Transgender issues: Why blurring the line between men and women is not the problem

[icehorse]

It’s easier for folk to change how they read it than to make voluntary rules that won’t be followed regarding what people write.

Just interpret it differently, that’s fully in your control.

There are so many different bugbears and so many different reasons these can be triggered that it’s not really possible to create “model discussions” through rules.

Sounds like a low expectations approach to me. ugh!

 

[Augustus]

Sounds like a low expectations approach to me. ugh!

That would (again) be a very negative spin to put on it. Would you say that is an optimal approach to friendly, critical discussion?

I’d say more a personal responsibility approach- we should get our own house in order and make sure we control what we can control before we try to police the behaviour of others.

Higher expectations should start with higher expectations for ourselves. Otherwise it can come across as “I’m the good faith critical thinker, it’s just these other folk who drag the conversation down”.

If we don’t take steps to improve our side as much as we can (within reason), why should we expect others to improve their side?

 

[icehorse]

Would you say that is an optimal approach to friendly, critical discussion?

That it be friendly?

 

[icehorse]

’d say more a personal responsibility approach- we should get our own house in order and make sure we control what we can control before we try to police the behaviour of others.

Higher expectations should start with higher expectations for ourselves. Otherwise it can come across as “I’m the good faith critical thinker, it’s just these other folk who drag the conversation down”.

If we don’t take steps to improve our side as much as we can (within reason), why should we expect others to improve their side?

Been there, tried that, doesn't help

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So what would be the problem if we all committed to not starting phrases with "you are a..." ?

wouldn't that be a positive step?

Not if it's so you get a shield to hide behind when you misuse transactivist and start calling people apologists.

 

[anna.]

Been there, tried that, doesn't help

Remember when I mentioned to you how you could apply the writing adage "show but don't tell" to your attempts to be debate moderator? You're getting similar and good insight from @Augustus, but you don't seem to be hearing, you just automatically applied it to your "opponents."

When someone incessantly intimates that their debate tactics are impeccable while everyone else is falling down on the job, they're damaging valuable goodwill that might have paved the way to a better discussion, no matter how much disagreement there is to be had.

 

[icehorse]

Remember when I mentioned to you how you could apply the writing adage "show but don't tell" to your attempts to be debate moderator? You're getting similar and good insight from @Augustus, but you don't seem to be hearing, you just automatically applied it to your "opponents."

When someone incessantly intimates that their debate tactics are impeccable while everyone else is falling down on the job, they're damaging valuable goodwill that might have paved the way to a better discussion, no matter how much disagreement there is to be had.

I've got a proposition for you. We can look through several recent trans-related threads:

Every time another poster initiates a personal slur, or I steelman an argument, or I ask for clarification, you give me $10.
And every time I initiate a slur, or another poster steelman's my argument, or asks me for clarification, I'll give you $10.

It's clear that the mob is on your side, no argument there. But it also seems that the mob is so certain in their beliefs, that they feel they can rewrite the history of these threads, and accuse me of all manner of bad behavior.

 

[icehorse]

Not if it's so you get a shield to hide behind when you misuse transactivist and start calling people apologists.

Well I don't think I'm misusing either of those terms. But for the sake of discussion, let's say I was. Why do you think that should give you the right to slur me? Why can't you just stick to making logical arguments about the ideas?

 

[anna.]

I've got a proposition for you. We can look through several recent trans-related threads:

Every time another poster initiates a personal slur, or I steelman an argument, or I ask for clarification, you give me $10.
And every time I initiate a slur, or another poster steelman's my argument, or asks me for clarification, I'll give you $10.

It's clear that the mob is on your side, no argument there. But it also seems that the mob is so certain in their beliefs, that they feel they can rewrite the history of these threads, and accuse me of all manner of bad behavior.

No. You're doing it again.

And you're still complaining about slurs while you're calling us a mob, now? That's rich.

 

[icehorse]

No. You're doing it again.

And you're still complaining about slurs while you're calling us a mob, now? That's rich.

Hey! If you take me up on the offer, you've already won $10 !


And what exactly am I doing again? It seems my crime is to disagree with you? Am I missing something?

 

[anna.]

Hey! If you take me up on the offer, you've already won $10 !

Yeah, all winks aside, calling us a mob because you willingly wade into these arguments and then meet people who disagree with you? That was completely unnecessary and inflammatory.

And what exactly am I doing again? It seems my crime is to disagree with you? Am I missing something?

1. Not listening. Like the person in real life who hangs on your every word and you know it's because they're waiting for the chance to jump in and talk about what they want to talk about.

2. Giving me another proposal. I'm tired of your proposals. Discuss or don't discuss, but maybe without the constant step-by-step? Just a suggestion. When I get to the end of my rope I'll do us both a favor and put you on ignore.

 

[icehorse]

Yeah, all winks aside, calling us a mob because you willingly wade into these arguments and then meet people who disagree with you? That was completely unnecessary and inflammatory.

It appears to me that you and your allies often claim that you're right because you all agree with each other? That doesn't make you right, it just means you have allies. So all the times I've heard "you've been told", isn't that some sort of argument from the majority?

Not listening.

I cannot be more sincere: It often feels like you and your allies conflate "not listening" with "not agreeing". I feel I could steelman your arguments as a way of demonstrating that I am in fact listening

Giving me another proposal. I'm tired of your proposals. Discuss or don't discuss, but maybe without the constant step-by-step? Just a suggestion. When I get to the end of my rope I'll do us both a favor and put you on ignore.

It appears that we both think these are extremely important issues. I would welcome logical, non-evasive debates. Debates that really stick to the ideas.

 

[anna.]

It appears to me that you and your allies often claim that you're right because you all agree with each other? That doesn't make you right, it just means you have allies. So all the times I've heard "you've been told", isn't that some sort of argument from the majority?

I've never claimed that, nor have I seen anyone else claim that.

I cannot be more sincere: It often feels like you and your allies conflate "not listening" with "not agreeing". I feel I could steelman your arguments as a way of demonstrating that I am in fact listening

I'm not a newcomer to discussions and I'm used to not agreeing with people and having them not disagree with me. But the people who actually had a hand in my changing my mind on multiple issues are the ones who actually listened to me and responded based on their listening.

You falling right back into "I could steelman your arguments" is pretty much proof that no, you haven't listened to me in a real way. Only in a way that furthers your vision of yourself. I told you quite a while back that your overuse of the term steelman as a way to vaunt your debate skilz was backfiring on you and yet - here you are.

And here I am repeating myself to someone who doesn't hear. He may say he listens, but he doesn't hear.

It appears that we both think these are extremely important issues. I would welcome logical, non-evasive debates. Debates that really stick to the ideas.

You've gotten ideas. And you've discarded them. Nothing I can do about that, obviously.

 

[icehorse]

You falling right back into "I could steelman your arguments" is pretty much proof that no, you haven't listened to me in a real way.

I wonder if you can tell me what definition of steelman you're using? Because the definition I'm using is pretty much a guarantee that the provider of the steelman is listening. So perhaps we're just using different definitions?

 

[Augustus]

That it be friendly?

Is it correct to assume you think being charitable in interpretation is important for friendly discussion?

How would you like readers of your posts to interpret and respond to uncharitable interpretations?

Been there, tried that, doesn't help

Perhaps you just didn’t execute it as well as you could have?

Well I don't think I'm misusing either of those terms.

For example, it’s pretty clear that the term “apologist” carries negative connotations and will likely be interpreted as a slur in an emotive thread.

Because everyone knows it has negative connotations, using it rather than another term will usually be interpreted as using it because it has negative connotations.

That it technically has a neutral meaning is beside the point. A choice to use it is incongruous with an aim of discussing “ideas only”.

 

[anna.]

I wonder if you can tell me what definition of steelman you're using? Because the definition I'm using is pretty much a guarantee that the provider of the steelman is listening. So perhaps we're just using different definitions?

What about the rest of my post? Such as you alleging that my allies often claim that we're right because we all agree with each other and me telling you that hasn't happened? So now you just moved past that little problem of mischaracterizing us en masse, and plow right back into using a term you know I told you I think you overuse because it sounds so niche - and you want to know how I'm using it? How is that listening?!

I'm gonna say this one more time and then you can look for other people to lecture on debate tactics while mischaracterizing them and see how that works out for you.

Seems to me you're looking for these conversations because you want to be in that role of culture warrior at the expense of actual people on this thread who will suffer the consequences of the attitudes towards them that your stance fosters. You saw that done by a new poster here, did you stand against him for that? If you did, kudos to you. If you didn't, then why were you silent? You're not the one dealing with the restroom issue, but that's not good enough for you, you insist you're living it by proxy through your many dozens of friends you've talked about men and penises with. But we on this thread who do deal with restrooms, whether cis, non-binary or trans, who want our restrooms to be available to all of us without you telling us we're doing it wrong, you've discarded our thoughts entirely, and dropped them all in another niche little box called "lived experience." I see no point in continuing with you.

 

[icehorse]

What about the rest of my post? Such as you alleging that my allies often claim that we're right because we all agree with each other and me telling you that hasn't happened? So now you just moved past that little problem of mischaracterizing us en masse, and plow right back into using a term you know I told you I think you overuse because it sounds so niche - and you want to know how I'm using it? How is that listening?!

I'm trying to see if we can have a fresh start. It seems to me some mutual steelmanning might be a good way to start because it does not presuppose that either of us is "in the right". But I'd be open to other suggestions.

But we on this thread who do deal with restrooms, whether cis, non-binary or trans, who want our restrooms to be available to all of us without you telling us we're doing it wrong, you've discarded our thoughts entirely, and dropped them all in another niche little box called "lived experience."

We're discussing public policy correct? My anecdotes have very little weight in the context of public policy. But your anecdotes also carry very little weight in this context.

So, I understand that you personally are not bothered by the prospect of intact males sharing your rest rooms and locker rooms. Am I understanding you correctly so far?

 

[anna.]

steelmanning

And... I'm out.

You ignored everything I just said to you.

 

[icehorse]

And... I'm out.

You ignored everything I just said to you.

Indeed, if you feel ignored...

 

[Firenze]

Interesting perspective.

Against Steelmanning

I hate the word ‘steelmanning.’ Steelmanning refers to arguing with the best possible version of someone’s argument, even if it’s not the one they presented. Put like that, …

thingofthings.wordpress.com