The witchhunt continues...

[icehorse]

Why is it such a problem to accept that trans men are men and trans women are women? It literally harms no one, whereas insisting the opposite is demonstrably harmful.

I could not disagree more. Upending evidence and reason ultimately harms everyone.

Can you tell me how calling a trans person a trans person is demonstrably harmful?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You've asked two very different questions here.

Actually, I didn't ask even a single question. I made two statements.

On harassment: It's not so easy to slice and dice the world and isolate single aspects of complex systems. Do you accept the idea that allowing trans people into the restrooms they "feel" they should be allowed in to impinges on the privacy and / or safety of the non trans?

No. In the same way that allowing black people into classrooms that were previously whites-only impinges on the privacy and/or safety of whites. It's a nonsense argument based on assumption rather than facts.

On scientific consensus: We've recently had several long threads looking at the question of whether the "standard of care" actually provides the best outcomes. It appears that Europe is largely rethinking the SOC, and we know in general that Europe's healthcare is better than the US's. (And no, I'm not going to do your homework for you. If you want citations, use your search engine.)

Whatever you say, chuck.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I could not disagree more. Upending evidence and reason ultimately harms everyone.

Good thing we're not doing that, then. We're accepting the evidence and reason which overwhelmingly suggest that treating trans people, as per medical opinion, as the gender they associated with produces better mental health outcomes, whereas denying them that treatment - and denying them access to certain gendered spaces - is demonstrably harmful to them.

We have the facts, reason and evidence on OUR side in this debate. You have presented nothing. You even have the audacity to suggest that WE should search for citations for YOUR arguments. The fact that you think you are on the side of "reason and evidence" while arguing in this fashion is absurd.

Can you tell me how calling a trans person a trans person is demonstrably harmful?

It isn't. Calling a trans woman a man harms them, and calling a trans man a woman harms them.

Once again, you are failing to respond to the ACTUAL argument and only respond to arguments made in your head.

 

[icehorse]

But the reaction of the extremists does tell us one thing. We still need to be wiling to support LBGQT rights. This is a fight that should not have to be fought. If people just let people be this would not even be an issue.

We need to support the rights of all people. We do not need to bend the rules of evidence and reason to do so.

Sometimes good goals are pursued using poor strategies. We must be able to see that distinction.

 

[icehorse]

No. In the same way that allowing black people into classrooms that were previously whites-only impinges on the privacy and/or safety of whites. It's a nonsense argument based on assumption rather than facts.

Not at all. Biological men tend to be bigger and stronger than biological women. And men tend to physically assault women much more than the other way around.

 

[icehorse]

Good thing we're not doing that, then. We're accepting the evidence and reason which overwhelmingly suggest that treating trans people, as per medical opinion, as the gender they associated with produces better mental health outcomes, whereas denying them that treatment - and denying them access to certain gendered spaces - is demonstrably harmful to them.

We have the facts, reason and evidence on OUR side in this debate. You have presented nothing. You even have the audacity to suggest that WE should search for citations for YOUR arguments. The fact that you think you are on the side of "reason and evidence" while arguing in this fashion is absurd.


It isn't. Calling a trans woman a man harms them, and calling a trans man a woman harms them.

Once again, you are failing to respond to the ACTUAL argument and only respond to arguments made in your head.

And again, you seem to be ignoring the words that I actually typed

(As an aside, I've seen you do this before. I like to assume everyone is debating in good faith, but in my mind you're straining that assumption )

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not at all. Biological men tend to be bigger and stronger than biological women.

So, should we deny large women access to women's spaces, then? Should we enforce a height and weight limit? And what about small men? Should they be allowed in women's spaces? They're less likely to assault them, right?

And men tend to physically assault women much more than the other way around.

Okay, then. Do you think a lesbian is more or less likely to sexually assault another woman than a straight woman is? If so, then why should lesbians be allowed to use women's rest rooms?

When the assumption is "people who belong in THIS biological category MUST pose an inherent threat to this other group", perhaps you should consider that your position is not one of protection, freedom and evidence, but just one of bigotry.

I also find it hilarious that, when trying to think of examples of ACTUAL harm, you once again go the well of "MAYBE this will happen" despite the fact that no evidence exists to suggest that allowing trans women into women's rest rooms results in higher numbers of assaults in women's restrooms.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And again, you seem to be ignoring the words that I actually typed

You didn't present any facts. Literally none.

(As an aside, I've seen you do this before. I like to assume everyone is debating in good faith, but in my mind you're straining that assumption )

Says the guy who can't answer whether or not he thinks harassment in work or schools should be considered legally protected speech, and instead pivots to an entirely unrelated point.

You're not a good faith debater, icehorse.

A gallery of totally good faith debate:

The Question: Do you think harassment in work or education should be protected by free speech laws?
The Answer: As a supporter of women, I think that I should be able to call Lia Thomas a trans woman and support the idea that "he" - in this context - should not be allowed to compete against women.
Commentary: Yep! Failing to respond to a simple yes/no question and instead virtue-signalling about an entirely unrelated issue. Classic good faith debate!

The Question: Why is it such a problem to accept that trans men are men and trans women are women? It literally harms no one, whereas insisting the opposite is demonstrably harmful.
The Answer: I could not disagree more. Upending evidence and reason ultimately harms everyone.
Commentary: Wow! A real classic example of good faith debate, there! Not answering the question and instead making a vague, sweeping statement that fails to acknowledge the actual argument while implying that the individual asking the question is somehow against "reason and evidence". Beautiful stuff!

I will continue updating this, I am sure.

 

[Viker]

There is no substantive study on the Identity crisis, therefore we rely on biological truths. It is an appeal to authority if we accept it just because a PhD said so with no scientific support.

So you're going to cop out and not dig into the volumes of research? Do I have to take time away from my schedule to post dozens of verifiable and credible sources? Can you help me?

Once again, there is no appeal to authority.

 

[icehorse]

So, should we deny large women access to women's spaces, then? Should we enforce a height and weight limit?

No laws are perfect, to be sure. But we should be cautious when considering making women's spaces less safe.

Okay, then. Do you think a lesbian is more or less likely to sexually assault another woman than a straight woman is? If so, then why should lesbians be allowed to use women's rest rooms?

Read post #225

I also find it hilarious that, when trying to think of examples of ACTUAL harm, you once again go the well of "MAYBE this will happen" despite the fact that no evidence exists to suggest that allowing trans women into women's rest rooms results in higher numbers of assaults in women's restrooms.

I find it hilarious when I hear a poster claim that a thing does not exist Do you understand how extraordinarily difficult it is to prove that a thing does not exist? That said, such assaults ARE happening in restrooms and prisons. So let me ask you this: How many such assaults should we allow? What's your threshold for putting ALL women at risk to protect the feelings of a very few individuals?

Says the guy who can't answer whether or not he thinks harassment in work or schools should be considered legally protected speech, and instead pivots to an entirely unrelated point.

Let me try to answer this question AGAIN! I believe it's a bad question, because it attempts to isolate a single behavior from a complex system. I believe we need to zoom out, look at the larger, complex system, and come up with approaches that provide better systemic outcomes.

To be clear: I think we agree that we should protect all people. I'm simply disagreeing with the tactics you're supporting.

 

[Viker]

So, my take away is this. The next time my car breaks down I should not take it to an "accredited" mechanic solely because they may be an "authority" on auto mechanics? I could be risking falling into an appeal to authority fallacy and making a mistake?

 

[InChrist]

That is only your "feelings" something that you seem to be against. The science disagrees with you.

I just asked this question, let me ask you. If we took your brain and transplanted it into a female body would you think of yourself as female? Would you crave penis?

I’d say science disagrees with you, unless you’re talking about quack, pseudo science. Such a nonsensical, hypothetical question. Obviously, the human body and mind is interconnected and wholistic and a person is born ( not assigned ) male or female with coinciding body parts, hormones, etc.
Your line of thinking sounds more like “Christian Science” or such other mind over matter cult like mentality; basically a departure from actual science and reality. Not at all surprising though, as this world slides deeper into delusion by rejecting the Creator’s truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is that Bud Light?! Outrageous!

Yes it was. And now we know why Kid Rock hates Bud Lite. Wanda broke his heart.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’d say science disagrees with you, unless you’re talking about quack, pseudo science. Such a nonsensical, hypothetical question. Obviously, the human body and mind is interconnected and wholistic and a person is born ( not assigned ) male or female with coinciding body parts, hormones, etc.
Your line of thinking sounds more like “Christian Science” or such other mind over matter cult like mentality; basically a departure from actual science and reality. Not at all surprising though, as this world slides deeper into delusion by rejecting the Creator’s truth.

Sorry, but your overly simplistic understanding of a complex situation does not make the science that refutes you "quack pseudo science". You would need to show that their findings were incorrect or did not follow the scientific method, like we can do with various science deniers such as creationists and anti-vaxxers. Sexuality is more complex than you seem to think that it is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We need to support the rights of all people. We do not need to bend the rules of evidence and reason to do so.

Sometimes good goals are pursued using poor strategies. We must be able to see that distinction.

Do you oppose trans rights? Now I can think of some limited ways that one has to be careful with this. In sports there are irreversible changes that a body will go through during puberty than can give a trans person an unfair and sometimes unsafe advantage. But do you actually deny that being trans is not a real thing?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And @Debater Slayer -

We've all been extremely lucky to have spent our lives in this time when free speech exists in much of the world. I would guess that none of us has spent any significant amount of time in a place like North Korea? I think that if you spent any time there you would realize how crucial and essential free speech is. And you wouldn't be so cavalier about allowing it to be eroded.

These "it hasn't happened yet" arguments show an amazing lack of understanding of history. To return to North Korea, it happened there, and from a historical perspective, it happened fairly recently.

And why are you so willing to give up the single most important thing that keeps you free? To curtail "hate speech"?

Do you really think that the way to curtail hate speech is through censorship? Really? Because I believe it's through exposing hate speakers to the harsh light of public scrutiny.

Do you know how NK became a dictatorship? Do you think it was one step at a time?
Amd, seriously, you aren't showing how this is erroding freedom. You're just rambling. Amd you probably will never be able to thoroughly demonstrate this as many countries with hate speech laws are more free than America.
And again if I didn't say it don't put it in my mouth. In this case I didn't say **** about giving up free speech. I just pointed out you sound like a Christian crying over "moral decay" and claiming society is going to get worse. These are the types who insist things are more violent than the are and there is more war than there really is just because it's what they believe.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No laws are perfect, to be sure. But we should be cautious when considering making women's spaces less safe.

I agree. Do you have any evidence to suggest allowing trans women access to women's spaces makes them less safe?

Read post #225

That doesn't answer my question.

I find it hilarious when I hear a poster claim that a thing does not exist

Then present it.

Do you understand how extraordinarily difficult it is to prove that a thing does not exist? That said, such assaults ARE happening in restrooms and prisons. So let me ask you this: How many such assaults should we allow? What's your threshold for putting ALL women at risk to protect the feelings of a very few individuals?

All talk, no action. Present facts, not allegations and virtue signals.

Let me try to answer this question AGAIN!

That's a lie. You did not answer the question when I posed it earlier.

I believe it's a bad question, because it attempts to isolate a single behavior from a complex system.

It's a simple yes or no question about harassment.

I believe we need to zoom out, look at the larger, complex system, and come up with approaches that provide better systemic outcomes.

So you believe harassment and abuse in work and schools can produce better systemic outcomes?

To be clear: I think we agree that we should protect all people. I'm simply disagreeing with the tactics you're supporting.

I don't believe you. I think your primary motivation is fear of trans people, not the protection of people. That's why you have never once made an argument in terms of what actually makes trans people safer, you only argue in terms of how making society more inclusive of trans people MAY make it LESS SAFE for others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't believe you. I think your primary motivation is fear of trans people, not the protection of people. That's why you have never once made an argument in terms of what actually makes trans people safer, only argue it terms of how making society more inclusive of trans people MAY make it LESS SAFE for others.

Ironically this could be a good argument on their part, if they could support it. But that is a huge if and they do not seem to be able to support it in any way, just as the antihomosexuality crowd could not show how homosexuality is a threat to people in general (aside from hurricanes that is).

 

[icehorse]

Do you oppose trans rights? Now I can think of some limited ways that one has to be careful with this. In sports there are irreversible changes that a body will go through during puberty than can give a trans person an unfair and sometimes unsafe advantage. But do you actually deny that being trans is not a real thing?

Philosophically, I lean towards utilitarianism. In other words, I believe we should act to improve the aggregate well being of conscious creatures. So I support trans rights up to the point where they begin to decrease the aggregate well being of society. E.g.,

I do not think that Lia Thomas's feelings are more important than all of the female athletes whose careers he's destroying.

I think that if trans women are allowed in public restrooms we will not only see more assaults occurring, but we will also see that ALL women's sense of safety will be adversely impacted.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

The little that I know of the trans community I learned here. The fuss over it appears to be a huge over reaction. And the Bud-Lite issue was just the frosting on the cake. I have almost no idea of who Dylan Mulvaney is either. But more power to her for being who she is. But I will not follow her to know what I should buy or not buy depending on who supports her.

But the reaction of the extremists does tell us one thing. We still need to be wiling to support LBGQT rights. This is a fight that should not have to be fought. If people just let people be this would not even be an issue.

I support rights for anyone to live the way they want to live as long as they don't hurt anyone. Of course that includes LGBTQ folks; it includes everyone.

As a woman, I have never felt "unsafe" around an LGBTQ person, and I'm personally acquainted with at least two trans-women in my off-line life. (I may even be acquainted with more trans-women and trans-men, but I wouldn't know it unless they told me their history. I figure it's none of my business to ask.)

Yesterday, when returning home from my whale-watching adventure of the previous day, I stopped for breakfast at a place in the little eastern Long Island town of Amagansett. The place is called Bonfire Coffeehouse, and I loved the sign on their unisex restroom so much that I took a picture of it. I'll share it here, in hopes that it'll make the day for you and others here: