The left eats JK Rowling over transgender comments

[krypton iodine sulfur]

No, you don't.

How would you know? You're not psychic!

It doesn't require being psychic to spot transparently disingenuous claims. You aren't being cute or clever.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Honestly, it sounds like begging the question. You start out with the assumption that the wiring is materially and meaningfully different, in a way that dictates behavior and feelings and identity. Then you make predictions about what kind of wiring a person must have, based on your observations of how well they conform to the as-yet-unspecified wiring dictates that you've assumed exist.

I mean, it's nice that you include an element of stochasticism in there, so you're not subject to black-and-white thinking, but you're still assuming that your conclusion is true at the beginning.

My reply was to Loren Pechtel's post, and he seemed to accept that there is different wiring, so there was no point in challenging that. It's like if I'm discussing with someone who accepts common descent, I'm not going to try to establish that it is true.

It is clear to me that there is such thing as female and male human minds - which surely correlate with brains, but if they did not, still the difference would be in the minds.

ETA: Elaborating a little on that:

If we focus on minds, we can identify at least three categories of potential mental differences between human females and human males:

1. Differences in how a person perceives or experiences the world, present or past (e.g., is there a difference between what's like to be a female vs. a male?).

2. Differences in preferences.

3. Differences in mental capabilities.

There is much we do not know about those differences, but we do know some things. For instance:

1. Consider your index finger in your right hand, and your tongue. They don't feel the same. For example, if you touch something with one of them, it feels different from touching it with the other. Or consider your hand and your foot. Again, they do not feel the same. And so on. The extent of the differences between the way two different organs (or generally parts of one's body) feel like depend on which parts you are comparing, but there are for sure some differences between the experiences of having a vagina and having a penis. Now, I don't know how extensive they are, but it's pretty clear that there are differences. For example, the vagina has an inner part with lots of nerve endings that a penis does not have, etc. Now, those differences of course result in different life experiences as the individual gets older, so they accumulate over time. If a female were to change into a male for example (as in e.g., some fish species, or in hypothetical fantasy scenarios like movies or TV), then that person would experience having a penis, but would have the past experiences of a female. This, however, has not happened in humans.

Now, there are males or females that suffered damaged to their sexual organs and as a result, in part they do not experience the world as people of their sex normally do, but sure they do not experience it like the other sex, either. There may well be other differences in the way people experience the world depending on sex, though this is a matter for further research as far as I know.

2. Related to 1., there are mental differences between females and males regarding having preferences about what to experience in regard to their sexual organs (e.g., what they like or dislike about being touch in such-and-such ways in a penis, etc.). But there are more differences of course.
On that note, if you watch a documentary about, say, lions, sure enough you will see that female lions and male lions behave differently in a number of ways. One of them is mating behavior of course. But it's not only mating behavior, but also their behavior regarding cubs, dominance, etc. If, instead of a documentary, you study lions more, then you will see more behavioral differences. Females and males prefer to do different stuff, even when not forced to. But lions are only an example: take a look at chimpanzees, or spider monkeys, or zebras, etc., and there are differences in all of them. Generally, females and males of any species of mammal I'm familiar with (and not only mammals, but at least mammals) exhibit some different preferences, though the extent of the differences is quite variable among species. That applies to all monkeys as far as I can tell. It would be extremely improbable that humans had no such differences, even before looking at specific evidence from human behavior. Unsurprisingly, some studies found differences (e.g., regarding sex with strangers, regarding being people-oriented or object-oriented, etc.), though there is a lot of further work to do. Granted, each individual difference is more prevalent in females than in males or the other way around, but it's not that 100% females (or males) have it (unlike the differences in Category 1. above). But are there females with all of the set of preferences as males, or vice versa (not counting those related to penises, vaginas, etc.)? I don't know. There is insuffient evidence to tell.

3. This one is less clear, leaving aside mental capabilities specifically involving different sexual organs. There is some evidence afaik, but much weaker than in the case of 2. and in any event statistical in nature, so I will leave this one aside (also because it's almost certainly not crucial to the meaning of the words).

Given all of the above, in short, we can tell that there are such things as female and male human minds. This is not to say that each of those mental differences holds for every pair of humans, one female and one male, let alone necessarily. In fact, for every female mental trait X, it is metaphysically possible that a male has X, and vice versa. Moreover, in the case of many of those differences (I don't know which percentage), there are actual instances of such exceptions, but that does not imply there are no such differences.


Now, what if - against all probability - there are no differences falling in the second category?

Well, then, there are still differences in the first one, and perhaps - though we do not know it - in the third one. In that case, clearly MTF transgender people have male minds, and FTM transgender people have female minds to the extent we know. Moreover, as any potential differences in Category 3 are almost certainly not related to the meaning of the words "man" or "woman" - regardless of whether these words have changed meaning -, and there are no other plausible categories that might make such a difference, then MTF transgender people are men, and FTM transgender people are women. Now, given that it's extremely probable are there are differences in Cat 2., it would be an error to just reach this conclusion on the basis of this. That is why I proposed a dual test:

a) An analysis of how people "in the wild" (in particular, not only when defending their ideology) use the words "man" and "woman", considering hypothetical scenarios for different minds and different sexual organs. That's studying the meaning of the words.

b) A study of the empirical evidence that might be relevant, including both psychological and neurological studies. What might be relevant depends on the answer to a), but we can just study all of the available evidence and make assessments conditioned to different possible answers to a).

And just to be clear: under the assumption that nothing is in Category 2 (which is false), I do not think it would be plausible there are other, unknown differences in Category 1 with that would outweigh the one described above.

 

[Emily Lake]

Yeah, sorry, but it seems like the people who make this arguments vis a vis trans people are exactly the opposite of the people you describe. Like, if anything, I would say the people who are most inclined to dismiss problems that affect females are those most inclined to make arguments against trans-inclusion in female spaces. Your diagnosis to me seems too facile. Indeed, it should be telling that there is essentially a civil war along the TERF/Non-TERF line in academic feminism, so clearly, it isn't just "men being dismissive of women's concerns".

It is very clearly politically motivated. I just don't think it's in the way you describe at all.

Can you flesh this out a bit more, because I'm not really following you. With respect to the items I listed, I don't see women who are against trans inclusion in women's sports saying that women's sports aren't a big deal and it's okay if male-bodied people participate. Nor do I see women opposed to transwomen in female locker rooms saying that it's fine if there are male-bodied people there.

I do, however, run across a lot of cis-men who insist that women's sports aren't a big deal, so it's okay if transwomen compete in them. And I do run across a lot of cis-men who cite that there really aren't a lot of women harmed in locker rooms by people with penises, so it's okay if people with penises start using the ladies locker rooms.

I get that you're approaching this from a different angle, I just don't grasp what that angle is

 

[Metaphor]

Because there is a documented history of treating gender dysphoria (though various names for the condition over the ages) which doesn't exist on the basis of Dolezol's transracial identity or transpecies identities.

So you are truscum. Okay. Why does a history of medical recognition of dysphoria make trans issues somehow 'real', but trans-racial issues illegitimate? It seems to me that the only thing that matters is the sincere belief, and Rachel Dolezal sincerely wanted to be seen and treated and live as a black woman.

Because what we know about the determination of sex-related characteristics in humans doesn't necessarily translate to race,

Since 'race' is seen as even more socially constructed then gender, it seems to me that Rachel Dolezal has a better claim to be black than you do to be a woman. Rachel Dolezal was accepted as black for years, even though when people found out she was not black, she was immediately crucified.

Just as Rachel Dolezal's desire to be black couldn't and didn't change her genetic ancestry, neither does a desire to be the other sex change the genetic ancestry of trans-identified people. And inasmuch as race and gender are socially constructed, trans-identified people cannot claim to have experienced life as the other sex, because they are not the other sex and society did not treat them as the other sex.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

So you are truscum.

No.

Okay. Why does a history of medical recognition of dysphoria make trans issues somehow 'real', but trans-racial issues illegitimate?

Who said that was the case? Evidence for phenomenon A cannot magically be transferred to phenomenon B. Trans-racial identities--in the sense of Dolezol--are not legitimized or delegitimized on the basis of evidence regarding the nature of transgender identities.

It seems to me that the only thing that matters is the sincere belief, and Rachel Dolezal sincerely wanted to be seen and treated and live as a black woman.

If sincerity of belief were the only thing that mattered, transgender rights would have advanced a lot faster than they did.

Since 'race' is seen as even more socially constructed then gender, it seems to me that Rachel Dolezal has a better claim to be black than you do to be a woman. Rachel Dolezal was accepted as black for years, even though when people found out she was not black, she was immediately crucified.

Better or worse is irrelevant. The arguments in support of civic and social recognition of transgender identities as well as access to medical treatments as necessary do not transfer to race on the specious basis of slapping the word 'trans' in front of the word 'racial'.

Just as Rachel Dolezal's desire to be black couldn't and didn't change her genetic ancestry, neither does a desire to be the other sex change the genetic ancestry of trans-identified people.

'Genetic ancestry'. Honestly, what the actual fuck are you talking about? No, my mother and father's dna didn't change, neither did mine. No one claims anything to the contrary.

And inasmuch as race and gender are socially constructed, trans-identified people cannot claim to have experienced life as the other sex, because they are not the other sex and society did not treat them as the other sex.

What does this have to do with anything?

 

[Emily Lake]

Nice ironic strawman. Are you a professional female athlete? No? Then don't speak for them just as you are chastising me. No female athlete I've ever known (professional or other) has argued that they should be specially treated due to their plumbing. Why are you?

Show me one professional female athlete who is raising any issue at all regarding the .000000001% chance of a transgender male to female taking over their sport--or the masses of scholarships that are being taken away from anyone--for this to even remotely be considered any kind of real world harm and maybe you'd have some semblance of a point, but even then you'd be arguing for forced segregation because women aren't strong enough to compete against men.

Wow, are you living under a rock?
Laurel Hubbard
Veronica Ivy
Mary Gregory
Andraya Yearwood and Terry Miller

So yeah, no female athletes are complaining about this at all, except for the ones who are.

You want to play the "forced segregation" game? Okay fine. I want sports divisions that are divided on the basis of sex to maintain that division. Because you what happens when you make it all co-ed? Guess who never gets to play? Go on, take a guess, I'll wait.

Now, if you want to redefine the classes on some other basis that makes it make sense - weight classes, testosterone levels, whatever, then I'm fine with that. But at the end of the day, there are actual real physical differences between males and females of the human species.

In short, you are the one arguing that female athletes can't cut it on their own.

Do you also think that Affirmative Action is a bad idea because it supports the idea that black people can't make it on their own? Or is this special pleading?

Horseshit. How do you not feel safe by another woman being in your locker room? Your bigoted ignorance about transgendered people does not translate into you not being safe or secure (or private for that matter).

...

Address the actual argument, not this bigoted bullshit. If you're not safe, secure or private when there is another woman in your bathroom or locker room then you have no fucking argument.

It's not other women that's the concern. It's people with penises. And, after generations of this being a concern for women... it's people who appear to be men being in our spaces while we're naked. If a transwoman is even moderately passing, it's unlikely to be a problem for other women, unless they're waggling their penis around. But when a person who looks like a man comes into a place where women are naked and vulnerable, it's something that women worry about. I know it's not something that men worry about, but women do.

If you aren't a professional female athlete arguing that your livelihood is somehow being taken away by the millions of transgender athletes that are now plotting to undergo operations just to steal your trophy, then you have no fucking argument.

By your standard here, you also don't have a right to an opinion on this topic.

 

[Metaphor]

No.



Who said that was the case? Evidence for phenomenon A cannot magically be transferred to phenomenon B. Trans-racial identities--in the sense of Dolezol--are not legitimized or delegitimized on the basis of evidence regarding the nature of transgender identities.

They seem to me to be the same phenomenon. Identifying as something you are not.

Better or worse is irrelevant. The arguments in support of civic and social recognition of transgender identities as well as access to medical treatments as necessary do not transfer to race on the specious basis of slapping the word 'trans' in front of the word 'racial'.

It isn't specious. It's a clear analogue.

'Genetic ancestry'. Honestly, what the actual fuck are you talking about? No, my mother and father's dna didn't change, neither did mine. No one claims anything to the contrary.

That's the point. Every cell in your body is XY. You are male, but you want to be treated as and seen as a woman - an adult human female.

Dolezal has European genetic ancestry (though in fact we all came out of Africa when you go far back enough). Her claims to be black are rejected on the basis of the reality that is not, in fact, black.

What does this have to do with anything?

Dolezal did everything in her power to be accepted as black, including inventing a history of her blackness. When she was exposed, the fact that she had been treated as if she were black did not confer on her 'blackness'. Her not being black was enough to take away her 'blackness'.

Why must I regard you, for social purposes, to be a woman, and not regard Dolezal as black for the same reasons? It seems to me irrational to do one and not the other. Dolezal has no better or worse claim to blackness than you do to womanhood.

 

[Emily Lake]

Why do you think you aren't? I can't think of an exact analogy, but have you even had a thought during a cold while your sinuses are horrifically blocked about how much you miss being able to breathe normally? When your sinuses clear, you may have a brief window where breathing clearly feels amazing. But very shortly after, you completely stop being aware of the sensation of breathing clearly. It feels so normal and natural that you never have to think of it and largely lose awareness of it. Sometimes it takes something being wrong to bring full awareness of how it should feel when it is right.

I can't dictate to you what you do or do not feel. But if you have any interest in understanding, perhaps question whether that sense of gender identity and expression isn't something you feel, or if it is something you so wholly take for granted that you are no more aware of what it feels like than you are aware of what it feels like to have a properly functioning liver.

I have given a fair bit of thought to what it feels like to be a woman. Unsurprisingly, I'm very well aware of how society treats women different than it treats men. I'm pretty keenly aware of how gender roles, as well as gender-based expectations of behavior play into my personal and professional life. I'm also pretty intimately familiar with how having a woman's body feels. These are the ways I understand "feeling like a woman".

What I don't understand is what that phrase means to someone who has never had the body of a woman, and has not had the lived experience of being a woman in society. If you have a way to explain it that makes sense, I'm open to it - because as you point out, it's normal for me. I might very well be blind to it... but I genuinely have no idea what it's supposed to mean. I have no idea what "feeling like a woman inside" means to a person with a male body who was raised as a male.

I did the opposite for the better part of three decades. I was highly motivated to do so. I was highly motivated to tell myself repeatedly that any feminized aspect of my appearance would, at best, be a joke and would be disgusting to most. Literal decades of this. While it may affect your mood or feelings of self-worth, it doesn't resolve gender dysphoria as a result of being transgender. It is extremely difficult to believe a cisgender person would induce anything close to gender dysphoria as experience by transgender people with such a daily meditation.

Yeah, I'm not trying to actually cause gender dysphoria. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. I'm trying to illustrate the plasticity of our minds, and how powerful thought can be. I'd be willing to bet that after that week, a cisgendered person would feel less comfortable with their bodies than they did beforehand. Because brains are amazingly moldable.

If thinking by itself were all that was required to treat gender dysphoria, there wouldn't really be any discussion at all. I know it's not that easy.

 

[Emily Lake]

Reasons which apply to the acceptance of transgender identities do not necessarily apply on the basis of race. They do not apply on the basis of imaginary animal status.

Can you elaborate on those reasons?

And for the record, I wasn't saying that gender dysphoria isn't real, more that Politesse's position that "woman" is whatever the person claiming to identify as a woman says... is well, absurd. That would mean that if I walked out my door today and declared that I'm a man... everyone would have to accept me as a man no questions asked, no scrutiny given, and the fact that I am wearing makeup and high heels and a pink dress with frills and I want to get pregnant and have babies is something that everyone else has to pretend is irrelevant altogether.

Okay, let's back up the hypothetical truck here, because yeah, I wear very little makeup, and only when it is really necessary for a professional thing. I hate heels, I don't think I own anything pink, I'm not fond of lace or frills, and I decided against having kids well over a decade ago. But my point stands. I don't think that self-identification alone is sufficient.

It puts me in mind of Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy.

 

[repoman]

In addition to the large corporation Human Resource industrial complex pushing these concepts there is the effect of the extremely squeaky wheels of social media getting the grease of concessions from the rest of us.

The Last of US 2 is under fire for deadnaming a character even though it was shown that this action is done by despicable people.

https://www.inverse.com/gaming/last-of-us-2-deadname-lev-controversy-explained

Last of Us Part II deadnaming prompts outcry from LGBTQ+ community and allies

There are no brakes on this train.

Metaphor, you are 100% going to lose this culture war skirmish unfortunately.

I've pretty much regarded the battle as lost for a while now. I didn't know about the Last of Us 2, but I do know Rowling got into similar trouble because she wrote one character making a threat to a trans character in one of her novels.

The proscription on deadnaming--even in fiction--is Orwellian. I don't mean that lightly. Have you read Caitlyn Jenner's wikipedia article? It goes to such lengths to refrain from pronoun use in the athletic history section it is near-unreadable.

I've asked multiple people multiple times in this thread 'what is a woman?'

None have answered.

 

[Politesse]

Reasons which apply to the acceptance of transgender identities do not necessarily apply on the basis of race. They do not apply on the basis of imaginary animal status.

Can you elaborate on those reasons?

And for the record, I wasn't saying that gender dysphoria isn't real, more that Politesse's position that "woman" is whatever the person claiming to identify as a woman says... is well, absurd. That would mean that if I walked out my door today and declared that I'm a man... everyone would have to accept me as a man no questions asked, no scrutiny given, and the fact that I am wearing makeup and high heels and a pink dress with frills and I want to get pregnant and have babies is something that everyone else has to pretend is irrelevant altogether.

Okay, let's back up the hypothetical truck here, because yeah, I wear very little makeup, and only when it is really necessary for a professional thing. I hate heels, I don't think I own anything pink, I'm not fond of lace or frills, and I decided against having kids well over a decade ago. But my point stands. I don't think that self-identification alone is sufficient.

It puts me in mind of Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy.

Identifying with a gender construct is a bit more involved than simply stating it. We communicate ideas about gender by many means.

But I also don't think anyone should be obliged to do anything more than stating their preferred pronouns. Why is it anyone's business but theirs, anyway?

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Can you elaborate on those reasons?

Various models and therapies have been proposed with regard to transgender identities. Some of them were outright abusive. Some misguided. Some effective. It led to a model where we understand reasonably well that being transgender isn't in itself a mental illness, is a persistent condition, is not a byproduct of delusion or psychological disorder, yet can result in distress in many cases when not treated. That whole process to get from where we once were to where we are now is specific to gender identity.

And when we look explain why transgender identities exist, we do tend to look at sexual characteristics. We understand genes differentiate primary and secondary sex characteristics. We understand that the interaction of genes can be complex resulting in phenotypic expressions which don't align with ordinary expectations of sex chromosomes. We are aware epigenetic factors which can alter sexual development. We are aware that individual humans have the genetic information available to express many male and female traits under the right conditions, and that certain processes in sexual development need to take place in order to become male or female in part or in whole. We are aware that some sexual differentiation and response to androgens in neurology exists, though much of it is poorly understood (to the best of my knowledge). None of this, in and of itself, confirms a biological cause of transgender identities. But a hypothetical biological/ neurological root cause is more than wishful thinking. It's plausible and to some extent evidenced. And it makes no statement one way or the other regarding a possible biological racial identity or more specifically trans-racial identity.

And for the record, I wasn't saying that gender dysphoria isn't real, more that Politesse's position that "woman" is whatever the person claiming to identify as a woman says... is well, absurd.

Her statement wasn't made absent any context. I find it very difficult to believe that Politesse was arguing some general principle that a person is whatever they say they are on the mere basis of having said it.

That would mean that if I walked out my door today and declared that I'm a man... everyone would have to accept me as a man no questions asked, no scrutiny given, and the fact that I am wearing makeup and high heels and a pink dress with frills and I want to get pregnant and have babies is something that everyone else has to pretend is irrelevant altogether.

I think you're taking Politesse's statement somewhere it didn't necessarily go.

Okay, let's back up the hypothetical truck here, because yeah, I wear very little makeup, and only when it is really necessary for a professional thing. I hate heels, I don't think I own anything pink, I'm not fond of lace or frills, and I decided against having kids well over a decade ago. But my point stands. I don't think that self-identification alone is sufficient.

Despite there being evidence that transgender identities are real, we don't have great methods for confirming each and every individual is transgender. At some point, self-identification is what we have. That isn't unique to transgender identities. Other conditions rely heavily on self-reported symptoms. There are complicated scenarios where fraud or error could be problematic. People are bound to want at least some safeguards in place. But on the flip side, gate keeping, discrimination and overbearing policies have also cause harm to transgender people. We don't side-step complexity by reducing the conversation to absurdity.

It puts me in mind of Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy.

To some extent, it is. If your friend confided they had to declare bankruptcy, would you demand documented proof? Would you say, "But you're still wearing posh clothes, so clearly that's a load of shit'? You'd probably take them at their word or just remain agnostic because it doesn't really affect you a great deal. In terms of the legalities of declaring bankruptcy, your financial status can be confirmed to some extent, but ultimately, people do commit fraud. The system relies on some extent of honest self-reporting. Strangely enough, gender identity has some similarity. It's likely much easier to commit fraud wrt gender identity than bankruptcy, but it is fraud all the same. In order to change my identification, I had to make statutory declarations and there are penalties if I abuse the system. In my case, I also required a doctor to make a statutory declaration. Again, fraud is possible, but it's still not legal, even if difficult to detect.

 

[Metaphor]

I've pretty much regarded the battle as lost for a while now. I didn't know about the Last of Us 2, but I do know Rowling got into similar trouble because she wrote one character making a threat to a trans character in one of her novels.

The proscription on deadnaming--even in fiction--is Orwellian. I don't mean that lightly. Have you read Caitlyn Jenner's wikipedia article? It goes to such lengths to refrain from pronoun use in the athletic history section it is near-unreadable.

I've asked multiple people multiple times in this thread 'what is a woman?'

None have answered.

View attachment 28401

Lingering emotional damage...from words written on a web board by people he doesn't know and will never meet. But if a girl described seeing a penis in her changing room as giving her lingering emotional damage, I believe the trans activist answer would be 'fuck your feelings TERF'.

Reddit's new rules about "hate" are exquisite to behold:

Rule 1: Remember the human. Reddit is a place for creating community and belonging, not for attacking marginalized or vulnerable groups of people. Everyone has a right to use Reddit free of harassment, bullying, and threats of violence. Communities and people that incite violence or that promote hate based on identity or vulnerability will be banned.

Marginalized or vulnerable groups include, but are not limited to, groups based on their actual and perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, immigration status, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, pregnancy, or disability. These include victims of a major violent event and their families.

While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.

Some examples of hateful activities that would violate the rule:

• Subreddit community dedicated to mocking people with physical disabilities.
• Post describing a racial minority as sub-human and inferior to the racial majority.
• Comment arguing that rape of women should be acceptable and not a crime.
• Meme declaring that it is sickening that people of color have the right to vote.

Additionally, when evaluating the activity of a community or an individual user, we consider both the context as well as the pattern of behavior.

Reddit doesn't define the majority, of course.

 

[Metaphor]

It's likely much easier to commit fraud wrt gender identity than bankruptcy, but it is fraud all the same. In order to change my identification, I had to make statutory declarations and there are penalties if I abuse the system. In my case, I also required a doctor to make a statutory declaration. Again, fraud is possible, but it's still not legal, even if difficult to detect.

What can gender fraud possibly mean? Trans activists claim gender is fluid, so you could change your mind about your gender at any time. How can you possibly detect gender fraud? Trans activists want truscum transmedical ideas to be eradicated, so there can be no penalties if you 'abuse' the system.

It isn't even clear what abuse of the system can mean, either. Let's say--as is imagined by trans activists--that gender critical people believe some men are claiming to be trans solely to have an advantage in women's sports (no gender critical person believes this but let's imagine it's a possibility). Why should gender have any impact at all on your access to a sex-segregated sport? Why would it be 'legitimate' for a man who has gender dysphoria to play in the women's league, but somehow 'illegitimate' for a man who does not have gender dysphoria to do so? Why is one abuse but the other not?

By my reckoning, they are both abuse. Men should not play in women's sport, because we separate sport by sex in the first place. Feelings in your head about your gender do not change that reality.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

What can gender fraud possibly mean?

No one said 'gender fraud'. It's identity fraud. For instance, allegedly, a man in Alberta fraudulently changed his identification to female so he could get a cheaper rate on auto insurance. Lauren Southern fraudulently changed her identification to basically prove she could.

 

[Metaphor]

For instance, allegedly, a man in Alberta fraudulently changed his identification to female so he could get a cheaper rate on auto insurance.

Interesting that this would be regarded as fraud and frowned upon, whereas discrimination by sex isn't.

Perhaps trans men find it wonderfully gender-affirming to be charged more for auto insurance. They're just like real men now!

Lauren Southern fraudulently changed her identification to basically prove she could.

I don't know the process to change your identification in Canada, but if Southern fooled a doctor and then openly admitted to not being a trans man afterwards or even beforehand or during, I'd say she largely proved her point.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

For instance, allegedly, a man in Alberta fraudulently changed his identification to female so he could get a cheaper rate on auto insurance.

Interesting that this would be regarded as fraud and frowned upon, whereas discrimination by sex isn't.

The two aren't connected. I don't agree that insurance companies should be able to charge different rates on the basis of sex, gender or age. I don't understand why private insurance companies are allowed to do it. I understand the rationale they provide, but it's discriminatory.

I don't know the process to change your identification in Canada, but if Southern fooled a doctor and then openly admitted to not being a trans man afterwards or even beforehand or during, I'd say she largely proved her point.

What point? That people can lie on identity documents? There are more ways people can lie than just sex or gender which require even less verification. Is the point that she wants to be more policed?

 

[Metaphor]

The two aren't connected. I don't agree that insurance companies should be able to charge different rates on the basis of sex, gender or age. I don't understand why private insurance companies are allowed to do it. I understand the rationale they provide, but it's discriminatory.

It's a rare instance of the failure of the patriarchy, though perhaps men getting charged higher insurance premiums is actually another machination of the patriarchy and society's misogyny. Maybe a feminist can explain it to me.

What point? That people can lie on identity documents? There are more ways people can lie than just sex or gender which require even less verification. Is the point that she wants to be more policed?

I would imagine her point is how easy it was for her to lie about her gender identity, in a way it would not be easy to lie about your age or height or weight or other details.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

What point? That people can lie on identity documents? There are more ways people can lie than just sex or gender which require even less verification. Is the point that she wants to be more policed?

I would imagine her point is how easy it was for her to lie about her gender identity, in a way it would not be easy to lie about your age or height or weight or other details.

It is much easier to lie about height, weight, eye colour, hair colour or address than legal sex/ gender.

 

[Metaphor]

What point? That people can lie on identity documents? There are more ways people can lie than just sex or gender which require even less verification. Is the point that she wants to be more policed?

I would imagine her point is how easy it was for her to lie about her gender identity, in a way it would not be easy to lie about your age or height or weight or other details.

It is much easier to lie about height, weight, eye colour, hair colour or address than legal sex/ gender.

Are those lies not discoverable to be lies?

How, precisely, would you discover that somebody lied about their gender unless they openly admit it?

Indeed, what if you say specifically "my gender for purposes of this document is x, but for other purposes, my gender is y". Is that a lie?