The left eats JK Rowling over transgender comments

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The way I try to prioritize political issues and put effort and time into them has more to do with the severity and probability of the issues. When you look at the world objectively, people's lives mean a lot. Life. The necessities of life are right up there with lives. So...what I am thinking is that while this thread has gone on, there surely have been trans people killed for being trans. Where are the threads on this? Instead, what I am seeing is ADDITIONAL threads because of anti-trans activists want to make noise. Instead of focusing on what I should focus on, I often end up involved in ridiculous threads like this one because someone makes a lot of noise and engages in a lot of rudeness. I honestly cannot follow Metaphor's points at this point as they've gone from dramatic hyperbole to fallacious logic to surreal, unhinged gobbledeguk. So, I'm out.

 

[repoman]

The way I try to prioritize political issues and put effort and time into them has more to do with the severity and probability of the issues. When you look at the world objectively, people's lives mean a lot. Life. The necessities of life are right up there with lives. So...what I am thinking is that while this thread has gone on, there surely have been trans people killed for being trans. Where are the threads on this? Instead, what I am seeing is ADDITIONAL threads because of anti-trans activists want to make noise. Instead of focusing on what I should focus on, I often end up involved in ridiculous threads like this one because someone makes a lot of noise and engages in a lot of rudeness. I honestly cannot follow Metaphor's points at this point as they've gone from dramatic hyperbole to fallacious logic to surreal, unhinged gobbledeguk. So, I'm out.

It is where trans people naturally fit into the dating and sex marketplace that is having transphobic (or more worried about social embarrassment) downlow boyfriends and customers doing the killing for the most part.

I have not read about roving bands of an anti trans klan doing these killings.

I would bet that a trans person who is highly skilled and has a halfway decent support system will not be in much danger.

But compared a transwoman with an unstable situation, low skill, poor employment and so on to a ciswoman... Being in that lower functioning strata of society, holy shit will the transwoman be in greater peril.

 

[WAB]

This thread cracks me up at times.

A definition provided by Oxford:


While 'used also' doesn't necessarily mean secondary, the definition certainly seems to place emphasis on it's function in reproduction.

Merriam-Webster:

'Organ of copulation' certainly places emphasis on reproductive function.

Wikipedia opted for this introduction to the human penis:

The human penis is an external male intromittent organ that additionally serves as the urinal duct.

I'm not a believer that dictionaries (or wikipedia) are the the best tools for defining biological terms, but even some common and abridged definitions seem to focus more on the procreative aspect. Which makes sense. The human penis houses a portion of the urethra, so it ends up playing a role in expelling urine. But the urethra fulfills that role even in the absence of the penis. The form and function of a penis fits more with specialized structures selected for their function in reproduction. Even the inclusion of the urethra in the structure is at least in part due to the urethra's function in carrying sperm.

I suppose the most frequent use of penises is acting as urethra extenders. But primary function? That feels an awful lot like saying the primary function of my phones for he last two decades has been to tell time. Incidentally, with the right knowhow, some penises can be used as sundials, but no penises can be used as phones... at least not without technological augmentation.

Another notable (but not primary) function of the human penis is the ability to derail conversations.

I believe one is also supposed to "swing" one's penis? Or so I've heard.

 

[ruby sparks]

Anyway, I think that this newer transgender issue touches a lot more on "positive rights" than for mostly hammered out gay issues that involves more negative rights.

https://medium.com/@meholstein/a-primer-on-positive-vs-negative-rights-89d9f75b8425.

So, how much can those with minority issues (of whatever sort) expect the rest of society to do about them? Could be a trans gender person, or a gay person, or a person who has to use a wheelchair, or a depressive, or an epileptic, or a very short (in stature) person who wants to play basketball.

Bare minimum, I think, would be that others ‘do no harm’. Possibly also that they, ‘be tolerant’ and ‘be respectful’. As for anything more proactive or more accommodating, I reckon it should be a reasonable amount, no more and no less.

The idea that the playing field can be levelled out completely is, I think, unrealistic, as an expectation.

 

[ruby sparks]

Hypothetical example:

You apply for a job, and you are offered it. Part of the contract stipulates that you agree to use the personal gender pronouns your colleagues prefer (from a suitable list of acceptable options).

Is this an unreasonable stipulation? In my opinion, no.

If, however, you were already an employee and had not agreed to this before joining the company, it might be considered a bit more unreasonable to ask you to do it. I think I would agree to it, but others might not. I also think it might be unreasonable if someone who did not wish to do it lost their job because of that alone.

 

[Jokodo]

I know a bisexual woman who thought she was a lesbian for decades and then found herself unexpectedly attracted to a man. It was his personality that attracted her, not his secondary sexual characteristics. In fact, she confided in me she found handling a penis bewildering and secretly wished her boyfriend had a vagina.

I don't want to tell your friend her business, but if she doesn't like dick it doesn't seem to me she's bisexual.

The heck? By that same token, I guess a heterosexual man who does enjoy dick (i.e. he likes being fucked with a strap-on by his girlfriend/wife) is actually gay?

You appear to live in a universe where sexual attraction is exclusively about genitals. If that's your way of seeing it, more power to you. But you're actually trying to force us to parttake in your delusion - which is quite ironic since this seems to be your single biggest objection to trans activism.

 

[Jokodo]

No. Transwomen are adult human males, therefore they are men.

*Some* are, arguably most, but not *all*.

A transwoman who started transitioning before puberty, and thus never underwent normal male puberty, is arguably, at least, not an adult human male.

A transwoman who is genetically xx but with virilized genitalia who was thus classified as male at birth is arguably not biologically male, but still a transwoman.

A person who is genetically XY, with a penis folded on the inside and regular, testosterone and sperm producing testicles inside the abdomen - who was of course classified as a female baby and raised as a girl, becomes a transman when undergoing surgery and changing her name. Is he/she an "adult human female" though?

I'm not making up these stories.  Erik_Schinegger (born Erika) is a person who exists - Erika Schinegger was world a champion women's downhill skier in 1966, aged 18, and only ever learnt about her unusual condition when she was tested in the run-up to the 1968 winter olympics - where she was hopeful to gain several medals, but was disqualified for being male. After undergoing transition, Erik fathered a daughter, and yet, by any reasonable definition, he's a transman.

You're arguing a strict "biological category."

I'm arguing that mammals cannot change sex, which is a biological fact.

The only biological purpose for an orgasm--for ejaculation--is to drive you to impregnate women. Your penis serves only one biological imperative, so if you are not sticking it in a woman's vagina, you are acting outside of your biological category in the exact same way that you are bizarrely arguing transgendered people are doing.

Every single sex act with an infertile woman, or a woman on the Pill, or a woman post menopause, or a penis with a franga on it, or a penis that is withdrawn before ejaculation, or an oral sex act, or a jerking off, is 'acting outside of your biological category' if that's what you imagine 'acting outside your biological category' to mean or why it's important to you.

I don't care if you or anybody 'acts outside your biological category' and I never have. What I do care about is the cultural and legal proscriptions trans activists have wielded to criminalise or cancel somebody who "misgenders" somebody else, to bully lesbians into having sex with men with penises who call themselves women,

Has this actually happened, with a frequency that makes this a valid concern?

to invade single-sex spaces as if single-sex spaces were single-gender spaces, to give puberty blockers with unknown long-term effects to children, to make a mockery of women's and girl's sport.

There are "transwomen"--biological men with penises--who are in relationships with women--actual women, and they call themselves a lesbian couple. So when this man has penis-in-vagina sex with his girlfriend, he thinks: this is so lesbian and she thinks: this is so lesbian

I'm pretty sure they just think "this is hot".

and they want me to think the same thing.

No, they just don't want you to point your finger at them at every occasion.

 

[Politesse]

As a self-respecting homosexual gentleman, I would like to respectfully observe that the vaginal canal is not the only potential erogenous zone that an elongated reproductive organ facilitates reaching.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I am definitely concerned that acceptance of the idea that male and female brains are 'naturally' or 'innately' different will reinforce those barriers for women. They'll justify the social biases that I, and many other women, are trying so hard to curb.

What if male and female brains are naturally different in several - or many - ways?

If you do not know whether that is the case, then to tie your cause to the rejection of an idea that may well be true is a bad strategy, especially if there is a good chance that science will study the matter.

Also, the "innate" part is not the issue. For example, adult males produce sperm. Adult females do not. So, that is a difference - not in the brain, but a difference - between human females and human males that is not present at birth, but is present later. Similarly, there might be - there are - differences between the minds and brains of females and males that are not present at birth. But they are reliably found in adult females and males.

 

[Bomb#20]

And in an alternate universe, ...
A' wrote: Sorry no. You don't need a car for transportation. People get around just fine without one.

Do you think the argument of A' is valid?

Let's stick with this universe.

I.e., you don't have a good answer so you're ducking the question. Fine. In this universe, do you think the argument form "You don't need X for Y; therefore Y is not what X is primarily for." is a valid, i.e. truth-preserving, inference rule? If you think arguments of that form are valid, by all means exhibit a logical derivation showing the inference rule is correct reasoning. Contrariwise, if you recognize that it's an invalid argument form, please consider the merits of ceasing to rely on it.

All one needs to pee is a urethra connecting the urinary bladder to the outside of the body.

I.e., you're doubling down on your illogic, continuing to post undisputed facts that fail to imply the conclusion you draw from them.

If it didn't do that it would serve no purpose at all.

Why would you believe something so ridiculous?

It's not ridiculous. It's true.

You don't need a penis to pee.

I.e., you're tripling down on your illogic, continuing to post undisputed facts that fail to imply the conclusion you draw from them. Not needing something and it serving no purpose at all are two entirely different things. Where the heck did you acquire the notion that those are the same thing?

A penis is primarily a sex organ. It contains structures that allow it to become erect to facilitate the delivery of sperm to the uterus or oviduct or mantle cavity or whatever reproductive organ the females of the species possesses. If it didn't do that it would be a total waste of muscle tissue and blood vessels.

I.e., you're quadrupling down on your illogic, continuing to post undisputed facts that fail to imply the conclusion you draw from them.

In the first place, I've often heard women complaining about the inconvenience of having to sit down to pee; some of them have even invented or purchased technological penis substitutes to make it feasible for them to pee standing up without making a mess.

It's easy for women to pee without making a mess. All it requires is a semi-squat or a wide legged stance. But that's not 'lady-like" so no one talks about it.***

I'm pretty sure holding a funnel and a rubber tube down there isn't "lady-like" either; and I'm not sure why you'd imagine I might take your word for what's easy for a woman over the word of a, well, you know...

In the second place, have you been living under a rock, that you've never heard of masturbation?

I have, and I'm glad you brought that up. You don't need a penis to masturbate.

I.e., you're quintupling down on your illogic, continuing to post undisputed facts that fail to imply the conclusion you draw from them.

Have you ever heard of a clitoris? Not only can you masturbate with one,

Um, I actually can't, since I haven't got one.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think she meant clitoris, not point.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Ok, so to look at it in reverse, are you a cis man with a penis? If so, then how about, hypothetically, I say I don't think you are actually gay? How could you be, given that penises are, biologically, for impregnating females?

Okay, I'm going to reply to some of your points.

Leaving aside the issue of what the primary function of the penis is (though I agree with B20 on this, but that aside), the question is one of meaning of the words. Now, the word "man" is not defined by stipulation. As usual, it depends on usage. However, it does not require attraction to females, let alone lack of attraction to males.

It is true, though, that gay men do have some (in humans) female-typical but not male-typical characteristics. For example, they are attracted to males, and some brain differences as expected due to mental differencs. But that is just a few female-like traits among a gazillion male-like traits, and that is - under common usage - a man. This is common, by the way, for individuals of other species. If someone sees a lion mounting another, they're not going to think "that is a lioness", or even "that is not a lion", etc. (even if they do not know how frequent such behavior is, and even if they think it's the only case that exists).

It's just a particular, unusual (in some ways a neurological/psychological/biological hybrid*) blend of what's in their brain and what features the rest of their body has, in some ways not entirely unlike in your case, but in a different way.

Sure, but is their blend such that they are women, in the ordinary sense of the term?
Why would that be so?

It is obviously illogical to say that a trans woman is not in the general category woman.

It is as long as by "woman" one means the same in both cases, but not if the first one is used as a compound term whose meaning is not derived from those of the components. The following assertions are not illogical. They make sense: A Tasmanian tiger is not a tiger. A mountain lion is not a lion. A maned wolf is not a wolf. A clouded leopard is not a leopard.

Lexicographers? Lol. It appears to have escaped your notice completely that the terms, status and categories of trans gender woman and man are more or less already basically and legally recognised in principle at least in many places. You even use them yourself!

He was talking about the word "man", not terms involving the "trans" prefix. The issue is whether the category "trans men" (resp. "trans women"), in the usual sense in which the expression is used, is a subcategory of "men" (resp., "women"), in the usual sense in which the expression is used.

One thing I am suggesting is that we allow as much validity to 'the feeling in a person's head' that they are a certain gender (including allowing use of words like 'he/she' and 'man/woman' for example) as we do for 'the feeling in a person's head' that they are a certain orientation. I accept that the two things are not the same.

What do you mean "validity"? The question is whether a claim is true, or probable on the basis of the available evidence.

As to beliefs, I would argue that in the end, even preferences are essentially beliefs, psychologically and philosophically-speaking (both are arguably propositional attitudes) but I realise it may be stretching a point to equate or not distinguish between them.

How are preferences propositional?

 

[Bomb#20]

This thread cracks me up at times.

A definition provided by Oxford: ... Merriam-Webster: ... Wikipedia ...
I'm not a believer that dictionaries (or wikipedia) are the the best tools for defining biological terms... Which makes sense.

Indeed it does.

I suppose the most frequent use of penises is acting as urethra extenders. But primary function? That feels an awful lot like saying the primary function of my phones for he last two decades has been to tell time.

In most mammals if a penis gets blocked from transferring sperm during copulation for six weeks, the animal's reproductive fitness will go down a smidgen. If it gets blocked from transferring urine for six days, the animal will die. Failure of your phone's clock is unlikely to kill you.

Another notable (but not primary) function of the human penis is the ability to derail conversations.

This isn't actually a derail. Stay tuned...

 

[ruby sparks]

..but is their blend such that they are women, in the ordinary sense of the term?
Why would that be so?

They are women by gender, usually gender identity specifically. I really don’t see what is either problematical or unclear about that statement of itself.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

In most mammals if a penis gets blocked from transferring sperm during copulation for six weeks, the animal's reproductive fitness will go down a smidgen. If it gets blocked from transferring urine for six days, the animal will die. Failure of your phone's clock is unlikely to kill you.

This has nothing to do with defining primary function.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

They are women by gender, usually gender identity specifically. I really don’t see what is either problematical or unclear about that statement of itself.

But what does "women by gender" mean? If it means that they believe that they are women, then the question is whether the meaning of the term "woman" is such that a sufficient condition for a person to be a woman is that they believe that they are a woman.

 

[ruby sparks]

They are women by gender, usually gender identity specifically. I really don’t see what is either problematical or unclear about that statement of itself.

But what does "women by gender" mean? If it means that they believe that they are women, then the question is whether the meaning of the term "woman" is such that a sufficient condition for a person to be a woman is that they believe that they are a woman.

It means they are women by gender. Sorry, but I’m still not seeing the problem with saying that.

 

[Bomb#20]

Speaking as a cis man, I don't like the idea that I should necessarily have to use a certain descriptor (eg a pronoun) for someone (including when addressing or referring to them) or face censure or some sort of punishment. In theory, it doesn't have to be about sex or gender. It could be a title for example (Mr, Mrs, Ms, Dr, etc).

My personal gender identity is "Prince Consort". I try to treat my wife like a princess; and, in point of fact, she actually is a princess. (Speaking as a proper loyal red-blooded American, I'm on board with our Revolution to kick out Bad Old King George; consequently I don't recognize the authority of the Court of St. James to define some descendants of English Monarchs to be part of the Royal Family while arbitrarily excluding others.) So speaking as a Prince Consort, it would be kind of cool for people to use "His Royal Highness" as my pronoun. But speaking as a supporter of human rights including freedom of speech, I don't like the idea that anyone should necessarily have to use that descriptor for me or face some sort of punishment.

(And no, I'm not ridiculing trans people's gender identity; I'm ridiculing those activists who are attempting to make it compulsory to express agreement with them. Violating human rights is a lousy way to promote human rights.)

As to other descriptors, if I, say, know (or meet) a person who has overtly transitioned (I think the word is 'passed') and for instance they have renamed themselves Angela,

That's not what "passed" means.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

They are women by gender, usually gender identity specifically. I really don’t see what is either problematical or unclear about that statement of itself.

But what does "women by gender" mean? If it means that they believe that they are women, then the question is whether the meaning of the term "woman" is such that a sufficient condition for a person to be a woman is that they believe that they are a woman.

It means they are women by gender. Sorry, but I’m still not seeing the problem with saying that.

What does it mean to say "they are women by gender"? I do not understand the expression, but if it means that they believe that they are women, then the question is whether the meaning of the term "woman" is such that a sufficient condition for a person to be a woman is that they believe that they are a woman. If that is not what it means, then what is it?

 

[ruby sparks]

... the question is whether the meaning of the term "woman" is such that a sufficient condition for a person to be a woman is that they believe that they are a woman.

It's sufficient to be a woman by gender.