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

[icehorse]

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.

I have provided explanations repeatedly. As for evidence... the thing is that this phenomenon is relatively new. The rate of people identifying as trans has skyocketed in the last decade. The studies your team keeps pointing to are already out of date. Now, I do have counter evidence, but I know it's as weak as yours. And I'm not interested in having your team trot out its oh-so-predictable identity politics criticisms. As I've said earlier in this thread, your team has demonstrated repeatedly its unwillingness to separate the message from the messenger.

So that leaves us with the tools of experience, and our own common sense to debate this topic. And when I say experience, I don't mean an individual's lived experience. That counts for a little, but not much.

I'm happy to debate from the perspective of common sense.

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.

I do understand data collection, I've edited books on the topic.

Neither of us have strong data points, it's all too new.

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.

I might occasionally make an error, but my goal is to never INITIATE a personal attack. However, I do not think "turning the other cheek" is healthy, so when I'm attacked, I do sometimes respond in kind.

But I would be THRILLED if we could debate this topic without any personal attacks at all. Wanna try that out from this post forward?

==

I think a key point of disagreement here is this "who is making the extraordinary claims?" I think your team is, you think I am. That question - if we have the discipline to take it in isolation - seems worth debating.

 

[icehorse]

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

As opposed to what other kinds? Those with medical conditions?

 

[crossfire]

As opposed to what other kinds? Those with medical conditions?

No, what kind of laws are they writing that apply exclusively to menstruating/birthing/breastfeeding women? (Besides their abortion ban.)

 

[icehorse]

No, what kind of laws are they writing that apply exclusively to menstruating/birthing/breastfeeding women? (Besides their abortion ban.)

Well you can look at everything that came out of title IX as a start. Then we have laws against voyeurism and exhibitionism and pedophilia and statutory rape and rape and domestic violence, and...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's clear we disagree on these points.

Have a fine day.

Well, at least you quit calling outright disagreement an agreement.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well you can look at everything that came out of title IX as a start. Then we have laws against voyeurism and exhibitionism and pedophilia and statutory rape and rape and domestic violence, and...

Those laws apply to men and women.

 

[icehorse]

Those laws apply to men and women.

In theory yes, but he perps are overwhelmingly men and the victims overwhelmingly women.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In theory yes, but he perps are overwhelmingly men and the victims overwhelmingly women.

Yes, but at thr same time male victims very rarely say anything when it happens to them so there's definitely more male victims than we are aware of.

 

[icehorse]

Yes, but at thr same time male victims very rarely say anything when it happens to them so there's definitely more male victims than we are aware of.

agreed.

But as the discussion in this thread has evolved, the topic is really about whether women's safe spaces should be able to exclude biological males.

 

[icehorse]

No, what kind of laws are they writing that apply exclusively to menstruating/birthing/breastfeeding women? (Besides their abortion ban.)

Apart from medical conditions that might render some individuals incapable of menstruating and birthing and such, the only kind of women there are, are biological women. Trans women are not women. Most trans women are feminine, no worries. (But even that's no longer always the case, now some trans women are not interested in being feminine.)

 

[crossfire]

Well you can look at everything that came out of title IX as a start. Then we have laws against voyeurism and exhibitionism and pedophilia and statutory rape and rape and domestic violence, and...

These laws apply to everyone.

Apart from medical conditions that might render some individuals incapable of menstruating and birthing and such, the only kind of women there are, are biological women. Trans women are not women. Most trans women are feminine, no worries. (But even that's no longer always the case, now some trans women are not interested in being feminine.)

I'm specifically wondering about which particular laws they have in mind that would single out menstruating/birthing/breastfeeding women, other than abortion bans. What kind of laws do they have in mind for childbirth or breastfeeding, or even menstruating, for that matter?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

agreed.

But as the discussion in this thread has evolved, the topic is really about whether women's safe spaces should be able to exclude biological males.

Yes, we know you hate transwomen amd absolutely refuse to make any discernments in your crusade to fuel the flames of transphobia that make victims of ciswomen who don't pass your value amd aesthetic judgements of what a woman is supposed to be.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's clear we disagree on these points.

Have a fine day.

It's clear you disagree with reality.

 

[F1fan]

Apart from medical conditions that might render some individuals incapable of menstruating and birthing and such, the only kind of women there are, are biological women.

Only according to how some traditional attitudes believe it. As global societies, and expand mening and tolerance, these definitions ar changing. I consider this change much the sam way that blacks were considered to only be 3/5 of a human, but that attitude changed. Of course this change, like many others, have resistance by those who prefer a more traditional framework. The thing is trans people are here, and they aren't going away any more than blacks, gays, and Jews, so acceptance is the civilized approach.

Trans women are not women.

Who cares how you see it? Are they causing you problems? Are they causing problems for society by existing as they want to be understood?

Most trans women are feminine, no worries. (But even that's no longer always the case, now some trans women are not interested in being feminine.)

How is any of it your business?

 

[F1fan]

agreed.

But as the discussion in this thread has evolved, the topic is really about whether women's safe spaces should be able to exclude biological males.

And stated this way it's completey misleading. This sort of misleading premise is why your reputation is being ruined.

"Biological males" includes Trump and other men guilty of sexual misconduct. Is that what you intended by your vague comment? If not, why are you being deliberately misleading? You've had plenty of experience with your critics how to refer to trans people. You have been made aware of how trans people think differently about themselves despite their biology. Yet you dismiss these characteristics as if they mean nothing. It means nothing to YOU, and you are ignoring what it means to trans people. Not only is this rude and demaning, it is a losing approach to debate the issue.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

I don't think I've ever even used the word transphobic in the entire time I've been posting here.

But if you want that to be your excuse for not posting good evidence for your claims, then have at it, I guess.

 

[icehorse]

Only according to how some traditional attitudes believe it. As global societies, and expand mening and tolerance, these definitions ar changing. I consider this change much the sam way that blacks were considered to only be 3/5 of a human, but that attitude changed. Of course this change, like many others, have resistance by those who prefer a more traditional framework. The thing is trans people are here, and they aren't going away any more than blacks, gays, and Jews, so acceptance is the civilized approach.

Of course trans people are here. Trans activists say this kind of thing a lot. Like if they don't get to call themselves women we're committing genocide or denying their existence. How do those claims make sense? Biology is biology, it does not bend so that people can have a range of gender identities. Let's look at JK Rowling's famous tweet on this topic. A tweet that caused a fire storm:

Dress however you please.
Call yourself whatever you like.
Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you.
Live your best life in peace and security.
But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?

How does this deny the existence of trans people? It does not!

A trans woman is a trans woman and a trans man is a trans man. It is that simple. It's not an attitude, it's reality. And trying to distort reality will not win hearts and minds.

 

[icehorse]

Who cares how you see it? Are they causing you problems? Are they causing problems for society by existing as they want to be understood?

It's not "how I see it", it's reality

In general trans people cause the normal amount of trouble that people cause

But trans activists are causing a lot of trouble - mostly for women. Women's sports are being perverted by trans women. Women are losing their privacy because of some trans women activists. The practice of medicine is being damaged by trans activists.

And no, I'm not going to hand you an education on this topic. You're making extraordinary claims, you go educate yourself.

And stated this way it's completey misleading. This sort of misleading premise is why your reputation is being ruined.

"Biological males" includes Trump and other men guilty of sexual misconduct. Is that what you intended by your vague comment? If not, why are you being deliberately misleading? You've had plenty of experience with your critics how to refer to trans people. You have been made aware of how trans people think differently about themselves despite their biology. Yet you dismiss these characteristics as if they mean nothing. It means nothing to YOU, and you are ignoring what it means to trans people. Not only is this rude and demaning, it is a losing approach to debate the issue.

I'm not arguing about how trans people think about themselves. But their feelings do not alter biology and the immutable implications of biology. A trans woman cannot "feel" himself out of prostate cancer. A trans man cannot "feel" herself out of ovarian cysts.

I have almost no issues with all the varieties of gender expression.

My reputation? ha! If my reputation on RF is predicated on lying about biology then I do not care!

I'm quite comfortable standing with JK Rowling

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's not "how I see it", it's reality

In general trans people cause the normal amount of trouble that people cause

But trans activists are causing a lot of trouble - mostly for women. Women's sports are being perverted by trans women. Women are losing their privacy because of some trans women activists. The practice of medicine is being damaged by trans activists.

And no, I'm not going to hand you an education on this topic. You're making extraordinary claims, you go educate yourself.



I'm not arguing about how trans people think about themselves. But their feelings do not alter biology and the immutable implications of biology. A trans woman cannot "feel" himself out of prostate cancer. A trans man cannot "feel" herself out of ovarian cysts.

I have almost no issues with all the varieties of gender expression.

My reputation? ha! If my reputation on RF is predicated on lying about biology then I do not care!

I'm quite comfortable standing with JK Rowling

All rhetoric, no facts. All virtue signalling, no actual virtue.

I cannot believe, after all this time, you still fail to understand the difference between social and biological categories. How are you THIS bad at learning?

Of course, the truth is because you're not trying to learn. You're not here to debate; you're here to spread right-wing talking points and dishonestly misrepresent real issues to skew people to the right. It's been transparent from virtually every thread you have started.

Should I bring up the "puberty blockers = chemical castration" thread again?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Nope. To refresh, the poll indicated that:

A majority of voters would support a law requiring public institutions to allow transgender people to use bathrooms that align with their gender identity or stated sex, according to the latest Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll.

The survey found 54 percent support for such a law, with a plurality, 44 percent, saying the Supreme Court should rule on the matter rather than leaving it up to the states, at 34 percent, or Congress, at 20 percent. Fifty-two percent of respondents said they would support a Supreme Court ruling finding that transgender people have a constitutional right to use a bathroom that aligns with their identity. ...

"There is also a gender gap, with 54 percent of men saying transgender people should use the bathroom of their birth sex and 54 percent of women saying transgender people should be able to use the bathroom that best aligns with their identity."

The article didn't say anything that indicated that "47% OF A LARGE SAMPLE SIZE had negative feelings."
We all know you're trying to harken back to this "dread" you keep bringing up but can't seem to demonstrate.

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



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

How about trans women?

fair enough - was my summary of your position accurate?