How the Law (doesn't really), define "gender identity"

[SkepticThinker]

For perhaps the 3rd time now...

For some technical reason there was a problem some posters had reading the first link I provided. So I created a 2nd post with 6 attachments that show examples of 10 bad men who are using these laws to hurt women and girls.

I will now post this link AGAIN. Go to the link below and scroll down to post #598. You will see a number of attachments:

Gender reassignment/affirming surgery

Yes, I know you did that. I ended up seeing like 6 screen shots that were uninformative, vague and brief tweets.
Not exactly the best source or the best source material, is it.

If you'll recall, I did respond to the one tweet that I could actually see. You never, ever responded to the content of that post. Not ever.

Does your entire argument about this rest on those Tweets, or do you have something more substantial, like some news articles or something?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not at all. We disagree, and I responded. Just because I do not agree with you doesn't mean I'm ignoring you

Without responding to what I said. Without addressing what I said. Which is, not a response.

Yeah, no kidding that disagreeing and not responding are different things. I've been on these forums for a decade. I know how this works. And I know what a non-response looks like. Thanks though.

 

[icehorse]

Yes, I know you did that. I ended up seeing like 6 screen shots that were uninformative, vague and brief tweets.
Not exactly the best source or the best source material, is it.

If you'll recall, I did respond to the one tweet that I could actually see. You never, ever responded to the content of that post. Not ever.

Each screen shot included a name, most included specifics of the crimes these men committed. It would appear that you are hell bent on not seeing what's put in front of your eyeballs, if it conflicts with your ideology?

As for responding (or not), that cuts both ways. I'm happy to start fresh and respond to every one of your queries as long as you respond to every one of mine. Fair enough, or will you find a way to weasel out of actually discussing the issue here.

One more time: These laws that give "gender identity" legal standing are being used by bad men to abuse women.

Why on earth do you refuse to acknowledge that?

 

[idea]

And so bad actors can claim any old "gender identity" they want, and use that to game the system.

There should be no game, there should be no advantage for being one gender or another.

 

[Kfox]

The problem I have with that is that so far I have only come accross different subjective norms for how to answer what should be considered relevant for a man to be a man.
Now if you can do that without being normative, I wiil listen, but you have to be able to understand your own claims as whether they are norms or not? Can you do that?

Not sure what you mean by "subjective norms" however; I define a man as an adult human male. Is that good enough for you?

 

[Kfox]

The problem I have with that is that so far I have only come accross different subjective norms for how to answer what should be considered relevant for a man to be a man.
Now if you can do that without being normative, I wiil listen, but you have to be able to understand your own claims as whether they are norms or not? Can you do that?

Not sure what you mean by "subjective norms" however; I define a man as an adult human male. Is that good enough for you?

Are you serious? You genuinely think it's reasonably possible that the vast majority of white males in these reviews, polls and demographic studies weren't straight? Despite the fact that one of my sources lists the total number of openly non-straight members of congress as 13.

How many were white women?

Again, you express a misunderstanding of demographics. You have acknowledged that white men (we'll leave out "straight" since it is fairly well documented that gay people are around 10% of the population, so their demographics can easily be accounted for) make up a MINORITY of the overall population, and yet they make up the MAJORITY of elected officials.

And your claim was that white men don't hold hegemonic power. That's the point. Despite being a LITERAL minority of the population, they hold THE MAJORITY of the power.

Then provide a link that says that; because thus far what you've presented does not make the claim that straight white men make up the majority (over 50%) of elected officials.

Which has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the claim I'm making that straight, white men hold hegemonic power in America.

Also, I find it very interesting that just one post ago you completely ignored/disregarded the notion of demographic statistics and proportionality, but here you are apparently going pretty deep to desperately try and prove that one demographic groups a degree of disproportionate power that isn't even a significant majority of power. So why is it that you specifically ignore all of these factors when it comes to demonstrating the obvious and easily demonstrable fact that straight, white men hold the vast majority - and a disproportionate amount -of power in the US, both economically and legislatively, but when it comes to trying to prove how much power black legislators have you suddenly become an expert in demographic statistics?

I mean, seriously. Do you apply this exact same logic to the demographic of white, male lawmakers?

As I said before, there are more white people than anything else; so it would make more sense that more white people are in power than any other demographic. However, if you are going to exempt white women from your claim, though there may still be more of them than any other demographic, nothing you've provided indicated they make up over 50% of politicians in power

So, you believe that when people use the phrase "minority groups", they are including yo-yo players? Bassoonists? Cartoonists?

Why would you ask such an absurd question?

Nope! I'm talking about straight, white men, which is a demographic group you have openly acknowledged is a literal minority of the population (around 30%) and yet control the vast majority of positions of power in the USA. That's the point.

When did I say that?

I've said it multiple times. Identifying as a man. That's not circular.

If I told you a widget was a tool that looks like a widget, any reasonable person would call that circular reasoning. When you describe a man as someone who identifies as a man, without explaining what traits makes one a man, that is circular reasoning; and the reason you resort to circular reasoning is because when you divorce gender from biology, you make gender meaningless.

 

[icehorse]

There should be no game, there should be no advantage for being one gender or another.

The thing is that sometimes sex matters. It's for those times that we ought to be concerned. Some examples include: providing safe spaces for women, providing for fair sports competitions, providing affirmative action opportunities, providing "women only" spaces and events, and so on.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Each screen shot included a name, most included specifics of the crimes these men committed. It would appear that you are hell bent on not seeing what's put in front of your eyeballs, if it conflicts with your ideology?

Or, you could provide some articles with some actual information in them.

Why would I do this anyway? I've already responded to one, and received no response from you. Why would I go on to do more?

As for responding (or not), that cuts both ways. I'm happy to start fresh and respond to every one of your queries as long as you respond to every one of mine.

It cuts one way. I responded to one of your twitter posts. I got zero response from you, despite my asking you to address it several times. Our conversation ended up much like this one, in fact. Useless and pointless bickering. When all you had to do was respond to my response to your twitter post. You refused, and gave me a speech much like this one.

Fair enough, or will you find a way to weasel out of actually discussing the issue here.

I've not weaseled out of anything here. It's all you. Please stop projecting your shortcomings onto me.

One more time: These laws that give "gender identity" legal standing are being used by bad men to abuse women.

One more time: Properly back up your claim or it can be rejected.

Why on earth do you refuse to acknowledge that?

Looking at you now stating this as if you've just demonstrated it and didn't instead spend the entire post shirking your responsibility to back up your claim.


Your entire argument on this seems to rest on like, 10 twitter snapshots.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

One more time: These laws that give "gender identity" legal standing are being used by bad men to abuse women.

Why on earth do you refuse to acknowledge that?

Yes, I will admit that and from there doesn't follow that you and I arrive at the same fix, because we can't agree on if there are trans-gendered people as true and real.
So you won't get anywhere with that, because the main problem is still there. What is a gender and what makes it true and real?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not sure what you mean by "subjective norms" however; I define a man as an adult human male. Is that good enough for you?
...

Yeah, that is an indivudal subjective norm. It is a norn because it explain how you think you should understand being a gender.
What tells that it is the words: I define...
That is not an objective observation, but a subjective cognitive process and thus a norm for what you think you are as a gender.

 

[icehorse]

For @SkepticThinker and everyone who supports gender ideology.

Here is another case of a bad man taking advantage of the poorly conceived notion and implementation of "gender ideology".

Below is a video of Ted Cruz questioning a judge about her decision to put a 6'2" male, serial rapist in a woman's prison. Now to be clear, I think Ted Cruz is reprehensible. full stop. But once again what we're seeing here is the radical left lobbing softballs to the radical right. We cannot underestimate the far right. They are horrible in many ways, but they are not stupid.

I have to say that in this video Ted Cruz (shudder), is absolutely correct, and the ideologically captured judge has drunk the gender ideology koolaid:

x.com

 

[icehorse]

Yes, I will admit that and from there doesn't follow that you and I arrive at the same fix, because we can't agree on if there are trans-gendered people as true and real.
So you won't get anywhere with that, because the main problem is still there. What is a gender and what makes it true and real?

Can you clarify what you mean about trans people being true and real? Where do you stand on this question?

In order to save time I'll go first and say that of course I believe that there are transgender people. I also believe that being trans is a mental condition and that it does not damage a trans woman to assert that he is not a woman. What is wrong with saying that a trans woman is a trans woman? It's accurate and clear, and does NOT deny his existence.

 

[icehorse]

Looking at you now stating this as if you've just demonstrated it and didn't instead spend the entire post shirking your responsibility to back up your claim.


Your entire argument on this seems to rest on like, 10 twitter snapshots.

One thing I've noticed about apologists is that you're very goldilocks when it comes to acknowledging evidence. When I provide more evidence I'm told it's a "gish gallop" (which indicates a misunderstanding of that idea), and now you're telling me that providing ten examples isn't quite enough for you? What would be the "perfect" amount of evidence you'd need? 37 examples? 52?

Of course there are many more examples, but it appears you're not looking at the evidence I've provided in good faith. So I just provided another example in post 291.

And again, I do not accept your claim that I ignore you but you don't ignore me. And as I said, I'm happy to clear the slate and move forward from here.

But really, I think it's easy for anyone reading this thread to see that you're dodging. And it's truly baffling to me why you would be so invested in supporting violent misogyny

 

[SkepticThinker]

For @SkepticThinker and everyone who supports gender ideology.

I support treating people as human beings.

Here is another case of a bad man taking advantage of the poorly conceived notion and implementation of "gender ideology".

Below is a video of Ted Cruz questioning a judge about her decision to put a 6'2" male, serial rapist in a woman's prison. Now to be clear, I think Ted Cruz is reprehensible. full stop. But once again what we're seeing here is the radical left lobbing softballs to the radical right. We cannot underestimate the far right. They are horrible in many ways, but they are not stupid.

I have to say that in this video Ted Cruz (shudder), is absolutely correct, and the ideologically captured judge has drunk the gender ideology koolaid:

x.com

Do you have something other than Ted Cruz grandstanding in a Congressional hearing?


"However, Netburn defended her ruling, citing legal precedents and the rights of transgender individuals to be housed according to their gender identity. She maintained, ‘her (convict’s) hormones were entirely female when she was transferred to a female facility'.

US Senator Ted Cruz rips apart Biden appointee judge Sarah Netburn for a trans inmate ruling, ‘you are a radical…’

Senator Ted Cruz calls US president nominee to be the judge for the Southern District of New York, Sarah Netburn an absolute radical.

www.hindustantimes.com

I don't have enough details and I'm not about to take Ted Cruz's word for it either.


Also, how does it show that "These laws that give "gender identity" legal standing are being used by bad men to abuse women."
That is quite a specific claim. Was the judge the "bad man using gender ideology to hurt women? Was it the trans woman that was being sentenced the "bad men using gender ideology to abuse women?"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Can you clarify what you mean about trans people being true and real? Where do you stand on this question?

In order to save time I'll go first and say that of course I believe that there are transgender people. I also believe that being trans is a mental condition and that it does not damage a trans woman to assert that he is not a woman. What is wrong with saying that a trans woman is a trans woman? It's accurate and clear, and does NOT deny his existence.

Yeah, you don't understand how words can hurt and over time amounts to harm.
But nevermind that, because now imagine the following. You are always told by those around you that you are worthless and stupid. Regardless of where you go in your sub-culture you are told that again and again.

I have experince about that because I have in effect a mental disorder and for some acpects of being a human, some people don't recognize me as that. Now I were lucky because I learned to cope, but that was not a given.
You are dangerous in effect, because you don't understand how harm can work.
So to some people they are in their understanding a gender and not transgender. And then that is what they are, because it is true and real, that they feel like that. It is that simple.

 

[SkepticThinker]

One thing I've noticed about apologists is that you're very goldilocks when it comes to acknowledging evidence. When I provide more evidence I'm told it's a "gish gallop" (which indicates a misunderstanding of that idea), and now you're telling me that providing ten examples isn't quite enough for you? What would be the "perfect" amount of evidence you'd need? 37 examples? 52?

Says the poster who, when I did respond to one of your examples, refused to respond back and tried to lecture me instead.
Much like you're doing right now.

You've provided no additional evidence, beyond the twitter post you keep posting. Oh, and a video of Ted Cruz yelling at someone.

I've never said anywhere that providing examples isn't good enough for me. What would be "good enough for me" would be for you to actually respond back when I respond to your examples. Still waiting.

Of course there are many more examples, but it appears you're not looking at the evidence I've provided in good faith. So I just provided another example in post 291.

I'm sure there are. You must just be having a hard time finding them over the past two months.

And again, I do not accept your claim that I ignore you but you don't ignore me. And as I said, I'm happy to clear the slate and move forward from here.

Tell me specifically what I've dodged. Specifically.

But really, I think it's easy for anyone reading this thread to see that you're dodging. And it's truly baffling to me why you would be so invested in supporting violent misogyny

Yes, I, as a woman, support "violent misogyny." You got me.

This is a new low for you. Congrats.

 

[icehorse]

I support treating people as human beings.

It would appear you put the well being of trans people above the well being of women.

Do you have something other than Ted Cruz grandstanding in a Congressional hearing?


"However, Netburn defended her ruling, citing legal precedents and the rights of transgender individuals to be housed according to their gender identity. She maintained, ‘her (convict’s) hormones were entirely female when she was transferred to a female facility'.

Well, that was the 11th example, so.. yes.

Now how about that "hormones were entirely female" claim? Try to step back from the grip this ideology has on you and think about that...

This serial rapist had male hormones while he was growing to be 6'2". His bones and muscles were developed as a male. He has a long history of violence towards women. So you think "entirely female hormones" counteract all of that? Really?

Also, how does it show that "These laws that give "gender identity" legal standing are being used by bad men to abuse women."
That is quite a specific claim. Was the judge the "bad man using gender ideology to hurt women? Was it the trans woman that was being sentenced the "bad men using gender ideology to abuse women?"

The 6'2" male, serial rapist used gender ideology as the basis to request being held in a women's prison, did you really not get that?

 

[icehorse]

Yeah, you don't understand how words can hurt and over time amounts to harm.
But nevermind that, because now imagine the following. You are always told by those around you that you are worthless and stupid. Regardless of where you go in your sub-culture you are told that again and again.

I have experince about that because I have in effect a mental disorder and for some acpects of being a human, some people don't recognize me as that. Now I were lucky because I learned to cope, but that was not a given.
You are dangerous in effect, because you don't understand how harm can work.
So to some people they are in their understanding a gender and not transgender. And then that is what they are, because it is true and real, that they feel like that. It is that simple.

Actually I do understand that. I do understand how powerful words are, I bring it up over and over again on this forum.

And I understand that people stigmatize other people, and we should fight against stigmatization. But not at the cost of being dishonest. If a person is autistic, we say that. If they are bipolar, we say that, we do not pretend it's normal. Some people have a mental condition that makes them feel as though they were born in the wrong body. That's real. But it's also a mental condition.

And in general, we don't help people with mental conditions by "affirming" that their disorder should be allowed to proceed unchecked.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Actually I do understand that. I do understand how powerful words are, I bring it up over and over again on this forum.

And I understand that people stigmatize other people, and we should fight against stigmatization. But not at the cost of being dishonest. If a person is autistic, we say that. If they are bipolar, we say that, we do not pretend it's normal. Some people have a mental condition that makes them feel as though they were born in the wrong body. That's real. But it's also a mental condition.

And in general, we don't help people with mental conditions by "affirming" that their disorder should be allowed to proceed unchecked.

Yeah, you are so normal that I wish there was a word that could be used to stigmatize you. Wait, there is. You are neurotypical.

 

[icehorse]

I've never said anywhere that providing examples isn't good enough for me. What would be "good enough for me" would be for you to actually respond back when I respond to your examples. Still waiting.

What specifically are you waiting for?

Tell me specifically what I've dodged. Specifically.

When provided with 11 examples of bad men taking advantage of poorly conceived "gender ideology" you have so far refused to acknowledge that this is a problem. Instead, you've contorted yourself this way and that trying to steer the conversation away from the main point.

Yes, I, as a woman, support "violent misogyny." You got me.

This is a new low for you. Congrats.

I'd say this thread is perhaps a new low for you When presented with evidence of bad man being violent towards women you put your blinders on. If you want to fight misogyny, why won't you look at the evidence you've been provided?

The only explanation I can come up with is that you're driven by some ideas of intersectionality, i.e. the "oppression olympics", and so you care more about trans women than women. I might be wrong, but I can see no other reason why you refuse to look at the evidence you've been given?