Let's Hear It For the Girls

[Metaphor]

There is no actual biology in the application of the label 'man' in the overwhelming majority of cases. That is the point of contention. Obviously there is a significant relationship, but you mistake the relationship between the two for some sort of rule. We apply the terms 'man' and 'woman' in ways which don't align with some neat and tidy corresponding biological definition.

Biology doesn't need 'man' and 'woman' as we apply them to people ordinarily.
We don't use biology to apply the terms 'man' and 'woman' ordinarily.

A 'man' is an adult human male. A 'woman' is an adult human female. The terms 'man' and 'woman' are human-specific adult versions of 'male' and 'female'. Man and woman therefore refer to the sex of humans.

Man and woman have never referred to the gender identity of humans, because that concept (gender identity) did not even start being applied to humans until the 1960s. I can tell whether a baby is male or female without the baby ever vocalizing its gender identity.

The biology is what it is, and 'man' and 'woman' are worth precisely fuck all in that.

You want to turn the terms 'man' and 'woman' into terms that refer to gender identity. Fine. I disagree with that.

Right, so you want the transgender boys who have undergone hrt to compete against cisgender girls?

If by 'transgender boys' you mean natal girls (I believe that's what you mean): no. Testosterone is a performance-enhancing drug and that should disqualify somebody from competing with people who do not take testosterone. If, however, you mean a natal girl who has the gender identity of a boy, but has not taken any performance-enhancing drugs like testosterone, then sure--she can compete with the girls, because she is a girl.

Sports where never segregated by gender identity because most of society had minimal understanding of what it was to be transgender or why it was significant to matters of discrimination.

Sports were never segregated by gender because the concept would be ludicrous.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Nobody needs to "verify" biological sex to call a man, a man. It's understood that the term "man" refers to biological males. If you are not a biological male, you are not a man.

There is no actual biology in common usage. Common usage doesn't have that absolute criterion. I mean, it can't for practical reasons. The terminology predates most of our understanding of biology and sex.

This implies that common usage of the terms 'man' and 'woman' has not changed from a time that predates most of our understanding of biology and sex (otherwise, it would be false that I can't). I'm not saying that this implication is false, just noting it for later use.

Currently, it's not practical to designate people 'man' or 'woman' based on their actual biology. It is factually not what we do. You say it 'man' means 'biological males' but that is not how it is applied in practice. We use a handful of phenotypes at birth to sort people into two buckets, often only investigating our actual biology when problems arise (though there are other reasons, admittedly).

The meaning of common terms, in general, is not given by a stipulative definition. It is given by ostensive definition. A man is 'one of those', and 'not one of those' (pointing at them), and similarly for women. Now the paradigmatic cases used to define a term ostensively do not need to be all correct. On further investigation, it might be that one or more had different properties, so the properties our terms are tracking are not necessarily the same as the ones that are observed, even when defining the term.

To give an extreme example: suppose that, when saying 'one of those' and poining at men, one of the gazillion individuals that looked like men was actually a terminator-like robot sent by aliens from another planet to study humans. Surely, that is not a man. It just looks like one. This is actually a problem for your claim that because the terminology predates most of our understanding of biology and sex, there is no actual biology in common usage. More precisely, it would be a good counter a claim that 'man' means 'biological male' (if the latter is understood in terms of gametes, rather than also colloquially), but not a good counter to a claim that 'man' refers to biololgical males (even necessarily refers to).

No matter, I am not making that claim of necessary implication to be clear, arguing that your argument does not work, linguistically.

The point here is not that transgender people and allies are arguing 'man' and 'woman' is defined strictly by appearance. The point is constantly repeating 'biology' is a nonsense dismissal. If you reject the concept that gender identity is meaningful and that the terms 'man' and 'woman' are meaningfully applied based on gender identity, so be it. But if you're going to keep up the routine that a doctor looking at my genitals as a baby is the reason why transgender women aren't women, you're not really making a relevant (or even true) argument.

Well, actually, that is not true. The word 'water' predates modern physics, and its meaning has not changed. Of course, it makes perfect sense to say that if a liquid contains less than 20% H2O in both volume and mass (for example), it is not water, even as a matter of metaphysical possibility. In other words, water is H20 (roughly, more in a moment), even if the meaning of the word 'water' does not say anything at all about hydrogen or oxygen. Indeed, it is perfectly coherent to say that scientists are involve in a vast conspiracy and hydrogen does not exist but water does. The meaning of the word does not say anything about water. But water is, in fact H20, or of course H20+some other stuff. The ordinary term is a bit fuzzy on the edges (as are at least nearly all ordinary terms), but that does not change the fact a liquid contains less than 20% H2O in both volume and mass, is not water.

More generally, it makes perfect sense to use a chemical test to tell whether something is, in the ordinary sense, water. Maybe sometimes there is no fact of the matter (the fuzziness I mentioned), but usually, there is, and in any case, a test like that would easily rule out - or rule in - most cases. In short, the argument you are giving here is not successful.

There is another problem: one might consider that 'male' and 'female' are also used in a colloquial way. Then, males are 'one of those' (not just for humans, but for the vast majority of other animals humans using the word are aware of, or maybe all), and 'female' is 'one of those', etc., and then it turns out that - as in the case of 'water', and actually most other terms -, the meaning has open conditions, which may be filled by 'H2O' (but would have been filled by something else if the composition had turned out to be another). The same goes for 'male' and 'female', and the referent could have something to do with the sort of gametes the organism would produce when adult and save for malfunction, etc.

In short, this is not a good argument: it may well be - and it is plausible - that genitals are indeed relevant.

The terms 'man' and 'woman' predate the biology you are using to define them. You have the relationship backwards. We used biology to describe the terms we had, not the other way around. Those biological descriptions do not perfectly align with how we label people. That is reality. You are talking anachronistic bullshit.

But it should be obvious that even though there is no perfect alignment (and indeed there is not), in the ordinary meaning of the words, the beliefs a person has about whether he or she is a man or a woman do not count other than as empirical evidence about what that person is. To put it bluntly, there is a reason why people generally rejected from the beginning transgender claims and said that those were not men/women, etc. The reason is not hatred or animosity or anything like that - not in general. Rather, the reason is that by their intuitive classifications - i.e., the ones they make as competent English speakers - the claims appear to be obviously false. This is so regardless of whether they also hate trans people or not - though trying to force people to assert claims they reckon are obviously false tends to create hostility, sometimes beyond those attempting to do the forcing.

And it doesn't help that activists who claim otherwise do not provide any good evidence that would change their minds. Consider the following analogy: someone points to what obviously looks like a tiger, and says it's a lion. Well, regardless of the fact that the ordinary terms 'tiger' and 'lion' predate modern biology, it would be a normal and rational reaction to reject the claim, barring sufficient evidence (and it's hard to see what would work, but who knows? At any rate, without evidence the rational course of action is to consider the term false). Moreover, it would be normal and rational to reject it on the basis of the phenotypical differences that ordinarily distinguish tigers from lions, even if those differences are not decisive in all possible cases, and even if there are individuals that are between lions and tigers, but are neither of those (e.g., ligers, tigons).

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

A 'man' is an adult human male. A 'woman' is an adult human female. The terms 'man' and 'woman' are human-specific adult versions of 'male' and 'female'. Man and woman therefore refer to the sex of humans.

You keep arguing against something not being said. If you drop the word 'biology' you are responding to something I am not saying.

Man and woman have never referred to the gender identity of humans...

They currently do in numerous contexts and have for years in my neck of the woods. I am recognized as a woman and an adult human female in numerous social, legal, and even medical contexts. It's based primarily on gender identity.

I understand that is recent. It's not the historic usage you doggedly want to retain. So what?

If by 'transgender boys' you mean natal girls (I believe that's what you mean): no.

I mean what I said. The terminology is perfectly accessible and clear.

Testosterone is a performance-enhancing drug and that should disqualify somebody from competing with people who do not take testosterone.

It is also a therapeutic drug which is why it is granted an exemption for therapeutic medications in organizations such as the World Anti-Doping Agency (and by extension, the IOC).

So you want to make it a matter of hormones for transgender boys, but you want to make it a matter of sex for transgender girls. Got it.

 

[Metaphor]

I understand that is recent. It's not the historic usage you doggedly want to retain. So what?

So: people are resisting the legal and social changes that are destroying sex-segregated spaces.

In particular, gay men and lesbians are resisting the eye-bleeding absurdity that homosexuals are 'same-gender' attracted. I am attracted to men, not women who have the 'gender identity' of a man.

I am resisting eye-bleeding absurdity. I am resisting the idea that other people can dictate what pronouns I use when I am talking about them. I am resisting the totalitarian chokehold that trans activists have on the West.

It is also a therapeutic drug which is why it is granted an exemption for therapeutic medications in organizations such as the World Anti-Doping Agency (and by extension, the IOC).

So you want to make it a matter of hormones for transgender boys, but you want to make it a matter of sex for transgender girls. Got it.

No. Natal women who take androgens do not have an appropriate category to compete in. If they didn't take androgens then they could compete where everyone else competes: in their sex category.

Natal men can compete where everyone else competes: in their sex category. Estrogen isn't a performance-enhancing drug as far as I know, so they're welcome to take all the estrogen they want.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

This implies that common usage of the terms 'man' and 'woman' has not changed from a time that predates most of our understanding of biology and sex (otherwise, it would be false that I can't). I'm not saying that this implication is false, just noting it for later use.

No, it doesn't imply that. I see why you say that, but his argument backdates 'thousands of years'.

To give an extreme example: suppose that, when saying 'one of those' and poining at men, one of the gazillion individuals that looked like men was actually a terminator-like robot sent by aliens from another planet to study humans. Surely, that is not a man. It just looks like one.

It's not analogous. The argument is against retroactively changing usage with a specific false criterion, not a statement of general principle.

This is actually a problem for your claim that because the terminology predates most of our understanding of biology and sex, there is no actual biology in common usage. More precisely, it would be a good counter a claim that 'man' means 'biological male' (if the latter is understood in terms of gametes, rather than also colloquially), but not a good counter to a claim that 'man' refers to biololgical males (even necessarily refers to).

You can't strip context. The statement was predicated on a necessary exclusion of transgender men. The term 'transgender man' also frequently 'refers' to biological men.

There is another problem: one might consider that 'male' and 'female' are also used in a colloquial way. Then, males are 'one of those' (not just for humans, but for the vast majority of other animals humans using the word are aware of, or maybe all), and 'female' is 'one of those', etc., and then it turns out that - as in the case of 'water', and actually most other terms -, the meaning has open conditions, which may be filled by 'H2O' (but would have been filled by something else if the composition had turned out to be another). The same goes for 'male' and 'female', and the referent could have something to do with the sort of gametes the organism would produce when adult and save for malfunction, etc.

No one is saying anything to the contrary. The argument is not that Metaphor's statement was categorically incorrect. It's that the restrictiveness with which he applies the term is being justified by biology when biology doesn't do that.

In short, this is not a good argument: it may well be - and it is plausible - that genitals are indeed relevant.

Where did I say they were irrelevant?

To put it bluntly, there is a reason why people generally rejected from the beginning transgender claims and said that those were not men/women, etc. The reason is not hatred or animosity or anything like that - not in general. Rather, the reason is that by their intuitive classifications - i.e., the ones they make as competent English speakers - the claims appear to be obviously false. This is so regardless of whether they also hate trans people or not - though trying to force people to assert claims they reckon are obviously false tends to create hostility, sometimes beyond those attempting to do the forcing.

Why do you insist on addressing arguments not being made? I simply don't understand this.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No, it doesn't imply that. I see why you say that, but his argument backdates 'thousands of years'.

You said the following:

There is no actual biology in common usage. Common usage doesn't have that absolute criterion. I mean, it can't for practical reasons. The terminology predates most of our understanding of biology and sex.

The reason that you state for common usage to not have that absolute criterion is that it's not possible because the terminology (i.e., common usage) predates most of our understanding of biology and sex. If your claim that our terminology (i.e., common usage) predates most of our understanding of biology and sex, well, that's it. It predates it. The meaning has not changed recently.

It's not analogous. The argument is against retroactively changing usage with a specific false criterion, not a statement of general principle.

Analogous to what? I'm giving an example of how ordinary terms work. They are defined by ostension, though it is not the case that all examples given as paradigmatic are - as a matter of logical or metaphysical necessity, when considering the meaning of the words - correct.

You can't strip context. The statement was predicated on a necessary exclusion of transgender men. The term 'transgender man' also frequently 'refers' to biological men.

Actually, the problem is more general, not limited to the context in which you used it. There is a difference between meaning and reference. You can't properly use an argument that the meaning cannot be such-and-such against a claim that the referent is.

No one is saying anything to the contrary. The argument is not that Metaphor's statement was categorically incorrect. It's that the restrictiveness with which he applies the term is being justified by biology when biology doesn't do that.

The term may well be so restrictive: again, it's about referent, not about meaning.

Where did I say they were irrelevant?

Sorry, let me be more clear. It may well be that a necessary condition for a person to be a woman might be to have a vagina save for illness/damage, even if the word 'woman' says nothing about vaginas. Indeed, a necessary condition for a liquid to be water is to have over 20% H20 in mass and volume (purely for example, actually a much larger percentage holds too). The point is that an argument against that on the basis of the age of the term does not work.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

They currently do in numerous contexts and have for years in my neck of the woods. I am recognized as a woman and an adult human female in numerous social, legal, and even medical contexts. It's based primarily on gender identity.

I understand that is recent. It's not the historic usage you doggedly want to retain. So what?

Regarding the historic usage, consider the following two alternative claims:

P1: I am a woman.
P2: I am a man. However, I think for such-and-such reasons, it would be better to change the meaning of the words 'man' and 'woman'. In the new classification, I would be a woman.
​

If a man claims P1, of course he will encounter far more resistance than he would if he asserts P2. Note that here I'm using 'man' and 'woman' in English, in the ordinary sense of the words used for centuries. Why would there be so much resistance? Because words have meanings. The people who use the words in the usual, traditional sense, will assess that P1 is false. And indeed, it is false as they use the words. Now, in the case of P2, the proposal might not be accepted anyway, but the first one would be flat out rejected as false. And if the people who reply that P1 is false are condemned for 'misgendering' or being 'transphobic', or whatever, of course, they will fight back, as they will reckon they are being unjustly condemned - and they would be correct, they were merely making an intuitive and true assessment when faced with a claim they properly reckon to be false.
If those who assess that the claim is false are forced to (at least implicitly) say it's true, they're going to be obviously much more outraged - and again, for good reasons.

But what if the meaning of the words has already changed in part of the English-speaking community, and the claim P1 is true, in the sense of the words used by the claimant? So, he is a man in the usual sense of the words, and she is a woman in a new sense of the words. Well, if that happened, then the change in meaning happened in the minority of the linguistic community, and the rest of them are not aware of it. Yes, they are aware of the claims. But what they see is a false claim that is being imposed on them. The fault is not on their side, by the way, as they are using the words in the same sense they learn them, and in the same way they have always used them - and, of course, those words do not constitute slur, attacks, or anything.

Those who use them differently - but in the past used them in the usual sense too, of course - would be ones causing the confusion by making claims like P1 without clarifying that their usage is the result of a recent change in the meaning of the words in a minority of the linguistic community, and that in the ordinary sense of the words, used for centuries, P1 would be false.

Moreover, the condemnation of those who reject P1 is also out of place, as those who reject P1 do not understand the claim in the sense the smaller linguistic community uses the words, but rather, in the sense in which they always used the term, and which the majority uses.

There is also a translation problem. The words 'woman' and 'man' as used by the smaller linguistic community are mistranslated into other languages, and also, when people in other languages use words that are translated into English as 'man' and 'woman', the members of the smaller linguistic community who translate them are mistranslating.

 

[steve_bank]

Back in the 70s or 80s there was a Soviet Olympic scandal.

Women taking steroids to enhance muscles. Some of them had body hair I recall. Women who could compete with men at power lifting.

There is a reason why pro athletes are banned from using male hormones to get an advantage.

It is not possible to be 100 percent inclusive of all variants in all areas of sports. Short people will never compete in the NBA.

Should the basket be lowered in the NBA to more inclusive? Should the NFL go to touch or flag football?

The question is much more broad.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

If your claim that our terminology (i.e., common usage) predates most of our understanding of biology and sex, well, that's it. It predates it. The meaning has not changed recently.

That's a non-sequitur. The meaning hasn't changed to one in which we use biology as a determiner of the term 'man' and 'woman' in common usage. This says nothing about whether the term has changed in any other regard.

Analogous to what?

To what I argued.

I'm giving an example of how ordinary terms work. They are defined by ostension, though it is not the case that all examples given as paradigmatic are - as a matter of logical or metaphysical necessity, when considering the meaning of the words - correct.

The issue is a specific claim about two specific terms. You, on the other hand, are making a point of general principle which isn't in contention.

Actually, the problem is more general, not limited to the context in which you used it. There is a difference between meaning and reference. You can't properly use an argument that the meaning cannot be such-and-such against a claim that the referent is.

It isn't more general. The argument made excludes transgender women from the term 'women' and transgender men from the term 'men' on the defining characteristic of biology. Latching on to the word 'refer' does not alter that. To quote Metaphor, "If you are not a biological male, you are not a man."

It may well be that a necessary condition for a person to be a woman might be to have a vagina save for illness/damage, even if the word 'woman' says nothing about vaginas...
The point is that an argument against that on the basis of the age of the term does not work.

Again, not what is being argued. Please respond to arguments actually made. Seek clarification if you are confused.

I am quickly doubting your sincerity.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

If a man claims P1, of course he will encounter far more resistance than he would if he asserts P2.

What is the point of any of this? Transgender rights didn't advance under this P1 scenario. The changes to language in my neck of the woods (as I phrased it earlier) didn't happen under this P1 scenario. Is it because I said 'so what?' Are you trying to demonstrate the 'what'?

I cannot acknowledge the entire complexity of emerging transgender rights in every conversation. I am aware of the points you have raised and SO MANY MORE. I have been for a very, very long time. It is impossible to cover every conceivable impact and complication across the board.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That's a non-sequitur. The meaning hasn't changed to one in which we use biology as a determiner of the term 'man' and 'woman' in common usage. This says nothing about whether the term has changed in any other regard.

No, it is not a non-sequitur. It was a correct assessment based on what you said. Remember, you said

There is no actual biology in common usage. Common usage doesn't have that absolute criterion. I mean, it can't for practical reasons. The terminology predates most of our understanding of biology and sex.

The reason that you state for common usage to not have that absolute criterion is that it's not possible because the terminology (i.e., common usage) predates most of our understanding of biology and sex. While that argument fails anyway due to the meaning/reference problem I mentioned, you are offering the fact that the terminology predates most of our understanding of biology and sex as the reason why common usage can't have that absolute criterion. That reason would not make sense if you were saying nothing about whether the meaning changed.

It isn't more general. The argument made excludes transgender women from the term 'women' and transgender men from the term 'men' on the defining characteristic of biology. Latching on to the word 'refer' does not alter that. To quote Metaphor, "If you are not a biological male, you are not a man."

And again, your arguments against that do not work. For example, if someone says 'If the liquid in that bottle contains no H2O, then it is not water', then that is true, even though the ordinary term 'water' does not mean 'H2O', or anything about hydrogen or oxygen, which were not even known when the term was coined.

A necessary condition for a liquid to be water is to contain say over 30% H2O in volumen and mass, even though the term 'water' does not mean any of that. So, from the fact that 'man' does not mean anything about gametes or a penis or whatever, it does not follow that that is not a necessary condition.

Again, not what is being argued. Please respond to arguments actually made. Seek clarification if you are confused.

No, I respond as I reckon is appropriate. my points are relevant to show the problem with some of your arguments. And sometimes I make further points because they are relevant to the matter under discussion and I want to make them.

I am quickly doubting your sincerity.

Unsurprisingly. The demonization begins. It's nearly universal when someone challenges a person's moral beliefs, or ideology, etc. Such is life, nothing I can do to stop it.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If a man claims P1, of course he will encounter far more resistance than he would if he asserts P2.

What is the point of any of this? Transgender rights didn't advance under this P1 scenario. The changes to language in my neck of the woods (as I phrased it earlier) didn't happen under this P1 scenario. Is it because I said 'so what?' Are you trying to demonstrate the 'what'?

I cannot acknowledge the entire complexity of emerging transgender rights in every conversation. I am aware of the points you have raised and SO MANY MORE. I have been for a very, very long time. It is impossible to cover every conceivable impact and complication across the board.

I'm afraid I do not know how to make the points more clear or why you find them unclear, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Unsurprisingly. The demonization begins. It's nearly universal when someone challenges a person's moral beliefs, or ideology, etc.

It is not demonization. You are repeatedly addressing arguments not being made. If you had a sincere investment in dialogue, perhaps you would have invested more time in understanding rather than looking so hard for arguments to dismiss you ended up 'finding' arguments which simply aren't there.

The reason that you state for common usage to not have that absolute criterion is that it's not possible because the terminology (i.e., common usage) predates most of our understanding of biology and sex.While that argument fails anyway due to the meaning/reference problem I mentioned, you are offering the fact that the terminology predates most of our understanding of biology and sex as the reason why common usage can't have that absolute criterion. That reason would not make sense if you were saying nothing about whether the meaning changed.

Metaphor indicated that the terms 'man' and 'woman' need to be restricted. He cited 'thousands of years' of use where biology was the restricting factor. That is anachronistic. He stated, "Trans women are men. If you are born with the external genitals of a male, and the cells in your body are XY, and at puberty you would take on the secondary sexual characteristics of a male unless you are specifically put on female hormones, you are a man." That is currently an impractical definition. That is what I stated.

What you have done is constructed a whole separate argument which I haven't made, saddled it with implications I haven't made, then they proceeded to evaluate that construction. How is that sincere?

And again, your arguments against that do not work. For example, if someone says 'If the liquid in that bottle contains no H2O, then it is not water', then that is true, even though the ordinary term 'water' does not mean 'H2O', or anything about hydrogen or oxygen, which were not even known when the term was coined.

I am not arguing against it. I am flat out telling you it is a response to nothing I haven't actually argued. This is not about general principles. It is about the specific claim I highlighted. You seem to be under the impression I don't understand the argument you are making. No, I get it. I am not arguing against it. It. Has. No. Relevance.

You seem to be under the impression I am saying because we didn't have the biological knowledge we have today, the terms 'man' and woman' cannot include biological restrictions. No. I am not saying that. I am saying that there aren't thousands of years of this usage. I am also saying currently, the biological definition provided by metaphor is not what we, in fact, use to determine the labels 'man' and 'woman' in common usage, and that it is an impractical standard to adopt.

None of this requires that the meaning has never changed. None of this asserts that the definition of 'man' and 'woman' is based entirely on appearance, or that the only valid definitions are restricted to common usage. None of this states or implies that biology hasn't described attributes of what we term 'man' and 'woman' or that it is entirely irrelevant to the way we use the words. None of this even states that saying 'transgender women are women' is a valid claim, save for when I specifically spoke to the core reason language has shifted that way.

Before you post another response telling me why I am wrong, you should make sure you fully understand what is being said to you. If you do not know, you should ask.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

If a man claims P1, of course he will encounter far more resistance than he would if he asserts P2.

What is the point of any of this? Transgender rights didn't advance under this P1 scenario. The changes to language in my neck of the woods (as I phrased it earlier) didn't happen under this P1 scenario. Is it because I said 'so what?' Are you trying to demonstrate the 'what'?

I cannot acknowledge the entire complexity of emerging transgender rights in every conversation. I am aware of the points you have raised and SO MANY MORE. I have been for a very, very long time. It is impossible to cover every conceivable impact and complication across the board.

I'm afraid I do not know how to make the points more clear or why you find them unclear, so I'll leave it at that.

Where did I say the points are unclear? The question is why you brought it up.

 

[Metaphor]

Metaphor indicated that the terms 'man' and 'woman' need to be restricted.

In the sense that all words need to be restricted in order for words to have any meaning whatsoever.

He cited 'thousands of years' of use where biology was the restricting factor.

10,000 years ago, people looked at naked people with penises and gave those people a name separate to the name they gave people with vulvas. As humanity learned more and more about sex, we learned more and more about the causative relations between genetics and hormones and the relation of those things to penises or vulvas.

That is anachronistic. He stated, "Trans women are men. If you are born with the external genitals of a male, and the cells in your body are XY, and at puberty you would take on the secondary sexual characteristics of a male unless you are specifically put on female hormones, you are a man." That is currently an impractical definition. That is what I stated.

Only the first clause--being born with the external genitals of a male, needs to be invoked. The others usually follow.

​

None of this even states that saying 'transgender women are women' is a valid claim

The claim isn't valid: it's incoherent. It means something like "Men who some people have called 'trans women', are women."

 

[repoman]

The gendercritical subreddit is very useful. Especially the posts tagged "female erasure".

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I'm afraid I do not know how to make the points more clear or why you find them unclear, so I'll leave it at that.

Where did I say the points are unclear? The question is why you brought it up.

Okay, so if you find them clear, then how do you not understand why I brought them up?
I'm bringing this up to argue that the activists side is on the wrong side on some of the key matters at hand, even assuming for the sake of the argument that there was a shift in the meaning of 'man' and 'woman' in a minority of the population.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It is not demonization. You are repeatedly addressing arguments not being made. If you had a sincere investment in dialogue, perhaps you would have invested more time in understanding rather than looking so hard for arguments to dismiss you ended up 'finding' arguments which simply aren't there.

No, it is demonization, as you have no good reason to doubt my sincerity.
First, I did adress some of the arguments you were making, and showed why they failed. The fact that you do not agree that I showed it is beside the point.

Second, in my posts, I made further points, in order to explain my position in greater detail and block some potential misunderstandings. There is nothing improper about it. I am not limited to addressing your arguments. I am free to make relevant points of my own.

What you have done is constructed a whole separate argument which I haven't made, saddled it with implications I haven't made, then they proceeded to evaluate that construction. How is that sincere?

No, that is not what happened. In addition to making other points, I showed carefully why one of your arguments against Metaphor's arguments contained irreparable flaws. I did that here, and then - given your denial here - I did so again here. Then you doubled down and said my argument was a non-sequitur , and then with no good reason questioned my sincerity. So, I explained that my argument was not a non-sequitur and rejected your accusation.

Now, you grossly misrepresent what happened and double down on your accusation and tell me "How is that sincere?". How is your behavior sincere?

Actually, let me tell you how your behavior is sincere. It is sincere because you believe what you say. That is what happens in nearly every one of these debates on the internet, when some of the beliefs a person holds dear are challenged (and in most in which they aren't). Humans generally massively disagree about what happened in the debate, whether an argument was on point, whether it was refuted, whether another person has misconstrued a previous argument, etc. Disagreement persists even after repeated clarifications, no matter how thorough. You are sincere when you grossly misrepresent what happened and double down on your accusation and tell me "How is that sincere?", because you actually do not realize that you misrepresented anything, and you actually believe that I am being insincere. You are completely mistaken, but that happens in nearly every debate of this sort. In fact, even the people who are right about the substantive points of the matter in most cases respond to unwarranted (and usually false) accusations with unwarranted (and usually false) accusations.

You are doubting my sincerity for no good reason, but you are sincere about it (btw, most of the opponents you accuse without warrant will not realize that and will accuse you back of dishonesty; what can I say? Humans are a complicated sort of monkey).

Moreover, if you were correct about what happened in the exchange (which you of course believe to be the case), then that would not make me insincere, but massively mistaken about it, as are zillions of people in zillions of zillions of debates. Look carefully at how human monkeys regularly behave in online debates, and should realize that dishonesty accusations are very often unwarranted.

I am not arguing against it. I am flat out telling you it is a response to nothing I haven't actually argued.

Yes, I get that. And I have argued that it is on point, but I won't repeat myself here because this is going in circles.

You seem to be under the impression I am saying because we didn't have the biological knowledge we have today, the terms 'man' and woman' cannot include biological restrictions.

No, I am under the impression that you said what you said (links already provided in this post). If you misspoke, that is not on me.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

No, it is demonization, as you have no good reason to doubt my sincerity.

No, I am under the impression that you said what you said (links already provided in this post). If you misspoke, that is not on me.

I did not misspeak. You equivocated, ignored context, ignored the actual argument being made, and instead responded to construction of your own fabrication. But let us say that I did misspeak. Or, et's say I am a shit writer altogether for the sake of argument, such that you cannot be less than blameless for misunderstanding. At the numerous points where I stated you are arguing against a point I am not making, you could have sought clarification to resolve the issue. But you did not seek clarification. You doubled down. Is that what one does when they are sincerely engaged in understanding and being understood?

I submit it is not. Responding to repeated behaviour when I have clarified my objection is not 'demonization', a word which has actual meaning (to portray as wicked and threatening). (I mean honestly, do you think hyperbole is an argument?)

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No, it is demonization, as you have no good reason to doubt my sincerity.

No, I am under the impression that you said what you said (links already provided in this post). If you misspoke, that is not on me.

I did not misspeak. You equivocated, ignored context, ignored the actual argument being made, and instead responded to construction of your own fabrication. But let us say that I did misspeak. At the numerous points where I stated you are arguing against a point I am not making, you could have sought clarification to resolve the issue. But you did not seek clarification. You doubled down. Is that what one does when they are sincerely engaged in understanding and being understood?

I submit it is not. Responding to repeated behaviour when I have clarified my objection is not 'demonization', a word which has actual meaning (to portray as wicked and threatening). (I mean honestly, do you think hyperbole is an argument?)

I did not equivocate. I did not ignore context. I did not ignore the actual argument. Maybe you misspoke, or maybe you just made the bad argument I debunked, and later, you forgot. Humans in online debates often do that. But you doubled down. You did not offer clarification, except to say that you were making an argument different from what you were actually making, and insisting that the fault was in my replies. I did not need clarification to defend my argument from a false and unwarranted representation and charge. My argument was against what you actually said, and I defended it. But you tripled down. Quadrupled down, and so on.

As for the word 'demonization', I submit it does not need to involve portraying someone as threatening and further, my usage of the term does not suggest you did that. Moreover, I said 'begins', because your accusation of insincerity is a common way to get started in the unjust portrayal of a person as evil (not necessarily threatening, maybe or maybe not), and given how people defending their ideology in online debates usually behave (usually they demonize those who reject it) and given what you already did in your accusations against B20, I expected more unwarranted accusations coming my way. I was right.