Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Ziggurat]

Silly goose, of course all males are foxes in that analogy.

And analogies are never perfect, which is why I tend to avoid them in arguments. @p0lka , EC's analogy is meant to illustrate capability, not intent. If you note her response, she explicitly mentions males who protect females from predatory males. Foxes don't do that for chickens, so that should give you a clue about the purpose of the analogy.

 

[theprestige]

Personally I prefer the wolves and sheepdogs metaphor. It gives men moral agency, a clear choice about what kind of person they want to be, and a call to beneficial action.

 

[smartcooky]

BTW, they were listening to the people that you keep appealing to as authorities. So... I dunno where that leaves you.

BOOM!

 

[smartcooky]

Demonstrating respect for proper boundaries is part of how you establish that you are trustworthy.

The good men stay out so that the bad men stand out!

 

[Ziggurat]

Personally I prefer the wolves and sheepdogs metaphor. It gives men moral agency, a clear choice about what kind of person they want to be, and a call to beneficial action.

Sure, but the visuals of a fox shoving feathers up its ass is funnier than a wolf shoving wool up its ass.

 

[John Freestone]

EC's analogy

Hey, it was my analogy!

Personally I prefer the wolves and sheepdogs metaphor. It gives men moral agency, a clear choice about what kind of person they want to be, and a call to beneficial action.

What? Good men herd women to benefit the farmer, instead of ripping their throats out?

 

[theprestige]

Hey, it was my analogy!

What? Good men herd women to benefit the farmer, instead of ripping their throats out?

Good men protect and defend, not prey upon.

 

[Ziggurat]

What? Good men herd women to benefit the farmer, instead of ripping their throats out?

What, women lay eggs and sit on them?

No. No they do not. Even the best analogies are only supposed to be partial parallels, not complete parallels.

 

[d4m10n]

numbers made up for illustration

Any chance you can find numbers which weren't made up for the sake of illustration? Claims like "most females do NOT support males with transgender identities having access to female-specific intimate spaces" seem to imply access to actual data.

 

[d4m10n]

Personally I prefer the wolves and sheepdogs metaphor.

I prefer the transheep metaphor.

 

[Thermal]

It doesn't do this for me. It will show up in the notification list (the bell in the upper right), but I don't pay much attention to that. I try to clear it out about once a day because having red-backed numbers makes my brain itch. But it certainly doesn't put any alert in any obvious and visible location for me.

"The ping brings up an alert on your screen.'

EC: "it doesn't for me. Except that it does. Buy I don't pay any attention to it, except to clear them because they grab my attention so much"

This is just surreal.

 

[Thermal]

This is a circumstantial ad hominem^WP at best, not a substantive critique.

It's not a critique at all.

As we said several rimes already, 'because' and 'and' are not meaningless and interchangeable prepositions and conjunctions. You need a 'because' to even make it to a circumstantial ad hom. An 'and' just means you are laughing at the guy in addition to the criticism.

'AGP is not true because it's advocates are Eugenics enthusiasts, one of whom ran a demolition-tool supplemented donkey show for his students' is a circumstantial ad hom. As your link points out, it is not even necessarily fallacious to call the credibility of the source into question.

But that's not what was claimed. What was claimed was 'AGP has been roundly criticized as deriving from a heavily flawed methodology and is held in no regard by academia, professional associations, and the medical community. But check it out. yo: of all the people in the world, these bigot's champion is the guy that ran the demolition-tool supplemented donkey show for his students. Ahahahahahahahah!!!" That is no form of ad hom at all.

If we're going to argue about the existence, prevalence, or scope of AGP it's probably worth asking why it should matter.

You might want to bring that up to the yahoos and pretend medical doctors who keep bringing it up.

 

[Pixel42]

My current working hypothesis is that males are more strongly opposed because males have a much better and more instinctive understand of exactly how much of a threat males are, and how many will opportunistically perv if given the chance.

You'd think the constant stories about the men who, once they've got fame or power, use it to abuse women and girls would clue more women in. Or the Pelicot case: that scumbag had no difficulty finding over 70 men living within 30 miles of his small town home who were eager to rape his unconscious wife whilst he watched and filmed them doing it. Opportunity, and a good chance of getting away with it, seems to be all that a frighteningly high percentage of men require.

The male sex drive is very different to the female one. Women forget that at their peril.

 

[John Freestone]

Good men protect and defend, not prey upon.

What, women lay eggs and sit on them?

No. No they do not. Even the best analogies are only supposed to be partial parallels, not complete parallels.

Yes they do. They also cross the road to get to the other side.
(Sometimes winking spoils a joke.)

 

[d4m10n]

AGP has been roundly criticized as deriving from a heavily flawed methodology and is held in no regard by academia, professional associations, and the medical community

The medical community has been known to arrive at a general consensus without grounding themselves in an evidence-based approach; we have an entire thread about what happens when youth gender medicine is subjected to system review. I think it is reasonable to be skeptical of gender medicine more generally, especially when they make further research into a specific topic taboo.

 

[Thermal]

The problem with your argument isn't really about what to expect in a place with self-ID policies. It's that you think it's actually a solution for women to self-exclude.

Sometimes it is absolutely *a* solution.

Nazi: "I do not vish to share this space mit ze filthy Jews"
Others: "Then self exclude yourself and hit the pike, Adolph".

Fun anecdote: a few days ago, we actually got into an IRL debate about trans access (might have been my second or third ever in meatspace). I returned to my default position, which is that the threat of a Richard Cox is real, and we all need to work together to mitigate that threat from the simply pragmatic standpoint of protecting vulnerable people against predators. Some here would say "that's what we've been telling you", but they'd be wrong. I come to that conclusion reluctantly, acknowledging that it's really not the right thing to do, and they pounce on it gleefully, while retweeting pics of those cross-dressing perverts and saying transpeople don't exist anyway, and they are either schitzos or predators. Same endgame, different reasons.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sometimes it is absolutely *a* solution.

Do you think it is in this case?

Nazi: "I do not vish to share this space mit ze filthy Jews"
Others: "Then self exclude yourself and hit the pike, Adolph".

In your analogy, women are Nazis and trans identifying males are Jews.

Wow, you really went in for being as offensive as possible.

Fun anecdote: a few days ago, we actually got into an IRL debate about trans access (might have been my second or third ever in meatspace). I returned to my default position, which is that the threat of a Richard Cox is real, and we all need to work together to mitigate that threat from the simply pragmatic standpoint of protecting vulnerable people against predators. Some here would say "that's what we've been telling you", but they'd be wrong.

No, we wouldn't be wrong. We would be completely right.

I come to that conclusion reluctantly, acknowledging that it's really not the right thing to do,

What EXACTLY is "it" in this sentence? Because it sounds like you're saying something I really, really don't think you should be saying, and I want to give you a chance to clarify what you actually mean.

and they pounce on it gleefully, while retweeting pics of those cross-dressing perverts and saying transpeople don't exist anyway, and they are either schitzos or predators. Same endgame, different reasons.

No one here says transpeople don't exist. No one here says they're all shitzos or predators.

Every single time you try to describe the gender critical position, you just resort to straw men. Every single time.

 

[Thermal]

The medical community has been known to arrive at a general consensus without grounding themselves in an evidence-based approach; we have an entire thread about what happens when youth gender medicine is subjected to system review. I think it is reasonable to be skeptical of gender medicine more generally, especially when they make further research into a specific topic taboo.

Absolutely. They get things wrong sometimes. That doesn't mean you get to dismiss a consensus of experts worldwide because their exper findings conflict with your preferred narrative.

I found Moser's criticisms of Blanchard's AGP posit very compelling. Bit of a slam dunk at that. Blanchard wants his posit accepted as-is, yet he pretty much abandoned further research on it decades ago, while he could have corrected his methodology to adapt to more scientifically rigorous standards and perhaps advanced his posit to greater acceptance. He evidently doesn't want to see it explored more either.

 

[ahhell]

It turns out that the small subset of males who demand access to women's spaces whether women like it or not are exactly the small subset of males that is more likely to pose a threat if their demands are met.

Something I heard recently that I tend to agree with, "I'm not worried about transwomen victimizing women in women's spaces as much as I worry about predatory men who are willing to pretend to be trans in order to get into women's spaces."

 

[Thermal]

Do you think it is in this case?

*A* solution, of many? Of course it is. I happen to believe in elective association.

In your analogy, women are Nazis and trans identifying males are Jews.

Wow, you really went in for being as offensive as possible.

Could you kindly stop playing dumb? I offered an example of how it is entirely a good solution SOMETIMES, using an example we could all agree to (I hope). That doesn't analogize anything beyond the simple concept that SOMETIMES it works.

No, we wouldn't be wrong. We would be completely right.

Keep willfully ignoring the glaring difference. It's a good look.

What EXACTLY is "it" in this sentence? Because it sounds like you're saying something I really, really don't think you should be saying, and I want to give you a chance to clarify what you actually mean.

"It" is exactly what "it" appears to be in context: introducing strict sex segregation in private spaces. We got along ok for generations with self-policing, but I don't recall Cox and Merager situations coming up back then. The lines are being pushed farther than allowing the rare nonconformist to innocently use the opposite sexed facilities, and it is perfectly plausible that sooner or later, escalation of the rare predator that takes advantage will become a thing, and I don't want to be the one explaining it to the victim that it is really rare so let's keep being inclusive.

Them violent perverted freaks in the restroom is not the threat (or rather, the threat is not mitigated one iota through a new sign on the door). The issue is that the policy has to be consistent, so if a transwoman shouldn't enter the girl's showers, she shouldn't enter the women's room either, on the same principle. And that's how I came into this debate, and when I leave it, I tend to return to it. It's only when i am here, reading the bigoted retweetys, that I push back, because your reasoning is wrong, not your conclusion.

No one here says transpeople don't exist. No one here says they're all shitzos or predators.

Every single time you try to describe the gender critical position, you just resort to straw men. Every single time.

Playing dumb again? Mild hyperbole is not a strawman, and your arguments are not substantially changed with the mild hyperbole. You yourself has said transpeople are either mentally ill or 'pretending'. John Freestone says straight up that transwomen don't exist. smartcooky says they are all 'bonkers'. theprestige gives more slack, saying they are mentally ill, misogynists, or perverts.

If you object so strongly to how you present yourself, mebbe y'all should present differently? There's a Fig-Leaves-R-Us down the pike a ways.