@Tarnstellung's banner p

Tarnstellung


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 12:50:41 UTC

				

User ID: 553

Tarnstellung


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 12:50:41 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 553

There are in fact many things about which I know better than all my ancestors. The safety of lead plumbing, the causes and transmission of infectious diseases – the list goes on.

Anyway, how do you know the person you are replying to has no Greek ancestors?

This technically qualifies as "a trans woman assaulting a woman in a women's bathroom", but it is nothing like the hypothetical situation anti-trans activists warned about. For one, it was not a sexual assault. My comment said "assaulting" rather than "sexually assaulting", but the claim has always been that women would be sexually assaulted, by a pervert who is or claims to be trans.

More importantly, the fact that it happened in a bathroom isn't relevant because it had none of the characteristics of the stereotypical bathroom assault. The debate is focused on bathrooms because they're enclosed spaces where a victim may be alone, which makes them uniquely dangerous. The typical hypothetical bathroom assault scenario involves a woman, usually understood to be a random woman unknown to the assailant, who is alone in the bathroom with the assailant, who has followed her in or was waiting for her. This is dangerous because she can be cornered with no way to escape and no way to call for help.

But this case is nothing like that. The victim was with a group of friends who saw the entire thing. The fight was presumably stopped as soon as possible (apparently the friends tried to intervene but were unable to stop the fight; presumably they called someone who could). The perpetrator and the victim already knew each other, and the incident started as a verbal altercation when the perpetrator approached the victim and escalated into a fight. This exact scenario could have played out anywhere. It had nothing to do with the reasons why bathrooms are claimed to be uniquely dangerous and why bathroom bills are claimed to be necessary.

Is there no real difference between these two invasions? Something that might make it nonsensical to use the word "invasion" to describe both? Like the fact that Bush invaded using tanks and missiles and the Mexicans are "invading" by getting jobs?

"Any dude will be able to claim they're trans and walk into female toilets" is pretty much exactly what anti-trans activists said would happen. All the other details you mentioned are not relevant. Toilets are sex-separated, among other things, to help school staff to prevent horny teenagers from hooking up in them.

  1. The dude in question did not claim he was trans.
  2. He did not just walk into a women's bathroom and find a random victim, which is what anti-trans activists claimed would happen. The meeting was pre-arranged with the victim.
  3. How do you know trans-related policies are why school staff didn't prevent them from hooking up? Again, he didn't even claim he was trans, and "the school district’s trans-inclusive bathroom policies were approved only in August, more than two months after the assault". Given all that, a more banal explanation, for example that they just didn't notice, seems more likely.

You're playing language games. No one says that they're not trans, just that being trans doesn't change your sex, and that some facilities need to be sex seperated.

I tried to phrase that so as to avoid language games. That some facilities need to be sex-segregated, and that people identifying as trans should not be allowed to use such facilities under any circumstances, is what I meant by "all claims of being trans are illegitimate" and "none of their claims should be taken seriously".

It would make men feel better if they were put in female prisons too, why is happiness from affirmation more important here?

I tried to phrase that so as to imply that it is the typical argument, which means you have most likely already seen it and it is unlikely to change your mind, and I am therefore not putting much weight into it. Anyway, the specific claim is that it would make them feel better without making anyone else worse off.

There's also a case to be made that a trans woman will be a danger in a female prison.

A trans woman who has spent several years on HRT, or has had surgery, and is therefore unable to even get an erection? Again, I support having certain standards for trans people. All the cases of assault by trans women in women's prisons seem to be from prisoners who only realized they were trans after they went into prison and were promptly placed in the facilities meant for their claimed gender. This is a system that is very easy to abuse.

Has anyone asked them? I'd bet most women would be more comfortable around a trans man than a trans woman, provided they knew for a fact it's a trans man and not a cis man.

Well, I would bet that most women would be more comfortable around a passing trans woman than a passing trans man. But I admit I have no polling data on this.

Oh what do you know, it's actually biased in whites' favour somehow. You know, unless you are in the armed forces, or the police, or the media, or working for the royals, and so on.

The first article is about a case where an employment tribunal ruled the discrimination was unlawful and awarded compensation to the victim. The third article, unless I am misreading it, doesn't quite support your point, either.

If you are referring to the claim that Britain only got involved to defend Belgium, that is literally just British propaganda. They wanted to get involved from the very start and the Belgium thing was a convenient excuse.

The fate of the newly liberated Arab lands after World War I was most certainly a political issue in the UK. There was much debate both among politicians and in the public. The British public was apparently very sympathetic due to the Arabs' contribution to the victory so official British support for Zionism was in fact very controversial, as was the Anglo-French partition and occupation. All this with the number of Muslims actually living in the UK being a rounding error.

Here

This incident "happened in a private bathroom at a residence". Bathroom bills don't cover private homes and could not have prevented this.

Here

Addressed here.

Having posted this I have to admit I sadly don't trust the media to report on this topic in good faith.

Certainly not the NYT or WaPo, but there are plenty of media organizations with an anti-trans editorial stance. They would surely publicize any such cases.

Here we go again. The Russians aren't even trying!

You'd think after more than a year of the world laughing at them, they'd start trying already.

One day about 'born in the wrong body', another day queer theory transgression. But the reality model doesn't allow both, either gender identity is an essential attribute or it's something that you can choose, that changes, you can't have both. So many contradictions, sex and gender norms need to be thrown off, yet it's sex appearance and gender stereotypes that define the desire for, and results of, transition.

Are different people saying these different things? Or have you actually seen a single individual with two clearly contradictory viewpoints?

**Eugenicists

Well less people can't hurt the environment really. If some people want to opt-out of reproduction all the power to them.

That's anti-natalism, not eugenics. And I seriously doubt that anyone is pro-trans because of anti-natalism.

When the modal I.Q. of a society is below this range to begin with though, raising it may increase violence.

Why would this be the case?

And what is this website, anyway? Is it trustworthy? A quick look around gives me the impression that the guy is a nutcase.

Are Iranians white? Are they Aryan? What about North Indians? Pashtuns?

I'm trying to understand your racial taxonomy.

With emissions, the absolute quantity is what matters. With crime, it's the rate that the we care about. It's possible for the absolute number of crimes to increase while the rate decreases. As @Nantafiria said, immigrants may commit crime, but they may also be targeted by crime.

You're right that immigration of lower crime rate groups doesn't necessarily make the natives safer. The major assumption is that the victims of crime are random, or at least evenly distributed. If immigrants disproportionately target natives, for example, then even immigrants with a lower than native crime rate might make natives less safe. However, I am not aware of any evidence that this is the case.

Alternatively, if the crime rate varies geographically, immigrants might have a lower crime rate than the country as a whole, but higher than a certain city or region, and therefore may increase crime rates locally. This is what @CriticalDuty brought up:

It matters a great deal where these immigrants are and who exactly they're victimizing - it is small consolation to a murder victim in Boise, Idaho if the inhabitants of St. Louis, Missouri are more violent than the illegal immigrant population.

If the rate of violent crime in Boise, Idaho really is lower than the rate among immigrants, then yes, immigration would increase the rate. However, I would assume the effect is minimal, since immigrants, legal and illegal, tend to gravitate towards large cities, which already have high rates of violent crime.

I knew someone would bring this up, which is why I specified violent crime.

Nope. You can't suddenly declare yourself Japanese and be taken seriously.

I believe this is what the "group" in "group self-identification" was referring to: you have to be accepted by other members of the group. The Japanese are stingy about Japaneseness, but other nations are more generous. You can move to the US and declare yourself an American and you will generally be accepted. (This is my understanding, at least. I am not American.) In general, considering yourself part of a nation (meaning an ethnic group, not a nation in the sense of a legally constituted country) and being accepted by others as part of that nation is what being part of a nation is. Nations (ethnic groups) are entirely socially constructed, formed by social consensus.

This is sophistry. What this actually means is that you don't have to be a rape victim to get access to counseling services.

It's pragmatism. They are acknowledging that their goal is to provide rape counseling and not to explore complicated ethical or legal questions about sex and consent.

So can you tell me how can I find out whether or not I am a woman? (...) So let's say I'm supposed to be a player in this game, how am I supposed to pick a team if you won't tell me a non-selfID definition of "girl" or "boy"?

No one is actually confused in the way you are pretending to be here.

“It would be better not to be born at all, than to be born as an incurably defective and mentally/physically retarded person, incapable of independence and entirely dependent on the indulgence of others for my entire life.”

This still qualifies as eugenics. Eugenics doesn't have to be about "humanity as a whole". You can think about eugenics on the level of a single person.

Better than them causing a civil war in a first world country. I don't really give a fuck what happens to the kind of scum that joins a criminal gang, to be perfectly honest.

Didn't you just say you would deport people for parking tickets? That's very different from joining a gang.

Birthright citizenship shall be granted only to children where at least one biological parent is a citizen or resident having legally remained in the country continuously for a period of at least 3 years. Children may have no greater than two biological parents.

So even the children of citizens would be subject to a residence requirement? I don't think any other country does this and it's an easy way to get thousands of stateless people.

\21. “We should deregulate construction completely.” Pro

Completely? This is how you get shoddily-built buildings collapsing en masse and killing tens of thousands of people, as in the recent earthquake in Turkey or the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. (Regulations existed but were not enforced due to corruption, but we would expect similar outcomes if there were simply no regulations at all.)

You are presumably some kind of libertarian, so you might prefer a more market-based system. Instead of the government creating and enforcing regulations, for example, it could require construction companies to buy insurance in case their buildings collapse. This would allow the market to discover what regulations are necessary or cost-effective. But it still requires some degree of government regulation and enforcement.

\45. “It’s morally wrong for the average voter to vote; we should try to decrease voter turnout.” Pro

\51. “Equality of opportunity is morally undesirable.” Pro

I would like you to elaborate on these two. They are far from the only points I disagree with, but these are very unusual positions and I would like to hear why you believe in them.

What about the Irish?

Apologies for the late reply.

I agree that social contagion/ROGD is a real thing. The denial of this phenomenon by trans activists is one of their more ridiculous stances: they are essentially asserting that teenagers are not susceptible to fads and peer pressure and general social reinforcement, which is of course absurd. Though I want to note that, as with other mass psychogenic disorders, those with ROGD are not faking it or doing it for attention, etc.

I think there exist some people who are, for lack of a better term, "really" trans. They experience intense dysphoria which is alleviated by transitioning. These are the sorts of people who identified as trans long before it became fashionable. The Institut für Sexualwissenschaft in interwar Germany performed experimental sex reassignment surgery "in response to the ardent requests of patients". I vaguely recall reading about a trans woman who requested a legal sex change from the German emperor (before the war) and was obliged. I couldn't find any sources on that, but I did find this.

The distinction I draw here is similar to, but IMO not quite the same as, transmedicalists/truscum vs transtrenders/tucutes.

I'm curious how people square the circle of child-safeguarding and the risk of social contagion/sociogenic trans.

Ideally, we would identify who is really-trans and who is suffering from social contagion/ROGD. The latter would be made to wait it out and the former would be given treatment as soon as possible. Some people on this website have expressed the view that they are fine with adults doing what they want but that they object to any kind of treatment for minors. But if you accept that really-trans adults exist, then it naturally follows that really-trans minors exist too. Going through the puberty of their birth sex is extremely distressing for them and it also makes it permanently harder to pass, so we would want to provide them with treatment sooner rather than later.

Here's my practical policy proposal. There should be paediatric psychiatrists who specialize in treating trans patients, to whom any children or adolescents claiming dysphoria would be referred. They would approach the case with a degree of scepticism, acknowledging that really-trans people exist but so does ROGD, and with their experience, they should be able to tell the two apart. I think this is feasible. After all, wasn't the existence of ROGD first postulated by a psychiatrist?

My proposal is not a compromise between two sides, rather, it is the policy that maximizes everyone's welfare, derived from first principles. I think it would have been arrived at eventually by the medical profession had trans stuff not become so politicized. As is, anything may happen, though I still hope it will become the standard. In any case, I am very annoyed by the politicization and the dishonesty coming from both sides of the transgender debate.

(Aside: Why do those who disagree that really-trans people exist, those who believe everyone claiming to be trans is delusional or has an extreme fetish, etc., care about ROGD? Shouldn't they advocate treating all trans people the same – ostracizing them, forcing them to desist, or what have you? Why does the aetiology or time of onset of the perversion matter?)

So I agree that there should be some restrictions, especially relating to children and adolescents, and I fully support debate on what the optimal policy is. My comment about "metaphysical discussion" was in reference to, for example, the incessant questioning of "what is a woman?" by anti-trans activists. The question has no practical implications, it is pure posturing.

The first paragraph includes gender-fluid and non-binary. These are ideas from queer theory, that we can choose our gender or that it's a changeable construct. No-one is arguing that there is an internal brain construct which corresponds to them.

As far as I can tell, the first paragraph is not claiming that people can choose their gender. I can see someone claiming that they are non-binary or gender-fluid, but that they are not choosing to be that way, that it's just the way they are. This seems internally consistent to me. (I myself am very sceptical of non-binary and gender-fluid identifications, but more open to binary trans people.)

Then the next paragraphs are the born in the wrong body narrative.

Isn't the claim from the first paragraph that "Gender identity" is "part of your sense of self" the same as "the born in the wrong body narrative"? Or was your "internal brain construct" meant to be something physical that might actually be detected on a brain scan, not just a subjective "sense" or "feeling"? I've seen the brain scan arguments, and I agree that they're inconsistent with the more subjective self-ID narrative.

Where do you stand on this issue out of interest?

See the bit in parentheses above. In general, I see little need for metaphysical discussion of what it means to be a certain gender. If someone identifies as trans and it makes them happy, I'll respect their wishes. They're not asking for much.

My overall views on trans stuff are more complicated than that. I've been thinking of writing a long post about it.

Could you clarify what you mean by "ethnogenesis"? You don't seem to be using the standard definition.

I'm not trying to be snarky when I say that this is just a lack of cultural sensitivity on your part. If you put a mouse in a barn do you berate it for not acting like a horse? They are not Swedish and they never will be, you either accept that along with the concurrent changes in Swedish language and culture or you get serious about the problem of ethnogenesis.

Do you think Turks, Syrians and the like are just unable to learn Swedish?

For example, the inclusion of trans athletes in women's sports, or the inclusion of trans people in women's bathrooms, or the inclusion of trans people in women's prisons. (...) And then when those externalities do happen, and a male-born trans person wins against a female athlete (inherently, unfairly), or a trans person assaults a woman in the bathroom, or a trans prisoner impregnates a woman, those objections are at best handwaved away and dismissed as outliers or discredited, or at worst labeled "transphobic" and censored.

  1. I don't deny that trans women can have an advantage and that it may be reasonable to exclude them from participating in a women-only sport. But it is strange that people's views on this particular question seem to align perfectly with their views on trans people in general. In principle, it should be possible for someone to support treating trans people as their preferred gender when there are no externalities, but to exclude them from women's sports. The entire argument about women's sports is self-contained and irrelevant to the broader debate about trans people.
  2. I am not aware of a single case of a trans woman assaulting a woman in a women's bathroom. This is purely hypothetical as far as I know. If it happened, I expect the anti-trans side would publicize it heavily.
  3. The one case I am aware of where a trans prisoner was placed in a women's prison and impregnated a woman involved consensual sex. The safety of other prisoners was not endangered. It may still be desirable to prevent that kind of thing, but it is very different from sexual assault. And if preventing that is your goal, it doesn't follow that trans women should be excluded from women's prisons. A few years of HRT, or an orchiectomy/sex reassignment surgery, will suffice.