It actually seems to do the exact opposite. It takes what, at least sometimes, could have been a conversation which could be learned from and turns it into an a fight with one side being driven by feeling attacked and the others feeling some sort of mild pleasure at tossing insults and purposefully misstating/over stating the others point. It could be just that we all are cursed by the original sin of coming from rivals and that stain doesn't wash off I guess.
LOL going out of your way to purposefully misunderstand posts helps us get to the core of what people are saying. Makes sense.
Given your history as a teacher, you certainly don't need me telling you this, but it is on the person with a viewpoint and/or sharing information to convey their point in a way that others understand, and if a misunderstanding occurs, to correct it by taking a slightly different approach. We all fail at this, but taking a "they're out to get me" approach does a disservice to the entire discussion.
eh, if you interact with the people i'm referencing more you'd understand people are far too sensitive if a 10 degree miss on their point leads for them to unravel
Speaking only for myself I agree. I think we now have a page of that. There is also a point where you realize that those your speaking with are actually being disengenious, or at the very least, applying such a strongly biased filter that nothing you say will actually allow them to understand your point. This is more difficult when you're being attacked because you have to hold back the urge to say, question whether the banks school, is credentialed or other strategies that, while might give you that momentarily "gottum" thrill, doesn't move you towards your goal. Mine is always to try to understand the factual basis behind everything and then the policies, based on those facts, that would be most fair and efficient. Unless I'm discussing with and fsu, ucf, or uga fan. Then all bets are off.
Maybe. I'd respectfully suggest it's often way more than 10% here now. Often with a pile of insults tagged on to try to push the defender into having a lil melty. It's the internet and all so whatever but it makes it difficult to take you as seriously as maybe you deserve because I'm sure you're aware of what your responses do and choose them anyway.
He said purposefully misunderstand/simplify/vilify. There is a difference between an actual misunderstanding and someone purposefully misunderstanding for more disingenuous purposes. A slightly different approach isn't going to correct the latter.
Not everyone is a disingenuous cunt like you though. For those not riner, the point is that you shouldn't assume people are maliciously or purposefully misunderstanding you, unless you have several interactions with them and you know better. Case in point: riner
so you are assigning motive to their opinion?? Like across the board, everyone in this particular group believes this??
Cunt, eh? It's a little ironic that you are using a female-based insult in a thread where we are discussing trans and female rights, don't you think? It's clever how you disingenuously suggest that you are not being disingenuous.
i mean that's it exactly. It doesn't necessarily settle how society handles the situation with people who choose/identify with a gender different from their sex. My gut feeling is that maybe the term gender should just be scrapped outside of the social sciences all together. The roles are changing so rapidly that someone saying "i gender identify as a woman" i wouldn't be totally clear on what that means. Does it mean that you are going to dress in traditional female garb or that you aren't going to look behind you when you backup (sorry couldn't resist)? To branch further off the topic, outside of protecting people from violence and particular forms of discrimination, not sure why its any of the governments business what a gender a person identifies by on a particular day. This feels similar to me to when the GoP was using "marriage is between a man and woman" amendments to motivate voters during the midterm elections. My thought then was, why is gov't involved in marriage at all? There sole interaction should be at the contractual level where 2 SS#'s are going to be joined into a single entity. When the ridiculous responses came out that "if we allow gay marriage then next it will be polygamy and people marrying their horses." Once again, so what. My only concern was that there were tax dodges for married people that didn't apply to the rest of the population. off topic but i just slammed a lot of caffeine and can't quite focus on work yet.
I think we might eventually be able to know it, at least as sound theory. I also know that people will still deny it because science can't be right. It's feelings that count.
Maybe he's British and is referring to you as just a solid mate. Spoiler i am being purposefully disingenuous here and misrepresenting BWC for my own mild amusement.
there are interesting discussions around governmental coercion related to getting married/having kids/etc through tax credits and other subsidies
fair enough. if they accepted my plan and just stayed in their lane of contract certification then that would have been ONE of my primary remaining concerns. better?
I dont remember the Medium post. I know that she had liked and followed some folks on twitter that made people correctly assume she was gender-critical. not sure what you mean about 4th or 5th iterations. and i don't know her exact views on who can be feminist but yeah she definitely does not think that one should be granted "woman" status based on self-ID.
I mean people are making progress into enshrining self-ID into law. She's agin that and arguing that women should remain a protected class based on biological sex and not internal notions of gender identity.
And that last part is why she's being called a TERF, it's denying that womanhood doesn't exist for you unless you're a cis woman.
I get that point. I think that there are unique issues of the female experience that are inextricably linked to biological factors.
Which is definitely problematic. I think the answer is that it's not binary; the experiences of womanhood is a sum of parts rather than singular "if/then."
Sure, it's also only one of several things she's hung up on. She had some weird takes about if she grew up today that should would be a trans-man and other mental gymnastics. Parker Molloy had a really good thread breaking it down but it looks like she protected her tweets or deleted them.
yeah p much. and that opens a lot interesting avenues in this whole big debate. yeah, boy! now we got a stew going. i'll be responding, but it'll probably be a while because i have work to do, Lyrtch's video to watch, and my Ben Shapiro volumes to consult.
I have admittedly not kept up with her tweeting. I think I'm at the "I get her point, but I disagree with her explanation and reasoning" stage.
The first thing happened back in December where she voiced support for a woman who lost her job over her views about trans people. She then posted this weird-ass tweet as if she accidentally copied and pasted something, but people didn't give her the benefit of the doubt due to the first thing and she went on the defensive after that. https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-...nsgender-tweet-accidental-paste-a9540031.html
Had a moment so I wanna give some homework since I have some. If we can decide who and who isn't a woman, then are we able to define "woman" and say what the essential qualities of womanhood are? If so, what is it that makes a woman a woman?
I don't think we can decide who is and isn't a woman. I think that shared experiences between cis women aren't necessarily shared experiences among trans women and vice versa.
I meant how on a societal level we do decide who is a woman. There's a category called woman and some people are in it and some are not. I wondered if we can define woman that way can we say what it is that makes a woman. I think a lot of people think the answer is whoever says they are a woman which is part of what I think is taking us down the wrong path.
Boiling it down: women have been oppressed basically forever based on their biology. We have addressed this by making women a protected class. I think basing that status on biology is a much better idea than opening it up to anyone who says they are a woman based on unknowable, internal motivations.
Are you saying men would change genders for the benefits of being a woman? I don't follow any of that
i'm saying that we have designated women as a class that gets benefits to help even the playing field with men. that was based on biology because the history of women playing second fiddle is based on biology. men are bigger, stronger, more aggresive, etc and shaped society without a regard for equal rights. women got protected status in some ways to address that. say, title IX or more leeway to keep men out of women-only spaces and on and on. as i said, i think biology is a much better basis to use for women's protected status than unknowable, internal self-conceptions. that may be a better word than motivations in this regard but i think motivations adds some useful perspective, too. human psychology is a crazy, diffuse thing to wrap your brain around. are there biological males who legitimately, sincerely believe that they are women? absolutely. are there ones who may have murkier or less sincere reasons to believe that or incentives to fool themselves. there's no way there aren't people like that. but ultimately, it's not even about those people. it's just ultimately about how we determine who is a woman. what's a better dividing line? i think female biology is a much better reason (the reason for oppression in the first place) than just accepting whatever people may believe of themselves. that is much more hazy.
Even if it's just sports, are there a lot of people going through gender reassignment just to win a 100m dash?
sorry, i got into clarifying my post and i realized i should answer this too. YES! change genders exactly. i dunno, who really knows what that means. be motivated to say they are a woman to access female spaces and opportunities? yes, i think some men would do that. basically, like i mention in that post, human psychology is a helluva drug. if you guys don't people do all kinds of odd things based on all kinds of self-deluding, irrational or misguided motivations, you should read some more TMB
so you clearly think the harm from leaving the door open to people with nefarious motives (whatever this means or how prevalent) is greater than harm from excluding all kinds of people from different social spaces disagree, and i've yet to see robust evidence otherwise
Is there any actual evidence that this happens? I disagree completely that this would be a problem that would be so widespread that it would need to be addressed
this is kind of how i view the world, social welfare, etc so i get i'm a hard sell. if you're going to provide social welfare to 100 people but 10 are abusing it. then you're faced with the choice of excluding the 10 abusing it but you also catch i dunno, 5 needy people in this web to exclude. (in reality this scenario tends to be you catch 6 of the 10 abusing it, but you also exclude 30 needy people) i'd much prefer to catch ALL the people in need and deal with the small level of fraud even if I can only catch 3-5 as long I don't harm the ones who really need it.