The importance of objectivity

[Hadoblado]

Also not a steel man. I'm not an anomaly. You are dismissing every psychological expert on this matter as a subjectivist. Most psychologists aren't subjectivist.

I'm using me as an example because I can't speak for other people here. I can speak with absolute confidence that you are wrong when it comes to me, but I doubt that everyone here that disagrees with you is a subjectivist, even including Chibi who seemed to agree with me that there exists an objective reality.

Anyway. This is me being a mod. I won't argue further. I've explained how this will go down and now it's up to you to decide how you proceed. You've made strides forward recently but if you can't wrap your head around how you're systematically mischaracterising people that's on you.

Please, I am begging you. Make a positive case for YOUR VIEW for ONCE!

This is really hard for me because any time I talk about anything in general terms, you will turn around and be like, "I don't fit that mold, so you need to change what you are saying."

I don't even know how I'm supposed to discuss anything if I can't explain how things started or what the logic is behind my view, which you want me to essentially cover every exception and provide a comprehensive view where I dot every i and cross every t. I can't do that, and I feel that it's totally unfair of you to expect me to do so when you yourself don't exactly make a habit of presenting a positive case for your view. Instead, you seem to sit back and shoot down people's logic without actually having any skin in the game yourself. It's really frustrating for you to come at me like this as a mod and tell me how I need to engage with people based on your own "neutral" view, which you never actually make a positive case for.

Objective reality exists, but is not one-to-one with language. While it makes sense to call an adult human female a woman in most contexts, this ignores objective realities in other contexts. Such a context might include when the "woman" in question looks like this:

View attachment 8862

Yeah, well, that's a man, and I can tell based on how broad the shoulders are.

And so the fact they possess a vagina doesn't change your mind about that at all?

 

[Chibi]

And so the fact they possess a vagina doesn't change your mind about that at all?

Fuck hado you're so based rn

 

[Old Things]

Also not a steel man. I'm not an anomaly. You are dismissing every psychological expert on this matter as a subjectivist. Most psychologists aren't subjectivist.

I'm using me as an example because I can't speak for other people here. I can speak with absolute confidence that you are wrong when it comes to me, but I doubt that everyone here that disagrees with you is a subjectivist, even including Chibi who seemed to agree with me that there exists an objective reality.

Anyway. This is me being a mod. I won't argue further. I've explained how this will go down and now it's up to you to decide how you proceed. You've made strides forward recently but if you can't wrap your head around how you're systematically mischaracterising people that's on you.

Please, I am begging you. Make a positive case for YOUR VIEW for ONCE!

This is really hard for me because any time I talk about anything in general terms, you will turn around and be like, "I don't fit that mold, so you need to change what you are saying."

I don't even know how I'm supposed to discuss anything if I can't explain how things started or what the logic is behind my view, which you want me to essentially cover every exception and provide a comprehensive view where I dot every i and cross every t. I can't do that, and I feel that it's totally unfair of you to expect me to do so when you yourself don't exactly make a habit of presenting a positive case for your view. Instead, you seem to sit back and shoot down people's logic without actually having any skin in the game yourself. It's really frustrating for you to come at me like this as a mod and tell me how I need to engage with people based on your own "neutral" view, which you never actually make a positive case for.

Objective reality exists, but is not one-to-one with language. While it makes sense to call an adult human female a woman in most contexts, this ignores objective realities in other contexts. Such a context might include when the "woman" in question looks like this:

View attachment 8862

Yeah, well, that's a man, and I can tell based on how broad the shoulders are.

And so the fact they possess a vagina doesn't change your mind about that at all?

I'd have to ask what kind of gametes they produce. Large or small? That's the deciding factor.

 

[Hadoblado]

Also not a steel man. I'm not an anomaly. You are dismissing every psychological expert on this matter as a subjectivist. Most psychologists aren't subjectivist.

I'm using me as an example because I can't speak for other people here. I can speak with absolute confidence that you are wrong when it comes to me, but I doubt that everyone here that disagrees with you is a subjectivist, even including Chibi who seemed to agree with me that there exists an objective reality.

Anyway. This is me being a mod. I won't argue further. I've explained how this will go down and now it's up to you to decide how you proceed. You've made strides forward recently but if you can't wrap your head around how you're systematically mischaracterising people that's on you.

Please, I am begging you. Make a positive case for YOUR VIEW for ONCE!

This is really hard for me because any time I talk about anything in general terms, you will turn around and be like, "I don't fit that mold, so you need to change what you are saying."

I don't even know how I'm supposed to discuss anything if I can't explain how things started or what the logic is behind my view, which you want me to essentially cover every exception and provide a comprehensive view where I dot every i and cross every t. I can't do that, and I feel that it's totally unfair of you to expect me to do so when you yourself don't exactly make a habit of presenting a positive case for your view. Instead, you seem to sit back and shoot down people's logic without actually having any skin in the game yourself. It's really frustrating for you to come at me like this as a mod and tell me how I need to engage with people based on your own "neutral" view, which you never actually make a positive case for.

Objective reality exists, but is not one-to-one with language. While it makes sense to call an adult human female a woman in most contexts, this ignores objective realities in other contexts. Such a context might include when the "woman" in question looks like this:

View attachment 8862

Yeah, well, that's a man, and I can tell based on how broad the shoulders are.

And so the fact they possess a vagina doesn't change your mind about that at all?

I'd have to ask what kind of gametes they produce. Large or small? That's the deciding factor.

Large.

Were you being a sophist when you said "that's a man, and I can tell based on how broad the shoulders are", or did you have some other reason for incorrectly asserting this? (according to your definition).

I'm gonna be real with you. If you (a man) had sex with this person, you would be gay. I don't care what your gametometre reads, that is some gay shit right there. Incredibly gay.

 

[Old Things]

Also not a steel man. I'm not an anomaly. You are dismissing every psychological expert on this matter as a subjectivist. Most psychologists aren't subjectivist.

I'm using me as an example because I can't speak for other people here. I can speak with absolute confidence that you are wrong when it comes to me, but I doubt that everyone here that disagrees with you is a subjectivist, even including Chibi who seemed to agree with me that there exists an objective reality.

Anyway. This is me being a mod. I won't argue further. I've explained how this will go down and now it's up to you to decide how you proceed. You've made strides forward recently but if you can't wrap your head around how you're systematically mischaracterising people that's on you.

Please, I am begging you. Make a positive case for YOUR VIEW for ONCE!

This is really hard for me because any time I talk about anything in general terms, you will turn around and be like, "I don't fit that mold, so you need to change what you are saying."

I don't even know how I'm supposed to discuss anything if I can't explain how things started or what the logic is behind my view, which you want me to essentially cover every exception and provide a comprehensive view where I dot every i and cross every t. I can't do that, and I feel that it's totally unfair of you to expect me to do so when you yourself don't exactly make a habit of presenting a positive case for your view. Instead, you seem to sit back and shoot down people's logic without actually having any skin in the game yourself. It's really frustrating for you to come at me like this as a mod and tell me how I need to engage with people based on your own "neutral" view, which you never actually make a positive case for.

Objective reality exists, but is not one-to-one with language. While it makes sense to call an adult human female a woman in most contexts, this ignores objective realities in other contexts. Such a context might include when the "woman" in question looks like this:

View attachment 8862

Yeah, well, that's a man, and I can tell based on how broad the shoulders are.

And so the fact they possess a vagina doesn't change your mind about that at all?

I'd have to ask what kind of gametes they produce. Large or small? That's the deciding factor.

Large.

Were you being a sophist when you said "that's a man, and I can tell based on how broad the shoulders are", or did you have some other reason for incorrectly asserting this? (according to your definition).

I'm gonna be real with you. If you (a man) had sex with this person, you would be gay. I don't care what your gametometre reads, that is some gay shit right there. Incredibly gay.

How was I being a sophist? Because there are EXCEPTIONS doesn't mean that the rule is proven by the EXCEPTION.

This just came out, and I think it is right on the money for this conversation.

The Obsession with Exceptions is Killing Common Sense

How pedantry is destroying communication and sanity.

www.realtalkwithzuby.com

 

[Chibi]

Aren't exceptions found everywhere, though? Especially with that one image you shared of the cat lady?

I don't think anyone here is obsessing over a single exception. Everyone making a case has largely explained their opinions over very broad circumstances. Just because hado tripped you up with that image doesn't mean his arguments hold any less weight.

 

[Old Things]

Aren't exceptions found everywhere, though? Especially with that one image you shared of the cat lady?

I don't think anyone here is obsessing over a single exception. Everyone making a case has largely explained their opinions over very broad circumstances. Just because hado tripped you up with that image doesn't mean his arguments hold any less weight.

Seriously, what does that even mean?

And why is it that any time someone says something that disagrees with my views, you automatically are like, "Yeah, so true king."

 

[Chibi]

Because I agree with their views, and I disagree with yours....

It's really not that hard to understand

 

[Hadoblado]

You said:

Look at the woo woo or wee wee. That is how you know if a person is male or female. People reject this common-sense approach because of sophistry.

Claiming that anyone who rejects this common-sense approach does so through sophistry.

You then rejected this common sense to judge by their shoulders instead. When the existence of a vagina contradicted your view, you asked about gametes instead.

So you don't care about woo woo or wee wee. In practice, you care about shoulders and ...gametes? This makes you a sophist, according to you. You reject your own definition of common-sense at the very first opportunity (and the second).

 

[Old Things]

You said:

Look at the woo woo or wee wee. That is how you know if a person is male or female. People reject this common-sense approach because of sophistry.

Claiming that anyone who rejects this common-sense approach does so through sophistry.

You then rejected this common sense to judge by their shoulders instead. When the existence of a vagina contradicted your view, you asked about gametes instead.

So you don't care about woo woo or wee wee. In practice, you care about shoulders and ...gametes? This makes you a sophist, according to you. You reject your own definition of common-sense at the very first opportunity (and the second).

My view proved true in the end that it is about the woo woo and wee wee.

 

[Hadoblado]

So according to you, if you or a male friend had sex with the person in the picture, this wouldn't be homosexual? Just a man and a woman the way God intended?

Also, I'm gonna set this straight: counterexamples are a very healthy part of constructive discussion and for ascertaining the truth. If you don't want the truth value of your statements overturned by counter-examples, then just present a more nuanced (and true) proposition. You make everyone else do all the work and then complain when you're shown to be wrong. This is on you.

 

[fluffy]

So what can we agree to?

Something like we do or don't know what a woman is?

OT has a clear view what a woman is in his mind.

I think this makes people uncomfortable because most liberals have no problems with ambiguity.

 

[Hadoblado]

So what can we agree to?

Something like we do or don't know what a woman is?

I think we can probably all agree that biological sex exists and that for the most people this corresponds to their gender. If anyone disagrees with this I'd like to hear it.

 

[Chibi]

OT has a clear view what a woman is in his mind.

I think this makes people uncomfortable because most liberals have no problems with ambiguity.

That's the trouble with these types of political discussions within a small group of people with very different opinions.

Everyone here has firm beliefs that they do not and will not change.

So instead of reasonable discussion, it becomes a mass of explanation as to why they are right and the other is wrong.

 

[Old Things]

So according to you, if you or a male friend had sex with the person in the picture, this wouldn't be homosexual? Just a man and a woman the way God intended?

Well, that would depend on whether they were actually married. If they were, then it's perfectly fine if what you have said about them so far is true.

Also, I'm gonna set this straight: counterexamples are a very healthy part of constructive discussion and for ascertaining the truth. If you don't want the truth value of your statements overturned by counter-examples, then just present a more nuanced (and true) proposition. You make everyone else do all the work and then complain when you're shown to be wrong. This is on you.

LOL. So, like, how many women actually are like this? How many men are the opposite?

I feel like you are putting the cart before the horse. Like, because there is this genetic discrepancy that all of a sudden means something for the norm? Very strange. Yes, there are exceptions to everything. That in no way means we should let the exceptions dictate how we view the world as a whole, or else our whole conception of things will be kittywampus. Patterns matter, and probably 99.9%+ of men and women are not like your example.

But if you just want to say people can identify however they want, no matter how absurd, well, I'm just going to hard disagree with you.

 

[Hadoblado]

So according to you, if you or a male friend had sex with the person in the picture, this wouldn't be homosexual? Just a man and a woman the way God intended?

Well, that would depend on whether they were actually married. If they were, then it's perfectly fine if what you have said about them so far is true.

Also, I'm gonna set this straight: counterexamples are a very healthy part of constructive discussion and for ascertaining the truth. If you don't want the truth value of your statements overturned by counter-examples, then just present a more nuanced (and true) proposition. You make everyone else do all the work and then complain when you're shown to be wrong. This is on you.

LOL. So, like, how many women actually are like this? How many men are the opposite?

I feel like you are putting the cart before the horse. Like, because there is this genetic discrepancy that all of a sudden means something for the norm? Very strange. Yes, there are exceptions to everything. That in no way means we should let the exceptions dictate how we view the world as a whole, or else our whole conception of things will be kittywampus. Patterns matter, and probably 99.9%+ of men and women are not like your example.

But if you just want to say people can identify however they want, no matter how absurd, well, I'm just going to hard disagree with you.

Are you going to pretend you were talking about what is common this entire time?

So when you said "there are no shades of grey", what you actually meant was that grey isn't common? Grey exists, it's just not as common as black and white. Deep.

We're talking about ontology/epistemology, not statistics.

 

[Old Things]

So according to you, if you or a male friend had sex with the person in the picture, this wouldn't be homosexual? Just a man and a woman the way God intended?

Well, that would depend on whether they were actually married. If they were, then it's perfectly fine if what you have said about them so far is true.

Also, I'm gonna set this straight: counterexamples are a very healthy part of constructive discussion and for ascertaining the truth. If you don't want the truth value of your statements overturned by counter-examples, then just present a more nuanced (and true) proposition. You make everyone else do all the work and then complain when you're shown to be wrong. This is on you.

LOL. So, like, how many women actually are like this? How many men are the opposite?

I feel like you are putting the cart before the horse. Like, because there is this genetic discrepancy that all of a sudden means something for the norm? Very strange. Yes, there are exceptions to everything. That in no way means we should let the exceptions dictate how we view the world as a whole, or else our whole conception of things will be kittywampus. Patterns matter, and probably 99.9%+ of men and women are not like your example.

But if you just want to say people can identify however they want, no matter how absurd, well, I'm just going to hard disagree with you.

Are you going to pretend you were talking about what is common this entire time?

So when you said "there are no shades of grey", what you actually meant was that grey isn't common? Grey exists, it's just not as common as black and white. Deep.

We're talking about ontology/epistemology, not statistics.

My position still holds, given all I have said in this discussion. There is a right way for this woman who looks like a man to live and identify. This applies to all people. Now, everyone's situation is slightly different, so not everyone is going to or has to identify the same. But at the end of the day, our perceptions of things should be aimed toward the ideal truth, not whatever shiny thing floats into our heads.

 

[Hadoblado]

Re-asserting your conclusion doesn't address anything I've said.

You don't use your own standard unless it suits you. You weren't making a statistical argument. You haven't shown a link between anyone's views and sophistry. You haven't shown any curiosity or charity, just doubling down on poorly formed conclusions like you always do.

 

[Old Things]

Re-asserting your conclusion doesn't address anything I've said.

You don't use your own standard unless it suits you. You weren't making a statistical argument. You haven't shown a link between anyone's views and sophistry. You haven't shown any curiosity or charity, just doubling down on poorly formed conclusions like you always do.

Really? I don't think that, along the way, you have really pointed out the "flaw" in my reasoning, other than posting a "gotcha" that just detracts from the main point.

 

[Hadoblado]

Re-asserting your conclusion doesn't address anything I've said.

You don't use your own standard unless it suits you. You weren't making a statistical argument. You haven't shown a link between anyone's views and sophistry. You haven't shown any curiosity or charity, just doubling down on poorly formed conclusions like you always do.

Really? I don't think that, along the way, you have really pointed out the "flaw" in my reasoning, other than posting a "gotcha" that just detracts from the main point.

You wouldn't, because that would require self-reflection.

All exceptions are abnormal. All counter arguments are gotchas. All opposing views are sophistry. Anything to dismiss every possibility but the one you already believe.

 

[Old Things]

Re-asserting your conclusion doesn't address anything I've said.

You don't use your own standard unless it suits you. You weren't making a statistical argument. You haven't shown a link between anyone's views and sophistry. You haven't shown any curiosity or charity, just doubling down on poorly formed conclusions like you always do.

Really? I don't think that, along the way, you have really pointed out the "flaw" in my reasoning, other than posting a "gotcha" that just detracts from the main point.

You wouldn't, because that would require self-reflection.

All exceptions are abnormal. All counter arguments are gotchas. All opposing views are sophistry. Anything to dismiss every possibility but the one you already believe.

Okay, that is a solid case of projections.

BTW, @Hadoblado, I have admitted I was wrong plenty of times on this forum. I'd appreciate it if a mod would respect this.

 

[Hadoblado]

All callouts are projections.

 

[Old Things]

All callouts are projections.

I disagree! But that is in no way relevant to this thread.

 

[kuoka]

It feels weird that naturally when talking about trans the first thing people mention is Male to Female transgender women. (As Cog did here and as almost every user continued doing throughout the thread)

There is so much implicit bias and conscious hate towards trans women, exceedingly so compared to trans men.


This thread has very little value because it has no goal. It began with "We need to be objective and agree that trans women are not women but a malformed exception".

The goal was never to discuss any useful element of transgender world, but to argue the definition.

 

[Old Things]

It feels weird that naturally when talking about trans the first thing people mention is Male to Female transgender women. (As Cog did here and as almost every user continued doing throughout the thread)

There is so much implicit bias and conscious hate towards trans women, exceedingly so compared to trans men.


This thread has very little value because it has no goal. It began with "We need to be objective and agree that trans women are not women but a malformed exception".

The goal was never to discuss any useful element of transgender world, but to argue the definition.

The reason that people bring up male to woman more frequently is because:
1) They are by far more dangerous
2) They are by far more common

I don't even want to debate whether they are dangerous or not. It should be clear as day that men do not belong in women's locker rooms and I'd just be agast at people questioning such a fundamental thing.

 

[Hadoblado]

It feels weird that naturally when talking about trans the first thing people mention is Male to Female transgender women. (As Cog did here and as almost every user continued doing throughout the thread)

There is so much implicit bias and conscious hate towards trans women, exceedingly so compared to trans men.


This thread has very little value because it has no goal. It began with "We need to be objective and agree that trans women are not women but a malformed exception".

The goal was never to discuss any useful element of transgender world, but to argue the definition.

The reason that people bring up male to woman more frequently is because:
1) They are by far more dangerous
2) They are by far more common

I don't even want to debate whether they are dangerous or not. It should be clear as day that men do not belong in women's locker rooms and I'd just be agast at people questioning such a fundamental thing.

Source? This is a hostile claim and requires strong evidence.

I don't care if you want to debate it. You asserted it. You need to substantiate it.

 

[Old Things]

It feels weird that naturally when talking about trans the first thing people mention is Male to Female transgender women. (As Cog did here and as almost every user continued doing throughout the thread)

There is so much implicit bias and conscious hate towards trans women, exceedingly so compared to trans men.


This thread has very little value because it has no goal. It began with "We need to be objective and agree that trans women are not women but a malformed exception".

The goal was never to discuss any useful element of transgender world, but to argue the definition.

The reason that people bring up male to woman more frequently is because:
1) They are by far more dangerous
2) They are by far more common

I don't even want to debate whether they are dangerous or not. It should be clear as day that men do not belong in women's locker rooms and I'd just be agast at people questioning such a fundamental thing.

Source? This is a hostile claim and requires strong evidence.

I don't care if you want to debate it. You asserted it. You need to substantiate it.

Sex and Violence: What the Data on Trans Offenders Really Show

Transwomen offend like men, and placing them in women’s prisons creates avoidable harm.

www.realityslaststand.com

Transwomen (MTF) were convicted of sexual assault at a markedly higher rate than any other group, and more closely resembling the male pattern of offending... These patterns strongly suggest that some high-risk male sexual offenders are exploiting gender self-identification policies to gain access to women’s facilities... This interpretation aligns with criminologist Dr. Jo Phoenix’s analysis of the same dataset and is further supported by international data compiled by Clare B. Dimyon, showing comparable trends in the UK, Australia, and the United States. The concern is not local—it’s universal.

Sexual deviation from the norm comes with all kinds of problems. Part of the problem is that a lot of the time, our legal procedure doesn't keep track of whether a person is a transwoman or not. So, data is hard to come by to show that transwomen are dangerous to women. I would guess in the next 5 years or so, we will start seeing all kinds of stuff about trans women's sexual offenses. AORN, the issue is largely taboo, based on woke media not exposing the reality of things.

 

[Hadoblado]

This is highly suspect. You are correct, it is difficult to measure but:

94% of the sexual assaults committed my transwomen were committed pre-transition. They were committed by men. What this study shows is that sexual offenders who are imprisoned are more likely to transition, which comes with access to women's prisons (and avoidance of men's prisons).

This says something about prison populations, not trans women. It is an enormous stretch to extend this to the non-convicted population.

The source also isn't rated great?
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/realitys-last-stand-bias-and-credibility/

 

[Old Things]

This is highly suspect. You are correct, it is difficult to measure but:

94% of the sexual assaults committed my transwomen were committed pre-transition. They were committed by men. What this study shows is that sexual offenders who are imprisoned are more likely to transition, which comes with access to women's prisons (and avoidance of men's prisons).

This says something about prison populations, not trans women. It is an enormous stretch to extend this to the non-convicted population.

The source also isn't rated great?
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/realitys-last-stand-bias-and-credibility/

Failed Fact Checks

None in the Last 5 years

Just pointing out that the only reason the website you linked calls them "mixed" when it comes to how factual they are is because they are conservative, and don't make left-leaning talking points, and this has nothing to do with the actual factual basis of what they say. In other words, they are not "factual" enough because they are right-wing, not based on any errors they actually have.

 

[Chibi]

It feels weird that naturally when talking about trans the first thing people mention is Male to Female transgender women. (As Cog did here and as almost every user continued doing throughout the thread)

This is an absolutely fantastic observation, kuoka. Most people do that because the idea of a stereotypical strong "man" becoming a stereotypical weak "woman" procs a stronger reaction for most people because of underlying sexism. Because who cares if a woman wants to become a man?? They're crazy anyways!! (sarcasm)

This is also the reason why trans women are the targets of more hate crimes and violence.

In the end, both trans men and trans women matter equally, and sexism is a different but still very real problem than transphobia.


(also I agree this thread has very little value and is going nowhere)

 

[Hadoblado]

Thanks babe, now I'll know what the site I linked says.

"We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to the one-sided promotion of selective science and opinions regarding gender and transgender rights. "

I didn't say they were factually wrong. I said they were rated poorly and pointed out how their claim is misleading. 94% of the sexual assaults were committed prior to identifying as a woman. Almost as if a population of men defined by their sexual assault behaviour would prefer to hang out in a women's prison if given the chance.

This implies nothing about how dangerous trans women are who identify as women absent any conviction.

 

[Old Things]

This implies nothing

LOL.

Very naive.

 

[kuoka]

The reason that people bring up male to woman more frequently is because:
1) They are by far more dangerous
2) They are by far more common

I don't even want to debate whether they are dangerous or not. It should be clear as day that men do not belong in women's locker rooms and I'd just be agast at people questioning such a fundamental thing.

No. Factchecked #2.

How Many Adults and Youth Identify as Transgender in the United States?

williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu

The ratio to transgender men and transgender women is almost 1:1, they are equally common.

0.6% * 340 million. In a population of 340 million, there is only 2 million transgender people in the USA. Yet they are excessively covered in the conservative news stories as a problem.

Transgender people over four times more likely than cisgender people to be victims of violent crime

williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu

Transgender people are 4 times more likely to be victims of violent crime.

While criminal statistics show that transgender people are not more violent than cisgender ones. Their criminality is similar.

Just Facts: As Many Americans Have Criminal Records as College Diplomas

With as many criminal convictions as college degrees, it's more evident than ever why "ban the box" laws are important for the economy.

www.brennancenter.org

Other facts:
1. Transgender people constitute less than 1% of the total population, possibly 0.6%. It is a small group, but frequently portrayed as threatening the conservative order.
2. 30% of all Americans have criminal records, thus were charged with a crime at some point in their life
3. About half of all transgender people are transgender women, male at birth who transitioned to female.

 

[Chibi]

YEAH GET EM

I genuinely never understood the argument that trans people are "violent". People are violent. There are fucked up people in every age, race, religion, sexuality, etc..

Sure, there might be a small, tiny fraction of trans people who commit dangerous crimes, but not out of the ordinary of the 30% kuoka mentioned. Definitely not a majority.

And OT, wasn't it you who said

Because there are EXCEPTIONS doesn't mean that the rule is proven by the EXCEPTION.

 

[Old Things]

The reason that people bring up male to woman more frequently is because:
1) They are by far more dangerous
2) They are by far more common

I don't even want to debate whether they are dangerous or not. It should be clear as day that men do not belong in women's locker rooms and I'd just be agast at people questioning such a fundamental thing.

No. Factchecked #2.

How Many Adults and Youth Identify as Transgender in the United States?

williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu

The ratio to transgender men and transgender women is almost 1:1, they are equally common.

0.6% * 340 million. In a population of 340 million, there is only 2 million transgender people in the USA. Yet they are excessively covered in the conservative news stories as a problem.

Transgender people over four times more likely than cisgender people to be victims of violent crime

williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu

Transgender people are 4 times more likely to be victims of violent crime.

While criminal statistics show that transgender people are not more violent than cisgender ones. Their criminality is similar.

Just Facts: As Many Americans Have Criminal Records as College Diplomas

With as many criminal convictions as college degrees, it's more evident than ever why "ban the box" laws are important for the economy.

www.brennancenter.org

Other facts:
1. Transgender people constitute less than 1% of the total population, possibly 0.6%. It is a small group, but frequently portrayed as threatening the conservative order.
2. 30% of all Americans have criminal records, thus were charged with a crime at some point in their life
3. About half of all transgender people are transgender women, male at birth who transitioned to female.

I stand corrected. As of 2022 (because there is nothing more recent on the subject), there is almost the same number of trans men as trans women.

In regard to whether trans women are "more dangerous [to females]," I think it is naive to think that no one would exploit the idea of a man being able to go into a woman's restroom.

In any case, I found this article helpful in looking into this more.

Sex Reassignment Doesn’t Work. Here Is the Evidence.

Sex “reassignment” doesn’t work. It’s impossible to “reassign” someone’s sex physically, and attempting to do so doesn’t produce good outcomes psychosocially.

www.heritage.org

 

[Old Things]

BTW, I feel bad if trans people are treated unfairly as long as it is not because a biological male wants to enter a female restroom/locker room.

I think a large part of why trans individuals are struggling is because they are mentally unwell. They can't make their rent/house payments, are often reclusive (as per data during the COVID lockdown hoax), and often have many other mental health challenges (such as ADHD, depression, anxiety, and a much higher propensity for suicidal ideation). The question is, what is causing this? In part, I think it is because young people in our educational system are encouraged to explore any feelings of gender confusion. In other words, our society is becoming much more feeling-oriented rather than objective-truth-oriented. Things are definitely getting more subjective, and our grasp of reality is getting weaker IMO.

 

[Chibi]

I think a large part of why trans individuals are struggling is because they are mentally unwell. They can't make their rent/house payments, are often reclusive (as per data during the COVID lockdown hoax), and often have many other mental health challenges (such as ADHD, depression, anxiety, and a much higher propensity for suicidal ideation).

These are all problems that many, many people are going through in our current day and age. These are in no way exclusive to trans people. There are plenty of trans people who are mentally well and successful.

Sure, before they transition I bet most of them go through mental health issues. Wouldn't you if you felt like your entire existence is wrong, and you hated everything about yourself? But after transitioning, I can assure you that, in many cases, most of those issues eventually dissolve into smaller or non-existent pieces.

 

[Old Things]

I think a large part of why trans individuals are struggling is because they are mentally unwell. They can't make their rent/house payments, are often reclusive (as per data during the COVID lockdown hoax), and often have many other mental health challenges (such as ADHD, depression, anxiety, and a much higher propensity for suicidal ideation).

These are all problems that many, many people are going through in our current day and age. These are in no way exclusive to trans people. There are plenty of trans people who are mentally well and successful.

Sure, before they transition I bet most of them go through mental health issues. Wouldn't you if you felt like your entire existence is wrong, and you hated everything about yourself? But after transitioning, I can assure you that, in many cases, most of those issues eventually dissolve into smaller or non-existent pieces.

"Sex-reassignment surgery" doesn't work. That has been well documented.

Trans identified individuals have a much higher rate of mental health problems. That's not really debated in psychological circles.

 

[Chibi]

I think a large part of why trans individuals are struggling is because they are mentally unwell. They can't make their rent/house payments, are often reclusive (as per data during the COVID lockdown hoax), and often have many other mental health challenges (such as ADHD, depression, anxiety, and a much higher propensity for suicidal ideation).

These are all problems that many, many people are going through in our current day and age. These are in no way exclusive to trans people. There are plenty of trans people who are mentally well and successful.

Sure, before they transition I bet most of them go through mental health issues. Wouldn't you if you felt like your entire existence is wrong, and you hated everything about yourself? But after transitioning, I can assure you that, in many cases, most of those issues eventually dissolve into smaller or non-existent pieces.

"Sex-reassignment surgery" doesn't work. That has been well documented.

Trans identified individuals have a much higher rate of mental health problems. That's not really debated in psychological circles.

I never once brought up sex-reassignment surgery. Many trans people choose not to undergo it at all. The process of "transitioning" simply means coming out of the closet as the opposite gender. It has nothing to do with the state of your genitals.

And yes, trans people often do struggle with mental illness more often than cis people. That's because they literally feel as if they were born in the wrong body.

If you woke up with your same brain you have now, but you were in the body of a petite 4'9" black woman, wouldn't you feel wrong too? Wouldn't that do awful things to your mental health? It's very easy to understand why they struggle with mental issues. But my point is that in many cases, those mental issues heal with time, just like for everybody that struggles with mental illness.

 

[Old Things]

I never once brought up sex-reassignment surgery. Many trans people choose not to undergo it at all. The process of "transitioning" simply means coming out of the closet as the opposite gender. It has nothing to do with the state of your genitals.

In other words, it has nothing to do with physical reality. Thank you for proving naturalism false.

If you woke up with your same brain you have now, but you were in the body of a petite 4'9" black woman, wouldn't you feel wrong too? Wouldn't that do awful things to your mental health? It's very easy to understand why they struggle with mental issues. But my point is that in many cases, those mental issues heal with time, just like for everybody that struggles with mental illness.

People don't wake up in the wrong body. They entertain ideas that they don't like who they are, which leads them to try to find an identity in something else. Given how much the educational system has tried to paper over the differences between boys and girls, and how they encourage them to entertain abnormal thought patterns about sexuality, I can see why there is a gigantic rise in trans identified youth.

Please cite a source that says people who transition are better off after 20 years.

 

[Chibi]

Survey of over 90,000 trans people shows vast improvement in life satisfaction after transition

The U.S. Transgender Survey measures responses from over 92,000 transgender people across the country.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Old Things]

Survey of over 90,000 trans people shows vast improvement in life satisfaction after transition

The U.S. Transgender Survey measures responses from over 92,000 transgender people across the country.

www.cbsnews.com

Yeah, that is why I said after 20 years. Because transitioning is kinda like getting a new car. It will provide temporary fulfillment, but I wonder if they are happy with their purchase in 20 years.

 

[Chibi]

Oh sorry, I didn't realize that survey exclusively asked 90,000 people who transitioned a week ago /s

I can't find any source specifically about older transitioned people, but I found this Quora thread full of people aged 40-70 who answered your exact question, and all of them said they are happy and don't have regrets.

Question for older transgender people: Did transitioning make you happier, or more miserable?

Answer (1 of 14): Question for older transgender people: Did transitioning make you happier, or more miserable? This question was asked by someone claiming they are 16. I have no issues with that in theory, but at what age does a 16 year old consider a person is “older”? 20? 30? 70? So I won’t ...

www.quora.com

 

[Old Things]

Oh sorry, I didn't realize that survey exclusively asked 90,000 people who transitioned a week ago /s

I can't find any source specifically about older transitioned people, but I found this Quora thread full of people aged 40-70 who answered your exact question, and all of them said they are happy and don't have regrets.

Question for older transgender people: Did transitioning make you happier, or more miserable?

Answer (1 of 14): Question for older transgender people: Did transitioning make you happier, or more miserable? This question was asked by someone claiming they are 16. I have no issues with that in theory, but at what age does a 16 year old consider a person is “older”? 20? 30? 70? So I won’t ...

www.quora.com

And the people who are not happy either detransitioned or didn't comment.

It's the same thing as with abortion IMO. A significant portion of the population of women who had an abortion regret having an abortion 5 years later.

Because when you mess with objective morality, there are consequences to that.

 

[Chibi]

It's the same thing as with abortion IMO. A significant portion of the population of women who had an abortion regret having an abortion 5 years later.

Yeah I'm gonna need a source for that one, chief. Everything I found online says the opposite.

Five Years After Abortion, Nearly All Women Say It Was the Right Decision, Study Finds

Five years after having an abortion, over 95 percent of the women in a landmark UCSF study said it was the right decision for them.

www.ucsf.edu

 

[Old Things]

It's the same thing as with abortion IMO. A significant portion of the population of women who had an abortion regret having an abortion 5 years later.

Yeah I'm gonna need a source for that one, chief. Everything I found online says the opposite.

Five Years After Abortion, Nearly All Women Say It Was the Right Decision, Study Finds

Five years after having an abortion, over 95 percent of the women in a landmark UCSF study said it was the right decision for them.

www.ucsf.edu

After controlling for several socio-demographic factors, women whose first pregnancies ended
in abortion were 65% more likely to score in the ‘high-risk’ range for clinical depression than
women whose first pregnancies resulted in a birth. Differences were greatest among the
demographic groups most likely to report an abortion

Depression associated with abortion and childbirth: a long-term analysis of the NLSY cohort.

Existing research pertaining to emotional reactions to abortion is limited by (a) short follow up periods, (b) the absence of information on prior psy...

medscimonit.com

Lila Rose Responds To Biased Study Claiming No Negative Post-Abortion Mental Effects | Live Action

www.liveaction.org

 

[Chibi]

It's the same thing as with abortion IMO. A significant portion of the population of women who had an abortion regret having an abortion 5 years later.

Whatever nonsense link you shared doesn't back up this statement whatsoever in any way.

But whatever, I'm not here to argue abortion with you. That's an entirely different topic for a different thread.

 

[fluffy]

I don't know what people are talking about anymore.

Trans people exist, what's the problem?

 

[Chibi]

Trans people exist, what's the problem?

The conversation has devolved into debating whether them existing is "correct" or not. I think everyone here agrees they physically exist.

 

[Hadoblado]

@Old Things
The source you provided inflated number of transwoman offenders by 16.7x in the figure. According to your own article, these people did not identify as women at the time of the assault.

That is, if you're using this as evidence that transwomen do sexual offenses, the number is 6% of what you see in that graph. They claim 32% are offenders, which means that only 32%*.06=<2% of the sexual assault attributed to transwomen here were committed by biological men identifying as women.

What you have is evidence that people transition in response to charges of sexual assault. This is a HUGE problem and certainly a difficulty for anyone that believes identity = self-identification, but it doesn't support your conclusion that transwomen are violent. The article itself states:

These patterns strongly suggest that some high-risk male sexual offenders are exploiting gender self-identification policies to gain access to women’s facilities.

So even the author doesn't believe this is evidence of transwomen offending.


From the rules:

If you want to express an opinion that marginalises another group, you are still free to do so. However, if you truly believe your thoughts are worth sharing after considering the cost of implicitly attacking another group, then you are required to back up that opinion with evidence.

Your evidence doesn't support your claim. I need either better evidence or a retraction of the claim. Thanks.