ACLU blocks woman's request for data on numbers of transgender inmates in women's prisons

[Copernicus]

You made the whole thing up. As for Jahryn, he can endorse your interpretation of what he said or not. That has nothing to do with my point. If you want to go back to talking about the FOI or something more in line with your beef concerning the injunction against the WoLF FOI, that would be of more interest than just grumbling about disagreements with individuals. An ideology is a doctrine or system of ideals, not just an individual's set of opinions.

The FoI request was not from WoLF.

I didn't say it was. They are representing the anonymous woman who filed the FOI and are fighting to get the injunction lifted. The reason why is obvious. Whether the woman is a member of WoLF is unknown, but WoLF isn't just some random law firm. They employ lawyers to fight cases on their behalf. They want the injunction lifted, because they understand its purpose is to support their anti-trans political agenda. They are the public face that owns it now, so it is legitimate to call it the "WoLF FOI".

But, if your objection is the word 'ideology' to describe the arguments and beliefs people who defend 'trans rights', the word 'ideology' is not the point (though I do believe there is a gender ideology that underpins many of the beliefs). The point is the things people say when arguing for trans rights.

Yet you continue to use the word "ideology" in a way that seems to serve as a smokescreen for what you really oppose--legal protections for the transgender minority. We both know that the FOI is an effort to bolster the narrative against those protections. Otherwise, WoLF would never bother to defend it.

And I don't know why you are now bringing the topic of white supremacy into this, which is orthogonal to the transgender issue.

I didn't invent it. It was an example of something transactivists do. If something can be associated with 'white supremacy' then transactivists can exploit that association for rhetorical purposes.

Nonsense. Some people will associate a pejorative term like "white supremacy" transgender rights as an ad hominem attack on people who favor or oppose transgender rights. You bring it up here for that reason. Prejudice is a factor in both transgender and racial issues, but that is the only connection. Otherwise, they have nothing to do with each other.

I guess that you recall reading an article that blended the two,

No, I read a Tweet that said biological sex is an example of white supremacy. I have also read a different article that has posited the sex binary was an invention of white colonialism.

Oh, you read a tweet. That makes your point so much more plausible.

...But as I said above, if the word 'ideology' bothers you, it doesn't have to be part of the conversation. People who are defending 'trans rights' make claims and demands that infringe on other people.

It is impossible to claim a right that doesn't infringe on other people in some way. If you demand a right to a jury trial, that is going to infringe on people who get called up for jury duty. Does that mean that we shouldn't have jury trials? I can't imagine how someone getting a sex change operation infringes on your rights, but go ahead and make that case, if you think you can.

 

[Metaphor]

I didn't say it was.

Yes, you did. You called it 'the WoLF FOI'.

They are representing the anonymous woman who filed the FOI and are fighting to get the injunction lifted. The reason why is obvious. Whether the woman is a member of WoLF is unknown, but WoLF isn't just some random law firm. They employ lawyers to fight cases on their behalf. They want the injunction lifted, because they understand its purpose is to support their anti-trans political agenda. They are the public face that owns it now, so it is legitimate to call it the "WoLF FOI".

No, it's not.

Yet you continue to use the word "ideology" in a way that seems to serve as a smokescreen for what you really oppose--legal protections for the transgender minority.

I oppose a range of social and legal changes that transactivists propose for society. That isn't a smokescreen.

We both know that the FOI is an effort to bolster the narrative against those protections. Otherwise, WoLF would never bother to defend it.

When you call these legal and social change proposals 'protections', you are begging the question.

The Scotland Greens having an official policy of the State not recording sex on birth certificates does not protect trans people from anything.

Forcing you way into sex-segregated sports when you don't qualify does not protect anybody.

Nonsense. Some people will associate a pejorative term like "white supremacy" transgender rights as an ad hominem attack on people who favor or oppose transgender rights. You bring it up here for that reason. Prejudice is a factor in both transgender and racial issues, but that is the only connection. Otherwise, they have nothing to do with each other.

I didn't claim they had anything to do with each other. The entire point is that it's fucking nonsense, and it's the kind of fucking nonsense that transactivists use im an attempt to gain rhetorical advantage.

Oh, you read a tweet. That makes your point so much more plausible.

Yes: my point - that transactivists spout complete nonsense to further their ideological agenda - is supported by the fact that transactivists write things like 'biological sex is a tool of white supremacy'.

It is impossible to claim a right that doesn't infringe on other people in some way. If you demand a right to a jury trial, that is going to infringe on people who get called up for jury duty.

Yes, sometimes rights entail duties, but sometimes they do not, and sometimes duties arise without an associated right.

Does that mean that we shouldn't have jury trials? I can't imagine how someone getting a sex change operation infringes on your rights, but go ahead and make that case, if you think you can.

I never made such a claim, nor can I see how trans people don't have these rights already. I believe adults ought be able to do pretty much what they want with their own bodies (though of course that doesn't entail people have to cooperate).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

People are attracted to individuals, not sexes or genders.

This is very obvious, and very easily tested. Nobody I have ever encountered finds every member of their preferred gender or their preferred sex attractive, and very few find zero members of the opposite sex or gender attractive.

The preferred gender is generally required to find someone sexually attractive, but it is not sufficient.

Those who can find both genders sexually attractive are some degree of bisexual.

 

[repoman]

you didn't answer his question??

Pornography exists because people are sexually aroused by it.

This tells us exactly nothing useful about either sex or gender. I didn't answer the question because it's completely irrelevant to the subject under discussion - it's the wrong question, arrived at by an overly simplistic belief about the subject, so it doesn't require an answer, it requires a counter question.

The answer is simple, uncontroversial, and valueless: Pornography exists because people are sexually aroused by it. If that's not obvious, I don't know what is.

Sexually aroused at what? If people were attracted to individuals and not sex, then you’d see parity between same-sex and opposite-sex attraction. But you don’t. Almost all attraction is opposite-sex; like with every other animal. Does sexual evolution just not apply to humans?

What if we gave hormones and surgery to animals, would they be attractive enough for mating attempts by others of their species?

 

[Trausti]

Sexually aroused at what? If people were attracted to individuals and not sex, then you’d see parity between same-sex and opposite-sex attraction. But you don’t. Almost all attraction is opposite-sex; like with every other animal. Does sexual evolution just not apply to humans?

What if we gave hormones and surgery to animals, would they be attractive enough for mating attempts by others of their species?

Whatever Dr. Moreau might do, it’s still not natural.

 

[bilby]

People are attracted to individuals, not sexes or genders.

This is very obvious, and very easily tested. Nobody I have ever encountered finds every member of their preferred gender or their preferred sex attractive, and very few find zero members of the opposite sex or gender attractive.

The preferred gender is generally required to find someone sexually attractive, but it is not sufficient.

It is neither necessary nor sufficient for the vast majority of people.

Those who can find both genders sexually attractive are some degree of bisexual.

Which is very common.

 

[bilby]

Sexually aroused at what? If people were attracted to individuals and not sex, then you’d see parity between same-sex and opposite-sex attraction. But you don’t. Almost all attraction is opposite-sex; like with every other animal. Does sexual evolution just not apply to humans?

What if we gave hormones and surgery to animals, would they be attractive enough for mating attempts by others of their species?

Whatever Dr. Moreau might do, it’s still not natural.

"natural" isn't a useful descriptor.

It's perfectly reasonable to say that anything that happens is natural.

Or that absolutely nothing that is influenced by life is natural.

It's a meaningless feel-good word; When something is described as "natural", it is almost invariably synonymous with "good"; And "unnatural" equally synonymous with "bad". It's a way to express a pure opinion, while pretending to be objective - a weasel word.

 

[repoman]

Whatever Dr. Moreau might do, it’s still not natural.

"natural" isn't a useful descriptor.

It's perfectly reasonable to say that anything that happens is natural.

Or that absolutely nothing that is influenced by life is natural.

It's a meaningless feel-good word; When something is described as "natural", it is almost invariably synonymous with "good"; And "unnatural" equally synonymous with "bad". It's a way to express a pure opinion, while pretending to be objective - a weasel word.

A straight man having an automatic attraction to a well passing transwoman (who are rare) is more evidence of him being straight. Take that to all permutations.

Adding straight guy who are at least initially attracted to well done transwomen or "traps" to the gay/queer column is about the same as adding man-to-woman rapists' rapes and assaults to the female column.

Natal males, XY individuals committed those crimes and we should no about it.

 

[Copernicus]

...The FoI request was not from WoLF.

I didn't say it was.

Yes, you did. You called it 'the WoLF FOI'.

And I explained why that is not equivalent to saying that it was "from WoLF". It just means "FOI associated with WoLF". Nothing about who originally filed it.

They are representing the anonymous woman who filed the FOI and are fighting to get the injunction lifted. The reason why is obvious. Whether the woman is a member of WoLF is unknown, but WoLF isn't just some random law firm. They employ lawyers to fight cases on their behalf. They want the injunction lifted, because they understand its purpose is to support their anti-trans political agenda. They are the public face that owns it now, so it is legitimate to call it the "WoLF FOI".

No, it's not.

I, at least, told you why I thought you were wrong. You just make an assertion without bothering to defend it.

The rest of your post was all about defending your contention that there is some kind of "transactivist ideology" thing going on, which I see as a confusion between your stereotype of those who defend civil rights for trans individuals and a bona fide ideology. Some people who advocate for trans rights take extreme positions and make outrageous claims, but that is true of every political controversy that ever arose. I'm not going to get into disputes over some things you've seen in a tweet somewhere or read in some article and then generalized as part of your "transactivist" stereotype, especially since you are the only one privy to the alleged source of your complaint.

 

[Trausti]

Whatever Dr. Moreau might do, it’s still not natural.

"natural" isn't a useful descriptor.

It's perfectly reasonable to say that anything that happens is natural.

Or that absolutely nothing that is influenced by life is natural.

It's a meaningless feel-good word; When something is described as "natural", it is almost invariably synonymous with "good"; And "unnatural" equally synonymous with "bad". It's a way to express a pure opinion, while pretending to be objective - a weasel word.

If you interfere in life's processes it's unnatural. We have the tech to grow a human dong on a pig. Doesn't mean it's natural.

 

[TomC]

Natal males

OMG
Now there's a new and different, but useful, term. "Natal" males and females.

It doesn't cover absolutely everyone. A tiny fraction of people don't fit.

But it does help distinguish between cisfolks and the occasional "natal" girl who really really wants to be a boy, or the 25y/o "natal" guy who realizes that he'll never medal in the Olympics men's division but could in the women's division, from the rest of us.
Tom

 

[Copernicus]

Whatever Dr. Moreau might do, it’s still not natural.

"natural" isn't a useful descriptor.

It's perfectly reasonable to say that anything that happens is natural.

Or that absolutely nothing that is influenced by life is natural.

It's a meaningless feel-good word; When something is described as "natural", it is almost invariably synonymous with "good"; And "unnatural" equally synonymous with "bad". It's a way to express a pure opinion, while pretending to be objective - a weasel word.

If you interfere in life's processes it's unnatural. We have the tech to grow a human dong on a pig. Doesn't mean it's natural.

I guess this means that you are entirely against the medical profession, which has egregiously interfered in life's processes. We all have an immune system, so that should suffice. Every mutation is natural, so we shouldn't be curing congenital defects. I hope that you are not one of those hypocrites who sneaks into a pharmacy to buy artificial medicines. Maybe you're into herbal remedies? Those interfere with life's processes, too, but maybe you can make a case for them. I recommend that you stay away from poison ivy, black widow spiders, and rattlesnakes. OTOH, you'll just have to suffer, if you don't. Don't worry. You'll probably recover.

 

[Trausti]

If you interfere in life's processes it's unnatural. We have the tech to grow a human dong on a pig. Doesn't mean it's natural.

I guess this means that you are entirely against the medical profession, which has egregiously interfered in life's processes. We all have an immune system, so that should suffice. Every mutation is natural, so we shouldn't be curing congenital defects. I hope that you are not one of those hypocrites who sneaks into a pharmacy to buy artificial medicines. Maybe you're into herbal remedies? Those interfere with life's processes, too, but maybe you can make a case for them. I recommend that you stay away from poison ivy. OTOH, you'll just have to suffer, if you don't. Don't worry. You'll probably recover.

You can put lipstick on a pig. Still a pig.

 

[Copernicus]

If you interfere in life's processes it's unnatural. We have the tech to grow a human dong on a pig. Doesn't mean it's natural.

I guess this means that you are entirely against the medical profession, which has egregiously interfered in life's processes. We all have an immune system, so that should suffice. Every mutation is natural, so we shouldn't be curing congenital defects. I hope that you are not one of those hypocrites who sneaks into a pharmacy to buy artificial medicines. Maybe you're into herbal remedies? Those interfere with life's processes, too, but maybe you can make a case for them. I recommend that you stay away from poison ivy. OTOH, you'll just have to suffer, if you don't. Don't worry. You'll probably recover.

You can put lipstick on a pig. Still a pig.

And you oppose putting lipstick on pigs because that would be unnatural? I can sort of see what you are getting at here. You don't think that people should be allowed to do things that disgust or upset you. Putting lipstick on a pig is not a victimless crime. You would suffer, as well as the pig.