“Gender based on choices” appears to be where the trans community is right now. Gender dysphoria is no longer a requirement for people to be transgendered. If tomorrow, you suddenly decided you wanted to be “she”, then that makes you a woman according to the prevailing view. It would be transphobic to still consider you a man. No, I’m not bullshitting you; I have been told this on this very board.
Lately I’ve been doing a lot of research into the warring opinions on transgenderism and this looks like a false statement. So-called TERFS believe there are differences between sexes.Men don’t get pregnant; women do. So-called TERFS don’t want to pretend otherwise. They also believe there are gender differences, but they ascribe these differences to nurture as opposed to nature (i.e. “brain sex”).
Trans advocates take the opposite view from the above: Sex differences don’t exist because they believe men and women can get pregnant. And they believe gender differences come from “brain sex”, so if someone’s feels like a woman then that makes them so.
I think the OP’s warning was deserved, but I’d be lying if I didn’t see where they coming from. Our current discourse on gender feels very surreal as of late.
To end the discussion.
When is the men-means-xy-and-penis the default when is it more flexible? Which topics?
Do we agree that men (traditional definition) and women (trad def) are inherently different and that these differences express themselves in different life-choices regardless of culture?
Again, it is all from your viewpoint. The lottery discussion was right on point (I have a 50/50 chance of winning the lottery because I either win or don’t win). The transgender issue was not at all relevant to anything in that thread. Nothing at all.
I’ve already agreed that Aji was not acting in good faith. I don’t think these other posters were either. There was nothing about those comments that helped anyone understand why some people would view winning the lottery or a man having a baby as a 50/50 chance. It was purely a dig at the OP who did not properly account for some men being transgender men.
Now, if you take Aji, in a thread where we are asking why are all the mass shooters male, that might be, IMHO an “interesting discussion” to see if it is confined to biological men versus transgender men. But he is smacked down for it because (something to the effect of) we have no data on that as of yet and “yes” it was a bit shitty the way he said it. But we don’t apply that standard across the board.
It was NOT on point, because the question was about whether a specific instance of that type of argument happened, not about the concept of the 50/50 argument as a whole. Even so, I freely admit that the transgender discussion was a hijack.
He wasn’t smacked down because we don’t have data, he was smacked down because he didn’t ask the question you are now presuming he asked. He said
That isn’t an effort to start an interesting discussion about behavioral differences in biological vs transgender men. He didn’t just accidentally phrase his otherwise interesting question in a poor way. He isn’t interested in that discussion, he’s starting an argument, trying to score points, or trying to rules lawyer himself around the rules set in place by the mods. Even now, he wants someone to say that men are inherently different than women so he can point to it the next time someone calls him out on something.
I think we largely agree. My whole point was that threads about “Why do men leave the toilet seat up?” and the like do not require a post #4-7 hijack about how not all men are biological men and therefore do not leave the toilet seat up.
That statement about the probability of men having babies being 50% has two components – the main component is, does it make sense to say that if something will happen or it won’t, that the chances are equal? Obviously not, unless you have no other information. The lottery discussion is not about men having babies but is about the probability question. The men having babies discussion is not about the probabilities, it’s about whether men can have babies. Both were much more germane to the discussion than the OP’s (of this thread) attempted gotcha.
What this rule seems to require is a certain quality to the post. Many posts don’t add “anything to the topic at hand.” Some posts are great, some are shitty, and most are average. Nobody gets modded for a post because its quality is poor…except when it deals with touchy issues.
Let’s take Mr. Dibble’s post upthread which consisted of “Naah. Nice try though.” (Just as an example). Didn’t really contribute much, but it is not a violation of the board rules. It seems like you only get nailed (at least under your interpretation of the rules) if your post is of poor quality AND it deals with a touchy issue.
I read it again. The OP in that thread used an example to clearly illustrate the probability logical fallacy. I took it to mean that it is clearly impossible for men to have babies, but the person he was referring to did not take that into account. The person simply took the two states (a man can have a baby or he cannot) and assigned a 50/50 value to it. It was clearly meant only for biological men, much like the mass shooter question was clearly about biological men.
If I read that wrong, I will retract and apologize, but it seems pretty straight forward to me.
Making a pithy remark to make a point uh n a way that dehumanizes a segment of the population that’s already heavily discriminated against does seem like it would fall under the umbrella of “being a jerk”, yes. Again, this seems like a feature, not a bug.
When someone who’s got a history of posting transphobic nonsense posts about transgender issues, there’s a pretty high probability that they’re posting more transphobic nonsense. When they’re doing it in a thread that has nothing to do with transgenderism, there’s a pretty high probability that they’re trolling/hijacking/being a jerk.
In this case, a substantive point relevant to the thread is a defense against the T/H/BaJ charge. If they don’t have a substantive point, they don’t have a defense.
If someone isn’t T/H/BaJ, there’s no charge they need a defense against.
It’s the difference between being asleep in your bed, and being asleep in my bed. You don’t need to explain yourself if you’re asleep in your bed. But if I find you in mine, you better start talking fast.
Right, but this is a different forum and it is specifically set up to allow discussion of contentious issues (relating to how the MB is managed). GQ is not like that. In fact, I think it is true that you’re supposed to have higher quality posts in GQ than any other forum. I would say that the post quality is something like: GQ, Thread Games, GD/P&E, IMHO, Game Room/CS, MPSIMS, BBQ Pit in terms of quality of the contributions and requirement to be on topic. So, yes, post quality matters in GQ.
Of course it contributes. You made an assertion of similarity, I made a statement of disagreement.You expected a deeper analysis of why they weren’t similar? That’s not a must for this forum, I believe bare opinions on moderation are also allowed.
I then made a sarcastic comment on your very obvious diligence at attempting to come up with evidence of hypocrisy from your ideological enemies as some sort of, I guess, attempt to sway the current tides of moderation? That’s also a comment on moderation, or at least, a comment that I don’t agree with your take on how it should go.
Sorry to everybody who thinks this thread should die, but I feel compelled to name this woman. Manon Rhéaume was the first woman to play in the NHL, or any major North American professional sports league, although she was brought in “largely as a publicity stunt” for Tampa Bay’s new team. She ended up holding her own and blocked seven out of nine shots from the Blues.
Interesting 2012 interview on NHL.com linked below.