BANNED USER: Obnoxious and disingenuous, again
>Unban in 1d 17h 35m
omw_68
No bio...
User ID: 1014
Banned by: @Amadan
omw_68
1d ago
You say vague things like "pro-trans" but it is better to stick to specific claims and policies. You mention a particular kind of framework called "gender ideology" but of course it's not clear what that framework specifically entails.
Agreed, that's why I started the thread. I am trying to understand the mainstream progressive/leftist/woke view on transgenderism and to scrutinize it. If you are saying that no such consensus view exists, fine, but that's a different issue.
The only valid sexual orientations are those based on a certain allowed list of things:
Ok, and who gets to decide what is on the allowed list?
One intuition pump for you is (assuming you are a normal straight guy): imagine a very attractive young woman, and then imagine learning later she has a penis. You probably don't want anything to do with her anymore. That's fine! But it is proof you can be attracted to trans people.
Sure, if "attracted to trans people" includes "unknowingly attracted to trans people." But so what? What's your point here?
I'm a normal straight guy. I have no sexual attraction for men (as that term is traditionally defined). This includes trans-identifying-men, no matter how traditionally feminine they are in their appearance. (By "sexual attraction," I am not including unknowing sexual attraction.) I suspect that because of this, many Leftists would label me a "transphobe" and imply (or state) that there is something wrong with me. Do you agree that many people would do so? And would you agree with those people?
omw_68
1d ago
Hang on, how is this in contradiction? If you have a strong sense of gender perception, then the test works? If you don't have a strong sense of gender perception, it's unclear in what sense the concept of transgender even applies to you.
I have no idea what your point is here. The person is making an unqualified generalization. Therefore a single counter-example will suffice to disprove the generalization.
Definitions should preferably carve reality at its joints.
So it seems like you are saying that defining "King of England" as I have is not technically incorrect but it's disfavored because it doesn't "carve reality at its joints."
Meanwhile, according to you, defining a man as "anyone who self-reports to be a man" and a woman as "anyone who self-reports to be a woman" is NOT disfavored because it DOES "carve reality at its joints."
Do I understand your position correctly?
It is different if you were to id as a physician, because society has good reason to not politely play along with you. We should not change the laws to grant you a MD to make you feel better.
Ok, so if I understand you correctly, your position is that the decision of whether society should go along with these redefined terms depends on (1) whether doing so will be beneficial to some people; and (2) whether there is a "good reason" not to do so.
Do I understand your position correctly?
omw_68
2d ago
I'm sorry, but I think this all kinds of an isolated demand for rigor and that no one reading my post in good faith would come away with the impression that I have some sort of reverse-Kantian objection to identifying a murderer in hiding.
I think they would come up with the impression that you hadn't really thought things through carefully. That's the most charitable interpretation. A less charitable interpretation would be that you were aware your generalization was limited, but you knew that inserting a qualifier would make your argument a good deal weaker. Because to do so would be to implicitly concede that there may be circumstances under which it's okay (or even preferable) to NOT indulge a trans person's desires in terms of name, pronouns etc. So instead you just hoped nobody would notice.
In any event, my question stands: Under what circumstances is it NOT clearly correct to call someone by their chosen name?
omw_68
2d ago
I mean it's not rocket surgery, assuming no need for secondary gain you just ask some pretty basic questions and you can figure out which of the phenotypes are here (assuming secondary gain it's harder but we do have inventories for that).
I'm not sure what your point is here. It sounds like you are saying that one can determine if a person is a "real trans person" is by interviewing them in some kind of rigorous way. What is your evidence for this claim?
omw_68
2d ago
Well, there was, of course, an implicit "all else being equal" in the sentence you quoted.
No there wasn't. There really wasn't. You made an unqualified statement, which you now (apparently) concede to be incorrect.
I don't even know what you mean by "all else being equal" here. The phrase "all else being equal" normally comes into play when one is comparing two or more alternatives. I think the qualifier you are trying to insert retroactively is "absent extenuating circumstances"
So my next question is this: Under what circumstances is it NOT clearly correct to call someone by their chosen name?
omw_68
2d ago
If an individual whose legal name is William would prefer to be known as Bill or Tex or Archimedes, it's clearly the correct thing to do to call him by his chosen name.
Well, I would like to test this claim with a thought experiment or two:
Suppose it's the late 80s. You know a guy whose legal name is "Clarence Johnson." He is tall and black and he likes to follow the Chicago Bulls around, pretend to be Michael Jordan, capitalize on the similarity in appearance to get free drinks; to pass bad checks; and to pick up girls. He has told you that he prefers to be known as "Michael Jordan." You see him in a hotel gift shop and he says "Hi Wanderer" right in front the clerk as he is making out a check. Would you say "Hi Michael, how are you doing" in response? Is that clearly the correct thing to do?
Ok, now suppose it's 2026. You know a guy who, unfortunately, has had a mental breakdown and genuinely believes that he is the King of England. He has expressed to you that at some point, he would like to travel to London to "take out the imposter" who currently is residing in Buckingham Palace. His legal name is Charles Johnson but he has told you he wants to be known as "King Charles" or "Your Royal Highness." Would you call him by his chosen name? If so, is that clearly the correct thing to do?
omw_68
2d ago
I am broadly pro-trans, but don't really come at it from a progressive/woke angle.
Thanks for posting this, but I'm more interested in understanding and questioning what I have referred to as "gender ideology," i.e. the mainstream progressive/leftist/woke views about transgenderism.
I agree that one could defend a libertarian take on transgenderism, and in that case I basically agree with @07mk that it comes down to questions of coercion. Which raises a lot of issues, one of which is whether the social norm of being polite is being abused to coerce people into pretending to accept gender ideology. So as to create a false consensus which then becomes a real consensus because people are afraid to speak out publicly (in some circles) against gender ideology.
omw_68
2d ago
Sex is defined in biological terms. Gender is defined as the social role and performance of being a man/women. A dress, or stoicism, or makeup, or such and such do not have much to do with the physical sex in a strict sense, playing instead a social role and one of identity.
It sounds like you more or less agree with my summary. Is that correct? If not, what did I leave out? Or what did I include that's incorrect?
omw_68
2d ago
Does an objective way exist? Almost certainly.
What's your evidence for this claim?
omw_68
2d ago
I think the science would have to advance beyond the politics for the answer here to be yes.
I'll take that as a "no."
omw_68
2d ago
Gender ideology holds that these definitions, and the boundaries of what's acceptable, are obvious and self-evident. They're just what Good People believe, and if you don't believe them you're a Bad Person.
Ok, thanks for answering my questions.
Assuming that you have given answers that are in line with mainstream progressive thought, I am satisfied that gender ideology (or whatever you want to call it) is a bunch of ridiculous nonsense -- fundamentally no different from belief in astrology. Except of course that believers in astrology aren't trying to reshape public policy in ways that cause real harm to real people.
omw_68
2d ago
Feel free to ask some questions.
Ok, thanks.
"it is worth having trans-inclusive gender definitions",
I'm not sure what this means. As I understand gender ideology (or whatever you want to call it), a "man" is anyone who self-reports that they are a man, and a "woman" is anyone who self-reports that they are a woman. Have I misunderstood? If so, can you please set forth the "trans-inclusive gender definitions"?
In any event, as I understand Scott's argument, his position is that there is nothing inherently incorrect in re-defining categories, it's just a matter of semantics. So for example, if I change the definition of "King of England" so that it includes not only King Charles but also myself, there's nothing inherently wrong with that, it's just a matter of definitions. Moreover, Scott's position is that one can and should do so, at least to some extent, in the interest of helping a psychiatric patient. So for example, if my mental problems will be greatly alleviated if my therapist starts addressing me as "Your Highness," then he should do so.
Do I understand his argument correctly?
omw_68
2d ago
The definition is usually something like "My ancestors were born in Africa [during some specific time period]"
Who gets to decide what the "usual" definition is of such a category? And would you agree that a big societal change in the definition requires a compelling reason?
Some people do accept that you can be a cat in the same purely-internal-identity way that you can be a woman.
I'm asking about the mainstream progressive view. If there is no such view, I am asking about your views.
in a way that's acceptable to do for species but not gender.
Who gets to decide what's "acceptable"?
omw_68
2d ago
Nobody in this thread is saying it's universally true though.
I strongly disagree. Here's what the person had said:
A common argument is to ask the person you're arguing with, "If you woke up this morning and found you had been transformed into a stereotypical example of the opposite gender, how would you feel about that?" If you would prefer that to your current body, this means that you are transgender.
This person is clearly making a universal generalization. He doesn't say "this probably means that you are transgender" or "this might mean that you are transgender." Rather, he says "this means that you are transgender" without any qualification. Therefore a single counter-example is sufficient to disprove the entire argument.
But okay, obviously you are not on the hook to defend another person's argument. So let me ask you this:
Under what circumstances is it true that a desire (or preference) to "wake up as a woman," indicates that the individual is transgender?
omw_68
3d ago
The canonical defense in these parts would be what Scott Alexander wrote almost twelve years ago. He is always worth reading in full in my opinion, but the trans defense starts in section IV.
Are you adopting his position? Because I would like to ask some critical questions.
I am not doubting that there is some penis-haver who is asking women in a Lesbian bar if they would want to suck their cock and cries trans-phobia once they get kicked out. From my personal experience, this is rare. As a straight guy, I do not have to fend off trans-women cancelling me for refusing to fuck them basically ever. Love is the last bastion of libertarianism. You can be into one gender, one sex, one type of genitals, hair or skin color, a certain BMI or age range and people will usually accept this and not try to cancel gays for having some anti-women bias in their dating partner selection or whatever.
Ok, so I take it that you are disputing that according to gender ideology (and by that I mean the general progressive/leftist/woke position on transgenderism) if a person claims to be "superstraight," they are considered to be transphobic? And that other than that, you agree with my summary?
omw_68
3d ago
he clearest examples I can find are people who have absolutely zero social deficits or mental health issues they just seem to have identification with the opposite sex.
Is there any objective way to distinguish?
omw_68
3d ago
I think the assumption here would be that there are people who would basically go crazy and try to tear their skin off every time they looked in a mirror and saw Henry Cavil
There may be people like this, but I'm not. (But I'll make it even easier. If I woke up tomorrow morning and I was transformed into a 25 year old version of myself, I'd be delighted. ) This single counter example disproves the entire generalization.
Unless of course, what transgender really means is that the person desires to be the other gender. Which I strongly suspect is pretty close to the truth.
omw_68
3d ago
So the steel man is something like: "fuck these idiots, real trans people exist but are rare and other conversations obscure what these people are like and what they need."
In your view, what's a "real trans person" and is there any objective way to distinguish such a person from non-real trans people?
omw_68
3d ago
The mainstream progressive leftist/woke perspective on gender?
More or less, yes. The mainstream progressive leftist/woke perspective on transgenderism. If you are not versed in this perspective but consider yourself to be pro-trans, then we can go with that.
So the first question: Is my summary more or less fair? Is anything missing or wrong?
omw_68
3d ago
These other claims all, to varying degrees, depend on external facts to be true.
What external facts need to be true in order for a person to be Jesus?
What external facts need to be true in order for a person to be black?
What external facts need to be true in order for a person to be a cat?
omw_68
3d ago
That thought experiment seems to prove to much
Yeah, I made a similar point before I saw this comment. But now that I think about it, the argument is rather telling. Because I strongly suspect that most, perhaps all, trans identifying men are simply men who really enjoy the fantasy of being a woman.
omw_68
3d ago
so the fact that people are self-reporting it is the evidence.
Ok, thank you. So it seems there is nothing to distinguish trans people from those who self-report as being Jesus; or who self-report as having been abducted by aliens; or who self-report as having been spoken to directly by some deity; etc. Agreed?
A common argument is to ask the person you're arguing with, "If you woke up this morning and found you had been transformed into a stereotypical example of the opposite gender, how would you feel about that?" If you would prefer that to your current body, this means that you are transgender.
I think this argument proves too much. If I woke up tomorrow morning and found that I had been transformed into a man who looked pretty much like Henry Cavil and was 25 years old, I would be pretty happy about the change. That doesn't say anything about my innate identity as a short mediocre-looking man in his 50s with graying hair, though.
omw_68
3d ago
(1) Yes.
(2) Yes.
(3) Yes, with the caveat:
straight men or lesbian women who refuse to date this person would be considered "transphobic."
This works similarly to anti-discrimination law. You're allowed to refuse to date any individual, but you aren't allowed to refuse to date people because they're transgender (or, more broadly, because you do not accept their gender identity). You can express preferences based on gender identity, and you can sometimes get away with expressing preferences based on physical traits, but you can't express preferences based on transgender status or things that obviously correlate with it (like "gender assigned at birth").
(You can't even express preferences in favor of them, that's called being a "chaser".)
Ok, thanks for responding again.
My next question is this:
What's the evidence that "gender" exists in the way you have defined it? Is there any evidence other than self-reporting?
Can you give me a few examples so I know what you are talking about?
Ok, I'm going to stop here for a couple reasons. First, coyly saying that something is "interesting" tells me that you want to imply something without plainly stating it. I don't have the time or energy to puzzle over what you are trying to say. Second, whatever your point is, if you need to misquote me to make the point, then it's probably not much of a point to begin with.
More options
Context Copy link