"Her penis" - not at all Orwellian - argh

[Revoltingest]

No....

You oppose learning.
Unsurprised.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We have many more Christian sects here than I
mentioned. Diversity abounds. Get enuf "splinter"
groups, & they become a sizeable fraction.
I didn't mention the Catholic church. But it's not
a positive example of being pro gay or trans.
Just look at SCOTUS.

America has a very distinct path that Christianity took, a path that forsook much of what Rival mentioned in favor of what feels good and a "plain reading" of the Bible, with a unique anti-intellectual twist that has made illiterate clergy who have never read the Bible more of a thing here than there, where for well over 1000 years Church doctrine, practice, traditions and teachings have been more centrally guided. But the American Church (the collective body of American Churches) decided to move away from that very early in US History, which is why there are sk many different groups here. And they aren't formed by people like Martin Luther making a groundbreaking theological declaration. They form with people like Joseph Smith, they start to keep supporting slavery, and they happen because modern American Evangelicism was largely developed by salesmen who played on people's emotions and believed Christianity should be a quantity over quality thing.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm USING science, not denying it. Science uses control groups.

You still haven't learned research methodology?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How on earth is lying about pronouns denying existence?

I told you I was done with you.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If the figures all came from the same study, that could be a possible analysis.
In that case it certainly would show that jumping in with puberty suppression is not a good approach.

Except they're different studies on different sets of patients with different diagnoses and different conditions. I refer you back to my heart disease analogy.

That looks like it would have little if anything to do with what we are talking about.

The fallacy you're committing is akin to looking at the health outcomes of people with heart disease who are prescribed heart medication, then looking at the health outcomes of people with heart disease who underwent open heart surgery, and suggesting that - because those given just medication displayed better overall outcomes - we should stop giving people open-heart surgery.

This is a really simple idea. We give different treatments to different patients depending on the diagnosis. They're not the exact same category of patients having the exact same diagnosis and the exact same conditions and symptoms being treated in different ways. They're different patients with different symptoms being treated differently. Those given medication were DIAGNOSED as needing psychological care, whereas those who needed hormone treatments were DIAGNOSED as needing hormone treatments. Ergo, the psychological care may not have had a similar impact on the second group as it did on the first, and the hormone treatments were not recommended for the first group rather than that second.

Do you understand yet? I'm not explaining a fourth time.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There is an overlap between people who are trans and those who just think they are not the gender their biology indicates.

What does that have to do with what I wrote? The definition of a trans person is any person who doesn't identify with the gender assigned to them at birth. Gender fluid people are trans.

Now YOU are mixing up 'gender fluidity' and 'trans sexuality' as if they are the same thing.

No, I am not. I even explicitly stated that I was talking about trans people broadly, not just gender fluidity.

I don't deny the existence of legitimate trans sexuals or of those who just think they are not the gender of their biology.

If you refuse to use their preferred pronouns, you are denying their existence as a legitimate category of person. The only reason people do this is because it harms trans people. Literally, that is the only reason anybody would ever do that.

Both categories exist and I am talking about them, whereas you want to blur them into one category, iow deny the existence of the category who have only the psychological signs.

Just plain false. I have never once denied anything like that. You're just making stuff up.

It does not matter to me whether these people exist or not, but it becomes a problem in society when society is forced to change to cater to this small group, when the science around it is no more than hypothesis.

You realise that this is literally the exact same logic every bigoted group makes? They made it about civil rights, too. The real question is: where is the harm? If it helps people and harms no one, what's the argument AGAINST it? I mean, severely disabled people are a relatively very small group of people, but I would doubt you'd speak of anyone attempting to make the world an easier and better place for those people to live in in the same terms. You don't go around protesting places putting ramps in, do you?

It becomes a problem when this hypothesis starts causing permanent problems in youth who might grow out of their confusion if left to mature.

Cool. Well, let me know when that happens. Because the science right now indicates that the opposite is true and trans people are now significantly less likely to commit suicide.

I think that's more important than your hand-wringing about "catering" to them.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

True, there are no doubt benefits and problems and potential problems.

Always. That's why we trust scientists and doctors with these things, not politicians and ideologues.

That sounds like an opinion to me.

It's a factual re-statement of your logic.

 

[icehorse]

If you refuse to use their preferred pronouns, you are denying their existence as a legitimate category of person. The only reason people do this is because it harms trans people. Literally, that is the only reason anybody would ever do that.

We have names for trans people: trans woman and trans man. How does using those names deny their existence?

Because the science right now indicates that the opposite is true and trans people are now significantly less likely to commit suicide.

Compared to..?

 

[icehorse]

You still haven't learned research methodology?

Tying to make it personal does NOT strengthen your argument

Now tell me how comparing the outcomes of using GAC drugs to the outcomes of using talk therapy only, is not basic research methodology?

 

[Soandso]

We have names for trans people: trans woman and trans man. How does using those names deny their existence?

Sure, but when referring to them how do we do it? If someone is a trans woman, do we refer to them with she/her or he/him? You're evading the point

 

[icehorse]

Sure, but when referring to them how do we do it? If someone is a trans woman, do we refer to them with she/her or he/him? You're evading the point

Ok, so let's say a trans woman rapes a woman. In a court of law, how should we refer to the rapist?
Let's say a woman wants same-sex healthcare, how should we refer to potential caregivers?
Let's say a lesbian wants to date only biological women, how should we refer to trans women who want to date these lesbians.

Sometimes sex matters!!

 

[Yerda]

We have names for trans people: trans woman and trans man. How does using those names deny their existence?

Some of the issue seems to be semantic here. When you say trans woman is not a woman you are taking the category "women" to be biological females, yes?

Other people may take "women" to be the larger set that includes all people whose gender identity is "woman". So trans women are women as they are within the set - a subset. The statement that trans woman =/= cis woman is trivially true here, it is just that we don't take the extra step in identify the set "women" with the set "cis women".

Does this make sense?

Ok, so let's say a trans woman rapes a woman. In a court of law, how should we refer to the rapist?

Accused or Defendant would appear to work fine.

Let's say a woman wants same-sex healthcare, how should we refer to potential caregivers?

Based on same sex?

Let's say a lesbian wants to date only biological women, how should we refer to trans women who want to date these lesbians.

Trans woman who dates women. Lesbian who is trans. Lesbian. This doesn't seem that troubling.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

We

Done.
With.
You.

Which part are you struggling with?

 

[icehorse]

Done.
With.
You.

Which part are you struggling with?

As long as you continue to make posts that seem misogynistic or homophobic, I will respond.

 

[Soandso]

Ok, so let's say a trans woman rapes a woman. In a court of law, how should we refer to the rapist?

Whoa whoa whoa... What?!

What does the scenario you have here have to do with the question I asked? If someone is a trans woman in the court of law or any other places, nothing is lost in referring to the trans woman as she/her. Everyone is aware of the situation and what's going on

Let's say a woman wants same-sex healthcare, how should we refer to potential caregivers?

So I actually work in the healthcare field. A patient's medical history is accessible to the healthcare provider. This includes their status as a trans woman or trans man, so there is nothing misleading or confusing. Everything is spelled out

In my hospital, we respect people's pronouns because people deserve to be treated with dignity, especially when they are in a vulnerable state and are scared for their lives...

Let's say a lesbian wants to date only biological women, how should we refer to trans women who want to date these lesbians.

What?... What does this have to do with using she/her or he/him pronouns? It's perfectly ok for lesbians to not be attracted to trans women. It's fine. Everyone has preferences

You're evading my question

Sometimes sex matters!!

We are talking about she/her and he/him pronouns. Please, just answer the question and stop deflecting with whataboutisms

When you have a trans woman or a trans man, should we refer to them by the pronouns they prefer or ignore them? I'm talking about she/her he/him pronouns

 

[icehorse]

Some of the issue seems to be semantic here. When you say trans woman is not a woman you are taking the category "women" to be biological females, yes?

Yes, and sex and biology matter!

Other people may take "women" to be the larger set that includes all people whose gender identity is "woman". So trans women are women as they are within the set - a subset. The statement that trans woman =/= cis woman is trivially true here, it is just that we don't take the extra step in identify the set "women" with the set "cis women".

Does this make sense?

It makes sense but it's a misogynistic and homophobic approach

That's why I answered to pronouns question the way I did. By giving three examples of when using pronouns that do not match sex are a problem.

Accused or Defendant would appear to work fine.

I was asked to explain examples of when using the wrong pronoun might matter.

I hope this also answers your last two questions? This conversation - in the moment - is about pronouns.

 

[Soandso]

That's why I answered to pronouns question the way I did. By giving three examples of when using pronouns that do not match sex are a problem.

No you didn't. You evaded the question with whataboutisms. All of those scenarios have no impact on whether or not trans people are referred to by the pronouns they prefer

 

[icehorse]

Whoa whoa whoa... What?!

What does the scenario you have here have to do with the question I asked? If someone is a trans woman in the court of law or any other places, nothing is lost in referring to the trans woman as she/her. Everyone is aware of the situation and what's going on

Whoa, whoa, whoa! So a trans woman rapes a woman and the woman is testifying on the stand. Are you saying the woman MUST refer to her rapist as "she"?

So I actually work in the healthcare field. A patient's medical history is accessible to the healthcare provider. This includes their status as a trans woman or trans man, so there is nothing misleading or confusing. Everything is spelled out

In my hospital, we respect people's pronouns because people deserve to be treated with dignity, especially when they are in a vulnerable state and are scared for their lives...

That's fine, but it's not the point I was making. I'm talking about a biological woman who wants to be treated only by biological women.

What?... What does this have to do with using she/her or he/him pronouns? It's perfectly ok for lesbians to not be attracted to trans women. It's fine. Everyone has preferences

You're evading my question

I'm not evading at all. Let's try to understand each other

It turns out that some trans women have caused trouble when told that a lesbian does not want to date them. This is not uncommon. This is a part of how the whole degrading "TERF" term came into being.

Are you saying that a lesbian who doesn't want to date a biological male MUST refer to them as "she" or "her"?

We are talking about she/her and he/him pronouns. Please, just answer the question and stop deflecting with whataboutisms

When you have a trans woman or a trans man, should we refer to them by the pronouns they prefer or ignore them? I'm talking about she/her he/him pronouns

Again, let's be civil and assume misunderstanding before leaping to the idea that I'm "deflecting".

I've given you three real life scenarios for which using pronouns that are the opposite of reality can cause harm to women.

Trans activists frequently make demands that are either misogynistic or homophobic. Demanding that others use non-biological pronouns is such a demand.

 

[Soandso]

Whoa, whoa, whoa! So a trans woman rapes a woman and the woman is testifying on the stand. Are you saying the woman MUST refer to her rapist as "she"?

People can say what they like. It's a free country. I'm asking about what your opinion is on the matter, specifically. Should the court refer to the suspect as "she" or "he" in your opinion?

That's fine, but it's not the point I was making. I'm talking about a biological woman who wants to be treated only by biological women.

That has nothing to do with whether or not we refer to them as she/her. It's unrelated. Answer the question

I'm not evading at all. Let's try to understand each other

Three posts in and you still haven't answered the question

It turns out that some trans women have caused trouble when told that a lesbian does not want to date them. This is not uncommon. This is a part of how the whole degrading "TERF" term came into being.

Are you saying that a lesbian who doesn't want to date a biological male MUST refer to them as "she" or "her"?

It's a free country. People can wear a white pointy robe and shout the n-word if they want to. What do you think, though? Would it be a good thing for the lesbian to refer to the trans woman as she/her?

Again, let's be civil and assume misunderstanding before leaping to the idea that I'm "deflecting".

Again, three posts in and you have yet to answer the question

I've given you three real life scenarios for which using pronouns that are the opposite of reality can cause harm to women.

Trans activists frequently make demands that are either misogynistic or homophobic. Demanding that others use non-biological pronouns is such a demand.

Your scenarios are unrelated to whether or not you think it's good to refer to trans women or trans men with the pronouns they prefer. If you aren't deflecting, you should be able to answer the question easily. It's not difficult. Im just curious what your opinion is, personally.

Here, I'll go first. I think it's a good thing to refer to trans people according to the pronouns they identify with. Easy

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is an overlap between people who are trans and those who just think they are not the gender their biology indicates.



Now YOU are mixing up 'gender fluidity' and 'trans sexuality' as if they are the same thing.



I don't deny the existence of legitimate trans sexuals or of those who just think they are not the gender of their biology.
Both categories exist and I am talking about them, whereas you want to blur them into one category, iow deny the existence of the category who have only the psychological signs.
It does not matter to me whether these people exist or not, but it becomes a problem in society when society is forced to change to cater to this small group, when the science around it is no more than hypothesis.
It becomes a problem when this hypothesis starts causing permanent problems in youth who might grow out of their confusion if left to mature.

I wonder if people felt that way when we started building ramps everywhere so people in wheelchairs could finally access the same things as everyone else.