This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws
Ok, so in your view, societal recognition that blacks are less intelligent and more criminal would necessarily lead to the reinstatement of racial segregation in the South.
Do I understand you correctly?
No. It would not necessarily lead to such; however, defenders of Jim Crow often cited the alleged mental deficits and supposed inherent criminal tendencies of the Black population; thus, it is not as far from possibility as I would prefer.
Ok, I think I understand your position now. I disagree for a couple of reasons.
First, in my view, societal recognition of truth should not depend on the likelihood of harm resulting from that recognition. Either something is true or it isn't and the standard for truth seeking is logically irrelevant to the consequences of such truth.
Moreover, if there is a principle in place that the possibility of harm is ground to reject something which would otherwise be accepted as true, it opens the door to the worst kind of abuses.
Second, even if there were such a principle in place, truths should not be rejected on the mere possibility of harm. Rather, for much the same reason, a compelling case needs to be made of a strong likelihood of harm.
Here, there are plenty of laws and Supreme Court decisions in place guaranteeing equality. Thus, it is pretty unlikely that recognition of the truth about blacks would change this.
Indeed, it is worth drawing a distinction between (1) lower black intelligence and higher criminality; and (2) the genetic cause of the same. There is no serious dispute that on average, blacks have lower IQs than non blacks and are more likely to commit crime. And yet this hasn't resulted in reenactment of Jim Crow laws. Given that, it's difficult to see how recognition of a genetic component in this discrepancy would bring about a return of Jim Crow laws.
It is also worth distinguishing between (1) the level of proof necessary for societal acceptance of some truth; and (2) the level of proof necessary for laws to be enacted on the basis of the same.
We already have laws and policies in place which were enacted on the assumption that black underperformance is the result of past discrimination. I'm perfectly fine with a principle which says that until there is super-duper proof that this assumption is correct, then such laws and policies are unacceptable.
In other words, if -- for purposes of policymaking -- we are going to have a super high standard before concluding that black underperformance is a result of genetics, in whole or in part -- it follows logically we should have a super high standard before concluding that black underperformance is a result of past discrimination.
If the resulting logic is "we just don't know why blacks score lower on intelligence tests and commit more crime, and until that is known definitively, we won't have Jim Crow laws; we wont' have affirmative action; all races will be treated equally; etc." that's fine with me. To put it another way, if the conclusion that black underperformance is in part the result of genetics is possibly harmful to blacks, then we should also consider that the reverse conclusion is harmful to non-blacks.
I will acknowledge that, due to the norms against racial discrimination established during and after the Civil Rights Movement, the danger is less now than it would have been in earlier decades; however, these norms are eroding at an alarming rate.
Explicit discrimination existed, and left Black people poorer than they otherwise would have been.
Jim Crow was far more harmful to Black people than any of the attempts to remedy it have been to others.
I can see the argument for a higher standard of evidence for blaming particular people or institutions for discrimination.
I have considered many potential explanations for the continuing poor outcomes among Black people, both orthodox and heretical; all of them seem to, ultimately, trace back to discrimination against them, although that discrimination is not always done by human beings.
I'm extremely skeptical of this claim. What's your evidence?
Acknowledging the truth about racial differences is unlikely to result in a return of Jim Crow laws. The only evidence you have offered (so far) is a claim that racial differences were used to justify Jim Crow laws.
Meanwhile, harm to non-blacks from affirmative action and such is real and unquestionably happening.
I'm not sure what your point is here. Certainly if one were to apply your standard to the position that black underperformance is primarily the result of past discrimination by non-blacks, there's nowhere near sufficient proof.
In any event, I take it that in your view, it's reasonable for society to refuse to acknowledge truths solely because doing so might possibly result in harm. Is that correct? And this applies universally, not just in connection with policymaking. Correct?
Not quite, and less so after this conversation.
In the academic, theoretical, seek-the-truth-though-the-heavens-fall, separated from policy implications realm, one is justified in applying scepticism equally to any and all claims, and maintaining an estimate of their probability greater than 0% percent and less than 100%.
Thus, in this realm, I assign non-zero probability to the hypotheses that Black underperformance is caused by:
I also assign 100%-minus-a-tiny-bit probability to the hypothesis that smoking causes lung cancer, and 0%-plus-a-tiny-bit probability to the hypothesis that the observed correlation is caused by Alien Space Bats aiming trans-dimensional gamma beams at the lungs of anyone they see practising that particular vice.
On the other hand, in the realm of public policy and practical implications on the lives of human beings, it becomes necessary to consider how much harm a hypothesis might cause, and hold some hypotheses to a higher standard of proof on that basis. Thus the genetic hypothesis of racial gaps demands a very high standard of proof to be let in the door of the legislative building, because there are many people who are still sore that the Damyankees came into the south and imposed at bayonet-point their cultural values, such as checks notes requiring them to pay the people picking their crops, and have been taking it out on Black people ever since. In a timeline where the most conservative states have an Overton Window centred on Scott Alexander, such a hypothesis would be less dangerous, and could potentially be safely acknowledged in the legislatures at a lower standard.
(If the genetic hypothesis were confirmed to the same confidence as the 'sucking smoke into your lungs will kill you' hypothesis, I would favour redirecting the money currently spent on sensitivity training into researching methods of increasing IQ.)
Not necessarily; if the genetic hypothesis is true, then, while Black underperformance is the result of discrimination, no human beings of any race are to blame; furthermore, if you anthropomorphise Nature as a Black woman, as in this Apple advert....
(When I saw that advert, I wanted to see someone call security, then cut to the interrogation room on NCIS, Leroy Jethro Gibbs comes in, slams down that picture of a botfly larva emerging from a child's eye, and asks her what she has to say for herself.)
It seems to me that this is pretty much tautological. In the sense that ANY factual claim about the world has a "non-zero probability."
Let's do this. So that I can understand your position, please tell me roughly what probability you assign to the following claims:
(1) A significant part of the cause of black underperformance is genetic differences between blacks and other groups;
(2) Genetic propensity for greater (or lesser) intelligence is distributed roughly equally among all racial and ethnic groups.
And, if I understand you correctly, even the mere possibility of harm is cause to implement a high standard of proof, right?
Also, does the same reasoning apply to policies which (1) assume that black underperformance are the result of societal discrimination; and (2) definitely (not possibly,but definitely) cause significant harm to white people?
Last, can I take it you are abandoning your claim that the norms against racial discrimination established during the Civil Rights Era are eroding at an alarming rate?
If not, what's your evidence for this claim?
Correct. 0 And 1 Are Not Probabilities.
I am not certain of the exact number, but I believe that Charles Murray and Ibram Kendi are both more confident than is warranted.
It increases the standard of proof, to a degree proportional to both the likelihood and severity.
The same kind of reasoning applies, but not to the same degree. No anti-racist government policy yet implemented in the West has caused as much harm to white people as Jim Crow caused to black people. (Some policies of private entities might qualify.)
No.
My evidence is that I have watched the bloody news for the past quarter-century!
At the turn of the millennium, explicit racism was treated as figuratively radioactive by both sides, and even those who considered people of colour inherently suspicious and 'other' still had to cloak their bigotry in innocent-seeming platitudes; everyone at least paid lip service to the notion that people ought to be judged not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Do you really expect that conclusive proof of the inferiority of blacks RE: IQ and crime would lead to the reinstation of such or similar laws, as if society hadn't changed at all since then?
Society has changed, but it hasn't changed enough, and seems to be backsliding in some ways.
If there were a universally-(modulo-lizardman-constant)-acknowledged taboo against judging an individual by the actions of his/her/their demographic group, I would be a lot less worried. (cf. my discussion with @FtttG regarding discrimination on the basis of natal genitals and the sequelae thereof)
I'm really sick of you trying to make me (and other gender-critical people) sound ridiculous and/or perverted by characterising my opinion as "discrimination on the basis of genitals" or similar. "Sex" is not reducible to genitals. Male bodies are not just female bodies which incidentally happen to have penises bolted on. Even trans-identified males who have undergone bottom surgery retain male patterns of violent crime.
"FtttG thinks sex-segregation is reasonable in certain contexts" is a perfectly acceptable gloss of my opinion on this matter which I wouldn't object to. "FtttG thinks he's entitled to know about the genitals of complete strangers, but refuses to tell us why!!" is both a flat lie (I have been more than willing to articulate my reasoning) and a transparent effort to imply that anyone who isn't maximally trans-affirming is a sexual deviant. It's cheap, obnoxious and contemptible behaviour. Knock it off.
And how do you think a trans-woman might feel, when people characterise her identity in such a manner?
The pro-trans side was not the first to use that particular tactic.
No, they also have testicles rather than ovaries; all other biological differences are downstream of the hormones produced by these organs, hence 'sequelae'. (definition)
I have re-read the linked posts and have not found anywhere where I have claimed that you refuse to tell us why you think you're entitled to know about the genitals of complete strangers; I am rejecting your claim that your reasons justify the intrusion on people's privacy.
If you walk into your manager's office and you're like "I want to see all my cow-orkers' complete medical charts, which will help me make Bayesian inferences on which ones are most likely to go postal, so I can shun them.", how amenable do you think your manager will be to your request?
Right: in other words, "sex". I don't propose discriminating on the basis of genitals; I propose discriminating on the basis of sex (in certain contexts). Why then do you insist on using the extremely long-winded phrase "genitals and their sequelae" when the word "sex" would capture exactly the same distinction?
Oh, right. Because gender ideology is such a nonsensical and incoherent worldview that you can't defend it on its own merits, and have to resort to underhanded tactics like implying that anyone who disagrees with it is a sex pest.
To replace the symbol with the substance, i. e., replace a disputed term with its definition.
In what sense is the word "sex" disputed?
You're not replacing the symbol with the substance. You're replacing a common-sense word with a dysphemism that normal people find creepy and alienating. This is a tactic that trans activists have a strange predilection for ("pregnant people", "menstruator", "chestfeeding", "birthing parent"), under the guise of "accuracy" and "inclusion". And trans activists have the nerve to ask why people find them and the way they talk so off-putting.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
While I am somewhat more sympathetic to trans people than @FtttG, I agree with him that I see trans people use this "Why do you want to know what's in our pants? Ewwwww!" framing all the time, and it is really annoying and disingenuous.
No one on the gender critical side "wants to know what's in your pants." Most gender critical people don't think trans women belong in women's spaces whether or not the trans woman has a penis. While some (particularly in the radical feminist fringe) might have a particular horror of penises, it's not just the penis that makes the man, so to speak.
You can disagree with gender criticals and their desire to exclude trans women from women's spaces, but I think @FtttG is justified in being annoyed when you try to reduce it to a cheap accusation of being some kind of pervert obsessed with genitals.
More options
Context Copy link
If someone is loudly parading their perversion around for all and sundry to see, it's not wrong for me to accurately characterise it as such. Rather, you demanding that I refuse to recognise that the Emperor has no clothes (something which is obvious to everyone, including you) amounts to gaslighting.
Woman: Getting changed in front of a male person makes me uncomfortable and I don't think I should be expected to do it.
Trans-identified male: When I put on women's underwear, I
become physically arousedexperience gender euphoria.Celestial-body-NOS: Oh my God, I can't tell the difference – they're exactly as sexually deviant as each other!
Likewise, plenty of trans women just do look ridiculous. Maybe you think it's not polite to point it out, but I know you think it. Don't tell me you look at this person and think to yourself "wow, what a hot sexy lady! I would love to take a gander at those bizarre prosthetics she's wearing under her top!"
To reiterate what I said above: many trans women barely even pretend to hide that their "identification" is just acting out a sexual fetish. You can do this "tu quoque" shit all you like: doesn't mean it's equally true of both sides. Women who want to protect their intimate spaces are not exactly as perverted as gross fetishists who are openly, proudly addicted to sissy hypno porn and hold conferences on how to "overcome the cotton ceiling". In fact, the former group isn't perverted at all.
We can quickly sense-check this by looking at the two groups' stated demands. If, as you imply, gender-critical people's obsession with trans people's genitals is borne of sexual deviance, it sure is weird that they're demanding that trans people not expose said genitals to female people. Is this how we talk about any other kind of kink or sexual fixation? Do people with foot fetishes explicitly object to people walking around barefoot? Do men with a fixation on women's arses generally object to strange women baring their arses in front of them? Gender-critical people are not obsessed with trans people's genitals because it turns them on: they know what's in a trans-identified man's pants and have no desire to see it for themselves.
Meanwhile, trans activists are demanding a) the right to expose their genitals to female people who have made it abundantly clear this behaviour makes them uncomfortable, and that b) female people get undressed in front of them, even if doing so makes them uncomfortable. In other words, on the basis of a claimed, unfalsifiable mental state, trans activists want a special dispensation to commit acts which would otherwise be considered indecent exposure or voyeurism. Call the female people objecting to this hateful bigots all you like – we both know which of these two groups it's more appropriate to level the accusation of sexual deviance against.
A transparent lie. You said:
Would it be fair to say you consider me part of the "anti-trans faction"? No gender-critical person I've ever met or interacted with (and there have been plenty) has ever been the least bit shy about telling me why they disagree with gender ideology, and why they don't want to share intimate spaces with male people. But for some reason you insist that gender-critical people have some secret ulterior motive for wanting to know strangers' sexes which they're refusing to disclose. It's bizarre. I genuinely don't know how you arrived at this conclusion.
If you really, honest to goodness, think that I need to see someone's full medical history in order to accurately tell whether they are male or female, I really don't know how we're expected to proceed with this conversation. Are you blind? Are you composing these comments using text-to-speech?
As an aside: I pointed out to you last time that some other aspects of a person's medical history simply can be inferred just by looking at them. If you're obese, myopic or using a motorised wheelchair, it's meaningless to complain that your right to medical privacy has been violated when people notice this just from looking at you. Likewise, certain mental illnesses. If I get on a train and there's a homeless person who obviously hasn't bathed in days and is loudly talking to himself, you're damn right I'm going to infer that he's probably psychotic and try to stay out of his way on that basis. I'd hazard a guess that you'd do the same.
In your worldview, is this behaviour "ableist"? I would prefer to characterise it as "capable of basic self-preservation".
Also, why would my manager have access to my colleagues' full medical charts? Even your counterfactual reductio ad absurdum makes no sense on its own terms.
I am not equating the sides in sexual deviance, so much as pointing out that accusations of sexual deviance were not first levied by the pro-trans faction.
I believe that a cis-woman uncomfortable changing in front of a trans-woman deserves the same accommodations as a white woman uncomfortable changing in front of a black woman, or an Englishman uncomfortable changing in front of an Irishman; namely, it is reasonable to ask for one-person changing areas to avoid having to change in front of anyone one doesn't know; it is not, in my opinion, any more reasonable to demand a 'cis-women only' facility (or an 'officially people born with female parts only facility', but I doubt trans-men will be welcomed) than it is to demand a 'whites only' or a 'no dogs or Irish' facility.
Is it still an 'intimate space' if four billion strangers are potentially allowed to walk in willy-nilly?
Plenty of cis-women look just as ridiculous.
Yes, there are trans people who are perverts, just as there are cardiologists who are murderers and Chinese people who are robbers. That does not make all trans individuals perverts.
It is not necessarily born of sexual deviance, but that does not change the fact that those parts, and other people's bodies in general, are none of your business. If Alice wants to know the precise dimensions of my private parts out of carnal desire, Bob wants to know for statistical purposes, and Carol wants to know because she thinks she can predict the future by the bodily measurements of a randomly selected person, I am equally entitled to tell all of them to bog off.
I don't agree with your assertion that transness is a perversion.
If Dana averts her eyes because she is uncomfortable seeing Erin's nether regions, or undresses behind a curtain because she is uncomfortable with Erin seeing hers, she has not acted wrongly toward Erin. If Dana demands that Erin not be permitted to use the same facilities, Erin is justified in complaining. This applies if Erin is a cis-woman, and it also applies if Erin is trans.
No, they want to be allowed to do the same things as cis individuals are allowed to do.
No, we don't. I legitimately disagree with you.
I said that before you explained your reasoning.
In the hypothetical, I am referring to someone who wants to know things other than 'was this person born with male- or female- associated biology'. Philosophy Bear's concept of 'inadmissible knowledge' gives the example of someone whose father is a murderer.
You can make educated guesses about someone's medical history by observation, but you are not entitled to know whether your guesses are correct; nor are you justified in declaring what is permitted to one to be forbidden to another based on it, unless you have a very, very, very, very good reason, well beyond the correlations associated with biological sex characteristics.
Maybe I'm terminally Quaker-brained, but I don't think it's generally right for what someone is and isn't allowed to do to vary based on accidents of birth.
Ok and...? My opponent making the same style of argument as I am does not make my opponent correct or refute my argument.
I notice that your examples have the sexes match, implying that it's acceptable to accommodate women who don't want to change in front of men. So you think that it's okay to have sex-segregated spaces. Then the entire question boils down to whether "trans women" are women. You seem to think that "trans women" are just women who happen to not be born a woman, like a woman who has dyed her hair color. In reality, "trans women" are men.
Why do you doubt trans-identifying women wouldn't be allowed in a women's facility?
First off, the number of strangers is going to be limited by geographic area. Over the course of a year, I would estimate the number of strangers for a particular locker room to be orders of magnitude lower, maybe in the range of thousands. Second off, yes, it's still an intimate space. It's a space with the social norm of respecting other people's privacy. In particular, most of them prohibit photo-taking and video-recording, and if one were to just loiter and not do their business of changing but just sat there and watched, they would arouse suspicion from others.
But you can still tell that they're women, and not trans-identifying men.
I'm sure there's some trans people who aren't perverts, but they aren't doing anything to reduce that impression when they don't disavow and shame the "cotton ceiling" activists. I don't see Chinese robbers holding conferences on how good it is to rob places and then getting zero pushback from other Chinese people.
Ok. I don't care about genitals. I care about sex. Luckily, it doesn't matter what kind of privacy an individual thinks they have as to their sex, when 99.9% of the time I can tell someone's sex just by looking at them.
Which things, exactly, are trans people not allowed to do? They can still use changing areas, they just have to use the one that corresponds with their birth sex (which is the same thing a non-trans person has to do).
You seriously think it's just as appropriate (if not more so) to levy an accusation of sexual deviance to females who don't want to undress in front of men, than the men who want females to undress in front of them?
Is this hypothetical person an actual problem that needs to be addressed? Because I'm struggling to think of anyone who would fit the description. Most people just want to know what sex someone was born as.
By this extremely high standard, if I'm a bouncer and I see a man stumbling around, yelling something about "the Jews in the clouds" and he wants to gain entry into my club, I can't declare him forbidden from my club based on an educated guess about his medical history (that he is possibly schizophrenic and mentally ill). Do you think that policy makes sense?
So do you think sex-segregated spaces shouldn't exist at all then? If we follow (your conception of) Quaker-brain to its logical conclusion, determining what you're allowed and not allowed to do based off of a coin flip at birth doesn't seem generally right.
No, but your having made that style of argument first does put you on thinner ground when you claim that your opponent, in making that argument, is behaving inappropriately.
If I were designing society from the ground up, there would not be gender-segregated spaces. A man preferring not to expose himself to women and a woman preferring not to expose herself to men would be accommodated by the same means as a man preferring not to expose himself to other men and a woman preferring not to expose herself to other women.
The examples I gave had the sexes/genders match because I was alluding to precedents from outside the 'what policies ought we have towards trans individuals' issue.
Saying "You think P. In reality, ¬P." does not prove ¬P.
DuckDuckGo results for 'trans man'
DuckDuckGo results for 'trans woman'
Which of these do you think would raise more eyebrows using the ladies' room?
Hence 'potentially'.
Which is still too many people to know personally (last time I checked, the upper bound was estimated at approximately 150.)
Yes! I am in favour of respecting people's privacy! That is why I do not condone requiring people to publicly declare or confirm private information about their bodies in order to use public facilities.
And this would still apply even if everyone involved is the same sex/gender by every possible definition.
I don't think you can.
And has Ms 'I want a locker room without people born with male bodies, and am willing to settle for 20% of the total' disavowed and shamed Mr 'round up all the [anti-trans epithet redacted] and dispose of them'?
(That famous picture of the Nazis burning books of which they disapproved? Those included the library of the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft, which had promoted the rights of LGBTQI+ individuals during the 1920s.)
Note the bolded part.
"Which things, exactly, are black people not allowed to do? They can still use the bus, they just have to sit in the part that corresponds with their race (which is the same thing a white person has to do)."
Didn't fly then, won't fly now.
I think it is more appropriate to levy an accusation of sexual deviance at a cis-woman who pursues her desire not to undress in front of natal-biology!men not by petitioning for one-person curtained changing booths but by prying into other people's bodies, than at a trans-woman who wants to change clothes without declaring to everyone in line-of-sight that she was born with male parts.
It is a reductio ad absurdum, also known as 'high-energy ethics'.
"And people in hell want ice water."
That is why I said 'unless you have a very, very, very, very good reason'. It helps to read the entire sentence.
WRT your hypothetical, there are two critical differences:
P(anti-social behaviour|schizophrenic and ranting about alleged Jewish conspiracies) >> P(anti-social behaviour|biologically male).
It is reasonable to not let him in solely because of the anti-Semitic ranting, even if he isn't schizophrenic, and has documentation from a dozen psychiatrists attesting to this.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm done with this. You're a naked, unabashed hypocrite. You think that gender identity, like sex, is an innate trait. And you also believe that people of a particular gender identity should be given special treatment, which implies that people without that gender identity should not receive special treatment. By your own admission, you think we should build a separate prison facility for trans-identified male convicts to protect them from the non-trans-identified male convicts who might want to hurt them. What about vulnerable non-trans-identified men who might be at especial risk of violence in prison? Fuck 'em.
You demand special privileges for people who possess what you believe to be an innate trait, an "accident of birth". And then turn around and smear me as a pervert and racist for demanding special privileges for people possessing a different innate trait. The only difference between us is that the trait I'm talking about is falsifiable and can be trivially checked with a cheek swab test.
You believe that male people who claim to identify as women deserve special protection from male people who claim to identify as men, even though there's no inherent reason we should expect a member of the former group to be less capable of defending himself than a member of the former group. But you believe that female people deserve no special protection from male people, even though a mountain of scientific evidence demonstrates, without ambiguity, that male people are vastly stronger than female people (and also qualitatively different, in that male people can penetratively rape female people, but not vice versa).
I think you just don't care about female people's welfare. Strange that this is a feeling I get so often when debating with trans activists, who are basically just crypto-MRAs.
As often happens in discussions that get heated and personal, you are veering into unnecessary antagonism.
"Your argument is hypocritical, here's why" is much less antagonistic than "You're a naked, unabashed hypocrite."
Strive to be less antagonistic, even if the other person is aggravating you.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yet those accusations are the bread and butter of the pro-trans faction. "Why do you want to know about their genitals?" [intended with this implication] is kind of the standard pro-trans canard; hell, you're actively using it yourself.
I'll start taking that seriously when [the set of people who are overwhelmingly likely to be pro-trans] stop blood libelling me for being part of the murder gender (and conversely, granting themselves extra privileges for being the should-protect-from-murder gender). Granted, this isn't directly the argument you're making, but it does point to the pro/anti-trans thing being more who/whom, and the actual "gender euphoria" is arguably just as much about ramming your ideology down everyone's throat (remember when 2010s atheists used to say that? Guess that aged poorly) than it is the psychological effects, or personal benefits, of dressing as the opposite gender in public.
Ok, so what about kleptomania or pedophilia (in the "older man hits on your 5 year old daughter" sense- not something that would raise 'consent' issues)?
I'd give you points for being consistent and accepting both on its face (after all, how could mere speech be harmful?)... but if you don't, well, now we're just haggling over the degree of "is and isn't allowed based on real or imagined harms to the participating parties, willing or not".
I'm not interested in the pretense that it isn't a sexual deviance. It pretty clearly is, on its face in fact- what we're actually debating is to what degree that should matter, and who should be forced to accept what.
Which is why the motte of the anti-trans argument centers around "they are completely unwilling to accommodate for anyone else"- something you yourself acknowledge. The bailey is stupid and absurd, but then again, the bailey of the pro-trans argument is "they should be forced at literal gunpoint to accommodate for me" and not merely "they want to be allowed to do the same things as cis individuals are allowed to do".
As [for the purpose of this argument] a cis-person, I don't have the right to summon the State to beat someone into submission should they call me a woman. That is, very literally, what trans-people insist on (or rather what their loudest advocates insist on; trans-people don't actually have a critical mass and most of the fight is an intra-woman conflict, but that's out of scope at the moment.)
I do not condone that, either. An individual ought to be judged by their own actions, not by the actions of an arbitrarily-defined group of people who are of a similar demographic.
A kleptomaniac forbidden from pilfering my personal possessions and a paedophile forbidden from soliciting my five-year old daughter are not being forbidden from things other people are allowed to do, they are being forbidden from things that are forbidden to everyone else.
And what is your definition of 'sexual deviance'? To me, 'it harms people' is a necessary qualification for membership in that category. If one has a 'frowned upon by the local curtain-twitchers' definition, then two men in a lifelong monogamous relationship would have been considered 'sexually deviant' in the 1950s, and a man devoted to his wife and not interested in relations with other men would have been considered 'sexually deviant' in Classical Athens. If one has a 'goes against the Natural Law' definition, we don't have access to a set of tablets on which the True Natural Law is inscribed, and Natural-Law arguments tend to turn into just-so stories about why the Natural Law forbids exactly and only the things that the local curtain-twitchers don't like.
And what accommodation are they not making that they ought to make?
If it is 'allowing people who do not believe that Trans-Women Are Women to continue in their employment', per the initial incident pushing J. K. Rowling towards public TERFism, then you might have a point.
If it is 'they insist that society apply the same rules to trans-woman as cis-women, the same way the Civil Rights marches insisted that black people be allowed everything white people were allowed, and wouldn't/won't let the majority have a little discrimination as a treat', then I do not believe that it is reasonable to expect them to accommodate, just as, if Alice wants Bob to stop bullying her, and Bob wants to continue bullying Alice, Miss Take is completely out of line if she expects Alice to compromise.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Also, literally, an entirely different chromosome in every single cell of their (our) bodies, with a big chunk of DNA that they share with no biological woman.
But nobody does this, because everybody knows perfectly well which damn sex people are. What they want, and what you are adamantly against, is to be permitted to notice it and take action on it in public. As with race, your unique deontology seems to require fingers in the ears and eyes firmly shut, lest you see or hear things that lead you to sin.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link