What exactly makes someone a TERF?

[SomeRandom]

Strawman is when you deliberately take the weakest version of someone's argument, then tear it to pieces as if that's actually meaningful.

Steel man is when you take the strongest possible version of an argument. It is basically an assumption made in good faith, and is a much better basis for effective discussion and debate.

Ahh, I think I was mixing up the terms.
Cheers

 

[icehorse]

As the provider, communicating with insurance and other providers about the patient. Our chart notes don't have gendered language.

I think what you're saying is that as the PT, it doesn't matter to you whether a particular patient is a biological male or female?

If I got that right, that surprises me. There are a number of orthopedic differences between males and females that I would hope a PT would take into consideration, no?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I think what you're saying is that as the PT, it doesn't matter to you whether a particular patient is a biological male or female?

If I got that right, that surprises me. There are a number of orthopedic differences between males and females that I would hope a PT would take into consideration, no?

Nope. Firstly because there's nothing that's so radically different it would change how we approach the problem, I'd get more pertinent information from what kind of occupation they have as that dramatically impacts repetitive stress areas. But I don't record occupation either because:

Secondly, that's not how charting works. Which is only a report on observation of specific soft tissue problems and plan of action. If someone's back is strained from working out at the gym, their gender or sex is irrelevant to the muscles, tendons, fascia I will be targeting for work.

 

[icehorse]

Nope. Firstly because there's nothing that's so radically different it would change how we approach the problem, I'd get more pertinent information from what kind of occupation they have as that dramatically impacts repetitive stress areas. But I don't record occupation either because:

Secondly, that's not how charting works. Which is only a report on observation of specific soft tissue problems and plan of action. If someone's back is strained from working out at the gym, their gender or sex is irrelevant to the muscles, tendons, fascia I will be targeting for work.

Can you say more about how you work with a patient's fascia?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Can you say more about how you work with a patient's fascia?

Not really interested in talking about non-relevant parts of work to this topic tbh.

 

[icehorse]

Not really interested in talking about non-relevant parts of work to this topic tbh.

I think it's relevant, but we're all volunteers here

 

[icehorse]

Biological males, or (more broadly) individuals with prostates.

I mean, I fail to see the importance of this line of inquiry. The answer to the question "who is treated for conditions that require you to have X" is very obviously "people who have X".

And also to @ADigitalArtist ,

I think we can all agree that language matters, that calling things by their proper names (or not),is consequential.

Up until recently people (like animals) were referred to as either male or female. Yes, yes, yes, we're all aware that super rare exceptions occur. But apparently it's no longer PC to use those terms. Why? As I understand it, it's because those terms might somehow hurt trans people? Trans people are what, 01% of the population?

Now don't get me wrong, I think trans people ought to be protected from discrimination and violence. Of course!

But is trying to forcibly warp the language really a good way to protect the trans population? That seems like a dangerous idea AND an extraordinary claim. As always, I lean on Carl Sagan: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

So am I getting this correct? Is the reason some people are trying to warp the language around male, female, and sex to protect trans people? If so, where is the really bombproof evidence that this would help. Because it looks to me as if it's causing a lot of well deserved ill will.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Oh sorry, I misread your response to mean the bathrooms, rather than the drugs.

Giving people drugs such as hormones to treat the delusion that one is "born in the wrong body" should be (and hopefully will be soon) considered medical malpractice. The appropriate response is to help make that person feel comfortable in their body, since we *are* our bodies. A doctor giving their anorexia patient diet drugs or liposuction because that patient has a delusion they are fat when in fact they are thin would surely be considered malpractice, right?

"Body dysmorphic disorder is a mental health condition in which you can't stop thinking about one or more perceived defects or flaws in your appearance". Seems about right to me.

"Gender dysphoria" makes no sense to me. Can you define it? All the definitions for it I find are circular and make no sense at all and rely on other terms like "gender identity" that also make no sense. We are all either male or female. There is no other option. If one is uncomfortable with one's sexed body, feeling like it has "flaws" then that seems like body dysmorphia to me.

So let me get this straight - you don't have the feintest clue of what you're talking about in regards to this subject but you have the gall to demand that trans people stop their treatment and our treatment be banned? With all due respect, go fly a kite. On your way, go get some much needed therapy for your restroom terrors. It's not right to put your unaddressed issues onto others, and I say that with all due respect for people who have undergone great traumas (which includes me).

 

[ADigitalArtist]

And also to @ADigitalArtist ,

I think we can all agree that language matters, that calling things by their proper names (or not),is consequential.

Up until recently people (like animals) were referred to as either male or female. Yes, yes, yes, we're all aware that super rare exceptions occur. But apparently it's no longer PC to use those terms. Why? As I understand it, it's because those terms might somehow hurt trans people? Trans people are what, 01% of the population?

Now don't get me wrong, I think trans people ought to be protected from discrimination and violence. Of course!

But is trying to forcibly warp the language really a good way to protect the trans population? That seems like a dangerous idea AND an extraordinary claim. As always, I lean on Carl Sagan: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

So am I getting this correct? Is the reason some people are trying to warp the language around male, female, and sex to protect trans people? If so, where is the really bombproof evidence that this would help. Because it looks to me as if it's causing a lot of well deserved ill will.

*yawn* All of this is easily Google-able, but you won't because you don't actually listen, you just want to power play people through repetitive bad faith questioning.

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." -Carl Sagan

In your case, a believer of some vast conspiracy governments and the medical world have of 'gender ideology.' And you've accepted that conclusion alongside the radical evangelicals who would happily tell you gay marriage isn't proper use of the term marriage, and is only considered such by the misguided gay agenda recently. As if how recently word use changed mattered to 'proper,' which is a weaselword inofitself.

I don't owe you evidence for an extraordinary claim. You owe me.

And I don't care about the ill will of transphobes dressing up their bigotry behind fake feminism.

 

[icehorse]

In your case, a believer of some vast conspiracy governments and the medical world have of 'gender ideology.' And you've accepted that conclusion alongside the radical evangelicals who would happily tell you gay marriage isn't proper use of the term marriage, and is only considered such by the misguided gay agenda recently. As if how recently word use changed mattered to 'proper,' which is a weaselword inofitself.

I don't owe you evidence for an extraordinary claim. You owe me.

And I don't care about the ill will of transphobes dressing up their bigotry behind fake feminism.

Again with the strawman arguments, wow, just wow! Is that all you've got is strawmen?

And also, I thought that we weren't supposed to slur each other on RF?

But I tell you what, if you want to label me dogma-phobic, I'll accept that with pride

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Again with the strawman arguments, wow, just wow! Is that all you've got is strawmen?

Nah, it's just an unpleasant truth, transphobic arguments rely on the same tired leaps that homophobic ones before it, and racist ones before that, used. Fake concern for a vulnerable group (usually women and especially white women) to fuel what they say is non-violent but is absolutely violent removal of a marginalized group from public society.

And also, I thought that we weren't supposed to slur each other on RF?

What slur? Do you identify with someone who dresses up transphobia behind fake feminism? If so then...I don't know what to tell you. That's being a transphobe. If not, then it isn't about you.

But you liked a post that said trans people should no longer be able to have gender affirming care and that doctors should be no longer able to give it because trans people are just 'deluded.'

So if you actually agree with that view:

Then you are a transphobe.

 

[icehorse]

Nah, it's just an unpleasant truth, transphobic arguments rely on the same tired leaps that homophobic ones before it, and racist ones before that, used. Fake concern for a vulnerable group (usually women and especially white women) to fuel what they say is non-violent but is absolutely violent removal of a marginalized group from public society.

Some transphobic arguments might indeed use those approaches.

But I'm not transphobic and I do not use those approaches. So this seems like yet another strawman from your seemingly endless well, sigh.

Do you identify with someone who dresses up transphobia behind fake feminism?

That's a textbook example of an extraordinary claim. You would have to have a BOATLOAD of evidence to support such a claim against a poster. If you do not, and I know you do not, then you're slurring that poster. full stop.

But you liked a post that said trans people should no longer be able to have gender affirming care and that doctors should be no longer able to give it because trans people are just 'deluded.'

My position has not changed, but I'll restate it: The standard for GAC is not universal nor is it static. Many European countries - with better healthcare systems than the US's - are now seriously rethinking whether giving chemical castration drugs to minors should really be a part of the GAC standard.

Let me ask you this, do you think that youths experiencing gender confusion or dysphoria, ever go through counseling and emerge feeling better with no extraordinary interventions required?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Some transphobic arguments might indeed use those approaches.

But I'm not transphobic and I do not use those approaches. So this seems like yet another strawman from your seemingly endless well, sigh.



That's a textbook example of an extraordinary claim. You would have to have a BOATLOAD of evidence to support such a claim against a poster. If you do not, and I know you do not, then you're slurring that poster. full stop.



My position has not changed, but I'll restate it: The standard for GAC is not universal nor is it static. Many European countries - with better healthcare systems than the US's - are now seriously rethinking whether giving chemical castration drugs to minors should really be a part of the GAC standard.

Let me ask you this, do you think that youths experiencing gender confusion or dysphoria, ever go through counseling and emerge feeling better with no extraordinary interventions required?

Okay so you just liked but don't agree with a transphobe's post which thinks no transgender people (who are all deluded because trans isnt real) should receive surgery or hormones.

You still have no idea what extraordinary claim means. It's really funny.

Yep, 'gender confusion,' 'chemical castration' (which I've already proven is BS), all transphobic calls to emotion arguments.

Also 'many European countries' is weaselwording begging the question of evidence on your part.

Also, acknowledging that counseling and screening does weed out kids whose gender dysphoria were temporary or unrelated does not negate those it doesn't and who need gender affirming care, as determined by their doctors. An all or nothing approach is -gasp- a strawman.

You're not nearly as good at this as you think you are.

Let me ask you, do you think you know more about this subject than the majority of doctors and institutions world wide who do support gender affirming care, or do you just have the extraordinary claim that they are being influenced by a massive conspiracy?

 

[icehorse]

Let me ask you, do you think you know more about this subject than the majority of doctors and institutions world wide who do support gender affirming care, or do you just have the extraordinary claim that they are being influenced by a massive conspiracy?

There is no universal GAC standard, do you get that?

And where did the conspiracy idea come up? Certainly not from me. Perhaps you're remembering the question about whether medical profiteering might be in play? Well, it might be, but no conspiracy is necessary.

You still have no idea what extraordinary claim means. It's really funny.

And you appear to be so caught up in your dogma that you've lost sight of common sense. Yes, I know it's now "cool" to claim things like "trans women are women". But they are not. THAT is an extraordinary claim, and the only way to defend it is to forcibly warp the language. That will not end well.

So if possible, I would ask you to try to step back from your endless virtue signaling for a minute and try to look at this topic from a distance. Try to rediscover the common sense you have in many other areas of your life.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And also to @ADigitalArtist ,

I think we can all agree that language matters, that calling things by their proper names (or not),is consequential.

Nope. I think accuracy is more important than arbitrary categorization. "Individual with a prostate" is more accurate and less arbitrary than "male".

Up until recently people (like animals) were referred to as either male or female. Yes, yes, yes, we're all aware that super rare exceptions occur. But apparently it's no longer PC to use those terms.

That's a nonsense argument. Nobody has claimed that using the terms "male" or "female" is not PC. That's a total lie.

Why? As I understand it, it's because those terms might somehow hurt trans people? Trans people are what, 01% of the population?

Strawman. This is not the argument, and you know it.

Now don't get me wrong, I think trans people ought to be protected from discrimination and violence. Of course!

But is trying to forcibly warp the language really a good way to protect the trans population?

Nobody is forcibly warping language. Language has always been malleable, and gender has always been understood this way ever since it applied to social constructs. The idea that doing this hurts anyone is, as we have shown, a delusion. It has no effect on medical care, despite your best efforts to imply it does.

That seems like a dangerous idea AND an extraordinary claim. As always, I lean on Carl Sagan: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

It is neither.

So am I getting this correct?

Probably not.

Is the reason some people are trying to warp the language around male, female, and sex to protect trans people?

It's not being warped. It's been this way for decades. Please stop engaging dishonestly with this subject.

If so, where is the really bombproof evidence that this would help.

Evidence of what? That gender is a social construct? That words are malleable? These things are self-evident. Like you said, it's better when we use terms that are accurate and fact-based. It is accurate and factual that not all men have penises. It is accurate and factual that not all women have vaginas. It is accurate and factual that gender is a social construct. It is accurate and factual that not all people feel that they fit in a simple gender binary. These are facts. Are not you not a fan of facts? Or is it only the facts you WANT to acknowledge that are worth consideration in your mind?

Because it looks to me as if it's causing a lot of well deserved ill will.

Only from people determined to spread ill will or lacking a basic grasp of what's involved. The majority of people have no issue with it, hence why trans rights are supported overwhelmingly.

I mean, seriously, look at your argument. What it boils down to is "I like words the way that I understand them (despite the fact that I have basic misunderstandings about these words and their meanings)" and that we should keep words the way that you understand them because of some vague, ill-defined negative consequence that you can neither elaborate on or demonstrate it any meaningful way.

This is not an argument. It's a refusal to meaningfully engage with the topic.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Some transphobic arguments might indeed use those approaches.

But I'm not transphobic and I do not use those approaches. So this seems like yet another strawman from your seemingly endless well, sigh.

I would argue that your dishonest approach to this subject in multiple threads reeks of transphobia. You have literally linked an unambiguously anti-trans website as a source to me in the past to support your false argument that puberty blockers are equivalent to castration of minors.

For those interested, here is the link icehorse has sent me in the previous post:
Chemically castrating ‘transgender’ children is child abuse

I invite everyone to peruse this website and tell me, honestly, if anybody other than an outright transphobe would take this site seriously.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And you appear to be so caught up in your dogma that you've lost sight of common sense. Yes, I know it's now "cool" to claim things like "trans women are women". But they are not. THAT is an extraordinary claim, and the only way to defend it is to forcibly warp the language. That will not end well.

See? This is a perfect example of what I said above. No rationale. No logic. No actual elaboration on the negative consequences, just "that will not end well".

Actually, it will. Because it's true. Trans women are women. That position benefits a lot of people and does zero harm to anyone. You have yet to provide a single piece of evidence to the contrary, and your ideas are informed not by reason or logic, but fear and propaganda. Fortunately, medical science is ahead of you.

 

[icehorse]

Nope. I think accuracy is more important than arbitrary categorization. "Individual with a prostate" is more accurate and less arbitrary than "male".

In some specialized contexts I agree. But I'm talking about common use.

That's a nonsense argument. Nobody has claimed that using the terms "male" or "female" is not PC. That's a total lie.

In this very thread your comrade has been advocating for AMAB and AFAB.

This is not the argument, and you know it.

Actually, I don't. If this twisted language is not meant to somehow support the trans community, then why is it being forced on us?

1 - Nobody is forcibly warping language. 2 - Language has always been malleable, 3 - and gender has always been understood this way ever since it applied to social constructs. 4 - The idea that doing this hurts anyone is, as we have shown, a delusion. 5 - It has no effect on medical care, despite your best efforts to imply it does.

1 - Again with claiming a thing does not exist. Please, share with us the news source you use that can accurately make such claims.
2 - Malleable yes. But when it is changed at gunpoint, authoritarianism usually follows close behind.
3 - We're talking about sex, not gender.
4 - Again, claiming a thing does not exist, wow!
5 - As I recall, ADA backed away from that argument, not sure why..

Evidence of what? That gender is a social construct? That words are malleable? These things are self-evident. Like you said, it's better when we use terms that are accurate and fact-based. 1a - It is accurate and factual that not all men have penises. 1b - It is accurate and factual that not all women have vaginas. 2 - It is accurate and factual that gender is a social construct. It is accurate and factual that not all people feel that they fit in a simple gender binary. These are facts. Are not you not a fan of facts? Or is it only the facts you WANT to acknowledge that are worth consideration in your mind?

The only way the factual claims #1a and #1b can be true is by warping the language. And yes, I would agree that activists have been making progress in warping the language for several decades now.

Claims 2 are part of a different discussion.

The majority of people have no issue with it, hence why trans rights are supported overwhelmingly.

I will re-re-reiterate: Not agreeing with the warping of language does NOT mean not supporting trans rights. It is the trans-activists I'm concerned with, not trans people. Can you show me where trans people have voted on the trans activist agenda?

I mean, seriously, look at your argument. What it boils down to is "I like words the way that I understand them (despite the fact that I have basic misunderstandings about these words and their meanings)" and that we should keep words the way that you understand them because of some vague, ill-defined negative consequence that you can neither elaborate on or demonstrate it any meaningful way.

Sorry, that's a strawman.

 

[icehorse]

I would argue that your dishonest approach to this subject in multiple threads reeks of transphobia. You have literally linked an unambiguously anti-trans website as a source to me in the past to support your false argument that puberty blockers are equivalent to castration of minors.

A post earlier you asked me to deal in facts. I believe I have been.

And now you're changing course and asking us not to believe in facts, but to be suspicious of messengers? Zooming out, I think most of us know that journalism is struggling to survive these days. It's fraught with corruption, ON EVERY SIDE. We must think for ourselves. One way to do that is to always look for factual claims. If an article includes many factual claims, it's far more reliable than an article that does not. Of course I understand that not all factual claims are true, but they are harder to mislead with than vagaries.

This must be from the "eating your cake and having it too" department?

As for castration, I provided a list of hormones that are used BOTH to chemically castrate sex offenders AND as puberty blockers. I understand how inconvenient that is to you, but those are FACTS.

Trans women are women. That position benefits a lot of people and does zero harm to anyone. You have yet to provide a single piece of evidence to the contrary, and your ideas are informed not by reason or logic, but fear and propaganda. Fortunately, medical science is ahead of you

Your position has harmed women in sports competitions, in prisons, in women's shelters, in locker rooms, in public restrooms and so on. And the harm will grow, not shrink. This is not fear, it is common sense.

==

I'm going to try to steelman your arguments. It's clear we disagree, but I really think the bullying and slurs ought to stop. Don't you think they are beneath you?

So, I sincerely believe that your position is that these changes in the language have been settled for several decades, that they do no harm, and that we should accept them. I also sincerely believe that your position is that the standard of care supports supports extreme interventions including puberty blockers and occasionally surgeries, and that we should trust the professionals in this regard.

Is that a fair summary?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In some specialized contexts I agree. But I'm talking about common use.

In common use, it doesn't matter. People can exist in whatever social category they want.

In this very thread your comrade has been advocating for AMAB and AFAB.

That doesn't mean that using the terms "male" and "female" are "not PC". It's just that those are terms that CAN be used.

Actually, I don't.

Then you're not paying attention. Nobody has made an argument regarding political correctness. Nobody has made any claims to that effect.

If this twisted language

It's not "twisted". It's just language.

is not meant to somehow support the trans community, then why is it being forced on us?

It's not being forced on anyone. It's just how language is.

1 - Again with claiming a thing does not exist. Please, share with us the news source you use that can accurately make such claims.

I refuse to play your gaming of the burden of proof. The proof is on you to demonstrate the issue.

2 - Malleable yes. But when it is changed at gunpoint, authoritarianism usually follows close behind.

It isn't being changed at gunpoint. I would argue it's not changed at all.

3 - We're talking about sex, not gender.

Then literally nothing has changed. Biological males are still referred to as biological males, or are referred to with biological characteristics. I said this.

4 - Again, claiming a thing does not exist, wow!

Nope. Claiming you're deluded. Which is true.

5 - As I recall, ADA backed away from that argument, not sure why..

Another delusion.

The only way the factual claims #1a and #1b can be true is by warping the language.

Nope. The language of gender always referred to social constructs, not biology.

And yes, I would agree that activists have been making progress in warping the language for several decades now.

Another vague, baseless claim.

Claims 2 are part of a different discussion.

No, it's all related because you are incapable of separating gender and sex in your head. Your keep rolling one into the other at whim.

I will re-re-reiterate: Not agreeing with the warping of language does NOT mean not supporting trans rights.

Suuuure. You just so happen to vehemently disagree with adopting language that JUST SO HAPPENS to support the existence and inclusion of trans people, despite probably never raising a stink about any other change of language.

We heard this from the "changing the definition of marriage" crowd when gay marriage became legal. It's not convincing.

It is the trans-activists I'm concerned with, not trans people. Can you show me where trans people have voted on the trans activist agenda?

Can you make an actual claim rather than gesturing and virtue signalling?

Sorry, that's a strawman.

Nope. It's accurate. Even look at this very post. The only negative you can concoct is "the warping of language". That's it.