The left eats JK Rowling over transgender comments

[ruby sparks]

A mental issue best left between a therapist and patient has been made a political issue imposed on us all.

I mightn’t go as far as to call it much of an imposition, but in any case we’re not here to judge you on your personal issues, and so I for one am happy to let you keep posting anyway.

Hello, non sequitur.

Hello, the sound of something going over your head.

 

[Trausti]

Hello, non sequitur.

Hello, the sound of something going over your head.

While I am flattered by your advances, we are just not meant to be.

 

[Trausti]

Except the GLAAD guidelines tell you that the direct preferred alternative to saying "biological male" is "assigned male at birth", which is based upon direct inspection of reproductive organs and which you wouldn't know either about an given person. So, that exposes that it is not just about making assumptions about an individual. It is that even if you are accurately referring to people, including groups of people, who do have male reproductive organs, you should never imply they are "male" in any aspect but rather phrase it only as though the doctor made an error by assigning that label based biological sex as defined by reproductive organs.

Numerous uses of these terms to refer to hypothetical female or groups of females further show that you're wrong. Such as when biological females in general are being referred to preciously b/c they have female reproductive systems (like in a TV ad for an AIDS prep medication) and instead of referring to them as females or biological females the ad says "This drug has not been tested on people who were assigned female at birth."

You seem to understand that it would be silly to refer to a pond lily as "a man", simply because it contains male genetic material. It is similarly ridiculous to do this to a human being, especially if you don't actually know whether that is even true.

No, it's silly to call a pond lilly a man, b/c we know for certainty that it lacks the neccessary characteristics of being an adult human, which only when added to a lily having a male reproductive system would qualify it a man. And anytime that it is silly to call and individual a "biological male" it is equally silly and possibly untrue to refer to them as "assigned male at birth", which proves that the use of that phrase in place of biologically female has nothing to do with not being presumptive, it's about pretending that biological sex doesn't exist.

It might be true that the original objection was limited only to assuming the biological sex of individual persons, but as if often the case with political activism it's gone off the deep end into anti-science territory, and now is being used to coerce people from ever talking about people as having a biological sex, even when talking only about those people who do have female reproductive organs.

"Assigned male at birth" is a factual statement, and is not contingent on that assignment having been correct or arrived at by any particular means.

Kinda like being assigned “human newborn.” Blatantly bigoted against Otherkin.

 

[ruby sparks]

Why should someone’s gender dysphoria be a political issue? It wasn’t before recently. Yet now everyone has to sit in on the group session.

You're now conflating two separate aspects of the matter. On the one hand, there are the complications around the politics. Those can be debated, yes. On the other hand are the facts about gender identity itself. Your comments on the latter are more or less on a par with claiming possession by demons or suggesting conversion therapy for homosexuals. I find it too difficult to assume you are so stupid as to not understand that, so I am at a loss to explain it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

"Assigned male at birth" is a factual statement, and is not contingent on that assignment having been correct or arrived at by any particular means.

Kinda like being assigned “human newborn.” Blatantly bigoted against Otherkin.

That would be an EXCELLENT analogy if 2% of the population born to humans were non-human. Unfortunately, for you, no. I don't know why you are forcing us all to give you logic lessons. Is it all your pretense of not knowing? Some kind of drama fulfillment?

 

[ruby sparks]

Some kind of drama fulfillment?

Not far off what I’m thinking.

 

[prideandfall]

Ok. Which part is the delusion though?

in my personal view (and i say that because i myself consider this subjective, i know this is just how i view the issue, i'm not trying to advocate that this position is infallible truth) the delusion is that you can want to be something that you're not hard enough that you become that thing.
it's not a delusion to have a chemical process in your brain making you identify as a gender that doesn't match your body (or simply a preference or a compulsion for whatever variety of reasons one could come up with), nor is it a delusion to want to take strides to mold yourself and your self-expression to more closely align with the thing you wish you were.
but i think it is a delusion to believe that you can become it, or to require others to pretend that you are it.

i'm all-in for minority groups of any type being given respect and legal protection, and i see the need for the struggle trans people are experiencing to be a political issue.
but when i hear the argument or the assertion that a trans woman isn't a "trans woman" but is instead just "a woman" i consider that to be a bridge too far.

this doesn't decrease my support of trans rights or make me belittle the cause, it's a semantic quibble but it's about something that is a pretty major philosophical point about the subject of transexuality.
trans people definitely have social and political issues that they are fighting for, struggles that they experience, all of that is real and all of that is noble. but those aren't women's issues, and i don't see how separating them into two groups diminishes either cause.
but this thread itself is referencing a strain of the trans movement that acts like you're not allowed to acknowledge women's issues unless you explicitly include trans people, and addressing one group's struggles without linking it to the other group is seen as some kind of slight, and that is very weird and nonsensical to me.

And I don’t know what cosplay is.

ever seen pictures of when fans go to a comic book convention and dress up like their favorite comic book or TV show character? very broadly, that's cosplay... dressing up like something you're not and pretending to be it.
and the thing about cosplaying is that without a crowd around you all agreeing with what you're doing, you're just dressing very strangely and behaving very strangely and perhaps roleplaying in a manner that is completely bizarre and eccentric.
cosplaying is self expression that only works in the context of everyone else playing along. much like furries. much like (imo) trans people.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Right. A mental issue best left between a therapist and patient has been made a political issue imposed on us all.

This is pure bigotry, and just as irrational and anti-science as the denial of biological sex based on reproductive systems. Psychological gender is real and a productive of brain biology. The brain undergoes sexual differentiation that is only partly influenced by chromosomes but also influenced by factors that do not impact the development of reproductive organs. That leads to people having brains that have structural features far more similar to what is typical of people with reproductive systems of the "opposite" sex. It is no more a psychological disorder than it is a disorder of their reproductive system. It is neither. It is a discordance between the reproductive system and brain development that only leads to psychological problems and only requires a "therapist" b/c it is atypical and society does not accept or accommodate what is atypical, especially as relates to biological sex and gender roles.

This is the kind of bullshit that has lead to the forms of counter-extremism I'm arguing with Politesse about. Some trans-activist seek to suppress the reality of biological sex, b/c bigots try to use that reality against them, to harm them with accusations of delusion, and to deny the equal scientific realty of brain based psychological gender. At least their unreasonableness stems from self defense and not a desire to be a cruel bigot.

Why should someone’s gender dysphoria be a political issue? It wasn’t before recently. Yet now everyone has to sit in on the group session.

Yeah, sorry you were forced to discuss this. Consider this a refund of all your hard work and insight: $0.00

aa

 

[ruby sparks]

Ok. Which part is the delusion though?

in my personal view (and i say that because i myself consider this subjective, i know this is just how i view the subject, i'm not trying to advocate that this position is infallible truth) the delusion is that you can want to be something that you're not hard enough to become that thing.
it's not a delusion to have a chemical process in your brain making you identify as a gender that doesn't match your body, nor is it a delusion to want to take strides to mold yourself and your self-expression to more closely align with the thing you wish you were.
but i think it is a delusion to believe that you can become it, or to require others to pretend that you are it.

i'm all-in for minority groups of any type being given respect and legal protection, and i see the need for the struggle trans people are experiencing to be a political issue.
but when i hear the argument or the assertion that a trans woman isn't a "trans woman" but is instead just "a woman" i consider that to be a bridge too far.

this doesn't decrease my support of trans rights or make me belittle the cause, it's a semantic quibble but it's about something that is a pretty major philosophical point about the subject of transexuality.
trans people definitely have social and political issues that they are fighting for, struggles that they experience, all of that is real and all of that is noble. but those aren't women's issues, and i don't see how separating them into two groups diminishes either cause.
but this thread itself is referencing a strain of the trans movement that acts like you're not allowed to acknowledge women's issues unless you explicitly include trans people, and addressing one group's struggles without linking it to the other group is seen as some kind of slight, and that is very weird and nonsensical to me.

And I don’t know what cosplay is.

ever seen pictures of when fans go to a comic book convention and dress up like their favorite comic book or TV show character? very broadly, that's cosplay... dressing up like something you're not and pretending to be it.
and the thing about cosplaying is that without a crowd around you all agreeing with what you're doing, you're just dressing very strangely and behaving very strangely and perhaps roleplaying in a manner that is completely bizarre and eccentric.
cosplaying is self expression that only works in the context of everyone else playing along. much like furries. much like (imo) trans people.

Ok gotcha (I hope). I generally agree with a lot of what you say, but I think your underlying assumption is all wrong. As far as I am aware, and I stand to be corrected, there is nothing pretend, delusional or to do with fantasizing regarding gender identity.

Other than of course that for some people it may be partly the case, along with in some cases a genuine confusion, but that’s as true for any gender identity as it is the ones we are mainly discussing here.

So, for example, I’m cis-gendered. I don’t think that’s a delusion. Why should I think that someone who is not cis-gendered is delusional?

Or have I missed your point?

I mean, in gender terms, there’s nothing to ‘become’.

ETA: see my next post before replying.

 

[prideandfall]

Why should someone’s gender dysphoria be a political issue?

because they are being attacked: physically, legally, politically, and culturally, for their identity self-expression.

here's a tip: no minority group in the history of literally ever who was just left alone to do their thing, never attacked for it, and who continued receiving legal and social protection from discrimination or assault over their identity ever made a huge stink about it and made everyone pay attention to them.

if you want trans people to stop making a ruckus about how oppressed they are, stop oppressing them.

 

[ruby sparks]

Hang on prideandfall, maybe I misunderstood you there.

Are you basically saying that you feel there should be a separate term for a cis-gendered woman and a trans woman, or at least some sort of distinction?

So you’re mainly only talking about descriptors?

 

[Trausti]

Why should someone’s gender dysphoria be a political issue?

because they are being attacked: physically, legally, politically, and culturally, for their identity self-expression.

here's a tip: no minority group in the history of literally ever who was just left alone to do their thing, never attacked for it, and who continued receiving legal and social protection from discrimination or assault over their identity ever made a huge stink about it and made everyone pay attention to them.

if you want trans people to stop making a ruckus about how oppressed they are, stop oppressing them.

Who is oppressing them? Who is attacking them? It’s not that they want to be left alone, they want everyone else to partake in their dysphoria. Or else. How are young women who prefer to participate in sport with other young women oppressing them? It’s the other way around.

 

[ruby sparks]

Who is oppressing them? Who is attacking them?

You.

How else to describe suggesting they have a mental illness? It’s classic bigotry. Unless you’re just thick. But I’m ruling that out.

 

[prideandfall]

Ok gotcha. I generally agree with a lot of what you say, but I think your underlying assumption is all wrong. As far as I am aware, and I stand to be corrected, there is nothing pretend, delusional or to do with fantasizing regarding gender identity.

not the mechanics of it on an individual level, no - i'm not saying the actual mechanism of gender identity is the delusion. i'm saying the demand that: A. the existence of the mechanism means you can will physical reality to change so that you are the thing you wish you are, and B. everyone has to agree with you that you are now a thing which you are clearly not.

to my view the only delusional aspects of this are tied to... let's call it social engagement.
the mechanics of what leads one to be trans don't matter to me - whether it be gender identity, body dysmorphia, some trauma, a mental issue, a biological process, a purely conditioned response - i think the 'why' is a distraction and a smokescreen. the why doesn't matter. all that matters is that they are, and that's enough.
the expression of being trans also doesn't matter to me - be a dude who puts on a dress, get a surgery, take hormones, use whatever bathroom, be on whatever sportball team - none of this impacts me and i don't give a shit.

it's when it comes down to forcing other people to participate in your self expression that i can't over having issues.
for example: a while back there was a thread here about a woman's health clinic who denied membership to a trans woman. personally, i had no issue with that - because trans women aren't women, they're trans women. and i'm fine with requiring people to treat a trans woman as a trans woman (ie: with respect and compassion and legal protection as a human just doing their thing, the same as you would to anyone who is expressing their truth in the world in a way that doesn't harm you) but i resist the idea of requiring people to pretend that trans women are women.

So, for example, I’m cis-gendered. I don’t think that’s a delusion. Why should I think that someone who is not cis-gendered is delusional?
Or have I missed your point?

you absolutely shouldn't think that, and i certainly don't.
i hope that the above in this post clarified that.

 

[prideandfall]

Are you basically saying that you feel there should be a separate term for a cis-gendered woman and a trans woman, or at least some sort of distinction?

not that there *should* be, like i think there needs to be this checklist of features you go through to determine which category you belong in... just that personally i do put cis-gendered women and trans women into separate categories in my own head.
my intense liberalism keeps telling me this is wrong, so i'm constantly at odds with myself and agitated by it, but i simply cannot make myself accept the notion that a woman and a trans woman are the same thing, full stop, with no distinction between them whatsoever.

So you’re mainly only talking about descriptors?

on a purely personal level yes.

 

[prideandfall]

Who is oppressing them? Who is attacking them?

the people who beat the shit out of them for being different. the people who act to suppress their ability to act on their sense of self expression. the culture that mocks and disdains them, or refuses to acknowledge them and their preferences.
discrimination both tacit and overt, violence both physical and mental. if you pay even the slightest bit of attention you know that being trans is a fucking nightmare because of how other people treat you over it.

It’s not that they want to be left alone, they want everyone else to partake in their dysphoria. Or else. How are young women who prefer to participate in sport with other young women oppressing them? It’s the other way around.

and in that very specific example i don't disagree with you, but that's not what the struggle for trans rights and a social acceptance of trans people is about, any more than the the totality of the struggle for gay rights was just about adopting children, or the struggle for black rights was just about drinking fountains.

 

[ruby sparks]

Ok gotcha. I generally agree with a lot of what you say, but I think your underlying assumption is all wrong. As far as I am aware, and I stand to be corrected, there is nothing pretend, delusional or to do with fantasizing regarding gender identity.

not the mechanics of it on an individual level, no - i'm not saying the actual mechanism of gender identity is the delusion. i'm saying the demand that: A. the existence of the mechanism means you can will physical reality to change so that you are the thing you wish you are, and B. everyone has to agree with you that you are now a thing which you are clearly not.

to my view the only delusional aspects of this are tied to... let's call it social engagement.
the mechanics of what leads one to be trans don't matter to me - whether it be gender identity, body dysmorphia, some trauma, a mental issue, a biological process, a purely conditioned response - i think the 'why' is a distraction and a smokescreen. the why doesn't matter. all that matters is that they are, and that's enough.
the expression of being trans also doesn't matter to me - be a dude who puts on a dress, get a surgery, take hormones, use whatever bathroom, be on whatever sportball team - none of this impacts me and i don't give a shit.

it's when it comes down to forcing other people to participate in your self expression that i can't over having issues.
for example: a while back there was a thread here about a woman's health clinic who denied membership to a trans woman. personally, i had no issue with that - because trans women aren't women, they're trans women. and i'm fine with requiring people to treat a trans woman as a trans woman (ie: with respect and compassion and legal protection as a human just doing their thing, the same as you would to anyone who is expressing their truth in the world in a way that doesn't harm you) but i resist the idea of requiring people to pretend that trans women are women.

So, for example, I’m cis-gendered. I don’t think that’s a delusion. Why should I think that someone who is not cis-gendered is delusional?
Or have I missed your point?
you absolutely shouldn't think that, and i certainly don't.
i hope that the above in this post clarified that.
I mean, in gender terms, there’s nothing to ‘become’.

Ok I think I finally understand you now. Sorry.

Yes, it can get complicated.

I do not have any strong views one way or the other, partly because it is so complicated, in the real world I mean (where we might, ideally, or if taking things to extremes, need 75 types of health clinic, or changing rooms in gyms, one for each gender). I can see your point, though I might not have used the word delusional.

My gut feeling is that this will sort itself out. Things like this usually do. The main thing is not to allow prejudice or bigotry. After that, the question of how everyone can in practical terms be accommodated can be dealt with. There are probably limits and my guess is that some people, as ever, may ask for too much. I myself would not pretend to know where the lower boundary of that is. The term ‘reasonable accommodation’ springs to mind. It’s the standard that, for example, the building regulations I operate under use, when it comes to catering for a number of minority or non-mainstream issues for which provisions must be considered in for example building design.

 

[ruby sparks]

Are you basically saying that you feel there should be a separate term for a cis-gendered woman and a trans woman, or at least some sort of distinction?

not that there *should* be, like i think there needs to be this checklist of features you go through to determine which category you belong in... just that personally i do put cis-gendered women and trans women into separate categories in my own head.
my intense liberalism keeps telling me this is wrong, so i'm constantly at odds with myself and agitated by it, but i simply cannot make myself accept the notion that a woman and a trans woman are the same thing, full stop, with no distinction between them whatsoever.

So you’re mainly only talking about descriptors?

on a purely personal level yes.

Ok. As I said, I get what you’re saying now.

I’m trying to work out if I agree completely or not. Possibly I do. But I’m not 100% sure.

In any case I don’t think it’s an unreasonable point. Although as I said I tend to think delusional is not the right word.

It may depend on what an individual person involved might assert, I suppose. I am not familiar with the case of the trans woman wanting to join the women’s health clinic. Did she actually say that she was as much a woman, or a woman in the same way, as the other members were, or did she merely want to be included in a general category with them? I can see the latter as being reasonable, at least in some ways. Perhaps not if the doctors there were specialists in biologically-female illnesses or those that relate to sexually female body parts.

I get confused.

 

[ruby sparks]

Are there such things as women’s health clinics?

 

[prideandfall]

It may depend on what an individual person involved might assert, I suppose. I am not familiar with the case of the trans woman wanting to join the women’s health clinic. Did she actually say that she was as much a woman, or a woman in the same way, as the other members were, or did she merely want to be included in a general category with them?

well of course in these situations you can only get what information the news source decides to include, so who knows what the actual thoughts and feelings were.

some examples:
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/05/...after-being-turned-away-from-womens-only-gym/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...woman-loses-case-against-beauticians-refused/

i'll perhaps dig up the thread that was on here about another incident last year.

anyways, point is:
if we as a society are to agree that a business can be selective of its customers based on gender, then i support any business refusing a trans person admission.
i also support any business accepting a trans person if they so choose, ie if such a business were to take on a trans woman i wouldn't consider that offensive or wrong.

this clashes with the narrative that one must accept that a trans woman is a woman, full stop, and thus it would discrimination to not accept their business.