Your brain has as much priority in determining truth as someone else’s brain. The brain is nothing but chemicals and who is to say what brain has a monopoly on truth of perception?
No, I’m not. Reread more carefully.
You are entitled to your opinion. Now obviously others aren’t entitled to theirs but hey that’s what social pressure working to make reality conform to ideology leads to.
So how does such a vague insistence that everything is subjective justify your claim that:
What “basic biology”, exactly, do you imagine that people must ignore in order to modify their transphobic views?
I think we have to go back to our primary purpose, which is fighting ignorance. We can’t fight ignorance if we forbid its being admitted to on the board.
I have spoken before here about having been raised in very repressed Irish Catholic household by two narrow-minded narcissists and therefore having come into adulthood an absolute ignoramus about trans folk. I shudder to think of the opinions I held based upon the the ridiculous “information” I had available to me.
And i am deeply grateful to the people who responded by educating me instead of screaming “HATE!” and attacking me. Without them I would still be that idiot.
Hate, ignorance, and fear are three separate conditions which are often found together or in pairs. If we can respond to the ignorance calmly, we can often lessen or even disintegrate the other two. That is supposed to be what this board is about.
So I hope we will choose not to quell discussion. Obvious maliciousness can be addressed without lumping every mistaken idea into that category.
The fact that since we all have virtually the same set of genes, it is scientifically plausible that in the significant minority of people who are trans, someone born XY with a physically male body at birth might really have a neuron configuration similar to the typical neuron configuration of someone born XX with a physically female body at birth (or vice versa). In other words, that the mental/behavioral phenotype might not be in accord with the somatic phenotype with respect to aspects of phenotype that are typically sexually dimorphic. And that mental/behavioral phenotype is a neuron configuration, something with the same level of objective reality as the physical body, notwithstanding the fact that the only way we have to discern someone’s neuron configuration (short of doing fMRI or something) is to talk to them.
So (a) it’s perfectly scientifically plausible that trans people are an objectively real phenomenon, qualitatively quite distinct from someone just fantasizing about being a non-human animal (or a helicopter); and (b) since mental state has just the same level of objective reality as physical state, arguing that we should call people “men” and “women” based on what’s between their legs has no objective justification as “basic biology”. Behavioral/mental phenotype is just as much a part of biology as somatic phenotype.
With this post in the other thread, Urbanredneck has removed any doubt - he is misgendering deliberately, using “transman” when he is clearly talking about a trans woman. I reported it, to at least open up for consideration whether this should be modded.
That’s speculation, and I don’t know that was intended in the offending line. And there doesn’t have to be a biological reason to identify whatever way you want anymore than you need a ‘gay gene’ to have sex with a member of the same sex (as based on genital configuration or any other definition). This kind of argument makes things worse.
As far as I am concerned there could be over seven billion different genders in living people right now, 9,10, 20, 100 labels pasted on people are no better than two. If you identify as a man that’s fine with me, I see very little reason why I should care about self identified gender for almost everybody on earth, and really not all that much of a reason to care about the few others.
You’re moving the goalposts. What I laid out above I said was plausible, not that it was settled science. But it is the framework for how a biologist would think about the matter. And it’s not speculation that a neuron configuration is objectively real.
It’s transphobes who claim that it’s settled science when they say “basic biology” underpins their views. It doesn’t. If you’re transphobic, you’re not heroically speaking uncomfortable truths. You’re ignorant of the science, and you’re just choosing to be a jerk to some of your fellow human beings.
I don’t see how that’s different from the person in the debate saying “Transgender men are not real men”. My point is that the former statement is a valid point made in the course of debate (not hate speech), that Urbanredneck’s post is essentially the same, and therefore I have no issues with Urbanredneck’s post. I cannot tell if you agree or disagree with me, or what you are trying to say.
~Max
Come on dude, did you try asking him?
~Max
Again, if you want to make your viewpoint prevail, then make it prevail via persuasion or argumentation. If you cannot make it prevail that way, and have to resort to asking for sanctions/warnings/banning of those who see things differently than you, then…consider the merits of your viewpoint.
Ask him what? The misgendering is unambiguous in his more recent post that I quoted above. Given his familiarity with the issues, it is certainly also deliberate imo.
So the fact that slavery still exists in some places means we should reconsider whether it’s actually wrong, rather than having it just be illegal?
I think that you are giving too much credit to a poster that still can’t understand the difference between “their” and “there.”
I think it’s hate speech. If someone doesn’t believe that transgenderism is a “real” thing, it seems to follow logically that they must believe people who identify as transgender are mentally ill. So making this statement in the context of a discussion where openly trans people are participating is basically saying “You’re batshit crazy and your most deeply held feelings aren’t real feelings, but psychotic hallucinations”. I don’t think posters should be allowed to address each other that way outside the Pit.
I don’t think the basic idea Urbanredneck expressed should necessarily be off limits, any more than discussion of whether blacks are genetically inferior or Jews are really alien lizard people should be. But I think people wishing to make those cases should be expected to phrase their arguments in the most polite and respectful possible ways, and should be modded as necessary to ensure that they do so. If that has a chilling effect and prevents bigoted idiots from expressing themselves freely, no big loss.
It’s clear what he’s doing
It does not follow. I haven’t got a strong opinion on transgenderism, but I take the position that it is a physical disorder. Certainly there has to be a disorder somewhere, if it’s not neurological then it is a disorder of some other part of the body. There isn’t anything wrong with gender incongruence, but it is abnormal (a disorder) because most people don’t feel any incongruence between their sex and gender, and there is an overwhelming correlation (not causation!) with a number of mental diseases such as anxiety and depression. No doubt due to the stress of fitting in with a society that frowns upon gender incongruence, which defines gender according to the presence of sex organs.
Whether society should continue to operate that way, that’s a moral question, totally open to debate. And it can be done without assuming that transgender people are mentally ill or subhuman. They can simply disagree about the meaning of gender, and the morals of society.
~Max
IMO, stating something and being wrong about it (even insistently and obtusely so) is not per se hate speech and should not be treated as such. And I’ve learned that expecting that once you’re informed you’re wrong “the scales will fall from your eyes” and you’ll go all in on the side of right is folly. I am aware that I have had to work hard at it (and others had to work hard on me) to come around to see where I was wrong on various issues.
Otherwise I believe my view on this would most closely match what AHunter3 has stated so far in this thread so I’ll subscribe to it for these purposes.
I’m not moving the goal posts. You are trying to introduce irrelevant speculation about biology to this thread which has nothing to do with biology. It has to do with what Urbanredneck meant and whether that is hate speech. Determining what is or is not hate speech is not in the purview of biologists.
If I were to change the Max S. in the quote box above, even if in a complimentary way, I’d get a warning, and usernames aren’t more real than gender. While this shows “is” when I should be arguing “ought”, I think the justification for the no changing usernames rule, that we should respect people’s identity, is a good one, and holds for gender as well.
I don’t think that’s the justification at all. I think it is so that people are not misrepresented, that quotes are attributed to the right person and so that quote boxes carry some form of authenticity.
~Max