The trans debate

[Rich Tea Wellin]

Wondering if RTW is willing to continue the discussion? Looked a bit like he threw his hands up and was like “I don’t get it but I see where you’re going and I don’t like it”, and I genuinely do not understand why so few people will think a thought through to the end on this.

I said I might take a few days to reply and you accepted that. I’m not going to continue if you’re going to get militant about it

[Rich Tea Wellin]

Why do you need to?

That’s the crucial question. The reason you need to is that “feeling like a girl” describes something entirely different depending on what the word “girl” describes.

It’s interesting that at the first difficult question you’ve started extrapolating some stuff I haven’t said, but if you can, I’d like to stay on topic. It’s interesting that you mentioned confusing.

The fact is, we are talking about words, categories, and what is in those categories.

If children are taught - universally - that “being a boy or a girl is a neutral fact about your body”, and interests, colours, hair length, clothes, personalities are not “gendered”, then a boy saying “I am a girl” could, in that context, only relate to extreme distress about their sexed body, because the category only refers to sex. Correct?

I don’t really understand the last question, can you rephrase?

And let’s not forget you started extrapolating some stuff I hadn’t said too I.e. “why does a child under ten need to know this”.

I don’t know if it’s because you are so far into this topic, or it’s your personality, but I think you are missing the fact that a conversation with a child, my child, can go into as much or as little detail as I feel necessary. Which may or may not confuse them more. I’m confused as to why you think, when explaining trans people to a child I’d absolutely have to go into minute detail about semantics, psychology and gender stereotypes

[CEB]

Your last interaction was you throwing your hands in the air and telling me you knew where I was going, then you went on to extrapolate some stuff incorrectly.

Feel free to drop out if don’t want to engage. Talking you through a point then rolling my eyes when you nope out at the first difficult question isn’t me being “militant”.

[Dunners]

I see articles like this now, and my first thought isn't 'oh, poor child'. Instead it's; Woman, or "woman"?

[CEB]

I can’t rephrase the last question - I’ve re-read it and it asks exactly what I want to ask. What don’t you understand about it?

[CEB]

OK, I’ll try to rephrase.

If you teach children, unambiguously, that “girl” and “boy” are words that describe whether a child is male or female, and you do not teach them that their sex can or should limit what they like, how they dress, what they want to be good at etc, then a male child who says “I’m a girl” in that context can only be describing an intense discomfort with having a male body.
Correct?

[Rich Tea Wellin]

Correct

[Rich Tea Wellin]

Your last interaction was you throwing your hands in the air and telling me you knew where I was going, then you went on to extrapolate some stuff incorrectly.

Feel free to drop out if don’t want to engage. Talking you through a point then rolling my eyes when you nope out at the first difficult question isn’t me being “militant”.

Your defensiveness about your ultimate point and the fact I couldn’t possibly know what it is has made you read into my comment more than necessary. I’m happy to continue

[CEB]

Correct

Great.

Alternatively, if the only thing you taught children about the words “girl” and “boy” were that they describe how you feel about yourself - that it was unrelated to bodies - in that context, a child saying “I am a boy” or “I am a girl” could only be reaching that conclusion by measuring themselves against societal ideas of what boys and girls should be and do.
Also correct?

[Rich Tea Wellin]

Yes..,with a caveat.

I don’t understand what it feels like to feel like a girl. My assumption is that it’s based on societal norms so you point stands but I also can’t be sure of that.

[CEB]

Ah - interesting that you’ve applied the caveat to the latter, where we discuss feelings.
That’s a whole point in itself: once you’ve described “girl” as a feeling, then in the absence of a description of that feeling, it’s unfalsifiable.
It remains a fact that if children are taught the terms “girl” and “boy” and it’s divorced from their sex, we’re left with cultural expectations and how well a child fits in with existing cultural norms. Yes?

[CEB]

Actually thinking about it, I don’t understand your response.
In the first question, we were using “girl” and “boy” to describe sex and only sex.

In the second, we are using it to describe a feeling, that feeling not being described.

In the second, I think I’m right in saying that there is no other possibility aside from “assimilation of cultural expectations” that could potentially shape whether someone believes they are a boy or girl in that situation.

[CEB]

I know this is at the risk of being facetious or maybe even militant, but are you aware of the sexism inherent in the idea that there even could be a feeling of “being a girl”? Does the question, as you articulate it, not immediately demonstrate to you that any non-sex based definition of “boy” or “girl” can *only* be sexist?

[Rich Tea Wellin]

Well, there’s physiological things that happen differently in male and female bodies, right? It depends where your cut off is for describing “feelings”. Is that sexist? I don’t know.

Does that also translate to other feelings? I was born a Jew but I don’t particularly feel Jewish. Does that mean I’m Jewish or not?
Sorry if this is a strange, unrelated tangent.

[CEB]

Well, there’s physiological things that happen differently in male and female bodies, right? It depends where your cut off is for describing “feelings”. Is that sexist? I don’t know.

Does that also translate to other feelings? I was born a Jew but I don’t particularly feel Jewish. Does that mean I’m Jewish or not?
Sorry if this is a strange, unrelated tangent.

You’re missing the point: the second example makes no reference to male or female bodies: it refers only to feelings.
Remember no human can no how any other human feels.

Regarding your “born a Jew” point: totally irrelevant. “Jewish” can refer either to an ethnicity or a religion. If you’re referring to lineage, then it is not a feeling, but a neutral fact about your ancestry.
if you are referring to your religious beliefs, then whether you are a Jew or not depends on your belief or and observation of that religion and how you describe yourself.

Honestly, and I don’t mean this to be mean, but the inability to think through what we’re discussing here is exactly how trans activism has been able to achieve its goals so successfully. It honestly seems to me that you don’t know what questions you might ask in order to establish whether or not you support trans activism

[Rich Tea Wellin]

I respectfully disagree. Your inability to accept that there MAY be something that you can’t tangibly prove means that it doesn’t exist clouds your judgement. Whether you choose to accept that or not.
I don’t know what questions I might ask, I think you’re right. Because I don’t have enough skin in the game or interest in the subject to dedicate enough time or thought to it.
For what it’s worth, and I suspect nothing - I don’t agree with trans activism in the extreme form we see more and more of. I do think a lot of trans people feel the way they do due to societal pressures of gender stereotypes which are sexist. Which is depressing. But I also have enough humbleness to throw my hands up to say I don’t fully understand what these people are feeling, which I’ve tried to explain. I also feel that extreme trans activism puts women at risk which has to be stopped.
I feel disappointed this went the way I thought it would and that I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

[CEB]

Like, I really need to emphasise this: in the second example, the terms “girl” and “boy” are *completely separate from their prior association with sex, which means that sex specific physiological experiences would not constitute - or be recognisable as - relating to girlness or boyness in that example*

Do you see?

[Rich Tea Wellin]

I think this is getting painful for both of us. I love that you are passionate about this and I think it’s for all the right reasons.

[CEB]

You’ve just done a massive cop out. You don’t disagree with the extreme form of trans activism. You disagree with the mainstream form of trans activism. You just don’t know it because you don’t know what the mainstream says, and don’t care to find out.


It’s constantly funny to me that some of the people on here proudly announcing that they know nothing about the subject still seem quite confident that they guy who does know a thing or two about it must be talking out of his arse (despite having been shown to be right about everything he’s stated on this thread)

Oh, and don’t patronise me.

[Rich Tea Wellin]

For what it’s worth I know you know what you are talking about but you’ve lost perspective and the ability to question yourself.

You’re right, I don’t care to find out. I have more important things and more important challenges to deal with and think about.

Get some perspective. Like when you say don’t patronise me at the end of a post like that

[CEB]

No, you are simply incorrect.
My position on this is informed at all stages from scrutiny of my own position, which I have done far more stridently than any scrutiny I’ve applied to yours. Given that not one person on this thread has at any point actually substantively engaged with or countered a single point I’ve made, there isn’t actually anything on which to base the idea that I’m unable to question myself - there isn’t a single point made to me that I haven’t engaged with honestly and thoroughly.

Considering the impact of this on young kids who would grow up to be gay, there is casual homophobia in not caring enough about this subject to work out what you think.

But I shan’t waste my time discussing it with you. My hope for someone to engage on this subject in good faith continues; you got as far as one tricky question.

[Rich Tea Wellin]

Good luck with that considering you got your back up almost instantly after saying that you’d discuss in good faith. And now you are calling me a casual homophobe.

As you’ve pointed out, you’ve done your stringent research and clearly know more on this than anyone else on here. What I’m almost certain about at this point is that you don’t want a debate or engagement. You want to be right. For people to acknowledge that. I don’t think it’s just ego but knowing what you’ve said about adhd I’ll leave it there. I hope you find what you are looking for, but maybe consider why you aren’t getting it based on your responses over the last few days.
I’m out of this thread for good, game to ref etc…

[CEB]

No, I’m saying that there is casual homophobia in being so dismissive about an unfolding preventable scandal that will disproportionately impact children who would grow up to be gay.

And no, you’re wrong again. I don’t *want* to be right; I am right. I *wanted* to be wrong - it would be far, far better for me to read a substantial counter to my concerns that actually addresses the concerns I have and sets me right.

But there isn’t one.

Proper LOL at the idea that if only I wasn’t so mean when you fail to answer a hypothetical question, maybe you would have engaged. Yeah, no - the failure to engage in this isn’t limited to you, and isn’t limited to me. The progressive left has not at any point in the last five years, actually come up with a substantial engagement with the issues raised by the left wing opposition to trans activism.

If you’re not interested though, maybe best to leave the thread.

[CEB]

The stuff being said in court today about the Edinburgh rape crisis centre is genuinely incredible.
Absolutely indefensible, and the gaslighting reality denial of this movement is laid completely bare.

Gist: women who seek help from the rape crisis centre will be told, if they ask, that of course they can have the support of a woman.

However, “woman” according to them means “person who says they are a woman”

No, they will not reassure women who maintain they want support from a female support worker that they can have one.

Why?

Because they don’t have any men working there. It’d be bad to put women in the position of having men support them after they’ve been raped, but luckily that’s not happening here, because according to their policy, the males there are not male.

(The CEO of the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Center is a male who has had no surgery, does not have a Gender Recognition Certificate, and does not even have any relevant professional qualifications in the field of trauma support or counselling. He is also quoted as having said that despite being CEO, he still sees 3-4 woman a week to offer counselling “to keep it fun”)


I sort of feel that whether anyone thinks I’m disproportionately interested in this or not, it’s demonstrable that I’m kind of making up for how little coverage this sh*t is actually getting.

[Proposition Joe]

Having dealt with women who were made homeless after being kicked out of refuges due to letting a male friend or partner into the premises, looks like they missed a trick by not simply denying they were men.