accidents and new diseases, of course. Different type of Singularity.

Vonnegut's anti-gerasone IOW where the difference is: we have plenty of resources in settling the known universe which I hope is infinite, with also the 0.000000001% probability (I'm guessing) that we'll figure out how to create new universes and teleport into them.

That'd be cool right?

So why not spend leisure time investigating that? Could bump up the probability to 0.0001% after all.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on February 01, 2022, 04:43:32 PM
so I assume all TRAs will emigrate to Iran should my dreams come true.

That will turn out well I am quite sure.

win/win!
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on February 02, 2022, 01:45:01 PM
Iran might not be quite as tolerant:

https://twitter.com/RebuffTheMuff/status/1488793852169400321?s=20&t=inxukL6VMTjWjyodFdJYAQ

We all know what's going on here. Be a transwoman, they'll cut your balls off immediately.

Be gay and be executed.

That is what you're celebrating???
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on February 02, 2022, 02:20:25 PM
Here's a heartwarming story for EM.

Quote
In November last year, Aneera Kabeer attended her 14th job interview in two months wearing a cap, a mask that hid most of her face, and men's clothes.

The 35-year-old trans woman says it was an act of desperation borne of the transphobic remarks she faced at earlier interviews.

She got the part-time job - at a government school in the southern Indian state of Kerala - but alleges she was unfairly dismissed less than two months later.

...

In 2018, Shanavi Ponnusamy wrote a letter to Indian President Ram Nath Kovind, also seeking a mercy killing.

The previous year she had petitioned the country's Supreme Court after she was allegedly denied a job by Air India, then the national carrier, as they didn't have a policy for hiring transgender staff.

Transgender hell (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-60212092)
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Aris Katsaris on February 02, 2022, 02:26:27 PM
Iran might not be quite as tolerant:

https://twitter.com/RebuffTheMuff/status/1488793852169400321?s=20&t=inxukL6VMTjWjyodFdJYAQ

We all know what's going on here. Be a transwoman, they'll cut your balls off immediately.

Be gay and be executed.

That is what you're celebrating???

First of all -- I never celebrated Iran, the very opposite, I despise it: You're the one who wants a theocratic fascist regime, don't try to twist things around.

Secondly, what I'm actually reading (https://qz.com/889548/everyone-treated-me-like-a-saint-in-iran-theres-only-one-way-to-survive-as-a-transgender-person/) is "If an Iranian is officially diagnosed with gender identity disorder, the government issues the authorization for them to legally start the sex reassignment process, and at the end of that process the court issues a new identity card, with a new gender listed. In other words, while Iran does not mandate that all trans individuals have the surgery, it is not possible to change your gender marker on official documents without undergoing the surgery."

so I don't know where you're getting "Be a transwoman, they'll cut off your balls immediately."

I think that's again just your wet dream of how a theocratic fascist regime will behave, not actually how Iran behaves.

They certainly murder lots of other LGBT people (gay people specifially), so that'll be making you happy, I know. Given your "love" for your fellow human beings.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on February 02, 2022, 02:33:38 PM
I don't celebrate murders

but, I appreciate the corrections, I've filed it all and it won't be forgotten

I beg your forgiveness I jump to conclusions sometimes
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on February 02, 2022, 02:43:41 PM
and by the way

did Jesus love the money-changers he whipped?

hmmmmm
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: NobleHunter on February 02, 2022, 02:45:59 PM
Yes.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Aris Katsaris on February 02, 2022, 03:01:16 PM
did Jesus love the money-changers he whipped?

Am amused at the different interpretations of this passage:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleansing_of_the_Temple#Interpretation_of_John_2:15

Christians who want to be violent argue that Jesus used violence against the merchants themselves. Christians who want a peaceful Christianity interpret it as Jesus only using the whip against the oxen and the sheep, since it's said he made the whip and it's not mentioned how he used it, it's only said he "drove out the merchants and overturned their tables"

As always creating God after our own image!

Either way, however, I'm not a Christian at all and I don't believe Jesus was divine, and I don't actually need to care at all about what Jesus did or didn't do, or what his feelings were at the time. If you insist however, I would however guess that, being an ordinary human being, he probably didn't love those particular people at that particular moment, no.

Not that this matters any.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on February 02, 2022, 03:10:41 PM
yes it matters Aris because you brought up Christian "love"

there are as many interpretations of that verse as you want, of course

some humans -- narcissists, solipsists, for example -- might only understand one kind of punishment, that's my opinion

I mean, OT God, hello???
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDeamon on February 06, 2022, 02:58:40 PM
No I did not. I advocated pruning off the people who have beliefs that ultimately end up with pedophilia being accepted. I am NOT calling anyone transgender a pedophile. What I am saying instead is that TWAW goes in a direction that pedophiles, the predators, want.
Just for clarity here. Which definition do you use for pedophile?

Is it this one from the DSM-5?
https://www.theravive.com/therapedia/pedophilic-disorder-dsm--5-302.2-(f65.4)
Quote
Pedophilic Disorder is a DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition), diagnosis assigned to adults ( defined as age 16 and up) who have sexual desire for prepubescent children...
...
According to the DSM-5, there are three criterion, with six specifiers:

  • An individual who has had arousing fantasies about, urges for, or behaviors with a prepubescent child or children.
  • The individual has acted out these sexual desires, or is experiencing significant distress or difficulty as a result of these desires.
  • The Individual is 16 years of age, and at least five years older than the child or children noted in Criterion A.

Where "pre-pubescent" then becomes an open question of definition, and can be wildly variable between children, and appears to have historically been that way as well:
https://theconversation.com/children-arent-starting-puberty-younger-medieval-skeletons-reveal-91095

Quote
Puberty is divided into five clinical stages, with pre-puberty at stage one and onset (or thelarche) at stage two. Menarche (a girls first period) occurs at stage three. The age at which a child enters puberty (stage one) varies. Today, puberty onset occurs between the ages of ten and 14 in girls and 12 to 16 in boys, with some ethnic groups starting around a year earlier. The end of puberty, or full maturation, is reached by 13-17 years for girls, and 15-18 years for boys.

Or are we going for the more popular culture definition where a pedophile is simply someone who has sexual desires for "a child" where the definition of "child" becomes fuzzy? Epstein certainly seemed to be walking that line from what I'm seeing as a quick google is telling me the ages ranged from either 11 to 17 or 12 to 17 for the under-aged girls depending on which article I wanted to cite(I'm not bothering with any).

Much of the world seems to legally define the age of sexual consent as being 16 years old as of right now(even some states in the US do the same, although "sexual tourism" by crossing state lines is a federal matter and subject to federal law which sets the bar at 18. Although the UCMJ for the US Military still holds the age of consent to be 16). China has it set at 14. Japan's age of consent is set at 13, although they have provincial "corruption of a minor" laws which effectively raise it to 18 for most cases.
South Korea is set at 20.

If you ask some actuaries to compile statistics based on pregnancy outcomes, they'd likely advocate sexual age of consent should be closer to 25, which would bring it in line with Parent provided medical care for dependent children under the ACA("Obamacare").

So can you clarify what you mean when you're talking about pedophiles? Are we talking sexually desiring 24 year olds as a middle-aged person? Are we talking about a College Freshman (aged 19 years) sexually desiring a 17 year old High School Senior? Or maybe it's that 16 year old boy being sexually attracted to that 14YO girl who just completed puberty?

The best way to help ensure pedophilla becomes acceptable is to turn it into the acceptable-to-use term for every kind of "they're too young for that" exclamation about young individuals having sex.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDeamon on February 06, 2022, 03:02:00 PM
A world of fundamentalist Christians, if that's how you'd like it defined is indeed miniscule. And shrinking daily, thanks be to science.

Which was largely created, funded, and expanded upon by a bunch of deeply devoted Christians. Go figure. In fact, they're still pioneering in a large number of scientific fields, especially so in medicine.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDeamon on February 06, 2022, 03:09:10 PM
Perhaps we should neuter everyone who goes to prison that might solve the problem or rape - but of course its only the trans that rape in prison, so maybe only them, unless such surgery transformation is what they wish for.

Well, if they've ever undergone HRT for a gender transition, that effectively sterilizes them anyway. To my understanding, its permanent, but could be wrong on that front. So long as they're kept on HRT, they won't be getting anybody pregnant though.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: TheDrake on February 06, 2022, 04:26:55 PM
A world of fundamentalist Christians, if that's how you'd like it defined is indeed miniscule. And shrinking daily, thanks be to science.

Which was largely created, funded, and expanded upon by a bunch of deeply devoted Christians. Go figure. In fact, they're still pioneering in a large number of scientific fields, especially so in medicine.

You're missing the fundamentalist part, I think. Strict creationists, evolution deniers. I don't think you'll find many of them with a doctoral degree.

The Jesuits certainly have done a lot, and they are Christians. But not fundamentalists, which are essentially a subgroup of evangelicals.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on February 06, 2022, 08:33:00 PM
The way to pedophilia starts with what Dershowitz wants -- no statutory rape starting at 15. Give him and those like him control and they'll figure out how to get it, over time, to 14. Then as low as they want given time.

People who like that idea will inevitably support the transgender agenda, merely because the only other choice in this polarized environment is becoming, more and more, fundamentalist Christianity.

Personally I think that all sexual behavior involving anyone younger than 25 (when, I understand, the brain is fully-formed neurologically speaking) should be culturally shamed. Where it happens there are serious repercussions like the penis-bearer(s) goes to prison or is institutionalized until he is 30 years old.
Title: Re: New trans laws
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on February 06, 2022, 08:58:47 PM
https://www.reduxx.org/post/tavistock-gender-clinic-head-supports-ageplay-furries

"ageplay"