The left eats JK Rowling over transgender comments

[Metaphor]

We've noticed you tend to hear a lot of things.

Hell, you can hear them too - there are a lot of people on youtube who discuss this stuff.

There's a lot of people on YouTube who discuss how the earth is flat. What kind of standard if evidence is that?

It's lived experience.

 

[Metaphor]

Also, talking about undisputable biological facts, it is an undisputable biological fact that a lot more can go wrong in the development of male external genitals than in the development of female external genitals. Not least because male genitals develop from something very much akin to female genitals during embryonal development. It is therefore an undisputed fact that most intersex babies are genetically male.

It is also an undisputed fact that a surgical intervention that subtracts is easier to perform than one that adds. It's for this reason that a lot of genetically male and phenotypically intersex babies are assigned female, and often have major parts of their genitals removed in "corrective" surgery very early in their lives. If a (genetically male) baby is born with a split scrotum and an underdeveloped penis, common practice is, or was until recently, to take away most of the visible part of the penis so that it would pass for a normal clitoris soon after birth. Yes, it's as cruel as it sounds.

Anyone deserving the label "men's rights activist" should be up in arms about this cruel treatment of some genetically male babies at the hands of society believing in the delusion of binary sex so strongly that it considers anything departing from it as needing surgical intervention. I can get pretty enraged about that, and I don't call myself that.

But Metaphor is not only silent about the fate of intersex children, he handwaves it away when others bring it up. This shows that his crusade isn't about actual injustices, but about people who have the audaciousness to question a naive-biological binary view of sex.


ETA: In other words, we live in a world where male babies routinely have, or had, most of their genitals removed with society's blessing and without the ability to consent, but that's not what he wants to talk about. Instead, he chooses to point fingers at consenting adults.

What on earth are you talking about?

I'm nearly the only person on this board who gives a shit about the mass butchery that is routine male genital mutilation. When babies are born with ambiguous genitals, I have never advocated mutilation of them and have said leave kids alone.

So don't start with this shit.

 

[Jokodo]

Also, talking about undisputable biological facts, it is an undisputable biological fact that a lot more can go wrong in the development of male external genitals than in the development of female external genitals. Not least because male genitals develop from something very much akin to female genitals during embryonal development. It is therefore an undisputed fact that most intersex babies are genetically male.

It is also an undisputed fact that a surgical intervention that subtracts is easier to perform than one that adds. It's for this reason that a lot of genetically male and phenotypically intersex babies are assigned female, and often have major parts of their genitals removed in "corrective" surgery very early in their lives. If a (genetically male) baby is born with a split scrotum and an underdeveloped penis, common practice is, or was until recently, to take away most of the visible part of the penis so that it would pass for a normal clitoris soon after birth. Yes, it's as cruel as it sounds.

Anyone deserving the label "men's rights activist" should be up in arms about this cruel treatment of some genetically male babies at the hands of society believing in the delusion of binary sex so strongly that it considers anything departing from it as needing surgical intervention. I can get pretty enraged about that, and I don't call myself that.

But Metaphor is not only silent about the fate of intersex children, he handwaves it away when others bring it up. This shows that his crusade isn't about actual injustices, but about people who have the audaciousness to question a naive-biological binary view of sex.


ETA: In other words, we live in a world where male babies routinely have, or had, most of their genitals removed with society's blessing and without the ability to consent, but that's not what he wants to talk about. Instead, he chooses to point fingers at consenting adults.

What on earth are you talking about?

I'm nearly the only person on this board who gives a shit about the mass butchery that is routine male genital mutilation. When babies are born with ambiguous genitals, I have never advocated mutilation of them and have said leave kids alone.

So don't start with this shit.

I sure haven't read all of your close to 16,000 posts.

I have read everything you posted in this thread. In this thread, it has been pointed out repeatedly (by me and others) that not all trans people are biologically unambiguously of the opposite sex of the one they want to be.

Every fucking time, you reacted with handwaving.

 

[Metaphor]

To be more specific, there's actually an argument to be made that trans women should not be unquestioningly and unconditionally allowed into female sport leagues, as discussed in the other thread - https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...uppress-testosterone-to-play-on-women-s-teams

But that's not what this thread is about. In this thread, Metaphor has repeatedly and unambiguously stated that trans women are men, period, that there is no relevant sense in which they're women (not just that there is a relevant sense in which most trans women are men, which is something I could agree with), that trans women have no place in female locker rooms or bathrooms (without even any qualifications as to whether they've surgically transitioned or not),

Nope. You are already begging the question. You are starting from a position that a transwoman who's had surgery is unquestionably acceptable in a women's locker room.

even if it can be shown that they're at high risk if male bathrooms/locker rooms, and that it personally offends him that somewhere on this planet, a trans woman and a cis woman having sex might consider themselves Lesbians.

It doesn't offend me. Delusional people don't offend me. I'm just not going to participate in their delusions.

Maybe he also thinks that there are some relevant ways in which trans women should or could be treated as women without him getting enraged about the very idea, but he hasn't offered any and I'm hard pressed to think of what might be left.

What does it mean to treat somebody as a cis woman? What obligations do I have to women that I don't have to men? I expect both men and women to conform to use of sex-segregated spaces.

Tell me, what do you think it means to treat someone "as a woman"?

 

[Metaphor]

Also, talking about undisputable biological facts, it is an undisputable biological fact that a lot more can go wrong in the development of male external genitals than in the development of female external genitals. Not least because male genitals develop from something very much akin to female genitals during embryonal development. It is therefore an undisputed fact that most intersex babies are genetically male.

It is also an undisputed fact that a surgical intervention that subtracts is easier to perform than one that adds. It's for this reason that a lot of genetically male and phenotypically intersex babies are assigned female, and often have major parts of their genitals removed in "corrective" surgery very early in their lives. If a (genetically male) baby is born with a split scrotum and an underdeveloped penis, common practice is, or was until recently, to take away most of the visible part of the penis so that it would pass for a normal clitoris soon after birth. Yes, it's as cruel as it sounds.

Anyone deserving the label "men's rights activist" should be up in arms about this cruel treatment of some genetically male babies at the hands of society believing in the delusion of binary sex so strongly that it considers anything departing from it as needing surgical intervention. I can get pretty enraged about that, and I don't call myself that.

But Metaphor is not only silent about the fate of intersex children, he handwaves it away when others bring it up. This shows that his crusade isn't about actual injustices, but about people who have the audaciousness to question a naive-biological binary view of sex.


ETA: In other words, we live in a world where male babies routinely have, or had, most of their genitals removed with society's blessing and without the ability to consent, but that's not what he wants to talk about. Instead, he chooses to point fingers at consenting adults.

What on earth are you talking about?

I'm nearly the only person on this board who gives a shit about the mass butchery that is routine male genital mutilation. When babies are born with ambiguous genitals, I have never advocated mutilation of them and have said leave kids alone.

So don't start with this shit.

I sure haven't read all of your close to 16,000 posts.

I have read everything you posted in this thread. In this thread, it has been pointed out repeatedly (by me and others) that not all trans people are biologically unambiguously of the opposite sex of the one they want to be.

Every fucking time, you reacted with handwaving.

It is not handwaving to say a transwoman has to not be a woman. If they were already a woman, there'd be no trans to speak of. Transwomen are not women by definition.

 

[Jokodo]

I sure haven't read all of your close to 16,000 posts.

I have read everything you posted in this thread. In this thread, it has been pointed out repeatedly (by me and others) that not all trans people are biologically unambiguously of the opposite sex of the one they want to be.

Every fucking time, you reacted with handwaving.

It is not handwaving to say a transwoman has to not be a woman. If they were already a woman, there'd be no trans to speak of. Transwomen are not women by definition.

By definition, a transwoman is a person who was not previously considered a woman and now wants to be considered as one. That is, ironically, a question of gender, not of sex

Whether she is or was a woman by sex (and in what sense) is an entirely different question.

A genetically male person who was assigned female at birth (with or without functioning testes that didn't migrate as they typically do during embryonal development) is a cis woman if she chooses to continue living as a woman. It is only by virtue of being raised as a boy that she can become a trans woman.

Again, that's a question of gender, not sex.

 

[Jokodo]

Nope. You are already begging the question. You are starting from a position that a transwoman who's had surgery is unquestionably acceptable in a women's locker room.



It doesn't offend me. Delusional people don't offend me. I'm just not going to participate in their delusions.

Maybe he also thinks that there are some relevant ways in which trans women should or could be treated as women without him getting enraged about the very idea, but he hasn't offered any and I'm hard pressed to think of what might be left.

What does it mean to treat somebody as a cis woman? What obligations do I have to women that I don't have to men? I expect both men and women to conform to use of sex-segregated spaces.

Tell me, what do you think it means to treat someone "as a woman"?

In short, you agree that transwomen should be treated as men in all relevant ways?

 

[Metaphor]

By definition, a transwoman is a person who was not previously considered a woman and now wants to be considered as one. That is, ironically, a question of gender, not of sex

A mismatch between sex and gender is necessary for trans to exist. It is entirely dependent on both. If a man has gender dysphoria, he is a transwoman. If he does not, he is a cis man.

Defining transwomen based on their gender alone is impossible.

Whether she is or was a woman by sex (and in what sense) is an entirely different question.

A genetically male person who was assigned female at birth (with or without functioning testes that didn't migrate as they typically do during embryonal development) is a cis woman if she chooses to continue living as a woman. It is only by virtue of being raised as a boy that she can become a trans woman.

Again, that's a question of gender, not sex.

A genetically male person who lives "as a woman" is not a cis woman. A cis woman has to be female in the first place.

 

[Metaphor]

Nope. You are already begging the question. You are starting from a position that a transwoman who's had surgery is unquestionably acceptable in a women's locker room.



It doesn't offend me. Delusional people don't offend me. I'm just not going to participate in their delusions.

Maybe he also thinks that there are some relevant ways in which trans women should or could be treated as women without him getting enraged about the very idea, but he hasn't offered any and I'm hard pressed to think of what might be left.

What does it mean to treat somebody as a cis woman? What obligations do I have to women that I don't have to men? I expect both men and women to conform to use of sex-segregated spaces.

Tell me, what do you think it means to treat someone "as a woman"?

In short, you agree that transwomen should be treated as men in all relevant ways?

No. I'm asking you for examples, and no, I don't mean 'like men', I mean 'like people'.

I can't think of anything special I do for people based solely on their sex (except pronoun use) or anything at all based on their gender. If someone wants me to reach something on a high shelf, they're asking me because I'm at the 99.99th percentile of human height and they're not (though it's usually women who ask me).

Again: please give me an example of treating somebody "as a woman" so I can tell you whether or not I'd treat a transwoman "as a woman" in that respect.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The real problem here is thinking that labels make the item.

We have common usages for things like "male" and "female" but the fact that we slap such a label on them doesn't imbue them with the properties of the label.

English lacks the terms to perfectly define all the situations but the absence of the terms doesn't mean the states don't exist.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The real problem here is thinking that labels make the item.

We have common usages for things like "male" and "female" but the fact that we slap such a label on them doesn't imbue them with the properties of the label.

English lacks the terms to perfectly define all the situations but the absence of the terms doesn't mean the states don't exist.

Which situation are you referring to, in particular?

 

[Jokodo]

There's a lot of people on YouTube who discuss how the earth is flat. What kind of standard if evidence is that?

It's lived experience.

Lived experience from the bubble known as the youtube comment section...

And you call other people deluded?

 

[Jokodo]

A mismatch between sex and gender is necessary for trans to exist. It is entirely dependent on both. If a man has gender dysphoria, he is a transwoman. If he does not, he is a cis man.

Defining transwomen based on their gender alone is impossible.

Of course it's possible. In fact, it's the only sensible definition. A female infant who's abducted at birth by a mad scientist who raises her as a boy as part of one of their mad scientist experiments, and who later transitions to become a woman in spite of the mad scientist's intention is going to be a trans woman.

 Erik Schinegger, on whom nature performed a mad scientist experiment such that he, his parents, and their pediatrician were fooled into seeing a girl despite him having functioning, if misplaced, testes and penis, was not a trans woman before his transition (and is a trans man now).




That most trans women are biologically male is incidental fact that's mostly due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of infants who end up being raised as boys are biologically male. It has no independent status.

 

[Metaphor]

There's a lot of people on YouTube who discuss how the earth is flat. What kind of standard if evidence is that?

It's lived experience.

Lived experience from the bubble known as the youtube comment section...

And you call other people deluded?

Not just youtube. Trans people on Twitter saying that not dating trans people is transphobic.

Just because you are in a cocoon doesn't mean we all are.

 

[Metaphor]

Of course it's possible. In fact, it's the only sensible definition. A female infant who's abducted at birth by a mad scientist who raises her as a boy as part of one of their mad scientist experiments, and who later transitions to become a woman in spite of the mad scientist's intention is going to be a trans woman.

Good lord no. A female infant becoming a female adult is not a transwoman. even kis would not agree with your definition. A transwoman is a male person whose sex (male) does not match their gender (female).

 Erik Schinegger, on whom nature performed a mad scientist experiment such that he, his parents, and their pediatrician were fooled into seeing a girl despite him having functioning, if misplaced, testes and penis, was not a trans woman before his transition (and is a trans man now).

No. He is an XY male who had misplaced male sex organs. He is a man.

That most trans women are biologically male is incidental fact that's mostly due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of infants who end up being raised as boys are biologically male. It has no independent status.

 

[Jokodo]

Good lord no. A female infant becoming a female adult is not a transwoman. even kis would not agree with your definition. A transwoman is a male person whose sex (male) does not match their gender (female).



No. He is an XY male who had misplaced male sex organs. He is a man.

And before he transitioned, he was a cis woman with a rare intersex condition, or an intersex individual who had been assigned female, or whatever other label you can come up with, but not a trans woman, not the way the term is commonly used. Which is enough to show that your definition doesn't describe the term.

Because "trans woman" does not mean, despite your insistence, "a self-declared woman who is actually a man", it means something more along the lines of "a self-declared woman who was raised as a boy". There may be other qualifiers, but clearly, a person's previous gender is more relevant than a person's sex.

Obviously, in the majority of cases, the sex and the previous gender match, which doesn't help us to decide between the two analyses. It is the rare cases where they don't match that show us that gender is more relevant here.

 

[Metaphor]

And before he transitioned, he was a cis woman

No, he wasn't.

Because "trans woman" does not mean, despite your insistence, "a self-declared woman who is actually a man", it means something more along the lines of "a self-declared woman who was raised as a boy". There may be other qualifiers, but clearly, a person's previous gender is more relevant than a person's sex.

How you were 'raised' is completely and utterly irrelevant. To be trans, the gender in your head has to not match your sex.

 

[Jokodo]

And before he transitioned, he was a cis woman

No, he wasn't.

Because "trans woman" does not mean, despite your insistence, "a self-declared woman who is actually a man", it means something more along the lines of "a self-declared woman who was raised as a boy". There may be other qualifiers, but clearly, a person's previous gender is more relevant than a person's sex.

How you were 'raised' is completely and utterly irrelevant. To be trans, the gender in your head has to not match your sex.

So, you are saying that, if Erik Schinegger had never transitioned, Erika Schinegger, as a trans woman who is biologically male, should be forced to use the men's restroom despite not having anything resembling male external genitals and having seen herself always as nothing but a girl?

And if she didn't know?

Are we to install test booths at the entries of locker rooms and bathrooms now?

 

[Jokodo]

To be trans, the gender in your head has to not match your sex.

BTW, this is just plain false. To be trans, one must have undergone a transition from one gender to another. It's actually in the word. This typically means that your new gender does not match your sex, because people are typically initially assigned a gender that does match their sex, but in the cases where this isn't so, it becomes clear that your hypothesis makes the wrong predictions about who is and who isn't a trans person.

 

[Metaphor]

So, you are saying that, if Erik Schinegger had never transitioned, Erika Schinegger, as a trans woman who is biologically male,

It isn't clear to me that Erik/Erika was ever 'trans'. Do you know what gender identity Erik/Erika had growing up?

should be forced to use the men's restroom despite not having anything resembling male external genitals and having seen herself always as nothing but a girl?

I don't know how you know how Erik/Erika saw himself (the wikipedia page does not go into it).

I don't know what his genital configuration was like, but it seems that his external appearance must have closely resembled that of a cis woman for Erik to have been mistaken for a woman for so long (though I can't imagine why, after not menstruating, concerns were not raised). In other words, since nobody could tell except via advanced medical technology, it seems natural to me he would have used the women's toilets. He was simply mistaken about his sex.

And if she didn't know?

Are we to install test booths at the entries of locker rooms and bathrooms now?

We've never had to before. Intersex people have to use a bathroom after all, and they are probably going to use a bathroom that most closely matches their external appearance.

But, the trans bathroom debate is not about, and never has been about, intersex people. Most trans people are not intersex.