Greg Abbott Declares War On Gender Nonconformity

[Emily Lake]

Is it appropriate for adult males trans women to sleep in the same cabin as year 5 girls, as per the incident described?

FTFY

Yeah... no. They did not identify as transwomen, every one of them identified as "nonbinary".

 

[Jarhyn]

Inappropriate because of perceived sexual interest.

Frequently yes. ... ALL sex crimes...

Yet you still have to justify before claiming "this person is a rapist" that that person actually is as such.

You have to justify your claim of perception here with actual reality.

You are, right now, accusing all people you perceive as male as "rapist, probably".

You did agree with bilby though, that everyone would be a rapist in the right circumstances. So...

The circumstances are different for everyone, too, and that includes you, so drop that "honorary first stone".

Justify your claim that being trans makes someone more likely to rape. Or that being trans makes one less likely to fail a background check.

It is not acceptable in any way to prejudice against people by "perceived sexual interest" unless there is actual evidence of that form of sexual interest.

Why, "I perceive that preachy, women who declare that all people born with penises are too likely as rapists cannot be trusted around children are themselves untrustworthy in a sexual sense around children".

We can all name suspect classes, but without evidence against the actual person, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt

What matters for camp councilors is that the councilor has the experience of hormonal realities that the kids are also experiencing and is reasonably prepared to address questions and concerns surrounding such life events.

It also means they are not going to be under the effects of testosterone, if sane poliy is followed, as regards counciling those also absent testosterone.

At least Emily admitted that's her concern openly.

No Emily fucking did NOT say that.

Inappropriate because of perceived sexual interest.

Frequently yes. ... ALL sex crimes...

 

[ZiprHead]

By the way @ZiprHead , I'm still interested in whether you find adult males sleeping in the same cabin as year 5 females appropriate.

I would say it's just as appropriate as a gay drill sergeant sleeping in the same barracks as the young recruits.

So, you think an adult male sleeping in the same cabin as year 5 girls is as appropriate as a male drill sergeant sleeping in the same cabin as adult males?

This is completely a straw man. You are leaving out pertinant details to make your case.

What pertinent details are left out of this? You very clearly opined that adult males sleeping in the same cabin as year 5 girls was as appropriate as an adult male drill sergeant sleeping in the same cabin as other adult males. I fail to see what is a straw man in that.

That is clearly not what I opined. Now you are joining Metaphor in strawmanning my argument.

 

[ZiprHead]

Is it appropriate for adult males trans women to sleep in the same cabin as year 5 girls, as per the incident described?

FTFY

Yeah... no. They did not identify as transwomen, every one of them identified as "nonbinary".

Again, I ask, how do you know this?

 

[Bomb#20]

All moral arguments are appeals to emotion.

No, they are not. You can claim this but you will have to back it up.

Piece of cake. "All moral arguments are appeals to emotion." is a claim with the same logical form as "All objects are non-(invisible dragons in your garage)." It's a negative claim -- a claim that moral arguments that are not appeals to emotion do not exist. When you write "No, they are not.", you're the one making the positive claim -- you're asserting that there exists a moral argument that isn't an appeal to emotion. I am simply expressing the same skepticism about there existing an object with implausible alleged properties that I would express if you'd said that like any good wizard you of course have an invisible dragon in your garage. Skepticism is all it takes to back up a negative claim.

Your turn. You made the positive claim. You say there's a moral argument that isn't an appeal to emotion. You can claim this but you will have to back it up.

Moral judgement requires moral rules laid bare,...

That's ridiculous. Laying moral rules bare is a modern phenomenon. Our lineage has been making moral judgments since before we came down from the trees

No, this is actually a forum where we defend our positions with reasons,

Mister, I did give a reason, and you quoted it back to me. Unless you're positing time-travel, the biological fact that moral judgments chronologically predate the laying bare of moral rules is decisive empirical evidence that the former does not require the latter. Deal with it.

and build our ethics on philosophy rather than hand waving.

Who you calling "we", Kemosabe? People have been trying to build ethics on philosophy for thousands of years, and that's worked as well as trying to build physics on philosophy worked. Trying to do the same thing over and over and expecting different results is insanity. Rational ethics isn't based on philosophy; it's based on ethology.

You can TRY to abandon principles, but you will get ZERO respect from any human who is not a solipsistic asshole.

That is a prime example of an appeal to emotions. (Also an ad hominem, but coming from you that's a dog-bites-man story.)

There's either something that makes it inappropriate rather than an invalid Appeal to emotions... Or you are participating in a witch hunt

That's also a prime example of an appeal to emotions. I'm not participating in anything of the sort -- I'm not participating in your first-order ethics debate with Metaphor. You elected to jump out of that into meta-ethics. Since the meta-ethical views you expressed are goofy, I challenged them. So defend your meta-ethics or not -- please yourself -- but don't pretend you can do it by fudging the distinction between ethics and meta-ethics.

Incidentally, whenever I witness a first-order ethical dispute, and one of the participants makes the jump to meta-ethics, it's almost invariably for the purpose of getting out of his burden-of-proof to justify his own ethical claim by accusing his opponent's contrary ethical claims of being indefensible due to some meta-ethical defect. This rhetorical tactic involves the tacit assumption that his own ethical claim lacks the alleged meta-ethical defect. That tacit assumption rarely stands up to cross-examination.

 

[Metaphor]

Then you are not here to discuss what you claim you are here to discuss.

You have explained many times that you did not understand something in my posts.

I am not here even claiming that much. I am claiming that you are trying to use a vague term, in base rhetoric. And you are.

We all know full well "inappropriate" carries with it a moral judgement. What you have not done is put forward the moral rule that you think ought render that judgement behind the question.

I have explained, more than once, that I will discuss with ZiprHead whether he thinks the incident is appropriate or inappropriate and why. Whilst I think the incident is inappropriate, I will not explain to you my reasons for that judgment, because my discussion with ZiprHead is with him and not you.

How can ZiprHead be expected to blindly accept your moral rule?

I haven't proposed any, so there is nothing for him to accept or reject. I am asking him whether he thinks it is appropriate or inappropriate.

There must be reasons, in a ratoonalist's worldview, for a moral rule to exist; else it is merely religion and sin hiding in yet another shitty vagary.

My conversation is not with you but with ZiprHead, should he choose to answer my question. So far he has decided not to, for reasons I can speculate about but cannot be entirely sure of.

One thing I am sure of is that my question was not directed at you and your answer to the question is of no interest to me, except perhaps to further confirm my assessment of your moral reasoning.

Okay, let me say this. I can't answer the question without knowing what you mean by appropriate.

Really? Don't you have your own understanding of the word 'appropriate' from which to draw? You must have had some idea of what you meant when you said the situation was 'as appropriate' as another situation that you named.

But, I can provide a definition of inappropriate which I already provided earlier.

inappropriate
/ɪnəˈprəʊprɪət/
adjective
not suitable or proper in the circumstances.

And a definition of appropriate:

appropriate
/əˈprəʊprɪət/
adjective
suitable or proper in the circumstances.

I take it that you find gay men sleeping in the same cabin as year 5 girls to be inappropriate. Why?

I already said I found the more general situation inappropriate (adult males), so it follows that I would also find particular instances of it (gay adult males) inappropriate.

Now, do you find it inappropriate? Why or why not?

(By the way, you can answer the first question without providing your reasoning, if for some reason you are 'testing' me and want me to provide my reasons first, which I will do if you answer the first question and promise to give me your own reasoning as well).

I would assume the counselors have their own sleeping quarters seperate from the childrens sleeping quarters, the same as a single parent father allowing his daughter and her friends to have slumber parties. Would you find that inappropriate?

ZiprHead, I am losing faith that you are arguing in good faith.

I asked you a question. You have avoided answering it now over multiple posts. Is it appropriate or inappropriate for gay adult men to sleep in the same cabin as year 5 girls? I asked a more general question before (the sexual orientation of nobody was mentioned in my previous version, as it was based on what was reported).

I will answer your questions about appropriate and inappropriate when you answer a single one of mine.

 

[Metaphor]

I would assume the counselors have their own sleeping quarters seperate from the childrens sleeping quarters, the same as a single parent father allowing his daughter and her friends to have slumber parties. Would you find that inappropriate?

Okay, you are arguing in bad faith and refuse to answer my question. I suspect you refuse because you hold two conflicting values and you cannot defend one without betraying the other. I will ask one final time to answer the question I posed: is it appropriate for gay adult males to sleep in the same cabin (and assuming they don't have separate 'sleeping quarters') as year 5 girls?

To disambiguate, cabins are a bulk sleeping arrangement where nobody is afforded 'sleeping privacy' from anybody else in the same cabin.

Please don't invent a new scenario and ask me if I find it appropriate or inappropriate.

 

[Jarhyn]

Piece of cake. "All moral arguments are appeals to emotion"

Appeals to emotion are fallacious.

I can very well predicate something on free existence rather than emotion and in fact have between various posts on these forums.

You generally fail to answer those posts.

The fact is that systems theory demands that there is a game theoretic answer to how best to treat one another. If you wish to debate that with your solipsistic slop, we can do that in Philosophy but this is politics, and you, sir, are justifying witch hunts.

I reject your claim that moral pursuit is appeal to emotion, but if you take up that claim you take up that all moral claims are fallacious.

Neither gets you "inappropriate", except in the knowledge that witch hunts are quite pointedly deleterious to the species and society.

Mister, I did give a reason

No, you gave a fallacious appeal to emotion.

That's also a prime example of an appeal to emotions

it's an appeal to history, and the FACT that historical use of vague language and appeal to emotion as concerns the judgement of people without other reason constitutes a breach of rights (removal from some of "power to" withoutthem having exerted any "power over" anyone else) and a failure of peace (an unnecessary growth and exertion of "power over") in the society.

 

[Emily Lake]

Do you want me to agree that gay men tend to molest year 5 girls?

FFS, does it not even momentarily occur to you that the 11 year old girls might be uncomfortable having adult males in their sleeping quarters?

Whether the are or are not gay, whether they are or are not likely to molest the girls is completely irrelevant. Shouldn't the boundaries and dignity of the girls count for something? Why should all of the girls, as well as their parents, be made uncomfortable or to feel exposed in order to make a few adult males who identify as "non binary" feel good about themselves?

 

[Emily Lake]

So, you want to accuse gender nonconforming people of something but you won't tell anyone what you are accusing them OF...

You now what? I'm tired to the earlobes of this bullshit. I will say exactly what I think: I think it is inappropriate for adult males to be in positions where pubescent girls are highly likely to feel self-conscious and exposed, as well as potentially endangered because there are adult males present. I think that the boundaries and consent of the girls should be held as more important than the desire of the adult males to feel affirmed in their non-binariness.

I am outright accusing these adult male non-binary identifying men of placing their feelings above the wellbeing and dignity of the girls that they are hypothetically supposed to be protecting. The lack of consideration and care shown for the girls' boundaries is unacceptable to me, as well as to many of the parents - parent, by the way, who were NOT INFORMED that the camp had a policy of placing their counselors in sleeping accommodations based on the counselor's self-declared gender identity.

And why the fuck "non-binary" means "gets to sleep with the girls" is beyond me. If they identify as neither/both then they should be sleeping in the neither/both accommodations, not in the girls accommodations.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm not going to address this. Your statement is chock full of straw men. You are arguing dishonestly.

What part of it was a strawman or was dishonest?

The children were separated by sex. The parents assumed that the adults housed with those children would also be separated by sex. Up until very, very recently, that was an assumption that would have always been true, as a basic element of child safeguarding.

The councilors who slept in the girl's cabin were male. The parents had not been informed, and were not happy about it.

Not that I'm doubting you but the only report on this incident in this thread was the statement by EmptyG who is a known liar and panderer of far right wing talking points and bigotry.

Do you have another link to this story?

And I've already addressed what Metaphor's strawmen were.

I didn't see you addressing what the strawmen were, only asserting that they were present.

 

[Emily Lake]

Justify your claim that being trans makes someone more likely to rape.

I have not made this claim. Your assertion is a lie.

 

[Emily Lake]

By the way @ZiprHead , I'm still interested in whether you find adult males sleeping in the same cabin as year 5 females appropriate.

I would say it's just as appropriate as a gay drill sergeant sleeping in the same barracks as the young recruits.

So, you think an adult male sleeping in the same cabin as year 5 girls is as appropriate as a male drill sergeant sleeping in the same cabin as adult males?

This is completely a straw man. You are leaving out pertinant details to make your case.

What pertinent details are left out of this? You very clearly opined that adult males sleeping in the same cabin as year 5 girls was as appropriate as an adult male drill sergeant sleeping in the same cabin as other adult males. I fail to see what is a straw man in that.

That is clearly not what I opined. Now you are joining Metaphor in strawmanning my argument.

Those are the actual sentences that you typed. I don't know what additional opining you think you've done, but I cannot find it. I have not misquoted you, nor have I snipped relevant elements of your post. You haven't provided any support for your claim of there being a strawman present, nor even bothered to elaborate on what you meant.

If I have inferred wrongly, I politely request that you rephrase your response, and explain what you meant when you responded to the question of whether you find it appropriate for adult males to sleep in the same cabin with fifth-grade girls with "as appropriate as a gay drill sergeant sleeping in the same barracks as the young recruits".

Right now, I infer that you think it's perfectly acceptable for an adult gay male to share barracks with other adult males (regardless of their sexual orientation)... which then suggests that you also think it's appropriate for adult males (regardless of their sexual orientation) to share sleeping cabins with pubescent females.

I can't come up with any other way to read your response, and none of your subsequent back-and-forth with Metaphor elaborates on your initial response in any way that changes my inference.

So please, by all means, clarify for me what it is that you intended to state as your opinion.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm tired to the earlobes of this bullshit

I doubt that. You keep coming back to post.

inappropriate

There you go using that word. Say it. Say the context out loud, all the words rather than the loaded ones that we don't agree with.

I will not agree to your loaded language of "adult males". I will not agree to your vague accusations of "inappropriate" as unto "witch!"

I have said what I would find appropriate, and what I would argue against: people not having experienced "estrogen puberty" AND decided it was for them, being in a position to council those in a position to need that council of someone so developed is inappropriate BECAUSE* they do not have the relevant life experience to be put in that position.

I will not be as you and declare such crassness as stereotyping anyone born with a penis as a rapist or perv that girls should be afraid and distrustful of.

*This is the part you and metaphor and bomb leave out...

 

[IIDB Staff]

====================
STAFF NOTICE
===================

Posts in this thread have become contentious with some posts bordering on TOU violations, and possibly some posts crossing that line.

The staff is closing this thread to give us time to review and to give posters a chance to cool off, remember why they post here (meaningful discussion), and take their anger and insults elsewhere.

IF we decide to reopen the thread, it will be with the expectation of meaningful dialogue and respect for the community and each other.

=========================