Support NeoGAF

[A Link to the Past]

This is rather silly. Transgenderism and transsexuality are caused by structural abnormalities in the brain, but it is a political choice - and an ethical one - to accept that this criterion should override the literally dozens of other objective biological factors one could use to say that self-identification as the gender that us atypical for one's biological sex is meaningless and should not be respected. Using proper pronouns is an extension of our understanding of the harm done by denying trans people their right to be treated as their self-identified gender and our realization that there are no tangible benefits to the status quo, not because favoring one factor over others is somehow overarchingly "correct". Selective filtering of facts is happening no matter what vision of social decorum you favor.

The issue is ultimately that it's not a battle between biologists and psychologists, it's a matter of biologists often acting as though there's any conflict. The psychology doesn't invalidate the biology and vice versa, and that's what people need to understand. Even if it's correct that someone is physically male, it doesn't mean that using the proper pronouns is a matter of respect, it's just what you should be doing. When the person is especially intelligent, it should not be unreasonable to take them to task for not doing the best of jobs understanding the concepts behind being trans.

Wait, are you referring to my post? I'm responding to the person saying that Greer's "bigotry" (which doesn't at all describe Greer, transphobic would be much more correct.) overbalances the scale on whether or not she should be there to teach a lecture. I'm saying you hurt yourself by denying yourself education.

If you weren't then pardon me

And it's not opposing their speech, it's saying that using it in this manner is poorly thought out.

Even if we agree that there's value in confronting bigotry, I'd not sooner call it educational, especially in cases where the people protesting have already confronted bigotry of her caliber more than enough.

Dawkins does have a follow-up tweet where he asks incredulously if he should be DIScourteous, which to me points to him not intentionally being condescending. He used courteous in the same context you'd use 'accepting'.

Dawkins is a weird dude, he's a little robotic, and even his peers have remarked that he's a little tone deaf to his audience. Ultimately you will have people who will filter his statements to something probably resembling his (hopefully) well-intentioned meaning, people who will filter out the bad and focus on the good, people who filter out the good and focus on the bad, and people who filter his statements to resemble a meaning that is not well-intentioned.

I would have to agree that Dawkins is not actively bigoted, but it's a consistent series of really bad fuck-ups. Like, why did he put scare quotes around the word kid when he referred to Ahmed? Stuff like that makes me frustrated, it can't just be ignorance or being tone deaf.

 

[boiled goose]

I think you're confusing cisgender as the baseline of that gender, where transgender is somehow a different thing from that baseline. This comes from the incorrect assumption that the majority gets to claim the "normal" status, and the minority is regulated as tangential. A woman is a trans woman or a cis woman. A man is a trans man or a cis man.

I agree with you here that the label is a more general to include both.

Then it seems people are at least partially talking past each other. Or I'm just being too generous, it most likely comes from a place of hatred and ignorance

 

[Alexlf]

Even if we agree that there's value in confronting bigotry, I'd not sooner call it educational, especially in cases where the people protesting have already confronted bigotry of her caliber more than enough.

Holy moly, you like going in circle's don't you? Again, it's not "confronting bigotry"; She's teaching something that has nothing to do with her prejudice.

 

[Littlefang]

Holy moly, you like going in circle's don't you? Again, it's not "confronting bigotry"; She's teaching something that has nothing to do with her prejudice.

But it does because she is talking about women which inherently includes transgender women.

 

[boiled goose]

But it does because she is talking about women which inherently includes transgender women.

Maybe here she could be narrowing her discussion to the experience of cis women...

I agree she is likely a terrible person, but this is just arguing semantics

 

[Alexlf]

But it does because she is talking about women which inherently includes transgender women.

The problems faced by the woman she would have been talking about might in part include trans woman, but is in no way focused on trans problems or made being trans of any relevance to her discussion.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

But it does because she is talking about women which inherently includes transgender women.

But external knowledge that she is thinking that transwomen are not included in her ideas does not invalidate those ideas, themselves. Percipients are free to understand that she's wrong to not include transwomen and to extend her concepts TO transwomen of their own accord.

 

[boiled goose]

But external knowledge that she is thinking that transwomen are not included in her ideas does not invalidate those ideas, themselves. Percipients are free to understand that she's wrong to not include transwomen and to extend her concepts TO transwomen of their own accord.

Yeah i agree here.

Demand that people are right on every issue and no one is left...

 

[partyphone]

Yeah i agree here.

Demand that people are right on every issue and no one is left...

sh is openly and defiantly a bigot. this isn't a matter of a complicated academic disagreement. shed a bigot and the students who pay money to attend this shool don't want their money to be spent supporting bigots. this isn't a war on free speech. this isn't PC culture gone mad. this is about sending a message to transphobes.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

sh is openly and defiantly a bigot. this isn't a matter of a complicated academic disagreement. shed a bigot and the students who pay money to attend this shool don't want their money to be spent supporting bigots. this isn't a war on free speech. this isn't PC culture gone mad. this is about sending a message to transphobes.

The talk was cancelled because SHE cancelled because past protesters had thrown glitter at her, and she feared similar or worse actions. If throwing glitter at old women is a human rights protest tactic you want to get behind, go for it, but the idea that being a bigot in one sphere inherently destroys your capacity to contribute positively to society, and that your contributions must be negatively reinterpreted in light of that bigotry, is the kind of ideological absolutism that is making modern liberalism look foolish to many.

 

[Reishiki]

.

 

[Rimon-hanit]

First off I'd like to say I am a fan of Douglas Adams Bro A.K.A the Dawkman.

But I have to disagree on this one, I don't think everything should be debated (in the practical sense) some issues fall into the common sense category and trans issues is definitely one of them.

 

[Littlefang]

Maybe here she could be narrowing her discussion to the experience of cis women...

I agree she is likely a terrible person, but this is just arguing semantics

To dismiss this as arguing semantics is kind of to dismiss how transgender people struggle to gain acceptance. There should be no distinction between women and transgender women because transgender women are women. You can make a distinction between cis women and transwomen, but that isn't what Greer has done.

But external knowledge that she is thinking that transwomen are not included in her ideas does not invalidate those ideas, themselves. Percipients are free to understand that she's wrong to not include transwomen and to extend her concepts TO transwomen of their own accord.

I mean but a lot of her ideas do include transgender women. Like in her book, The Whole Woman, she says:

The insistence that man-made women be accepted as women is the institutional expression of the mistaken conviction that women are defective males.

So it kind of goes beyond her not acknowledging the existence of transwomen within her ideas.

 

[boiled goose]

To dismiss this as arguing semantics is kind of to dismiss how transgender people struggle to gain acceptance. There should be no distinction between women and transgender women because transgender women are women. You can make a distinction between cis women and transwomen, but that isn't what Greer has done.



I mean but a lot of her ideas do include transgender women. Like in her book, The Whole Woman, she says:



So it kind of goes beyond her not acknowledging the existence of transwomen within her ideas.

I agree that she is saying trans women are not women. As a more inclusive and tolerant society we are saying trans women fall under the woman label.

Seems like semantics to me.....
(I agree though that in this case these distinctions can have devastating consequences)

He last argument doesn't made ANY sense. There are trans men! It's honestly laughable and seems like she has some weird deep seeded insecurities.

The talk was cancelled because SHE cancelled because past protesters had thrown glitter at her, and she feared similar or worse actions. If throwing glitter at old women is a human rights protest tactic you want to get behind, go for it, but the idea that being a bigot in one sphere inherently destroys your capacity to contribute positively to society, and that your contributions must be negatively reinterpreted in light of that bigotry, is the kind of ideological absolutism that is making modern liberalism look foolish to many.

To be fair. It wasn't the same protesters was it?
I was thrown glitter once so now everytime someone protests my talks i will cancel them seems pretty weak..

 

[ElFly]

The talk was cancelled because SHE cancelled because past protesters had thrown glitter at her, and she feared similar or worse actions. If throwing glitter at old women is a human rights protest tactic you want to get behind, go for it, but the idea that being a bigot in one sphere inherently destroys your capacity to contribute positively to society, and that your contributions must be negatively reinterpreted in light of that bigotry, is the kind of ideological absolutism that is making modern liberalism look foolish to many.

The students at that Cardiff didn't want to throw glitter at her. They just wanted to not have to receive her in the school since they know her brand of bigotry.

Again, you are still acting like transphobia is somehow unrelated to feminism. If it was another field it'd be reasonable, but her bigotry is directly, inextricably related to her work, so yes, in this case her bigotry does negate her contributions.

Uh, yeah? I'd argue denying someone the right to share their views because you know that they are thinking things that, for you, somehow poison the things being uttered is pretty close to thought policing, friend.

She can share her views all she wants outside the school; what's next, wanting to hear the opinions of a judaism expert who on the side is a genocide-denier? Being a TERF immediately, indelibly marks your work on feminism, period. She is not giving a talk about astrophysics, she is not giving a talk about chemistry. This is not wanting her out of the school due to her political opinions on something completely unrelated to her work.

Transphobia and feminism are completely, 100% related. Acting like her TERFism is unrelated to her feminism activism is intelectual dishonesty.

 

[Subpar Spatula]

She not necessarily going to "challenge" them at all. She could speak on her books and help to provide context to her views not available in the text.

And to imply the protester had a balanced view on the talk she was going to give is laughable considering they where trying to get her "banned under a ‘no platform’ policy, which typically extends to fascist, extremist or far-right groups", ESPECIALLY considering her talk had nothing to do with her views on trans people.

And they don't want her context because she's a bigot. I'd venture a guess they would rather have a speaker who does have some controversial ideas that aren't exactly hateful bigotry.

 

[DragonGirl]

Dawkins is an ass and Greer is an ass in their own special ways. In this case Dawkins is right about calling Greer out rather than booting her out.

 

[boiled goose]

Here is a question to try to gain some more understanding.

Apart from saying Trans women are not women,has she advocated any violence or denial of rights to trans women?

This is a question for me to further educate myself. Fundamentally, why is the statement trans women are not real women incorrect and why is it bigoted? (At the most basic fundamental level, why is it not just semantics and labels. Why is it fundamentally incorrect?).

 

[Alexlf]

And they don't want her context because she's a bigot. I'd venture a guess they would rather have a speaker who does have some controversial ideas that aren't exactly hateful bigotry.

In saying this "they" are being far more of a bigot than she has thus far demonstarted.

 

[Griss]

I think you're confusing cisgender as the baseline of that gender, where transgender is somehow a different thing from that baseline. This comes from the incorrect assumption that the majority gets to claim the "normal" status, and the minority is regulated as tangential. A woman is a trans woman or a cis woman. A man is a trans man or a cis man.

I feel like if you take this stance then you strip the word 'normal' of all meaning.

Trans people are less than 0.3% of the population. That's about 3 in every 1,000 or less. They have a condition that is extremely negative for them physically and mentally and needs hormone therapy and surgery to fix. It's not a positive thing to be born with. Considering those two points I don't understand how transgenderism can fit under the umbrella of 'normal' under any accepted definition of the word.

It reminds me of being in the doctor's office dealing with a hormonal / gender issue of my own. The doctor said 'Don't feel ashamed, this is perfectly normal.' I felt patronised and said 'What is the ratio of people afflicted with this issue?' He gave me some figure in the tens of thousands. I had to reply 'So how the fuck is this possibly normal?!?' Look, I get the anti-shame message, which is a good and important one, but that message should be 'It's okay (and can be good even!) not to conform to the norm.' People see through the bullshit of the other message, I think.

 

[Subpar Spatula]

In saying this "they" are being far more of a bigot than she has thus far demonstarted.

You're wrong. They understand her views and don't want her here. They understand her view and disagree with her bigotry. They don't want that type of person to speak in front of them. She is not being silenced. She left on her own accord. If you feel as though she has a right to speak then go for it, you also have zero reason to challenge the protestors or else you are being inconsistent: if you want her to speak then you can't fault the protestors for doing what they're allowed to do.

These freedoms do bite lots of people in the ass.

 

[ampere]

In fairness, Dawkins is pretty fucking transphobic himself.

He really needs to get off twitter. He's soooo pedantic and unable to grasp when he's being a dick. Nobody is arguing that trans-women are biologically born as women... then he suggests it with a stupid tweet and acts all surprised when people get mad. Like his "which rape is worse" tweets it's like... dude wtf.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Holy moly, you like going in circle's don't you? Again, it's not "confronting bigotry"; She's teaching something that has nothing to do with her prejudice.

Except that I regard her views as adequately bigoted and hateful that she shouldn't be given a platform. Just as I do with Shirley Phelps.

Here is a question to try to gain some more understanding.

Apart from saying Trans women are not women,has she advocated any violence or denial of rights to trans women?

This is a question for me to further educate myself. Fundamentally, why is the statement trans women are not real women incorrect and why is it bigoted? (At the most basic fundamental level, why is it not just semantics and labels. Why is it fundamentally incorrect?).

All modern science says that "trans women are not real women" is incorrect.

I feel like if you take this stance then you strip the word 'normal' of all meaning.

Trans people are less than 0.3% of the population. That's about 3 in every 1,000 or less. They have a condition that is extremely negative for them physically and mentally and needs hormone therapy and surgery to fix. It's not a positive thing to be born with. Considering those two points I don't understand how transgenderism can fit under the umbrella of 'normal' under any accepted definition of the word.

It reminds me of being in the doctor's office dealing with a hormonal / gender issue of my own. The doctor said 'Don't feel ashamed, this is perfectly normal.' I felt patronised and said 'What is the ratio of people afflicted with this issue?' He gave me some figure in the tens of thousands. I had to reply 'So how the fuck is this possibly normal?!?' Look, I get the anti-shame message, which is a good and important one, but that message should be 'It's okay (and can be good even!) not to conform to the norm.' People see through the bullshit of the other message, I think.

You seem to be defining normal as an arbitrary sampling of people. To you, normal means that most people need to experience it. In reality, normal means that it could happen to anyone. No person has the quality of not being able to have that. It's why the determination between born a man and being born a woman is that both are normal functions, even though you're more likely to be born a man. If you're not operating on the idea of "majority = normal", then what is your point? That there is an arbitrary number of people that need to be of a certain quality for that quality to be normal?

As for the psychological/emotional distress, the distress is not caused by being trans. The distress is caused by people being taught that being physically male or female meant that you were male or female. Further down the road, the distress is caused by physical abuse if they come out, or mental suffering if they remain closeted. This isn't just my opinion, this is the opinion of the American Psychiatric Association. If we as a society did not define being a man or woman as having a penis or a vagina, being a woman with a penis or a man with a vagina would not by itself cause distress.

In saying this "they" are being far more of a bigot than she has thus far demonstarted.

I suppose yeah, technically I'm a bigot for being against people who have a history of making hateful statements. The difference is that she wasn't born with a quality that made her trash.

 

[Chozolore]

All modern science says that "trans women are not real women" is incorrect.

That's one hell of a claim.

 

[A Link to the Past]

That's one hell of a claim.

Only if you didn't bother to research the subject.

May I hazard a guess and say that you never bothered?

"As another example, the hypothalamus, a hormone-producing part of the brain, is activated in nontranssexual men by the scent of estrogen, but in women—and male-to-female transsexuals—by the scent of androgens, male-associated hormones." - http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304854804579234030532617704

"They found significant differences between male and female brains in four regions of white matter – and the female-to-male transsexual people had white matter in these regions that resembled a male brain (Journal of Psychiatric Research, DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.05.006). “It’s the first time it has been shown that the brains of female-to-male transsexual people are masculinised,” Guillamon says." - https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20032-transsexual-differences-caught-on-brain-scan/

 

[Griss]

You seem to be defining normal as an arbitrary sampling of people. To you, normal means that most people need to experience it. In reality, normal means that it could happen to anyone. No person has the quality of not being able to have that. It's why the determination between born a man and being born a woman is that both are normal functions, even though you're more likely to be born a man. If you're not operating on the idea of "majority = normal", then what is your point? That there is an arbitrary number of people that need to be of a certain quality for that quality to be normal?

My point is the following. Normal means essentially two things:
1) Conforming to a accepted standard; being what is typical or usual regarding a specific trait; and
2) The absence of negatives

'It could happen to anyone' is not at all what normal means, that was my entire point. You could get struck by lightning, sure. That's not normal. You could have a hormone-caused benign tumour in your brain. That's happens more than you think, but it's not normal.

There's no arbitrary number I can set as to when something becomes normal or not normal, but when you combine such a tiny percentage of people exhibiting this trait with the fact that it's a negative trait that requires medical intervention then I can't define it as normal, and I think it doesn't make sense to do so.

As for the psychological/emotional distress, the distress is not caused by being trans. The distress is caused by people being taught that being physically male or female meant that you were male or female. Further down the road, the distress is caused by physical abuse if they come out, or mental suffering if they remain closeted. This isn't just my opinion, this is the opinion of the American Psychiatric Association. If we as a society did not define being a man or woman as having a penis or a vagina, being a woman with a penis or a man with a vagina would not by itself cause distress.

I disagree with this too. I think a lot of the distress is caused by being trans. Surely, even if the entire world accepted trans people, trans people would want gender reassignment surgery? Surely they would be distressed until they could get it? I have been in a very similar situation... my distress was caused by bullying, yes, but also because I couldn't resolve my problem for years because I didn't have the money for surgery. Even absent the bullying, I would not have been happy with the way I was. I think trans people would feel the same, and therefore it's nonsense to say that none of the distress is caused by being trans. Who on earth would choose to be born into a body that doesn't sync up with your gender? Sounds like torture until you can fix it, frankly.

I can't agree with either you or the American Psychiatric Association here at all. It makes no sense to me whatsoever.

 

[boiled goose]

Only if you didn't bother to research the subject.

May I hazard a guess and say that you never bothered?

"As another example, the hypothalamus, a hormone-producing part of the brain, is activated in nontranssexual men by the scent of estrogen, but in women—and male-to-female transsexuals—by the scent of androgens, male-associated hormones." - http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304854804579234030532617704

"They found significant differences between male and female brains in four regions of white matter – and the female-to-male transsexual people had white matter in these regions that resembled a male brain (Journal of Psychiatric Research, DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.05.006). “It’s the first time it has been shown that the brains of female-to-male transsexual people are masculinised,” Guillamon says." - https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20032-transsexual-differences-caught-on-brain-scan/

From my latest reading it is definitely true that trans women dont have the brain of trans men, but they didn't match cis women either.

"Real woman" doesn't really seem like a category that is scientifically based, because it depends on what you consider the baseline.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Well, it's tough for me... on one hand, the APA are among the foremost of authorities on the subject, their job is literally to try and understand how the human brain works. On the other, you're on NeoGAF and you didn't do anything to educate yourself on the subject. Clearly, I am stuck between a rock and a hard place, because both are such experts on the subject.

(loljk, your willful ignorance of the facts is no different than ignoring climate change and claiming that vaccines cause autism)

The treatment of one's body to match their mental image of how it should be like is significantly affected by external sources. A person may still choose to have GRS regardless of how they are treated, but being taught that penis = man and vagina = woman is a huge contributing factor.

 

[Kadayi]

I'm inclined to agree. With how frequently trans people are still mocked and bullied, universities don't need to pay people to contribute to that hostility.

From what I understand that wasn't actually the topic under discussion at the event. This idea that Greer was being paid to express these ideas is based on knee jerk conjecture rather than any basis in reality.

http://www.theguardian.com/educatio...ff-university-to-cancel-germain-greer-lecture

The Australian writer is due to speak on 18 November in a lecture called Women & Power: The Lessons of the 20th Century.

On the basis I'm with Dawkins on this.

There are people out there with all sorts of views I might not agree with, but I'm prepared to listen to them about subjects I might be interested in if they have expertise in those areas.

 

[Alexlf]

You're wrong. They understand her views and don't want her here. They understand her view and disagree with her bigotry. They don't want that type of person to speak in front of them. She is not being silenced. She left on her own accord. If you feel as though she has a right to speak then go for it, you also have zero reason to challenge the protestors or else you are being inconsistent: if you want her to speak then you can't fault the protestors for doing what they're allowed to do.

These freedoms do bite lots of people in the ass.

Clearly they don't understand her views on the subject as a number of her books have received critical acclaim and are viewed as extremely insightful and informational. They contain no anti-trans viewpoints as far as I have read/learned.

As for not being silenced, she wasn't officially, but that's 100% what the students were advocating for. They were trying to get her permanently banned from speaking at the university. The fact that she wasn't and she backed down is absolutely a fault of hers, but to pretend that the protesters were simply voicing concerns about her is very dishonest.

Except that I regard her views as adequately bigoted and hateful that she shouldn't be given a platform. Just as I do with Shirley Phelps.

You can view that all you like, but then no on should ever be a speaker. I'm sure every person on earth has done something that others would disagree with. It's no reason to not listen to them about other topics however.

I suppose yeah, technically I'm a bigot for being against people who have a history of making hateful statements. The difference is that she wasn't born with a quality that made her trash.

I'm not sure how to parse this. Did you make typo and mean to say she was trash? I can't think of how the statement is relevent otherwise.

 

[A Link to the Past]

1. So because I reject someone who has on multiple occasions made very public statements against trans people, dehumanizing them, I reject her because I disagree with her? It can't be that I just think that she's an awful human being, it has to be "o no she disagrees wit me how dare"? I'm using all of my good faith to assume that you're at least in the middle on this and not closer to her viewpoints, because not wanting a TERF to speak is not hating people for disagreeing with you. It's exactly the same as rejecting any other person who has a pronounced history of hatred and bigotry. Take that for what you will.

2. No, my sentence adequately calls her trash. I said that she chose to be trash, it wasn't a quality she had at birth.

From what I understand that wasn't actually the topic under discussion at the event. This idea that Greer was being paid to express these ideas is based on knee jerk conjecture rather than any basis in reality.

http://www.theguardian.com/educatio...ff-university-to-cancel-germain-greer-lecture

Would you be bothered by the idea of Shirley Phelps doing a talk at a University on a subject not related to the things she campaigns against?

 

[Griss]

Well, it's tough for me... on one hand, the APA are among the foremost of authorities on the subject, their job is literally to try and understand how the human brain works. On the other, you're on NeoGAF and you didn't do anything to educate yourself on the subject. Clearly, I am stuck between a rock and a hard place, because both are such experts on the subject.

(loljk, your willful ignorance of the facts is no different than ignoring climate change and claiming that vaccines cause autism)

Sorry, you're right, the APA is an infallible organisation that is never wrong nor changes their diagnoses/criteria and are never influenced in said diagnoses and criteria by outside sources such as big pharma and the ACS. And even where something concerns an issue that lies entirely within the human consciousness (distress) and is therefore subject to huge uncertainty and furthermore their conclusion runs completely contrary to your own lived experience you should bow down before these masters and never question them.

Well done, very informative.

 

[RangerX]

Here is a question to try to gain some more understanding.

Apart from saying Trans women are not women,has she advocated any violence or denial of rights to trans women?

This is a question for me to further educate myself. Fundamentally, why is the statement trans women are not real women incorrect and why is it bigoted? (At the most basic fundamental level, why is it not just semantics and labels. Why is it fundamentally incorrect?).

Nope shes been very explicit that she has not been inciting violence and that she has no problem with people who undergo the procedure and said she'll even use the female pronouns if a person wishes it. The only thing she said is what you stated. That trans women are not women. I'm no fan of hers and she certainly could have put her opinion forward better but it was just that, an opinion that she based on biology. I don't know enough about gender dysphoria to argue the in and outs of it. The talk wasn't even about that.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Sorry, you're right, the APA is an infallible organisation that is never wrong nor changes their diagnoses/criteria and are never influenced in said diagnoses and criteria by outside sources such as big pharma and the ACS. And even where something concerns an issue that lies entirely within the human consciousness (distress) and is therefore subject to huge uncertainty and furthermore their conclusion runs completely contrary to your own lived experience you should bow down before these masters and never question them.

Well done, very informative.

Ah, so I guess the APA cannot be trusted for anything. Going further, most big science can be corrupted by greed or mistakes. Therefore, all science is invalid. What if corruption is why we identify male as meaning "has a penis"? What if it was a conspiracy to hide the truth??? Clearly, we must ignore biology too, because what if.

No, we don't operate on what-ifs. You're suggesting something caused their diagnosis of trans people to be wrong, so choose:

A. Don't bother replying,
B. Produce direct evidence that they may have been influenced in some way to make the wrong diagnosis, or
C. Admit that your assertion is without good faith, and then we can be chums.

You are never, ever allowed to come into a thread and dismiss experts because "they might have been corrupted." The only way that's a valid idea is if we are dismissing the APA's expertise in every imaginable area, and I don't think any reasonable person is planning to do that. So please, don't let me be the only one who is sourcing their statements. Follow up on your claim.

 

[boiled goose]

Sorry, you're right, the APA is an infallible organisation that is never wrong nor changes their diagnoses/criteria and are never influenced in said diagnoses and criteria by outside sources such as big pharma and the ACS. And even where something concerns an issue that lies entirely within the human consciousness (distress) and is therefore subject to huge uncertainty and furthermore their conclusion runs completely contrary to your own lived experience you should bow down before these masters and never question them.

Well done, very informative.

What a silly response griss.

Nope shes been very explicit that she has not been inciting violence and that she has no problem with people who undergo the procedure and said she'll even use the female pronouns if a person wishes it. The only thing she said is what you stated. That trans women are not women. I'm no fan of hers and she certainly could have put her opinion forward better but it was just that, an opinion that she based on biology. I don't know enough about gender dysphoria to argue the in and outs of it. The talk wasn't even about that.

Thanks for the response.

 

[A Link to the Past]

From my latest reading it is definitely true that trans women dont have the brain of trans men, but they didn't match cis women either.

"Real woman" doesn't really seem like a category that is scientifically based, because it depends on what you consider the baseline.

But there are marked similarities between trans women and cis women, like how they both respond to endrogen.

 

[Opto]

I feel like if you take this stance then you strip the word 'normal' of all meaning.

Trans people are less than 0.3% of the population. That's about 3 in every 1,000 or less. They have a condition that is extremely negative for them physically and mentally and needs hormone therapy and surgery to fix. It's not a positive thing to be born with. Considering those two points I don't understand how transgenderism can fit under the umbrella of 'normal' under any accepted definition of the word.

It reminds me of being in the doctor's office dealing with a hormonal / gender issue of my own. The doctor said 'Don't feel ashamed, this is perfectly normal.' I felt patronised and said 'What is the ratio of people afflicted with this issue?' He gave me some figure in the tens of thousands. I had to reply 'So how the fuck is this possibly normal?!?' Look, I get the anti-shame message, which is a good and important one, but that message should be 'It's okay (and can be good even!) not to conform to the norm.' People see through the bullshit of the other message, I think.

I see normal as familiarity. Trans people existing, to me, is normal. I admit that stance isn't universally accepted so humanity's normal may be different from mine.

I leave it to each individual on whether or not they need hormone therapy and/or SRS. Whatever works for them.

But I can see your point. I just try to avoid othering someone with my language and attitude, which can only come across so much over forum posts

 

[boiled goose]

But there are marked similarities between trans women and cis women, like how they both respond to endrogen.

Yes definitely.
Again the problem is that there is no objective scientific way to establish "real womanhood". To me it seems like a societal decision.

Brain structure,chromosomes, genitals, hormones, etc are scientific facts. Labels are societal.

As I've stated previously, to me it's probably better strategically to focus on inclusion and acceptance.

Regarding feminism, regardless of history or biology or whatever, if you are a trans woman who has transitioned clearly you will face many issues all women face.

 

[Griss]

Ah, so I guess the APA cannot be trusted for anything. Going further, most big science can be corrupted by greed or mistakes. Therefore, all science is invalid. What if corruption is why we identify male as meaning "has a penis"? What if it was a conspiracy to hide the truth??? Clearly, we must ignore biology too, because what if.

No, we don't operate on what-ifs. You're suggesting something caused their diagnosis of trans people to be wrong, so choose:

A. Don't bother replying,
B. Produce direct evidence that they may have been influenced in some way to make the wrong diagnosis, or
C. Admit that your assertion is without good faith.

You are never, ever allowed to come into a thread and dismiss experts because "they might have been corrupted." The only way that's a valid idea is if we are dismissing the APA's expertise in every imaginable area, and I don't think any reasonable person is planning to do that. So please, don't let me be the only one who is sourcing their statements. Follow up on your claim.

I don't believe you need to refer to experts to discuss the fucking human condition when we all live it, which was my point. It's would be like asking people at a depression recovery meeting to cite their fucking sources while explaining how/why they feel as they do. I was very explicit as to the personal reasons I feel the way I do and you made a lame appeal to authority, one to which I have absolutely no desire wasting my time responding to, the same as you initially refused to engage with my original point.

And my point isn't that 'The APA is corrupt', it's that 'The APA is often wrong, the science of psychiatry/psychology tends to be uncertain, and I refuse to accept everything they say as gospel as a result, particularly when it conflicts with my life experience.' That's not a luddite view. It's fair.

I wonder if you'd have been one of those people telling gays in 1972 that they had a disease because 'It says so here in this book. A book by experts!'

 

[A Link to the Past]

The real problem is that brains are so complicated that really, a real woman would be on the extreme end of a spectrum, and I don't think any woman - trans or cis - can qualify for that terminology when we look at it this way. For me, no one is 100% a man or woman, but some people have distinct and visible aspects that influence how close to one extreme they are.

EDIT: Griss, no. Denying an external observation from a cis person of what it means to be trans is not the same thing as denying a personal observation of what depression feels like to themselves. You have no innate understanding of other people's brains, so why do you look at the authorities on psychology and say "meh, clearly my eyes are better sources of intangible things than experts"? The APA is a bad source only if you have something to counter it explicitly in psychology. We may not be perfect, but there is nothing to contradict what the APA says whatsoever. What you're saying is no different than saying "look, I was very explicit as to the person reasons that I feel for why gay people have a disorder". That 1972 study is a product of ignorance, and once they became better at understanding homosexuality, they reversed their decision. Here, what happened is that after they began to better understand what it meant to be transgender, they reversed previous viewpoints held. It's no different than physical medicine changing ideas. Should we discredit doctors because many advocated cigarettes as being good for you back in the early 1900s? That seems about as destructive as diagnosing homosexuality as a mental disorder.

 

[Kadayi]

Would you be bothered by the idea of Shirley Phelps doing a talk at a University on a subject not related to the things she campaigns against?

I have absolutely no clue who that is (and nor do I care) but this is not a case of an abstract scenario. This is the case of a particular individual (Germaine Greer), who is one of the most recognised voices in feminism of the last 40+ years. This idea that she should be blackballed from ever talking at any event about feminism because of ideas expressed unrelated to the subject in hand is kind of ludicrous. What next? Should all of her books be banned? Burned? Excised from the feminist curriculum? Where does the outrage end and the common sense begin exactly?

 

[Chozolore]

OK, so the subject is definitely up for debate.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I have absolutely no clue who that is (and nor do I care) but this is not a case of an abstract scenario. This is the case of a particular individual (Germaine Greer), who is one of the most recognised voices in feminism of the last 40+ years. This idea that she should be blackballed from ever talking at any event about feminism because of ideas expressed unrelated to the subject in hand is kind of ludicrous. What next? Should all of her books be banned? Burned? Excised from the feminist curriculum? Where does the outrage end and the common sense begin exactly?

Shirley Phelps is, following her father's passing, in charge of the Westboro Baptist Church, a hate group that advocates against LGBT people and America, considering both to be repulsive and deserving of Hell.

 

[Griss]

The real problem is that brains are so complicated that really, a real woman would be on the extreme end of a spectrum, and I don't think any woman - trans or cis - can qualify for that terminology when we look at it this way. For me, no one is 100% a man or woman, but some people have distinct and visible aspects that influence how close to one extreme they are.

EDIT: Griss, no. Denying an external observation from a cis person of what it means to be trans is not the same thing as denying a personal observation of what depression feels like to themselves. You have no innate understanding of other people's brains, so why do you look at the authorities on psychology and say "meh, clearly my eyes are better sources of intangible things than experts"? The APA is a bad source only if you have something to counter it explicitly in psychology. We may not be perfect, but there is nothing to contradict what the APA says whatsoever. What you're saying is no different than saying "look, I was very explicit as to the person reasons that I feel for why gay people have a disorder". That 1972 study is a product of ignorance, and once they became better at understanding homosexuality, they reversed their decision. Here, what happened is that after they began to better understand what it meant to be transgender, they reversed previous viewpoints held. It's no different than physical medicine changing ideas. Should we discredit doctors because many advocated cigarettes as being good for you back in the early 1900s? That seems about as destructive as diagnosing homosexuality as a mental disorder.

I see what you're saying, I do.

Frankly
1) I derailed the thread and I apologise (this should be about Greer and Dawkins);
2) While I do try to study the science on this topic, it is complicated and I forget it within days, leading me back to square 1 constantly;
3) I shouldn't talk about this subject. It hits too close to home for me and I shake and sweat while typing out these comments and find myself agitated and close to tears. I feel like I undo a year+ of therapy by engaging in this discussion, and that's no one's fault but my own. I need to learn self-disipline.
4) Your heart is obviously in the right place when you defend trans people so I'm not angry at you or anything.
5) I genuinely still cannot understand how anyone could say that having a body issue of that magnitude could not cause some measure of distress in and of itself, but I'll concede the point.

I think it's time for me to take a break here. Good luck man.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I hope you feel better

 

[Kadayi]

Shirley Phelps is, following her father's passing, in charge of the Westboro Baptist Church, a hate group that advocates against LGBT people and America, considering both to be repulsive and deserving of Hell.

Which has absolutely no bearing on assessing Germaine Greer to talk about Women & Power: The Lessons of the 20th Century.. This is not an abstract scenario. These 'What's ifs' like you propose have no bearing on the subject.

Also and I'll repeat this idea that Greer should be blackballed from ever talking at any event about feminism because of ideas expressed unrelated to the subject in hand is kind of ludicrous. What next? Should all of her books be banned? Burned? Excised from the feminist curriculum? Where does the outrage end and the common sense begin exactly?

 

[Zing]

"Lashed out"? For fucks sake. This is a non-story and a prime example of how idiotic click-based advertising has made the Internet.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Which has absolutely no bearing on assessing Germaine Greer to talk about Women & Power: The Lessons of the 20th Century.. This is not an abstract scenario. These 'What's ifs' like you propose have no bearing on the subject.

Both are noted for having, on multiple occasions and very visibly, engaged in hate speech. I am asking if Shirley Phelps was commenting on, say, the economy at a University, would you take issue with that she was given a platform considering her very extreme viewpoints otherwise?

"Lashed out"? For fucks sake. This is a non-story and a prime example of how idiotic click-based advertising has made the Internet.

Do you know what clickbait is? It's when the title of a thread, article, etc. is a bait-and-switch or when it deceptively does not correspond to what people are likely to have thought it was about. The title claimed that Dawkins told protesters of Greer something, and he did. What exactly is wrong with the title?

 

[Sianos]

Normal in the sense of "statistically occurs a majority of the time" and the colloquial definition of normal as "is not socially maligned" are two different concepts encoded in the same series of phonemes: just because we use the same series of phonemes do describe the two concepts does not mean that if you prove something true for one concept transcribed by the series of phonemes that you've proven it true for every connotation or alternative denotation.

Just because a person can be technically correct in claiming a behavior is "abnormal" in the sense that it is statistically rare does not mean they can then substitute in any colloquial definition and still be correct.

I personally find the DSM definition of abnormal to be useful: "a clinically significant behavior or psychological syndrome that is associated with present distress, disability, a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability or an important loss of freedom. In addition, this syndrome or pattern must not be merely an expectable response to a particular event such as, for example, the death of a loved one". A wide enough categorization to be useful, but nuanced enough to not incorrectly ascribe it.

On a broader scale, conflation of the two definitions of "normal" is common enough to have a classification itself: the appeal to popularity fallacy (argumentum ad populum).

 

[Meicyn]

Would you be bothered by the idea of Shirley Phelps doing a talk at a University on a subject not related to the things she campaigns against?

Not at all. I'm gay, for the record.

If anything, I'd love to hear a bit from her about Snyder vs Phelps, for example. Her believing I should burn in hell doesn't alter my interest in that court battle and Westboro's victory.