Science My transgender hobbyhorse

[Jarhyn]

As for what my views are about whether your husband is a woman, you have no idea what my views are

Yes, because every time when you have been asked to give a definition of "female" that doesn't lead to nonsense such as capturing "horse" as a chair, you provide nothing of merit.

You have been asked myriad times to actually present and defend this definition alluded to since the OP and you have failed miserably.

That was before you told me he has experience being female.

He doesn't. He has experience being himself.

You're the one insisting right here that he has experience being "female".

Now the next question is how much more embarrassment are you ready to get over what you assume about ME?

I can't help but think it goes back to my point which you seem very intent on trying to turn to some other purpose: to tell puritanical fucksticks to quit manufacturing harms into existence via the Tinkerbell Effect as pertains to bathrooms.

An injury has been done, clearly and visibly to one of two groups, and my guess is that it's not the group that can successfully parse coed bathrooms.

That harm is exclusively of the form "created by traditional gender/sex separation and essentialism". That the harms caused by this American abuse are so deep that girls are getting UTIs rather than allow their American sex-based brainwashing to expire says it all.

Conservatives are abusing children with puritanical moores.

 

[Oleg]

Yes, because every time when you have been asked to give a definition of "female" that doesn't lead to nonsense such as capturing "horse" as a chair, you provide nothing of merit.

Which hips were you born with?

 

[Jarhyn]

Yes, because every time when you have been asked to give a definition of "female" that doesn't lead to nonsense such as capturing "horse" as a chair, you provide nothing of merit.

Which hips were you born with?

Certainly neither of those, those are hand drawn pictures of bones that don't belong to any human alive.

ceci n'est pas une pipe, and all that.

And I'm not going to show you the hips I have. Please stop soliciting me for pictures or measurements, such would be harassment were it to continue.

 

[Oleg]

Yes, because every time when you have been asked to give a definition of "female" that doesn't lead to nonsense such as capturing "horse" as a chair, you provide nothing of merit.

Which hips were you born with?

Certainly neither of those, those are hand drawn pictures of bones that don't belong to any human alive.

ceci n'est pas une pipe, and all that.

And I'm not going to show you the hips I have. Please stop soliciting me for pictures or measurements, such would be harassment were it to continue.

This is a creationist level denial of reality.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yes, because every time when you have been asked to give a definition of "female" that doesn't lead to nonsense such as capturing "horse" as a chair, you provide nothing of merit.

Which hips were you born with?

Certainly neither of those, those are hand drawn pictures of bones that don't belong to any human alive.

ceci n'est pas une pipe, and all that.

And I'm not going to show you the hips I have. Please stop soliciting me for pictures or measurements, such would be harassment were it to continue.

This is a creationist level denial of reality.

Yes, I acknowledge that your denial of reality is on the level of a creationist's. Biology is in fact messy and non-binary. It doesn't really fit into one box or another.

 

[Oleg]

Biology is in fact messy and non-binary.

No it isn't. For millions of years humans, as well as every other animal on this planet, have had no difficult understanding the sex binary. Procreation depends on it.

 

[Jarhyn]

Biology is in fact messy and non-binary.

No it isn't.

Messy biology and the origins of evolutionary innovations - Nature Chemical Biology

Biological messiness relates to infidelity, heterogeneity, stochastic noise and variation—both genetic and phenotypic—at all levels, from single proteins to organisms. Messiness comes from the complexity and evolutionary history of biological systems and from the high cost of accuracy. For...

www.nature.com

Yes, biology is messy, always has been, always will be.

 

[Oleg]

Biology is in fact messy and non-binary.

No it isn't.

Messy biology and the origins of evolutionary innovations - Nature Chemical Biology

Biological messiness relates to infidelity, heterogeneity, stochastic noise and variation—both genetic and phenotypic—at all levels, from single proteins to organisms. Messiness comes from the complexity and evolutionary history of biological systems and from the high cost of accuracy. For...

www.nature.com

Oh, please. Procreation is not messy or "non-binary." Even did dinosaurs did it.

 

[Oleg]

Biology is in fact messy and non-binary.

No it isn't.

Messy biology and the origins of evolutionary innovations - Nature Chemical Biology

Biological messiness relates to infidelity, heterogeneity, stochastic noise and variation—both genetic and phenotypic—at all levels, from single proteins to organisms. Messiness comes from the complexity and evolutionary history of biological systems and from the high cost of accuracy. For...

www.nature.com

Yes, biology is messy, always has been, always will be.

Your link refers to the messiness as it relates to adaptions. I don't doubt that at all. It has nothing to do with the sexual binary. No person can get themselves pregnant. No person born male can give birth. No person born female can impregnate.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

...says the guy who wrote:

​

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.

Indeed, the inability to avoid excluding others on account of their sex (applying an 'ought' to the 'is' of sex, whatever that happens to be) is grounds for dismissal.

Nobody has an obligation to tolerate fools or assholes

Whom you evidently consider yourself superior to. You're the one trying to exclude folks.

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.

And people who think like you are taking power over schoolgirls, constructively excluding them from school bathrooms

They excluded themselves on account of the abusive messaging of their parents.

You have an unrealistic notion of how much influence parents have. They excluded themselves on account of schoolboys behaving like schoolboys.

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.

Yeah, I was pretty sure sooner or later somebody was going to make that analogy. You know what would make it a better analogy? Whites-only drinking fountains having been established by the dominant blackiarchy as a kindness to the white underclass, in recognition that white people have good reason to be afraid of black people after thousands of years of social subordination of whites enforced by black-on-white violence.

You are arguing that making a historically-oppressed group a protected category with a set-aside for their benefit is the same thing as making a non-historically-oppressed group a protected category and having a set-aside that institutionalizes harm to the historically-oppressed group. I.e., you are arguing that affirmative action is racism. Do you in fact think affirmative action is racism?

by making those bathrooms a safe-haven for sexual harassment,

Wow, Europe must be absolutely sick with sexual harassment everywhere then...

Or not.

Can't help but notice those claiming Europe doesn't have a sexual harassment problem are men.

They absolutely MAY use the bathroom. They are pointedly choosing not to, as a result of years of layered abuse from parents and teachers.

(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.

They did.

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.

Excepting of course that only these American girls in this American school are having this problem.

So after you completely misrepresented the article I posted and got your ass handed to you for not having read it for content, you still haven't read it for content. Those were British girls in a UK school.

Of course as has been discussed, part of this does fall on the school and their incompetence in doing proper civil engineering to intelligently work with their policy decisions.

In the first place, re-engineering bathrooms costs serious money; slapping up a "gender-neutral" sign does not. Obviously schools were going to change policy first to get the activists off their case, and let "proper civil engineering" trickle in over decades, if at all. Anyone who would expect anything else is an idiot...

That said, since plenty of others can and do make the choice, and because it is not onerous anywhere else, one may surmise that it is an act of self-sabotage among the objecting families.

... and in the second place, what's improper and incompetent about the engineering they're going with, when you're going whole hog with blaming the ensuing misery on the victims and their families? You're making an "I never borrowed his lawnmower, it was already broken when I got it, and it was not broken when I returned it." argument.

 

[Jarhyn]

Whom you evidently consider yourself superior to. You're the one trying to exclude folks.

PaRaDoX Of ToLeRaNcE!!!111

Yes, I'm attempting to exclude sexists because they create a hostile work and learning environment.

They excluded themselves on account of schoolboys behaving like schoolboys

To which I say "bullshit".

Girls elsewhere manage to survive hale and hearty and unraped and unmolested all the same.

I think rather sexist and puritanical sex culture is what is leading to abuse. That and shitty civil engineering.

In the first place, re-engineering bathrooms costs serious money; slapping up a "gender-neutral" sign does not.

Reengineering bathrooms can be done without even changing policy, just to make the bathrooms more secure for the students in general.

This is the kind of situation where, when the lesson is learned, it is learned to be structurally prepared before changing policies that way.

It doesn't matter what is cheaper, if the order of operations is wrong, it's a wrong order of operations, and there is no helping that. Obviously when you start the car and put down the gas before you get into the car and sit down, some bad results happen.

As has been pointed out, other folks all over the world can manage to do this, which indicates failure is an individual rather than endemic issue.

 

[Bomb#20]

As for what my views are about whether your husband is a woman, you have no idea what my views are

Yes, because every time when you have been asked to give a definition of "female" that doesn't lead to nonsense such as capturing "horse" as a chair, you provide nothing of merit.

You have been asked myriad times to actually present and defend this definition alluded to since the OP and you have failed miserably.

And yet again you prove you're a tribal zealot who sees all his outgroup as interchangeable parts. None of that ever happened. Nobody asked me for any definition alluded to since the OP. I volunteered a definition without being asked -- "One of those." -- and that is quite plainly a definition that does not lead to nonsense such as capturing "horse" as a chair. Nobody in the history of English has thought anybody who said a chair is "one of those" was implying a horse is a chair. You are mixing me up with somebody else because telling the truth about opponents is something you can't be bothered with.

That was before you told me he has experience being female.

He doesn't. He has experience being himself.

You're the one insisting

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

right here that he has experience being "female".

Hey, dude, I insist on nothing of the sort -- I'm just going with what you tell me.

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, and you quite pointedly made a show of insisting that his opinion is not germane...​

If your husband has no experience being female then why did you make a stink about my having inferred that his opinion is not germane? Why do you, married to a man who has never been a woman, think you have better insight into how women feel than I, who get told about it day after day year after year by my female soulmate?

 

[Bomb#20]

Whom you evidently consider yourself superior to. You're the one trying to exclude folks.

PaRaDoX Of ToLeRaNcE!!!111

Funny story about paradoxes. They aren't true. That's part of what makes them paradoxes.

"Paradox of tolerance" is self-congratulatory claptrap from intolerant people who want to pat themselves on the back about how tolerant they are while behaving indistinguishably from every other ideological bully.

 

[Jarhyn]

As for what my views are about whether your husband is a woman, you have no idea what my views are

Yes, because every time when you have been asked to give a definition of "female" that doesn't lead to nonsense such as capturing "horse" as a chair, you provide nothing of merit.

You have been asked myriad times to actually present and defend this definition alluded to since the OP and you have failed miserably.

And yet again you prove you're a tribal zealot who sees all his outgroup as interchangeable parts. None of that ever happened.

None of what, now, has ever happened?

I am pretty sure that you and DrZ have both been repeatedly asked for a definition of "woman" that does not run foul of where you would see it go.

Please cease with the dishonesty, and get on with providing a definition which, as has been mentioned, will most certainly not stand up for the purposes you have for it.

Nobody asked me for any definition alluded to since the OP.

I have asked repeatedly. Read the thread, maybe?

I volunteered a definition without being asked -- "One of those." -- and that is quite plainly a definition that does not lead to nonsense such as capturing "horse" as a chair.

No, that isn't a definition at all. It's just an arbitrary selection of some things. You have not justified your selection of "those" as the basis for likeness, nor have you in any way defined what it is to be "like" them.

Nobody in the history of English has thought anybody who said a chair is "one of those" was implying a horse is a chair.

And nobody in the history of the English language has ever successfully managed to use such a definition to exclude something from membership, because "one of those" does not provide a basis for exclusion in the first place.

That was before you told me he has experience being female.

He doesn't. He has experience being himself.

You're the one insisting

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Your statement that he "is" something is an insistence that someone is something.

right here that he has experience being "female".

Hey, dude, I insist on nothing of the sort -- I'm just going with what you tell me.

No, I said, quite specifically,

your views about what defines "woman" would in fact define my husband as such

I did not say he was "female". I made an educated guess as to how you would classify them but YOU are the one who decided "female" was appropriate. I don't feel it is. Maybe my husband might?

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, and you quite pointedly made a show of insisting that his opinion is not germane...​

If your husband has no experience being female then why did you make a stink about my having inferred that his opinion is not germane? Why do you, married to a man who has never been a woman, think you have better insight into how women feel than I, who get told about it day after day year after year by my female soulmate?

My point is that your own definition is inadequate. You make all sorts of declarations for others what they are or what they aren't, what is essential to them having opinions vs what isn't, when really that all just boils down to sexism, no matter who is spewing it.

I don't claim to have an insight how "women" feel.

I do claim to have an insight about how what culture tells people about how they ought to feel when in a bathroom can be rather skewed and problematic, so much to the point where people will injure themselves over such nonsense.

 

[Jarhyn]

Whom you evidently consider yourself superior to. You're the one trying to exclude folks.

PaRaDoX Of ToLeRaNcE!!!111

Funny story about paradoxes. They aren't true. That's part of what makes them paradoxes.

"Paradox of tolerance" is self-congratulatory claptrap from intolerant people who want to pat themselves on the back about how tolerant they are while behaving indistinguishably from every other ideological bully.

Nobody has an obligation to tolerate those who fail to tolerate. This is where the paradox actually breaks down.

This has been hashed and rehashed and discussed a hundred times now: it all comes down to unilateral imposition.

When one party unilaterally imposes a gender on a second party, it is the unilateral imposition that will and ought see sanction.

Unilateral imposition of sex based expectations, obligations, and exclusions, especially when sex is not even clearly defined or definable, is in fact something that will and ought see sanctions.

There is, bizarrely, one way in which sex can be defined precisely, however it does not lend itself to trans exclusion; in fact for the most part it gives those who are not capable of becoming or making anyone else pregnant carte blanche to say they are whatever they please.

It also allows someone to be both "male" and "female" within the definition, and there are at least one or two living humans who satisfy both.

 

[Oleg]

This has been hashed and rehashed and discussed a hundred times now: it all comes down to unilateral imposition.

Forcing the rest of us to participate in some guy’s autogynephilia is one hell of a unilateral imposition.

 

[Jarhyn]

This has been hashed and rehashed and discussed a hundred times now: it all comes down to unilateral imposition.

Forcing the rest of us to participate in some guy’s autogynephilia is one hell of a unilateral imposition.

Unilateral impositions present in Oleg's post: calling someone a guy; calling them autogynephilic.

They did not call themselves these things. You called them these things.

I'd thank you for providing a textbook example of shitty, intolerant behavior, but fuck that, because as mentioned, your shitty, intolerant behavior is vile.

 

[Oleg]

This has been hashed and rehashed and discussed a hundred times now: it all comes down to unilateral imposition.

Forcing the rest of us to participate in some guy’s autogynephilia is one hell of a unilateral imposition.

Unilateral impositions present in Oleg's post: calling someone a guy; calling them autogynephilic.

They did not call themselves these things. You called them these things.

I'd thank you for providing a textbook example of shitty, intolerant behavior, but fuck that, because as mentioned, your shitty, intolerant behavior is vile.

They’re quite open about getting a “euphoria boner” imagining themselves as women. Why the hell do the rest of us have to be part of that?

 

[Jarhyn]

Why the hell do the rest of us have to be part of that

For the same reason you have to accept people getting a "shopping boner": because people have a right to getting boners for just existing.

It's not for you to accept or reject.

You have to accept it for the same reason we had to accept and participate for four years in a presidency where it was unclear whether them shitting in their diaper or being called "president" would lead to similar results, but we all put up with it because while it is gross feeling, it's something we do for any president, though hopefully with less weird boners and shitty diapers involved.

It's not your place to say what other people have a right to be, nor what they feel in the process of being it.

 

[Oleg]

You have to accept it for the same reason we had to accept and participate for four years in a presidency where it was unclear whether them shitting in their diaper or being called "president" would lead to similar results, but we all put up with it because while it is gross feeling, it's something we do for any president, though hopefully with less weird boners and shitty diapers involved.

Okay. We already have Godwin’s law. What about the reference to Trump? What law is that? ‘cause it’s real.