"Her penis" - not at all Orwellian - argh

[Yerda]

- Male convicts are claiming to be trans, being put in women's prisons, and then assaulting female prisoners.
- Biological males are demanding that they be allowed to attend lesbian only events, shutting these events down when they don't get their way, and attempting to "cancel" women who disagree with their demands.
- Women who want same-sex health care are having biological males - most of whom are intact - foist upon them, and being criticized if they refuse to receive healthcare from these men.
- In courtrooms, victims of rape are made to say idiotic phrases like "she raped me with her penis". Apparently not hurting the feelings of the rapist has become more important than the dignity of the victim?

All of these situations are muddied, confused, and/or exacerbated by demanding that reality-bending pronouns be used.

I don't think the issue is coming from pronouns with these, except the last one. Or that they would be improved if we used pronouns based on genetics.

With the last one, I don't agree that the dignity of the victim is harmed by them using the word "she"? I can see why you would think it jarring if you map a persons pronouns to their genes. But, if the idiocy of the phrase is because it matches a word associated with biological women to part associated with biological males, then thinking about it in terms of gender identity dissolves the problem.

In cases where it is particularly stressful for a rape victim to say that, they could use "the accused". In a court this isn't that uncommon.

(Also, do people really use phrases like that when describing their ordeal?)

 

[Alien826]

So how many such instances do you think women should tolerate in support of the dubious idea that trans people are better off if we all pretend and warp our language? How many rape victims should be further traumatized? How many elderly women should be forced to have intact males perform their medical exams?

And do you really think that shaming society into using fake pronouns is going to end up improving the lives of trans people?

We see that in Republican states anti-GAC bills are being passed, correct? This is easier for Republicans to accomplish when trans activists make such radical demands on society.

I'm jumping in very late here, sorry.

It seems to me that changes in society happen when enough pressure builds up and it can be difficult to say exactly what had whatever effect. This changing of the language annoys me too, but I does seem to work to some extent, though not as the prime mover. Remember "Ms" replacing "Mrs" and "Miss"? Now it's pretty much universal, and so is the de-emphasis on marriage as a way to put women into different boxes. Single parenthood followed along. A woman who had a child "out of wedlock" used to be shamed for it. Now few people give it much attention.

By observation, there are different stages of change and the language changes that go along with it. First a sufficient section of society changes it's attitudes, and the majority get upset about it, picking on the words and claiming all kinds of "bad" stuff that will follow if something isn't "done about it". After a while, it all settles down, with the majority being accepting of the change, a minority clinging fiercely to "traditional" values, and we then wait for the next way in which all goodness is going to end. In my lifetime, I have observed that with homosexuality, marriage, racism (lots of work to do, but lots of progress), the assumed superiority of aristocrats (in the UK), atheism, rock and roll, and probably a lot more I can't think of.

I should add that some changes don't last. I think it's early days for transexuality (I mean the attitudes to it, not the thing itself). We'll see, but I'm betting that eventually all these "scare" claims will be seen to be like the claim that rock and roll would destroy society.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Every example I listed is happening in real life.

Or happened like, one time, according to the sites you frequent. Then they blow it up and pretend it's a huge widespread problem.
That's called fear mongering.

So how many such instances do you think women should tolerate in support of the dubious idea that trans people are better off if we all pretend and warp our language?

More than one dubious claim, at least.

How many rape victims should be further traumatized?

Sorry, what rape victims are being further traumatized, and by what?

How many elderly women should be forced to have intact males perform their medical exams?

Wha? Elderly women are being forced to have "intact males" (Another bizarre phrase from you) perform their medical exams? You mean, like, male doctors? Every doctor I've ever had has been a male.

And do you really think that shaming society into using fake pronouns is going to end up improving the lives of trans people?

Fake pronouns? That phrase speaks volumes, doesn't it?

I think that asking society to extend dignity and respect to human beings by calling them what they want to be called LIKE WE DO WITH EVERY OTHER HUMAN ON THE PLANET is a good thing.

We see that in Republican states anti-GAC bills are being passed, correct? This is easier for Republicans to accomplish when trans activists make such radical demands on society.

No, it's easier for them to pass this garbage in places where they hold majority power. Not so much elsewhere.

 

[icehorse]

Your questions were irrelevant to the one I asked and you asked them to deflect and distract from my main question. That said, I did address your questions in posts #919 and #915

Ultimately you've tipped your hand and expressed what you really think, finally. "Fake pronouns." You think it's bad to refer to trans people as the pronouns they identify with. That wasn't so hard, was it?

Dude, this is a two-way conversation

I'm not trying to evade your questions, I'm bringing up real life examples to answer your questions.

Now, I could get my knickers in a twist and whine that you've been evading my questions. But I'm not going to do that. This is a complex communication, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. That said, you have not directly answered my questions to you, will you give it another shot?

 

[icehorse]

I'm jumping in very late here, sorry.

It seems to me that changes in society happen when enough pressure builds up and it can be difficult to say exactly what had whatever effect. This changing of the language annoys me too, but I does seem to work to some extent, though not as the prime mover. Remember "Ms" replacing "Mrs" and "Miss"? Now it's pretty much universal, and so is the de-emphasis on marriage as a way to put women into different boxes. Single parenthood followed along. A woman who had a child "out of wedlock" used to be shamed for it. Now few people give it much attention.

By observation, there are different stages of change and the language changes that go along with it. First a sufficient section of society changes it's attitudes, and the majority get upset about it, picking on the words and claiming all kinds of "bad" stuff that will follow if something isn't "done about it". After a while, it all settles down, with the majority being accepting of the change, a minority clinging fiercely to "traditional" values, and we then wait for the next way in which all goodness is going to end. In my lifetime, I have observed that with homosexuality, marriage, racism (lots of work to do, but lots of progress), the assumed superiority of aristocrats (in the UK), atheism, rock and roll, and probably a lot more I can't think of.

I should add that some changes don't last. I think it's early days for transexuality (I mean the attitudes to it, not the thing itself). We'll see, but I'm betting that eventually all these "scare" claims will be seen to be like the claim that rock and roll would destroy society.

We're seeing real damage done to real women and real gay people, I hope that that does not become normalized.

Why can't we look for non-zero-sum solutions instead?

 

[icehorse]

Or happened like, one time, according to the sites you frequent. Then they blow it up and pretend it's a huge widespread problem.
That's called fear mongering.

And I could say that your arguments are misogynistic. How about instead trying some actual conversation?

As for the links I've provided, they tend to present large collections of factual claims. Do you understand the implications of what I just said?

Sorry, what rape victims are being further traumatized, and by what?

We covered this situation a few posts back.

Wha? Elderly women are being forced to have "intact males" (Another bizarre phrase from you) perform their medical exams? You mean, like, male doctors? Every doctor I've ever had has been a male.

This is a complex conversation. Is it necessary for me to reestablish the context for you in every exchange we have, or can you keep the context of this conversation in mind?

I think that asking society to extend dignity and respect to human beings by calling them what they want to be called LIKE WE DO WITH EVERY OTHER HUMAN ON THE PLANET is a good thing.

That's clearly not true. And again, it's zero-sum. We need to find non-zero-sum solutions.

 

[icehorse]

I don't think the issue is coming from pronouns with these, except the last one. Or that they would be improved if we used pronouns based on genetics.

With the last one, I don't agree that the dignity of the victim is harmed by them using the word "she"? I can see why you would think it jarring if you map a persons pronouns to their genes. But, if the idiocy of the phrase is because it matches a word associated with biological women to part associated with biological males, then thinking about it in terms of gender identity dissolves the problem.

In cases where it is particularly stressful for a rape victim to say that, they could use "the accused". In a court this isn't that uncommon.

(Also, do people really use phrases like that when describing their ordeal?)

Thank you for your thoughtful reply!

Remember the context of the courtroom. The victim is on the stand and being cross-examined by the rapist's lawyer. That lawyer can and will couch questions and attack answers as necessary to defend their client. Lawyers will be vicious in their defenses. They will absolutely attack the victim. They will use every tactic to sway juries. E.g.,

victim: "He raped me."
lawyer"You mean SHE raped you?"

And so on..

 

[SkepticThinker]

And I could say that your arguments are misogynistic. How about instead trying some actual conversation?

Well sure, I mean, you're free to say whatever you want. Whether you can justify the claim is another matter.

Are you under the impression I just called you a name or something?

As for the links I've provided, they tend to present large collections of factual claims. Do you understand the implications of what I just said?

Do they? I don't find that to be the case.

We covered this situation a few posts back.

I fail to see where the further traumatization is occurring.

This is a complex conversation. Is it necessary for me to reestablish the context for you in every exchange we have, or can you keep the context of this conversation in mind?

I'm not sure how this is a response to what I said.

Are you under the impression that women are being harmed just by having a male doctor? Like, having a male doctor is harmful, in itself?

That's clearly not true. And again, it's zero-sum. We need to find non-zero-sum solutions.

Of course it's true.

This is what I said, "I think that asking society to extend dignity and respect to human beings by calling them what they want to be called LIKE WE DO WITH EVERY OTHER HUMAN ON THE PLANET is a good thing."

So you say it's "clearly not true." But didn't actually say why or how.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I'm not sure how this is a response to what I said.

Are you under the impression that women are being harmed just by having a male doctor? Like, having a male doctor is harmful, in itself?

I was under the impression @icehorse was saying "What if a woman asks for a female doctor, and the doctor that is given is a trans woman?"

I'm not defending him, I would object to the spirit of what was being said... but I'd say that was how I read it.

 

[icehorse]

Well sure, I mean, you're free to say whatever you want. Whether you can justify the claim is another matter.

Are you under the impression I just called you a name or something?

You said I was fear mongering. Don't worry, I have a thick skin Since you have failed to answer my questions, I think the fear mongering claim doesn't hold much water.

Do they? I don't find that to be the case.

Haha. Would you give me $10 for every factual claim I find in the links I've provided? And again, do you understand the implications of a link that provides numerous factual claims? I suspect that you do, but you continue to conflate the message with the messenger. That's what sooooo wonderful about factual claims. They are falsifiable no matter who says them

I'm not sure how this is a response to what I said.

Are you under the impression that women are being harmed just by having a male doctor? Like, having a male doctor is harmful, in itself?

Are you speaking for all women here? I know many women who want to have their healthcare providers be female. Do their feelings count? Or is it just trans people whose feelings count?

(BTW, I ask a lot of questions like this and they are not rhetorical. you ought to take a stab at answering them.)

Of course it's true.

This is what I said, "I think that asking society to extend dignity and respect to human beings by calling them what they want to be called LIKE WE DO WITH EVERY OTHER HUMAN ON THE PLANET is a good thing."

So you say it's "clearly not true." But didn't actually say why or how.

We're talking about calling people things when they are not present, correct? In that context - even with fine intentions - we often refer to people in ways they might not like in person. We do this for people with medical conditions, mental conditions, traumatic life experiences and so on.

 

[Alien826]

We're seeing real damage done to real women and real gay people, I hope that that does not become normalized.

My observation has been that these "real damage" claims often tend to be either false or not general enough (that is just a few examples) to matter too much. That doesn't mean of course that these particular claims that you are making fall into that category. Maybe there really is grave danger that we should oppose by all means possible. Time will tell.

Why can't we look for non-zero-sum solutions instead?

I'm not sure how that applies. What would be a non zero sum solution to the use of particular pronouns (or pick your own example)? Or, maybe explain how what is happening now is "zero sum"? I define zero sum to mean that the amount of gains and losses balance out to zero.

 

[Brian2]

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.

I don't think the analogy is completely relevant because the medical problems are not comparable and different approaches are used in different countries.

 

[icehorse]

My observation has been that these "real damage" claims often tend to be either false or not general enough (that is just a few examples) to matter too much. That doesn't mean of course that these particular claims that you are making fall into that category. Maybe there really is grave danger that we should oppose by all means possible. Time will tell.

The main issues I have with trans activists are:

1 - Inflicting (and I use that word deliberately), GAC on kids with GD.
2 - Demanding that society lie about biological sex.

This thread is about #2 on the list, and I'm close to being (not quite), a free speech absolutist. For sure I don't think we should budge an inch in terms of relinquishing whatever degree of free speech we have.

So demanding that we lie in our use of pronouns is a variation on diminishing free speech. It is approaching the terrifying prospect of compelled speech, and there have been cases where people have gotten into a lot of trouble because they would not agree to lying about biological pronouns.

That said, I think a non-zero-sum compromise (i.e. win-win), would be to agree to a SINGLE SET of pronouns for trans people, or perhaps a set for trans men and a different set for trans women. But it's crucial that they are clearly distinct from the existing pronouns. There should be zero linguistic confusion about the biological sex of the person being referred. And, for the sake of trans people, pronouns dedicated to them ought to quell any concerns about how a lack of pronouns would threaten their very existence (ffs).

I'm not sure how that applies. What would be a non zero sum solution to the use of particular pronouns (or pick your own example)? Or, maybe explain how what is happening now is "zero sum"? I define zero sum to mean that the amount of gains and losses balance out to zero.

Probably explained above but, yes I agree with your zero-sum definition. And I think the example I gave above might be an example of a win-win, in other words non-zero-sum.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I don't think the analogy is completely relevant because the medical problems are not comparable and different approaches are used in different countries.

You're still not understanding my argument. It's okay - sometimes explaining it three times isn't enough.

I won't be explaining it a fourth time, though.

 

[icehorse]

You're still not understanding my argument. It's okay - sometimes explaining it three times isn't enough.

I won't be explaining it a fourth time, though.

Perhaps your argument is faulty? A lot about GAC is.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I was under the impression @icehorse was saying "What if a woman asks for a female doctor, and the doctor that is given is a trans woman?"

I'm not defending him, I would object to the spirit of what was being said... but I'd say that was how I read it.

Thank you for the clarification.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You said I was fear mongering. Don't worry, I have a thick skin Since you have failed to answer my questions, I think the fear mongering claim doesn't hold much water.

I said the sites you are drawing this stuff from are fear mongering.

This was your question, "And I could say that your arguments are misogynistic. How about instead trying some actual conversation?"
You seriously wanted an answer to your rhetorical question?

My response was, sure you can say I'm being misogynistic, because you can say anything you want. But that's different from actually demonstrating that I'm being misogynistic. That's a direct answer to the content of your post.

Haha. Would you give me $10 for every factual claim I find in the links I've provided? And again, do you understand the implications of a link that provides numerous factual claims? I suspect that you do, but you continue to conflate the message with the messenger. That's what sooooo wonderful about factual claims. They are falsifiable no matter who says them

I've seen your links. Hence my earlier comments about them. They leave much to be desired.

Are you speaking for all women here? I know many women who want to have their healthcare providers be female. Do their feelings count? Or is it just trans people whose feelings count?

Yep, that's me. Speaking for all women here.
I guess you didn't notice my question ...

"Are you under the impression that women are being harmed just by having a male doctor? Like, having a male doctor is harmful, in itself?"

See, that's me, asking you to clarify what you're talking about. Your response is some knee jerk stuff about my speaking for all women.

(BTW, I ask a lot of questions like this and they are not rhetorical. you ought to take a stab at answering them.)

Sorry but "How about instead trying to have an actual conversation" is a rhetorical question that you expected me to answer.

We're talking about calling people things when they are not present, correct?

We are?

This was in response to, "Of course it's true. This is what I said, "I think that asking society to extend dignity and respect to human beings by calling them what they want to be called LIKE WE DO WITH EVERY OTHER HUMAN ON THE PLANET is a good thing."

So you say it's "clearly not true." But didn't actually say why or how."

In that context - even with fine intentions - we often refer to people in ways they might not like in person. We do this for people with medical conditions, mental conditions, traumatic life experiences and so on.

We do?

It feels like you're really trying to evade my point here.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The main issues I have with trans activists are:

1 - Inflicting (and I use that word deliberately), GAC on kids with GD.
2 - Demanding that society lie about biological sex.

This thread is about #2 on the list, and I'm close to being (not quite), a free speech absolutist. For sure I don't think we should budge an inch in terms of relinquishing whatever degree of free speech we have.

So demanding that we lie in our use of pronouns is a variation on diminishing free speech. It is approaching the terrifying prospect of compelled speech, and there have been cases where people have gotten into a lot of trouble because they would not agree to lying about biological pronouns.

That said, I think a non-zero-sum compromise (i.e. win-win), would be to agree to a SINGLE SET of pronouns for trans people, or perhaps a set for trans men and a different set for trans women. But it's crucial that they are clearly distinct from the existing pronouns. There should be zero linguistic confusion about the biological sex of the person being referred. And, for the sake of trans people, pronouns dedicated to them ought to quell any concerns about how a lack of pronouns would threaten their very existence (ffs).



Probably explained above but, yes I agree with your zero-sum definition. And I think the example I gave above might be an example of a win-win, in other words non-zero-sum.

Which I find to be something of an overreaction to something that isn't really a problem.

Every person you meet in the world every day of your life tells you what their name is and probably some pronouns that go with that. This has always been the case. And it's always been the case that we generally take peoples' word for it and afford them the dignity and respect they deserve as a human being and refer to them as they've asked us to refer to them. Unless you're some sort of weirdo, you don't first inspect the genitalia and DNA of every person you meet before deciding what you think their pronouns should be, right? So in reality, you don't really know who is "lying" to you about their biological sex. You're just assuming based on outward appearances. (Hmm as though there's some sort of difference between gender and sex.)

So ... what's the problem? Just carry on doing that and get on with your life. Making this into some "terrifying" world-shattering situation seems to be something of a massive overreaction to me We've always called people what they wanted to be called. It's called basic human decency.

 

[icehorse]

I said the sites you are drawing this stuff from are fear mongering.

So again, are you speaking for all women? Because I'm reading about and listening to real women whose rights are being abused. So do those women's feelings count, or is it just the feelings of trans people that you care about?

This was your question, "And I could say that your arguments are misogynistic. How about instead trying some actual conversation?"
You seriously wanted an answer to your rhetorical question?

sigh.. Okay, you're correct, included in the many questions I asked you, there was this one rhetorical question. If you care about women and confused GD kids I would hope you wouldn't play such silly "gotcha" debating games and try to discuss this is good faith.

I've seen your links. Hence my earlier comments about them. They leave much to be desired.

In what way? And this is not rhetorical. The links I've provided are loaded with falsifiable, factual claims. In what way do these links leave much to be desired?

"Are you under the impression that women are being harmed just by having a male doctor? Like, having a male doctor is harmful, in itself?"

See, that's me, asking you to clarify what you're talking about. Your response is some knee jerk stuff about my speaking for all women.

Of course not. But I'm specifically talking about those women who do not want to be treated by male doctors, for example for standard physical exams or perhaps for ob/gyn visits. Some women are modest, or they might have religious beliefs that run counter to being seen by a biological male doctor. Do the rights of those women count, or again, if an intact trans woman doctor wants to do those exams, are those doctor's feelings more important than the patient's feelings?

We are?

This was in response to, "Of course it's true. This is what I said, "I think that asking society to extend dignity and respect to human beings by calling them what they want to be called LIKE WE DO WITH EVERY OTHER HUMAN ON THE PLANET is a good thing."

So you say it's "clearly not true." But didn't actually say why or how."

Yes, when we're talking about pronouns, we're talking about when the person being discussed is not present. right?

It feels like you're really trying to evade my point here.

Not at all. I think that in this part of the conversation we're talking about pronouns, correct?

If so, we use pronouns when discussing people who are not present, correct?

 

[icehorse]

Which I find to be something of an overreaction to something that isn't really a problem.

I don't know for sure your preferences, but I suspect you'd call yourself something like "progressive left"?

Many progressives these days think being "inclusive" is more important than free speech. I consider myself to be "center left", and I think free speech is perhaps the most important aspect of civil society.

So if I've understood you correctly, we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

Every person you meet in the world every day of your life tells you what their name is and probably some pronouns that go with that. This has always been the case. And it's always been the case that we generally take peoples' word for it and afford them the dignity and respect they deserve as a human being and refer to them as they've asked us to refer to them. Unless you're some sort of weirdo, you don't first inspect the genitalia and DNA of every person you meet before deciding what you think their pronouns should be, right? So in reality, you don't really know who is "lying" to you about their biological sex. You're just assuming based on outward appearances. (Hmm as though there's some sort of difference between gender and sex.)

No, listing one's pronouns is a new phenomenon.

I'm all for affording dignity and respect. But that cuts both ways. The current "progressive" approach puts respecting trans people ahead of respecting women. It puts women at risk. It's zero-sum.

A few posts back I proposed a win-win approach, what's wrong with that?