Current Events > rowling says she would hapilly do prison time over her bigotry

(+) Yeah! (+)

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

And the best (worst) part is that they did it to themselves. Anyone with an outside perspective can see that their "platform" has very much gone away from original intents.

KitKats posted...

Im not sure why youre carrying water for transphobia here

I'm not. But some people were making the bizarre claim that there's no coherent definition of 'woman' that excludes trans women, and that's just false. In fact, it's arguably transphobic to make that claim, because doing so makes the pro-trans argument very easy to refute.

KitKats posted...

when they use definitions in such a manner they are explicitly arguing for prescriptivism

I hope you understand that your position is also prescriptive. You, like them, think there's a way we should define 'woman' (and 'man', etc). And there's nothing wrong with having a prescriptive position, by the way; everyone should have such positions.

KitKats posted...

which inherently boils it down and reduces us to a body part or function

Again, there's no part of the biological definition that says "and this is all a woman is good for". Do you think it's just inherently degrading to talk about human biology, or something?

You are apparently failing to grasp the concepts of prescriptive and descriptive, how they are functionally different, and why this matters and affects how definitions function.

The coherence you are ascribing to this transphobic rhetoric is irrelevant because those definitions fail to accurately and adequately define women due to excluding some groups, whom are also cis by the way. You can't say women must have a uterus to be a woman, or have XX chromosomes, or ovaries, such that it works without excluding cis women too. It's prescriptivist, rather than being descriptive, wherein such features are still recognized but not used as a requirement.

Anchoring who does and does not qualify as a woman under such definitions, that are being promoted for the explicit purpose of excluding women who are trans, is biological essentialism. This is literally defining women by bodily function or anatomy, to exclude marginalized vulnerable women. That you can't grasp how that is reductive, harmful, and absolutely misogynistic is a failing on your part to adequately recognize why it's important for women to be recognized as more than our bodily functions and parts. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Man, I guess homeslice is still trying to peddle definitions that would explicitly deny trans women.

I wonder why that is.
I actually don't wonder

KitKats posted...

You can't say women must have a uterus to be a woman, or have XX chromosomes, or ovaries, such that it works without excluding cis women too.

There's probably a way to define 'female' in terms of having a majority of a short list of biological traits. I don't see any point in trying to deny this possibility.

KitKats posted...

It's prescriptivist, rather than being descriptive, wherein such features are still recognized but not used as a requirement.

So a 'prescriptive' definition is one that gives requirements? Then all definitions (of anything whatsoever) are prescriptive, including yours. Or, if that's not what you meant, you'll have to explain what you think 'prescriptive' and 'descriptive' mean, since you seem to be using the terms idiosyncratically.

KitKats posted...

Anchoring who does and does not qualify as a woman under such definitions, that are being promoted for the explicit purpose of excluding women who are trans, is biological essentialism.

Yes, that's the point. If you want to make your case, you'll need to explain why biological essentialism is bad.

KitKats posted...

it's important for women to be recognized as more than our bodily functions and parts

Yes, and the biological definition allows women to be so recognized, as long as it doesn't say "and this is all women are good for"--which it doesn't. Analogy: biologically speaking, we're vertebrates, but this doesn't imply that we're nothing more than spines.

GranAures posted...

Man, I guess homeslice is still trying to peddle definitions that would explicitly deny trans women.

I'm trying to get people to realize that they need to put more effort in if they want to support trans rights.

GranAures posted...

I actually don't wonder

About anything. We know.

Humble_Novice posted...

What did transgender people ever do to her to begin with?

The earliest comment I remember her saying on the subject is she was a tomboy as a child and she loathes the idea that today people would be "convincing her" she was actually trans.

Which is nothing they did to her, just showing where she comes from on it.

Which is odd, given that we still have tomboys. They didn't all just magically become transmen.

Isn't this the dude that said Neo-nazis and child rapists shouldn't be judged for what they do?

I know he's the one that tried to play "what if you had to sacrifice a toddler to get an abortion."

I think I remember the other. Tried playing "they may not be in control of their actions?"

GranAures posted...

Which is odd, given that we still have tomboys. They didn't all just magically become transmen.

That's because the core of her reasoning is bigotry, just not as maliciously stated as she does today.

Okay, the whole jailing thing is just taking it to extreme extremes. For life? Come on now.

I have my doubts about free will and moral responsibility across the board, for people in general. We should still try to prevent people from doing bad things, but I don't know if it ultimately makes any sense to ascribe moral blame (or moral credit, in cases where people do good things).

This is a mainstream (though not majority) position among philosophers. See here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-responsibility/#SkepRelaTopi

Oh, I'm aware that it was her just trying to play nice before she took the Death Eater mask off.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I try.

The_Apologist posted...

I have my doubts about free will and moral responsibility across the board, for people in general. We should still try to prevent people from doing bad things, but I don't know if it ultimately makes any sense to ascribe moral blame (or moral credit, in cases where people do good things).

This is a mainstream (though not majority) position among philosophers. See here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-responsibility/#SkepRelaTopi

So you think child rapists and neo-nazis shouldn't be blamed?

The_Apologist posted...

I'm trying to get people to realize that they need to put more effort in if they want to support trans rights.

Guess Im not trying hard enough to get those basic human rights, huh.

No. People having rights does not need "more effort" to be put in before they are "permitted" rights. Wonder how much effort he put in to earning his rights. Bet it was zero.

But nice attempt from him to insult others.

KitKats posted...

Guess Im not trying hard enough to get those basic human rights, huh.

I think you could do more, at least in this setting, to make your position more persuasive than other possible positions. For example, instead of just calling the opposing stance 'biological essentialism' and assuming that this discredits it, you need to explain why biological essentialism is the incorrect approach.

I can't speak for what you do outside of GameFAQs, though, so maybe you're doing good work there.

The_Apologist posted...

I think you could do more, at least in this setting, to make your position more persuasive than other possible positions. For example, instead of just calling the opposing stance 'biological essentialism' and assuming that this discredits it, you need to explain why biological essentialism is the incorrect approach.

I can't speak for what you do outside of GameFAQs, though, so maybe you're doing good work there.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/6/8/8/AABUaRAAE-Cg.jpg

Imagine telling somebody that they need to be more persuasive than the people who would actively deny her identity.

To be clear, I'm playing Trans People's Advocate, not Devil's Advocate. The cause of trans rights is better served when people make good arguments in favor of it rather than bad ones. When people make bad arguments in favor of trans rights, they actively undermine the cause.

It's okay dear. We know why you go to bat for all this and it isn't a lack of free will.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I've spent my entire adult life in spaces where people are arguing over ideology, and I've seen firsthand, many times over, how counterproductive it is when people make bad arguments in favor of a cause. Weak rhetoric in support of a cause is just as damaging as strong rhetoric in opposition to it. This is true for all controversial topics, in my experience.

GranAures posted...

Imagine telling somebody that they need to be more persuasive than the people who would actively deny her identity.

The thing is that I care more about getting results than virtue signalling. A lot of people don't, and so they're willing to engage in superficial rhetoric that strokes their self-righteousness while doing nothing to actually effect positive change--or even undermining positive change. I know you don't want to hear this, but yes, persuasive argumentation is more effective than condemning the bad guys for being bad.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/7/0/1/AABUaRAAE-Ct.jpg

DrizztLink posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/7/0/1/AABUaRAAE-Ct.jpg

Do you think it's good to be able to defend your position against people trying to refute it? Let's say that it's a position on an important topic, and that it's the correct position. I'd say it's pretty good to be able to defend it.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/7/0/4/AABUaRAAE-Cw.jpg

I think people need to realize that homeslice needs to put more effort into why he deserves rights and why trans individuals aren't working hard enough despite working harder than him.

The_Apologist posted...

But some people were making the bizarre claim that there's no coherent definition of 'woman' that excludes trans women, and that's just false

It's not false though. There's no definition you can ascribe to women that excludes trans women without also excluding some cis women.

The_Apologist posted...

There's probably a way to define 'female' in terms of having a majority of a short list of biological traits.

That's not good enough. For your classification to be accurate, "having a majority of traits" isn't gonna cut it. That's not how the scientific method works

"You all are the real transphobes," says the homeslice more than happy to die on the hill of peddling definitions that actively dismiss trans and cis women and try to tell women they're not putting enough effort into their rights.

Gwynevere posted...

There's no definition you can ascribe to women that excludes trans women without also excluding some cis women.

What about some sort of biological definition that amounts to saying that women are biologically female adult humans?

Gwynevere posted...

For your classification to be accurate, "having a majority of traits" isn't gonna cut it.

Why not? That's a possible form that a definition could take. But regardless, it seems that the biological essentialist (meaning, a person who wants to define gender in terms of biological sex) could simply defer to the biologists and import whatever definition of 'female' they use in the context of biological sex.

The_Apologist posted...

I've spent my entire adult life in spaces where people are arguing over ideology

Way to prop up "I've been on GameFAQs for twenty years" as a qualification.

(Not like I can talk. >.>)

CyricZ posted...

Way to prop up "I've been on GameFAQs for twenty years" as a qualification.

(Not like I can talk. >.>)

GameFAQs is where it started for me, but most of my politics/ideology/debate experience has been elsewhere.

A lot of it was on Facebook, but I'm not about that life anymore. Arguing only with strangers on the internet is an improvement, but I suppose I should probably quit that too.

CyricZ posted...

Way to prop up "I've been on GameFAQs for twenty years" as a qualification.

(Not like I can talk. >.>)

Wait? You mean the guy trying to talk down to others about online arguments to virtue signal has spent twenty years having online argument?

And still thinks he has grounds to talk down to people about how much effort he perceives that they've put into getting support for their right to exist?

I'm am SO surprised.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


The culture war over gender is far from over. In some ways, it's more 'on' now than it's ever been before.

I can't imagine looking at the state of gender politics today and thinking that the TERF perspective is irrelevant. What qualifies you to say that?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/7/3/1/AAevWaAAE-DL.jpg

geez, who cares that much about someone being trans? does it really affect her that much?

dj1200 posted...

geez, who cares that much about someone being trans? does it really affect her that much?

Yes. Society's conception of gender affects everyone.

She's wrong to think that it affects her negatively, though.

PBusted posted...

Isn't this the dude that said Neo-nazis and child rapists shouldn't be judged for what they do?

GranAures posted...

I know he's the one that tried to play "what if you had to sacrifice a toddler to get an abortion."

I think I remember the other. Tried playing "they may not be in control of their actions?"

Thank you for explaining why I can't see a bunch of posts right now.

Wow what an Internet argument expert. Those twenty years really paid dividends.

CyricZ posted...

Wow what an Internet argument expert. Those twenty years really paid dividends.

I'd say so.