|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 09 2023 11:08 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2023 09:22 StasisField wrote:On July 09 2023 07:43 BlackJack wrote:On July 09 2023 06:54 StasisField wrote:On July 09 2023 06:49 BlackJack wrote:1.7% or 0.018% depending on whose number you go withAnne Fausto-Sterling and her co-authors suggest that the prevalence of "nondimorphic sexual development" might be as high as 1.7%. A study published by Leonard Sax reports that this figure includes conditions such as Klinefelter syndrome (XXY) which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, and that if the term is understood to mean only "conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female", the prevalence of intersex is about 0.018% That's still over 1.4 million people. Address the point I made instead of trying to dodge like always. "You say being able to declare yourself a woman "cheapens" what it means to be a woman but I really don't even know what is being cheapened." Based on the definition offered here, I don't know either. "A woman is someone that says they are a woman" doesn't mean anything at face value. You still have to describe what it means to be a woman to give any meaning to it. So if it doesn't mean anything how am I wrong to say that definition cheapens it? As much as everyone wants to criticize my definition for not accounting for extremely rare genetic exceptions, does anyone else want to offer what they think makes a woman a woman? So there is no "cheapening" what a woman is because if there was you would have actually answered my question. But you dodged because you have no real answer. Glad to know the fake-outrage is alive and well with Blackjack! There is no set "meaning" for being a woman. If there was, what a "woman" is in the eyes of society would be constant throughout history and society and we wouldn't have societies that found it necessary to use more than 2 genders to describe all the different people in said societies. That's why people aren't offering you what a woman is beyond "someone who thinks they're a woman." If there is no set meaning for being a woman, then everyone can attach different meaning to it. So person who identify self as a woman may have totally different idea what being a women mean, than any other person. Why cis woman should prioritize the meaning attached to it by trans women, rather than the one she attaches to it herself?
I think you answer your own question in the first sentence of your reply: If there is no set meaning for being a woman, then everyone can attach different meaning to it.
What a "woman" is cannot be defined because what is considered a "woman" is always changing. A woman can decide what being a woman means to herself but there is no definition for "woman" that fits all women and there never will be. If a cis woman decides that dresses, long hair, and gardening is how she defines her personal womanhood then fine. As long as she doesn't think anyone who doesn't wear dresses, doesn't have long hair, or doesn't like gardening isn't a woman then there is no problem. There's only a problem if she decides that other people can't be women because they don't fit into what she's decided womanhood means for her.
|
All this talk about whether trans people deserve to exist really makes me think long and hard about another far more relevant question.
Are humans with conservative politics actually "people"? I mean clearly they are of the homo sapien species, because of their genetics. But it seems self evident that in order for a human to truly be a "person" they'd have to have some ounce of empathy and compassion for the rest of the people in society. Without that crucial bit care for humanity, it's really hard for me to conclude that these politically conservative humans are actually apart of the same society that the rest of us are.
For christ sake, they elected a torturer to govern a state, and are considering whether they might be able to elect that torturer to run the entire executive branch of the country. I don't think real people could vote for that, so these humans clearly aren't people.
The real question, is what can we do with these humans that aren't interacting positively with society? Perhaps we need to institute reforms such that humans can't reach adulthood without developing a healthy relationship with the rest of us. But that still leaves the problem of what to do with those that are already adults.
For instance, should these conservative humans be allowed to hide their identity on dating apps? I think for their own sake, they should state very clearly at the outset that they have conservative politics. You wouldn't want someone to invest time and energy into a conversation or a couple dates, only to later find out that they aren't talking to a real person.
I mean, it would be terrible if a person got violent upon finding they were tricked into going on a date with a conservative human. But really, as we start to see more and more the problems that conservative humans are causing in society, would it really be all that surprising if a person acted that way? It's really for the sake of conservatives that they are up front about that, best to weed out the bad matches early.
This is actually far more of a pressing issue, because gender non-conforming people are probably less than 5% of the human population, but conservative humans are much closer to 30% to 40% of the human population.
|
You're talking about a stereotypical US type of conservatives, right?
|
Nah, there are conservatives like this in every country. Plenty of support for dictators like Putin in russia, you know? Plenty of support for Orban, Brexit, Le Pen, Modi, etc. across the globe. Society would really be better without having conservative humans fighting against progress in every country.
|
On July 09 2023 12:16 ZeroByte13 wrote:
I absolutely agree with what JimmiC said.
Let people know and decide if they're interested.
This is something I really wish we had plasmidghost's perspective on, as dating decorum for trans people is something I don't feel can be adequately answered without first getting a trans person's perspective. It's a tricky subject to navigate without a trans person to give insight. My initial thought is that it should be something a trans person should include in their bio or should bring up early on in the dating process to filter out people who aren't interested in a trans partner, but trans people also have a higher risk of being victims of violence, including rape and sexual assault, so it might be best for them to not out themselves on an app and possibly paint a target on their backs.
|
So it's a conflict of interests.
My guess - no based on anything, just a feeling - would be that at least 90% of people are not interested in dating or having sex with trans-folks, so they'd probably like to know right away.
So unless trans-folks want 9 dates of 10 (if not more) end up in an awkward situation, probably full of frustration, they should learn about their potential partner's opinion on that topic anyway. It probably will be equally frustrating for the trans person themselves.
And then asking "what do you think about dating a trans?" basically reveals it anyway, no?
I honestly don't see how it's possible to not reveal this information without having this problem, unless you're a mind-reader or can reliably learn people's opinions without asking directly.
Maybe not inlcuding this in their bio, but mentioning this before going on an actual date.
|
On July 09 2023 12:53 jrkirby wrote:
Nah, there are conservatives like this in every country. Plenty of support for dictators like Putin in russia, you know? Plenty of support for Orban, Brexit, Le Pen, Modi, etc. across the globe. Society would really be better without having conservative humans fighting against progress in every country.
Ahh yes. The conservative Putin who is inheriting the political will of the likes of Lenin and Stalin.
|
On July 09 2023 15:02 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2023 12:53 jrkirby wrote:
Nah, there are conservatives like this in every country. Plenty of support for dictators like Putin in russia, you know? Plenty of support for Orban, Brexit, Le Pen, Modi, etc. across the globe. Society would really be better without having conservative humans fighting against progress in every country. Ahh yes. The conservative Putin who is inheriting the political will of the likes of Lenin and Stalin.
Putin is indisputably a conservative:
"The two main conservative parties in Russia are the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) led by Leonid Slutsky and United Russia led by its de facto leader Vladimir Putin. Other Russian conservative parties include Rodina, the Russian All-People's Union, and the Eurasia Party. United Russia is the ruling party of Russia and largest party of Russia, holding 74.4% of seats in the state Duma.[13][14]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_Russia#:~:text=The two main conservative parties,Union, and the Eurasia Party.
Not to mention Putin is authoritarian/fascist, which are right-wing labels.
|
I think this debate is severely lacking in an understanding of the transgender experience. It's helpful to try to understand it using comparisons that cis people can relate to.
I can safely assume that I feel different in my own body than Dwayne Johnson does in his own, because - even outside of strength differences - we don't share the exact same features of a male body. We don't share the same height and width, skull shape, skeletal structure, hormone levels, voice, hair type, beard type, skin color, etc. etc. There are hundreds of obvious differences. Beyond physical features, we also don't share the same brain chemistry and thought patterns, some of which are inherited and others are learned or otherwise environmental. It would be impossible for all biological men or women to feel the same in their own bodies as everybody else does, regardless of any mental issues. In fact I'd argue all individuals have a different sensation within their own individual body. This sensation also changes over time and with circumstances.
It is well possible to feel dysphoric in one's own body for reasons other than a gender incongruency (note: I'm not hinting at body dysmorphia, which is a similar phenomenon but not the same. See second link below). Dysphoria is not a mental illness, and it can be caused by a variety of things. Although it is associated with various types of mental illness, which could be the result of dysphoria or they could exist independently of it.
"Dysphoria is a general state of being unhappy, dissatisfied, restless, discouraged, or frustrated that is often followed by depression or anxiety."
https://study.com/academy/lesson/dysphoria-definition-meaning.html
https://www.talkspace.com/blog/body-dysphoria-vs-dysmorphia/
Dysphoria exists in many people, and I'm convinced that cis people also experience it. Dysphoric experiences (not general dysphoria, but infrequent moments) probably affect a large portion of the population, but they can accept who they are because it's not all-encompassing. But in other cases the dysphoria can be so severe that it makes people feel like they desperately want to escape their own bodies. That is the hallmark of dysphoria: the dissatisfaction rarely goes away, making a comfortable life practically impossible.
Some people born male feel extremely uneasy with the sensation of a penis resting or dangling between their legs. This is not the experience of most males, even though I can assure you that there are many men who are unhappy with their penises for a variety of obvious and not so obvious reasons. Typically a man can find a good pair of pants that doesn't cause dissatisfaction. There's usually a solution.
Dysphoria is when this sensation persists regardless of such adjustments. The more elements of an individual's experience in one's own body cause dissatisfaction, and the more it persists throughout the day, the more it indicates dysphoria. If body dysmorphia can be ruled out, there aren't many other diagnoses left.
You may see how easy it is for a cis person to also experience dysphoria. It may be on the rare side, but it's fundamentally not an abnormal human experience. I'd argue most of us go through life experiencing brief dysphoric moments, but most of us can handle it without taking the radical step of changing our gender.
|
On July 09 2023 09:07 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2023 08:19 Acrofales wrote:On July 09 2023 05:12 BlackJack wrote:On July 08 2023 20:43 Acrofales wrote:On July 08 2023 20:25 BlackJack wrote:On July 08 2023 19:54 Acrofales wrote:On July 08 2023 19:42 ZeroByte13 wrote:On July 08 2023 19:27 Acrofales wrote:
Do you agree that someone who says they're a protestant is a protestant? And someone who says they're a muslim is a muslim? It's very probable but not necessarily true. I might say I'm a protestant if this makes something more convenient for next 2 hours, for example. Does this make me one though? I can say all sort of things, doesn't mean any of them are true. Sure, and lying is still bad. What's your point here? In my example you invented a XXX chromosome woman with a total hysterectomy and a double mastectomy just to try to show how my definition wouldn't fit. For yours I don't need to invent anyone and I can just disprove it by using myself and saying "I am a woman." By your definition you have to believe me to be a woman and yet everyone in this thread would know that's not the case. When my definition needs an extreme genetic anomaly to disprove and yours can be undone by anyone with a voice I'd say I'm closer to the truth. Except that at the end of the day, the only external difference between an XX chromosome person with a uterus and 2 breasts and an XXX chromosome person with s histerectomy and a double mastectomy (and plastic surgery), is what they might say if you ask them. So unless you're asking women to submit their medical records, you're just going to have to take their word for it in almost all cases. As for lying, you're right. I might be bamboozled into accepting someone as being a woman who actually is a man and lying. My response to that is (1) so what, and (2) so can you. Nope. The crucial difference here is that a liar may be able to bamboozle me into believing they are a woman when they are not. To you, the liar still is a literal woman just because they’ve said so. How is there a difference there? You are not privy to any objective truth about that person's womanhood, insofar as such an objetive truth exists for a sociopsychologial construct. All you know is that that person said they are a woman. You were lied to, that person doesn't actually think of themselves as a woman. We both erroneously believe they are, because they said they were. We were both bamboozled and it had the exact same consequence in both cases (whatever it was). You seem to think that womanhood can be measured in some way. It cannot. There is no magic femalometer for you to measure how womany someone is. As was pointed out, someone can have all the biological characteristics of a female, yet not feel like one on the inside. And someone can be missing most or even all of the biological characteristics of a female, yet feel like one on the inside. On July 09 2023 05:56 BlackJack wrote:On July 09 2023 01:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 08 2023 18:51 BlackJack wrote:
Right so your definitions are
A man is anyone that says they are a man
A woman is anyone that says they are a woman
It doesn't really tell us what they are saying they are though, does it? I think this inadvertently touches on something Drone raised which is: Do we need a gendered society? What does the pro-con list look like for a gendered vs non-gendered society? Sure seems that way. I mean consider the modern woke definition of woman that I think Acrofales correctly states. A woman is anyone that says they are a woman. That means it takes literally 3 seconds to become a woman. Doesn't this cheapen the whole idea of gender identity in the first place? If anyone can do it in no time flat it really seems to take away a lot of what it means to be a woman. It seems most of the money and effort to becoming a woman is not the part where you become a woman, it takes nothing to declare yourself a woman, but to go out and buy the dresses and makeup and lipstick and heels to conform to the stereotypes of a typical woman. So following this reasoning, it should be possible to change genders, it should just be expensive? Why? The difference is there is an objective truth, regardless if I’m privy to it. For you there is no objective truth and womanhood is entirely subjective I.e the only thing that makes someone a woman is saying they are a woman. Is your definition actually “a woman is anyone that says they are a woman as long as they really mean it.”? Do you get to decide who really means it or not? Seems to me you’d have to accept the liars just as much as anyone else or the whole exercise falls apart. Also no, I’m not saying it should be expensive to become a woman. I’m saying you just can’t become a woman. You can become a transgender woman though and I think that should be just as easy as declaring yourself one.
I think I see our problem here. You see, I think women is a large group with subgroups of cis women, trans women and probably some other groups of people who don't fit neatly into either the trans or cis box.
You think there are two different groups: women, and trans women. And trans women are not women?
You see, I thought you were all about a bi-gendered society, but it turns out you prefer more genders being recognised. I'm fine with that solution too if it works for those who self-identify as those to-be-defined genders.
|
On July 09 2023 11:08 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2023 09:22 StasisField wrote:On July 09 2023 07:43 BlackJack wrote:On July 09 2023 06:54 StasisField wrote:On July 09 2023 06:49 BlackJack wrote:1.7% or 0.018% depending on whose number you go withAnne Fausto-Sterling and her co-authors suggest that the prevalence of "nondimorphic sexual development" might be as high as 1.7%. A study published by Leonard Sax reports that this figure includes conditions such as Klinefelter syndrome (XXY) which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, and that if the term is understood to mean only "conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female", the prevalence of intersex is about 0.018% That's still over 1.4 million people. Address the point I made instead of trying to dodge like always. "You say being able to declare yourself a woman "cheapens" what it means to be a woman but I really don't even know what is being cheapened." Based on the definition offered here, I don't know either. "A woman is someone that says they are a woman" doesn't mean anything at face value. You still have to describe what it means to be a woman to give any meaning to it. So if it doesn't mean anything how am I wrong to say that definition cheapens it? As much as everyone wants to criticize my definition for not accounting for extremely rare genetic exceptions, does anyone else want to offer what they think makes a woman a woman? So there is no "cheapening" what a woman is because if there was you would have actually answered my question. But you dodged because you have no real answer. Glad to know the fake-outrage is alive and well with Blackjack! There is no set "meaning" for being a woman. If there was, what a "woman" is in the eyes of society would be constant throughout history and society and we wouldn't have societies that found it necessary to use more than 2 genders to describe all the different people in said societies. That's why people aren't offering you what a woman is beyond "someone who thinks they're a woman." If there is no set meaning for being a woman, then everyone can attach different meaning to it. So person who identify self as a woman may have totally different idea what being a women mean, than any other person. Why cis woman should prioritize the meaning attached to it by trans women, rather than the one she attaches to it herself? Somewhat on the matter: I actually think that biggest issue in acceptance of trans people are actually LGBTQ+ activists. Some recently suggested vocabulary/definitions in the name of inclusivity: Birthing person Bonus hole (aka vagina) Lesbian - non-man attracted to non-men This looks like something from "Handmaid's Tale", if they wanted to turn people hostile on purpose, they would have a hard time beating that.
Surprisingly, you said something sensible. Probably unintentionally, but yes, I agree completely with the bolded statement!
Just as we can generally describe redness to each other and generally agree on what is red and what isn't, we cannot be sure that our experiences of redness are the same. And in fact, there have been big internet controversies over what color a dress is! And not just internet, I often find myself disagreeing with my wife over whether an object is red, pink or purple, and no, I am not daltonic and neither is my wife. We just experience color slightly differently. And color is FAR more easy to objectify than the sensation of "being a woman" (or a man).
|
I guess there's a difference though.
If someone promised to go on a date with average Joe in a red dress, and then this red is not the same as what Joe imagined it to be, probably nobody would notice, let alone be frustrated about it.
If Joe's date ends up being a trans, there's (just a guess) 90-95% chance that Joe won't be happy about it.
So this distinction is important to Joe, and saying "I'm a woman" is not enough, Joe wants to know what kind of woman it is.
|
On July 09 2023 20:07 ZeroByte13 wrote:
I guess there's a difference though.
If someone promised to go on a date with average Joe in a red dress, and then this red is not the same as what Joe imagined it to be, probably nobody would notice, let alone be frustrated about it.
If someone goes on a date with Joe and ends up being trans, there's (just a guess) 90-95% chance that Joe won't be happy about it.
So this distinction is important to Joe, and saying "I'm a woman" is not enough, Joe wants to know what kind of woman it is.
Yeah, but as I said, womanhood is a far more complex concept than redness. It is obviously also a far more important concept to humans. They are similar in that they are both qualia, not in much else.
EDIT: On the other hand, if Joe was looking for a cherrypicker and the cherries had to be picked at the exact right color of redness, he'd be quite upset if someone's perception of that redness differed significantly from his own, whereas that person's idea of womanhood would be entirely irrelevant for the task 
|
Yeah, but this situation is probably super rare, while someone's idea of womanhood (or manhood) is important to billions of people every day.
So perception of redness is rarely if ever a topic of heated debates, while the other topic is mostly heated debates, as far as I can see. 
|
On July 09 2023 20:19 ZeroByte13 wrote:Yeah, but this situation is probably super rare, while someone's idea of womanhood (or manhood) is important to billions of people every day. So perception of redness is rarely if ever a topic of heated debates, while the other topic is mostly heated debates, as far as I can see.
On July 09 2023 20:07 ZeroByte13 wrote:
If Joe's date ends up being a trans, there's (just a guess) 90-95% chance that Joe won't be happy about it.
So this distinction is important to Joe, and saying "I'm a woman" is not enough, Joe wants to know what kind of woman it is.
Someone's idea of what constitutes an ignorant asshole is important to billions of people every day. Lots of people think that chuds who spend all day arguing about the rules trans people need to follow in order to be allowed in society are ignorant assholes.
If Taylor goes on a date with someone, and they end up being an ignorant asshole, there's (just a guess) 95% chance Taylor is is going to be very unhappy.
This kind of distinction is important to Taylor. Saying "I'm not an ignorant asshole" isn't enough, either. Taylor needs to know that they won't cause any stupid drama with their backward-ass takes.
|
You can see if someone is an ignorant asshole just by talking to them, right? People talk to each other before dating, and they talk a lot, right?
You don't need to ask it, you see it. Not exactly the same scenario.
Also while Taylor is not happy to be with an ignorant asshole, this ignorant asshole might be interested in dating Taylor. They have no reason to say they're ignorant assholes, and of course they don't even think they are.
Again, not the same scenario, as in my example both parties are not happy as the result of hiding this information, and one party could prevent it by revealing the information they have about themselves.
|
On July 09 2023 23:52 ZeroByte13 wrote:
You can see if someone is an ignorant asshole just by talking to them, right? People talk to each other before dating, and they talk a lot, right?
You don't need to ask it, you see it. Not exactly the same scenario.
Also while Taylor is not happy to be with an ignorant asshole, this ignorant asshole might be interested in dating Taylor.
Again, not the same scenario, as in my example both parties are not happy as the result of hiding this information.
So you're saying that it's ok ignorant assholes aren't up front telling people how transphobic and reactionary they are, because they might want be able to trick a decent person into thinking they're ok temporarily? Since that would make the ignorant asshole happy, there's no problem with it?
|
I'm saying you can understand that another person is an ignorant asshole (according to your criteria, of course, as this is subjective) just by talking to them. Nobody thinks about themselves as assholes so nobody will say this directly.
So there's both no big need for this disclaimer (you can learn it yourself just by talking to a person) and no realistic chance that someone will ever say this.
And you understand, of course, that other people might think you're an ignorant asshole (for whatever reasons they have) - but you will never admit it, right?
Because you don't think so, why would you? Well, they also don't think so about themselves, so why would they admit it?
So how is this example - with a subjective quality that nobody admits about themselves and that frustrates only one party - related to my example with a real quality that people admit about themselves, so they can reveal it to avoid frustration for both parties?
|
On July 10 2023 00:05 ZeroByte13 wrote:
I'm saying you can understand that another person is an ignorant asshole (according to your criteria, of course, as this is subjective) just by talking to them. Nobody thinks about themselves as assholes so nobody will say this directly.
So there's both no big need for this disclaimer (you can learn it yourself just by talking to a person) and no realistic chance that someone will ever say this.
And you understand, of course, that other people might think you're an ignorant asshole (for whatever reasons they have) - but you will never admit it, right?
Because you don't think so, why would you? Well, they also don't think so about themselves, so why would they admit it?
It's not all that complicated. If you spend time online debating the rights of other people, you're an ignorant asshole, and you should let all potential dates/acquaintances know ahead of time, so they can avoid you without wasting their time.
Of course that's just my opinion, of course. All those chuds will do what they're going to do anyway. It's just unfortunate, because when a decent person find out that they've been spending time with an ignorant asshole they might understandably get a little violent, because they've been tricked.
It's really for the sake of all these transphobes and other terrible humans that they are up front with their stupid takes. Violence is bad, and I wouldn't want and decent people to end up causing all kinds of conflict if they find out after being tricked like that.
|
On July 09 2023 20:19 ZeroByte13 wrote:Yeah, but this situation is probably super rare, while someone's idea of womanhood (or manhood) is important to billions of people every day. So perception of redness is rarely if ever a topic of heated debates, while the other topic is mostly heated debates, as far as I can see.
Because the usefulness of the word 'red' is not subject to a campaign to redefine it as, "whatever the person saying the word 'red' says is red."
If someone says, "John is a man wearing a red t-shirt." You can easily develop a mental picture of this John. Unless, of course, John is actually a woman who "identifies as"* a man. Then the sentence is much less useful.
*"Identify as" has never been coherent. Which is why highly educated trans advocates get reduced into blubbering pools of nonsense by clowns like Matt Walsh. Instead, more appropriately trans people "identify with". That is, trans men identify with the cultural trappings and body shape of a man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
