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

[Shadow Wolf]

No we're talking about what is going on TODAY. Jewish people living 100 years ago are not the people who are his friends.

No, we're talking about erasing people's identities and how criminalizing it does erase it.

No it would not. Not allowed to wear the clothes of your choosing and not given surgery does not prevent you from believing you are a female

It does prevent people from being who they are. Those laws make it so they can say transpeople don't exist in their state.
Amd belief is for religion. Not science and medicine where have well docunented things many times.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

pot, meet kettle!

(that goes for the entire post, not just the bit I copied)

About 120 posts ago I laid out several concerns. I believe they were clear. As far as I can recall, you have dodged the opportunity to answer them. When you do get around to doing that, if ever, see if you can constrain yourself to speaking only to the ideas posed, and refrain from slurring other posters or bragging about how learned you are.

I admit feeling some skepticism to your approach at times. At times, I feel that rather than take on a strong side, you try to position yourself as 'debate moderator', a term people use in formal debates for the one organizing the debate. Your frequent accusations of slurs based on debate or discussion statements demonstrate that.

You often talk about trying to bring people toward better critical thinking. But I think you can 'lead by example' better by just focusing on your side, and not trying to conduct the debate in the process of contributing.

Debates are more functional and challenging when there either aren't debate moderators, or the person who's playing the role of debate moderator is a neutral party.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What an odd notion! Nobody really wants to be other than they are -- cisgender, straight men don't even think about the possibility of being gay: it's not who they are. Cisgender gay men don't even think about the possibility of being straight; it's not who they are, either.

I'm not completely pushing back, and I'm only speaking for myself here, but...

Some of my inherent assumptions when a child on sexuality had to be challenged over time. Probably a result of me growing up in the 80s, in a pretty working class suburb as a straight kid.

(ie. sheltered!)

So, at some point I became aware of different expressions of sexuality, other than heterosexuality. I can't even remember when that was, but...

The bigger thought change for me was moving beyond discrete buckets of fixed sexuality, and instead moving to sexuality being more of a spectrum (and even fluid in some senses). That led pretty naturally to a philosophical question. Am I 'partly' gay?

The question is kinda ridiculous, and was a very brief part of a transitory journey in my thinking. But if I raised the idea that sexuality was a spectrum at my high school, it would have resulted in some level of ridicule or perhaps bullying.

At Uni, that certainly wasn't the case, but I don't think the idea that cisgender people might at some point ponder about their own sexuality or that there is some rejection of options in this thought process based on fear is beyond the pale.

None of this amounts to much...I suspect your point is generally correct, especially now. Just thought I should at least offer my personal experience.

 

[crossfire]

How is this different than intersex?

I posted the Intersex Society of North America's definition in the post, along with a link, and the facts regarding the person in question so you can compare for yourself.

 

[Yerda]

I am under the impression that "trans activist" is the accepted term. If it's not, I'm happy to use the accepted term if anyone knows it.

It was the "TA agenda" phrasing that stood out. Very reminiscient of "gay agenda", "feminist agenda" etc. I'm sure you don't mean it that way, though I'm sure the retooled, anti-trans conservative and dark money astroturf organisations that have popped up do.

Agreed. I have tried to be specific about my concerns. Does my post #39 clear my concerns up?

I've read enough of your posts to have a good idea of your concerns by now, I think. You're worried about the women losing control of who can access particular women-only spaces as a result of extremist ideology and you seem convinced the medical profession is causing harm to trans children in pursuit of profit. That a good stab at a summary?

Also agreed. But I think we liberals have to police our own camp. When a TA promotes an outlandish proposal, OF COURSE our opponents will pounce on it and use it.

I supposes liberals should hold each other to account - I'm not a liberal in the political (or American) sense.

That said, I don't come across TAs promoting outlandish ideas often - the trans people I have listened to have seemed generally pleasant, intelligent and reasonable. They seem to operate under a mountain of misinformation, accusations and threats. In my experience they promote trans visibility, access to healthcare, and inclusion. Like these two:

Trans activists Dani St James and Kenny Ethan Jones on making a career out of campaigning

PinkNews speaks to trans activists Dani St James and Kenny Ethan Jones to find out how their career journey evolved into activism.

www.thepinknews.com

There are going to be loonballs in every movement and no-one is perfect but even if every trans activist was a paragon of reason and tolerance do you think the conservative groups wouldn't simply make up lies as they do anyway?

Again, consider how easy it has been for bigoted groups to stigmatise and sow mistrust of people using very similar tactics and talking points currently being used against the trans community. How easy it was for conservative groups backed by wealthy donors (in both our countries) to paint gay men as child rapists. Or Black men as rapists and criminals.

Perhaps a better focus of liberals would be to argue publicly against demonisation of vulnerable groups, rather than parrot the tactics of their enemies?

As for toilets, prisons, clinics and so on being "scary fear", I think I need to reiterate my stance. I am NOT saying that trans people are statistically any more dangerous than the general population. However, the dangerous side effect of letting trans women into women's-only safe spaces, is that it makes it far easier for evil men to enter these spaces. This is a justifiable fear.

I am aware that you aren't saying that trans people are dangerous. I'm not sure that your fears are justified, however.

If you use your search engine you can find many occurrences of:

- trans women making a mockery of women's sports
- women being afraid to use safe spaces they've previously enjoyed
- denying women privacy from people with penises
- women who speak out being "canceled" or losing their jobs

OK, I will use my search engine. With sport I can see how being biologically male could give a strength and speed advantage. I'd like to see some statistics that could illuminate whether trans women are really ripping up the women's sport, though.

Women being afraid to use spaces is a genuine problem. I feel like the solution for the most part is education around the issue and acceptance of trans people. By that I mean these things would reduce fear and discomfort and that some, maybe most of this, is being driven by anti-trans sentiment, media, and political rhetoric.

We can look at the example of immigration as a guide. People often report being afraid or uncomfortable with immigrants (especially ethnically different immigrants). This is almost entirely driven by anti-immigrant stories and sensationalist headlines in print and broadcast media. We see that the concerns around immigration and immigrants plummet dramatically at times when the frequency of anti-immigrant stories drops. Likewise with immigrants we see the "concerns" about the saftey of women.

Do you see my point here?

I don't know what the statement about privacy from people with penises means.

With the cancelling. It all sounds very much like the nazis complaining that they can't be nazis in public. And it's not like the media in both of our countries isn't generously stocked with women "speaking out" freely about trans issues. The silenced are deafening, to speak. Perhaps you have good examples of this?

 

[wellwisher]

I know that these types of threads can be challenging and sensitive - but I want to share my current perspective on trans people, especially trans females.

I understand that some people may feel uncomfortable or threatened by men who express their gender identity in a way that does not conform to the traditional binary of men and women. They may think that this is a problem that needs to be solved.

However, I believe that the real problem isn't about blurring the line between men and women, but rather the real problem is about creating a rigid and hostile divide between men and women. This can lead to echo chambers, where people only hear opinions that reinforce their own biases and prejudices. And this can result in harmful and isolated views of the other group.

So, as difficult as it may be for some to grasp... Not trying to prohibit people identifying as trans female could actually make female spaces more inclusive and safe, under the right conditions.

And I acknowledge that there are no easy answers to the issues of transgender people and the "politics", as some may call it, around it. But I think that there are more urgent problems to address, before focusing on this. But that's the hard part - the problems that require change are more systemic and complex, and they involve all of us, rather than just one side, to take responsibility - so to speak. Therefore, instead of blaming others, a part of the solution may be to examine our own actions - in general.

I understand that transgender people make up less than 2% of the population. But I believe that this is an issue that will confront everyone sooner or later, and have an impact beyond the trans community.

Update:

If the population is 2% transgender, then why are the Democrats pushing to condition all school children behind their parent's backs? It appears the goal is to make the natural 2%, increase, unnaturally, by conditioning naive young people.

What is the purpose of telling the 98% of the students, who are not statistically transgender, that they might be part of the natural 2% transgender? Anything that increases that number, beyond the natural 2%, will be conditioned pathology. Isn't this child endangerment?

If the Democrats and teachers during sex eduction, spend 2% of their time and efforts on transgender, and 98% of their efforts on others, such as biological sex, this would teach the students the science of natural proportions. Instead they have chosen the approach of a communists re-education camp to compromise the mental health of the majority of children. It appears to be about donations from Big Med and Big Phar, who will benefit but all the extra lab rats. The Democrats know they cannot legally use the Nazi experimenting on prisoners approach, but if they can get the lab rats, to willing enter the cage, this is a legal loophole.

I am not passing judgement on the students, other than comparing rational proportional equity, with the damaging lopsided inequity imposed by the Democrat party and teacher unions. Do damaged students become easier prey later in life to Democrat party propaganda? This topic seems to indicate that pathology induction is helpful to the Democrat party. Being a good liar appear to start by learning how to lie to yourself.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm not completely pushing back, and I'm only speaking for myself here, but...

Some of my inherent assumptions when a child on sexuality had to be challenged over time. Probably a result of me growing up in the 80s, in a pretty working class suburb as a straight kid.

(ie. sheltered!)

So, at some point I became aware of different expressions of sexuality, other than heterosexuality. I can't even remember when that was, but...

The bigger thought change for me was moving beyond discrete buckets of fixed sexuality, and instead moving to sexuality being more of a spectrum (and even fluid in some senses). That led pretty naturally to a philosophical question. Am I 'partly' gay?

The question is kinda ridiculous, and was a very brief part of a transitory journey in my thinking. But if I raised the idea that sexuality was a spectrum at my high school, it would have resulted in some level of ridicule or perhaps bullying.

At Uni, that certainly wasn't the case, but I don't think the idea that cisgender people might at some point ponder about their own sexuality or that there is some rejection of options in this thought process based on fear is beyond the pale.

None of this amounts to much...I suspect your point is generally correct, especially now. Just thought I should at least offer my personal experience.

Kids -- in spite of what a lot of people seem to think -- are interested in and curious about their bodies, and the bodies of others. It is not that unusual for boys to touch other boys, or girls other girls (or boys touching girls and vice-versa, for that matter), when opportunity presents itself. None of that makes them either gay or straight -- it's play, part of how we learn as children.

Sexual Behaviors in Young Children: What’s Normal, What’s Not?

Here's some information and tips to help parents tell the difference between "normal" sexual behaviors and behaviors that may signal a problem.

www.healthychildren.org

 

[Kfox]

No, we're talking about erasing people's identities and how criminalizing it does erase it.

No! The person I was conversing with before you entered the conversation, was talking to me about existing, not erasing identities. If you want to talk about erasing people's identities, I'm okay with that, but that is a different conversation.

It does prevent people from being who they are. Those laws make it so they can say transpeople don't exist in their state.

Such a person would be lying. You don't need a law in place in order to lie.

 

[icehorse]

I admit feeling some skepticism to your approach at times. At times, I feel that rather than take on a strong side, you try to position yourself as 'debate moderator', a term people use in formal debates for the one organizing the debate. Your frequent accusations of slurs based on debate or discussion statements demonstrate that.

You often talk about trying to bring people toward better critical thinking. But I think you can 'lead by example' better by just focusing on your side, and not trying to conduct the debate in the process of contributing.

I don't really think there is a reason for you do this, but I think that if you were to go back thru this thread, or any of these contentious threads you would find that I never initiate slurs. When I'm slurred, I sometimes push back, that much is true.

I think you'll also find that while I do my best to answer the questions that are posed to me, the apologists often do not repeat that courtesy.

Are you familiar with intersectionality theory? It really strikes me that some of my opponents are basing their arguments on intersectionality. Such an orientation renders debate impossible. E.g., I'm told by an intersectionalist "you're not listening". What I think they mean is "I'm a woman, you're a man, so my opinion trumps yours, end of story". Perhaps I'm wrong about this? I've tried to get clarification on this point, but I have received no clear answers.

Another thing I think you would discover is my opponents tend to fall back to using identity politics. E.g., "you're saying exactly what the alt-right says". Again, this is a debate killer. I think you'll find that I'm constantly trying to bring the debate back to debating ideas, not identities. Would you agree that that's what we ought to be doing here?

(Note: It might seem I'm being inconsistent on the IP point because I often talk about trans activists. I think this is different because I'm using the TAs as a short hand for a very unique and specific collection of ideas. So again, my push is for us to debate ideas, not identities.)

Debates are more functional and challenging when there either aren't debate moderators, or the person who's playing the role of debate moderator is a neutral party.

I totally agree. I would be THRILLED if someone monitored the apologists. I hate it when they veer away from discussing the ideas.

 

[icehorse]

First I want to say, I applaud your efforts at steelmanning!!!! Sincerely !!

You're worried about the women losing control of who can access particular women-only spaces as a result of extremist ideology

yes

you seem convinced the medical profession is causing harm to trans children in pursuit of profit.

no. The reasons why "gender affirming care" has become so prevalent, are many, and complex. I do suspect that some profiteering is going on, but I think it's much more complex than that.

But my real concern is that these are irreversible medical interventions, with massive down sides, and the evidence for their effectiveness was never strong in the first place and this evidence is not holding up to re-review.

In other words, we're maiming kids without good evidence that it will actually help them.

That said, I don't come across TAs promoting outlandish ideas often - the trans people I have listened to have seemed generally pleasant, intelligent and reasonable. They seem to operate under a mountain of misinformation, accusations and threats. In my experience they promote trans visibility, access to healthcare, and inclusion.

I would say they mostly are working behind the scenes. So to some degree, you won't come across them unless you look for them. This is true of activists in general, right? We don't "come across" lobbyists for big oil or big pharma - you have to put effort into uncovering most activism.

==

Gotta run, I'll address the rest of your post later in the day.

Sincerely, thanks!

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I don't really think there is a reason for you do this, but I think that if you were to go back thru this thread, or any of these contentious threads you would find that I never initiate slurs. When I'm slurred, I sometimes push back, that much is true.

I think you'll also find that while I do my best to answer the questions that are posed to me, the apologists often do not repeat that courtesy.

Are you familiar with intersectionality theory? It really strikes me that some of my opponents are basing their arguments on intersectionality. Such an orientation renders debate impossible. E.g., I'm told by an intersectionalist "you're not listening". What I think they mean is "I'm a woman, you're a man, so my opinion trumps yours, end of story". Perhaps I'm wrong about this? I've tried to get clarification on this point, but I have received no clear answers.

Another thing I think you would discover is my opponents tend to fall back to using identity politics. E.g., "you're saying exactly what the alt-right says". Again, this is a debate killer. I think you'll find that I'm constantly trying to bring the debate back to debating ideas, not identities. Would you agree that that's what we ought to be doing here?

(Note: It might seem I'm being inconsistent on the IP point because I often talk about trans activists. I think this is different because I'm using the TAs as a short hand for a very unique and specific collection of ideas. So again, my push is for us to debate ideas, not identities.)

I don't think I said that there weren't criticisms and disagreements on both sides. On the contrary, they're even to the extent where, at times, one side may look better than the other.

However, I think accusing people of slurs isn't the best debate tactic. A better one is saying "I think you committed logical fallacy ad hominem" and explain why, then being open-eared to rebuttals. This leads to a more open and honest debate, I feel.

I totally agree. I would be THRILLED if someone monitored the apologists. I hate it when they veer away from discussing the ideas.

Still, if anyone had a 'debate moderator' helping with discussion/debate, they would have to be a neutral party for the scope of debate, which means that both sides would be scrutinized. And to use an analogy, if there were a point system, both sides would probably lose debate points for various things.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I totally agree. I would be THRILLED if someone monitored the apologists. I hate it when they veer away from discussing the ideas.

You've been the one using slurs and here it is again. That's how you've describe and dismiss everyone who has disagreed with you.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No! The person I was conversing with before you entered the conversation, was talking to me about existing, not erasing identities. If you want to talk about erasing people's identities, I'm okay with that, but that is a different conversation.

It was definitely about erasure.

Such a person would be lying. You don't need a law in place in order to lie.

There's no lie other than tbise from RW bigots who misrepresent trans people and repackaged their bogus and hateful "gay agenda" nonsense as the equally bogus and harmful "trans agenda."

 

[Alien826]

Well, my own view differs slightly. I do not think that many gay men (or women, for that matter) truly wish they were straight. Rather, I think that they are responding to the pressures of their own families, friends and communities (especially religious), who are in fact those who wish them to be straight. They don't want to be straight, they just want -- as we all do -- the approval of the social world in which they live.

That's pretty much what I was saying.

 

[BlueIslandGirl]

OK, I will use my search engine. With sport I can see how being biologically male could give a strength and speed advantage. I'd like to see some statistics that could illuminate whether trans women are really ripping up the women's sport, though.

If boys are faster than elite female athletes, should males compete in female athletics?

See how the best high school boys stack up against the best female Olympians and World Record holders in Track & Field and Swimming.

boysvswomen.com

Women being afraid to use spaces is a genuine problem. I feel like the solution for the most part is education around the issue and acceptance of trans people. By that I mean these things would reduce fear and discomfort and that some, maybe most of this, is being driven by anti-trans sentiment, media, and political rhetoric.

Women are afraid of men. Men pretending to be women are still men. We have very good reasons to be afraid of men. It has nothing to do with political rhetoric.

Someone (Ella I think) suggested that I think women are "weak" ... The reality is that we women are significantly weaker than men. That is the reality. We are especially vulnerable when we are removing our clothes. I think women are fantastic and I also understand the reality that most men could easily overpower most women. Pretending this isn't the case for some men and to remove safeguarding for women and children is a very bad idea. Bad men will abuse this, and indeed already are.

 

[YmirGF]

Egads, this is going to take forever to respond to. LOL.

First, @Ella S. thank you for a wonderful response.
I think you make some strong points.

Honestly, on a personal note, I grow weary of debate in general.

I have long recognized that debate is not an effective means to get through to those you are debating. It is often more about the audience.

I've noticed this too. Debating the issues don't really work. Perhaps simple discussions would be more effective, that way people would not feel lectured to.

If people are genuinely interested in understanding a particular topic, then it is on them to do their due diligence to research every angle on that subject to the best of their abilities. I did that with religion and it's why I can recite the Qliphothic tree from memory and cite the lineages of various gurus and monastic traditions. It's how I know what Eckenkar and Discordianism and the Uratia Book Movement are, the differences between Sethianism and Catharism, etc. Debate did not really help me that much in forming my opinion.

Heaven forbid people crack a book on a given subject, eh? I think, quite frankly, that part of the problem is living in the "information age" itself. We are all floundering in a sea of information we cannot possibly absorb.

I wonder how big of an audience a thread like this actually has. I imagine that most of the people who care so much about this topic are not going to have their minds changed significantly by a thread like this. Some of them might enter a debate thread like this one with a desire to open themselves up to what the other side would say to specific ideas, but that is only the beginning of learning. They have to follow up on their realization that they do not really fully understand the points the other side is making by researching them on their own from the sources that actually espouse them, rather than reading biased accounts of them from people who oppose them.

That was one of the first things I ran into on this forum. I quickly realized that the other side of the question may as well as been speaking a different language, and to an extent, they were. This would seem to be more a clash of world views.

Quite frankly, it is not my job to educate people about developments in social psychology, English studies, or historical anthropology, all of which are tied into our understanding of gender. I have no degree in economics or political science, nor am I a journalist or an influencer, so it is not my job to communicate these ideas to people who have no idea what they are talking about. If people genuinely desire an understanding of the topic, they have better avenues than a debate thread to learn.

Meanwhile, it does take (at lease) two to Tango. I am running into this sense of frustration more and more, though. Given that people are expressing fatigue at endlessly discussing these issues tells me that the pro side has a major messaging issue, otherwise we would not continually have these discussions. You would have made great points, we, the unwashed, would go, "Ah, that certainly explains things well." and we would move on to other riveting topics like the eradication of amoeba or something.

Everyone who has actually taken the time to study the topic knows why the transphobic nonsense in this thread is massively uneducated, ignorant, and hateful. I can only point out that they are not aligned with the science or academia in general so many times. It is not just this thread or this topic, either, but a wide degree of debates and conversations platformed by this forum.

I have indeed noticed that people who have passed through the education system, are, more or less, in lockstep on these topics. There is very little daylight between opinions of given posters, and one could often cut and paste their comments and be none the wiser who came up with it.

It shouldn't be a debate anymore. It's only a debate because people are refusing to learn.

I often get this impression when I have been talking to folks on RF about these topics.
From one perspective this is "settled science" whereas another perspective doesn't see it as "science" at all or thinks much of it is "junk science".

I understand that some people need to be given trustworthy resources in order for them to be able to begin to educate themselves. Not everyone can afford a college education. I understand that some people do not realize, immediately, how complex a topic actually is before forming a grossly misinformed opinion on it. Those people do need a polite and gentle hand to reach out to them to help them orient themselves on the literature for a given topic so that they can have informed opinions rather than regurgitate some politicized rhetoric.

Strange, how in this era of diversity, we are encouraged to add our voices to a Borg-like consensus. Is that still progressive?
So diversity of thought is bad when it goes against the consensus. So, does this really boil down to, "Shut up and eat what's on your plate?"

To be honest, whether evolution is true or not (for example) is not a subject that will impact most people's lives, so there's some reason to do something more productive with your time than become scientifically literate enough on biology to follow the developments regarding it. That also means that there are more productive things to do with your time than argue against scientific consensus on a field of study that you have no formal education or expertise in, though, and they seem to not care about that.

Yep, getting the "STFU" message pretty clearly here.

Many of us will meet transgender people in our lives. Treating transgender people properly is important and relevant to us. All it takes is the simple gesture of not misgendering them, though, which does not require a degree to understand. It's basic courtesy and human decency. You do not need to understand all of the academic literature on the subject regarding why we do this, but if you are serious about "just asking questions" then that is the literature you should consult.

I really dislike people lecturing me on how to treat others. You even frame this in a nauseating, passive-aggressive manner that implies you are one of the moral few who reacts correctly in these situations. And yet, you are getting tired of whispering to the unwashed masses, the error of their ways, from your perch of moral superiority.

Starting a transphobic flamewar on the internet where you say that medically transitioned transsexual women are "still men" and should stay out of women's spaces isn't even remotely the proper way to go about that.

The simple fact is, these poor unfortunates are a new category of human animal, altogether. Like, are we seriously going to start sending transgender women to see gynecologists? Really?

At some point, I have to acknowledge that I am not a professor or science communicator or political influencer, so debating with people on these subjects is not my job. As a hobby, there are other, more productive ways to spend my time. I think it is important for the general public to be more scientifically literate and stay up to date on important topics of scientific consensus, such as evolution and gender, but it is simply not my responsibility. I do not want that responsibility, either. I just find it frustrating that people are so deeply ignorant about topics that are so simple and straightforward that they could read a single article in an encyclopedia or from a science communicator and understand it well enough, especially when that ignorance directly harms other people for no good reason.

You are, obviously, an extremely intelligent, well-educated person. What disturbs me is the simple fact that we all influence each other, every second of the day, every day. This process of "influence" never stops. You have much to offer!

Take a tip from a convicted criminal. In the last few years, to my huge surprise, I have discovered that I make a difference in this world. Find your voice and use it (though one might choose battles more wisely). For example, when I "stay in my lane" I get very, very positive feedback on this forum (and in real life, I might add). When I go off the beaten track, that's where things get rocky. If diversity truly matters, we ought to be able to handle opinions that do not align with our own.

I want to help, but I can't help because these are the same people who choose to come to this forum to complain about transgender people using the proper restrooms rather than give any serious thought or consideration as to why they advocate for using the restrooms that they do. They just let non-experts rile them up into paranoia and then refuse to admit that they might not really know what they're talking about, even when it's demonstrated to them over and over again that they're completely and utterly wrong by every rational metric.

If that were actually true, we would not be revisiting these topics. There is a problem with the messaging itself.

I can't do anything about that. Nobody can. These people have to choose to be better, but they are content with being wrong since it's more emotionally satisfying to be angry than to put in the effort of actually thinking or researching. Why bother arguing with people that were never interested in listening to begin with? I'm doing my part by staying educated and helping others find the resources that I have when they're looking for them. Trying to shout over a typhoon of stupidity is a wasted effort.

Oddly, I relate to this entirely and it is one of my own complaints. Trigger warning: I completely agree with Jordan Peterson on this in that he claims we will not be having these discussions in five years, and we will all be wondering what they hell we were ever thinking.

Again, people should be looking towards educating themselves and understanding what actual experts are saying, questioning their own positions and challenging them by reading up on the positions of the people they disagree with in order to understand them rather than discount them.

Which is exactly what I am and have been doing. I've studied Islam since Sept. 11, 2001 and have a comfortable understanding of the material 22 years later. I've only been investigating gender "information" for about 5 years and so am just getting my footing.

(cont)

 

[YmirGF]

People should not be doubling-down on the first thought that pops into their head (or is whispered in their ear by a sea of hateful social media memes) and screaming it at anyone they can corner or drag into a conversation. That's on them. And it's on me to not stoop to their level anymore. If they can't take their own ideas seriously enough to put genuine effort into forming them, then they are not entitled to me taking their ideas seriously enough to refute them, especially when they aren't going to listen (or maybe can't even comprehend) the refutation, anyway.

Never give in to the idea that you are not getting your message across. I don't agree with some of what you say, but that is OK. I don't expect you to agree with a lot of whatever I am babbling on about. In the words of Scrooge McDuck, "Work smarter, not harder."

Getting through to those people takes a special skillset that I do not have.

I suspect you are better at this than you give yourself credit for.

In fact, I think even professionals who deal with these kinds of people regularly, such as therapists, social workers, doctors, and lawyers, also struggle with it.

Indeed, because even their messaging is wanting and needs work. Otherwise, we would not be having these discussions.

Getting the obstinate to admit the painfully obvious is not something I was trained in.

Actually, I've had significant, and rather brutal training, in this area. Check out Confrontation Therapy.

My education is in logic, not people skills.

Damn. I developed people skills over the years rather than academic skills, though I have accumulated expertise in several areas now through my own study.

Somebody else has to do get through to them, if it even can be done.

I know it can be done, getting through to people, as I do this in my work with men in trouble with the law. It is NOT easy, but I always loved a challenge. I hope you will accept my challenge to remain committed to sharing your thinking on these and other important matters.

Deal?


Sorry for a two-part post as I ran into the 1200-word limit.

 

[dybmh]

Oh by all means, don't bother letting any new ideas into your head, and whatever you do, try to avoid any complexity or nuance at all costs!! :O

So no more parsimony? You've realized it produces stereotyping and bigotry?

 

[metis]

My reasons for starting this thread are complex, and have little to do with me having problems with transgender people myself (I don't). If faced with the question of if I had to do it over again, if I would do it again (ie, start this thread)... my answer is that I probably wouldn't have the energy, despite wishing the best for all conversation participants.

No need to apologize as the point I was taking is that there's been so much hype spewed forth by some here who simply are willing to stereotype trans people and assign culpability to them. I haven't read whereas you've done that.

 

[icehorse]

Still, if anyone had a 'debate moderator' helping with discussion/debate, they would have to be a neutral party for the scope of debate, which means that both sides would be scrutinized. And to use an analogy, if there were a point system, both sides would probably lose debate points for various things.

agreed.