The Trans Women Athlete Dispute

[KimGordon67]

What you said is irrelevant, because either Bramblethorn can find it, or if she can't, she shouldn't be in this conversation. You either do you research and come prepared, but you don't ask to be walked through it.

Like you've done your research on the 'scientific definition' of cisgender male and female? Like that, you mean?

 

[KimGordon67]

I'm not the person asking for definitions.

Sigh.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Before I answer that, perhaps you'll answer me one: what is the scientific methodology for determining if a person is female?

Nope, not playing the game of faking ignorance on male/female determination. Especially when the whole trans concept is utterly dependent upon it.

 

[TastySuckToy]

'I sincerely believe ...' isn't really an evidence-based argument.

Completely agree. Hence why I'm asking what the scientific methodology for determining a trans identity is.

Any attempt to sidestep the question by invoking ignorance on the established existence of male and female identities automatically nullifies the trans concept.

Because then all you're left with is unknown identity transitioning to another unknown identity, and that's just appealing to gibberish.

If you can't figure out or don't have working models on female and male identities, then you automatically have zero understanding, methodology or argument on one transitioning to the other.

You cannot logically claim to have any understanding whatsoever of one unknown transitioning to another unknown. It's just one giant appeal to ignorance fallacy.

 

[Bramblethorn]

You could not read that in under a minute and get the gist of it?

Ah, that's your problem. You're skimming rather than actually trying to think through what's written.

Your response was evasive, with maybes and what ifs,

Dude, you and TST have been playing "what if" since you joined this conversation. "What if trans women took prizes away from cis women athletes?" "What if somebody decided to identify as a different race or age?"

And now you want to complain about "what if"s when I'm pointing out the actual history of concepts like "race"?

Not sure what the "maybes" you're talking about are, though.

and it didn't refute a single line with concrete evidence. I don't need to quote chunks of it to tell you that. I can follow the conversation without repeating it.

Bullshit.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Bramblethorn is more than capable of finding that definition and posting it.

Actually, I'm well aware that there isn't a coherent, consistent, and usable definition.

She doesn't want to, because she is hoping that we define our own criteria, with possible mistakes to the 'ever changing due to popular opinion' notion of what gender/sex is.

Not "hoping". I know you can't provide one that isn't full of holes.

Bramblethorn is encouraged to provide her own definition.

Why on earth would I do that, when part of my position is that there isn't a catch-all definition?

Here is an excellent video of Ben Shapiro

Ah, Ben Shapiro. The intellectual titan who explained that even if climate change was real, sea level rise wouldn't be a problem because people living by the coast could just sell their houses and move inland.

As Thor Benson put it, "Ben Shapiro is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkONHNXGfaM[/QUOTE]

 

[Bramblethorn]

Nope, not playing the game of faking ignorance on male/female determination. Especially when the whole trans concept is utterly dependent upon it.

Knew you couldn't define it

Anyway, it's been fun playing with the both of you, but I've got work to do and I don't see this going anywhere productive, so welcome to my ignore list.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Knew you couldn't define it

Oh, it's easily definable. I'm just not going to waste time explaining something my three year old niece has already figured out. Her brain is sophisticated enough that despite just beginning to talk, she can identify male and female very easily. Including animated, fictional and non human characters.

Anyone with access to Google and five seconds of time can figure out basic definitions of male/female. You're already obviously quite aware of them, otherwise the very concept of trans would be a complete mystery to you without a model of what trans is actually representing in the argument.

Anyway, it's been fun playing with the both of you, but I've got work to do and I don't see this going anywhere productive, so welcome to my ignore list.

Of course. It was quite predictable that you'd run away from the discussion.

But I do disagree on that point, this actually was productive and informative. Certainly not for you, but for others reading the thread.

 

[KimGordon67]

Oh, it's easily definable. I'm just not going to waste time explaining something my three year old niece has already figured out. Her brain is sophisticated enough that despite just beginning to talk, she can identify male and female very easily. Including animated, fictional and non human characters.

Anyone with access to Google and five seconds of time can figure out basic definitions of male/female. You're already obviously quite aware of them, otherwise the very concept of trans would be a complete mystery to you without a model of what trans is actually representing in the argument.

Of course. It was quite predictable that you'd run away from the discussion.

But I do disagree on that point, this actually was productive and informative. Certainly not for you, but for others reading the thread.

LMAO - I love it when someone responds to a well-constructed argument with extremely thinly veiled personal attacks. Trust me, what Bramble (and also SG) doesn't know about this area isn't worth knowing. And, you know, that's actual knowledge based on research and stuff. Not 'common sense', which is what you seem to be appealing to, in spite of all your posturing about 'science'.

 

[TastySuckToy]

And, you know, that's actual knowledge based on research and stuff.

Please, by all means, present the 'actual knowledge based on research and stuff' that demonstrates the scientific methodology of determining the identity trans.

 

[KimGordon67]

Please, by all means, present the 'actual knowledge based on research and stuff' that demonstrates the scientific methodology of determining the identity trans.

You know, I totally would provide you with a slew of research about all sorts of things related to this question. But I know that you wouldn't actually read any of it. I've gone down these paths on the GB before - same concepts apply here. Almost no one reads any evidence provided in support of arguments - Bramble would be one of the few who do. I gave up wasting my time long ago.

 

[TastySuckToy]

You know, I totally would provide you with a slew of research about all sorts of things related to this question. But I know that you wouldn't actually read any of it. I've gone down these paths on the GB before. Almost no one reads any evidence provided in support of arguments - Bramble would be one of the few who do. I gave up wasting my time long ago.

So when someone genuinely asks, you merely claim such information exists but you cannot be bothered to provide it.

Ok, what about a brief summary in your own words on how a trans person is determined to be so scientifically?

For example, if I claimed to be trans, what is the methodology to determine whether this is actually the case or not?

 

[KimGordon67]

So when someone genuinely asks, you merely claim such information exists but you cannot be bothered to provide it.

Ok, what about a brief summary in your own words on how a trans person is determined to be so scientifically?

For example, if I claimed to be trans, what is the methodology to determine whether this is actually the case or not?

Are you trans?

 

[TastySuckToy]

Are you trans?

Why would my belief on the issue matter? To quote your own logic that I whole heartily agree with:

'I sincerely believe ...' isn't really an evidence-based argument.

So, my belief on the matter is not a determining factor.

Therefore, what is the evidence based argument to determine whether I'm trans or not? In other words (which I've stated several times before), the scientific methodology of determining the case?

 

[KimGordon67]

Why would my belief on the issue matter? To quote your own logic that I whole heartily agree with:

So, my belief on the matter is not a determining factor.

Therefore, what is the evidence based argument to determine whether I'm trans or not? In other words (which I've stated several times before), the scientific methodology of determining the case?

Do you accept that Angelina Jolie is a woman? Assuming the answer is 'yes', what's your evidence base for that?

 

[KimGordon67]

Are you Bramblethorn in disguise? Why are you evading the question by asking the same question?

Sigh.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Do you accept that Angelina Jolie is a woman? Assuming the answer is 'yes', what's your evidence base for that?

I'm not making claims about the gender/sex of anyone. I am specifically asking how one determines if a person is actually trans or not. We both already agree belief (sincere or not) is not an evidence based argument.

Why can't you simply answer the question instead of changing the subject? Right now I don't care about Angelina Jolie or any other subject except for the very straight forward question I've been repeatedly asking.

If I claim to be trans, and we both acknowledge sincere belief isn't a valid argument, how do we go about establishing a true or false determination?

 

[KimGordon67]

I'm not making claims about the gender/sex of anyone. I am specifically asking how one determines if a person is actually trans or not. We both already agree belief (sincere or not) is not an evidence based argument.

Why can't you simply answer the question instead of changing the subject? Right now I don't care about Angelina Jolie or any other subject except for the very straight forward question I've been repeatedly asking.

If I claim to be trans, and we both acknowledge sincere belief isn't a valid argument, how do we go about establishing a true or false determination?

It's not about whether you 'claim' to be trans or not - it's whether you ARE trans. To an extremely large extent, only you can know that. I know quite a few trans people, and no 'experiment' was done to establish whether they are trans or not. They just are. The same way I just 'am' a woman - no one has tested me to make sure that's true - I just AM a woman.

You know full well that you've twisted my statement about 'sincere belief' to suit your own ends. Having a sincere belief that another person has a mental illness isn't a valid argument, unless you happen to be a specialist in the field - in that case, your 'sincere belief' carries a fair bit of weight. Much of the diagnostic criteria are also not exact, but they are more evidence based than someone's 'sincere belief'.
Similarly, YOU might sincerely believe that I'm a man - that's not going to make me a man. However, we might accept my husband's sincere belief that I'm a woman as something that's more like actual evidence - it doesn't MAKE me a woman, but it's some fairly compelling evidence that I probably am.

 

[TastySuckToy]

So if I claim to be trans or claim to not be trans, am I correct that your argument is there is no scientific methodology to test that claim?

If so, I would point out unfalsifiable claims are completely useless. Anything asserted without evidence can be freely dismissed without evidence.

 

[KimGordon67]

So if I claim to be trans or claim to not be trans, am I correct that your argument is there is no scientific methodology to test that claim?

If so, I would point out unfalsifiable claims are completely useless. Anything asserted without evidence can be freely dismissed without evidence.

My point can only be made by reversing the question - what scientific methodology would you use to test my claim that I'm a woman? I'm going to answer that, because I know you won't - none, because there is no such methodology.

Does that mean I'm not a woman?

 

[TastySuckToy]

My point can only be made by reversing the question - what scientific methodology would you use to test my claim that I'm a woman? I'm going to answer that, because I know you won't - none, because there is no such methodology.

Does that mean I'm not a woman?

We could most definitely do a scientific examination of you to determine if you are indeed female:

fe·male

/ˈfēˌmāl/

adjective

of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

"a herd of female deer"

noun

a female person, animal, or plant.

synonyms:woman,*lady,*member of the fair/gentle sex;

Biology is an actual science and well established.

 

[KimGordon67]

We could most definitely do a scientific examination of you to determine if you are indeed female:

Biology is an actual science and well established.

So firstly, at my age I can't bear offspring. So what am I now?

Also, without wanting to get picky, I was referring to myself as a 'woman', not as 'female' - the argument being made is about gender, not sex.

 

[KimGordon67]

I've got it - I'm POST-female. Awesome!

 

[TastySuckToy]

So firstly, at my age I can't bear offspring. So what am I now?

Aged, damaged or malfunctioning biology does not magically make it irrelevant.

Also, without wanting to get picky, I was referring to myself as a 'woman', not as 'female' - the argument being made is about gender, not sex.

The two are strongly tied together. But if you're intent on arguing gender is more of a belief related concept, we already covered that belief angle and dismissed it as irrelevant.

 

[KimGordon67]

Aged, damaged or malfunctioning biology does not magically make it irrelevant.

If the proof of being 'female', as provided by you, is "can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes", then these are necessary conditions for being 'female'.
At what point does a body cease to be a 'malfunctioning female' and become something else? The notion that non-reproductive 'females' are somehow 'malfunctioning' is a cultural construct - we (i.e. humanity) could have just as easily decided that humans with vaginas etc who don't bear children are actually a different sex altogether.

The two are strongly tied together. But if you're intent on arguing gender is more of a belief related concept, we already covered that belief angle and dismissed it as irrelevant.

No, you're arguing for 'belief'. I'm arguing for the fact that I am a woman. This is, in part, why Judith Butler refers to gender as performative - it is created through the doing of it.