Indeed, and with gender, as per any other cluster concept, there is an expected and correct contraindication on saying "No-True-Scotsman" as it were.My argument is that there's nothing about cluster concepts preventing you from using that to define gender
Hence why I don't say such bollocks as "they aren't a _____" with regards to gender.
Says the person in the act of not actually defending a position, because as has been noted all up and down the thread so far, no attempt has been made to apply anything but clearly dysfunctional semantic definitions of "woman" and arbitrary selections leading to cluster concepts.It's a lazy way to not have to make a coherent argument and defend your position
Neither of these serve your purpose of declaring trans people ought not have access to hormones.
The argument being leveled by the twat referenced in the OP is that trans people ought not be allowed to exist, not be allowed to access hormones because they in particular fail to fall within the imaginary borders of "woman".
"They know it when they see it".
How about "don't be a dick, just ask, and accept the answer politely, even if they answer their gender without telling you about their genitals."
The fact that there's plenty of human behaviours found both among men and women doesn't mean that, on average, they also always overlap
This is, quite pointedly, sexism and sex-essentialism.
You however, have not defined anything. You've avoided defining it.
My position has the benefit of letting people define themselves on that field as far as the treatment they recieve from the modes of treatment I offer commonly, and then just doing that.
Making bathrooms gender neutral is a non-issue to you. That is because you are a man, and the people gender neutral bathrooms create an issue for are women. There is a fundamental asymmetry between the sexes, one that I know you personally are not blinded to by ideological purity, even though it's evidently a verboten concept to some people here. A great many women perceive men as predators and themselves as prey. This is not an experience they can rid themselves of merely by subjecting themselves to a sufficient number of holier-than-thou lectures from their self-anointed betters.... They are talking about abolishing gendered bathrooms and making all children use the same bathrooms regardless of their sex or their gender identity. The problem is not girls being forced to choose between holding in their pee and sharing a bathroom with trans people. The problem is girls being forced to choose between holding in their pee and sharing a bathroom with cis boys.
I have a problem with people saying "bathrooms". As if that's what it is about. Making bathrooms gender neutral is a non-issue.
Who cares? Who cares?!? Women care!!! Did you ask any woman whether making bathrooms gender neutral is a non-issue to her before you decided it's not important? Or did you just philosophically contemplate whether it ought to be an issue by imagining how your male brain would feel if it were in a female body?Everybody will poop in private stalls. At no point will women, even attempt, to use the urinals. And if they do, who cares? It's smoke and mirrors.
Making bathrooms gender neutral is a non-issue to you. That is because you are a man, and the people gender neutral bathrooms create an issue for are women. There is a fundamental asymmetry between the sexes, one that I know you personally are not blinded to by ideological purity, even though it's evidently a verboten concept to some people here. A great many women perceive men as predators and themselves as prey. This is not an experience they can rid themselves of merely by subjecting themselves to a sufficient number of holier-than-thou lectures from their self-anointed betters.... They are talking about abolishing gendered bathrooms and making all children use the same bathrooms regardless of their sex or their gender identity. The problem is not girls being forced to choose between holding in their pee and sharing a bathroom with trans people. The problem is girls being forced to choose between holding in their pee and sharing a bathroom with cis boys.
I have a problem with people saying "bathrooms". As if that's what it is about. Making bathrooms gender neutral is a non-issue.
Who cares? Who cares?!? Women care!!! Did you ask any woman whether making bathrooms gender neutral is a non-issue to her before you decided it's not important? Or did you just philosophically contemplate whether it ought to be an issue by imagining how your male brain would feel if it were in a female body?Everybody will poop in private stalls. At no point will women, even attempt, to use the urinals. And if they do, who cares? It's smoke and mirrors.
I don't know if women think differently in Scandinavia, but in America women overwhelmingly do not want to have their women's bathrooms taken away from them. And judging from the reaction of the British schoolgirls in the article I linked, British women think like American women in this regard. When girls are so desperate not to go to the bathroom with boys that they'll dehydrate themselves all day to avoid it, you may depend upon it that it's an issue to them!
Oh for the love of god, women and girls aren't being asked, full-stop. They are being imposed upon. They are being dictated to. Nobody held a referendum before making all the bathrooms gender neutral, let alone a referendum of women. Their safe-spaces from men are being abolished without anyone in power giving them a say in the matter.Oh for the love of god. Women and girls aren't being asked to undress or to pee in front of anybody.Oh for the love of god. Women and girls do not feel uncomfortable undressing and peeing in front of men and boys because somebody told them there's something wrong with boys. Do you even know any women?
Have you ever even seen a clue?A locked stall in a room that is shared by everyone is a perfectly private space. Have you even seen a bathroom?
If you encounter a woman who prefers her public bathrooms to be female-only, I'm sure she'll come to see how wrong she is if only you mansplain her feelings to her.Mixed gender bathrooms have been the norm in many places in Europe since bathrooms were invented. The idea that such spaces must be segregated is an odd and twisted offshoot of puritanism.
Do you get off on play-acting the part of an idiot? I know you are not as stupid as the garbage you write.The problem is girls being forced to choose between holding in their pee and sharing a bathroom with cis boys
So in other words you posted something that has absolutely nothing to do about the thread title or even OP material.
I at least assumed you posted something germane to the topic. That, I think, was my mistake.
So what? The doors out to the rest of the building aren't locked, so anyone could just walk in when the bathrooms were gendered.One angry mother shared, "The cubicles were open at the bottom and top so older pupils can easily climb up the toilets and peer over."
This is the triump of the Patriarchy. Men telling women how they should feel in female spaces.So what? The doors out to the rest of the building aren't locked, so anyone could just walk in when the bathrooms were gendered.One angry mother shared, "The cubicles were open at the bottom and top so older pupils can easily climb up the toilets and peer over."
Having gendered bathrooms does nothing to stop rule-breakers from breaking the rules. No rules ever stop rule-breakers from breaking the rules. If people are climbing up and peering into toilet cubicles to harass the users, that's a behavioural problem that needs to be corrected, and putting up a sign saying "Ladies" is just kicking that can down the road. Bullying and harassment of teenagers by teenagers isn't new, isn't surprising, and isn't effectively addressed by gendering bathroom spaces.
The whole thing is only an issue because Americans (and the Poms) are so steeped in these random puritan rules that they've come to imagine these rules to be laws of nature.
Nobody in the EU cares, so clearly these are not, in fact, a naturally arising result of differences between male and female.
These are completely artificial cultural idiosyncrasies, and no more harm arises from un-gendered bathrooms than from wanton refusal to wear a burka, or from women wearing trousers, or from bathing in costumes that fail to cover every inch of skin between neck and knee.
All of which protections for women against predatory men were (and in some cases and places, still are) deeply believed to be absolutely essential, the the point of requiring laws ensuring their continued universality. And none of which laws ever did anything to actually protect women against sexual harassment or assault.
Curious that you want to simply cast this as evil conservatives. There are plenty on the "left" who are against men in female spaces. Like that fascist J. K. Rowling. That men should not be in females spaces is one of the most common sense things. Women shouldn't lose that simply because some guy wants to live out his autogynephilia.Reality tells conservatives that the way they tell their wives and daughters they ought feel in particular spaces is unnecessary and harmful. Conservatives double down.
...says the guy who wrote:It seems that the only folks who are trying to feel superior, or enable folks to feel superior, are those who try to exclude folks.
I would eject anyone from a department who makes arguments such as theirs that "is" of their dubiously definite "sex" informs any kind of "ought" might not have the wherewithal to hack it in academia in the first place.
And people who think like you are taking power over schoolgirls, constructively excluding them from school bathrooms by making those bathrooms a safe-haven for sexual harassment, and de facto saying to those girls "by power of our strength, the strength of our subculture's religious faith, and the strength of our friends, on school grounds you may not for your own sake do bladder evacuation to yourself."Superiority is fundamentally taking power over someone. Saying "by power of my strength, or the strength of the traditions of the past, or by the strength of my friends, you may not for your own sake do some thing to yourself."
That's what this is about.
I see you dropped an ought in there.Curious that you want to simply cast this as evil conservatives. There are plenty on the "left" who are against men in female spaces. Like that fascist J. K. Rowling. That men should not be in females spaces is one of the most common sense things. Women shouldn't lose that simply because some guy wants to live out his autogynephilia.Reality tells conservatives that the way they tell their wives and daughters they ought feel in particular spaces is unnecessary and harmful. Conservatives double down.
Are you sure?I see you dropped an ought in there.Curious that you want to simply cast this as evil conservatives. There are plenty on the "left" who are against men in female spaces. Like that fascist J. K. Rowling. That men should not be in females spaces is one of the most common sense things. Women shouldn't lose that simply because some guy wants to live out his autogynephilia.Reality tells conservatives that the way they tell their wives and daughters they ought feel in particular spaces is unnecessary and harmful. Conservatives double down.
Your 'common sense' does not seem so common nor sensible, however.
If it is such a common sensibility then surely you can point to a commonly held, shared principle between us which necessitates this puritanical separation, when all of Europe seems to be doing just fine without it?
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has published guidance for providers of single-sex and separate-sex services: in short, it says bathrooms and domestic abuse refuges can be single sex in certain circumstances.
Once again, this could not be clearer. Separate-sex and single-sex services are permitted because men and women have different biology; that is not affected by a legal fiction created under GRA. Thank goodness that the EHRC is willing to point this out.
...says the guy who wrote:It seems that the only folks who are trying to feel superior, or enable folks to feel superior, are those who try to exclude folks.
I would eject anyone from a department who makes arguments such as theirs that "is" of their dubiously definite "sex" informs any kind of "ought" might not have the wherewithal to hack it in academia in the first place.
They excluded themselves on account of the abusive messaging of their parents. No matter how much you complain that you have to share a drinking fountain with darkie, it is still your own tantrum that injures you.And people who think like you are taking power over schoolgirls, constructively excluding them from school bathroomsSuperiority is fundamentally taking power over someone. Saying "by power of my strength, or the strength of the traditions of the past, or by the strength of my friends, you may not for your own sake do some thing to yourself."
That's what this is about.
Wow, Europe must be absolutely sick with sexual harassment everywhere then...by making those bathrooms a safe-haven for sexual harassment,
They absolutely MAY use the bathroom. They are pointedly choosing not to, as a result of years of layered abuse from parents and teachers.and de facto saying to those girls "by power of our strength, the strength of our subculture's religious faith, and the strength of our friends, on school grounds you may not for your own sake do bladder evacuation to yourself."
They did.(No doubt when the unintended but entirely foreseeable consequences of their actions ensue, those progressive lunatics tell themselves they didn't exclude the schoolgirls -- the schoolgirls excluded themselves.
Excepting of course that only these American girls in this American school are having this problem.When an employer allows the men who work for him to sexually harass a woman to the point where she finds it intolerable and quits, the employer no doubt likewise thinks to himself that this was the woman's choice and has nothing to do with him.
Has it occurred to you that men who are married to women might potentially receive more expert input from women on the topic of how women feel in particular spaces than men who are married to men receive from their husbands on that topic? "tell their wives and daughters they ought feel". Your ignorance of ordinary heterosexual marriage is breathtaking.Reality tells conservatives that the way they tell their wives and daughters they ought feel in particular spaces is unnecessary and harmful. Conservatives double down.
No, you really are not listening to women, because you are still in here insisting for arbitrary reasons that certain people aren't women.Has it occurred to you that men who are married to women might potentially receive more expert input from women on the topic of how women feel in particular spaces than men who are married to men receive from their husbands on that topic? "tell their wives and daughters they ought feel". Your ignorance of ordinary heterosexual marriage is breathtaking.Reality tells conservatives that the way they tell their wives and daughters they ought feel in particular spaces is unnecessary and harmful. Conservatives double down.
Progressives are the ones telling women. I am listening to women.
Half the population are not women. A subjective desire to present as a women doesn't make a man a woman. I mean, the whole point of dsyphoria is that these guys want to be something that they are not.you are still in here insisting for arbitrary reasons that certain people aren't women.
And then we are back full circle: prove that half the population are "not truly women".Half the population are not women. A subjective desire to present as a women doesn't make a man a woman. I mean, the whole point of dsyphoria is that these guys want to be something that they are not.you are still in here insisting for arbitrary reasons that certain people aren't women.
What's that saying, people are allowed their own opinions but not their own facts? So Rachel Dolezal is a black woman? It'd be great if the gender ideologists could pinpoint the exact stage in our evolution when the sexual binary imposed on all other mammals was magically erased.This is different from making some qualitative statement about half the population. People are allowed to make qualitative statements about themselves after all.
Enjoy milking your bull. I mean, your trans-cow.Get back to me when you have a definition that even qualifies for making qualitative statements, and then I'll laugh at you with Bilby for a while when you metaphorically define "chair" in a way that captures "horse".
I'm doing nothing of the sort. Feel free to point out any case where I've insisted someone wasn't a woman, and I will present the non-arbitrary reason.No, you really are not listening to women, because you are still in here insisting for arbitrary reasons that certain people aren't women.Has it occurred to you that men who are married to women might potentially receive more expert input from women on the topic of how women feel in particular spaces than men who are married to men receive from their husbands on that topic? "tell their wives and daughters they ought feel". Your ignorance of ordinary heterosexual marriage is breathtaking.
Progressives are the ones telling women. I am listening to women.
Your husband is a male-identifying person who was born female? Sorry, I didn't know that. If you've said it elsewhere, sorry, I confess to not having read all 11000 of your posts.What I find particularly stupid about your views on the topic are such that your views about what defines "woman" would in fact define my husband as such
That was before you told me he has experience being female. In any event, I can't help but suspect that his experience is atypical -- if he didn't mind men in the women's room, that might be because he'd have preferred to be in the men's room anyway. I also can't help but suspect that your arguments here are based more on your own ideology than on passing along your husband's recollections -- you don't come off as all that big on taking input. "tell their wives and daughters they ought feel". Your ignorance of ordinary heterosexual marriage is breathtaking., and you quite pointedly made a show of insisting that his opinion is not germane...