Let's Hear It For the Girls

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I did not equivocate. I did not ignore context. I did not ignore the actual argument.

You seem to think this is a debate, but it isn't. You made implications, which, had you fully read my posts, would make it clear that is not what I was saying. Not that I 'misspoke' but that it wasn't what I was saying.

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 ONLY makes sense if I were arguing that definition of 'man' and 'woman' is predicated at pointing at people to label them as men and women. That any time that happens, the thing pointed at and labelled as a man is a man. That pointing at something which appears to be a man, but isn't, would somehow alter the definition. I am not, and have never argued that. You can only come to that conclusion by assuming my statements were statements of general principle rather than a criticism of specific faulty claim.

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.

This ONLY makes sense if I were arguing that scientific descriptions were invalid, had no correlation to the phenomena described, or that later scientific descriptions could not be generated without changing the meaning of a word. But I have plainly stated the opposite more than once.

Metaphor anachronistically attributed 'biology' to usage from thousands of years ago. Biology is a specific science which did not exist, thus usage at that time did not do that. This criticism necessitates no statement that modern scientific descriptions cannot expand our knowledge about phenomena without changing the meaning of what was described thousands of years ago.

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).

This ONLY makes sense if you strip context. (Actually, it doesn't make sense then, but it can be applied if you strip context). While the wording in the section I quoted was part of an ongoing conversation. But Metaphor's position was not limited to 'refers to'. It relies on a necessary exclusion of transgender men on the basis of biology, meaning that is definitive to the term 'man'. This is not speculative. He plainly stated it: "If you are not a biological male, you are not a man." I quoted what was most recent.

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

That ONLY makes sense if I were arguing that contemporary usage is predicated on past usage. The initial misunderstanding is on me for not being clear. But I later clarified that the statement on predating biology was a particular claim against the statement that there are 'thousands of years' of particular usage, especially coupled with the implication that this should restrict current usage. Again, an issue of context.

I am arguing the opposite. That changes have been made. That scientific explanations have a relationship to terminology. That current usage is a departure. There is enough evidence of this in my posts. But specifically, there, I was saying that he is asserting a historical narrative which is impossible. I went on to explain that it is also not how we currently use the terms. These are two separate claims, not connected. It is fine that you were not able to glean that from the first reading given the wording. The statement was intended for Metaphor based on an ongoing exchange and context which was not readily apparent. That you won't accept clarification when offered is beyond me.

Also, this is not a claim that we could not use these terms based on biology in the way Metaphor describes. It is a statement that we do not use them that way in practice in common usage. This is not predicated on the idea that we did not use them that way in the past. Again, my initial wording was confusing, but it was clarified. Separate statements were made.

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

This makes no sense whatsoever. Nothing I wrote was predicated on the idea that genitals are irrelevant. I explicitly made statements to the contrary in stating that we have long used visible phenotypic expressions to assign the labels 'man' and 'woman'.

Even though I am saying that genitals have been relevant, you are still somehow trying to use the idea that genitals are relevant as a counter to my argument. Your clarification did nothing to alter the fact that I was not saying or implying what ever it is you thought I was saying or implying. It is plainly contraindicated. If you thought I had contradicted myself, why not ask for clarification?

You did not offer clarification...

Factually, I did.

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

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

The statement was predicated on a necessary exclusion of transgender men. The term 'transgender man' also frequently 'refers' to biological men.

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 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."

I'm sure there are more examples.

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

Ah, so it's not based on what I've done, but rather what I might do. The argument fails as it is based on a potential outcome rather than an established result or inevitability. What you should have written was, "Ah, the demonization might be beginning.'

(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.

Bomb#20 factually opposed anti-discrimination statutes, but pointing that out is 'demonization' because you don't agree with the idea that it is harassment and discrimination. But it's not an idle characterization, but rather one supported by human rights legislation and judiciaries in an increasing number of jurisdictions. Finding a characterization unflattering doesn't equate to demonization.

 

[Metaphor]

Metaphor anachronistically attributed 'biology' to usage from thousands of years ago. Biology is a specific science which did not exist, thus usage at that time did not do that.

Of course they used biology, unless the phenotypic expression of sex isn't a biological thing. It's rather like saying some cultures didn't understand signing musical harmony because they didn't have a codified system of musicology.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Metaphor anachronistically attributed 'biology' to usage from thousands of years ago. Biology is a specific science which did not exist, thus usage at that time did not do that.

Of course they used biology, unless the phenotypic expression of sex isn't a biological thing.

Biology is a specific science. It isn't the things it describes. My arm is biological. Biology can describe my arm in scientific terms. But the idea that humans thousands of years ago recognized we had arms was not biology.

It's rather like saying some cultures didn't understand signing musical harmony because they didn't have a codified system of musicology.

It isn't like saying that. It's like saying they didn't consult contemporary music theory to guide how they created harmony.

 

[Metaphor]

Biology is a specific science. It isn't the things it describes. My arm is biological. Biology can describe my arm in scientific terms. But the idea that humans thousands of years ago recognized we had arms was not biology.

I did not say they were doing biology. I said they observed a biological phenomenon and labelled it. Or, if you object to 'biological phenomenon' then "they observed naked human bodies and labelled one particular kind of repeating pattern as 'man' and another as 'woman'. The repeating pattern, as it turned out, was phenotypic expression of sex.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I did not say they were doing biology.

You said they were referring to it. They weren't.

I said they observed a biological phenomenon and labelled it. Or, if you object to 'biological phenomenon' then "they observed naked human bodies and labelled one particular kind of repeating pattern as 'man' and another as 'woman'. The repeating pattern, as it turned out, was phenotypic expression of sex.

That wasn't in contention, so sure.

I acknowledge the possibility you're wondering 'Then what is the fucking point?' If so, are you not also getting bored of this conversation? I am. To reiterate points you won't accept only to end up back here... who's goal is that? I will probably go on to explain if asked, but this feels repetitive and tedious.

 

[Metaphor]

I did not say they were doing biology.

You said they were referring to it. They weren't.

I said they observed a biological phenomenon and labelled it. Or, if you object to 'biological phenomenon' then "they observed naked human bodies and labelled one particular kind of repeating pattern as 'man' and another as 'woman'. The repeating pattern, as it turned out, was phenotypic expression of sex.

That wasn't in contention, so sure.

I acknowledge the possibility you're wondering 'Then what is the fucking point?' If so, are you not also getting bored of this conversation? I am. To reiterate points you won't accept only to end up back here... who's goal is that? I will probably go on to explain if asked, but this feels repetitive and tedious.

Well, if we are at "we should change the definition of 'man' and 'woman' so that they refer to gender identity and not sex", then I disagree with you and we are at an impasse.

 

[repoman]

Words don't matter...

They sure as fuck do. They only transgenders I highly resprct are the ones who admit they are mentally ill. Otherwise we get this crap.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You seem to think this is a debate, but it isn't.

It is a debate. This debate goes more or less as follows: You attack me unjustly, and I defend myself, by means of debunking some of your claims. You launch further unjust attacks, and I further defense myself, by again debunking some of your claims. And so on.

You made implications, which, had you fully read my posts, would make it clear that is not what I was saying. Not that I 'misspoke' but that it wasn't what I was saying.

That is completely false. I recommend interested readers to take a look a the exchange.

This ONLY makes sense if I were arguing that definition of 'man' and 'woman' is predicated at pointing at people to label them as men and women.

No, not remotely. That makes perfect sense to explain that when I say definitions are given by pointing at some things and saying 'one of those', etc., it is not the case that all of the examples have to be correct. It blocks a potential objection from people who might misunderstand my words.

No, the context was pretty clear. You made the following claim:

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.

Regardless of what you meant to say, you offered 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. Now since 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, you are making an implication that the meaning of the terms as used today is that meaning that predates our understanding of biology and sex. You implied that, and then you denied it - not deliberately, but you do not undersand what is going on here.

Additionally, I explained that even if the meaning did not change, your assessment would be unwarranted. An example: The colloquial term 'water' does not mean anything about H2O. It never did. But a necessary condition for a liquid to be water is (for example) to have 20% content of H2O. But even after I explained the failure of your argument, and even as you were making false unwarranted charges, you insisted on a bad argument. Indeed, you said

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."

Even if you still fail to realize that, your 'argument from meaning pre-dating modern science' fails flat out, because the claim "If you are not a biological male, you are not a man." may very well be true even if 'man' does not mean 'biological male' or anything containing the concept of a biological man, just as the claim 'If that liquid contains no molecules of H2O, then it is not water' is true even though the word 'water' does not mean 'H2O', or anything containing the concept of H2O, or molecules, or anything like that..

So, your argument fails and would fail even Metaphor meant 'biological male' in a sense used in present-day science.

This ONLY makes sense if I were arguing that scientific descriptions were invalid, had no correlation to the phenomena described, or that later scientific descriptions could not be generated without changing the meaning of a word. But I have plainly stated the opposite more than once.

No, of course, that has nothing to do with whether scientific descriptions are...true? What does it even mean for them to be valid? Regardless, you misunderstood my counter argument completely, I mean you are not even in the vicinity (unless, of course, you understood it and you are being dishonest, but I think that that is very improbable).

This ONLY makes sense if you strip context. (Actually, it doesn't make sense then, but it can be applied if you strip context).

No, it makes sense perfectly. I'm explaining to you that your argument would only work if it were countering a claim '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). It is obvious, really.

That ONLY makes sense if I were arguing that contemporary usage is predicated on past usage.

No, that actually states that it was implicit in your argument that usage had not changed since before most of our current understanding of biology and sex. Again, you offered that " The terminology predates most of our understanding of biology and sex.", as the reason why common usage cannot have that absolute criterion. Well, of course that's a bad argument. An way of showing that the meaning in common usage of 'water' predates our knowledge that hydrogen and oxygen even exists, and yet, here is an absolute criterion: if a liquid does not contain H2O molecultes, it is not water.

But in addition to that being a bad argument, it does contain an implicit assumption (which I did not challenge) that common usage today of 'man' and 'woman' is the common usage before most of our understanding of biology and sex.
And no, in your reply to Metaphor, you did not say something like 'If you were correct about common usage being thousands of years old, then it could not have that absolute criteria..', etc. If you had said that, then your argument would have been just as bad and for the same reason, and the 'water' counterexample would work just as well. However, if you had said that, you would not have implied in your argument that the meaning of the word 'man' had not changed since the time before most of our understanding of biology and sex - something I pointed out for future reference, and was not needed to refute your argument.

So, maybe you just mispoke and, in addition to making the bad argument you intended to make, you unintendedly implied that that the meaning of the word 'man' had not changed since the time before most of our understanding of biology and sex. But that does not make your bad argument any better. It's still a bad argument, because it confuses meaning and reference.

You did not offer clarification...

Factually, I did.

You cut my sentence in the middle, taking out the rest of what I said. You also take out the rest of the paragraph. No, what I said was not just "You did not offer clarification...", no, that misrepresents what I said. What I said in that sentence was "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.". The part "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" is what you take out. Yes, you offered clarification only in that context, when you were already on the wrong and kept at it. In fact, I made that very clear in the rest of the paragraph, which I should quote here:

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 to the demonization thing.

Ah, so it's not based on what I've done, but rather what I might do.

Oh, no, you've done enough now. You were just beginning, which was already unethical, and deserving of my accurate reply, as you were indeed getting started, and it was rational on the basis of the information available to me to reckon (accurately) that you just getting started, as:

1. It is what the vast majority of humans do in online debates, in my experience, when their ideology is challenged.
2. You had just do that to Bomb#20.
3. You had just made also a false and unwarranted accusation against me (i.e.,. " I am quickly doubting your sincerity. ").

Bomb#20 factually opposed anti-discrimination statutes, but pointing that out is 'demonization' because you don't agree with the idea that it is harassment and discrimination.

He opposed a very bad law, yes. You accused him of doing things he did not do, without having any good reason to even suspect you did that. That is demonization. (I recommend interested readers to take a look at this thread).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Transgender girls don't have competitive advantage as a rule. Situationally, some transgender and cisgender girls do have biological advantage due to hormone levels at puberty and beyond. To what extent should high school sports be monitored and regulated? NCAA standards? To what end?

The sky is not blue as a rule, either.

Reality: Once you have trained to a given level it's easier to get back to that level in the future. This will not help if they transitioned before becoming an athlete but that's not the usual scenario.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Irrelevant. If a transgender girl went though medically delayed puberty and then hrt from the onset of puberty, that advantage wouldn't be there.

And I would have no problem with such people competing as women, they will actually be basically equal. That doesn't include anything like all trans athletes, though.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Irrelevant. If a transgender girl went though medically delayed puberty and then hrt from the onset of puberty, that advantage wouldn't be there.

And I would have no problem with such people competing as women, they will actually be basically equal. That doesn't include anything like all trans athletes, though.

I wasn't arguing it did.

The sky is not blue as a rule, either.

Reality: Once you have trained to a given level it's easier to get back to that level in the future. This will not help if they transitioned before becoming an athlete but that's not the usual scenario.

Yes, yes. And bone density and structure may offer an advantage or disadvantage depending on the sport. The point is not that no transgender athletes possess unreasonable advantage. It's that categorical exclusion doesn't make sense if advantage is the concern. Not all transgender women will have such advantage, and some cisgender women will. If advantage is the concern, then medical science and sports science is more significant that cis or trans at that point.

 

[repoman]

What will happen to a medical personnel who makes that hard call that some transgender athlete does not make the cut of not having an advantage?

Will their career be in danger? Will their social media and all interactions be put under a microscope?

Maybe the best self interested call is to give the competitor clearance to compete.
These transgender competitors can spend several hours on twitter everyday hectoring organizations.

Someone needs to be top dog in the decision making process and there need to be lines in the sand. The decision makers should be cis females, no trans women should be allowed in this process.

But trans athletes are out for legal victories at all costs beyond rational thinking.

 

[Bomb#20]

Altering the premise alters the argument. He was attributing that argument to others with an altered premise instead of challenging what he likely saw as a faulty premise.

Not seeing where he did anything of the sort. The original argument in the source he pointed us to did not appear to state the premise you're talking about. (It may well have implicitly assumed such a premise, but that's not Metaphor's fault.) His paraphrase doesn't contain an altered premise. There was no "Because transgender girls are girls" in the original, and Metaphor didn't write "Because transgender girls are boys".

The reason for inclusion is that transgender girls are girls. That is the basis of the argument.

So? If that's why they believe it, and that's why you believe it, you're free to say so when you make your case. That doesn't mean Metaphor is somehow under an obligation to figure out their reasons for their beliefs and recite them when he reports what their conclusion is. Why do you keep blaming other people for not doing your side's work for you?

"the recommendation for K-12 inclusion of transgender students is for transgender youth to be allowed to play sports in their affirmed gender." (Source: www.transathlete.com)​

How is that position any different from what Metaphor said it was, once you take into account the different way he uses the words "boys" and "girls"?

It properly specific in meaning. Are you under the impression those words where chosen whimsically with no meaning or purpose?

Are you under the impression that that's a substantive answer to my question?

What words am I supposed to have put in your mouth?

"KrIS appears to be expressing the opinion that your view, that M2Fs not really female but male, is analogous to those conservative Christians' view, that men who lie with mankind as with womankind are not really gay but rebellious."

Not something I said, but it's an interpretation so fine.

I.e., I didn't put any words in your mouth. I accurately reported what you appeared to be expressing. If you meant to express something different, well, sorry, but you failed to make yourself clear. (And for what it's worth, a disinterested third party rep'ed me for my exposition of your apparent meaning, so evidently your analogy appeared to her the same way it appeared to me.)

But now the analogy is being evaluated on your version of it? It's weird and off-putting.

Everything I said about what you said was perfectly reasonable based on the information I had at the time. Just because you posted a clarification afterwards does not magically create a time machine and retroactively disambiguate your original ambiguous formulation of your complaint against Metaphor.

It's not something I actually said, so don't. I don't need your interpretations or to have you speaking on my behalf.

But I wasn't doing it to address your needs; I was doing it to assist Metaphor. He appeared to need assistance because you dropped the ball.

You lack the necessary skill sets. It is unwanted. But certainly don't double down on it like you knew what the <expletive deleted> you were talking about. It's dismissive and rude. I'm in the <expletive deleted> thread. Just ask me for clarification instead of talking around me.

Am I taking crazy pills here, or did you just ask me to be courteous to you? You ask for courtesy right after you post this?!?

"You have been humoured. You are not up to standards for further conversation on this matter. A lack of continued response should be construed as a lack of respect for your poorly articulated and unsupported position."​

Lady, I will talk about you as if you weren't there, right in front of your face, to my heart's content. And if you don't like that, try being the change you want to see in the world.

Or is it that 'identification' got dropped? It was never a point of contention.

How were readers to know that? Your out-of-context quote with "identification" dropped was the only thing you'd said up to that point that looked like an explanation for why he deserved the analogy you'd made.

I identified the specific thing with which I had disagreement and have been clear my issue is that he attributed an argument to others while altering the premise.

But you did that after the posts you're griping about.

And none of this changes the fact that Metaphor didn't actually attribute an altered premise to anyone. So your analogy was still inapt.

 

[Bomb#20]

Bomb#20 factually opposed anti-discrimination statutes, but pointing that out is 'demonization' because you don't agree with the idea that it is harassment and discrimination. But it's not an idle characterization, but rather one supported by human rights legislation and judiciaries in an increasing number of jurisdictions. Finding a characterization unflattering doesn't equate to demonization.

As The Great Awokening juggernaut crushes its ongoing way forward through the West's civil liberties, next year some jurisdiction will probably define failing to say "Muhammad(PBUH)" to be discrimination against Muslims. When that happens the few surviving liberals, still giving a hoot about the First Amendment, will no doubt be characterized as "factually opposed anti-discrimination statutes". But in order for that unflattering characterization to be factual, the law we will oppose would have to factually be an anti-discrimination statute. Failing to say "Muhammad(PBUH)" factually does not discriminate against Muslims, irrespective of whether the Woke label their future law an "anti-discrimination statute". See how it works?

So feel free any time to woman-up and show that the ordinance I factually opposed is factually an anti-discrimination statute.

If I call Taylor "xe" instead of "they", how on earth is that inconsistent with Taylor's gender identity? The whole point of the "xe" coinage was to be consistent with all genders.

<crickets>

 

[Trausti]

Sanity in the USA? 'Merica, fuck yeah!

Tulsi Gabbard introduces bill to ‘protect women’s sports’ based on biological sex

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) has introduced a new bill to Congress that would “protect women’s sports” based on a person’s biological sex.

Sports Illustrated reports the Democratic congresswoman introduced the “Protect Women’s Sports Act of 2020″ on Thursday, aiming to prevent people who were identified as males at birth from participating in women’s sports. The bill, co-sponsored by Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Oklahoma), would block schools from receiving federal funding if they allow transgender girls and women and non-binary people to compete in athletic programs or activities designated for females.

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1337563434200616961[/TWEET]

 

[Metaphor]

Sanity in the USA? 'Merica, fuck yeah!

Tulsi Gabbard introduces bill to ‘protect women’s sports’ based on biological sex

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) has introduced a new bill to Congress that would “protect women’s sports” based on a person’s biological sex.

Sports Illustrated reports the Democratic congresswoman introduced the “Protect Women’s Sports Act of 2020″ on Thursday, aiming to prevent people who were identified as males at birth from participating in women’s sports. The bill, co-sponsored by Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Oklahoma), would block schools from receiving federal funding if they allow transgender girls and women and non-binary people to compete in athletic programs or activities designated for females.

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1337563434200616961[/TWEET]

Wow. Gabbard won't be able to get this through a Democrat-controlled House, but good on her for trying.

I would be interested in knowing the exact wording of the bill, but as long as it forbids natal males from participating in girl's sports, it's on the right track. I'm a little cautious about forbidding 'non-binary' students from competing on the girl's team. It doesn't matter whether somebody identifies as 'non-binary'. There's no problem with a natal female who identifies as non-binary from playing on the girl's team (unless she's taking testosterone).