I Pit damuriajashi and DemonTree

:rofl::joy::rofl: this is a great post

I’d love that, personally. I hate if I’m at a place like a stadium and I have to pee in a giant trough six inches away from some other guy with his junk hanging out. Sure I’ll put up with it but having private stalls as the only option is an improvement.

And unisex bathrooms double my options for finding a place to go.

Beats using the trough next to a guy who doesn’t unzip his pants first, though.

Hah, that just gives me flashbacks to being a teenager and riding the bus everywhere.

How about this NB, I am willing to give you credit for being in the aforementioned 5% that are honestly trying to find an answer and feel that there is a place for discussion about different needs/risks for transwomen and AFAB women. And thus you want to be open to discussion about what may or may not be valid differences. But I still think it’s clear that 95% (and yes, we can argue percentages, but it’s quite high) of the people who scream that they’re being silenced are fighting for ways to use those possible differences to discriminate.

Novelty_Bobble, I haven’t read the Stonewall thread in its entirety, so I haven’t seen if you’ve posted a specific argument there. But in this thread at least, I’ve only seen you arguing for the right to make arguments without being automatically considered a bigot. OK, fair enough. Let’s move past whether some abstract argument makes you a bigot, and get to something specific.

What point do you want to make beyond “there are differences between trans women and AFAB* women.” Where do you think those differences need to be taken into account? You stated above you don’t care about bathroom use. Is it the ubiquitous sports bogeyman?

* for those incapable of right-click/search

perfectly fine, I think that is the best way forward.

I don’t what the percentage is but there is no doubt a high percentage of people who are not arguing in good faith or seeking to find a way forward.

That’s my entire point really. I never tried to argue any specifics on my own behalf.

I don’t want to make a wider point, I have very little personal investment in the argument beyond knowledge of reasonable, rational, non-bigoted people who do have genuine concerns regarding single-sex provisions that deserve sober consideration rather that blanket condemation.
Interesting you say sport is a “bogeyman” though. That is clearly one area certainly where biological sex matters a great deal and though I have little interest in womens sports, lots of people do and there is a debate to be had to understand how the issue of transgender individuals in competitive sport can be settled.
There are other single-sex areas worthy of debate but I’ll leave that to those who want to have those discussions. It is enough for me that people accept such discussions can and should be heard.

There are reasonable, rational, non-bigoted people who have genuine concerns about vaccines, too. In general, though, I don’t think folks need to spend a long time listening to those concerns and really opening their minds to whether those concerns are valid. Folks involved in vaccine issues have heard most of those concerns before, and know why they’re not persuasive. Pro-vaccine activists should spend their time educating those with concerns, not trying to find a compromise with them.

Trans activists aren’t in precisely the same situation as vaccine activists, of course: social concerns aren’t as cut-and-dried as epidemiological concerns. But I believe there are a lot of similarities. Most of the concerns raised by sincere folks about transgender rights should be met with education, not with compromise. People should be given the information they need to set their minds at ease and to be comfortable with full rights for trans folk.

Those who stay stubbornly opposed to trans rights even after education? Bigots.

This is why your defense of these arguments raises doubts about your reasons. You agreed above with a guess that 5% of people are honestly questioning things, and the remaining 95% are seeking cover for their anti-trans bigotry. But you jump in to defend them all generically, even though you don’t have any arguments of your own to make.

If you want to defend the 5%, then pick the arguments that you feel are justified and not bigoted, and let’s discuss those. Your blanket defense of everyone, including the 95% who are bigots, doesn’t look good.

I’ll also note that your lack of concern for the challenges facing trans folks because you have "very little personal investment " isn’t a great testament to your anti-bigoted credentials.

No, I did not. Go back and read.

Your confusion over such a simple point does not bode well for your interpretation of whatever else I wrote. such as

when I specifically said

Which no honest interpretation could lead you to consider it a “blanket defence”

I look forward to your correction with interest but little optimism.

Again you are either genuinely misunderstanding or purposefully misquoting me.
That comment was specifically in relation to the objections and concerns raised by others. Objections and concerns that I do not necessarily hold nor have the personal investment that would make me a sensible advocate.
I’m not going to speak for others, I’ve been consistent in the desire to ensure that genuine concerns from well meaning parties are not rejected out of hand.

You agreed it was “no doubt a high percentage.” But you want to quibble over whether you agreed with 95% specifically? Ok then, one internet point for you. You were defending a high percentage of bigots, not 95%.

You are defending a generic argument about separate trans spaces, with no discussion of when you think that separation is justified for non-bigoted reasons. You even said you don’t really care about the topic. If you are going to defend that generic argument without any specifics, then yes, it becomes a blanket defense.

It isn’t a question of point scoring. You put words in my mouth when I specifically said I did not know what the percentage was.

And then you repeat the same outright lie. I don’t defend anyone who makes bad faith arguments from a position of hatred and transphobia. I never have and I never would.

No, I’m not. I’m not defending the argument I’m defending the right of those with reasonable objections and concerns to be heard without being condemned out of hand.
That you cannot understand the distinction may be down to poor wording previously on my part perhaps but now I’ve spelt it out in unambiguous terms do you understand?

Of course all of that falls apart if you start from the position that there is no possible objection to a trans policy that is not bigoted and transphobic. A position that even others with whom I’ve had some verbal sparring do not hold.

That would explain your apparent inability to understand my position. So if that is what you think you’d be best to state it clearly and we need waste no more time.

OK, perhaps we’re talking past each other. FWIW, I don’t think you’re transphobic, and I do not subscribe to the position that there is no possible objection that is not bigoted. So let’s start with those two things as common ground.

The reason you are getting pushback from me is because you came into a discussion about anti-trans policies, and the argument you want to be sure is heard is that there might exist some possible anti-trans stance that is not bigoted. And fine, there is. I don’t think anyone here has said otherwise.

So why did you feel it was important to raise that point? There wasn’t some specific policy you wanted to debate. Whether it was your intent or not, making that general argument provides cover for those who are making bigoted arguments.

It comes across like the men who enter discussions about misogynistic behavior to make sure everyone knows “not all men.” Again, fine, what they say is 100% accurate. But it certainly suggests something about their viewpoint, that they wanted to discuss that instead of the misogynistic behavior.

So please, just do a little reflection on why you felt that was an important point to make if you didn’t want to carry it over to something specific . Not whether it’s accurate (we all agree it is), but why it was necessary in this thread and how it might be perceived by others.

Yes, it is. You are dead wrong about the nature of your own argument. You explicitly wrote, “If not, the terms end up meaningless”, which is in fact an appeal to absurdity. Hypothetical or not? Irrelevant.

Based on your own words! Your whole argument is that Stonewall’s position leads to the absurd conclusion that you are transphobic.

Click to show/hide quoted text

Let’s break down your main argument (links lead to the above quoted posts):

  1. I am a person who thinks X
  2. Stonewall thinks a person who thinks X is transphobic (not true, btw)
  3. therefore, Stonewall thinks I am transphobic

  1. to think a person is transphobic when they are not is to make ‘transphobic’ meaningless
  2. I am a person
  3. therefore, to think I am transphobic when I am not transphobic is to make ‘transphobic’ meaningless

  1. to think I am transphobic when I am not transphobic is to make ‘transphobic’ meaningless (see 6.)
  2. I am not transphobic
  3. therefore, to think I am transphobic is to make ‘transphobic’ meaningless

  1. to make ‘transphobic’ meaningless is to damage one’s reputation
  2. to think I am transphobic is to make ‘transphobic’ meaningless (see 9.)
  3. therefore, to think I am transphobic is to damage one’s reputation


  1. Stonewall thinks I am transphobic (see 3.)
  2. to think I am transphobic is to damage one’s reputation (see 12.)
  3. therefore, Stonewall is damaging their reputation


If a term is applied to people for whom it simply does not apply then yes, it ends up as meaningless (or to be charitable, it ceases to mean what it used to or the weight it carries is greatly diminished).
As an example I give you the words “nazi” or “communist” as a epiphet (amongst many others) Devalued, overused and missapplied to the point of meaninglessness.

Is it possible for those words to still be used correctly? I guess so, to that extent they can retain some meaning and if you want to take that as an admission that “meaningless” was hyperbole on my part then feel free to do so.

The crux of the matter is whether Stonewall are indeed applying such terms to people who do not reasonably deserve it. I think they are, I have heard their representatives and supporters do so, and by doing so I think they damage their reputation.

That was the opinion I had and stated as such in the very first post I made in the IMHO thread.

If formal logic is your thing then my argument (from my very first response) can be summarised as:
P1) Directing unwarranted insults at people risks damaging one’s reputation
P2) Stonewall are aiming unwarranted insults at people
C) Stonewall risks damaging their reputation

And that’s it. It is valid in structure but whether it is sound is dependent on whether P1 and P2 are true or not.
That is the whole basis of the thread that that started this and it is not clear that such opinion based premises can be shown to be objectively true.
I think they are based on my experience of what Stonewall have said and what I have heard from sources I trust but it is absolutely up for debate.

That is really all that I was suggesting.

Well, hang on. Even though we have some agreement I think you are slipping into the use of “anti-trans” there that makes a large assumption that I don’t necessarily grant. For a start the thread was not about “anti-trans” policies.
An objection made against a proposed policy is not necessarily “anti-trans”. It may be but an assumption that it must be and the subsequent reaction from Stonewall is what I’m cautioning against. You yourself have just, unwittingly I’m sure, given a very mild example of what I think Stonewall and others have been displaying in a more vociferous manner. It is easily done and no-one is immune to it, myself included.

That point was the purpose of that thread, The debating of specific policies were explicitly ruled out by the mods.

Because that was in line with the limitations of that thread and because general principles are important if the important discussions are to be had at all.
I posted in the original thread in relation to the general principles without any intention (or leeway) of getting into specifics. I posted in here to defend myself against an unfounded accusation. The discussion on specifics is for those who hold those positions.

I’m in favour of objections and concerns (from all sides) being heard and judged on their specific merit. Or at the very least for people to be open to the possibility that they may have some merit. That general principle seems to be something that we’ve nearly all agreed on here. I am not convinced that Stonewall have.

That does not mean that I necessarily agree with, or have an obligation to defend, each specific position on either side.

I shall retreat from this diversion now.

I’m content that I’ve addressed the original misrepresentation of what I said and offered any clarifications that anyone could need.

Happy to offer any clarifications that may still be required but there is little benefit in repeating what I’ve already said multiple times.

That’s a cop-out. You have the opportunity to discuss specific policies that concern you in this thread. I’d cut you slack if there was something you felt strongly about but were unable to discuss under the mod’s instructions. But no, the policies aren’t important to you. Which leads us to…

And you’re still missing my point. Go beyond “is my argument accurate and logical” and consider what purpose that argument serves. You say you want all sides to be heard, but you are defending a line of argument that is used by only one side. If your sole purpose is to help the board with its debate style, then you could probably find a better example than one where the result of your argument is to provide cover for anti-trans bigots.

And if that isn’t a concern for you, then we’re back to the title of this thread.