Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-07-2019, 12:28 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,863

"I identify as an Apache attack helicopter"


This meme has been around for a few years now - where people will claim that they identify as an Apache attack helicopter and demand to be treated with respect as the helicopter that they are. It has been popularized on the military-fan page Funker530 on Facebook and many other places elsewhere.

Obviously, this is not serious. But if you were a teacher or school administrator, where would you draw the line? If a student demands to be treated as a helicopter (or velociraptor, or dump truck), would you treat him as one? What if he were really, really, serious about it?

Where is the boundary where "I identify as something" no longer qualifies as valid?
  #2  
Old 06-07-2019, 12:31 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,863
Further examples here and here.
  #3  
Old 06-07-2019, 12:32 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,948
In general, I would defer to medical and psychological professionals who specialize in this sort of identity. In my understanding, there's a broad consensus that gender identity is a real thing (not a phase or mere preference, etc.) that really can be different from biological sex. I'm not aware of any sort of consensus, or anything close to that, that would suggest some legitimacy for something like what you suggest.
  #4  
Old 06-07-2019, 12:50 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,261
Fine. If you're a helicopter, and I see you about to take a bite of a sandwich, I will smack it out of your hand because I don't want your T700 turbine engines to be destroyed by FOD. If you ask nicely, I'll even help feed you the JP-5 that you need to fulfill your identity.
  #5  
Old 06-07-2019, 12:50 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,564
I would want to know if I can join their ride share.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #6  
Old 06-07-2019, 12:52 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,650
Have you got any real-life examples that involve someone sincerely making a claim of this sort?
  #7  
Old 06-07-2019, 12:53 PM
Just Asking Questions is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7,197
Wow, never heard of that one. And I thought I was up on my memes.

Also, this one is a Cobra. Do we HAVE to respect them, too? They're obviously inferior to Apaches.
  #8  
Old 06-07-2019, 12:55 PM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,631
I would ask them how do they wish me to treat them. I will tell them I can treat them like I treat everyone else or I can treat them like they are severely mentally ill. But without explicit instructions, I don't know how to treat a helicopter.
__________________
What the hell is a signature?

Last edited by monstro; 06-07-2019 at 12:56 PM.
  #9  
Old 06-07-2019, 12:56 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,650
I'll tell you what, if what is shown in those silly posters (actual helicopters asking for rights) comes to light, I will seriously consider fighting for those rights.
  #10  
Old 06-07-2019, 01:04 PM
Inner Stickler's Avatar
Inner Stickler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 15,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post

Where is the boundary where "I identify as something" no longer qualifies as valid?
I think it's safe to say if you're at the point where you're saying you're a giant hunk of metal, you're past the line of validity. I'd go as far as saying someone who would actually try this argument is saying some very interesting things about how far apparent they conceive men and women as being.

Last edited by Inner Stickler; 06-07-2019 at 01:05 PM.
  #11  
Old 06-07-2019, 01:05 PM
Exapno Mapcase is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,444
"Fine. I'll insist that each morning you drink JP 8 so that you're ready to work all day. Oh, and if needed I'll feel free to strip you for parts."
  #12  
Old 06-07-2019, 01:07 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Where is the boundary where "I identify as something" no longer qualifies as valid?
Sincerity.

Sincerity is what makes a persons gender identity statement valid.

People who say their sexual identity is "helicopter" aren't sincere.
  #13  
Old 06-07-2019, 01:41 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,109
Okay, you go use the helicopters' bathroom.
  #14  
Old 06-07-2019, 01:55 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,650
"I identify as an Apache helicopter!"
"Apache helicopters can't talk."
  #15  
Old 06-07-2019, 01:58 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
"Fine. I'll insist that each morning you drink JP 8 so that you're ready to work all day. Oh, and if needed I'll feel free to strip you for parts."
This is a stupid response, because the point of the "I identify as an attack helicopter," is not to make a claim about oneself, it is to denigrate trans people. It's supposed to be a ridiculous statement. By pointing out that its ridiculous, you are supporting their actual point, which is that it's "ridiculous" for a man to "pretend" to be a woman.

Don't play into their rhetorical trap.
  #16  
Old 06-07-2019, 02:00 PM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 28,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Fine. If you're a helicopter, and I see you about to take a bite of a sandwich, I will smack it out of your hand because I don't want your T700 turbine engines to be destroyed by FOD. If you ask nicely, I'll even help feed you the JP-5 that you need to fulfill your identity.
That sort of thing sounds like a cute refutation of the claim to identify as an Apache helicopter but I don't think it survives much scrutiny. For example, if you are born female but identify as male, you may still need to see a gynecologist for medical issues.
  #17  
Old 06-07-2019, 02:02 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,120
When someone explicitly tells me that they don't want to be treated like a human being, with human rights, I'm going to deny their request.

I'll also point out how it's a dumb analogy for someone else who's wanting to be treated like a human being with rights.
  #18  
Old 06-07-2019, 02:05 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
This is a stupid response, because the point of the "I identify as an attack helicopter," is not to make a claim about oneself, it is to denigrate trans people. It's supposed to be a ridiculous statement. By pointing out that its ridiculous, you are supporting their actual point, which is that it's "ridiculous" for a man to "pretend" to be a woman.

Don't play into their rhetorical trap.
Oh. I totally didn't get that. Makes sense though. I don't think they are equivalent responses, if that's supposed to be their point. I mean, we are all human, after all, and sexual identification is going to be all in the mind as much as the physiology, but we aren't helicopters and there is simply no way to identify as an inanimate object. As posters have pointed out, helicopters don't talk...they also don't eat.

It IS a stupid point if that's what they are getting at.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #19  
Old 06-07-2019, 02:35 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,374
Surely in 99.9% of cases common sense prevails.

A person saying they identify as an attack helicopter is speaking ironically. They do not, in fact, identify as a helicopter in any conceivable way. Any sane person knows that.

A biological man who identifies as a woman, or vice versa, is very probably speaking sincerely. We can discuss why that happens all day but surely most reasonable people would agree a trans person is not speaking ironically or jovially.

Those two situations would seem to be to be, well, 99.9% of cases. The 0.1% of cases, like Rachel Dolezal, are, I suppose, where a discussion is to be had.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #20  
Old 06-07-2019, 02:57 PM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 40,372
"I identify as an Apache attack helicopter"

"I identify you as an idiot"
  #21  
Old 06-07-2019, 03:04 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 269
Obviously, the helicopter example is deliberately stupid. But what about so-called ‘Otherkin’? They identify as animals. There aren’t many of them, but they’re out there. You can see them on YouTube and they’re perfectly sincere. Where do we draw the line between respecting identity and recklessly accommodating mental illness?
  #22  
Old 06-07-2019, 03:19 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,120
Shit, "Otherkin" aren't nearly the weirdest we have to deal with. I've met people who identify as "souls," thinking they're some sort of immortal being that temporarily occupies a fleshly body, and that after the body dies, they live on. That's way stranger than thinking you're a slightly different kind of animal.

So how do I deal with them?

Privately I think whatever I want about them. In public, I deal with them like I'd deal with anyone else. It's vanishingly rare for me to have to make a decision based on whether someone sees themself as a "soul" or as a normal human being, and when I do, I do my best to show them respect.

It's worked out in 100% of cases. And if I can deal with these people (locally, the bulk of them call members of their community "Christians"), surely you can handle "otherkin."
__________________
"Everyone regards themselves as moderate, because they know some other sumbitch who's twice as crazy as they are." -Timothy Tyson
  #23  
Old 06-07-2019, 03:22 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,650
We can't have a discussion about the rights of the transgendered without discussing the transhelicoptered , the transanimaled , the transtoastered etc.? As I look back on history I see that such "lines" that are being asked about were drawn not out of necessity or a need for clarification-they were drawn by those that thought they were superior to show why they were superior.
  #24  
Old 06-07-2019, 03:42 PM
Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
But what about so-called ‘Otherkin’? They identify as animals. There aren’t many of them, but they’re out there. You can see them on YouTube and they’re perfectly sincere. Where do we draw the line between respecting identity and recklessly accommodating mental illness?
Easy. We are not allowed to treat other human beings as non-human animals or mythological beings. They can't abrogate their human rights by declaring themselves to be non-human or mythological, any more than someone can abrogate their human rights by declaring themselves to be a helicopter.

In fact, AFAICT, Otherkin don't actually demand to be relegated to the legal status of non-human animals, or claim to possess the sort of elven/dwarvish/faerie/whatever characteristics whose actual manifestation would automatically earn their possessor several months in a federal testing lab at Roswell or somewhere. They don't want their human rights and limitations denied or disbelieved.

For example, if an Otherkin who identifies as merperson gets stranded in a rapidly rising flood, they are not going to welcome advice to just jump in and take advantage of their merperson submersion capabilities.

Transgender identity is entirely different from this. There is nothing supernatural about a human being having a male or female gender identity, or about said gender identity occasionally not aligning with the individual's biological sex. Nor do we need to deny a transgender person's human rights in order to accept their ordinary social manifestations of their preferred gender identity.

Otherkin's claims of supernatural or mystical partaking of non-human characteristics are more like a religious belief. It's obviously false in a literal materialist sense to say that an Otherkin is an immortal winged fairy, for example; but then, it's also obviously false in a literal materialist sense to say that a nun is a bride of Christ or that Christians are washed in the blood of the Lamb. If we don't submit Christians to biohazard decontamination procedures on the basis of their claim to be washed in lamb's blood, we don't have to trap, tag and relocate wolf-Otherkin on the basis of their claim to be wild canids.
  #25  
Old 06-07-2019, 03:48 PM
Exapno Mapcase is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
This is a stupid response, because the point of the "I identify as an attack helicopter," is not to make a claim about oneself, it is to denigrate trans people. It's supposed to be a ridiculous statement. By pointing out that its ridiculous, you are supporting their actual point, which is that it's "ridiculous" for a man to "pretend" to be a woman.

Don't play into their rhetorical trap.
I, obviously, disagree.

If they want to mock and denigrate trans people, then calling their bluff by demanding that they live up to their "beliefs" works to reduce their claims to mere idiocy.

Contrarily, asking trans people to live up to their beliefs is what they do every day and in no way mocks them or shows them up.
  #26  
Old 06-07-2019, 04:09 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,506
Obviously what OP describes is intended as a reductio ad absurdum of trans people, of the notion that a man can't just turn himself into a woman by saying he's a woman; that sexual identity has objective reality.

The first thing to note is that our mental states have just the same objective reality as our somatic form (I'm using the word "somatic" to refer to the non-brain parts of the body - our arms, legs, penises, ovaries, etc.). Mental states are ultimately physical too - they are defined by a neuron configuration. We already have some crude ways to detect mental states objectively, fMRI etc. But in general, the only way we now have to detect someone's mental state is to ask them. And, as House famously says, everybody lies.

If somebody says that they are a helicopter, obviously that is not true. They are either joking, or they are mentally ill. I trust that this much is not in dispute. The more common reductio ad absurdum that I've heard is the question of otherkin, some of whom claim that they are non-human animals. Again, this simply cannot be objectively true. Human DNA does not contain the design for a cat brain, it contains the design for a human brain. Of course, that's not to say that if someone strongly identifies with cats, and wants to express this by saying that they are a cat, that we should not treat them with dignity and respect their choices. But it's not analogous to being trans, there is no "slippery slope" of losing touch with objective reality here.

Are people who claim to be trans just lying? I think we can dismiss that possibility immediately. I recall an estimate that there are more trans people in the U.S. than the entire population of Wyoming (...so perhaps trans people deserve two senators?). Trans people are generally consistent and persistent about their identity, despite suffering extreme persecution. Why would such a vast number of people deliberately lie and bring such suffering on themselves?

So are trans people sincere, but objectively mistaken? Essentially - are they mentally ill? Well, it seems to me that to call something a mental illness it must entail some form of mental dysfunction; and that correcting that mental dysfunction should restore happiness. Trans people generally do not fit this description at all. Many trans people are stressed and unhappy early in life, sure. But in general their happiness seems to be correlated with people treating them in accord with their stated mental identity, not the reverse. Trying to "correct" their mental identity to force it to comport with their at-birth somatic sexual characteristics is usually a source of distress, not happiness. To put it crudely and to (over)generalize - trans people don't usually have a sense that anything in their mind is "wrong", their mental identity is just who they are, and if anything is "wrong" it's that their body doesn't fit with who they feel they are.

So, from a scientific perspective, is it biologically plausible that trans people are neither lying nor mentally ill - that people with typically male DNA (XY), born with a male somatic phenotype (penis etc.), sometimes really do have the "brain of a woman", or vice versa?

Contrary to people who claim that this notion "contradicts basic biology" (a phrase I've heard many times), here's the actual biology. The 99% of genetic material found on the autosomes and the X chromosome is exactly the same for both sexes; and males and females obviously have a shared evolutionary history - we're members of the same species, unlike cats and helicopters. All of the common 99% of genetic material is involved in making both males and females. Sexual dimorphism is usually triggered by the presence or absence of part of the tiny ~1% of the genome that's found on Y. And we already know that the dimorphism trigger doesn't always work consistently. For example, in the case of Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome an XY karyotype ("male DNA") can lead to a partially or completely female phenotype (phenotype = everything about you except your DNA, including body & brain).

Phenotype is always the result of a complex interplay between genotype and environmental factors, including the intrauterine environment. And sexual dimorphism has both somatic elements (sex organs, body size differences, etc.) and mental elements - a male/female neuron configuration. I don't have to put my hand between my legs to know that I am male, and if I were castrated I would still feel male - my brain feels "programmed" with some instinctive attitudes and behavioral predispositions that are typically male. So we clearly have both a somatic sexual phenotype - the way our bodies look - and a mental sexual phenotype - the way our brains are programmed, our self-perception, our identity. And, given the 99% shared genetic material, virtually all the information is certainly available for things to turn out either way with a slight difference in environmental factors: from a biological perspective, it's not surprising if in some cases the mental phenotype might not comport with the somatic phenotype. In other words, it is biologically plausible that humans can develop with a male mind and female body, or vice versa. Once again I'll emphasize that our mental phenotype is not some casual throwaway "opinion" that can change day to day, it is the fundamental instinctive programming and predisposition of our brains, a neuron configuration with just the same objective physical reality as a penis or a vagina.

So we know that the idea that a trans person has a mental phenotype that differs from their somatic phenotype is scientifically perfectly plausible. Since it's preposterous to suggest that all trans people are deliberately lying, and since trans people do not fit any sensible definition of mental illness, even before considering our moral values about treating people with respect, it is overwhelmingly scientifically likely that trans people are (a) sincere and (b) objectively correct about the fact that their gender identity (their mental sexual phenotype) is partially or fully not in accord with the body (somatic sexual phenotype) that they were born with.

Last edited by Riemann; 06-07-2019 at 04:14 PM.
  #27  
Old 06-07-2019, 04:16 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
I, obviously, disagree.

If they want to mock and denigrate trans people, then calling their bluff by demanding that they live up to their "beliefs" works to reduce their claims to mere idiocy.
You're not "calling their bluff." "I identify as an attack helicopter," isn't a bluff, it's a deliberately stupid claim designed to serve as an analogy for a different claim that they feel is also stupid. They want you to point out the flaws - that's the entire point of the argument. They want you to make the anti-trans argument yourself, by attacking their "helicopter" argument.

When you respond like this, you're letting yourself be outsmarted by bigots.
  #28  
Old 06-07-2019, 04:30 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
You're not "calling their bluff." "I identify as an attack helicopter," isn't a bluff, it's a deliberately stupid claim designed to serve as an analogy for a different claim that they feel is also stupid. They want you to point out the flaws - that's the entire point of the argument. They want you to make the anti-trans argument yourself, by attacking their "helicopter" argument.

When you respond like this, you're letting yourself be outsmarted by bigots.
There's a difference between pointing out that the "helicopter" self-identification is stupid, which seemingly supports the bigots' argument, and pointing out that the analogy itself is stupid, which I think is what Exapno was doing. The analogy is stupid because it can be attacked on obvious grounds that trans identity cannot, since as Riemann points out, trans identity is objectively supportable. The analogy falsely assumes that trans identity is arbitrary or capricious and has never been studied.
  #29  
Old 06-07-2019, 04:36 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
There's a difference between pointing out that the "helicopter" self-identification is stupid, which seemingly supports the bigots' argument, and pointing out that the analogy itself is stupid, which I think is what Exapno was doing. The analogy is stupid because it can be attacked on obvious grounds that trans identity cannot, since as Riemann points out, trans identity is objectively supportable. The analogy falsely assumes that trans identity is arbitrary or capricious and has never been studied.
Actually the analogy assumes that the person making the analogy rejects the claim that people's genders can disagree with their primary sexual characteristics. Or to put it another way they reject the idea that 'gender' is a separate things at all, and that the primary sexual characteristics are the sole basis of categorization. And they ain't gonna let no namby pamby liberal 'science' tell them otherwise.

It's a way for them to say that they don't see the transgender claims as any more sensible than the helicopter claims, and demand that you answer why they should accept claims they find absurd.

Last edited by begbert2; 06-07-2019 at 04:37 PM. Reason: typo
  #30  
Old 06-07-2019, 04:42 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 8,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
This meme ... where people will claim that they identify as an Apache attack helicopter and demand to be treated with respect as the helicopter that they are. ...
Are there any statistics available as to what percentege of these claimants are right wing assholes who don't actually identify as helicopters?
  #31  
Old 06-07-2019, 04:45 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Are there any statistics available as to what percentege of these claimants are right wing assholes who don't actually identify as helicopters?
The latest estimate that I have seen is 103% with a margin of error of 3%.
  #32  
Old 06-07-2019, 04:45 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Actually the analogy assumes that the person making the analogy rejects the claim that people's genders can disagree with their primary sexual characteristics. Or to put it another way they reject the idea that 'gender' is a separate things at all, and that the primary sexual characteristics are the sole basis of categorization. And they ain't gonna let no namby pamby liberal 'science' tell them otherwise.

It's a way for them to say that they don't see the transgender claims as any more sensible than the helicopter claims, and demand that you answer why they should accept claims they find absurd.
I get it. My point is that the analogy doesn't do what bigots think it does. Explaining this to them isn't falling into their trap, it's pointing out that they don't have a trap.

Last edited by wolfpup; 06-07-2019 at 04:45 PM.
  #33  
Old 06-07-2019, 04:47 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 8,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
The latest estimate that I have seen is 103% with a margin of error of 3%.
  #34  
Old 06-07-2019, 04:56 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
I get it. My point is that the analogy doesn't do what bigots think it does. Explaining this to them isn't falling into their trap, it's pointing out that they don't have a trap.
Actually the explanation you provided is just saying a bunch of sciencey words at them that you already know they're not going to pay any credence to.
  #35  
Old 06-07-2019, 05:02 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Actually the explanation you provided is just saying a bunch of sciencey words at them that you already know they're not going to pay any credence to.
Yes, well, they don't believe in climate change or evolution, either, and that's not the fault of the "science-y" types. Rehabilitating morons is not one of my strong points.
  #36  
Old 06-07-2019, 05:03 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,506
To be honest, I don't have a problem with people stating the reductio ad absurdum in some form. Sure, many will be right wing bigots who don't really have any interest in educating themselves, but there may also always be some decent people lurking who are troubled by this, who perhaps have a misconception that trans people are just men who wake up one day on a whim and decide to put on a dress, and also don't understand why it's not "basic biology" that a penis at birth just always means you're a man. So it's an opportunity.

Last edited by Riemann; 06-07-2019 at 05:04 PM.
  #37  
Old 06-07-2019, 05:20 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,829
If this is going to segue into a discussion about how to dissuade the ignorant from their ignorant and bigoted beliefs, all I can say is that it's a highly specialized and mostly political skill of which few of us are capable. There were a couple of long articles in New Scientist a couple of years ago -- and I think similar commentaries in Nature -- on precisely this subject. There are no easy answers, and as society seemingly regresses more and more into a version of C.M. Korbluth's The Marching Morons, the challenge gets ever more difficult (cite: US politics at the moment).
  #38  
Old 06-07-2019, 05:23 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
I get it. My point is that the analogy doesn't do what bigots think it does. Explaining this to them isn't falling into their trap, it's pointing out that they don't have a trap.
Except Exapno is doing the opposite of that. He's not attacking it as an analogy, he's taking the statement at face value and pointing out why it's dumb. To actually attack it as an analogy, you have to recognize the things its analogizing, and explain why they're different.
  #39  
Old 06-07-2019, 05:38 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
To be honest, I don't have a problem with people stating the reductio ad absurdum in some form. Sure, many will be right wing bigots who don't really have any interest in educating themselves, but there may also always be some decent people lurking who are troubled by this, who perhaps have a misconception that trans people are just men who wake up one day on a whim and decide to put on a dress, and also don't understand why it's not "basic biology" that a penis at birth just always means you're a man. So it's an opportunity.
I'm the odd duck who recognizes that there are people whose brain biology disagrees with their not-brain biology, and still can't shake the opinion that when people talk about categorizing somebody as a man or woman they're talking about body biology, not brain biology.

I mean, suppose I encountered somebody who actually did have mental characteristics that inclined them to think of themselves as an attack helicopter. They're aware their body doesn't match their mental image, but that doesn't change their mindset. I can tell them they're wrong because I know about their body biology, and because I define things as helicopters or not based on their bodies, not their mindsets. And I can't shake the notion that human sexes are defined the same way. I mean, they are physically different after all (though not as binary as it may initially appear).

Honestly the thing that makes the 'I identify as an attack helicopter' types shitty isn't that they're being absurd, it's that they're lying - and by that implying that trans people are also just liars. That's shitty both coming and going. But if they genuinely believed themselves to be helicopters, I'd confusedly feel that I needed to give them the same latitude of the their claims that I do people claiming to be one gender or another.
  #40  
Old 06-07-2019, 05:47 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,457
What I always thought was the this "attack helicopter" example lampoons how you can't change reality no matter what you identify with.

That is, since we clearly don't have a way to turn a human being into an attack helicopter (arguably, even with advanced technology capable of doing it, we wouldn't for practical and technical reasons), someone who wishes very badly they were treated as an attack helicopter is just going to have to deal.

People aren't going to call him/her by their preferred pronoun or comment on what amazing missile bays he/she has because it isn't real.

Similarly, since we lack the medical technology to really turn a man into a woman or a woman into a man, while it's understandable that some people wish reality were different, it's not reality.
  #41  
Old 06-07-2019, 05:50 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
What I always thought was the this "attack helicopter" example lampoons how you can't change reality no matter what you identify with.

That is, since we clearly don't have a way to turn a human being into an attack helicopter (arguably, even with advanced technology capable of doing it, we wouldn't for practical and technical reasons), someone who wishes very badly they were treated as an attack helicopter is just going to have to deal.

People aren't going to call him/her by their preferred pronoun or comment on what amazing missile bays he/she has because it isn't real.

Similarly, since we lack the medical technology to really turn a man into a woman or a woman into a man, while it's understandable that some people wish reality were different, it's not reality.
When they specifically use the phrasing "I identify as an attack helicopter" that explanation doesn't really hold water - unless they have literally no idea what the phrase "identify as" means, which I suppose is plausible.
  #42  
Old 06-07-2019, 06:16 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
What I always thought was the this "attack helicopter" example lampoons how you can't change reality no matter what you identify with.

That is, since we clearly don't have a way to turn a human being into an attack helicopter (arguably, even with advanced technology capable of doing it, we wouldn't for practical and technical reasons), someone who wishes very badly they were treated as an attack helicopter is just going to have to deal.

People aren't going to call him/her by their preferred pronoun or comment on what amazing missile bays he/she has because it isn't real.

Similarly, since we lack the medical technology to really turn a man into a woman or a woman into a man, while it's understandable that some people wish reality were different, it's not reality.
Nothing you've written here about the intent of the misconceived helicopter analogy hasn't been said already in the thread. And I don't know if your last paragraph [my bold] is still supposed to be recounting the intended meaning of the flawed analogy, or if you are stating that you agree with this view. If the latter, all I can say is - it's based on a gross misconception of what it means to be a trans person, and you should read the thread.
  #43  
Old 06-07-2019, 06:20 PM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,396
When people say "I identify as a woman" or "I identify as a man", that's just another way of saying "I'd like you to treat me as if I was a woman/man". And that is pretty simple, most of the time, unlike asking someone to treat you as if you were a helicopter. You know how to act around a human female, you know how to react around a human male. It's not a big existential mystery, like a talking humanoid helicopter would be.

If people insist that men have a penis and testicles and women have a vagina and ovaries, then does that mean if a man gets castrated he's not a man anymore? If a woman gets a hysterectomy, does that means she's not a woman anymore? Obviously that's not where they want to go, because that means you really could change your sex by surgery. And so they go back to the chromosomes. But you know, when's the last time you looked at someone else's karotype chart? How do you treat someone with XX chromosomes vs XY chromosomes? You don't actually look at their chromosomes, do you? You look at their phenotype, and if they seem like they're acting like a man/woman you treat them as a man/woman.

Of course the problem here is that people who reject transgenderism have firm and fixed ideas about how men ought to behave, and how women ought to behave. A man putting on a dress is disgusting, because dresses are for women. But that's easily shown to be ridiculous, gendered clothing is obviously a social construct.

And so "how do you treat someone as if they are a man or as if they were a woman" is serious business, because of course playing the part of a woman is disgusting if you're a man, and that of course is because women are inferior to men. Scratch a transphobe or a homophobe, and 9 times out 10 you've found a misogynist.

It's actually pretty easy to treat a human being "as if" they were a particular gender, without worrying very much about how they look under their clothing, or what body parts they have or don't have, or what chromosomes they have or don't have, because people in real life literally do that all day every day. It requires no extra work, because we already do it all the time. Whether they're really for-real a man, or really for-real a woman doesn't matter, because treating someone as if they were a woman even though they're really on an unchangeable metaphysical spiritual level a man doesn't make any difference. OK, let's suppose that's true and you socially interacted with a man in a dress as if they were a woman. And this is horrifying for what reason, exactly?
  #44  
Old 06-07-2019, 06:21 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Except Exapno is doing the opposite of that. He's not attacking it as an analogy, he's taking the statement at face value and pointing out why it's dumb. To actually attack it as an analogy, you have to recognize the things its analogizing, and explain why they're different.
But there are people who make similar retorts to trans people. "You were born male but identify as a woman? Then tell us when or how you are going to give birth, or menstruate."
  #45  
Old 06-07-2019, 06:25 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
But there are people who make similar retorts to trans people. "You were born male but identify as a woman? Then tell us when or how you are going to give birth, or menstruate."
I like how they say similar things to their own grandmas, and when their grandmas explain that not all women have birth or menstruation in their future, they call their grandmas "dude."

The more I think about this analogy, the more I think the most proper refutation is, "Get the fuck out of here with that lame bullshit."
  #46  
Old 06-07-2019, 06:30 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
But there are people who make similar retorts to trans people. "You were born male but identify as a woman? Then tell us when or how you are going to give birth, or menstruate."
Your point being?
  #47  
Old 06-07-2019, 06:32 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur866 View Post
When people say "I identify as a woman" or "I identify as a man", that's just another way of saying "I'd like you to treat me as if I was a woman/man".
Well, when you put it that way...I find myself disagreeing.

Most feminists will say "treat me like you would treat a man" in various circumstances, while never claiming they identify male. Gender identity, on the other hand, is more about, well, identity. It's just a sort of identity which is distinct from physical identity - I gather it's like having one mind in another body. Like if you were to suddenly transform my body into a female one with a magic wand my mind would still 'feel' male to me. They just do it without the wand.
  #48  
Old 06-07-2019, 06:59 PM
Exapno Mapcase is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,444
Miller, maybe I missed it, but I don't see you stating what is the right and proper way to address these claims. How about some guidance?
  #49  
Old 06-07-2019, 07:00 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Well, when you put it that way...I find myself disagreeing.

Most feminists will say "treat me like you would treat a man" in various circumstances, while never claiming they identify male.
The flaw with this is that, well, I would like to be "treated like I'm an attack helicopter with a full weapons loadout". Or, in human terms, I would prefer to be treated like an "18 year old Caucasian girl in the top 10% of attractiveness".

But people won't treat me that way and will argue I don't deserve it.

Similarly, feminists want to be treated like a man...except, you know, for having to work a dangerous job like a man, face the military draft like a man, or face the criminal justice system as a man.
  #50  
Old 06-07-2019, 07:04 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Similarly, feminists want to be treated like a man...except, you know, for having to work a dangerous job like a man, face the military draft like a man, or face the criminal justice system as a man.
Cite?

Or rather, I'm sure there are better threads for your absurd attack on feminists than this one.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017