Maybe not, but that’s a different issue from being able to agree that it’s objectively bad.
The badness of slavery is not objective either. Evilness and factual wrongness are orthogonal concepts. For avoidance of doubt I agree with you that slavery is bad.
But not objectively bad?
Yes, that is what my post says. The “badness” of slavery is a subjective evaluation of it. I agree with that evaluation. I think that people who disagree with that evaluation are bad people. That doesn’t make it objective.
Slavery is not objectively bad is quite the hot take. Didn’t see that one coming.
But we’re really straying from the point. I guess if you want to just say it’s all feels, that doesn’t change much. I guess your feels don’t really make a lot of sense if you accept what the scientists are telling us.
I don’t know, you can try with me.
Having the right to exist is not the same as being allowed into women’s sports for example.
I am pretty much in favor of letting people use whatever bathroom they want.
Though I might not be a good candidate bc I agree that it’s an issue that affects very few people.
I’m pretty confident in my defense of bathrooms. Literally just last week there was a woman at my table going on about how she wouldn’t feel safe with a trans woman in her bathroom. I pointed out that she was about a thousand times more likely to be sexually assaulted in the parking garage than in a public restroom. Not sure I made any progress, but she didn’t (couldn’t?) dispute it
Sports is much more difficult for me. When people bring up that a physically stronger trans woman took away a scholarship from a cis woman, or when they acknowledge the benefits of inclusivity and belonging that sports brings, but point out that there are plenty of other group activities that achieve this, I don’t know how to defend this
I think the biggest issue for most people is that they don’t really believe or accept the science behind trans issues. This is evidenced by their insistence on continuing to call trans women men and that it’s almost always trans women they have a problem with
And I’m as ignorant as anyone. Until Risky posted some extremely helpful links, I too didn’t realize that gender (among all of us?) is fluid rather than binary. I want to be part of educating others, but I don’t want to upset or harm trans people in the process
1 Like
For the bathroom thing, ask if she thinks that bathrooms should just be specifically separated by genitalia. If so, show her a picture of some buff trans guy with a thick beard and be like “he has a vagina, so you’d rather he use your bathroom then?” So many of these people don’t even realize/acknowledge that trans guys exist so this could be a huge gotcha.
Then again her opinion could be like “those people should use the family bathroom if there is one, and if not they need to just go squat outside or hold it”, in which case that argument doesn’t work anymore, but at least you can tell her she’s an asshole.
3 Likes
Yeah, I don’t really think that trans women should be in women’s sports at the competitive level because the logic for splitting is all about physical capability and has nothing to do with social constructs of gender.
For little kids, eh, I’d let them do what they want. I’m not sure where the line is exactly but probably around HS.
Under the same logic I would completely abolish “mens” divisions and those would just be “open”. Which in practice will almost always mean men but if anyone can qualify and compete at the highest level I don’t see why they shouldn’t be allowed.
Edit: I have no idea what is wrong with the quote tags
Edit2: the /quote needs to be on its own line, interesting
Yeah the sports thing is weird for me. On the one side you have people saying “of course there’s a lasting advantage to having gone through male puberty, not the least of which is physical size”, which seems to make sense on its face. But then I’ve heard that studies have shown that after being on E for a certain amount of time there’s literally zero difference in performance.
It’s one of those things where I haven’t done a deep-dive reading about it because it doesn’t affect me personally, so I get that it’s dangerous to just go with that first argument because it seems like good conventional wisdom.
See I don’t think it’s that dangerous. Excluding people who were born men from women’s sports is just perfectly fine even if there is some chance that the medical treatments they underwent removed their inherent advantage.
1 Like
Friendly reminder that this topic was created for support and that there exists another one specifically for trans people in sports: Trans Issues In Sports/Society
8 Likes
Fair enough I won’t respond further on the topic here.
I used to think this, but there are plenty of scientists whose job it is to study this shit and they claim if certain guidelines with respect to hormone levels and such are followed, then there is no advantage in many sports.
If you don’t believe that, do you have anything more than feels to base it on?
I mean, I 100% expected this kind of stupid response because you aren’t even following the conversation. You think we’re arguing about slavery now. But slavery is a topic on which I agree with you completely. We are actually arguing about the definition of the words “fact” and “opinion” which is a topic on which you are objectively wrong.
Those are your feels! This whole detail started when you tried to dismiss my opinion because it was “just feels”. Yes, no shit you think your feels are right and my feels are wrong. We haven’t disagreed on any objective fact anywhere (except for the definition of objective fact).
Nah man. I understand it just fine. You going hard on some ultra nitty semantic point on the nature of objectivity so that you can ignore the actual issue. Well done!
Well, sure given your thoughts on the nature of objectivity, it’s pretty much all feels.
Doesn’t mean that it isn’t possible for feels not to make sense. For example, if you were to say “Punching myself in the dick hurts a lot, but I like doing it”. Sure, those are your feels, but they don’t make sense. Objectively (the way most people use the word).
Pretty sure what he’s saying is that if it has been scientifically shown that there is no physical advantage and that it’s beneficial for their mental health, then the only counter argument must be based on feels. Otherwise, present evidence for the other side
Clovis would take issue with this post.