Transphobia

[Guitar's Cry]

So according to you, the distinction has already existed; and is not something that happened in the mid 20th century as the article suggested? Also just to be clear; these societal and societal aspects you speak of are nothing more than stereotypes we attach to biological men and women based on typical behaviors; right? What about the effeminate man or the masculine woman who don’t fit neatly into the stereotypes society has determined they are supposed to fit into? What about the woman who prefers jeans and timberlands over skirts and hills? Who prefers working on cars rather than knitting? Prefers a job as a welder rather than secretary? Are you gonna refer to this woman as he/him simply because her preferences don’t align with stereotypical gender roles assigned to women? Or are you gonna realize that because she is a biological female, you call her she/her regardless of her life choices.

Your examples are good examples of changing gender roles and how cultural use of "gender" (in its grammatical usage) has changed. We need not refer to a mechanic in jeans as man or woman specifically because of the occupation and clothes being traditionally male because they no longer are.

How about a woman who has a five-o-clock shadow because hormonal changes causes her to grow facial hair? Or a man who has breasts and lactates because of hormonal changes?

 

[Augustus]

It's not an issue of people denying that there ARE "bad actors" among the group, it's the IMPLICATION given by the statement that the group poses a DISTINCT THREAT GREATER THAN THAT OF OTHER GROUPS by an innate quality of who they are that is the issue.

On average, if you organise children's events featuring risque adult entertainers of any kind, would you expect there to be a greater possibility that they behave in a risque manner more suitable to adult entertainment than if you hired children's entertainers?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

On average, if you organise children's events featuring risque adult entertainers of any kind, would you expect there to be a greater possibility that they behave in a risque manner more suitable to adult entertainment than if you hired children's entertainers?

That depends. I've seen drag shows that were not risque adult entertainments. I've seen edgy, provocative comedians read children's stories on television.

It depends on the CONTENT OF THE EVENT, not on the category of person carrying out the event. A drag queen, often wearing more clothes than I would on a daily basis, reading a children's book to children is no more innately harmful than a children's entertainer doing it. What matters is HOW IT IS BEING DONE.

 

[Augustus]

That depends. I've seen drag shows that were not risque adult entertainments. I've seen edgy, provocative comedians read children's stories on television.

It depends on the CONTENT OF THE EVENT, not on the category of person carrying out the event. A drag queen, often wearing more clothes than I would on a daily basis, reading a children's book to children is no more innately harmful than a children's entertainer doing it. What matters is HOW IT IS BEING DONE.

You didn’t answer the question.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You didn’t answer the question.

The question is meaningless, because we judge events and people individually, not "on average".

On average, how many teachers are paedophiles? Are men, on average, more likely to sexually assault students than women?

If yes, does this mean men should not be allowed to teach young people?

Obviously not. A show hosted by a drag queen that is appropriate for children is appropriate for children. A show hosted by a drag queen that is not appropriate for children is not appropriate for children. We don't judge by the category of person carrying out the event - we judge cases individually and by the quality of the person and the event.

We don't make sweeping determinations about who should be allowed to do things based on "averages".

 

[Guitar's Cry]

You didn’t answer the question.

The question, as worded, does not state whether the event itself includes risque behavior.

If yes: then yes, kids tend to mimic and play out things that are funny or interesting.

If no: then no, because no risque behavior was depicted that they may engage in.

 

[Augustus]

The question is meaningless, because we judge events and people individually, not "on average".

We do both.

Why are insurance premiums higher for young male drivers than young female drivers? Why are men barred from certain female only spaces?

These are explicitly judging people collectively.

Also many people would prefer to leave their child with a woman than a man. Is this completely irrational?

We don't make sweeping determinations about who should be allowed to do things based on "averages".

Just as well I'm not doing that then, hence the question I asked:

If you hire people who are risque adult entertainers (note: this category does not include anyone who is not a risque adult entertainer), would you say on average that they are more likely to engage in inappropriate behaviour than experienced children's entertainers?

(I think most people would say yes)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

We do both.

Why are insurance premiums higher for young male drivers than young female drivers?

We don't deny all young people, as a category, access to cars because of premiums. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Why are men barred from certain female only spaces?

A multitude of complicated reasons that are also incomparable with making blanket bans on people being allowed to host certain kinds of events. Again, would you therefore argue that men should be BANNED from working with women or children, or do you think there is something more specific about female-only spaces that the comparison between the two is obviously absurd?

These are explicitly judging people collectively.

So you don't understand the difference between barring people like drag queens from being able to host certain events and, say, higher insurance premiums?

Also many people would prefer to leave their child with a woman than a man. Is this completely irrational?

No. But would you say that a blanket ban on men being able to work with children is justified by the same logic? What we're talking about here aren't individual judgements, we're talking about sweeping judgements on whether or not certain groups SHOULD BE ALLOWED to do certain things.

Just as well I'm not doing that then, hence the question I asked:

If you hire people who are risque adult entertainers (note: this category does not include anyone who is not a risque adult entertainer), would you say on average that they are more likely to engage in inappropriate behaviour than experienced children's entertainers?

(I think most people would say yes)

And if the answer is yes, what does that mean? Literally nothing.

There are drag queens who are experienced children's entertainers. There are drag queen who aren't. There are risque drag queens who put on shows suitable for children, there are less risque drag queens who nonetheless might host a less appropriate show for children.

You're not arguing with reality, here. You're arguing with sweeping generalisations and attempting to give a rational voice to scare mongering.

 

[Augustus]

We don't deny all young people, as a category, access to cars because of premiums. You're comparing apples and oranges.

I never mentioned banning anything.

A multitude of complicated reasons that are also incomparable with making blanket bans on people being allowed to host certain kinds of events. Again, would you therefore argue that men should be BANNED from working with women or children, or do you think there is something more specific about female-only spaces that the comparison between the two is obviously absurd?

Again, you are just answering a figment of your imagination.

So you don't understand the difference between barring people like drag queens from being able to host certain events and, say, higher insurance premiums?

Again, you are arguing with your imagination.

No. But would you say that a blanket ban on men being able to work with children is justified by the same logic? What we're talking about here aren't individual judgements, we're talking about sweeping judgements on whether or not certain groups SHOULD BE ALLOWED to do certain things.

No one mentioned blanket bans except you.

And if the answer is yes, what does that mean? Literally nothing.

If you hire risque adult entertainers to entertain children and some of them behave like risque adult entertainers, it's not exactly a massive shock.

As such, people may judge that hiring risque adult entertainers who lack experience as children's entertainers is, in general, a bad idea.

There are drag queens who are experienced children's entertainers. There are drag queen who aren't. There are risque drag queens who put on shows suitable for children, there are less risque drag queens who nonetheless might host a less appropriate show for children.

But on average we can say that risque adult entertainers (not necessarily drag queens), especially those with less experience, are more likely to put on inappropriate shows.

Agreed?

You're not arguing with reality, here. You're arguing with sweeping generalisations and attempting to give a rational voice to scare mongering.

No, you are not arguing with what I said, but with a load of assumptions that you imagined and added in yourself.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I never mentioned banning anything.

That's explicitly what I have been arguing against.

Again, you are just answering a figment of your imagination.

No, I'm pointing out that your comparisons don't mean anything.

Again, you are arguing with your imagination.

No, I'm arguing against an explicit thing I stated several posts ago.

No one mentioned blanket bans except you.

My position has always been about how we treat groups collectively and whether or not they should be given access. It's explicitly the argument I have been addressing this whole time. If you weren't arguing against that position, then you weren't addressing my argument.

If you hire risque adult entertainers to entertain children and some of them behave like risque adult entertainers, it's not exactly a massive shock.

Agreed.

But, believe it or not, there are risque adult entertainers who can still put on child-appropriate shows, and there are drag queens who are not risque adult entertainers.

As such, people may judge that hiring risque adult entertainers who lack experience as children's entertainers is, in general, a bad idea.

I agree. I've always maintained that everything should be on an individual basis, not on the basis of the judgement of a collective group. There's a difference between saying "I am not sure this risque adult entertainer is suitable for a child's party" and "drag queens are not suitable for a child's party".

But on average we can say that risque adult entertainers (not necessarily drag queens), especially those with less experience, are more likely to put on inappropriate shows.

Agreed?

Yes and no. They're probably less likely to be qualified, but there are plenty of adult entertainers who are also very well credentialed children's entertainers as well. It's about individual judgement, not categorical distinction.

No, you are not arguing with what I said, but with a load of assumptions that you imagined and added in yourself.

No, they were positions I was explicitly arguing against with my initial point.

 

[Kfox]

So to sum up:

- you acknowledge how the word is used.
- you're upset that language changes over time.

Right?

I'm not upset about anything, I'm pointing out it is inconsistent how the term is used today.

 

[Kfox]

I am not touching the morality of that one with you.

Nobody in this conversation brought up morality except you, and you bring it up only to say you are not touching the morality issue. Tell you what; quit bringing it up that way you won’t have to touch it

I made one and one point only.
There can be a distinction, which can be acted upon as automated or with metacognition.
And I didn't say what gender she was. I said, she presented as a male gender. I didn't say she identified as a male gender.

You did not say she presented as male gender, you only said she didn’t behave as typical female. I assumed she presented as female because you didn’t say otherwise. Perhaps you should have been a bit clearer in your scenario.

 

[Kfox]

I told you I am not going over this again with you, and your nonsensical questions have nothing to do with anything. I haven't mentioned stereotypes, and if you think about your questions for more than two seconds, you have an answer.

Make an argument. Stop making me go over stuff I already have, and don't ask stupid questions to which the answer is painfully obvious just to avoid admitting that you made a false statement and got caught out.

And admit that you were wrong, already. It's getting childish at this point.

If I were wrong, you would be able to point out what I said that was wrong. Instead you accuse me of running in circles even though I ask different questions. Admit it! You have no answers.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not upset about anything,

Great to hear! So there's no issue.

I'm pointing out it is inconsistent how the term is used today.

"This has changed over time" <> "this is inconsistent.

 

[Kfox]

Your examples are good examples of changing gender roles and how cultural use of "gender" (in its grammatical usage) has changed. We need not refer to a mechanic in jeans as man or woman specifically because of the occupation and clothes being traditionally male because they no longer are.

I was actually making the claim that he/him and she/her are also biological references, that just because a female who presents as female, but does not fit into the typical female roles society has deemed for women, we still refer to her as she/her; perhaps not due to her gender but due to her biology.

How about a woman who has a five-o-clock shadow because hormonal changes causes her to grow facial hair? Or a man who has breasts and lactates because of hormonal changes?

My point is; if she is a biological female with a five-o-clock shadow, she is still she/her. If a man has breasts and lactates due to some medical issue, he is still he/him

 

[Kfox]

Great to hear! So there's no issue.

Just because nobody is upset does not mean there are no issues.

"This has changed over time" <> "this is inconsistent.

that is a different conversation. Perhaps you can start another thread to address it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just because nobody is upset does not mean there are no issues.

What do you see as the issue, then?

that is a different conversation. Perhaps you can start another thread to address it.

It's on topic. If you don't want to engage with my posts, you don't have to.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nobody in this conversation brought up morality except you, and you bring it up only to say you are not touching the morality issue. Tell you what; quit bringing it up that way you won’t have to touch it

You did not say she presented as male gender, you only said she didn’t behave as typical female. I assumed she presented as female because you didn’t say otherwise. Perhaps you should have been a bit clearer in your scenario.

Yeah, once again we think differently.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not upset about anything, I'm pointing out it is inconsistent how the term is used today.

By what standard?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If I were wrong, you would be able to point out what I said that was wrong. Instead you accuse me of running in circles even though I ask different questions. Admit it! You have no answers.

Being chronically unable to admit you're wrong is serious character fault.

Consider that.