Trans Women are not Women

[ponderingturtle]

That's internally contradictory. If it's segregated based on a person's sex (first highlight) then it isn't segregated based on a person's gender identity (second highlight). Gender identity is not the same as sex. Furthermore, the modern doctrine of gender ideology asserts that gender is a spectrum, so should we then have a spectrum of bathroom facilities? How would that work?

Well sex is a spectrum as well but we ignore that for some reason. And of course any intersex condition is also legally required to use the freaks bathroom.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't care how many of them there are. If a facility is segregated by sex then it is not the case that everyone is free to choose which facility to use. And if everyone is free to choose which facility to use then the facility is not segregated by sex.

A: "Don't you find it horrible that schools are still racially segregated?"

B: "Erm, schools haven't been racially segregated since the 1960's."

A: "Yes they still are. Look, people of all races are free to choose which school to attend. That means that schools are racially segregated."

B: "Erm, no, that means that schools are not racially segregated."

A: "But thousands of people agree with me. People of all races are free to choose which school to attend, schools are racially segregated. Are you going to disagree with thousands of people?"

B: "..."

Look the courts ruled there is nothing wrong with racial motives for segregating schools.

https://www.npr.org/2017/04/28/526085092/despite-racial-motive-judge-allows-alabama-city-to-secede-from-school-district

"Near Birmingham, Ala., a mostly white town called Gardendale wants to break off from its more diverse school district. This week, a federal judge found that the move was racially motivated. She also said it would send messages of racial inferiority and exclusion that, quote, "assail the dignity of black schoolchildren." Nevertheless, the judge allowed the split to go forward."

We have just gotten better at feeling like we are not being racist while still being racist. Best of both worlds, you get to be all offended when someone claims you are racist and not have to deal with the blacks.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Patron: "I identify as visually impaired and I identify my dog as a Seeing-Eye dog, so you must let my dog in."

Waiter: "Sir, your eye-sight is obviously fine and the dog is just a random dog, you don't even have it on a leash."

Patron: "Look, I just identified to you as visually impaired and my dog as a Seeing-Eye dog. Now may I please see the menu and order?"

Waiter: "The menu has really fine print, won't you have a problem reading it if you are visually impaired?"

Patron: "No that won't be a problem at all."

Waiter to manager: "Can't we challenge this?"

Manager: "No. You'd think there's some legal basis for challenging his claims, but turns out there isn't. Neither obvious observations by others that his eye-sight is perfectly fine nor even doctor's tests showing the same thing. There's just no way to challenge it."

That is pretty much accurate, as for one no law only specifies seeing eye dogs but all assistance dogs and they are not strictly certified. So yes this really is exactly how the laws work.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Do you generally find that calling people bigots helps to open their minds?

And ignoring/accepting their bigotry and reinforcing it helps how?

 

[d4m10n]

And ignoring/accepting their bigotry and reinforcing it helps how?

Helps us to focus on ideas/consequences instead of people.

 

[caveman1917]

Good thing I didn't say few to none voted for it, then.

You said that few to none publicly supported it. Granted, the ballot is secret so it doesn't constitute public support, but pre-referendum polls also show similar distribution. Granted, those are anonymous as well so don't constitute public support, but as this point for your claim to hold you'd have to argue that those people who voted No and said in the polls they would vote No would keep such intention private. Why would the voters for one side keep this private (ie not publicly support their vote) but the voters for the other side wouldn't?

Interesting graph, and highly applicable had the vote been for a Democrat candidate for the House of Representatives. (Though in that case, it would hardly have been surprising that with voting districts heavily gerrymandered all over the country, a Democrat both attracted more funding and won their race by a large margin in a Democratic district. Who'd have thought?)

The relation holds generally and is supported by other evidence that doesn't rely on voting districts, that graph is just the clearest exposition of the effect that I could quickly find with a google search.

Why do you think the spending was so lopsided, though? Maybe all the churches, women's rights groups, women's anti sexual assault groups, and businesses that publicly supported the measure didn't have the money to secretly fund the other side.

I don't know, you tell me. If 1/3 of the population is driven to keep their views to themselves and only express them in secret ballot whereas the other 2/3 freely supports their views in public then it stands to reason that this situation would also reflect itself in differential public funding campaigns between those two groups. The real question then is what creates such situation where one side is driven to keep their views to themselves.

 

[caveman1917]

1. Do you regard racial segregation in American history as a bad thing?

Moralizing is tedious and counter-analytic. I regard racial segregation in American history as an attempt by the ruling class to pit two parts of the working class against each other so as to ensure their own continued rule. Divide et impera.

2. Do you regard sex segregated rest rooms as a bad thing? That is to say, are you opposed to all "Men's" and "Women's" rooms and would prefer only unisex unrestricted rest rooms were ever available?

Moralizing is still tedious and counter-analytic. I regard sex segregated rest rooms as a successful gain made by women, as an oppressed class under patriarchy, to conquer an equal place in pubic life - including things such as education.

Let me ask you the same question, do you regard sex segregated rest rooms as a "bad" thing? If yes, are you aware that in many third-world countries the implementation of sex segregated rest rooms is an important aspect to allow, among other things, girls to access education since the lack of such facilities leads to, among other things, girls skipping class when they have their periods? Or does your liberal wokeness stop at the borders of the USA?

I have to ask because I've read your posts in this thread back quite a few pages, and I haven't been able to glean from this what your actual position or opinion is on anything being discussed in this thread. I'm only seeing pot-stirring and policing of people's word choices. (Including, bizarrely, the Massachusetts state legislature's.) So I hope you can answer the above clearly, to help aid my obviously deficient reading comprehension.

Really? So you've not seen any of my posts on the relation between hormones and behaviour, on anthropological evidence of cultures with entirely different structures than our own in the relevant aspects of this thread, or indeed even on testing specific hypotheses made in this thread such as ThePrestige's hypothesis that transgenderism is the result of the social imposition of strict gender roles which can be tested by cross-cultural comparisons of Native American tribes? How could you possibly have missed all that?

 

[caveman1917]

Well sex is a spectrum as well

No it isn't, there are no gametes in between sperm and ova. Sex is about as strict a binary as there ever was one. A binary which is a stable equilibrium at that, for obvious reasons.

 

[Belz...]

Moralizing is tedious and counter-analytic. I regard racial segregation in American history as an attempt by the ruling class to pit two parts of the working class against each other so as to ensure their own continued rule. Divide et impera.

May I ask how you reach that conclusion? Seems to me like it was just plain old racism and not wanting to share life with black people.

I regard sex segregated rest rooms as a successful gain made by women, as an oppressed class under patriarchy

Wait, what? Where did they do before?

 

[caveman1917]

We have just gotten better at feeling like we are not being racist while still being racist.

Obviously. Which is one of the reasons that moralizing about specific symptoms of racism in society, such as segregation, will not lead to fundamental improvements. For that one would actually need to analyze the more foundational properties of society which lead to such things. Playing whack-a-mole with the symptoms leads nowhere except giving the people doing it that nice warm sense of wokeness and moral superiority.

 

[caveman1917]

May I ask how you reach that conclusion? Seems to me like it was just plain old racism and not wanting to share life with black people.

In the earliest days there were several uprisings of the black and white underclass/slaves together. Subsequent to that the bourgeoisie and slave-owners instituted a system where black people were relegated to the underclass and white people were given crumbs in return for their support in continuing said system, for example white people were given functions of overseers or slave patrols. And institutionalized racism was born.

Wait, what? Where did they do before?

They didn't, they stayed at home.

 

[Belz...]

In the earliest days there were several uprisings of the black and white underclass/slaves together. Subsequent to that the bourgeoisie and slave-owners instituted a system where black people were relegated to the underclass and white people were given crumbs in return for their support in continuing said system, for example white people were given functions of overseers or slave patrols. And institutionalized racism was born.

That wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that blacks were brought to the continent as slaves and many Americans resented the idea of sharing society with them on equal terms?

They didn't, they stayed at home.

You must be joking. Women could go out and do stuff. You know shop or, in many instances, work. Did they use the men's room?

 

[caveman1917]

That wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that blacks were brought to the continent as slaves and many Americans resented the idea of sharing society with them on equal terms?

Why would they resent the idea of sharing with them on equal terms? Just because? There are plenty of red-heads yet there is no institutional hair colour segregation, there are plenty of left-handed people yet there is no institutional dexterity segregation, and so on and so forth. So why do we have institutional racism then? It's almost like there's more to the story than that Americans resented the idea of sharing with them because...well just because.

You must be joking. Women could go out and do stuff. You know shop or, in many instances, work. Did they use the men's room?

Very few women worked before the 1900s. If they really did have to go out for longer than they could hold their bladder they went somewhere in the bushes or used something called a "urinette." The lack of women's facilities was mostly driven by the idea that women were supposed to stay at home, indeed the provision of public rest rooms for women was one of the demands of the earliest feminist movement so as to allow women to participate equally in public life. As I pointed out to Myriad, in many parts of the world it still is.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Helps us to focus on ideas/consequences instead of people.

But you have to ignore the consequences too or they will accuse you of calling them bigots for thinking their decisions are hurting people. How do you focus on the ideas and consequences that make up their bigotry with out addressing the bigotry and them feeling called out as bigots?

"Oh your actions are disproportionately hurting the black community and the black community suffers from a lot of racism even when those engaging in it don't realize they are acting racist" that will get people all defensive. You simply can't address problems if people refuse to consider that they might be acting in a discriminatory fashion. But once they get a hint that you consider them acting in a discriminatory fashion they will say they couldn't possibly be such a bigot.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No it isn't, there are no gametes in between sperm and ova. Sex is about as strict a binary as there ever was one. A binary which is a stable equilibrium at that, for obvious reasons.

OK then we are at the idea that there are three sexes, male, female and other. And of course after menopause women stop being female as there are no ova. Also before puberty, and as a result of injury or disease.

That does work but again see not binary. There is always the category of those who don't produce sperm or ova.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Obviously. Which is one of the reasons that moralizing about specific symptoms of racism in society, such as segregation, will not lead to fundamental improvements. For that one would actually need to analyze the more foundational properties of society which lead to such things. Playing whack-a-mole with the symptoms leads nowhere except giving the people doing it that nice warm sense of wokeness and moral superiority.

And does that actually work either? What are the foundational properties that lead to racism then and how do you address them?

 

[Belz...]

Why would they resent the idea of sharing with them on equal terms? Just because?

Why would racists not want to share their spaces with the *******? Gee I don't know, racism maybe?

There are plenty of red-heads yet there is no institutional hair colour segregation, there are plenty of left-handed people yet there is no institutional dexterity segregation, and so on and so forth.

Yeah, because currently there no handism or hairism.

So why do we have institutional racism then?

Because of widespread racism. You don't need a more complex conspiracy.

Very few women worked before the 1900s. If they really did have to go out for longer than they could hold their bladder they went somewhere in the bushes or used something called a "urinette."

So they'd just go outside of their workplace on the street, find a bush and urinate there? I doubt that.

The lack of women's facilities was mostly driven by the idea that women were supposed to stay at home

And yet they pretty much didn't. Who said they were supposed to?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Very few women worked before the 1900s. If they really did have to go out for longer than they could hold their bladder they went somewhere in the bushes or used something called a "urinette." The lack of women's facilities was mostly driven by the idea that women were supposed to stay at home, indeed the provision of public rest rooms for women was one of the demands of the earliest feminist movement so as to allow women to participate equally in public life. As I pointed out to Myriad, in many parts of the world it still is.

Come on that is not even remotely true. Lots of factories were full of women and children since the start of the industrial revolution. Industrial jobs tended to be sex segregated but there were always lots of women working. I guess it doesn't really count as they were not in the classes that count or something.

 

[caveman1917]

OK then we are at the idea that there are three sexes, male, female and other. And of course after menopause women stop being female as there are no ova. Also before puberty, and as a result of injury or disease.

That does work but again see not binary. There is always the category of those who don't produce sperm or ova.

The category "other" is not a sex. The sex of an individual is the role played by that individual in sexual reproduction (hence "sex" as in "sexual reproduction"). For mammals, among which humans, there are only two roles an individual can play in sexual reproduction, namely provider of sperm (called the male sex) or provider of ovum (called the female sex). Those who don't produce either sperm or ova do not have a sex (they don't play any role in sexual reproduction). In other words, there are two sexes and some people who don't have a sex, sex is binary.

 

[Belz...]

In other words, there are two sexes and some people who don't have a sex, sex is binary.

Even ignoring that, it's important to note that diformity is not a new sex, and that we're talking about a vanishingly small number of people. It's not like we need to upend our entire concept of sex here.