I would just like the men to listen. Many do not. (As usual, Monstro is doing a much better job than I am of making a lot of these points.)
Just because someone asserts its an intersectional feminist position doesn’t make it so. You need to show how a male who self-identifies as a woman has as much of a claim to women’s rights as a member of the sex class who has been subjected to eons of female oppression.
The failure of gender ideology is that it can‘t show this. It relies on fallacious appeals (“trans women are women”) and anti-science (“biological sex is a myth because reasons”) to draw specious equivalencies between women and males who self-identify as women.
One point that’s also being discussed is that there would be no need for a man to hide. If anyone is allowed to use any restroom according to their preferred gender, then he could waltz into the women’s restroom without fear of reproach. Then the other women who use the restroom would have to wonder if he’s a predator or trans.
Some people are surprised that women didn’t have the confidence to report workspace sexual harassment for years, too. Being ignored and told you’re overreacting doesn’t exactly encourage anyone to come forward.
I understand, but that story is not related to that point. Which was my point.
And if they respond in any negative way before any harm has occurred, then there will be a chorus out there calling them a hysterical TERF.
If they actually get assaulted, there will also be chorus calling them foolish for putting themselves in that situation. “You should have trusted your gut! Why didn’t you run out of there? You must have wanted it to happen, you lying whore!”
The only solution that I can see from my vantage point is to demand the pumping of brakes on the current version of gender ideology until we have some basic ground rules in place. It makes sense to treat gender as no big deal when it is no big deal. But it is a big deal and we need to address this “big dealness” before we treat gender class member like it is game that anyone can sign up for just by raising their hand. If we don’t do this, then I just can’t see how the victims of this “big dealness” will stop being victims. I can only see the harm they’re already experiencing being trivialized and ignored, because after all, victimization is normal for them so why should anything change for them now?
…just because you managed to use the words “intersectional feminist” in a sentence doesn’t mean that you understand what those words mean.
I actually don’t need to show you this. I don’t need to do anything that you demand. This thread is in IMHO, I’m expressing my opinion.
The failure of gender-critical ideology is that it often resorts to stereotype, appeal to emotion, strawman arguments, and a severe lack of compassion. Transwomen are women isn’t a fallacious appeal. "Biological sex is a myth because reasons” is a strawman position.
So if we don’t give examples, it means it doesn’t happen and we’re worrying about nothing, and when someone does they are acting like Fox News. Great.
So why do you think he started complaining about the lack of transgender restrooms? Like, do you honestly think this came out of left field and had no connection to the events that immediately preceded them?
What it sounds like to me is that the guy hid in the women’s restroom with the intent to assault someone, and if questioned, was prepared to explain his presence by saying he’s trans. It doesn’t matter that he was apprehended outside of the restroom. His post hoc justification for being in the women’s restroom was “I’m trans and how dare Walmart doesn’t have a transgender restroom, and that’s why I was in a space that I should’ve never been in.”
The guy is a drug-addicted idiot who attacks women in restroom stalls, and you’re expecting him to know that being trans won’t get him out of an assault charge? If criminals like this could put two and two together, they wouldn’t be criminals, so let’s stop being silly.
Well, he WAS questioned. And he didn’t say he was trans, so I guess your theory is out.
So, again with the gaslighting that he must’ve just been making idle chitchat.
There must be a name for this sort of fallacy, where person a says person b needs to show something for their claim to be true, and person b replies 'I don’t need to show you anything, you’re not the boss of me!"
Sure, no one has to prove they are right - and we can just ignore their opinion since it’s not based on anything.
I wasn’t aware that accurately summarizing a news article was gaslighting, but you be you.
…its isn’t a fallacy. You didn’t post this thread in Great Debates. You posted it here in IMHO. You don’t get to demand I do anything here. If you wanted debate or if you simply wanted to witness then GD would have been a better place to post this thread.
My opinion is “based on something.” But if you want to know what that “something is” then expecting me to engage with a fundamentally disingenuous position isn’t the way to go about it.
Hmm, appeal to emotion but also lack of compassion? That sounds a tad contradictory. And I don’t know if ‘transwomen are women’ is a fallacious appeal, but I do know that no one has shown it to be true.
Can you please respond to the hypothetical I posted about the YMCA? Thanks.
My oldest daughter is almost 4, so she’s several years away from being about to use public facilities by herself. What do you think I should advise her about staying safe in a world where shit like this happens?
I just came across the story below and I would like to get the thoughts of the crowd. If we are to believe the man’s version of events, he hadn’t done anything wrong; he was the victim of an overreacting child. But I think the 6 year old girl did the right thing by screaming, and I dare anyone to tell me otherwise.
…an “appeal to emotion” describes a fallacy. A “lack of compassion” describes a lack of compassion. Two distinct things. Not a contradiction.
Truth isn’t a strictly objective value. The fact that you might not think that statement is true matters not one iota to me.
TWAW is a circular argument, so it’s fallacious.
Yes! She is articulating so well my concerns on the subject of trans rights. Thank you Monstro, YWTF …
Equivocation is probably the closest, conflating ‘need to’ for your argument to be valid with ‘need to’ as a demand.
In retrospect, Great Debates would have been a better place to post this, but I didn’t know it would grow into a 1600 post monstrosity. It’s up to you if you want to explain your opinion or not. Just stating it isn’t going to persuade anyone, though.
Lack of compassion just means they didn’t respond to your appeal to emotion. And the fact you believe a certain statement does not make anyone who disagrees a bad person, or oblige us to base policy on it.