# I Pit damuriajashi and DemonTree **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 18, 2020, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-damuriajashi-and-demontree/928300 "2020-12-18T00:49:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 36
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2021, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-damuriajashi-and-demontree/928300/703 "2021-06-07T19:09:27Z")
Every time you expand a meaning you pretty much by definition dilute it. The question then becomes, it is still useful overall despite this dilution, and the answer isn’t always yes or no. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2021, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-damuriajashi-and-demontree/928300/704 "2021-06-07T19:17:24Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Every time you expand a meaning you pretty much by definition dilute it. “Trans people shouldn’t be discriminated against,” isn’t expanding the definition of “discrimination.” It’s expanding the number of groups we recognize as being deserving of a basic standard of decent treatment. And I don’t think the concept of “treating people decently,” is diluted by increasing the number of people you treat decently. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2021, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-damuriajashi-and-demontree/928300/705 "2021-06-07T19:58:21Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Ah, that’s the classic “the argument must be bogus because it’s used so often”. See forth: the problem of evil. Not remotely what I said. The argument isn’t bogus because it’s used so often. It’s both bogus AND it’s used so often. No cause and effect. > [@Ludovic](#): > > Every time you expand a meaning you pretty much by definition dilute it. The question then becomes, it is still useful overall despite this dilution, and the answer isn’t always yes or no. I thought homeopaths had the weirdest possible misunderstanding of dilution, but now I’m not so sure. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2021, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-damuriajashi-and-demontree/928300/706 "2021-06-07T20:05:04Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Stonewall’s push for _simple self-identification_ as being sufficient for access to any single-sex area seems something that it should be possible to argue against without being labelled a transphobe or being compared to an anti-semite. If not, well the terms end up meaningless. Not meaningless. It just means that you would be a transphobe and worthy of comparison to antisemitism, and you’re okay with that. I see right through you, and you need to own it. ‘I could be a proud transphobic and anti-semitic bigot if we construe the words this broadly.’ Some people will write you off or like you less. That’s how honesty works. You have to decide for yourself if it’s worth it to wade into these kinds of controversial discussions. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2021, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-damuriajashi-and-demontree/928300/707 "2021-06-07T20:52:42Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Not meaningless. It just means that you would be a transphobe and worthy of comparison to antisemitism, and you’re okay with that. I see right through you, and you need to own it. so, just to be clear on this. Do you think that the concept of simple self-identification, i.e. a simple statement and no medical intervention or questioning at all, that then gives that person full access to all single sex spaces, is something only a transphobe or bigot would argue against? That such a position is worthy of comparison to antisemitism? That seems to be what you are saying but I rather hope I’ve misunderstood you. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2021, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-damuriajashi-and-demontree/928300/708 "2021-06-07T21:44:59Z")
If " Stonewall’s push for _simple self-identification_ as being sufficient for access to any single-sex area" **is not** “something that it should be possible to argue against without being labelled a transphobe or being compared to an anti-semite”, then you are a transphobe worthy of comparison to antisemetic bigots. There’s a double negative in there, but that’s unavoidable since I’m twisting your words back at you. I’m sure you can figure it out. Your arguments in this and the linked topic generally have good form, but are based on false premises. The problem with this particular argument is that Stonewall made no such push in the article cited or its source. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2021, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-damuriajashi-and-demontree/928300/709 "2021-06-07T21:46:08Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > The problem with this particular argument is that Stonewall made no such push in the article cited or its source. Uh, you don’t understand. That’s his _impression._ ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2021, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-damuriajashi-and-demontree/928300/710 "2021-06-07T21:54:32Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > That’s his _impression._ Good for him? Here’s the straight dope, from the [BBC](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57281448) > [Stonewall head] Ms Kelley said while Stonewall believed in freedom of speech, it was “not without limit”. > > “With all beliefs including controversial beliefs there is a right to express those beliefs publicly and where they’re harmful or damaging - whether it’s anti-Semitic beliefs, gender critical beliefs, beliefs about disability - we have legal systems that are put in place for people who are harmed by that.” > > Challenged as to whether it might be considered offensive to compare anti-Semitic beliefs to gender-critical views, she insisted it was appropriate. > > “We’re talking about protected groups. We’re talking about people that are protected on the basis of their sexuality, people that are protected on the basis of gender identity, people who are protected on the basis of race and that’s why I think the analogy is apt.” My impression, which necessarily carries more weight to me than **Novelty\_Bobble** ’s, is that Stonewall thinks gender critical beliefs can be harmful or damaging to a protected group, like anti-Semetic beliefs; also that (UK) freedom of speech laws reflect that. I do not see Stonewall push for simple self-identification as being sufficient for access to any single sex area, nor to label detractors of such simple access to single sex areas as transphobes, nor to compare such detractors to anti-Semites. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2021, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-damuriajashi-and-demontree/928300/711 "2021-06-07T22:23:40Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > You pretended that LHOD had said that “the concept of biological sex being something distinct from gender identity” is transphobic. He never said anything like that. I think you are wrong here, actually. My read of **Novelty\_Bobble** ’s original post is that Stonewall will damage its reputation over the long run by implying gender critical speech is transphobic/hate speech. **Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness** appeared to respond that Stonewall already has a bad reputation on transgender issues and that their stance will realign the charity with the LGBT movement. I think it’s reasonable to assume “If they want to be supportive of transphobia” means supporting gender critical speech, by extension, **Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness** _did_ claim that gender critical speech and beliefs are transphobic (not a far-fetched claim, IMO). **Novelty\_Bobble** replies asking, “What transphobia is present in the concept of biological sex being something distinct from gender identity?” Based on the posts I conclude he or she defines ‘gender critical’ as biological sex being distinct from gender identity, and that pushing for biological-sex exclusive zones is a form of gender critical speech. I suggest that you and others assign more baggage to the term (specifically, fear or hatred of people who identify as transgender) and this is the basis of your disagreements. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2021, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-damuriajashi-and-demontree/928300/712 "2021-06-07T22:37:59Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > There’s a double negative in there, but that’s unavoidable since I’m twisting your words back at you. I’m sure you can figure it out. Sorry, I reallly cannot understand what you are trying to say. Rather than twisting my words or burying your point in double negatives it would help if you could simply answer the clarifying question as I put it to you. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Do you think that the concept of simple self-identification, i.e. a simple statement and no medical intervention or questioning at all, that then gives that person full access to all single sex spaces, is something only a transphobe or bigot would argue against? That such a position is worthy of comparison to antisemitism? I’m trying to understand if you think someone arguing against such a process is deserving of the label “transphobe”. That seems amenable to a fairly straight answer. Even easier for you to do so if you think Stonewall is not pushing for such changes. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2021, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-damuriajashi-and-demontree/928300/713 "2021-06-07T22:46:27Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I think you are wrong here, actually. My read of **Novelty\_Bobble** ’s original post is that Stonewall will damage its reputation over the long run by implying gender critical speech is transphobic/hate speech. that is exactly where I started from and it is based not on any content of the article but on reading and hearing what Stonewall have said and seeing how the conversation has progressed over the last few years and the subsequent back and forth between people with “gender critical” views right across the spectrum. I was surprised by the reaction that even the mildest push back garnered from some in Stonewall. Reactions and comments that seemed out of proportion to the questions asked and challenges made. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2021, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-damuriajashi-and-demontree/928300/714 "2021-06-07T22:52:31Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Sorry, I reallly cannot understand what you are trying to say. Alright, so you can’t handle double negatives or you don’t understand your own words. That’s fine, we accept all in the Pit. Here’s an excerpt of your post 679 in another form. Boldface for those with trouble comprehending. > ‘ **It should be possible to argue against Stonewall** ’s push for simple self-identification as being sufficient for access to any single-sex area, **_without_ being labelled a transphobe** or being compared to an anti-Semite. **_If not_, the terms end up meaningless**.’ Here’s my counter: _If not_, the terms aren’t meaningless, you just become a transphobe and are comparable to an anti-Semite. Meaning is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. You think your argument is of the form, _reductio ad absurdum_. That’s because you think it is absurd to conclude that _you_ are transphobic or comparable to an anti-Semite. I assume the absurd nature of the conclusion is based of personal knowledge. Know that the rest of us lack your personal knowledge and are content concluding that you are transphobic and comparable to anti-Semites. I am pointing out the flaws in your argument as you presented it and have no interest answering your unrelated questions. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2021, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-damuriajashi-and-demontree/928300/715 "2021-06-08T07:01:06Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Alright, so you can’t handle double negatives or you don’t understand your own words. That’s fine, we accept all in the Pit. It was a polite request for clarification. > [@Max\_S](#): > > Here’s my counter: _If not_ , the terms aren’t meaningless, you just become a transphobe and are comparable to an anti-Semite. Meaning is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. And if an epithet is used in such a broad way and towards people to whom it does not reasonable fit then yes, I do think it ends up as pretty meaningless. However. > [@Max\_S](#): > > You think your argument is of the form, _reductio ad absurdum_ . That’s because you think it is absurd to conclude that _you_ are transphobic or comparable to an anti-Semite. I assume the absurd nature of the conclusion is based of personal knowledge. No, it isn’t a _reductio ad absurdum_ seeing as I’m not talking about the hypothetical extension of a postion to an absurd logical conclusion, I’m talking about what actually does happen. I have seen and heard people who are not totally on board with Stonewall’s recommended process or who have offered the mildest objections in certain special circumstances labelled as transphobes and bigots. > [@Max\_S](#): > > Know that the rest of us lack your personal knowledge and are content concluding that you are transphobic and comparable to anti-Semites. Which is a direct accusation against me based on what evidence exactly? Quote back to me the transphobic or bigtoted views I hold if you can. I suspect I hold exactly the same position as you as regards trans people and that you have the some reservations about the blanket position that Stonewall support. You won’t answer the simple question below because you realise you cannot do so honestly without either labelling yourself a transphobe and bigot (by your standards above) or agreeing with an absolutist position that clearly requires discussion and nuance in some special situations. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Do you think that the concept of simple self-identification, i.e. a simple statement and no medical intervention or questioning at all, that then gives that person full access to all single sex spaces, is something only a transphobe or bigot would argue against? That such a position is worthy of comparison to antisemitism? This isn’t some linguistic “gotcha”, I can answer the above easily. No, argument against that position is not some de-facto example of bigotry and transphobia. What do you think? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Librarian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_librarian/32/402_2.png) [@The\_Librarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Librarian)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2021, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-damuriajashi-and-demontree/928300/716 "2021-06-08T07:24:46Z")
Let me help you: “Single sex spaces” arguments have been/are being (ab)used by bigots to hurt transsexual people. The well is thoroughly poisoned. Drink from it at your own peril. I think there might be a coherent, unbigoted argument in there somewhere. It’s a shame nobody cares: those arguments have become anti-trans talking points that identify the speaker as bigoted against trans folks. Go blame the people who twisted a desire to protect women into a way to hurt trans people. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2021, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-damuriajashi-and-demontree/928300/717 "2021-06-08T07:36:48Z")
> [@The\_Librarian](#): > > “Single sex spaces” arguments have been/are being (ab)used by bigots to hurt transsexual people. Obviously true. Do you accept the possibility of making a valid case for single biological sex spaces in some circumstances? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Librarian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_librarian/32/402_2.png) [@The\_Librarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Librarian)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2021, 9:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-damuriajashi-and-demontree/928300/718 "2021-06-08T09:58:54Z")
Yes, I’m sure there are perfectly valid concerns. But those talking points have been co-opted by bigots. This is why we cannot have nice things. The only sensible solution is single, fully enclosed, lockable, unisex stalls/dressing rooms. That way nobody’s happy. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2021, 10:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-damuriajashi-and-demontree/928300/719 "2021-06-08T10:02:38Z")
> [@The\_Librarian](#): > > Yes, I’m sure there are perfectly valid concerns. > > But those talking points have been co-opted by bigots. This is why we cannot have nice things. There is no need to give up on rational discussions about valid concerns. That simply lets the bigots win. ---
**Author:** ![ParallelLines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/parallellines/32/3575_2.png) [@ParallelLines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ParallelLines)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2021, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-damuriajashi-and-demontree/928300/720 "2021-06-08T15:11:57Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > There is no need to give up on rational discussions about valid concerns. That simply lets the bigots win. This argument always worries me. “if we do/don’t do x, then y wins”. It is a quick and dirty binary argument that disregards all the various shades of meaning in ‘x’ and ‘y’. As @The_Librarian pointed out, the argument is tainted, and even if it’s used by say, 5%, of people in an honest manner, the results of said argument still support a form of discrimination. Personally, I also agree that > [@The\_Librarian](#): > > The only sensible solution is single, fully enclosed, lockable, unisex stalls/dressing rooms. And in my case think it would be an improvement in many cases, rather than ‘no one’ being happy. Of course, that may be a personal quirk as I work in a place with only a single ‘male’ bathroom but 2 ‘female’ bathrooms on the work floor. And the male one is all the way on the other side of the building from where my desk is. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2021, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-damuriajashi-and-demontree/928300/721 "2021-06-08T15:24:22Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > There is no need to give up on rational discussions about valid concerns. That simply lets the bigots win. This is one of those uphill battles. Sure, there may be some circumstance that justifies denying a women-centered space to transwomen. Lots of people have suggested possible circumstances, but none of them have been persuasive to me (with the obvious proviso that I won’t be in those spaces anyway so denying access to transwomen for these spaces won’t affect me personally). The more people propose possibilities and they turn out to be unfounded, the greater my skepticism when people come with new reasons. Should we deny access women’s changing rooms to transwomen? Where, then, do transwomen change? Same question goes for bathrooms, sports, prayer groups, and so on. If you’ve got a case to make, make the case–but don’t speak in such vague generalities about how maybe there’s a case to make and why won’t people let that case be made. There’s a difference between rejecting an argument out of hand, and being skeptical of people who claim that this time for realz they’re bringing a new argument. We’re in the latter territory these days. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2021, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-damuriajashi-and-demontree/928300/722 "2021-06-08T15:49:32Z")
> [@ParallelLines](#): > > This argument always worries me. “if we do/don’t do x, then y wins”. It is a quick and dirty binary argument that disregards all the various shades of meaning in ‘x’ and ‘y’ I think you are right to worry about it, you are right to worry about any simplistic solution but it is clearly true that letting valid points go unraised cannot help the discussion. It would be nice to think that the whole situation has a tidy resolution but I don’t think the real world is there yet. As for unisex rooms, I confess that I have no dog in that fight at all. Nudity of any type doesn’t bother me in the slightest and I spend quite a bit of time naked and in states of undress in front of people of all genders and none I’m sure. Make everything unisex for all that I care (it would make things simpler) It would be easy of me to state "I’m comfortable with it, why can’t you be? " but I have to be conscious that many, many people feel very uncomfortable about such matters and that discomfort is rooted in issues of biological sex. It is something that can and should be discussed but shutting out one side of the argument completely doesn’t seem like a productive way to proceed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-damuriajashi-and-demontree/928300.md?page=35) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-damuriajashi-and-demontree/928300.md?page=37)