Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

Ian, if you have evidence that people can change sex that would be absolutely astounding. Your sex is in every cell of your body. Your gender identity is a feeling in your head. It's not an empirical fact. How could it be? And your feeling of your identity cannot change your sex.

"The majority of the murders happened in Central and South America (70%). But like last few years, the most deaths in a single country occurred in Brazil, totalling 33% of global deaths. ..... 58% were sex workers".

So most were killed in countries that have a very high murder rate in general. And most were sex workers - which again has a notoriously high homicide rate for its participants. South America is also very homophobic which probably adds to the risk. That's not to minimise these deaths, but there is more to it when you look at the figures. The UK has a third of the population of Brazil and yet there has been only one trans person murdered in the UK in the last 4 or 5 years.

Rachel Dolezal isn't a deflection. She self identifies as black. She has no black ancestry and is objectively a white woman. Should we accept her insistence that she is black? If a male can insist he is a woman, why can't a white woman insist she is black?

You seem to accept Eddie Izzard but draw the line at Rachel Dolezal. I can't see a difference.

(Edited for spelling)

 

[AuroraSaab]

Contrary to the completely unevidenced claim made on this thread that "the majority of women don't want trans women in women's spaces" here is one piece of survey data on attitudes to TW in women's toilets (screenshotted, because some people don't do detail).

View attachment 2896

As usual, your surveys count but mine don't lol.

You are the one who seems to get rather riled up. You just can't keep your composure for long. The mask soon drops and you start calling people thickos and saying debating them is beneath you. Then you fall back on 'They're all Proud Boys and right-wingers' when the only right wing tactics we see in the debate are from the bullying men in black masks who prevent women from meeting, speaking, and even working.

It is beyond naive to believe, as you seem to do, that every person who presents themselves as a transwoman is genuinely suffering from dysphoria. And even if you could, women still have a right to say no to sharing their single sex spaces with them if they wish. How about you guys accommodate your non conforming brethren in the gents changing rooms?

 

[Ian H]

You seem to accept Eddie Izzard but draw the line at Rachel Dolezal. I can't see a difference.

I haven't voiced any opinion at all on either of those people. Would you mind not putting words into my mouth, please.

Neither have I given my own opinion on trans people. I did ask how the disproportionate violence against them might be reduced. Any ideas?

 

[AuroraSaab]

I would say it's unproven that they face a higher rate of violence in the UK than other demographics.

But perhaps the first thing to ask is who is responsible for the vast majority of violence, Ian? It's men. Male violence is the issue, whether it's violence against women or against other men.

As for tackling it perhaps you guys could sort yourselves out and be more welcoming to non conforming men? Do you have any suggestions yourself that don't involve women giving up things?

 

[multitool]

If the majority of women disagree with you, which they do, why on earth do you think it is you who should define the debate and speak on behalf of women? You represent a minority view within the views of women.

 

[Ian H]

I would say it's unproven that they face a higher rate of violence in the UK than other demographics.

But perhaps the first thing to ask is who is responsible for the vast majority of violence, Ian? It's men. Male violence is the issue, whether it's violence against women or against other men.

As for tackling it perhaps you guys could sort yourselves out and be more welcoming to non conforming men? Do you have any suggestions yourself that don't involve women giving up things?

Violence (male or otherwise) can be legitimised by disparaging, dehumanising, or hateful comments and remarks from both men & women.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Do you think saying sex is binary and immutable is disparaging, dehumanising, or hateful?

I haven't seen any violence from women. Or calls for violence from feminists. I have seen quite a lot of aggression from trans rights activists, including masked men preventing women meeting, and threats on social media. You never see women organising a counter demo to a trans rights meeting. Funny how the hateful comments from trans activists towards feminists doesn't lead women to become violent.

Do you think women have a right to discuss issues which affect them? Should women not discuss these issues in case it leads men to behave aggressively towards trans people?

 

[classic33]

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/bristol-protest-today-live-trans-7224871

 

[Unkraut]

You’re in Germany. Should holocaust deniers be free to tell their lies? If so, should they be guaranteed a platform?

How about anti-vaccine loonies that cause measurable harm? Should they have an automatic right to publicity?

Free speech will always have limits - the debate is about where, not if, we place the restrictions.

I would support a public debate between David Irving and a suitably qualified historian of the Third Reich. I reckon the latter would dismantle Irving within 10 minutes.

There are problems emerging with increased numbers of vaccinated and more time to study. One is heart problems with men under 40. This needs to be addressed by the medical profession without big tech censoring the discussion. What you do with the outright deniers is a difficult problem, and needs careful thought. That's my way of saying I don't want to give a glib answer to a serious question.

Regarding limiting free speech in the case of the Canada incident this was an expert in human rights law wanting to give an address on the clash of rights between so-called trans and women's rights - the point of this thread. The cancelling seems to me to be inexcusable.

Not all that different in many ways to ' 'religious belief' - which of course isn't based on 'science' at all..
It's entirely about feelings, prophets, stories we tell ourselves, faith etc.

Making feelings the arbiter of truth is a major problem today, whether religious of secular.

You assert that transitioning is 'unloving' I don't agree with that.
For some people it's a genuine act of self love, aligning themselves with who they believe they are.

The expression self-love is the problem in a nutshell. Having ditched religion - you shall love your neighbour as yourself - the replacement has been self-love, expressed as building your self-esteem, self-fullfillment or actualisation, personal autonomy, say yes to yourself, you are valuable etc. Centered on the world self. An increasingly narcissistic generation in the West believes what they feel in their head must determine reality. A man thinks he is a woman, that settles it and everyone else must comply.

As you like a bit of fundamentalism: But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of stress (or at a pinch oppression). For men will be lovers of self, ...

This is why you have the 'toilets problem' (quite apart from a lot of Victorian British prudery!). Loving your neighbour would mean a trans-women would ask if it is OK to use the ladies' loo, and if they were uncomfortable and said no respect that and desist. Self-love insists on getting its own way.

Sports as well. Ask the female team if they mind what is effectively a male body competing against them, and if they do then drop out.

When I consider transgenderism unloving, I am thinking of the actual results all too often, but in particular the mutilation of healthy bodies under the guise of dealing with a problem in the head (gender identity disorder). Deal with the wrong thinking. Of pushing this on teenagers behind parents' backs, and threatening removal of the child and/or ruinous fines or imprisonment if they continue to object. There are increasing numbers of detransitioners who should be fully allowed to seek help and counsel to try to undo the damage that has been done by the administration of drugs or surgery. That includes 'ministers of religion' if the person so chooses. If adults wish to undertake such a course of action they are free to do so, but I would draw the line with anyone under 18. Transitioning in this case is imo pure evil. It cannot be undone if they subsequently change their mind.

 

[Ian H]

Do you think saying sex is binary and immutable is disparaging, dehumanising, or hateful?

If it's said sufficiently stridently & aggressively, then yes.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You could certainly criticise the tone in which anything is said, but it's a scientific statement of fact. It can no more be hateful than saying gravity exists can be hateful.

You should see some of the responses people who say it politely get from trans activists.

 

[Ian H]

You could certainly criticise the tone in which anything is said, but it's a scientific statement of fact. It can no more be hateful that saying gravity exists can be hateful.

You should see some of the responses people who say it politely get from trans activists.

It's your opinion.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/

 

[AuroraSaab]

That article is a guest blog by a transgender scientist. It's also an opinion piece. It's not a peer reviewed piece of scientific research. Anyone who could prove sex in humans is not binary would get a Nobel prize.

The fact that nature doesn't work perfectly 100% of the time isn't evidence that sex is a spectrum. Humans are a two legged species despite the fact that people are very occasionally born with only one leg. We all know it comes down to the fact that every person alive, dead, and as yet unborn, will have a male and female parent because those are the only options.

It's debunked at length here:

View: https://twitter.com/wet_hen/status/1213130009814036485

 

[multitool]

Aurora likes simple concepts she can grasp. She doesn't like nuance, say for example a word meaning one thing in common usage, but having a different meaning in law. She likes simple rhetorical tricks, say for example violence exists amongst men, therefore men are violent, trans women are men therefore trans women are violent. Case closed.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Do you think saying sex is binary and immutable is disparaging, dehumanising, or hateful?

Yes.

Next?