Are transgender people the gender they say they are?

[Antonio the Sixth]

oh my God, what happened here

"People who disagree with me also disagree among each other, so that proves they're all wrong and I'm right" is a new one as far as logical fallacies go. I'm not sure if it even has a name.

I can't begin to tell you how deeply disappointed I am with you for making this comment. This is a willful misinterpretation on the level of Dr. Scholl.

Oh please. Like your replies right now have been good-faith engagement. Screaming that people are "get[ting] mad at [you] for questioning what [gender] is and where it comes from" is at least as ridiculous a misrepresentation of others' point as my description was of yours. People are mad at you because you're actively, affirmatively propounding an understanding of gender which they think is wrongheaded and harmful. At least own up to it and don't hide behind the "just asking questions" defense.

I haven't actively propounded any understanding of gender in this particular conversation. I only injected myself into this exchange because a transgender poster was calling someone transphobic for denying that person's interpretation of gender, while ignoring the fact that another trans poster was also denying that interpretation. It is silly to yell at someone for "not understanding your perspective" when they disagree with you, even while others who clearly understand that perspective don't agree with you.

I don't believe that you actually misinterpreted my posts this badly, so my opinion remains unchanged: You are purposely misrepresenting what I said.

I haven't gone through all of the posts in this thread because this seems like a particularly tedious iteration of the Endless Gender Debate (yes, on both sides - I'm not denying that some of the people you're arguing against are making asses of themselves too). But even if you really did "just ask questions" here, I reject the idea that you can abstract this conversation away from the rest of your engagement on the topic. We all know where you stand on it and it makes sense that we'd interpret your posts accordingly

[John Dule]

I haven't gone through all of the posts in this thread because this seems like a particularly tedious iteration of the Endless Gender Debate (yes, on both sides - I'm not denying that some of the people you're arguing against are making asses of themselves too). But even if you really did "just ask questions" here, I reject the idea that you can abstract this conversation away from the rest of your engagement on the topic. We all know where you stand on it and it makes sense that we'd interpret your posts accordingly

Clearly not! I never once said here that "my argument is right" because gender theorists disagree; I only said that Del Tachi's perspective should not be rudely dismissed because there are in fact many transgender people (including Disco) who agree with him.

I don't think you (or any of the people recommending your posts) know where I stand on this issue. You clearly do not read my comments closely, by your own admission.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I haven't gone through all of the posts in this thread because this seems like a particularly tedious iteration of the Endless Gender Debate (yes, on both sides - I'm not denying that some of the people you're arguing against are making asses of themselves too). But even if you really did "just ask questions" here, I reject the idea that you can abstract this conversation away from the rest of your engagement on the topic. We all know where you stand on it and it makes sense that we'd interpret your posts accordingly

Clearly not! I never once said here that "my argument is right" because gender theorists disagree; I only said that Del Tachi's perspective should not be rudely dismissed because there are in fact many transgender people (including Disco) who agree with him.

I don't think you (or any of the people recommending your posts) know where I stand on this issue. You clearly do not read my comments closely, by your own admission.

Oh f**k off. I've actually taken the time to engage with you on the issue in great detail multiple times, and every time you ended up quietly leaving when your arguments are seriously challenged. If I "don't know where you stand" it might just be because you don't know either.

[John Dule]

I haven't gone through all of the posts in this thread because this seems like a particularly tedious iteration of the Endless Gender Debate (yes, on both sides - I'm not denying that some of the people you're arguing against are making asses of themselves too). But even if you really did "just ask questions" here, I reject the idea that you can abstract this conversation away from the rest of your engagement on the topic. We all know where you stand on it and it makes sense that we'd interpret your posts accordingly

Clearly not! I never once said here that "my argument is right" because gender theorists disagree; I only said that Del Tachi's perspective should not be rudely dismissed because there are in fact many transgender people (including Disco) who agree with him.

I don't think you (or any of the people recommending your posts) know where I stand on this issue. You clearly do not read my comments closely, by your own admission.

Oh f**k off. I've actually taken the time to engage with you on the issue in great detail multiple times, and every time you ended up quietly leaving when your arguments are seriously challenged. If I "don't know where you stand" it might just be because you don't know either.

You are now trying to dig yourself out of this hole by deflecting from the simple fact that you misrepresented my post.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I haven't gone through all of the posts in this thread because this seems like a particularly tedious iteration of the Endless Gender Debate (yes, on both sides - I'm not denying that some of the people you're arguing against are making asses of themselves too). But even if you really did "just ask questions" here, I reject the idea that you can abstract this conversation away from the rest of your engagement on the topic. We all know where you stand on it and it makes sense that we'd interpret your posts accordingly

Clearly not! I never once said here that "my argument is right" because gender theorists disagree; I only said that Del Tachi's perspective should not be rudely dismissed because there are in fact many transgender people (including Disco) who agree with him.

I don't think you (or any of the people recommending your posts) know where I stand on this issue. You clearly do not read my comments closely, by your own admission.

Oh f**k off. I've actually taken the time to engage with you on the issue in great detail multiple times, and every time you ended up quietly leaving when your arguments are seriously challenged. If I "don't know where you stand" it might just be because you don't know either.

You are now trying to dig yourself out of this hole by deflecting from the simple fact that you misrepresented my post.

I've explained why I think my hyperbolic rephrasing of your post is warranted. Feel free to bitch about it if you don't think it was, but there's nothing left to say here.

[If my soul was made of stone]

For the record, Dule, as someone who you're trying to portray as On Your Side here, I do think that you misinterpreted what I said in the way that would be most amenable to your beliefs rather than the way that I intended it.

[John Dule]

I haven't gone through all of the posts in this thread because this seems like a particularly tedious iteration of the Endless Gender Debate (yes, on both sides - I'm not denying that some of the people you're arguing against are making asses of themselves too). But even if you really did "just ask questions" here, I reject the idea that you can abstract this conversation away from the rest of your engagement on the topic. We all know where you stand on it and it makes sense that we'd interpret your posts accordingly

Clearly not! I never once said here that "my argument is right" because gender theorists disagree; I only said that Del Tachi's perspective should not be rudely dismissed because there are in fact many transgender people (including Disco) who agree with him.

I don't think you (or any of the people recommending your posts) know where I stand on this issue. You clearly do not read my comments closely, by your own admission.

Oh f**k off. I've actually taken the time to engage with you on the issue in great detail multiple times, and every time you ended up quietly leaving when your arguments are seriously challenged. If I "don't know where you stand" it might just be because you don't know either.

You are now trying to dig yourself out of this hole by deflecting from the simple fact that you misrepresented my post.

I've explained why I think my hyperbolic reframing of your post is warranted. Feel free to bitch about it if that matters so much to you, but there's nothing left to say here.

Perhaps the reason why I sometimes abandon our conversations is because they have a tendency to migrate away from the main point. Take our recent exchange over Sam Harris, for example: You called Harris "alt-right." I said that was a big stretch of the definition of that term. You responded by saying that Harris endorsed racial IQ theory because of comments he made during his interview with Charles Murray. I said that his decision to host him did not constitute an endorsement of his views. We then became embroiled in a debate over how much it was possible to read into Harris' comments, while missing the main point: You did not provide any evidence for Harris being affiliated with the alt-right movement, so the initial claim which started the conversation was unsubstantiated.

Here, we are doing something similar. I criticized one user for unfairly dismissing Del Tachi's take on the subject of "brain sex" as transphobic, when many trans people agree with him. You have taken this as an opportunity to wax poetic on what you call "the rest of my engagement on this topic." All the while, we are missing the main point: What I said was fair, and relatively politely phrased (by my standards). Simply put, I don't like conversations where every time someone is backed into a corner, the subject magically changes. So from now on, let's make a deal: When either of us is forced to concede a particular point, let's just concede it before we move on. Here, it sounds as though you've made some minor concession (that your "reframing was hyperbolic"), and I'll take what I can get.

[John Dule]

For the record, Dule, as someone who you're trying to portray as On Your Side here, I do think that you misinterpreted what I said in the way that would be most amenable to your beliefs rather than the way that I intended it.

I didn't say I was on anyone's side-- yours, Del Tachi's, or Progressive85's. Nonetheless, I will take that into consideration while discussing this further.

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

I'll bite.

I don't necessarily subscribe to the elevation of brain sex for the reasons that discovolante said quite eloquently, but there's enough credibility there that lines up with common trans experiences and research that there's validity in espousing notions of brain sex. A weasely, TransModerate Hero nonanswer, sure, but not as weasely as Dule, who never heard a transgender voice he couldn't ignore, whose notion of personal liberty deliberately does not account for what trans voices say about their experience, who willingly sides with people who are openly hateful of trans people in these arguments, suddenly concern trolling about transgender voices.

You're becoming unhinged. Try responding to what I actually write instead of attempting to ascribe malice where there is none.

There is no evidence in your record to suggest that any concern you have over about what trans voices are saying is a concern taken in good faith.

[John Dule]

I'll bite.

I don't necessarily subscribe to the elevation of brain sex for the reasons that discovolante said quite eloquently, but there's enough credibility there that lines up with common trans experiences and research that there's validity in espousing notions of brain sex. A weasely, TransModerate Hero nonanswer, sure, but not as weasely as Dule, who never heard a transgender voice he couldn't ignore, whose notion of personal liberty deliberately does not account for what trans voices say about their experience, who willingly sides with people who are openly hateful of trans people in these arguments, suddenly concern trolling about transgender voices.

You're becoming unhinged. Try responding to what I actually write instead of attempting to ascribe malice where there is none.

There is no evidence in your record to suggest that any concern you have over about what trans voices are saying is a concern taken in good faith.

How many times must I reassert that I believe in transgender people's right to surgery, hormones, and other medical treatment before people believe me?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Perhaps the reason why I sometimes abandon our conversations is because they have a tendency to migrate away from the main point.

Moving from one point to an adjacent point is how normal conversations go. This is usually productive because resolving one point tends to help moving the conversation forward on the original point. If that hasn't been the case with us, well, I'll let people decide whose fault that is.

Take our recent exchange over Sam Harris, for example: You called Harris "alt-right." I said that was a big stretch of the definition of that term. You responded by saying that Harris endorsed racial IQ theory because of comments he made during his interview with Charles Murray. I said that his decision to host him did not constitute an endorsement of his views. We then became embroiled in a debate over how much it was possible to read into Harris' comments, while missing the main point: You did not provide any evidence for Harris being affiliated with the alt-right movement, so the initial claim which started the conversation was unsubstantiated.

You don't think that Harris endorsing the claim that the racial gap in IQ has genetic origins is directly relevant evidence to him being alt-right? If so, we're just operating on fundamentally different definitions of what "alt-right" means. Which, fine by me, but I don't know what him being "affiliated" with a "movement" (whatever that means) has to do with anything. There's no alt-right membership card, you know.

Here, we are doing something similar. I criticized one user for unfairly dismissing Del Tachi's take on the subject of "brain sex" as transphobic, when many trans people agree with him. You have taken this as an opportunity to wax poetic on what you call "the rest of my engagement on this topic." All the while, we are missing the main point: What I said was fair, and relatively politely phrased (by my standards). Simply put, I don't like conversations where every time someone is backed into a corner, the subject magically changes.

I'm really sorry if you didn't like the argument I laid out for why I thought my phrasing was warranted, but that doesn't make laying out that argument "changing the subject". I accentuated the ridiculousness of what you were saying in order to point out that your own rephrasing of it ("why do they get mad at us for questioning what it is and where it comes from?) was  itself disingenuous. At no point in that post did you mention DT, so I had no reason to believe it was in response to how he had been treated specifically. Your post was making a broad claim about the state of this conversation and I treated it as such. If that's not how you intended it, fine.

So from now on, let's make a deal: When either of us is forced to concede a particular point, let's just concede it before we move on. Here, it sounds as though you've made some minor concession (that your "reframing was hyperbolic"), and I'll take what I can get.

You mean like how you conceded that Sam Harris directly endorsed Murray's views when I gave you textual evidence to that effect? Oh wait, you weaseled out of that with references to some nebulous hypothetical alternative interpretation of what he said.

Don't f**king lecture me on conceding points. You'd sooner bite the dumbest bullets than admit you were wrong in any way.

[John Dule]

Perhaps the reason why I sometimes abandon our conversations is because they have a tendency to migrate away from the main point.

Moving from one point to an adjacent point is how normal conversations go. This is usually productive because resolving one point tends to help moving the conversation forward on the original point. If that hasn't been the case with us, well, I'll let people decide whose fault that is.

Call me a stickler, but I sometimes like to hear a formal acknowledgement that my arguments have actually gotten through to someone.

You don't think that Harris endorsing the claim that the racial gap in IQ has genetic origins is directly relevant evidence to him being alt-right? If so, we're just operating on fundamentally different definitions of what "alt-right" means. Which, fine by me, but I don't know what him being "affiliated" with a "movement" (whatever that means) has to do with anything. There's no alt-right membership card, you know.

I really did not want to get into this again. I just brought it up as an example of how a discussion can obsess over the minutiae of a particular claim while missing the big picture. But regardless, I sincerely doubt that Harris (who is of Jewish descent) feels any secret allegiance to a neo-Nazi movement that he has never publicly identified himself with and which I have never heard others affiliate him with.

I'm really sorry if you didn't like the argument I laid out for why I thought my phrasing was warranted, but that doesn't make laying out that argument "changing the subject". I accentuated the ridiculousness of what you were saying in order to point out that your own rephrasing of it ("why do they get mad at us for questioning what it is and where it comes from?) was  itself disingenuous. At no point in that post did you mention DT, so I had no reason to believe it was in response to how he had been treated specifically. Your post was making a broad claim about the state of this conversation and I treated it as such. If that's not how you intended it, fine.

My point was this: Some trans people believe in "brain sex" and some don't. Some trans people call gender dysphoria a "mental illness," while others find that classification offensive. Some believe you can change your gender, while others consider it an immutable part of your identity. Because there is so much disagreement in this community over basic terminology, I find it frustrating when trans activists jump down people's throats for "misusing" a word or a term. That was the sole objection I made to that exchange involving Del Tachi, and at the time I thought it was a pretty obvious point that illustrated a broader argument I've been making for years. Apparently I was wrong.

Don't f**king lecture me on conceding points. You'd sooner bite the dumbest bullets than admit you were wrong in any way.

I've promised to do better about this, if you would too.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Call me a stickler, but I sometimes like to hear a formal acknowledgement that my arguments have actually gotten through to someone.

Then that's two of us. We've definitely been talking past each other a lot but I don't think I'm uniquely at fault for it, and I don't think your example do a good job of showing that.

I really did not want to get into this again. I just brought it up as an example of how a discussion can obsess over the minutiae of a particular claim while missing the big picture. But regardless, I sincerely doubt that Harris (who is of Jewish descent) feels any secret allegiance to a neo-Nazi movement that he has never publicly identified himself with and which I have never heard others affiliate him with.

Actually, hey! Here is a great example of YOU refusing to acknowledge MY argument. You describe my mention of Harris' comments on race and IQ "obsessing over minutiae" when I just told you I consider this to be direct evidence that he's alt-right. If you disagree, fine, but if I think it's relevant I have every right to bring it into the conversation. That's not deflection, it's called making an argument.

And again, I don't know what definition you're using, but as far as I'm concerned not all alt-righters are neo-nazis (though plenty are). Some, like Harris, are just bog standard racists.

My point was this: Some trans people believe in "brain sex" and some don't. Some trans people call gender dysphoria a "mental illness," while others find that classification offensive. Some believe you can change your gender, while others consider it an immutable part of your identity. Because there is so much disagreement in this community over basic terminology, I find it frustrating when trans activists jump down people's throats for "misusing" a word or a term. That was the sole objection I made to that exchange involving Del Tachi, and at the time I thought it was a pretty obvious point that illustrated a broader argument I've been making for years. Apparently I was wrong.

I, in fact, completely agree with this point, and have made similar ones in the past. If that's really all you were saying, then fair enough, I misinterpreted.

All I'll add is that I don't think you're a very good messenger for this point, given that you've made statements previously which indicate that your own stance on the issue goes quite a bit further than good-faith misusing of a term. You have indicated in the past that you fundamentally reject the very idea of gender as something distinct from biological sex, and that means that a lot of your posts will inevitably be interpreted in that light.

I've promised to do better about this, if you would too.

Fair enough. I hope that the above is enough of an olive branch in this regard.

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

I'll bite.

I don't necessarily subscribe to the elevation of brain sex for the reasons that discovolante said quite eloquently, but there's enough credibility there that lines up with common trans experiences and research that there's validity in espousing notions of brain sex. A weasely, TransModerate Hero nonanswer, sure, but not as weasely as Dule, who never heard a transgender voice he couldn't ignore, whose notion of personal liberty deliberately does not account for what trans voices say about their experience, who willingly sides with people who are openly hateful of trans people in these arguments, suddenly concern trolling about transgender voices.

You're becoming unhinged. Try responding to what I actually write instead of attempting to ascribe malice where there is none.

There is no evidence in your record to suggest that any concern you have over about what trans voices are saying is a concern taken in good faith.

How many times must I reassert that I believe in transgender people's right to surgery, hormones, and other medical treatment before people believe me?

You're comfortable siding with people who very explicitly don't believe in those things without ever looking in the mirror and wondering why you're beloved by that crowd on these issues. Not that I'm a fan of guilt by association.

You liken transgender healthcare to gambling, smoking, voting, and other things we don't allow people legal access to until the age of 18. You're fine with trans people transitioning, but only after they've completed puberty and had the wrong hormone change their bodies in ways that cannot be reversed without tens of thousands of dollars worth of procedures, and some of those changed can't ever be reversed. Gender dysphoria is a medical condition with a medical treatment; you do not advocate for minors with other medical conditions to wait until 18 (assuming they don't die) to receive treatment, but you tell trans people to get f'd and face the dysphoria and the ostracization that comes with completing puberty before transitioning, if they even survive to 18. I'm not saying you have to agree with me, but you clearly do not want to listen to the trans perspective on this vital trans issue that is currently under direct attack in multiple states, you do not want to listen to the trans perspective of why this is not remotely comparable to gambling or smoking and why it's of vital importance to trans people for these forms of healthcare to be available before the completion of puberty. You made up your mind, trans people's perspectives be damned.

But all of a sudden, you claim care about the transgender perspective if it means you can invalidate the argument of another trans person. Tell me now why your concern trolling should be taken in good faith?

[John Dule]

Actually, hey! Here is a great example of YOU refusing to acknowledge MY argument. You describe my mention of Harris' comments on race and IQ "obsessing over minutiae" when I just told you I consider this to be direct evidence that he's alt-right. If you disagree, fine, but if I think it's relevant I have every right to bring it into the conversation. That's not deflection, it's called making an argument.

And again, I don't know what definition you're using, but as far as I'm concerned not all alt-righters are neo-nazis (though plenty are). Some, like Harris, are just bog standard racists.

The "alt-right" is a movement explicitly dedicated to antisemitism and white nationalism. I still fail to see how Harris' connection to Murry (while not something that I will make excuses for) places him within that definition. Even taking those comments in the light most unfavorable to Harris, it's possible for someone to be racist without being "alt-right." Just look at Ben Shapiro.

I, in fact, completely agree with this point, and have made similar ones in the past. If that's really all you were saying, then fair enough, I misinterpreted.

All I'll add is that I don't think you're a very good messenger for this point, given that you've made statements previously which indicate that your own stance on the issue goes quite a bit further than good-faith misusing of a term. You have indicated in the past that you fundamentally reject the very idea of gender as something distinct from biological sex, and that means that a lot of your posts will inevitably be interpreted in that light.

I would say roughly 90% of my comments on trans issues revolve around semantics and language, and specifically how imprecise and ephemeral these definitions are. Maybe I'm not very good at communicating my point, and I guess I do have myself to blame for that. However, I never seem to run into these kinds of extreme misunderstandings on other subjects. I would suggest that this issue is such a linguistic minefield that discussing it without a communication breakdown has become nearly impossible.

[John Dule]

You're comfortable siding with people who very explicitly don't believe in those things without ever looking in the mirror and wondering why you're beloved by that crowd on these issues. Not that I'm a fan of guilt by association.

I wasn't aware that I was "beloved" by anyone on this site.

You liken transgender healthcare to gambling, smoking, voting, and other things we don't allow people legal access to until the age of 18.

The gambling/smoking/voting examples were simply illustrations of the fact that we don't give minors free rein to make decisions for themselves. I never drew any other equivalency.

You're fine with trans people transitioning, but only after they've completed puberty and had the wrong hormone change their bodies in ways that cannot be reversed without tens of thousands of dollars worth of procedures, and some of those changed can't ever be reversed.

I could be wrong (because I don't remember every comment I've written on this site), but I don't think I ever said puberty blockers should be banned. I have only said that (A) There must be extensive studies done of their long-term effects, and (B) Those effects should be honestly communicated to any patient to whom these drugs are prescribed.

Gender dysphoria is a medical condition with a medical treatment;

What kind of medical condition is it?

you do not advocate for minors with other medical conditions to wait until 18 (assuming they don't die) to receive treatment, but you tell trans people to get f'd and face the dysphoria and the ostracization that comes with completing puberty before transitioning, if they even survive to 18.

I covered this above.

I'm not saying you have to agree with me, but

Hmmm....

you clearly do not want to listen to the trans perspective on this vital trans issue that is currently under direct attack in multiple states, you do not want to listen to the trans perspective of why this is not remotely comparable to gambling or smoking and why it's of vital importance to trans people for these forms of healthcare to be available before the completion of puberty. You made up your mind, trans people's perspectives be damned.

On the contrary, I think I've had some very enlightening conversations with transgender users on this site. I believe Peebs is generally on the same page with me when it comes to surgery on minors, and we also agree on puberty blockers; I suppose our one point of contention has been other hormones for minors, but that's a relatively uncontentious subject. I have clashed with Disco frequently, but mostly because I have no patience for "spiritual" arguments of any kind. What I've noticed is that people who can drop their reflexive defenses on this subject usually end up in general agreement with me, at least once they're convinced that I don't want to load them into gas chambers.

But all of a sudden, you claim care about the transgender perspective if it means you can invalidate the argument of another trans person. Tell me now why your concern trolling should be taken in good faith?

because i'm a nice guy trust me

[Antonio the Sixth]

The "alt-right" is a movement explicitly dedicated to antisemitism and white nationalism. I still fail to see how Harris' connection to Murry (while not something that I will make excuses for) places him within that definition. Even taking those comments in the light most unfavorable to Harris, it's possible for someone to be racist without being "alt-right." Just look at Ben Shapiro.

Yeah, as I suspected, you're working off an extremely restrictive definition of "alt-right" by which the only people who'd qualify as such are the likes of Nick Fuentes. I think that's a ridiculous definition personally, and it's certainly not the mainstream one. Just googling "alt right meaning", you get the following (from Oxford): "(in the US) a right-wing ideological movement characterized by a rejection of mainstream politics and by the use of online media to disseminate provocative content, often expressing opposition to racial, religious, or gender equality." By which definition Sam Harris undoubtedly qualifies.

Regardless of semantics, though, you still haven't owned up to failing to acknowledge my argument, so we're off to a bad start as far as concessions go.

I would say roughly 90% of my comments on trans issues revolve around semantics and language, and specifically how imprecise and ephemeral these definitions are. Maybe I'm not very good at communicating my point, and I guess I do have myself to blame for that. However, I never seem to run into these kinds of extreme misunderstandings on other subjects. I would suggest that this issue is such a linguistic minefield that discussing it without a communication breakdown has become nearly impossible.

I don't disagree that it's a linguistic minefield (and I've tripped up in it quite a few times myself over the years). But I don't think you're doing yourself any favors when you do things like claiming there's such a thing as "scientifically accurate pronouns" and (once again) refuse to acknowledge it when people point out to you how reductive this kind of terminology is.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I could be wrong (because I don't remember every comment I've written on this site), but I don't think I ever said puberty blockers should be banned. I have only said that (A) There must be extensive studies done of their long-term effects, and (B) Those effects should be honestly communicated to any patient to whom these drugs are prescribed.

The problem with this is that there has been no real evidence of puberty blockers having negative long term effects, and we have studied them quite a bit. It is very clear, on the other hand, that not getting puberty blockers is harmful to trans people.

[John Dule]

The "alt-right" is a movement explicitly dedicated to antisemitism and white nationalism. I still fail to see how Harris' connection to Murry (while not something that I will make excuses for) places him within that definition. Even taking those comments in the light most unfavorable to Harris, it's possible for someone to be racist without being "alt-right." Just look at Ben Shapiro.

Yeah, as I suspected, you're working off an extremely restrictive definition of "alt-right" by which the only people who'd qualify as such are the likes of Nick Fuentes. I think that's a ridiculous definition personally, and it's certainly not the mainstream one. Just googling "alt right meaning", you get the following (from Oxford): "(in the US) a right-wing ideological movement characterized by a rejection of mainstream politics and by the use of online media to disseminate provocative content, often expressing opposition to racial, religious, or gender equality." By which definition Sam Harris undoubtedly qualifies.

Regardless of semantics, though, you still haven't owned up to failing to acknowledge my argument, so we're off to a bad start as far as concessions go.

I'm not failing to acknowledge this argument. I'm questioning its validity. Honest question: Would you refer to Ben Shapiro as alt-right?

I would say roughly 90% of my comments on trans issues revolve around semantics and language, and specifically how imprecise and ephemeral these definitions are. Maybe I'm not very good at communicating my point, and I guess I do have myself to blame for that. However, I never seem to run into these kinds of extreme misunderstandings on other subjects. I would suggest that this issue is such a linguistic minefield that discussing it without a communication breakdown has become nearly impossible.

I don't disagree that it's a linguistic minefield (and I've tripped up in it quite a few times myself over the years). But I don't think you're doing yourself any favors when you do things like claiming there's such a thing as "scientifically accurate pronouns" and (once again) refuse to acknowledge it when people point out to you how reductive this kind of terminology is.

Do you disagree that pronouns (historically at least) are assigned based on the biological traits of the child? That's all I meant with that comment.

I could be wrong (because I don't remember every comment I've written on this site), but I don't think I ever said puberty blockers should be banned. I have only said that (A) There must be extensive studies done of their long-term effects, and (B) Those effects should be honestly communicated to any patient to whom these drugs are prescribed.

The problem with this is that there has been no real evidence of puberty blockers having negative long term effects, and we have studied them quite a bit. It is very clear, on the other hand, that not getting puberty blockers is harmful to trans people.

There have been several studies suggesting that puberty blockers have long-term effects on bone density. The psychological effects of a postponed puberty should also not be ignored (nor, of course, should the effects of actually going through puberty).

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm not failing to acknowledge this argument. I'm questioning its validity.

I've explained why the argument is valid based on my definition of alt-right. Whether or not you share this definition or not is irrelevant to the validity of the argument itself. You can't in good faith accuse me of "obsessing over minutiae" when the argument was, from my perspective, entirely germane to the discussion at hand.

If you don't have the good faith to take the L on this, I don't want to hear anything from you about conceding points ever again.

Honest question: Would you refer to Ben Shapiro as alt-right?

Eh, I'd say he's right on the fence. He's usually smart enough to avoid engaging in overt racism (except against Palestinians, but that's another story), so I guess he's not fully there like Harris. I'm open to changing my mind if I hear something more mask-off from him, though.

Do you disagree that pronouns (historically at least) are assigned based on the biological traits of the child? That's all I meant with that comment.

At birth, they're usually assigned based on the observed genitals (which may differ from the chromosomal sex, as I'm sure you know), yes. In the rest of life, they're usually assigned based on secondary or even tertiary sexual characteristics, where the correlation is even weaker.

Now, if that's all you meant, cool, we don't disagree on the substance. The fact remains that if you doggedly insist on using imprecise language after it's been explained to you why that language is imprecise in a harmful way, you can't blame others for getting annoyed about it.

[John Dule]

I'm not failing to acknowledge this argument. I'm questioning its validity.

I've explained why the argument is valid based on my definition of alt-right. Whether or not you share this definition or not is irrelevant to the validity of the argument itself. You can't in good faith accuse me of "obsessing over minutiae" when the argument was, from my perspective, entirely germane to the discussion at hand.

If you don't have the good faith to take the L on this, I don't want to hear anything from you about conceding points ever again.

Honest question: Would you refer to Ben Shapiro as alt-right?

Eh, I'd say he's right on the fence. He's usually smart enough to avoid engaging in overt racism (except against Palestinians, but that's another story), so I guess he's not fully there like Harris. I'm open to changing my mind if I hear something more mask-off from him, though.

You're free to place whatever appellation you like on Harris, Shapiro, and the rest. All I will say is that I don't think you met the burden of proof for your claim, as I still am not aware of anyone but you identifying Harris with the alt-right (either Harris himself or self-professed alt-rightists).

At birth, they're usually assigned based on the observed genitals (which may differ from the chromosomal sex, as I'm sure you know), yes. In the rest of life, they're usually assigned based on secondary or even tertiary sexual characteristics, where the correlation is even weaker.

A particularly maddening element of the gender conversation is the false equivalency between intersex people and transgender people. Intersex people are biologically different from other humans; their condition is considered a birth defect, and they account for a very small fraction of the population. The exception you're carving out here is exceedingly narrow-- narrow, I would argue, to the point that it becomes not worth mentioning. It's as if I said "Humans are born with two arms," and you said "Actually, some babies are born with one arm, or no arms, or several arms." Are you correct? Technically yes, but acknowledging extreme statistical outliers does not necessitate incorporating them into our everyday lexicons.

Now, if that's all you meant, cool, we don't disagree on the substance. The fact remains that if you doggedly insist on using imprecise language after it's been explained to you why that language is imprecise in a harmful way, you can't blame others for getting annoyed about it.

Pronouns are applied based on genitalia. Genitalia is determined by biological sex. Biological sex is determined by chromosomes. If you think it was an oversimplification to say "Pronouns have scientific roots," then fine, maybe I omitted one or two steps there-- but I still consider the statement to be accurate.

[DaleCooper]

Lol, Sam Harris isn't alt-right. He's eggheaded enough to bury himself in hypotheticals and lose sight of real-world implications when he talks to people like Charles Murray, which is a totally fair criticism of Harris, but he's not alt-right. If Sam Harris, an anti-Trump liberal, can be considered an alt-righter then we're basically back to the "Bernie would be conservative in Europe" argument and everyone to the right of him is a fringe extremist.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You're free to place whatever appellation you like on Harris, Shapiro, and the rest. All I will say is that I don't think you met the burden of proof for your claim, as I still am not aware of anyone but you identifying Harris with the alt-right (either Harris himself or self-professed alt-rightists).

So do you admit that I wasn't "obsessing over minutiae" and that my point made perfect sense in line of the argument I was putting forward? I'm not letting you off on this.

A particularly maddening element of the gender conversation is the false equivalency between intersex people and transgender people. Intersex people are biologically different from other humans; their condition is considered a birth defect, and they account for a very small fraction of the population. The exception you're carving out here is exceedingly narrow-- narrow, I would argue, to the point that it becomes not worth mentioning. It's as if I said "Humans are born with two arms," and you said "Actually, some babies are born with one arm, or no arms, or several arms." Are you correct? Technically yes, but acknowledging extreme statistical outliers does not necessitate incorporating them into our everyday lexicons.

The fact that you're getting so bent out of shape over a 12-word parenthetical that you yourself admit is factually correct and that played only a minor part in my broader argument suggests to me either 1. that you get irrationally triggered by this issue or 2. that you're trying to deflect. Either way, that's not a tangent worth going into.

Pronouns are applied based on genitalia.

Not in everyday life, they aren't. You'd have caught that if you'd actually read my response beyond the aforementioned parenthetical.

Genitalia is determined by biological sex.

Generally, yes. I still don't know why you get so triggered when I remind you it's not a complete 1:1 match, though

Biological sex is determined by chromosomes.

I mean, tautologically, sure, since chromosomes are normally used to define biological sex (although there are other proposed definitions, and none is 100% satisfactory).

If you think it was an oversimplification to say "Pronouns have scientific roots," then fine, maybe I omitted one or two steps there-- but I still consider the statement to be accurate.

The problem is deeper that just "omitting a one or two steps". It's that you're conflating gender being socially connected to biological sex with gender epistemologically deriving from biological sex. It's one thing to say that people who are given masculine pronouns are typically biologically male and vice versa. It's another to say that being biologically male provides an objective basis for masculine pronouns and vice versa. That's the point I was trying to make last time.

[afleitch]

I don't know this strange obsession with biological sex as if it's something that's 'historic' or 'obvious' or 'rational.'

I don't know my chromosomal sex as I've never had it tested. You won't know your own 99% of the time never mind anyone else. Yes it is highly probable it will align with gonadal/genital sex which in polite society no one should be asking to see before I go take a piss or wanting a doctors note before you start calling me 'he.'

You determine whether someone is man or woman, by how they present to you and how that stands against pre supposed assumptions. There's nothing strictly biological about that. Sometimes our assumptions are wrong. Sometimes what we view as 'male/masculine' or 'female/feminine' is challenged or is changeable.

It's what we do with everyone and society has worked just fine. To start deciding 'oh what's this gender thing? It's always been biological' is just dishonest. We don't categorise people on a daily basis by their genitals, or their chromosomes or their hormones.

[John Dule]

You're free to place whatever appellation you like on Harris, Shapiro, and the rest. All I will say is that I don't think you met the burden of proof for your claim, as I still am not aware of anyone but you identifying Harris with the alt-right (either Harris himself or self-professed alt-rightists).

So do you admit that I wasn't "obsessing over minutiae" and that my point made perfect sense in line of the argument I was putting forward? I'm not letting you off on this.

I think the point was relevant, but it didn't prove your assertion. That would have required other evidence.

The problem is deeper that just "omitting a one or two steps". It's that you're conflating gender being socially connected to biological sex with gender epistemologically deriving from biological sex. It's one thing to say that people who are given masculine pronouns are typically biologically male and vice versa. It's another to say that being biologically male provides an objective basis for masculine pronouns and vice versa. That's the point I was trying to make last time.

At what point in the history of the English language did pronouns not derive directly from biology? Prior to the very recent idea that gender exists as something distinct from sex, I am unaware of any counterexamples.

Saying "People who are given masculine pronouns are typically biologically male" is an unnecessary overcomplication of the truth. The truth is that-- aside from people with birth defects-- 100% of babies with male chromosomes are assigned male pronouns at birth. This is not some kind of weak correlation that can be waved away as "typically" or "generally" or "one of many factors." Phenotypical sexual dimorphism (the result of chromosomes) has been until very recently the only relevant determining factor in deciding what pronouns to assign to a person. Calling a male baby "he" is as scientifically accurate as calling a cat a "cat." If you want to argue that this objective standard needs revising or has changed in recent years, ok-- but that does not change the fact that the linguistic history of pronouns in the English language derives them directly and solely from biological reality.