Thank you! That’s very kind. I don’t keep notes, though, I just have a good memory. Some stuff really sticks in my mind.
So you don’t want the male appearing transwoman in your bathroom, but what about a transman who looks just the same, but is menstruating? Are both banned?
…how is not inviting a couple of people to speak at a conference “dismissing their contributions to science” and “denying them further recognition?”
I reject the fundamental premise of the question. I doubt I could afford their fees anyway.
Earlier in this thread I said cancel culture is causing fracturing within political parties and the creation of new and unlikely alliances.
Progressives are on the cusp of cancelation, if they keep at this. Mark my words.
Again, for the eleventybillionth time, transmen are entitled to use the women’s restroom.
Transmen are female. Females can use female spaces. It doesn’t matter what they look like. Female spaces are reserved for people with female anatomy, with female biological needs.
Transwomen have male anatomy. Their appearance is irrelevant in terms of policy. It is only relevant in terms of illustrating the folly of using self-identification as the sole basis for distinguishing between men from transwomen.
Seems like you just made it easier for these apparently ubiquitous predatory men who are pretending to be transgender just so that can invade the women’s restroom. Under that rubric, they don’t even have to shave or change their clothes.
This is what you asked:
I assume we can agree that David Duke is not going to be on the guest list. I don’t know if you consider Sam Harris to be “racist as fuck”, so I avoided mentioning him and provided a much more likely analogue to your premise above:
To which you said:
You’ve chosen to not answer the question but simply dismissed it with a non answer.
Do you wish to let that stand?
Seems like you have a superficial understanding of the risks associated with letting men enter women’s spaces, if you think this is just about what people look like.
And for the eleventybillioneth time, how can you tell if the bearded guy standing in line, lengthening that pregnant woman’s peepee dance, if that’s a masculine looking transwoman or a transman who is entitled to be there?
I don’t find it especially remarkable. Social conservatism, and the willingness to deny rights to others and cloak it in the language of equality, shows itself in very similar ways.
It’s certainly possible that some moderates and even liberals are buying into the Trump party line about “cancel culture”. I hope you don’t succumb to it, since it’s mostly nonsense, as demonstrated by most of the cites in this thread.
…it wasn’t a “non answer.” I rejected the premise because the premise, that by not inviting two specific scientists I’ve “dismissed their contributions to science” and “denied them recognition” is a load of utter nonsense.
If we ignore that premise though, then I’d have to ask the question why do we need to invite Collins and Watson? I spent 15 years in the conference industry. Hence the name Banquet Bear." I know how the speaker circuit works.
I personally wouldn’t invite them. Yes, I would work to find non-white, non-male voices to speak at my conference. I think diversity matters. I’m brown. And I’ve experienced discrimination and hatred working in the conference industry. Gender and racial discrimination at science conferences is a thing and the only way to fight it is to be aware of it and to be deliberate about your decision making. Yes, there will be qualified, interesting marginalised voices that would be able to speak at a conference about mapping the human genome. And if they were available I’d book them. And doing that wouldn’t dismiss the contributions to science or deny recognition to anyone.
If it is nonsense, very little of your dismissive attitude (“meh”), skatter-shot rhetoric or appeals to emotion will be effective in discouraging such an outcome. Ironic, isn’t it?
I’m just going by what you said:
[quote] Transmen are female. Females can use female spaces. It doesn’t matter what they look like. Female spaces are reserved for people with female anatomy, with female biological needs.
Transwomen have male anatomy. Their appearance is irrelevant in terms of policy. It is only relevant in terms of illustrating the folly of using self-identification as the sole basis for distinguishing between men from transwomen.[/quote]
If this is all about protecting women from predatory men trying to invade women’s restrooms, then you haven’t solved that problem with this rubric. The only way to maintain this policy is to check everyone’s genitals before admitting them to the women’s restroom.
Maybe I can’t tell. Perhaps it’s wholly unknowable. And? I’m waiting for you to spell out the revelation you think “sometimes people are one thing but look like something else” is supposed to produce. Go ahead and spell out the bottom line.
Is it that you believe there are no issues at all with letting men occupy women’s spaces? Because if that’s the takeaway, then why should we even have a women’s restrooms and locker rooms? Just make everything mixed-sex.
This is something that liberals and progressives have been hearing for decades (centuries?).
You’re hurting the progressive cause by insisting on supporting women’s sufferage.
You’re hurting the liberal cause by insisting on civil rights for black people.
You’re hurting the liberal cause by insisting on allowing gays to serve in the military.
You’re hurting the liberal cause by insisting on allowing same-sex marriage.
How is what you’re saying any different from that? And how and why should liberals and progressives see it as any different?
So do you believe we should eliminate the concept of women’s restrooms and locker rooms and just make everything mixed sex?
If not, why not?
The bottom line is that you object to person A using the women’s room, but not person B, and you can’t tell them apart. How does that work in your world? How do you keep A out and not B? And what about predator C, that looks every bit as masculine as A and B, but can say “I’m a transman” or “I’m a transwoman” -the bottom line is you aren’t able to discern between A and B except to say one is allowed and the other is not, and this will somehow prevent C from getting in.
If you’re in favor of genital or id checks, say so. If everyone should just make that call about everyone standing in line with them, say that. Right now, it seems like you just object to trans people existing.
Because different things are different.
Your analogies to women’s rights and gay/lesbian rights is laughable, given that women and gay/lesbians are the one’s who are trying keep their causes from being annihilated by gender ideology right now.
As has been stated above, I think for now we should just let individuals choose which restroom they feel comfortable using. I see zero reason to believe that this will significantly increase the risk of predatory men entering a women’s restroom. They can already do that and allowing transwomen to use the women’s restroom doesn’t significantly change their ability to do that.
In the long term, I think we need to rethink the concept of public restrooms. Perhaps go to a stall-based model. Perhaps not. We can see how that plays out.
With respect to sports and athletics, we should give it serious thought and consider what the reason is for having separate men’s and women’s sports. However, given that sports are overwhelmingly a recreational activity, I see no particular urgency to decide.
With respect to “science!” I see no reason why scientists can’t be trusted to be smart enough to define and use terminology as it is appropriate in context, which they already do all the time.