New trans laws

[TheDrake]

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?

[Fenring]

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.

[alai]

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.

[TheDeamon]

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.

[Ephrem Moseley]

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

[alai]

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.

[Ephrem Moseley]

if transwomen are women, then are transwomen not taking estrogen also women?

[TheDrake]

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?

[Lloyd Perna]

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.

[TheDrake]

What are they waiting for?

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.

[alai]

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?

[Fenring]

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.

[TheDrake]

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.

[alai]

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...

[Ephrem Moseley]

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?

[Ephrem Moseley]

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.

[alai]

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.

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?

And if so, why?

Why what, precisely?

[Fenring]

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?

[cherrypoptart]

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.

[alai]

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.

[cherrypoptart]

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.

[Fenring]

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

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."

[TheDrake]

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?

[Fenring]

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.

[TheDrake]

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, ...

[Fenring]

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.

[TheDeamon]

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.

[alai]

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...

[TheDrake]

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.

[Fenring]

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.

[rightleft22]

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

[Fenring]

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?

[TheDrake]

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...

[Fenring]

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.

[Ephrem Moseley]

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!

[alai]

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.

[Ephrem Moseley]

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)

[Aris Katsaris]

"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.

[rightleft22]

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.

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."

[Lloyd Perna]

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?

[alai]

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.

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.

[Fenring]

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.

[alai]

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.

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.

But the vast vast majority of people could never make money athletically.

I made exactly the same observation just slightly upthread.

[Ephrem Moseley]

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)

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

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

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

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?

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?

[Ephrem Moseley]

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

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

[Ephrem Moseley]

Bear in mind that in EM's little world

I stop reading when there's ad hominem

attack the ARGUMENT please and not me

[Ephrem Moseley]

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)

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

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

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

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?

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

[alai]

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?

[Ephrem Moseley]

no, you attacked me

please define "little world"

was that positive, neutral, or negative?

ATTACK THE ARGUMENT, not me

[TheDrake]

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.