Gender Roles

[GenesisNemesis]

Number of times I've seen Jason disparage an ethnicity: zero.

Agreed.

Actually, I don't think I've ever seen Jason actively disparage any group of people.

You'd deny it even if someone showed you evidence or try to explain it away.

Not true. But you do actually have to show the evidence, not just holler that it totally exists and I should just take your word for it.

Nah I'm sure you'd be all "no no no, what Jason *actually* meant was..."

 

[Emily Lake]

Number of times I've seen Jason disparage an ethnicity: zero.

Agreed.

Actually, I don't think I've ever seen Jason actively disparage any group of people.

You'd deny it even if someone showed you evidence or try to explain it away.

Not true. But you do actually have to show the evidence, not just holler that it totally exists and I should just take your word for it.

Nah I'm sure you'd be all "no no no, what Jason *actually* meant was..."

Why don't you give me a link and see how it goes?

All you're doing right now is making predictions about what an awful person I am, then declining to test your speculation. It's essentially underhanded ad hominem.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So yes, if a transgender identified male manages to look even moderately like an actual female human being, they're going to be given the benefit of the doubt, provided they don't abuse the courtesy.

We had no problems with this for decades. It's only become a problem recently, and only because the males with transgender identities who have invaded female-specific spaces have been abusing our courtesy and demanding that they have a *right* to be there regardless of our consent.

Who gets to examine the urogenital systems of people who need to pee? When, how, who pays for it, and why, to all?

And how do you screen out the perverts who want the job?

 

[Elixir]

And how do you screen out the perverts who want the job?

You hire them. That way they won’t go bothering anyone else.
“Problem” solved

 

[Gospel]

That's a special-pleading fallacy. The parallel between the two inferences is precise.

Yeah, sure, absolutely no differences between the reasons people get abortions and the reasons people racially discriminate. Lmao.

We have to talk about the reasons why because behaviors have justifications and people use those justifications. It's a vital part of human psychology. But you're just hand-waving that away. People get power trips over racial discrimination. It's simply not the same case with abortion and it's not the same thing at all as you're ridiculously suggesting. Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of two things being different from each other, and no, pointing out two things are different is not a logical fallacy. That's just "A is not B'. They're the exact same IF YOU IGNORE THE EXACT REASONS I STATED WHY THEY'RE DIFFERENT, IN VERY BASIC, TYPICAL ARGUMENTATIVE FASHION. The hand-waving sure does make it easier for you to ignore your opponent's argument though.

This discussion between you and Bomb#20 got very interesting. While I wish it had a less confrontational tone, both of your perspectives are enlightening. I just wanted to let you both know.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

That's a special-pleading fallacy. The parallel between the two inferences is precise.

Yeah, sure, absolutely no differences between the reasons people get abortions and the reasons people racially discriminate. Lmao.

We have to talk about the reasons why because behaviors have justifications and people use those justifications. It's a vital part of human psychology. But you're just hand-waving that away. People get power trips over racial discrimination. It's simply not the same case with abortion and it's not the same thing at all as you're ridiculously suggesting. Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of two things being different from each other, and no, pointing out two things are different is not a logical fallacy. That's just "A is not B'. They're the exact same IF YOU IGNORE THE EXACT REASONS I STATED WHY THEY'RE DIFFERENT, IN VERY BASIC, TYPICAL ARGUMENTATIVE FASHION. The hand-waving sure does make it easier for you to ignore your opponent's argument though.

This discussion between you and Bomb#20 got very interesting. While I wish it had a less confrontational tone, both of your perspectives are enlightening. I just wanted to let you both know.

It would be less confrontational if he hadn't completely ignored my points.

How am I supposed to show how two situations are different without pointing out their differences? It's not a freaking logical fallacy to do that.

 

[Janice Rael]

My point has ever been this: that "Man" and "Woman" are not useful categories except for idiotic political games and general discussions of social treatment

From the perspective of one of the women... it's rather useful for things like which person gets letters asking them to get a cervical exam versus a prostate exam,

To @Emily Lake - some women do need and get prostate exams. This does not negate the need for pap smears by other women.

Hope this helps next time you get such a letter.


The term I use for human beings is "human people."

No female human being needs a prostate exam. We have a word that is commonly used to mean "female human being".

I do not accept your linguistic coercion. Condescension and zeal are insufficient arguments by which to change my mind.

I do not accept yours, either, Emily. But lol, look at you go.

It's okay, I appreciate seeing a gender essentialist be wrong about literally everything! I laugh at wrong people.

The contortions, lol, EMILY LAKE - as if that's your legal name - and you DO have a thing about legal names, ma'am! WHY are you obsessed with total strangers' personal lives in such a way that you prefer them dead from suicide and homicide rather than not be wrong? I am not using hyperbole; I am describing transphobia and its effects and outcomes.

Phobias are not rational. I have arachnophobia and it's NOT rational. I am trying to unlearn my silly fears.

Oh my good Lord Baby Jesus, maybe the gender essentialists and their leader, the esteeeeemed DOCTOR Professor Richard Dawkins, can go invent some memes about how everything is a spectrum except the genitals and chromosomes of people they have never examined. Then they can go fight with those who legally marry and/or otherwise legally change their names, because THEY dislike the names that the total strangers chose for themselves, that have literally no effect on them, or DAWK, or that atrocious woman who got rich from hiding her own gender as an author.

Biology books exist, but, go on, essentialists, with your algorithms and obsessions...

 

[Bomb#20]

Biology books exist, but, go on, essentialists, with your algorithms and obsessions...

Any meme artist can make up any title she pleases and draw it onto the cartoon cover of a cartoon book. Just out of curiosity, can you point out any actual textbook that says "Gender is a category assigned by the individual", and that claims to be a biology textbook?

"Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed." - World Health Organization

 

[Janice Rael]

It's okay, @Bomb#20 - neither you nor the WHO need worry about such matters, as, they affect others more than they affect you.

But, go ahead, "Bomb Number 20," ask a homebound disabled Gen Xer to google memes for you and go procure textbooks. Sure. You can video chat with me about it or not.

 

[Bomb#20]

It's okay, @Bomb#20 - neither you nor the WHO need worry about such matters, as, they affect others more than they affect you.

That's not an argument that you're right; it's an argument that people who know you're wrong should shut up about it. It's pretty much the same as all the Christians who say if we think we're not going to Hell for being atheists than why do we care? Well, in the first place, why on earth would you think you can sell that line of argument in an infidels' forum? And in the second place, when has pious fraud for the sake of the Greater Good ever actually led to the greater good? A culture where faith-based opinion is valued above evidence will ultimately affect us all one way or another.

But, go ahead, "Bomb Number 20,"

You seem to have an issue with people using pen-names. It's just a fun part of the zeitgeist in our online community. (And I feel names like "Angry Floof" give us hints about personality we wouldn't get from actual human names. ) The original "Bomb Number 20" was a science fiction character, just like "Emily Lake", "Wiploc", and "DrZoidberg".

ask a homebound disabled Gen Xer to google memes for you

Huh? You googled that meme all on your own; don't lay that at my door.

and go procure textbooks. Sure.

I didn't ask you to procure one; I asked if you could point one out. I take it that's a "No". Not a surprise. For a biology textbook to take time away from biology to opine on a nonscientific matter like "Gender is a category assigned by the individual" is improbable. So no, I'm not sending you off on a wild goose chase for something that almost surely does not exist. (And even if such a book did exist, all it would prove is that its author was a poor scientist. Biology textbooks are supposed to teach known biology. What possible set of hypothetical biological facts do you imagine could constitute support for "Gender is a category assigned by the individual"?)

The point is, the meme you posted was drawn by someone more interested in being a cheap propagandist than in contributing to substantive discussion. It was a trumped-up ad hominem against skeptics.

 

[Bomb#20]

This discussion between you and Bomb#20 got very interesting. While I wish it had a less confrontational tone, both of your perspectives are enlightening. I just wanted to let you both know.

I'm not sure there is any nonconfrontational way to make trumped-up charges of racism. I was hoping my last remark, "I would urge all who can't quote him saying something racist to not accuse him of it.", would put an end to the derail. It didn't, and since at least one reader actually finds the derail interesting, what the heck, for your sake I'll give it one more round...

That's a special-pleading fallacy. The parallel between the two inferences is precise.

Yeah, sure, absolutely no differences between the reasons people get abortions and the reasons people racially discriminate. Lmao.

We have to talk about the reasons why because behaviors have justifications and people use those justifications. It's a vital part of human psychology. But you're just hand-waving that away. People get power trips over racial discrimination. It's simply not the same case with abortion and it's not the same thing at all as you're ridiculously suggesting. Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of two things being different from each other, and no, pointing out two things are different is not a logical fallacy. That's just "A is not B'. They're the exact same IF YOU IGNORE THE EXACT REASONS I STATED WHY THEY'RE DIFFERENT, IN VERY BASIC, TYPICAL ARGUMENTATIVE FASHION. The hand-waving sure does make it easier for you to ignore your opponent's argument though.

This discussion between you and Bomb#20 got very interesting. While I wish it had a less confrontational tone, both of your perspectives are enlightening. I just wanted to let you both know.

It would be less confrontational if he hadn't completely ignored my points.

No it wouldn't. We can tell, because it's just this confrontational even though I didn't ignore your points; you ignored mine. I explicitly addressed yours, and you read my post, and then when you quoted my post back to me you snipped out the part where I addressed your points. Here it is again for your convenience:

"That you happen to think the mother has good reasons and the business owner doesn't is neither here nor there; it doesn't change the fact that one and the same inference procedure cannot be valid in one line of reasoning and invalid in the other."​

That's not ignoring your point; that's explaining why your point isn't a good argument. You might as well add 19 to 22, get 31, and then after somebody points out your arithmetic error, pile on a whole lot of evidence that the right amount to add really is 19 and accuse him of ignoring your point.

How am I supposed to show how two situations are different without pointing out their differences?

You're not supposed to show how two situations are different. Every two situations are different. That two situations are different isn't something that ever needs to be shown. You're supposed to show how whatever differences you point out are relevant to the dispute.

It's not a freaking logical fallacy to do that.

When the differences you point out don't relate to the reasoning error I'd already pointed out in your argument, it is a freaking logical fallacy, a "fallacy of relevance".

"Ohhh Jason, the one who just argues business owners should be able to racially discriminate if they want to. Yeah, totally not racist." was a non sequitur. Just because someone doesn't want to prohibit something doesn't mean she's in favor of it. Prohibition requires threatening violence, and some people are ideologically or emotionally committed to nonviolence. You keep bringing up that people only have bad reasons to racially discriminate. So what? Their lack of good reasons doesn't change the fact that prohibition is violence. Smokers don't have any good reason to smoke, but I'm not willing to do violence against them to stop them. Nobody has a good reason to advocate communism, but I'm not willing to censor their speech. Are you going to sarcastically write "Ohhh Bomb#20, the one who just argues McCarthyism was a bad thing. Yeah, totally not a communist."?

Everybody who isn't a complete authoritarian whackjob has actions he doesn't approve of but is unwilling to enact prohibition against -- we just all draw that line in different places -- and where we draw the line depends on how committed to nonviolence we are. Jason is more committed to nonviolence than most of us here.

Too late for quick, but in the hope of bringing the derail to a close, I would urge all who can't quote others saying something racist to not accuse them of it.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

No it wouldn't. We can tell, because it's just this confrontational even though I didn't ignore your points; you ignored mine. I explicitly addressed yours, and you read my post, and then when you quoted my post back to me you snipped out the part where I addressed your points. Here it is again for your convenience:

Maybe I ignored your points because you ridiculously implied that the reasons for getting an abortion and the reasons for racial discrimination are exactly the same WHEN THEY AREN'T and you are making a false equivalence. And yes, you are ignoring that because any time I show how the two situations are different, you just hand wave the differences.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Here's how this went down:

You: "So then do you therefore want babies to die?"

Me: "No, because the two situations are different, and here's how."

You: "SPECIAL PLEADING! SPECIAL PLEADING! SPECIAL PLEADING!"

 

[GenesisNemesis]

You're not supposed to show how two situations are different. Every two situations are different. That two situations are different isn't something that ever needs to be shown. You're supposed to show how whatever differences you point out are relevant to the dispute.

I think it's pretty self-evident how saying "abortion is often in self-defense. Racism isn't" is relevant to the dispute. But, again, maybe someone's willfully ignoring vital points I'm making.

 

[Bomb#20]

Maybe I ignored your points because you ridiculously implied that the reasons for getting an abortion and the reasons for racial discrimination are exactly the same

I implied nothing of the sort. I didn't say a goddamn thing about anyone's reasons for doing the two actions. I have been laser-focused on the logical structure of the arguments.

Here's how this went down:

You: "So then do you therefore want babies to die?"

Me: "No, because <snip>

It was a yes-or-no question. The correct answer was "No.". With a period, not a comma. I didn't ask you why you don't want babies to die. I don't care why you don't want babies to die. All that matters is the fact that you don't want babies to die. Since you don't want babies to die, it follows that you arguing mothers should be able to kill their unborn babies if they want to does not imply you want babies to die. That is a proof that the inference rule you relied on when you accused Jason was an incorrect rule. Q.E.D. The thing about proofs is they settle things. A proof's conclusion is called a "conclusion" because it concludes the matter. There is no need for ", because...". Whatever you add after "No," with a comma is irrelevant -- it neither adds to nor subtracts from the proof that's already on the table.

You're supposed to show how whatever differences you point out are relevant to the dispute.

I think it's pretty self-evident how saying "abortion is often in self-defense. Racism isn't" is relevant to the dispute.

Yes, I know you think that, but you are quite mistaken. Smoking isn't in self-defense. Do you want to ban it? Advocating communism isn't in self-defense. Do you want to ban it?

But hey, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Unless you can quote Jason saying something racist, let's talk about gender roles.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Maybe I ignored your points because you ridiculously implied that the reasons for getting an abortion and the reasons for racial discrimination are exactly the same

I implied nothing of the sort. I didn't say a goddamn thing about anyone's reasons for doing the two actions.

Yeah probably because you're ignoring them as I've already stated.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

But totally unfair to suggest he might be racist!

It certainly is. I'm getting the sense that you and I are talking about two different people. I was referring to Jason. What BIPOC libertarian are you talking about?

Ohhh Jason, the one who just argues business owners should be able to racially discriminate if they want to. Yeah, totally not racist.

Um, you appear to be assuming if someone is against something then suppressing that thing must be his number one top priority. You're pro-choice, IIRC. So that means whenever you see a pregnant woman you totally want her baby to die?

By the way, you mentioned *priorities*, and you clearly have a reason for believing racism is not Jason's "top priority". That gets into human psychology. Which is why I mentioned the reasons why people do x vs y action, and therefore IT IS RELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION. This is very basic shit. And regardless, human psychology is always relevant to political discussions, whether one likes it or not.

 

[Bomb#20]

Why the heck would it suddenly stop being meaningful in humans? The opinion that it isn't meaningful in humans appears to be a politically motivated meme.

How many of these species' recent evolution includes a fairly rapid decrease of sexual dimorphism, plausibly triggered by the ancestral male behavioral phenotype becoming maladaptive? I expanded on why I think humans' does probably sneering like 20 pages back. You even liked that particular part if I remember correctly.

But the rapid drop in humans' sexual dimorphism hasn't made our sexual dimorphism go away. It's simply a lot less extreme compared to gorillas. It presumably happened because embryologically, it's caused by androgens and their receptors, and our androgen levels and/or receptor sensitivity have gone down. The brain wiring differences that cause behavioral phenotype dimorphism are presumably also driven by androgens and receptors, so as anatomical dimorphism diminishes it's to be expected that brain wiring dimorphism would diminish in parallel. I.e., there's no reason to expect brain wiring differences to have gone away completely when secondary sexual characteristics in general are still quite apparent.

Not asking you to take it for granted, just to be realistic about your Bayesian prior for the hypothesis. We see higher rates of male than female violence all over the simian clade. In the absence of specific evidence to the contrary, biology is the more parsimonious explanation.

In the words of the master: "trans women" is a polyphyletic category.

Touche. If anyone has separate stats for different varieties of trans women, the breakdown will no doubt be enlightening. Failing that, as Rumsfeld might have put it, we go to debate with the stats we have, not the stats we wish we had.

It includes individuals with partial androgen insensitivity that were diagnosed as boys at birth but have since pragmatically chosen to present as women because their entirely inconspicuous female appearance absent any intervention would raise to many eyebrows when presenting a men; individuals who, by choice, have been and continue to be under a female-typical hormone regime since before their physical development completed; individuals who started doing so at a later age; and individuals who fit neither of the above and basically just applied for a legal name change and wear skirts. Expecting all of these disparate groups to have the same level of innate criminal inclination as each other and as cis males doesn't seem particularly plausible biologically, and if we do find such similar levels after lumping all those groups, that's pretty much a giveaway that biology isn't the only factor.

How the heck does that follow? If we find such similar levels after lumping all those groups, that's pretty much a giveaway that whichever of those groups is most numerous in the studies' sample sets has typical male criminality levels, most likely for biological reasons, and the other segments of the trans population are lost in the statistical noise so we don't know much of anything about their levels.

None of that denies that the higher crime rates of typical males vis a vis typical females are to a large degree rooted in biology.

 

[Bomb#20]

How the heck does the existence of made-up cultural concepts that aren't religious doctrines imply that the specific one Jarhyn capitalized isn't a religious doctrine?

No, it seems YOU are making a hasty generalization, simply by implying such a belief is "a religious doctrine". Not all beliefs are religious doctrines, even fervently held ones. I guess all fervently held beliefs an individual has about their personality are "religious doctrines"!{/quote]
Where the heck do you see me implying that? If you keep reading the post you replied to the first paragraph of, you'll see I listed some additional criteria, including the meme being contagious, the believers adopting loyalty oaths, and their acting like not taking their word for the belief proves you're a bad person. So no, when a guy showing all the classic symptoms of schizophrenia goes off his meds and fervently and sincerely insists he's perfectly sane and the medical establishment is conspiring against him, that is not a religious doctrine. But if a million people who don't know the guy hear about it and start insisting he doesn't have schizophrenia and trying to convince others by telling them if they dispute it then they're probably in on the conspiracy, and another million people join them in order not to be accused of conspiring against him, yeah, that's a religion.

If it weren't religious it wouldn't need to be spread by shouting

Pretty bizarre definition of religion you have there. It's religious if people shout about it? Lol

See above. Shouting is just one symptom among many.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

How the heck does the existence of made-up cultural concepts that aren't religious doctrines imply that the specific one Jarhyn capitalized isn't a religious doctrine?

No, it seems YOU are making a hasty generalization, simply by implying such a belief is "a religious doctrine". Not all beliefs are religious doctrines, even fervently held ones. I guess all fervently held beliefs an individual has about their personality are "religious doctrines"!{/quote]
Where the heck do you see me implying that? If you keep reading the post you replied to the first paragraph of, you'll see I listed some additional criteria, including the meme being contagious, the believers adopting loyalty oaths, and their acting like not taking their word for the belief proves you're a bad person. So no, when a guy showing all the classic symptoms of schizophrenia goes off his meds and fervently and sincerely insists he's perfectly sane and the medical establishment is conspiring against him, that is not a religious doctrine. But if a million people who don't know the guy hear about it and start insisting he doesn't have schizophrenia and trying to convince others by telling them if they dispute it then they're probably in on the conspiracy, and another million people join them in order not to be accused of conspiring against him, yeah, that's a religion.

If it weren't religious it wouldn't need to be spread by shouting

Pretty bizarre definition of religion you have there. It's religious if people shout about it? Lol

See above. Shouting is just one symptom among many.

TIL expressing frustration, on an internet forum, which is just a regular thing that happens in internet discussions, and many other discussions, because people have emotions and it's a part of human psychology, means someone is religious. Also just having "strong beliefs" about something automatically makes you "religious". You know what's something religious people also tend to lack? The ability to detect nuance, like yourself.