Celestial-body-NOS
Liberalism has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.
No bio...
User ID: 290
If you continue to insist that my opposition to gender ideology is rooted in some kind of voyeuristic desire to know the genital configuration of everyone in my vicinity
I do not insist that your inquiry is voyeuristic in nature. My point is that, even though it is not born out of sexual perversion, it is still not any of your business.
I also acknowledge that you have stated that your concern is not with penis/vulva but with testicles/ovaries. (Does this mean that you would consider someone born with a penis and two viable-egg-producing ovaries to be female, and someone born with a vulva and two viable-sperm-producing testicules to be male? What about someone born with one testicule and one ovary, each producing viable gametes of its associated size?) I disagree with your claim that either of them is something which you are entitled to be told by someone who would prefer to keep to themself.
Someone who has a mental illness causing them to think they are Napoleon
Well, that's not how any sensible person would define sex
It's how they define it when a baby is assigned male or female.
when I use the term "sex", I'm referring to whether a person was born with the organs associated with the production of large or small gametes, even if faulty.
To the best of my knowledge, when parents ask whether they had a boy or a girl, doctors and midwives do not generally take biopsies from the gonads of infants and culture them to see what size gametes they produce.
They usually look between the legs to see whether they find a sticky-outy bit or a hole.
medical technology currently admits of no way to transform organs which produce large gametes into organs which produce small gametes, or vice versa. If you were born with functioning testicles, the only kind of gamete you will ever be able to produce throughout your life is a small one
Skill issue.
Your continued insistence on trying to imply that, by virtue of being gender-critical, I'm therefore a sex pest obsessed with the genitals of complete strangers
I do not accuse you of acting out of carnal desire. However, the fact that you are not thus motivated does not change the fact that other people's organs are none of your business. The reproductive system is considered especially private in most societies, but you would still be out of line if you insisted that people use bathrooms corresponding to the configuration at birth of their heart or kidneys.
If someone wants access to your medical records, do you think they should need a Good Reason, or is the fact that they are not touching themself sufficient justification?
If some wants to know the PIN for your bank card, not out of an intention to use it for fraud, but because they think it relevant whether it is a prime/square/triangular number, does the fact that they are not technically a thief mean that they are justified in prying it out of you?
your contention that the configuration of the genitals belonging to [trans-women] are some kind of jealously guarded secret
I do not contend that all trans-women keep the state of their genitals secret, so much as that an individual trans-woman ought to have the right to decide for herself whether and when to disclose it.
So in your ideal world, where no compromise was required with people like me (or those uppity women who would prefer not to be raped during their prison sentences if it's all the same), how would inmates be housed?
One inmate per cell, all interactions between inmates supervised by guards sufficiently numerous to intervene in the event of violence of harassment having the potential thereof.
trans activists cannot dredge up even one example of a trans-identified male being murdered in a British prison in the last twenty-five years?
'Trans-woman murdered' isn't the only bad outcome we are trying to avoid; there is also 'trans-woman beaten up by low-life with extremely retrograde Views on gender roles as a warning to anyone else assigned-male-at-birth who might be thinking about getting in touch with their feminine side'.
I'll be more than happy to stop, if you'll stop implying that I'm a pervert for disagreeing with gender ideology. A simple trade.
I do not believe that you, personally, are motivated by sexual desire in your opposition to trans-inclusivity. That does not change the fact that other people's organs are none of your business, even when your interest in them is not sexually motivated. This is especially the case for the sexual organs, including the gamete-producing organs. If someone starts digging through your medical records willy-nilly, should the Data Protection Act only apply if they are touching themself?
I was more referring to the tolerance for peaceful dissent.
But the people reporting it's existence aren't any better at defining or describing it than you are.
Well, they're closer to it, so they have a better view, and their statements are the best data I have.
Isn't that forbidding trans women from what we allow cis women to do, rather than forbidding cis women from what we allow trans women to do?
I reread your comment, and I apparently mis-interpreted it. I apologise for the error.
None of the drama is related to trans women being allowed to do what cis women aren't
Then whence the concern about a man claiming to be a trans-woman 'being given free rein', if he is not doing anything wrong with the acceptance given to him?
We don't, or at least shouldn't, tolerate cis-women harassing other cis-women in the restroom; thus, if trans-women aren't allowed to do anything cis-women aren't, then trans-women, or cis-men claiming to be such, are not being given 'free rein' to harm anyone.
And if you meant the former, didn't you just say you would exclude them from sports, prisons, etc.?
Those are circumstances under which I would compromise from the pro-trans maximalist position. That is not the same thing as endorsement of the anti-trans maximalist position.
Your original definition made no mention of hormone levels, nor did you say it's context dependent.
For most purposes, a woman is someone who either (a.) is of the gender identity found more commonly in people born with vulvas, or (b.) has no gender identity and has a vulva.
"For most purposes" means that some contexts might call for a different definition.
At this point your approach is just more complicated and confusing, while offering no benefits.
Other than being fairer to certain people who, to be honest, are having a terrible enough time of it already.
("Other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?")
But trans activists want to keep the segregation
Then argue for the abolition of segregation entirely
Are there trans activists who have rejected offers of 'gender-neutral bathrooms for everybody, as long as the wash their hands'?
I, on the other hand, have literally never even heard of Karens demanding genital checks.
I don't know how else one would enforce the bathroom bills being proposed in the red states, given the overlap between, at a minimum, the most female-presenting quintile of trans-women and the least female-presenting quintile of cis-women.
I favour Granny Weatherwax's definition.
But the soul is still oracular; amid the market’s din
List the ominous stern whisper, from the Delphic cave within
They enslave their children’s children who make compromise with sin.
"It's not a compromise with sin; we're just reducing expenses at the cost of throwing a rather small percentage of the population under the bus."
"Exactly what do you think a compromise with sin is?"
I'm not advocating rape or anything but one must remember that men's facial bones are a lot sturdier than women's bones, and the same punch in the face has very different effects between the two.
Which is why I advise her to aim lower, and use the moments in which he is doubled over in pain to execute the Thirty-Sixth Stratagem.
Of course if you never told Alice that perhaps she should not be inebriated in the company of hulking gang members with face tattoos and multiple convictions for violent crimes, and you hold dear that whatever choices Alice make are reasonable ones that should never be looked at if she ever gets victimized, perhaps Bob is, shocker, prone to raping.
I would advise her not to be inebriated at all; however, if she chooses to disregard my advice, and is sexually assaulted, her decisions are not relevant to the questions of "How much effort ought we expend to prosecute the perpetrator?" and "What sentence ought the perpetrator, if convicted, receive?"
Indeed why aren't women just killing rapists left and right?
Because have the alternative of involving the police who investigate crime and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders, both of whom consider sexually-based offences especially heinous.
I wish we could just say "sex" rather than "natal sex": the sex you're born with is the sex you're stuck with.
If, as is my understanding, a distinction between 'sex' and 'gender' uses 'sex' to refer to biological factors and 'gender' to refer to mental and social factors, then biological sex is a combination of things, some of which we currently have the ability to change and some of which we do not.
If one defines 'sex' as "If I look between this person's legs (and don't get a face full of pepper spray), will I see a tallywhacker or a hoo-ha?", at least 5% and possibly as many as 13% of trans individuals (per statistics linked in a previous post by above) have changed sex from that with which they were born, and an unknown fraction more retain the sex with which they were born only due to lack of opportunity.
@Celestial-body-NOS, while sensible enough to recognise that putting male inmates in the women's estate is a bad idea
That is not an accurate representation of my views. A separate facility for trans-women was an offer of a compromise, and I do not appreciate the repeated assertions that agreement with the 'gender-critical' position, or whatever you call your side of the argument, is a prerequisite for being considered 'mature' or 'sensible'.
Do communist governments and institutions have a unique tendency to suppress dissent?
Russia and China had below-average tolerance for dissent before the Communists took power; thus 'persecute anyone who Notices that the sun doesn't shine out of our you-know-where' was seen as a more legitimate tool than it would be in the birthplaces of the Enlightenment.
a gang was sneaking drugs into a prison, and exchanging those drugs with addicts in return for votes for the governor
One benefit of an anonymous ballot is that the gang can never be sure that the voters are holding up their end of the bargain.
Admittedly, mail-in ballots do complicate this; perhaps it would be wise to consider alternate methods of accommodation for those citizens unable to attend polling places in their area of residence.
I tend to think kicking a controversial issue to the state level to let the voters decide is probably the better choice.
I've never understood how, if Alice in Austin is pregnant and does not want to be, Bob in Big Spring compelling her to remain pregnant is less of an imposition than Carol in Cambridge telling Bob to mind his own.
It’s in the nature of humans to form hierarchy and enforce their ideas of morality on society. It’s been that way for most of human history.
Which is why we must never rest on our laurels and assume that liberalism has decisively won. We must always be on the lookout for those who seek to turn this world into a penitentiary and themselves into warders. We must maintain CONSTANT VIGILANCE!!!
Yes, he who dislikes mass immigration from foreign cultures into a continent that fails at assimilation mus surely be a hateful bigot who just wants others to suffer. Something something ideological Turing test.
Disliking immigration as a terminal value is a character flaw. Opposing it as an instrumental value, in pursuit of some other goal, leaves open the possibility of some other route to the same objective.
We Germans do not control the Rest Of The World.
I was more referring to the wealthier countries put together; the dismantlement of USAID was a bad move even from the perspective of forestalling long-term demographic change.
There is no lack of washing machines, dishwashers and vacuum cleaners in Germany. I do assure you that household appliance shortages are not the cause for our deplorable xenophobia.
That was just one example; there are many other dimensions of material circumstances that can shift attitudes.
"Education", said the soviet. "New Man", he said.
Something being tried and failing does not mean that it is impossible; otherwise, per Thomas Edison, I would be typing this by candlelight.
Yeah, I'm sure we'll social engineer our way out of this by telling so-called educators to push feminism even harder.
A pure redoubling of force on 'intersectional privilege patriarchy male-gaze blah blah blah buzzword buzzword buzzword' feminism is unlikely to be successful. An adjustment of methods, focusing on the sort of feminism that asserts that Women Are People In Their Own Right, Not The Property Of Their Husbands Or Fathers....
Great. The state of assimilation in Germany is such that urban youths without any immigrant background are converting to the more charismatic ways of our new countrymen. We are not making them advance out of their zero-sum mindset; they're convincing ours it's the better way.
And that is the problem we need to solve; less economic precarity would, I believe, at least contribute to the solution, if it weren't being blocked by manglement worried that a lack of desperation in the workforce might possibly create limits to the social dominance they can wield in the workplace.
Again, ideological turing Test. You won't believe it, but there are actual differences between having to live with different kinds of Germans and having to live with muslim arabs, subsaharan Africans and Afghans.
There was a time when the indigenous people of Europe were no better.
Look at any muslim country. Look at africa. Look, at the most optimistic, at Brazil. That is your future.
I hardly think that Brazil represents an absolute limit on the quality of life in a multi-ethnic society; and it is still much better than the last time ethnic supremacists were in charge.
This sounds like an argument for putting men at a high risk of being assaulted in a separate facility, not an argument for putting men who "discovered" they were trans yesterday in a separate facility.
The latter is a subset of the former.
Would men who "discovered" a trans identity even face an elevated risk of assault?
Given how many men object to the slightest hint of femininity in a natal-anatomy!man, I suspect that they would.
You are promoting the idea that violent criminals be afforded special privileges on the basis of unfalsifiable psychological states
No, I am promoting the idea that, when we choose to incarcerate certain persons, thus denying them the ability to either defend themselves or avoid attackers, we have assumed a corresponding duty to protect every single one of them from violent assault to the best of our abilities, and do not have the right to condemn a certain fraction of them to constant victimisation because protecting them is inconvenient.
You [...] seem utterly oblivious to how such a policy is ripe for abuse.
No, I understand that it is possible that a cis-man might falsely claim to be trans in order to be moved to the trans-women's section; I merely consider this a less bad outcome than abandoning actual trans-women to the ghastly fate to which your proposed policy would lead.
A policy of providing medical care to prisoners having medical emergencies has the potential to be abused, but an occasional criminal getting away with wasting the system's resources is a less bad outcome than leaving them to die on the floor when they actually need medical intervention.
It's a bit weird then to define "man" or "woman" by it. For all you know no such thing exists.
Other people's reported experiences point to it existing.
Yes, there is a possibility that they are all lying; there is also a possibility that everyone is lying about the existence of Finland.
I assign an extremely low probability (P < 0.001) to both.
None of the drama is related to trans women being allowed to do what cis women aren't
Other than using the toilet without being given the third degree regarding what ought to be no one else's business. EDIT: misread above
Mr Burly Lumberjack entering a women's boxing tournament
You stated that Mr B-L had not received, nor did they desire, hormone treatments. If (amount of testosterone in Mr B-L's bloodstream) ÷ (amount of estrogen in Mr B-L's bloodstream) yields a number greater than that observed in any cis woman, then Mr B-L may be categorised with men for the purposes of women's sports.
demanding a Brazilian wax
You stated that Mr B-L did not have surgery. If Ms Below-the-Waist Cosmetologist removes hair from vulvae, but not from scrota, she is justified in categorising Mr B-L with men for the purpose of genital waxing.
demanding to be put into a women's prison
Put him/her with other trans-women. He/she won't be able to get to cis-women, cis-men won't be able to get to him/her.
Even the toilet thing obviously causes discomfort, or else the issue wouldn't be so controversial.
That proves too much; letting Black people use the same water fountains as everyone else caused discomfort too.
Somehow we managed to achieve sex segregation all these years without resorting to that, so I don't see why we would need to start now.
We don't need to. If someone isn't harassing or assaulting other restroom-users, the rest of us can mind our own business.
I also haven't seen Karens demanding it.
Does that mean that it isn't happening? Because I haven't seen anyone pretending to be trans in order to prey on people in public restrooms.
That would just mean that if we have limited resources, we can't give people what they deserve.
That would be an absurd conclusion if one accepts the premise that What Is Natural Is Necessarily Just.
I do not accept that premise.
Well, if we can't put them in the women's facility without endangering cis women, and we can't put them in the men's facility without their being victimised by cis men, I don't know what alternatives we have.
playing at historical materialism again?
I do not claim that material conditions are the sole driver of history, but they do play a major role. It can hardly be a coincidence that the same island that birthed James Watt also gave rise to William Wilberforce; nor that women's liberation saw wide success in the decades following the invention of the washing machine.
The problems natives have with the tens of millions of foreigners is the tens of millions of foreigners.
Some people may oppose the presence of foreigners as a terminal value, and would throw away a life of luxury with their neighbour of foreign extraction having equal comfort to live in poverty and toil as long as the other guy has it even worse, but I doubt that we would have made it as far as we have if that particular character flaw were universal.
it's entirely possible that if material circumstances were cushier, more people would distract themselves with the opiates of the masses du jour.
-
If material circumstances were better in the Rest Of The World, I don't think there would be as many foreigners trying to move to the OECD countries.
-
I hardly think that the machines that allow so many of us to have the benefit of servants without any of us having to be the servants constitute 'the opiates of the masses du jour'.
the massive everyday ethnic friction isn't some psychological projection or poor man's cope or some other intangible phenomenon
No, some of it is a need for education; contra the wokists, the education needs to be on both sides. If a man immigrates from a country where the community considers decisions about who is allowed near a woman's nether regions to rest with her husband, father, or other male relative, with her preferences in either direction being considered irrelevant, he needs to be informed that, here, even if there is no father/brother/husband forbidding him to touch a particular woman, if she tells him to back off, he can either respect that on her sole authority over her own unmentionables, or he will have the same number of years to reflect upon his life choices as an indigenous European or European-American who did the same thing.
However, a lot of the ethnic tensions come from lingering memories of the nearly-always zero-sum pre-industrial world, in which we did not yet know how to raise ourselves except by pushing others down, and ties of colour or creed formed a convenient Schelling point for ganging up on the neighbours to take their stuff and make them do the donkey-work.
accumulating a little more public debt to throw at the dissatisfied public
No, I am advocating the production of more physical assets. More energy, more housing, more trains, &c. Things that would be potentially useful even on a deserted island.
foreigners are not their brothers in humanism
If that is the case, it is because they come from societies that have more recently emerged from, and have not advanced as far out of, the aforementioned pre-industrial zero-sum state. (The Green Party, as I have have stated passim and frequenter, are Not Helping.)
that politicians and media will absolutely do their best to shaft them for ideological gains, and that the establishment parties may claim to take their concerns seriously while actually despising them and acting against their interests.
That would happen just as much in an ethnically homogeneous society. (Not that it would stay ethnically homogeneous; if everyone of extra-German extraction left Germany, it wouldn't be long before everyone in Bavaria who previously objected to the presence of Poles and Turks and Syrians started objecting to the presence of Saxons and Westphalians and Hannoverians [lumped together as Damp Russians].)
Europe is now a multi-ethnic continent, and has neither the will nor the means to revert it. The AfD and similar parties will die out eventually as the natives are successfully replaced. Congratulations. You already won.
I don't consider that a 'win' so much as a 'good first step'; there are several more continents to get to.
To everyone's detriment.
You mis-spelled 'benefit'.
I specifically asked what would they be identifying with. You said they'd be identifying with their "gender identity".
I don't know specifically what gender identity means more specifically, because I do not personally experience it. If I woke up tomorrow in a body with the opposite plumbing, I would consider myself to be a different gender from what I had previously been; other individuals would experience acute dysphoria and be strongly motivated to reverse the change.
You didn't say they're identifying with female physical attributes
That was something I forgot to mention; not only are most people with a certain mental aspect born with 🌮, but a sizable number of the remainder have a strong sense that they should have been, and mutatis mutandis for the other common type of that aspect and 🍆.
That is why we call those types 'man' and 'woman' instead of 'veeblefetzer' and 'wakalix'.
That's what pedophile rights advocates say as well.
So now we have the question of "Are the transgender activists more like the former, or the latter?". I believe that the relevant distinction is "Does this thing hurt anyone?"; to borrow a phrase from Thomas Jefferson, "Does it pick my pocket or break my leg?". A legalisation of the sexual abuse of children would be harmful; the abolition of slavery was not harmful; a more nuanced understanding of gender is not harmful.
I'm frankly surprised even with that you set your confidence at only 95%
A minimum of 95%.
It seems like in any realistic scenario, where they don't loudly declare their intentions, the bad faith actor will be given free rein.
I do not support allowing either a genuine trans-woman or a cis-man pretending to be a trans-woman to do anything from which we forbid a cis-woman. On the other hand, if Mr Burly Lumberjack claims to be a trans-woman in order to go into the women's room, do his business, wash his hands, and leave without bothering anyone, I would prefer him to the Karen insisting on inspecting between the legs of any woman she thinks is insufficiently feminine (many of whom are cis-women).
Why is it important that the definition makes an allowance for the aspects that can be changed?
Why is it important that it not?
And why [...] not other far more easily changeable aspects (eg is holding a baby-shaped object, or has painted nails, or etc)?
Because those aspects are not biological in nature, and thus irrelevant to my point that not all biological factors are immutable. They could be relevant in other contexts; e. g. if G. is exclusively attracted to (male, female)-presenting individuals, including those who are both biologically (female, male) and identify as (women, men), then for the question "Could G. be potentially attracted to this person?", clothing and hairstyle might be relevant.
Note that (1.) that is the last definition listed, and (2.) killing someone is a subset of getting rid of them.
Kennedy was deep-sixed and thus 86ed; Nixon was 86ed but not deep-sixed.
- Prev
- Next

Firstable, that question was not an attempt at a 'gotcha', so much as a request for clarification of your particular definition of 'sex'.
Secondable, it is not necessarily hypothetical; any chirurgeon will tell you that human organs never look like the diagrams in medical textbooks: there are always variations, and sometimes they can both be very weird and go unnoticed until the body is scanned or opened up for some other reason. I have even heard of men who were born with all the visible male parts, never considered that they were anything other than men, fathered children, and then went to hospital for some procedure and found out that they had been carrying around uteruses for seventy years!
Thirdable, I believe that the Rightful Caliph has written a defence of the use of hypotheticals in argument.
א, cis individuals outnumber trans individuals by such a degree that, given a sample drawn from the population at large, one can get past 90% just with their gender identity.
ב, Do I need to tap the sign?
I am not claiming that biological sex be kept private at all times; I am saying that the choice should be left to the individual. If Alice wants to declare her transness to everyone, Betty wants to keep it a closely guarded secret, and Carol wants to tell her friends and the readers of her blog but not strangers in the shops when she wants to empty her bladder, their decisions should all be respected.
Returning to the analogy with other forms of medical confidentiality, if Daniel wants to post his entire medical history on his website for everyone and their brother to peruse, he is welcome to do so; other people are disallowed from making that decision for him.
More options
Context Copy link