"Always" to ax female symbol from sanitary products packages in nod to trans users....GOD HELP US!

[Keith&Co.]

Sorry, I reject your premises. Penises don't make the man. It's something else that you clearly don't have.

Whatever Half Life might lack, it does not make them a woman/female. It's rather insulting to women to think that it does.

Trans men and women are insulting to men and women. These people claim gender is a social construct and we only act like "men" or "women" due to societal expectations, then these same people turn around and say, "I'm a man!" or "I'm a woman!" which totally contradicts their previous statement.

So, see? You don't believe the individual gets a say.
So if we use your criteria (logic, emotional outbursts, military service) we HAVE to file you as a woman by the rules of Half-life's gender objectivity.
If it was just me, i would accept you as whatever you wanted to be.
But ther's this woman on the forum who looses her SHIT when people fon't obey HER rules of gender expression.

 

[Keith&Co.]

While I agree that nobody who says "my gender is attack helicopter" actually believes it, the idea of the statement is that 'merely saying you are x does not mean you are x'.



But why not? Indeed, most sociological race theorists contend that race is entirely socially constructed; that there's even less, biologically speaking, to race, than there is to sex. So if somebody can declare they are a gender that conflicts with their underlying sex and we should accept that, how much the less can we then object to somebody stating something about their race that has no underlying biological conflict?

A feminist philosophy professor made an argument that we should accept transracial people in the same way we accept transgender people and for the same reasons. The article was published in a philosophy magazine.

The reaction was swift and deeply hostile. The article was withdrawn, the editors resigned and the magazine made craven apologies. The same feminists who think TERFs should be put on a pyre could not tolerate a well-argued position consistent with their premises but conflicting with their beliefs.

In the best of worlds, a world where racist proxies were no longer used against people like a cudgel, I would wholely argue that trans-racial identities be accepted, and that people be allowed to freely take up cultural models, mix them, and synthesize new culture from the old.

In today's world, though, there are issues with doing so because racial culture is imparted through shared trauma.

It would, to me, be similar to someone claiming to identify as a soldier having never fought in a war or conflict, never having training or experiences that actually create what I would charactarize as a soldier. If you have not shed blood in the mud, I object to your appropriation of the label.

As such, because racial identity is sadly, in today's world, a product of getting ground up through the gauntlet of racism, it is not something that someone can rightfully transition into without also taking on the traits and experiences that such an identity is predicated upon.

If I walked into a black ghetto and shouted, "I identify as black just like you guys!" I am fairly certain I would get beaten to death.

I thought you would have to do that at a Popeye's. Isn't that the place for violence?

Zanywher else you'd just likely get laughed at.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why are you taking Underseer's parody post seriously? I've been telling you they are parodies but you've been agreeing with them. Don't you know how ridiculous that looks?!

For the last time, I am not that guy. Stop saying this.

[insult removed]

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

While I agree that nobody who says "my gender is attack helicopter" actually believes it, the idea of the statement is that 'merely saying you are x does not mean you are x'.

That isn't what transgender people are doing.

I can't comment much on her issue specifically. I am not aware of any evidence that transracial identities--in the sense that the term would apply to Dolezal--have any biological roots, or at least the support of mental health experts. Perhaps, sociologically, there are some parallels we can draw to trans* rights, here, but there is no logic by which we can assume she is transracial in the way I am transgender.

But why not?

The case for gender dysphoria and trans identities is something built over time based on research and therapy. The same is not true for the sort of transracial identity expressed by Dolezal. Findings regarding transgender people aren't transferrable.

A feminist philosophy professor made an argument that we should accept transracial people in the same way we accept transgender people and for the same reasons.

Possibly. That's why I said there are likely some parallels which can be drawn on the sociological side (I said 'rights', but 'acceptance' may be more appropriate). Though part of the basis for trans* acceptance is the idea that this is

The reaction was swift and deeply hostile. The article was withdrawn, the editors resigned and the magazine made craven apologies. The same feminists who think TERFs should be put on a pyre could not tolerate a well-argued position consistent with their premises but conflicting with their beliefs.

And? Do you have to add a pity story to everything? Maybe that's a tactic which has had use with others on this forum, but I don't give you a bloody sob story every time I want to make a point. We all have sob stories. What is the relevance to this conversation here and now?

 

[Metaphor]

While I agree that nobody who says "my gender is attack helicopter" actually believes it, the idea of the statement is that 'merely saying you are x does not mean you are x'.



But why not? Indeed, most sociological race theorists contend that race is entirely socially constructed; that there's even less, biologically speaking, to race, than there is to sex. So if somebody can declare they are a gender that conflicts with their underlying sex and we should accept that, how much the less can we then object to somebody stating something about their race that has no underlying biological conflict?

A feminist philosophy professor made an argument that we should accept transracial people in the same way we accept transgender people and for the same reasons. The article was published in a philosophy magazine.

The reaction was swift and deeply hostile. The article was withdrawn, the editors resigned and the magazine made craven apologies. The same feminists who think TERFs should be put on a pyre could not tolerate a well-argued position consistent with their premises but conflicting with their beliefs.

In the best of worlds, a world where racist proxies were no longer used against people like a cudgel, I would wholely argue that trans-racial identities be accepted, and that people be allowed to freely take up cultural models, mix them, and synthesize new culture from the old.

In today's world, though, there are issues with doing so because racial culture is imparted through shared trauma.

It would, to me, be similar to someone claiming to identify as a soldier having never fought in a war or conflict, never having training or experiences that actually create what I would charactarize as a soldier. If you have not shed blood in the mud, I object to your appropriation of the label.

As such, because racial identity is sadly, in today's world, a product of getting ground up through the gauntlet of racism, it is not something that someone can rightfully transition into without also taking on the traits and experiences that such an identity is predicated upon.

If you believe that, then how do you respond to people who think biological men have no business appropriating the "shared trauma" status of women? How can you rightfully transition when you can't take on the "experiences" of womanhood?

 

[Metaphor]

That isn't what transgender people are doing.

Some transgender people are. Some transgender people are making the claim that they are a gender different to their biological sex (or sometimes "non-binary", or sometimes any number of genders indistinguishable from parody), but make no effort whatsoever to pass as that gender. They do not take on the trappings of that gender even in the most superficial sense but demand certain pronouns be used for them anyway.

In fact, transgender activism has reached such a stage that even gender dysphoria is dismissed as unnecessary for trans identities.

So yes, some trans people are doing exactly that. They are saying they are a gender that conflicts with their biological sex, they do not have any gender dysphoria, and they make no effort to conform to their new gender along any aspect of social understanding of their declared gender.

The case for gender dysphoria and trans identities is something built over time based on research and therapy. The same is not true for the sort of transracial identity expressed by Dolezal. Findings regarding transgender people aren't transferrable.

You've simply declared they are non-transferable but you haven't explained why. If Dolezal wants to be seen as black, acted "black", participated in black culture, and in fact, fooled the world that she was black until her family outed her, how is her desire to be seen and affirmed as black any different to a trans persons desire to be seen as a sex that they are not?

And? Do you have to add a pity story to everything? Maybe that's a tactic which has had use with others on this forum, but I don't give you a bloody sob story every time I want to make a point. We all have sob stories. What is the relevance to this conversation here and now?

It isn't a pity story. It's a statement that shows that a position that I regard as deeply incoherent (that trans-gender identities are valid but trans-racial ones are not) is, in fact, the dominant belief and the only socially acceptable belief in society. I want to know why people believe it.

 

[repoman]

KIS, can you defend this level of indoctrination for a rare occurence? What is the Bayesian for this? For the positive effect of helping rare transgender people you are getting a lot a non trans (meaning not trans by virtue of hardwiring by hormones etc..) kids to have something to obsess about for no reason. To have another point of identification and group acceptance/ostricazation.


If this was shown to make a lot more people trans or experiment with hormones for a couple years and then desist, would you still support it?

https://mobile.twitter.com/questionlgbtedu

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Some transgender people are.

Oh Christ, some people are nearly everything from nearly every group you can imagine.

Some transgender people are making the claim that they are a gender different to their biological sex (or sometimes "non-binary", or sometimes any number of genders indistinguishable from parody), but make no effort whatsoever to pass as that gender.

Not everyone can transition who wants to. Some who are transitioning aren't very far along in the process or have significant barriers to passing. Not everyone's identity requires it. It's complex. Some people are possibly lying or talking shit. Some people might not actually understand the terms they are using.

Some people, amirite? There are plenty or stories and explanations.

They do not take on the trappings of that gender even in the most superficial sense but demand certain pronouns be used for them anyway.

Okay? So?

In fact, transgender activism has reached such a stage that even gender dysphoria is dismissed as unnecessary for trans identities/

Trans* is an umbrella term these days. Some use 'transgender' as an umbrella term and 'transexual' as those who seek to transition across the binary (more or less). Not all people who fit under it markedly experience dysphoria. Honestly, the language around all of this evolved rapidly and sloppily so if we're talking about your vague impression of transgender activists, there is not much I can say. I need specific claims and I need to address the people making them. But again, what does this matter in general?

You've simply declared they are non-transferable but you haven't explained why. If Dolezal wants to be seen as black, acted "black", participated in black culture, and in fact, fooled the world that she was black until her family outed her, how is her desire to be seen and affirmed as black any different to a trans persons desire to be seen as a sex that they are not?

What we describe as race and gender are two different things linked to different sets of biological variables. While there is some evidence indicating neurological elements to gender identity, I am not aware of anything similar connected to race. During embryological development, there are plenty of things which can go wrong which can result in partial feminization or masculinization. So we have, at the least, a set of premises which apply to what gender--as a social construct--describes which doesn't necessarily apply to race.

Studies on treatments and remedies for gender dysphoria are particular to gender dysphoria and cannot simply be applied to Dolezal. That's like saying a broken tooth should be treated the same as a broken arm because they are superficially similar.

It isn't a pity story. It's a statement that shows that a position that I regard as deeply incoherent (that trans-gender identities are valid but trans-racial ones are not) is, in fact, the dominant belief and the only socially acceptable belief in society. I want to know why people believe it.

Oh come off it. I am not arguing against other people's positions by proxy. In order for me to address arguments supposedly made by others, I need to trust you have both accurately understood and presented those arguments to me. I have sincere doubts about the former let alone the latter. Still, if that was your angle, why bother with the preamble the 'swift and hostile' response to the article? I get hostile responses from people and I'm a bloody nobody. What of it? There are a lot of bitter and aggressive people online. The idea that this is the 'dominant belief and the only socially acceptable belief in society' requires some empirical evidence.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

KIS, can you defend this level of indoctrination for a rare occurence?

Indoctrination? It seems like a mediocre class on variance in gender identity and expression.

What is the Bayesian for this? For the positive effect of helping rare transgender people you are getting a lot a non trans (meaning not trans by virtue of hardwiring by hormones etc..) kids to have something to obsess about for no reason.

I doubt there is any statistical data currently. Most of these education programs are fairly new.

Obsess? Why does this lead to an increase in 'obsession'? Why is that of particular concern from an educational standpoint?

To have another point of identification and group acceptance/ostricazation.

The point already existed, just sans-nomenclature and discussion.

If this was shown to make a lot more people trans or experiment with hormones for a couple years and then desist, would you still support it?

https://mobile.twitter.com/questionlgbtedu

Sorry, wtf is that I am looking at? I expected some sort of study or something. It's just a random twitter feed vaguely on topic?

What I support is increasingly better educational materials, and more importantly better diagnostic standards and access to relevant medical/ therapeutic specialists.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I for one refuse to use a product that markets to all of its potential customers rather than just some of them for some reason! This guy will not be buying any sanitary pads from here on out!

Your wife might object.

 

[Politesse]

Your wife might object.

That's why I divorced her.

 

[Half-Life]

Nobody has ever explained why transgender people (who make up 1% of the population) are not considered a defect/deformity. If someone is born with 6 fingers, we call it a defect. We still teach everyone that humans are born with 5 fingers. No attempt is made to make the 6 fingered person seem normal. We all know it's a defect.

So why all the fuss to make trans people seem normal? Why not just treat it as a defect like we do everything else? (deformed skulls, deformed toes, deformed penis etc.)

The reason this is coming up is because the left is starting to say that "intersex people" are a third gender. Science says they are a deformity/defect, not a third gender. Once again, the left is anti-science.

 

[Toni]

Nobody has ever explained why transgender people (who make up 1% of the population) are not considered a defect/deformity. If someone is born with 6 fingers, we call it a defect. We still teach everyone that humans are born with 5 fingers. No attempt is made to make the 6 fingered person seem normal. We all know it's a defect.

So why all the fuss to make trans people seem normal? Why not just treat it as a defect like we do everything else? (deformed skulls, deformed toes, deformed penis etc.)

The reason this is coming up is because the left is starting to say that "intersex people" are a third gender. Science says they are a deformity/defect, not a third gender. Once again, the left is anti-science.

WTF?

Yes, some people are born with an extra finger on one or both hands due to a genetic anomaly. It's not a 'defect' or a deformity.

There are many beneficial genetic anomalies present in humans. Some include Sickle Cell trait which allows individuals with the trait to be more resistant to malaria, lactose tolerance, and increased bone density and Distichiasis (double rows of eyelashes) which is sometimes congenital and often considered to be quite beautiful (see Elizabeth Taylor).

Science does not say that intersex people are a deformity or defect. I don't think you are actually familiar with science.

 

[Half-Life]

Nobody has ever explained why transgender people (who make up 1% of the population) are not considered a defect/deformity. If someone is born with 6 fingers, we call it a defect. We still teach everyone that humans are born with 5 fingers. No attempt is made to make the 6 fingered person seem normal. We all know it's a defect.

So why all the fuss to make trans people seem normal? Why not just treat it as a defect like we do everything else? (deformed skulls, deformed toes, deformed penis etc.)

The reason this is coming up is because the left is starting to say that "intersex people" are a third gender. Science says they are a deformity/defect, not a third gender. Once again, the left is anti-science.

WTF?

Yes, some people are born with an extra finger on one or both hands due to a genetic anomaly. It's not a 'defect' or a deformity.

There are many beneficial genetic anomalies present in humans. Some include Sickle Cell trait which allows individuals with the trait to be more resistant to malaria, lactose tolerance, and increased bone density and Distichiasis (double rows of eyelashes) which is sometimes congenital and often considered to be quite beautiful (see Elizabeth Taylor).

Science does not say that intersex people are a deformity or defect. I don't think you are actually familiar with science.

There is a fine line between deformity and what you are describing.

Most scientists would agree that something which occurs 99% of the time is normal and if something else occurs 1% of the time, it's a defect or a deformity.

 

[Toni]

Nobody has ever explained why transgender people (who make up 1% of the population) are not considered a defect/deformity. If someone is born with 6 fingers, we call it a defect. We still teach everyone that humans are born with 5 fingers. No attempt is made to make the 6 fingered person seem normal. We all know it's a defect.

So why all the fuss to make trans people seem normal? Why not just treat it as a defect like we do everything else? (deformed skulls, deformed toes, deformed penis etc.)

The reason this is coming up is because the left is starting to say that "intersex people" are a third gender. Science says they are a deformity/defect, not a third gender. Once again, the left is anti-science.

WTF?

Yes, some people are born with an extra finger on one or both hands due to a genetic anomaly. It's not a 'defect' or a deformity.

There are many beneficial genetic anomalies present in humans. Some include Sickle Cell trait which allows individuals with the trait to be more resistant to malaria, lactose tolerance, and increased bone density and Distichiasis (double rows of eyelashes) which is sometimes congenital and often considered to be quite beautiful (see Elizabeth Taylor).

Science does not say that intersex people are a deformity or defect. I don't think you are actually familiar with science.

There is a fine line between deformity and what you are describing.

Most scientists would agree that something which occurs 99% of the time is normal and if something else occurs 1% of the time, it's a defect or a deformity.

According to Wiki, polydactyly is defined as follows:

Polydactyly or polydactylism (from Greek πολύς (polys), meaning 'many', and δάκτυλος (daktylos), meaning 'finger'),[1] also known as hyperdactyly, is a congenital physical anomaly in humans and animals resulting in supernumerary fingers and/or toes.[2]

Some genetic anomalies are considered beneficial and some are harmful and many are simply neutral.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Nobody has ever explained why transgender people (who make up 1% of the population) are not considered a defect/deformity. If someone is born with 6 fingers, we call it a defect. We still teach everyone that humans are born with 5 fingers. No attempt is made to make the 6 fingered person seem normal. We all know it's a defect.

So why all the fuss to make trans people seem normal? Why not just treat it as a defect like we do everything else? (deformed skulls, deformed toes, deformed penis etc.)

The reason this is coming up is because the left is starting to say that "intersex people" are a third gender. Science says they are a deformity/defect, not a third gender. Once again, the left is anti-science.

Would you like actual answers, or would you prefer some silence so you can feel like you made some sort of point?

For a small fee, I will even given you a, "Drat! Foiled by your mad science-ing skillz! My leftism does nothing to shield me from the burn. Nothing!"

 

[Keith&Co.]

Would you like actual answers, or would you prefer some silence so you can feel like you made some sort of point?

Definitely the latter.
Actual answers that do not fit into his perceived truths are ignored

For a small fee, I will even given you a, "Drat! Foiled by your mad science-ing skillz! My leftism does nothing to shield me from the burn. Nothing!"

that might encourage her.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Most scientists would agree that something which occurs 99% of the time is normal and if something else occurs 1% of the time, it's a defect or a deformity.

I think mostscientists would use the word 'rare' long before 'a deformity.' If we keep breeding out recessive genes untiil blue eyes are 1% of the population, that would, by your attempt at logic, mean the color has become a deformity.

And that's just stupid.

But really, what difference does it make if it's a deformity or just rare?

You never have explained why this matters to you.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Scientists showed people with 6 fingers are better at certain tasks:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...ople-born-SIX-fingers-better-daily-tasks.html

By extrapolation, hermaphrodites are better at sex because they have more to offer.

It's science.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nobody has ever explained why transgender people (who make up 1% of the population) are not considered a defect/deformity. If someone is born with 6 fingers, we call it a defect. We still teach everyone that humans are born with 5 fingers. No attempt is made to make the 6 fingered person seem normal. We all know it's a defect.

Huh?

1) We don't teach that everyone has 5 fingers. It's just that's what virtually everyone has. Most of the time doctors remove extra fingers because they're deformed and just a problem. However, if someone is born with 6 working fingers the doctors do nothing about it. It's going to be a headache for them to get gloves but sometimes it's also useful. It can get you banned, though: http://www.bbspot.com/News/2008/04/six-fingered-man-barred-from-guitar-hero-tournament.html

So why all the fuss to make trans people seem normal? Why not just treat it as a defect like we do everything else? (deformed skulls, deformed toes, deformed penis etc.)

People are deformed when the difference doesn't work properly. If the difference isn't limiting it's not a disability. What about tetrachromancy? Some women can see far more colors than most people. (It can be only women--it only happens when a woman inherits one normal color vision gene and one damaged one.)

And how far do you go in considering someone defective? My color vision is flawed--but it's no big deal. My old employer tested all factory workers (there were two easy jobs that required good color vision. Someone could be trained to fill in in 5 minutes. If a supervisor needed to put someone on the task they would look up who could do it.) 20% of the men failed--and most had no idea they had a problem.