Banning ‘Woke’ Words in State Documents, Arkansas Governor Signs Executive Order

[Orbit]

I looked carefully at your link, did you?

This was one study that happened in a very BLUE state. As I'm sure you know, there has been a serious replication crisis in science recently. It's now almost always the case that meta studies are necessary to make useful determinations.

Meta data and longitudinal studies are absolutely NOT necessary to make a factual claim about an empirical matter. That's just bad epistemology.

 

[icehorse]

Meta data and longitudinal studies are absolutely NOT necessary to make a factual claim about an empirical matter. That's just bad epistemology.

That could be an interesting discussion, I'd weigh in if you started a thread on that topic

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Your team has provided three data points:

- a single study, in one blue state

A study over ten years which showed no increase in sexual assault. That's a big pill for you to swallow, so I understand why your bias demands you dismiss it.

- a large poll, which I've acknowledged and discussed. By your team's poll, 47% of women are unhappy with this outcome. Not a majority, but very important from a utilitarian perspective.

I have had lengthy debates with you about CRT in which you very specifically rebuff the notion that "lived experience trumps facts", and yet here you are dismissing facts in favour of feelings. Apparently, women being AFRAID of trans people is more important than whether or not trans people actually pose a threat to them.

I prefer facts over feelings.

- a breakdown of where assaults occur, which was lacking details, but in which 25% of assaults occur in public places.

Not bathrooms.

You have been presented with evidence. So where is yours?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

hahaha - So if you see what looks like a crime being committed you would not call 911 because all you have to go on are appearances and presumptions?

A person using a bathroom is not a crime.

I never proposed that.

Yes you did, you proposed people be made to use the bathrooms according to their "biology". This means that trans men must use women's bathrooms.

==

Okay, it's clear we disagree. I'm going to try to steelman your team's position.

Your team is concerned with providing reasonable access for trans women to women's spaces. Your team does not feel this poses any increased risks to women in general. Your team does not feel that this infringes on women's rights. Your team does not feel that this hurts women's overall well being.

Is that a fair summary?

Not really, because you're ignoring all the facts we have to support our position and the specific responses to your fallacious reasoning.

Also, that's not steelmanning. Steelmanning is when you construct a stronger or more effective version of the argument your opponent is using, not just when you sum-up your opponent's positions.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How much do you need?

Honestly, I have a lot of evidence, but I can predict how you'll respond. You'll whine about my sources being "transphobic" or some such. Your team has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to separate the message from the messenger

Says the guy who dismissed a decade-long study, without reason, and alleged bias on the part of the people conducting the study.

You have nothing.

 

[icehorse]

I have had lengthy debates with you about CRT in which you very specifically rebuff the notion that "lived experience trumps facts", and yet here you are dismissing facts in favour of feelings. Apparently, women being AFRAID of trans people is more important than whether or not trans people actually pose a threat to them.

I prefer facts over feelings.

When your team uses "lived experience" it is almost always in the context of an individual's lived experience. In this case, your team presented a large poll that indicated that 47% OF A LARGE SAMPLE SIZE had negative feelings.

You have been presented with evidence. So where is yours?

See my posts #607, #635 and #640.

Yes you did, you proposed people be made to use the bathrooms according to their "biology". This means that trans men must use women's bathrooms.

Nope, I never said that. What I've been saying is that biological men should not enter women's safe spaces.

Also, that's not steelmanning. Steelmanning is when you construct a stronger or more effective version of the argument your opponent is using, not just when you sum-up your opponent's positions.

fair enough - was my summary of your position accurate?

 

[icehorse]

Says the guy who dismissed a decade-long study, without reason, and alleged bias on the part of the people conducting the study.

You have nothing.

We're debating public policy that impacts, what, 150 million women? Your team has provided one study that suggests that there is no problem. On such an important topic, you ought to have many studies and probably a few meta-studies to point to.

Again, your team is making extraordinary and extremely consequential claims. I know you'd like to shift the burden to me, but that's not how it works.

Let me ask you again, in your opinion, how many assaults would be too many? Or does it not matter? Can endless assaults happen as long as a tiny number of trans women are accommodated? How much privacy can be suspended?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

When your team uses "lived experience" it is almost always in the context of an individual's lived experience. In this case, your team presented a large poll that indicated that 47% OF A LARGE SAMPLE SIZE had negative feelings.

So, to be clear, you're just going to ignore you own hypocrisy and continue to make allegations about us?

See my posts #607, #635 and #640.

None of these posts address what I wrote.

Nope, I never said that. What I've been saying is that biological men should not enter women's safe spaces.

And that includes bathrooms.

fair enough - was my summary of your position accurate?

I already said it was not.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

We're debating public policy that impacts, what, 150 million women? Your team has provided one study that suggests that there is no problem.

One study carried out over ten years in multiple cities.

What studies have you presented?

On such an important topic, you ought to have many studies and probably a few meta-studies to point to.

This is just moving the goalposts. The fact is that the evidence we have currently indicates that your fears are unfounded. In order to keep arguing, you have to deliberately ignore facts.

Again, your team is making extraordinary and extremely consequential claims.

No, they're not extraordinary claims. You cannot keep evoking this buzzphrase with any claim just because you don't agree with it.

We are claiming that trans-inclusive laws do not increase harm to women. To support this, we have presented a decade-long study of multiple cities that shows that trans-inclusive laws being introduced in those cities did not result in an increase of abuse in any of these spaces over a span of ten years.

You are the one claiming trans-inclusive laws harm women. You have provided not a single scrap of evidence to support this. You have yet to provide anything other than anecdotes and personal feelings. Because you don't care about facts, just feelings.

I know you'd like to shift the burden to me, but that's not how it works.

Our burden has been met. We have presented a study. Where is yours?

Let me ask you again, in your opinion, how many assaults would be too many? Or does it not matter? Can endless assaults happen as long as a tiny number of trans women are accommodated? How much privacy can be suspended?

I will not answer these leading questions. No doubt allowing lesbians into women's restrooms has resulted in a non-zero number of rapes, but we don't use that to justify calling for lesbians to be banned from women's spaces.

Argue with facts, not this empty, fallacious rhetoric. The facts suggest assaults will not increase. You reject those facts because you care more about your feelings than facts.

 

[icehorse]

So, to be clear, you're just going to ignore you own hypocrisy and continue to make allegations about us?

So far all you've done is make weak comparisons, I am not convinced.

None of these posts address what I wrote.

Lest you be guilty of sea lioning, you sometimes have to do a little work and connect a few dots

And that includes bathrooms.

Yup, and I've never said that trans women must use men's facilities.

I already said it was not.

I agreed with your point that I failed to steelman your position. But I'm wondering whether my summary was fair?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So far all you've done is make weak comparisons, I am not convinced.

Again, the point is that you are clearly being hypocritical here. In one thread, you say lived experiences and feelings shouldn't matter as much as facts. In this thread, you are saying facts are irrelevant in the face of lived experience and feelings.

You have no consistency, because you have no actual position other than repeating reaction rhetoric.

Lest you be guilty of sea lioning, you sometimes have to do a little work and connect a few dots

"Sea lioning". Another buzzword you overuse without really understanding it, and another perfect display of your own hypocrisy. Apparently, our claims carry a burden that we must meet. But your claims don't, and you can just glibly tell us "connect a few dots *winkyface*".

How about actually forming a fact-based argument?

Yup, and I've never said that trans women must use men's facilities.

So, what facilities should they use? A plastic bag?

I agreed with your point that I failed to steelman your position. But I'm wondering whether my summary was fair?

Go back and read what I wrote.

 

[icehorse]

This is just moving the goalposts. The fact is that the evidence we have currently indicates that your fears are unfounded. In order to keep arguing, you have to deliberately ignore facts.

Not at all. I've acknowledged your study, several times. I just think it's insufficient data for such a consequential policy.

Argue with facts, not this empty, fallacious rhetoric. The facts suggest assaults will not increase. You reject those facts because you care more about your feelings than facts.

When we debate new ideas, we often must rely on experience and common sense. We have seen an explosion of people self identifying as trans in the last few years. We do not yet know what implications that will have on society. But we do know that the study you're citing happened when the number of trans people was a fraction of today's number.

We do know that women have fought for decades to carve out safe spaces for themselves. Such spaces have not always existed on such a broad scale. Women fought for these spaces for reasons of safety and privacy (and likely other reasons as well).

Now it appears that your team wants to undo women's hard fought, well deserved victories in order to accommodate trans women.

You ARE tacitly making huge claims that defy common sense.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not at all. I've acknowledged your study, several times. I just think it's insufficient data for such a consequential policy.

A study that shows that trans-inclusive laws don't increase harm to women is "insufficient data" to aid the conclusion that trans-inclusive laws don't increase harm to women...

Sure.

So, what should we do, then? Wait another ten years? Twenty? Thirty? Should every state and country immediately adopt trans-inclusive laws just so we can study it in more than one state for the next ten-thirty years?

The fact is that we have evidence, you don't. We've provided a study, you have provided nothing. We have met our burden of proof, you are yet to even attempt to meet yours. Because your position is not a rational position based on facts and reason, but on blind dogmatism. This is why you reject scientific studies and why you cling to hearsay and "common sense". It's the calling-card of the dogmatic believer and it has no place in public policy.

When we debate new ideas, we often must rely on experience and common sense. We have seen an explosion of people self identifying as trans in the last few years. We do not yet know what implications that will have on society. But we do know that the study you're citing happened when the number of trans people was a fraction of today's number.

We do know that women have fought for decades to carve out safe spaces for themselves. Such spaces have not always existed on such a broad scale. Women fought for these spaces for reasons of safety and privacy (and likely other reasons as well).

Now it appears that your team wants to undo women's hard fought, well deserved victories in order to accommodate trans women.

You ARE tacitly making huge claims that defy common sense.

Good thing we have a ten-year study that shows that you're wrong, then.

I'll wait for actual facts, not these fallacious arguments and appeals to "common sense". Once again, despite me already explicitly asking you to deal with facts, you just present another round of empty, fact-less rhetoric.

I'll ask again: Provide facts, not empty, fallacious rhetoric.

 

[icehorse]

A study that shows that trans-inclusive laws don't increase harm to women is "insufficient data" to aid the conclusion that trans-inclusive laws don't increase harm to women...

Sure.

So, what should we do, then? Wait another ten years? Twenty? Thirty? Should every state and country immediately adopt trans-inclusive laws just so we can study it in more than one state for the next ten-thirty years?

The fact is that we have evidence, you don't. We've provided a study, you have provided nothing. We have met our burden of proof, you are yet to even attempt to meet yours.

Nicely spun, but not accurate.

Good thing we have a ten-year study that shows that you're wrong, then.

I'll wait for actual facts, not these fallacious arguments and appeals to "common sense". Apparently, according to you, it's "common sense" to just ignore facts.

You could go try to find data that contradicts your claims. It's out there, as I mentioned in earlier posts.

But my guess here, and I admit that I'm guessing, is that you aren't interested in finding contradictory facts. Because you're not really concerned about the well being of women, you're concerned with, what, virtue signalling?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Nicely spun, but not accurate.

No, it is accurate. We have presented a study that shows you are wrong in your assertions. You have presented no evidence whatsoever to support your conclusions.

That is an accurate assessment.

It is also accurate that your response is just a distraction. You pretend the study isn't thorough enough, but you oppose the expansion of trans-inclusive laws that would allow for a more wide-ranging study. No amount of scale would appease you, because the breadth and quality of the study are irrelevant to you. All you care about is fear-mongering about trans people and virtue signalling about women's voices (while ignoring women's voices that disagree with you).

You do not care about facts.

You could go try to find data that contradicts your claims. It's out there, as I mentioned in earlier posts.

Why should I? That's your burden of proof. So far, the only facts that have been presented are by us.

But my guess here, and I admit that I'm guessing, is that you aren't interested in finding contradictory facts.

Says the guy who off-handedly rejects a ten-year study because it doesn't support his a-priori assumptions

Because you're not really concerned about the well being of women, you're concerned with, what, virtue signalling?

Another irony meter just exploded.

 

[icehorse]

Says the guy who off-handedly rejects a ten-year study because it doesn't support his a-priori assumptions

It's clear we disagree on these points.

Have a fine day.

 

[Unfettered]

Generally speaking, "bans" are backward thinking in a free society. Healthy thinking orients around "crimes" and "consequences." Bans are preemptive; justice is responsive.

It might seem like hair splitting, but I don't think it is. We have a tendency to drift away from reasonableness to unreasonableness; from awareness to unconsciousness. We should always be aware of what we are thinking when we do a thing—or be aware that we aren't thinking.

More to the point, language in the law that subverts the principle of justice for all, or that opens the way for faction-based justice, has no place in the law, and should be amended. Clearly.

 

[icehorse]

Generally speaking, "bans" are backward thinking in a free society. Healthy thinking orients around "crimes" and "consequences." Bans are preemptive; justice is responsive.

It might seem like hair splitting, but I don't think it is. We have a tendency to drift away from reasonableness to unreasonableness; from awareness to unconsciousness. We should always be aware of what we are thinking when we do a thing—or be aware that we aren't thinking.

More to the point, language in the law that subverts the principle of justice for all, or that opens the way for faction-based justice, has no place in the law, and should be amended. Clearly.

I'm not 100% sure that I understand how your post ties into this thread. Can you connect the dots? thanks!

(In case I'm interpreting you correctly, I'd like bring up the perspective that we have a huge body of "bans" that we call laws.)

 

[F1fan]

Nicely spun, but not accurate.

Notice you don't offer any evidence or explanation why you think it is inaccurate. This is a failed effort on your part. Your personal opinion and prejudice is irrelevant in debate. It is what evidence you bring to support your opinion, and you have none.

You could go try to find data that contradicts your claims. It's out there, as I mentioned in earlier posts.

What you offer is incidents and anomalies. If you understood science and data collection you would understand anomalies are largely irrelevant. You need strong data points of what you are claiming. You don't have it.

But my guess here, and I admit that I'm guessing, is that you aren't interested in finding contradictory facts. Because you're not really concerned about the well being of women, you're concerned with, what, virtue signalling?

Vilifying your opponent for not doing your homework. That's bullying. It's on you to find evidence that your views are correct. You've failed to find considerable data, and that's your problem.

 

[crossfire]

I want to know what kind of laws they are writing that are going to apply exclusively to menstruating/birthing/breastfeeding women.