• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Science My transgender hobbyhorse

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,384
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Here's a great documentary on transgenderism by Matt Walsh. It's called, "What is a Woman"

Matt Walsh is a conservative. When we reach a point in a cultural movement where conservatives start making more sense in a particular issue than progressives, that's a sign we're losing our way.


Enjoy
 

bigfield

the baby-eater
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
4,609
Location
Straya
Basic Beliefs
yeah nah
OK, I skimmed through it trying to get to the meat of his argument.

The main message in the documentary seems to be that transgender activists have an absurd set of belief regarding gender, are doing harm to people. With a side helping of conservative men bravely standing up to them.

Walsh never manages to answer the titular question, "What is a Woman"? He alludes to some notion that people are men or women as determined by their biological makeup, but he doesn't actually declare which biological traits he believes are essential to being a woman (and which are essential to being a man).

While these conservatives are trying to invent some definition of woman that includes all cis women but excludes all trans women, I'd rather just deal with reality: there are people who believe themselves to be a different sex than the one assigned to them at birth, and we might as well accommodate them.
where conservatives start making more sense in a particular issue than progressives
Yeah, nah, that hasn't happened.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,384
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
OK, I skimmed through it trying to get to the meat of his argument.

The main message in the documentary seems to be that transgender activists have an absurd set of belief regarding gender, are doing harm to people. With a side helping of conservative men bravely standing up to them.

Walsh never manages to answer the titular question, "What is a Woman"? He alludes to some notion that people are men or women as determined by their biological makeup, but he doesn't actually declare which biological traits he believes are essential to being a woman (and which are essential to being a man).

While these conservatives are trying to invent some definition of woman that includes all cis women but excludes all trans women, I'd rather just deal with reality: there are people who believe themselves to be a different sex than the one assigned to them at birth, and we might as well accommodate them.
where conservatives start making more sense in a particular issue than progressives
Yeah, nah, that hasn't happened.

It's even more basic. If trans people want to not be something and then be something else, what is it they are uncomfortable with being, and what are they more happy with being? What is your definition of a man and a woman? If someone is gender dysphoric, what needs to happen for them to be happy about themselves?

What are the discreet steps that need to happen and how do we measure success?

The queer theory position is that gender is fluid and subjective while simultaneously fixed and objective. That's an absurd position.

It's important to emphasise that he's not transphobic. What he's questioning is the theoretical foundation of queer theory and gender theory. They are incoherent.

He postulates that people's fear of seeming transphobic have made them go along with swallowing nonsense.

It's important not to be black and white about it. He has no problem understanding transgenderism and gender dysphoria because he has clear definitions of what a man and a woman is. Why queer theorists are for gender reassignment is, in the current progressive narrative, impossible to understand.
 

bigfield

the baby-eater
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
4,609
Location
Straya
Basic Beliefs
yeah nah
It's even more basic. If trans people want to not be something and then be something else, what is it they are uncomfortable with being, and what are they more happy with being? What is your definition of a man and a woman? If someone is gender dysphoric, what needs to happen for them to be happy about themselves?
I see that people want to be perceived as one gender or the other, or maybe a something else entirely. People seems to be uncomfortable with the way they perceive themselves and how other people perceive them. For instance, a trans woman may not be happy with perceiving her body as a male body, or may want others to perceive them as a woman. There are all kinds of transgender people out there, so what needs to happen varies from one person to the next.
What are the discreet steps that need to happen and how do we measure success?
You mean for each person? It's going to be different for each person.
The queer theory position is that gender is fluid and subjective while simultaneously fixed and objective. That's an absurd position.
From my point of view, we have relatively stable social constructs for what is male and what is female, and we have a pretty systematic approach to assigning people a sex at birth, but at the same time we have plenty of people who don't conform to either of those genders, and there are people who don't conform to the gender they are assigned at birth.
It's important to emphasise that he's not transphobic. What he's questioning is the theoretical foundation of queer theory and gender theory. They are incoherent.
Who cares? He doesn't offer a better alternative.
He postulates that people's fear of seeming transphobic have made them go along with swallowing nonsense.
Stop the press, a conservative felt persecuted.
It's important not to be black and white about it. He has no problem understanding transgenderism and gender dysphoria because he has clear definitions of what a man and a woman is. Why queer theorists are for gender reassignment is, in the current progressive narrative, impossible to understand.
What are his clear definitions? I must have skipped that part of the documentary.

All I can find is that Walsh believes that a person must ovulate to be a woman, which seems to me to be nothing more than a failed attempt to find a way to define women that only excludes trans women. I have no idea what his definition of men is.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,384
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
It's even more basic. If trans people want to not be something and then be something else, what is it they are uncomfortable with being, and what are they more happy with being? What is your definition of a man and a woman? If someone is gender dysphoric, what needs to happen for them to be happy about themselves?
I see that people want to be perceived as one gender or the other, or maybe a something else entirely. People seems to be uncomfortable with the way they perceive themselves and how other people perceive them. For instance, a trans woman may not be happy with perceiving her body as a male body, or may want others to perceive them as a woman. There are all kinds of transgender people out there, so what needs to happen varies from one person to the next.

Then how could health proffessionals possibly know what hormones and treatments to give those that are trans? How could we possibly measure the success of a transition? How does the rest of society know how to behave if they want to support trans people?

Norms can be good. Norms should ideally help guide us toward being supportive to one another. What norms do we want to have? No norms is not an option. Humans are creatures of ritual and habit.

Without any guidance and norms we became insecure. Nobody likes being insecure.


What are the discreet steps that need to happen and how do we measure success?
You mean for each person? It's going to be different for each person.

Ok, then what are they? Be specific. Unless you are specific you are hand waving.

The queer theory position is that gender is fluid and subjective while simultaneously fixed and objective. That's an absurd position.
From my point of view, we have relatively stable social constructs for what is male and what is female, and we have a pretty systematic approach to assigning people a sex at birth, but at the same time we have plenty of people who don't conform to either of those genders, and there are people who don't conform to the gender they are assigned at birth.

I wasn't talking about your common sense, which sounds solid. I was talking about the other sides arguments, the queer theorists
It's important to emphasise that he's not transphobic. What he's questioning is the theoretical foundation of queer theory and gender theory. They are incoherent.
Who cares? He doesn't offer a better alternative.

I think it matters.

He postulates that people's fear of seeming transphobic have made them go along with swallowing nonsense.
Stop the press, a conservative felt persecuted.
It's important not to be black and white about it. He has no problem understanding transgenderism and gender dysphoria because he has clear definitions of what a man and a woman is. Why queer theorists are for gender reassignment is, in the current progressive narrative, impossible to understand.
What are his clear definitions? I must have skipped that part of the documentary.

All I can find is that Walsh believes that a person must ovulate to be a woman, which seems to me to be nothing more than a failed attempt to find a way to define women that only excludes trans women. I have no idea what his definition of men is.

The documentary isn't about his definition of gender. It's about figuring out what gender theorists think. Which is just waffling
 

bigfield

the baby-eater
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
4,609
Location
Straya
Basic Beliefs
yeah nah
Then how could health proffessionals possibly know what hormones and treatments to give those that are trans? How could we possibly measure the success of a transition? How does the rest of society know how to behave if they want to support trans people?

Norms can be good. Norms should ideally help guide us toward being supportive to one another. What norms do we want to have? No norms is not an option. Humans are creatures of ritual and habit.

Without any guidance and norms we became insecure. Nobody likes being insecure.
The average person barely has to think about it. You're not going to meet that many trans people, and of the ones you do meet, chances are you may not even know many of them are trans.

At my old job, one of my coworkers quietly remarked to about a customer he had just served: "think that might have been a man!" The customer in question was dressed as a woman but had some very manly features. Was she a trans woman? Was she a cis woman who looked manly? In the end it didn't matter because my coworker, despite feeling awkward, treated the person respectfully despite not understanding what he was seeing.

To me that illustrated the solution to this problem: we don't need new norms, we already have the right ones: Be polite to strangers. Be respectful to people you don't know or understand. Live and let live.
The documentary isn't about his definition of gender. It's about figuring out what gender theorists think. Which is just waffling
No, it's a documentary intended to promote Walsh's own position. He rubbishes his opponents' position, then declares himself to be righteous without making his case. It's just a bluff.
 

Hermit

Cantankerous grump
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
1,559
Location
Ignore list
definition-of-chair.jpg
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,603
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
It's even more basic. If trans people want to not be something and then be something else, what is it they are uncomfortable with being, and what are they more happy with being? What is your definition of a man and a woman? If someone is gender dysphoric, what needs to happen for them to be happy about themselves?

What are the discreet steps that need to happen and how do we measure success?

The queer theory position is that gender is fluid and subjective while simultaneously fixed and objective. That's an absurd position.

It's important to emphasise that he's not transphobic. What he's questioning is the theoretical foundation of queer theory and gender theory. They are incoherent.
Religions don't need to be coherent. They need to give believers an excuse to feel superior to unbelievers.

He postulates that people's fear of seeming transphobic have made them go along with swallowing nonsense.
For seventeen hundred years Christians have been made to go along with swallowing a "monotheistic" religion with three gods by fear of being penalized for disputing it.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
11,453
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
It seems that the only folks who are trying to feel superior, or enable folks to feel superior, are those who try to exclude folks.

Superiority is fundamentally taking power over someone. Saying "by power of my strength, or the strength of the traditions of the past, or by the strength of my friends, you may not for your own sake do some thing to yourself."

That's what this is about.

This is about laws which prohibit people from being and acting as themselves, and making decisions as to who that will be.

People want to write and support and pass laws that criminalize gender transitions, and which will absolutely force young children to grow organs they do not want nor need for their own happiness (or to not grow them).

They wish to prohibit in any way access to even temporarily delay the onset of puberty.

That is what this is about. People who want women to be something they won't even design to describe.

The fact is all the folks competent enough to actually consider gender to that extent end up coming to the conclusion that the real dimensions that are available and important to the question do not restrict not invalidate transition.

I could talk about pregnancy theoretics till I'm blue in the face. We could go on and on about how to select a population of "pregnancy theoretics females" and "pregnancy theoretics males", and the venn diagrams where they intersect, and how these aren't the same populations as "men" and "women" and how there are still people that are outside all of these classifications for all sorts of reasons.

I could even go on for days or weeks or months about steroidal theoretics, and how this mixed in with the above, and how this has more applications in sports.

But rather I expect some people want to find some way to attack the thing they have clearly failed to even try understanding.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,603
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Walsh never manages to answer the titular question, "What is a Woman"? He alludes to some notion that people are men or women as determined by their biological makeup, but he doesn't actually declare which biological traits he believes are essential to being a woman (and which are essential to being a man).
Trying to arrive at a definition by identifying essential traits is linguistically misguided. "Woman", like many words (including "chair" and "horse"), has an ostensive definition -- it means "one of those". A language learner learns what that sort of word means not by being taught criteria but by observing which things other people use it to refer to. Which things are in the "those" set is determined by the collective perceptions of the language community.

While these conservatives are trying to invent some definition of woman that includes all cis women but excludes all trans women, I'd rather just deal with reality: there are people who believe themselves to be a different sex than the one assigned to them at birth, and we might as well accommodate them.
There are people who believe themselves to be on a different level of personal connection to God than the one assigned to them at birth; we might as well accommodate those people too. But what does "accommodate them" mean? Refrain from persecuting them? That's no problem at all, for transwomen and prophets alike.

But for many such people it's also often psychologically important to them for those around them to perceive them to have the characteristics they believe themselves to have. That too is something we can accommodate them in; but this sharpens the question of what "accommodate them" means. Refrain from rubbing their noses in the reality that most of us don't share their perception of themselves? Go to an effort to conceal from them the reality that most of us don't share their perception of themselves? Go to an effort to conceal from their partisans the reality that most of us don't share their perception of themselves? Go to an effort to conceal from one another the reality that most of us don't share their perception of themselves? Go to an effort to conceal from ourselves the reality that most of us don't share their perception of themselves? Actually perceive them to be what they believe themselves to be? How far along that spectrum of accommodation are you arguing that we might as well accommodate them? And if you draw the line for transwomen and the line for prophets at different points, what are the grounds for that?
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
11,453
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Trying to arrive at a definition by identifying essential traits is linguistically misguided. "Woman", like many words (including "chair" and "horse"), has an ostensive definition -- it means "one of those". A language learner learns what that sort of word means not by being taught criteria but by observing which things other people use it to refer to. Which things are in the "those" set is determined by the collective perceptions of the language community.
This is in some schools called a "cluster concept": a concept from a cluster of ideas or examples as center point for an idea

In those same schools, one of which I happened to go to some years ago, we learned right along with the idea of "cluster concepts" what such a cluster concept definition could be used to leverage.

Inappropriate uses of cluster concepts yield themselves to the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

It is something that genital format exclusionists, (transphobes) fall into. It's one you are falling into, because one cannot say there is any "true" satisfaction of a cluster concept.

Cluster concepts, at times CAN imply the existence of an adjacent real idea or a set of ideas which interact together, a much more complicated relationship existing beneath the surface, but the cluster concept must be abandoned for that to happen. It can only be "generally" true, but that isn't actually being correct. It's quite literally being wrong.

Now, the cluster concept of traditional "man" and "woman" is giving way to more complex understandings, understandings which recognize it's just not important to have a genital configuration, when discussing whether someone is "one of those".

What matters for this sake is that you don't get to decide for someone else which of these they are. We as a society are coming to recognize that's something they decide.

You shouldn't make snap judgements about who someone is or what someone wants or whether they want it from you by the shape of their body or the clothes they put on it.

How's this for a cluster concept: it's in the neighborhood of "you still have to ask".

You can choose not to respect that, to some extent, but the respect you receive will come in kind.

You have a mouth, it makes words come out of it, just... Ask. Ask what people want. Then, if it's something that you do for other people who you don't even trust, you do it for them, too.



 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
11,453
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Your article is clearly arguing to exclude "boys".

The people who are abusing them are the people telling them things about "boys".

Of course, never mind that you are the one insisting that these "boys" be forced to have their bodies filled with testosterone and manufacture sperm.

It's a problem of your own manufacturing.

Give the "boys" power to not have their bodies produce sperms and testosterone, and the problem goes away... All but the trauma and the abuse ALL girls get by being told that such "boys" aren't girls.

The only thing they aren't (and which many girls and women are not) are "pregnancy theoretic females".
 
Top Bottom