Trans-woman does not equal malicious man posing as a woman.
There was a movie with Adam Sandler about two malicious men using gay marriage to get benefits. That does not mean a gay person = a malicious str8 man.
Trans-woman have been pushing into other domains. Sports and being naked in locker rooms and woman's facilities are…
Trans-woman does not equal malicious man posing as a woman.
There was a movie with Adam Sandler about two malicious men using gay marriage to get benefits. That does not mean a gay person = a malicious str8 man.
Trans-woman have been pushing into other domains. Sports and being naked in locker rooms and woman's facilities are the most controversial.
As for people who have lost their careers by saying a trans-woman is not equal to a woman, I have been kicked off of medium twice for making that statement.
Gender dysphoria is real. How to treat gender dysphoria is still up for debate. The CASS review and now the NHS have both stated that the science of gender affirming care is not settle. The trans-activist say it is. They are lying.
Regardless of whether gender affirming care is the right approach, none of this justifies your assessment of "They shared none of the concerns that sane men and women felt about rapists and perverts in women’s spaces."
People with gender dysphoria are trying to sort out their gender dysphoria. For them it seems obvious that they are just born in the wrong body and if they can adjust their body to be as close to their perceived gender their gender dysphoria will be mitigated. Their goal is to totally "pass" as the gender they perceive themselves to be. Part of "passing" would be for everyone else to acknowledge their gender. That all seems very intuitively obvious to me.
The challenge as many point out is that especially for woman that challenges their belief, in woman's spaces safety and in woman's sports fairness. For many lesbians they believe it erases their identity (i.e. a trans woman saying they are a lesbian - lesbians would just say this is a str8 relationship). All this is occurring because trans-people are coming out of the closet. More specifically trans-activists. Was stating that a trans-woman equals a woman a good strategy? I was never on board with that position and always supported JK Rowlings positions.
JK Rowling specifically stated she supports people who are trans. She does not judge them in any way. Her issues is with malicious men posing as woman. This gets back to my opening position.
A trans woman does not equal a malicious man posing as a woman. JK Rowling agrees with this.
JK Rowlings positions are very thoughtful even though the activists community tries to make them TERFish. She brings up basic issues like if you count a malicious man acting as a woman as a woman and they commit a sex crime, you start attributing sex crimes to woman. When the reality is that very, very, very few genetic woman commit sex crimes but the rate of sex crimes for genetic men is very high including trans-woman.
There is nothing simple about the gender dysphoria issue. First step for you to acknowledge is that it's real and have empathy for those who experience it. JK Rowling does. First you need to acknowledge once again:
A trans-woman does not equal a malicious man posing as a woman.
"Trans-woman does not equal malicious man posing as a woman."
Not necessarily, of course not. I've never said it does. But it *does*, 100% of the time, equal man.
Trans women are treated with suspicion in women's spaces for the exact same reason that I would be. I'm not a malicious man either. But that's not the point. It's that there's no way to tell the difference between a malicious man and a perfect gentleman just by looking. That's why ALL men are excluded from women's spaces.
Old men, weak men, even gay men, if you let some men in, it's very difficult not to let all men in.
As you say, gender dysphoria is real. I've said so several times. But the trans community has moved so incredibly far away from professionally diagnosed, carefully evaluated gender dysphoric people that it's absolutely ridiculous to pretend that that's who we're talking about for the most part.
Just because I happened to see it today (I see some version of it pretty much every day), here's a sampling of tweets from a guy who claims that a woman is being a "bigot" for not wanting his very obviously fetishistic, perverted and disturbed self in spaces where she might be undressed or vulnerable.
This is the point I'm making in the article. It's time, long past time, in fact, to be clear and honest about what a trans woman actually is. If it's rapists and perverts AND genuinely gender dysphoric men, I don't blame women at all for abandoning all nuance and blanket-rejecting them all.
If sanity is allowed to return, and the ridiculous notion that men are women simply because they say so is abandoned forever, I think there are plenty of women who are willing to have a sensible, sane conversation about how to manage trans inclusion.
I will agree with this statement if you add the change the first two words "The activist trans community has moved so incredibly far away from professionally diagnosed, carefully evaluated gender dysphoric people that it's absolutely ridiculous to pretend that that's who we're talking about for the most part."
Yes there are an incredible number of malicious men.
Yes the position of the trans-activists are enabling those malicious men "justify" their access into traditional women's spaces.
Yes, trans-women can never be the same as a woman. The concept of a man being a woman because they said so is not where the CASS or now NHS is. The trans activists position of a trans-woman = a woman and a person should be affirmed in their gender (i.e. you saying a man can say they are a woman) is rapidly losing ground. But there are still actors in Rowlings Fantastic Beasts and other new ventures making these claims. There will always be a fringe that will never admin a trans woman is not a woman (and a trans man is not a man but that seems to be less controversial).
Most of the trans community want to have a well thought out conversation on how they can be supported and ideally affirmed. As I have stated, I have trans people working for me. Both trans-men and trans-women. I'm learning allot about how they experience the world by interacting with them. They are not malicious. They are dealing with their gender dysphoria in the best ways they can.
Positions like yours don't create an environment for a well thought out conversation. You are just reacting to the trans activists.
My interaction with the Medium is indicative of Medium catering to the trans-activists. They flagged the following statement as the reason for my latest suspension.
"The trans community started the war by declaring trans-woman are woman. No if ands or buts."
My guess is that you would agree that is just a statement of fact. Medium still won't relent. Even after I followed up with Trump's position and recently the UK supreme court position. They are in a trans-activist bubble. I don't understand why but that's where they are.
The only way that this moves to a well thought out conversation is when you and I can have a well thought out conversation.
My position is clear.
A trans-woman is not a woman. A trans-man is not a man.
Gender dysphoria is real and those who experience it need support.
How that support plays out especially with traditional woman's spaces is controversial primarily because men tend to be malicious especially when it comes to pleasing their sexual urges. But it still boils down to the line.
A trans-woman is not equal to a man maliciously posing as a woman to access a woman's space.
"The activist trans community has moved so incredibly far away from professionally diagnosed...."
No, I go to great pains to differentiate the trans community from the activist community when I'm talking about the crazy demands and reality denying nonsense, because I understand clearly that there's a difference.
But the trans community in general is now composed of the transvestites and fetishists and people who are malicious and perverted because no serious attempt has been made to distinguish between them. And whenever somebody asks for that clarification, they get called a "transphobe" (as in somebody who has a problem with the whole trans community) or swamped with abuse.
To use the analogy to black people again, imagine if any meaningful number of black people had argued that "trans-racial people, a la Rachel Dolezal, were part of the black community. And argued that people like her should be called black and that anybody who refused was racist.
Well, if this went on for long enough, it would be totally reasonable to comply with that request and think of trans racial people as part of the black community. And it would be up to the black community to sort out the confusion.
Ah yes, "trans community in general is now composed of the transvestites and fetishists and people who are malicious and perverted" bring us back to discussions you and I have had before.
The trans-community does not include people who are malicious and perverted. You only state that because you believe some of what they do is malicious and perverted. That gets into a discussion of what is malicious and perverted. That of course is based on many things and most commonly the current societal view. What is considered malicious and perverted in Wheaton IL (the center of Evangelicalism) is very different than what is consider malicious and perverted in the Castro or Folsom in San Francisco and largely San Francisco in general. Lets take the drag queen story hour as an example. Wheaton IL would never allow it. San Francisco has no issues with it. Who is right?
i.e. But what is truth? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths. Are mine the same as yours?
You seem to have a problem with me narrowing it to the phrase "malicious men who are posing as woman". The reason I narrow it to that phrase because it focuses on the issue that the trans-activists as championed by JK Rowling have not directly addressed. How does their goals of defining a trans-woman as a woman incorporate the issues of cis-woman who don't want a genetic man in their spaces or activities.
From my perspective, that is the heart of the issue that the debate is about. Its not about the trans-community (i.e. not including malicious men posing as woman) being malicious or perverted. In my mind, this gets settle by a trans-activist making peace with JK Rowling. That's how I define success.
"The trans-community does not include people who are malicious and perverted."
What a bizarre thing to say. First of all, every community includes people who are malicious and perverted. Where does this idea come from that trans people are all angels?
But second, and more importantly, if there are no boundaries to a community other than, "whoever says they're trans us trans," and a swath of perverts and rapists say, "we're trans," and the rest of the trans community never clarifies and says, "no, they're not, because they fail to meet X or Y criteria," then how are we supposed to differentiate between them?
Again, this is the entire point. The "X and Y" criteria that denote that you're trans have never been meaningfully defined. This is necessary before we can even begin to have a sane, compassionate conversation about trans inclusion.
Yes, I have. But apparently you get your deepest insights from Jesus Christ Superstar, so that's neither here nor there, is it?
I understand perfectly well the difference between subjective experience and objective reality. I also understand the objections to the notion of objective reality. But those objections are theoretical navel gazing. Just as, for example, conversations about free will are.
There's a very strong argument that we don't have free will. It's an argument I'm convinced if, in fact. But as narrow, imperfect humans who want a workable society, we have no option but to live and act as if free will exists. Same with objective truth.
"A trans-woman is not a woman. A trans-man is not a man. Gender dysphoria is real and those who experience it need support."
Also, to be clear, this is my position too. I've never said any different and have said this several times. Including in this very conversation with you on this article. It is impossible (and infuriating) to have a conversation with you if you're not reading what I say or are insisting that I hold a position I don't.
There are several ways that support could play out. The most obvious being that trans women create provisions for trans women. That's what women did, I don't understand this idea that it's impossible for trans women to do the same.
Another option, in some cases, is that we have a serious and careful conversation about what a trans woman is, so that we can all immediately and uncontroversially say that a man who commits rape twice and spontaneously declares himself a woman is not a woman.
You're hung up on this notion of "malicious men." But it's not only about malice. Women want and deserve private spaces from men. Spaces where they can get undressed or use the toilet or take refuge from the creepy guy in a bar, and know there won't be any men (however they're dressed) inside.
I'm not a malicious man, but they still wouldn't want me in there, because they can’t tell whether I’m malicious or not just by looking at me. And I completely understand and support this. It's that simple.
Of course the trans-community needs to lead in sorting out what a trans woman is versus a malicious man or what you identify as women who want and deserve private spaces from men and trans-women. (I use men for a person who identifies as cis-male. I don't call a trans-woman a man).
I don't have gender dysphoria. It seems clear you don't either. By your statement, you are an alley of both the trans-community and woman who want women only spaces.
If your an alley, how do you propose to support trans-woman (and trans-men).
No. This is why you never actually learn anything and end up repeating the same debunked talking points in the next conversation. Because you never stay with a topic, when you discover you're wrong, for long enough to absorb the new information.
Do you accept that some things are in fact different from the old days of transsexuals? And that your repeated insistence that "nothing has changed" is wrong?
Do you accept that this is about more than "malicious men" and that women have a right to and need for private spaces from men, even if those men aren't malicious?
You appear to have accepted that it's up to the trans community to lead in the definition of what a trans woman is, which is the entire thesis of the article you're arguing with. Do you recognise that they've failed badly to do this?
Re-reading the whole thread. Realize I never responded to this question.
I agree that they (i.e. the trans activist community e.g. HRC) has created positions that don't include cis-woman who want only cis-woman spaces and activities views. There are many cis-woman who have no issues with a trans-woman in their spaces. There is no simple "side" to the debate.
My biggest issue with your initial article and your reply here is that you frame it as a black and white discussion. It is anything but black and white when you consider all the opinions that people including many famous people have stated.
Your view is just one view. The UK court and Trump have confirmed one part of your view. Trans-man is not a man and a trans-woman is not a woman. Other countries and many people do not agree with these positions.
"Do you accept that some things are in fact different from the old days of transsexuals?
Yes, awareness of trans-people and the goals of trans-activists.
And that your repeated insistence that "nothing has changed" is wrong?"
Nothing has changed with a trans-person besides awareness of them.
Pose as a series was a great way to understand the trans-community.
What else do you believe has changed?
"Do you accept that this is about more than "malicious men" and that women have a right to and need for private spaces from men, even if those men aren't malicious?"
I accept that there is a set of cis-woman (e.g. JK Rowling) who want to have their traditional cis-woman only spaces not be open to trans-men.
Do you accept that it's not all cis women who want this?
"You appear to have accepted that it's up to the trans community to lead in the definition of what a trans woman is, which is the entire thesis of the article you're arguing with. Do you recognize that they've failed badly to do this?"
No, its up to cis-woman who want woman only spaces and trans-activists who want access to woman only spaces to lead the discussion. There are many in the trans-community that don't agree with the trans-activists and just want to continue their life. As as said above, there are man cis-woman who don't seem to have a problem with a trans-woman in woman only spaces and don't seem to be concerned about malicious men in their spaces as a big problem. Likely because they view that nothing has changed. They always had to be cautious about malicious men in their spaces.
Your questions are phrased in very black and white terms. My answers are pointing out the grayness of the whole discussion.
"No, its up to cis-woman who want woman only spaces and trans-activists who want access to woman only spaces to lead the discussion."
No, this is the point. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled on what a woman is, it's up to the trans community to figure out what a trans woman is.
"Nothing has changed with a trans-person besides awareness of them."
Here you have to be precise about what you mean by trans person. Trans person used to mean transsexual. But now it includes transvestites like Izzard, rapists like Bryson, and bandwagons like Mulvaney.
All of these people have been widely described as trans people. So if you're insisting on narrowly defining trans as transsexual, you're missing the point.
"Your questions are phrased in very black and white terms. My answers are pointing out the grayness of the whole discussion."
The legal system requires clarity. It is built on legal definitions and precedent. You can flounder around with equivocations forever if you like, but eventually, you have to be precise if you want to say anything meaningful.
The US Supreme Court has not ruled on what is a woman. UK Supreme Court did. Specifically from an English language perspective as related to the UK Equality Act 2010 where woman in the act refers to chromosomal sex. They also at the same time reaffirmed that trans-people are a protected class. Not clear what the UK parliament will do given the ruling.
As for your statement: "The legal system requires clarity."
You're likely a person that believes in the rule of law. Before I comment, wondering if that is true?
"My biggest issue with your initial article and your reply here is that you frame it as a black and white discussion."
How have I done that? The entire thesis of the article is that we need a workable definition of what a trans woman is. How can we possibly talk about the grey areas of trans women's inclusion before we know what a trans woman is?
Tell me, specifically, preferably using quotes from the article, how I've framed trans inclusion as a "black and white discussion."
As I have written in my other posts, it refers to how you use broad concepts like women and trans-community as I have written above. Seems pretty obvious to me. But I get, you seem to have trouble with the way I communicate.
In this statement:
"Do you accept that this is about more than "malicious men" and that women have a right to and need for private spaces from men, even if those men aren't malicious?"
I clarified that non all women and I believe not all and not even necessarily a majority of women in the west (where women is defined by chromosomal sex) "have a right to and need for private spaces from men". You're attributing a black and white view to women.
"You appear to have accepted that it's up to the trans community to lead in the definition of what a trans woman is, which is the entire thesis of the article you're arguing with. Do you recognize that they've failed badly to do this?"
You once again attributed your black and white views on the issue to the term "trans-community" and "woman".
I specifically clarified to "trans-activist-community" that believes a trans-woman = a woman. From my experience, many in the trans-community don't hold that position.
Hopefully that helps you understand why from my perspective you seem to hold black and white beliefs.
"it refers to how you use broad concepts like women and trans-community as I have written above"
I use terms like women and trans community because I'm writing about women and the trans community. What am I supposed to do?!
I'm using them both as umbrella terms and obviously don't mean every single member of either group. Even every single member of the trans activist community doesn't hold identical views on gender. Far from it.
This is just so painfully obvious that I didn't think I needed to spell it out for you. Everybody else seemed to understand just fine. If I need to couch every single statement behind conditionals and "not all Xs" it becomes unreadable very quickly.
"not all women [...] "have a right to and need for private spaces from men"
Maybe you don't understand how rights work. All women have a right to and need for specialised healthcare in the form of pregnancy-related care. But, of course, not all women can get pregnant or wish to get pregnant. But any women who DO get pregnant need this care and have a right to it.
The fact that some people don't use a right or even don't care about it doesn't mean they don't have that right.
BTW: you never asked why I have such a passion about the trans debate. I have referenced that in another comment:
a. I have daughters and granddaughters. Also my daughter is a psychologist who works with adolescents. We discuss what the right support is for a trans adolescent.
b. I have trans-people working for me. Want to be educated on how to best support them.
The concept of health care being a "right" is a whole 'nother debate. Lets not bring that into this discussion.
I'm not sure why you reference your comment. You seem to want to question another persons feelings when you have no real ability to step in the shoes of a trans-woman or a woman. Not clear how that works.
Interesting that you fault me for clarifying by being specific. Wonder where the need to do that comes from?
You are talking past (versus at) Steve QJ. No one on this substack is saying sincere (versus malicious) trans people do not exist, yet you keep asking for that acknowledgement.
People are making valid points that also are statistically valid about trans people, yet somehow you are suggesting that "no true trans person" (no true scotsman argument) would do them. You also seek constant validation that true transpeople exist, despite no one on this substack claiming that sincere transpeople do exist. THEY EXIST!
I suggest you move on to related topics:
1 How distinguishing sincere trans from malicious trans is possible/practical in the real world,
2 How to address the righteous/reasonable demands of trans that are not being met today, while balancing everyone's rights (not removing some for others).
After re-reading, I do have thoughts about a and b above. It’s consistent with what I told peacefuldave.
I believe I can’t answer those questions. I empathize with both trans-woman (have trans people including trans-woman who work for me in my business) and woman (eg I have two daughters).
When I comment on trans-activists post on medium, I typically get into a discussion about whether JK Rowling is a trans-phobe. In one discussion I challenged the activist to point by point state why JK is a trans-phobe. The activists decided to accept. They later wrote that after reviewing all she has written, they no longer believe she is a transphobe. That leads to my answer to your two questions.
The next step to achieve that answer is for the trans-activists (eg maybe Dylan Mulvaney, Sarah McBride, or Lia Thomas) to have a face to face discussion with JK Rowling. Ideally where they make peace. Until that happens, I can only educate people given my knowledge of my personal journey (ie being gay), my family (ie my daughters), my experience with trans people(specifically those who work for me) and the education I have done on the specifics of gender dysphoria. That’s my goal in responding to Steve.
Steve and you both require the trans-community to propose the answers. Steve has allot of suspicion about the trans community.
My interactions with Steve or the years make me suspect why that is the case. I won’t go into that here.
But like my suggestion to Steve, I suggest you explore doing a mankind project warrior weekend.
"Steve and you both require the trans-community to propose the answers. Steve has allot of suspicion about the trans community."
Stop putting words in my mouth and assigning views to me that I don't hold. Your inability to understand the points that I'm ACTUALLY making doesn't give you the right to make up opinions of your own.
@Rogue4Gay, I was nodding in agreement to much of what you wrote above about the different sides actually meeting to discuss. You then state that until everyone meets to discuss, you have experience with which to educate. But to me what you communicate feels more like balancing the emphasis more than educating. You often seek weight for ideas that are not in dispute. Perhaps they are not held as highly as other ideas you feel are overstated? Two things can be true at the same time or in proper measure, and I would like to understand your nuances from that lens. Sometimes you do this very well!
You suggest that we (SteveQJ and I) do the mankind project warrior weekend. From what I can tell from wikipedia, the mankind project effects changes in men to make them more assertive and clear with others about what they want or need and accepting total responsibility for all aspects of their lives. While this is a friendly tip to share within a wandering face-to-face conversation, it is potentially distracting in written form. In writing I cannot see your visual cues, your clever timing, your visually placing your body in different places or positions to signal a new point, your voice inflection, and other things that allow me to compartmentalize random things and then return to the main branch.
For instance, I like broccoli. I recommend that you try it.
I love broccoli. Especially air fried with a little bit of olive oil. ;)
The reason I suggest the warrior weekend because for me it helped me understand my view of myself and my communication style and how my inner self influences that. Especially in use of I when making statements versus you.
I like Steve's writing because he at times addresses controversial topics. Steve has a tendency from my perspective to over simplify which for me comes across as black and white. For other people (e.g. you) it does not seem to.
Absolutely writing is different than meeting face to face. It requires much more thought to create.
Seems like you have some issues with my writing style. I know I can be terse and direct. The one thing that I try very hard when writing is to not generalize and not to project. My thoughts are about me. Your responses create impressions in me. My impressions can be right, wrong or somewhere in between. But the only way to communicate clearly is to not project. For example: I have never made the statement "You then state that until everyone meets to discuss, you have experience with which to educate." That's a projection you have gotten from reading my comments. Its not something I literally said.
I can infer that you got this from my suggestion that trans-activists need to make peace with JK Rowling.
As for educating. If you are educated from my comments, outstanding. My goal is not to educate you so much as inform you of how I receive your comments. Largely my goal is to educate myself on all the views out there. I do that be responding to how I take your comments or in Steve's case his article and point out where I agree, don't understand (e.g. need clarity) and disagree. Those are about me. How Steve takes them is about him.
From my perspective, Steve seems to be ruffled by my comments and for example deflects by saying that I'm weird. That's about him, not about me. If he did a mankind project weekend, he would understand that. If he wants to understand me, he needs to first own its about him and not try an make it some universal "truth".
Steve is very frustrated that I keep bringing up the JC Superstar line
"But what is truth? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths. Are mine the same as yours."
That line describes my thoughts perfectly. It seems to frustrate Steve because he believes there are moral truths. I'm very cynical on the concept of moral truths. Including the UN human rights charter.
That's me. Thanks for the comment. Helps me understand you.
My assumption would normally be that you’re being deliberately dishonest. But I’m starting to genuinely believe you’re just incapable of absorbing new information once you’ve formed an opinion about something.
So even though you could literally go and see that I called your *comment* weird, not *you* weird, even though I directly corrected you when you made this same claim to someone else, here you are, repeating it again as if none of that ever happened.
Your comments about moral truths are similarly dishonest/confused. You’ve also done exactly the same projection about me that you’re criticising “some guy” for and claiming you never do.
The thread has gotten too complicated for me to respond to this in any specific way.
It is clear that somehow I trigger you.
On projecting, its certainly possible. I don't spend allot of time editing to make sure my statements are about me and my view of your comment versus absolutes "truths" about you.
In the mankind project there is a process called a "clearing" that helps the person making a judgement claim about someone else sort out whether they are projecting. Its a very interesting process to go through. Very insightful to help me understand when I make a judgement whether I its a projection.
Finding me frustrating is not necessarily bad. You're being exposed to communication styles that you seem to not like. That's OK.
Differentiating be whether you're saying I'm weird by saying my comment is weird is a red herring. If I make comments that you find weird, you are saying that at times I'm weird. You're basically just saying my writing and thus I'm not weird all the time. Just at times.
No, saying someone said something weird, or even that they do weird things sometimes, is clearly not the same as saying that they ARE weird.
You can say someone is funny sometimes, that doesn't mean you think they ARE a funny person. You can say someone is mean sometimes, that doesn't mean you think they ARE a mean person. Silly, angry, smart, these can all be transitory qualities.
Almost everyone has said something weird at some point in their lives, same for, funny, unreasonable, etc. that doesn't mean they ARE weird, funny, unreasonable etc, people.
It is rather simple-minded to be unable to distinguish between an observation of your behaviour and a judgement of you as a person.
In general I refrain from characterizing comments as weird. What I'm looking for is whether they make the comment about them or me. I get in that case I am weird. I challenge comments about me versus about you.
One of the biggest faults that I have is that I don't proof read my comments very well. It would be good if I did that more. Including possibly running my comments through ChatGPT to get its perspective. I haven't done that because for me this is just learning. Even writing the comment helps me clarify what my position is on the topic.
You on the other hand are soliciting a following of readers. Making sure the content is engaging, proof read, and coherent is part of the product you are creating.
This was all interesting and useful for ongoing discussion. If our discussion were instead information systems, we would be like two devices attempting to TX and RX 'handshake' with what communication protocols we can use, to then use the most secure or highest speed one available to both of us. In systems, this handshake occurs first, and we are doing it only lately!
Freely tell me this is wrong, but I think you are most comfortable with less-structured communication where many potential points can be made in one statement and there is no obligation to continue/address prior ones, but interesting related ones may be started. Or not. It feels like something a creative person would do (versus the linear ones common to engineers with whom I work).
It tempts me to go more with the total vibe from the sum of it all more than to depend upon all of the supporting parts. This does not mean that it is not well qualified in parts, but perhaps you wish to emphasize the forest more than the trees? I am probably wrong.
I do have a tip. You don't like voice that amounts to projection (did I just project?, LOL), and I am listening to that request. At the same time, when you say that Steve or I like or don't like something, it feels like a similar sin. This ask (don't project) and this frequent mention (Steve does not like) seem too similar to each other to come from the same person. What is the practical difference that others would appreciate and should they? Sincere ask.
I believe we are both trying to find constructive consensus, and I am enjoying that. For you and for anyone, I always look for the most flattering possible interpretation of whatever is said, because I believe we are all more similar than different until proven otherwise.
I say "From my perspective, you seem confused". That's about me.
Projections are "You're confused". That about the person you're talking to.
That's the difference.
As for a "constructive consensus", always a great ideal. Not something I believe will happen here. On Medium, I had a bunch of articles, one was about what writers are looking when people comment. It's a great question to Steve, he wrote the article and opened it for comments. He does not specifically ask what type of comments he's looking for. The articles I wrote on Medium, I usually ended with a question on what type of feedback I was interested in.
I comment because it helps me clarify my position and ideally get feedback on my position from others. I have gotten much feedback from you and Steve. On some things you seem to agree, on some you feel I'm not on point, on some Steve thinks I'm weird.
As for staying on topic, I believe I'm on topic. You suggest I'm not.
As you said, about the forest versus the trees. Many questions are focused on the details of a situation and fail to see the larger picture or overall context.
The analogy I like to bring up on this one is the famous "the answer is 42" from Douglass Adams Hitchhiker's Guide. Don't know if your familiar with. 42 was supposed to be the answer to "life the universe and everything". No one could understand the answer. Douglass Adams point was that the question many times is more important than the answer.
For the trans discussion, what question is Steve really trying to address? The article is titled "The Long Overdue Question Of What A Trans Woman Is." You would think that question would be clearly stated in the article. As far as I can tell, the question is "Is a trans woman is a woman?". He ends with a statement "Trans women are not women". But he never ask the question. The title of the article is not a question. It's a statement.
My first response to Steve was really about trying to clarify what the question might be.
“ On some things you seem to agree, on some you feel I'm not on point, on some Steve thinks I'm weird.”
😅Like a belligerent goldfish. I was having a quiet bet with myself about how long it would be before you claimed I called you weird again, even though I’ve clarified that three, or I guess four times now. But even I thought you’d do better r than the same article, twenty-four hours later. You really are hopeless. I’ll stop wasting my time.
The sentence begins “some things”. I state three ways you interpret my “things”:
A. I’m on point
B. I’m not on point.
C. I’m weird
It’s all about my “things, not about me.
Maybe I just don’t understand the basic structure of the English language.
Regardless, you’re beating a dead horse. Hope my restructuring of the sentence helps you understand my intended goal with the sentence.
As I said, for me, writing and responding are casual for enrichment and distraction. Not my profession. For many years I was in technology. Now I run a bakery business.
I’m more interested in what “the question” was for your article.
I’m also interested in what question you’re asking us as readers to comment on.
“Maybe I just don’t understand the basic structure of the English language.”
This much is clear. I don’t care what you do for a living or why you write, all I’m asking is that you don’t lie about/misrepresent the things I say.
I didn’t call you anything. You have no idea what I think (projection, remember?), I have clarified several times that I didn’t call YOU weird, I called your comment weird, which I stand by. So every time you repeat the claim that I called you weird or even the “projection” that I think you’re weird you are consciously lying about me.
I would like you to stop doing that. In fact, I’d appreciate it if you stopped discussing me altogether and stuck to discussing the article.
Shared Traits: Both ENTPs and ESTPs are extroverted and enjoy engaging with the world around them. They are also both thinking types, which means they value logic and rationality in their decision-making processes 1.
Differences:
Intuition vs. Sensing: ENTPs are intuitive, meaning they focus on possibilities and abstract concepts. ESTPs, on the other hand, are sensing types who prefer concrete information and practical experiences 1.
Flexibility: Both types are perceiving, which means they are adaptable and spontaneous. However, ENTPs might lean more towards exploring new ideas, while ESTPs might prefer hands-on activities 1.
Compatibility: These differences can complement each other well, with ENTPs bringing innovative ideas and ESTPs providing practical implementation. Their shared extroversion and thinking traits can help them understand each other's perspectives and work together effectively.
I feel the above AI summary is accurate to us. I had already figured that I would listen to you as a bit more of a brainstormer versus me which is a bit of a solution-committer. These are all relative, of course. We all dip into creativity and solutions, just with different things and emphasis.
Reacting to your wanting From my perspective" to avoid projection, I appreciate the request for more precise language. At the same time, everything I write is from my perspective, so this is understood unless I am trying to quote you with quotation marks to indicate this is not my interpretation but your literal words.
You also said things about others positions without the "from my perspective", so I don't think you are very insistent on it. I don't really care about that or when I do it, because everything we all say is "from my perspective" unless air quoting otherwise. I won't be distracted when seeing it and then not seeing it in use.
Reacting to your points about larger context and addressing (or even properly stating) the original question, this too I appreciate, but properly the larger context more than anything. Time and time again people move off of the original intent of a query, so yes, stating a strong question and sticking to it can help. In the case of the OP though, I see that Steve QJ is writing in an appealing/entertaining style and not as a scientific paper for peer review. If he doesn't get clicks through big headline and rapid movement in the first paragraph, his substack will not maximize appeal and growth. Just being real here.
(You can call what I say next is projection, but again, everything I say is in my voice, and I don't need to say that explicitly. I would rather say more with fewer words.) Your style is spontaneous, unedited commenting to what you feel should be more structured OPs from Steve. Steve's style is his style, and he isn't changing it for you. I don't think you should hold Steve and I to the same standard since I am your peer in being only in comments and not OP, and it matters not whether I claim to edit my comments or not. We all write from our own seats. All of us communicate how we do. So, after all these dozens or even hundreds of comments, why not accept the communication style differences, the apparent use of projection, and instead focus on the substantive arguments within the OP?
The communication style comments are not worthless! They are the TX and RX of systems handshaking in an attempt to communicate at the most-effective protocol. But protocols should be negotiated in initial handshakes and not renegotiated ad-nauseum. Our common denominator for communicating is not at the fastest and most secure protocol that each of us would individually prefer, and that is necessary and okay. I mean it must be okay, because here we all are doing it.
TL;DR summary. In order to focus on the juicy issues and not communication protocols, I accept any of your communication foibles and hope you can see through mine to any potentially salient ideas I potentially have. I will take the best from your creative, unedited style and hope you can do the same with whatever it is that I am. I enjoy the differences, because I want new ideas that are not already in my own head, and you have lots of them. I have sincere thanks for your travelling this journey with me.
You’re attributing words to me that I never wrote. I never mentioned “true” or “sincere”.
I talk about gender dysphoria being real and that a trans woman (a person with gender dysphoria who mitigated it by looking like a woman) has nothing to do with malicious men posing as woman.
Everything else you attribute to me is a projections of your thoughts onto me. Better just to own them than project them!
Yes, I acknowledge that gender dysphoria is real. I see no evidence on this substack to the opposite.
Look, you make it easy to speculate as to where you are going with things, because you constantly seek validation for something that no one here has taken away. If you feel the harsh world outside of this substack needs this message and that this is frustrating, I completely agree with you. If that makes you feel like blowing some steam, then I get it. But it's just us here, man. We get it. Are we cool?
I am not trying to make you look bad. I am just hoping to build bridges and see the best of ideas from those around me. Admittedly, I am imperfect at it, and I am fine with that.
The trans-community has no way to police malicious men.
Anymore than the male community has a way to police malicious men.
Because the world no longer is communities of people who know each other, communities are made up of people who can be malicious and not malicious. That's just humanity 101.
You can speak out against non-binary and gender flued attention seekers who by definition are not trans in the sense of gender dysphoria where you identify as the opposite sex ALWAYS.
Just like you can speak out against racism in your own tribe. Gay and lesbians are not trans. The LGBTQ+(ashamed of P for pedophile) and they could champion LGB≠TQ+ because they are not equal. Trans harmed gay and lesbians with the false association.
No! I'm not a part of the LGBTQ+ community so when I mention people cleaning their own house it's not my house to clean. You appear to be gay with the Rogue4Gay handle and apparently are a trans advocate (correct me if that's wrong) so I am not projecting, I am saying exactly what I meant.
No, you are not clear on your position. And Steve can only rarely decipher what your position IS, because you twist and turn seemingly in whatever direction prevents you from acknowledging when you make a mistake. Please don't use me as an argument from authority.
"It's amazing how hard it is for people to communicate now a days."
Weren't you just criticising people for not speaking for themselves? Why not acknowledge that it's hard for YOU to communicate? The only person who seems to be having communication problems is you.
I don't speak on their behalf. I speak on what I believe. There are trans-activists who don't agree with my position including the HRC. There are trans people who largely agree with my thoughts.
From an action point of view I have made the following suggestion to trans-activists. If you really want to help the larger trans community, make peace with JK Rowling. They generally don't like me suggested that to them.
That's good advice for them, I agree. I asked you to tell me if it was wrong. So you don't consider yourself to be a trans advocate. Thanks for the clarification.
Lets be clear.
Trans-woman does not equal malicious man posing as a woman.
There was a movie with Adam Sandler about two malicious men using gay marriage to get benefits. That does not mean a gay person = a malicious str8 man.
Trans-woman have been pushing into other domains. Sports and being naked in locker rooms and woman's facilities are the most controversial.
As for people who have lost their careers by saying a trans-woman is not equal to a woman, I have been kicked off of medium twice for making that statement.
Gender dysphoria is real. How to treat gender dysphoria is still up for debate. The CASS review and now the NHS have both stated that the science of gender affirming care is not settle. The trans-activist say it is. They are lying.
Regardless of whether gender affirming care is the right approach, none of this justifies your assessment of "They shared none of the concerns that sane men and women felt about rapists and perverts in women’s spaces."
People with gender dysphoria are trying to sort out their gender dysphoria. For them it seems obvious that they are just born in the wrong body and if they can adjust their body to be as close to their perceived gender their gender dysphoria will be mitigated. Their goal is to totally "pass" as the gender they perceive themselves to be. Part of "passing" would be for everyone else to acknowledge their gender. That all seems very intuitively obvious to me.
The challenge as many point out is that especially for woman that challenges their belief, in woman's spaces safety and in woman's sports fairness. For many lesbians they believe it erases their identity (i.e. a trans woman saying they are a lesbian - lesbians would just say this is a str8 relationship). All this is occurring because trans-people are coming out of the closet. More specifically trans-activists. Was stating that a trans-woman equals a woman a good strategy? I was never on board with that position and always supported JK Rowlings positions.
JK Rowling specifically stated she supports people who are trans. She does not judge them in any way. Her issues is with malicious men posing as woman. This gets back to my opening position.
A trans woman does not equal a malicious man posing as a woman. JK Rowling agrees with this.
JK Rowlings positions are very thoughtful even though the activists community tries to make them TERFish. She brings up basic issues like if you count a malicious man acting as a woman as a woman and they commit a sex crime, you start attributing sex crimes to woman. When the reality is that very, very, very few genetic woman commit sex crimes but the rate of sex crimes for genetic men is very high including trans-woman.
There is nothing simple about the gender dysphoria issue. First step for you to acknowledge is that it's real and have empathy for those who experience it. JK Rowling does. First you need to acknowledge once again:
A trans-woman does not equal a malicious man posing as a woman.
Can you acknowledge that?
"Trans-woman does not equal malicious man posing as a woman."
Not necessarily, of course not. I've never said it does. But it *does*, 100% of the time, equal man.
Trans women are treated with suspicion in women's spaces for the exact same reason that I would be. I'm not a malicious man either. But that's not the point. It's that there's no way to tell the difference between a malicious man and a perfect gentleman just by looking. That's why ALL men are excluded from women's spaces.
Old men, weak men, even gay men, if you let some men in, it's very difficult not to let all men in.
As you say, gender dysphoria is real. I've said so several times. But the trans community has moved so incredibly far away from professionally diagnosed, carefully evaluated gender dysphoric people that it's absolutely ridiculous to pretend that that's who we're talking about for the most part.
Just because I happened to see it today (I see some version of it pretty much every day), here's a sampling of tweets from a guy who claims that a woman is being a "bigot" for not wanting his very obviously fetishistic, perverted and disturbed self in spaces where she might be undressed or vulnerable.
https://x.com/supertolerant/status/1917686798970392606
This is the point I'm making in the article. It's time, long past time, in fact, to be clear and honest about what a trans woman actually is. If it's rapists and perverts AND genuinely gender dysphoric men, I don't blame women at all for abandoning all nuance and blanket-rejecting them all.
If sanity is allowed to return, and the ridiculous notion that men are women simply because they say so is abandoned forever, I think there are plenty of women who are willing to have a sensible, sane conversation about how to manage trans inclusion.
I will agree with this statement if you add the change the first two words "The activist trans community has moved so incredibly far away from professionally diagnosed, carefully evaluated gender dysphoric people that it's absolutely ridiculous to pretend that that's who we're talking about for the most part."
Yes there are an incredible number of malicious men.
Yes the position of the trans-activists are enabling those malicious men "justify" their access into traditional women's spaces.
Yes, trans-women can never be the same as a woman. The concept of a man being a woman because they said so is not where the CASS or now NHS is. The trans activists position of a trans-woman = a woman and a person should be affirmed in their gender (i.e. you saying a man can say they are a woman) is rapidly losing ground. But there are still actors in Rowlings Fantastic Beasts and other new ventures making these claims. There will always be a fringe that will never admin a trans woman is not a woman (and a trans man is not a man but that seems to be less controversial).
Most of the trans community want to have a well thought out conversation on how they can be supported and ideally affirmed. As I have stated, I have trans people working for me. Both trans-men and trans-women. I'm learning allot about how they experience the world by interacting with them. They are not malicious. They are dealing with their gender dysphoria in the best ways they can.
Positions like yours don't create an environment for a well thought out conversation. You are just reacting to the trans activists.
My interaction with the Medium is indicative of Medium catering to the trans-activists. They flagged the following statement as the reason for my latest suspension.
"The trans community started the war by declaring trans-woman are woman. No if ands or buts."
My guess is that you would agree that is just a statement of fact. Medium still won't relent. Even after I followed up with Trump's position and recently the UK supreme court position. They are in a trans-activist bubble. I don't understand why but that's where they are.
The only way that this moves to a well thought out conversation is when you and I can have a well thought out conversation.
My position is clear.
A trans-woman is not a woman. A trans-man is not a man.
Gender dysphoria is real and those who experience it need support.
How that support plays out especially with traditional woman's spaces is controversial primarily because men tend to be malicious especially when it comes to pleasing their sexual urges. But it still boils down to the line.
A trans-woman is not equal to a man maliciously posing as a woman to access a woman's space.
"The activist trans community has moved so incredibly far away from professionally diagnosed...."
No, I go to great pains to differentiate the trans community from the activist community when I'm talking about the crazy demands and reality denying nonsense, because I understand clearly that there's a difference.
But the trans community in general is now composed of the transvestites and fetishists and people who are malicious and perverted because no serious attempt has been made to distinguish between them. And whenever somebody asks for that clarification, they get called a "transphobe" (as in somebody who has a problem with the whole trans community) or swamped with abuse.
To use the analogy to black people again, imagine if any meaningful number of black people had argued that "trans-racial people, a la Rachel Dolezal, were part of the black community. And argued that people like her should be called black and that anybody who refused was racist.
Well, if this went on for long enough, it would be totally reasonable to comply with that request and think of trans racial people as part of the black community. And it would be up to the black community to sort out the confusion.
Ah yes, "trans community in general is now composed of the transvestites and fetishists and people who are malicious and perverted" bring us back to discussions you and I have had before.
The trans-community does not include people who are malicious and perverted. You only state that because you believe some of what they do is malicious and perverted. That gets into a discussion of what is malicious and perverted. That of course is based on many things and most commonly the current societal view. What is considered malicious and perverted in Wheaton IL (the center of Evangelicalism) is very different than what is consider malicious and perverted in the Castro or Folsom in San Francisco and largely San Francisco in general. Lets take the drag queen story hour as an example. Wheaton IL would never allow it. San Francisco has no issues with it. Who is right?
i.e. But what is truth? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths. Are mine the same as yours?
You seem to have a problem with me narrowing it to the phrase "malicious men who are posing as woman". The reason I narrow it to that phrase because it focuses on the issue that the trans-activists as championed by JK Rowling have not directly addressed. How does their goals of defining a trans-woman as a woman incorporate the issues of cis-woman who don't want a genetic man in their spaces or activities.
From my perspective, that is the heart of the issue that the debate is about. Its not about the trans-community (i.e. not including malicious men posing as woman) being malicious or perverted. In my mind, this gets settle by a trans-activist making peace with JK Rowling. That's how I define success.
"The trans-community does not include people who are malicious and perverted."
What a bizarre thing to say. First of all, every community includes people who are malicious and perverted. Where does this idea come from that trans people are all angels?
But second, and more importantly, if there are no boundaries to a community other than, "whoever says they're trans us trans," and a swath of perverts and rapists say, "we're trans," and the rest of the trans community never clarifies and says, "no, they're not, because they fail to meet X or Y criteria," then how are we supposed to differentiate between them?
Again, this is the entire point. The "X and Y" criteria that denote that you're trans have never been meaningfully defined. This is necessary before we can even begin to have a sane, compassionate conversation about trans inclusion.
You never studied philosophy have you?
Yes, I have. But apparently you get your deepest insights from Jesus Christ Superstar, so that's neither here nor there, is it?
I understand perfectly well the difference between subjective experience and objective reality. I also understand the objections to the notion of objective reality. But those objections are theoretical navel gazing. Just as, for example, conversations about free will are.
There's a very strong argument that we don't have free will. It's an argument I'm convinced if, in fact. But as narrow, imperfect humans who want a workable society, we have no option but to live and act as if free will exists. Same with objective truth.
"A trans-woman is not a woman. A trans-man is not a man. Gender dysphoria is real and those who experience it need support."
Also, to be clear, this is my position too. I've never said any different and have said this several times. Including in this very conversation with you on this article. It is impossible (and infuriating) to have a conversation with you if you're not reading what I say or are insisting that I hold a position I don't.
There are several ways that support could play out. The most obvious being that trans women create provisions for trans women. That's what women did, I don't understand this idea that it's impossible for trans women to do the same.
Another option, in some cases, is that we have a serious and careful conversation about what a trans woman is, so that we can all immediately and uncontroversially say that a man who commits rape twice and spontaneously declares himself a woman is not a woman.
You're hung up on this notion of "malicious men." But it's not only about malice. Women want and deserve private spaces from men. Spaces where they can get undressed or use the toilet or take refuge from the creepy guy in a bar, and know there won't be any men (however they're dressed) inside.
I'm not a malicious man, but they still wouldn't want me in there, because they can’t tell whether I’m malicious or not just by looking at me. And I completely understand and support this. It's that simple.
Lets redirect the conversation.
Of course the trans-community needs to lead in sorting out what a trans woman is versus a malicious man or what you identify as women who want and deserve private spaces from men and trans-women. (I use men for a person who identifies as cis-male. I don't call a trans-woman a man).
I don't have gender dysphoria. It seems clear you don't either. By your statement, you are an alley of both the trans-community and woman who want women only spaces.
If your an alley, how do you propose to support trans-woman (and trans-men).
"Lets redirect the conversation."
No. This is why you never actually learn anything and end up repeating the same debunked talking points in the next conversation. Because you never stay with a topic, when you discover you're wrong, for long enough to absorb the new information.
Do you accept that some things are in fact different from the old days of transsexuals? And that your repeated insistence that "nothing has changed" is wrong?
Do you accept that this is about more than "malicious men" and that women have a right to and need for private spaces from men, even if those men aren't malicious?
You appear to have accepted that it's up to the trans community to lead in the definition of what a trans woman is, which is the entire thesis of the article you're arguing with. Do you recognise that they've failed badly to do this?
Re-reading the whole thread. Realize I never responded to this question.
I agree that they (i.e. the trans activist community e.g. HRC) has created positions that don't include cis-woman who want only cis-woman spaces and activities views. There are many cis-woman who have no issues with a trans-woman in their spaces. There is no simple "side" to the debate.
My biggest issue with your initial article and your reply here is that you frame it as a black and white discussion. It is anything but black and white when you consider all the opinions that people including many famous people have stated.
Your view is just one view. The UK court and Trump have confirmed one part of your view. Trans-man is not a man and a trans-woman is not a woman. Other countries and many people do not agree with these positions.
You haven't directly answered the questions from the comment above. Stop trying to gloss over them.
"Do you accept that some things are in fact different from the old days of transsexuals?
Yes, awareness of trans-people and the goals of trans-activists.
And that your repeated insistence that "nothing has changed" is wrong?"
Nothing has changed with a trans-person besides awareness of them.
Pose as a series was a great way to understand the trans-community.
What else do you believe has changed?
"Do you accept that this is about more than "malicious men" and that women have a right to and need for private spaces from men, even if those men aren't malicious?"
I accept that there is a set of cis-woman (e.g. JK Rowling) who want to have their traditional cis-woman only spaces not be open to trans-men.
Do you accept that it's not all cis women who want this?
"You appear to have accepted that it's up to the trans community to lead in the definition of what a trans woman is, which is the entire thesis of the article you're arguing with. Do you recognize that they've failed badly to do this?"
No, its up to cis-woman who want woman only spaces and trans-activists who want access to woman only spaces to lead the discussion. There are many in the trans-community that don't agree with the trans-activists and just want to continue their life. As as said above, there are man cis-woman who don't seem to have a problem with a trans-woman in woman only spaces and don't seem to be concerned about malicious men in their spaces as a big problem. Likely because they view that nothing has changed. They always had to be cautious about malicious men in their spaces.
Your questions are phrased in very black and white terms. My answers are pointing out the grayness of the whole discussion.
"No, its up to cis-woman who want woman only spaces and trans-activists who want access to woman only spaces to lead the discussion."
No, this is the point. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled on what a woman is, it's up to the trans community to figure out what a trans woman is.
"Nothing has changed with a trans-person besides awareness of them."
Here you have to be precise about what you mean by trans person. Trans person used to mean transsexual. But now it includes transvestites like Izzard, rapists like Bryson, and bandwagons like Mulvaney.
All of these people have been widely described as trans people. So if you're insisting on narrowly defining trans as transsexual, you're missing the point.
"Your questions are phrased in very black and white terms. My answers are pointing out the grayness of the whole discussion."
The legal system requires clarity. It is built on legal definitions and precedent. You can flounder around with equivocations forever if you like, but eventually, you have to be precise if you want to say anything meaningful.
The US Supreme Court has not ruled on what is a woman. UK Supreme Court did. Specifically from an English language perspective as related to the UK Equality Act 2010 where woman in the act refers to chromosomal sex. They also at the same time reaffirmed that trans-people are a protected class. Not clear what the UK parliament will do given the ruling.
As for your statement: "The legal system requires clarity."
You're likely a person that believes in the rule of law. Before I comment, wondering if that is true?
"My biggest issue with your initial article and your reply here is that you frame it as a black and white discussion."
How have I done that? The entire thesis of the article is that we need a workable definition of what a trans woman is. How can we possibly talk about the grey areas of trans women's inclusion before we know what a trans woman is?
Tell me, specifically, preferably using quotes from the article, how I've framed trans inclusion as a "black and white discussion."
As I have written in my other posts, it refers to how you use broad concepts like women and trans-community as I have written above. Seems pretty obvious to me. But I get, you seem to have trouble with the way I communicate.
In this statement:
"Do you accept that this is about more than "malicious men" and that women have a right to and need for private spaces from men, even if those men aren't malicious?"
I clarified that non all women and I believe not all and not even necessarily a majority of women in the west (where women is defined by chromosomal sex) "have a right to and need for private spaces from men". You're attributing a black and white view to women.
"You appear to have accepted that it's up to the trans community to lead in the definition of what a trans woman is, which is the entire thesis of the article you're arguing with. Do you recognize that they've failed badly to do this?"
You once again attributed your black and white views on the issue to the term "trans-community" and "woman".
I specifically clarified to "trans-activist-community" that believes a trans-woman = a woman. From my experience, many in the trans-community don't hold that position.
Hopefully that helps you understand why from my perspective you seem to hold black and white beliefs.
"it refers to how you use broad concepts like women and trans-community as I have written above"
I use terms like women and trans community because I'm writing about women and the trans community. What am I supposed to do?!
I'm using them both as umbrella terms and obviously don't mean every single member of either group. Even every single member of the trans activist community doesn't hold identical views on gender. Far from it.
This is just so painfully obvious that I didn't think I needed to spell it out for you. Everybody else seemed to understand just fine. If I need to couch every single statement behind conditionals and "not all Xs" it becomes unreadable very quickly.
See also:
https://commentary.steveqj.com/p/the-long-overdue-question-of-what/comment/114338834
"not all women [...] "have a right to and need for private spaces from men"
Maybe you don't understand how rights work. All women have a right to and need for specialised healthcare in the form of pregnancy-related care. But, of course, not all women can get pregnant or wish to get pregnant. But any women who DO get pregnant need this care and have a right to it.
The fact that some people don't use a right or even don't care about it doesn't mean they don't have that right.
BTW: you never asked why I have such a passion about the trans debate. I have referenced that in another comment:
a. I have daughters and granddaughters. Also my daughter is a psychologist who works with adolescents. We discuss what the right support is for a trans adolescent.
b. I have trans-people working for me. Want to be educated on how to best support them.
The concept of health care being a "right" is a whole 'nother debate. Lets not bring that into this discussion.
I'm not sure why you reference your comment. You seem to want to question another persons feelings when you have no real ability to step in the shoes of a trans-woman or a woman. Not clear how that works.
Interesting that you fault me for clarifying by being specific. Wonder where the need to do that comes from?
You are talking past (versus at) Steve QJ. No one on this substack is saying sincere (versus malicious) trans people do not exist, yet you keep asking for that acknowledgement.
People are making valid points that also are statistically valid about trans people, yet somehow you are suggesting that "no true trans person" (no true scotsman argument) would do them. You also seek constant validation that true transpeople exist, despite no one on this substack claiming that sincere transpeople do exist. THEY EXIST!
I suggest you move on to related topics:
1 How distinguishing sincere trans from malicious trans is possible/practical in the real world,
2 How to address the righteous/reasonable demands of trans that are not being met today, while balancing everyone's rights (not removing some for others).
"You are talking past (versus at) Steve QJ."
This is sadly a very common experience with Rogue😅
After re-reading, I do have thoughts about a and b above. It’s consistent with what I told peacefuldave.
I believe I can’t answer those questions. I empathize with both trans-woman (have trans people including trans-woman who work for me in my business) and woman (eg I have two daughters).
When I comment on trans-activists post on medium, I typically get into a discussion about whether JK Rowling is a trans-phobe. In one discussion I challenged the activist to point by point state why JK is a trans-phobe. The activists decided to accept. They later wrote that after reviewing all she has written, they no longer believe she is a transphobe. That leads to my answer to your two questions.
The next step to achieve that answer is for the trans-activists (eg maybe Dylan Mulvaney, Sarah McBride, or Lia Thomas) to have a face to face discussion with JK Rowling. Ideally where they make peace. Until that happens, I can only educate people given my knowledge of my personal journey (ie being gay), my family (ie my daughters), my experience with trans people(specifically those who work for me) and the education I have done on the specifics of gender dysphoria. That’s my goal in responding to Steve.
Steve and you both require the trans-community to propose the answers. Steve has allot of suspicion about the trans community.
My interactions with Steve or the years make me suspect why that is the case. I won’t go into that here.
But like my suggestion to Steve, I suggest you explore doing a mankind project warrior weekend.
"Steve and you both require the trans-community to propose the answers. Steve has allot of suspicion about the trans community."
Stop putting words in my mouth and assigning views to me that I don't hold. Your inability to understand the points that I'm ACTUALLY making doesn't give you the right to make up opinions of your own.
@Rogue4Gay, I was nodding in agreement to much of what you wrote above about the different sides actually meeting to discuss. You then state that until everyone meets to discuss, you have experience with which to educate. But to me what you communicate feels more like balancing the emphasis more than educating. You often seek weight for ideas that are not in dispute. Perhaps they are not held as highly as other ideas you feel are overstated? Two things can be true at the same time or in proper measure, and I would like to understand your nuances from that lens. Sometimes you do this very well!
You suggest that we (SteveQJ and I) do the mankind project warrior weekend. From what I can tell from wikipedia, the mankind project effects changes in men to make them more assertive and clear with others about what they want or need and accepting total responsibility for all aspects of their lives. While this is a friendly tip to share within a wandering face-to-face conversation, it is potentially distracting in written form. In writing I cannot see your visual cues, your clever timing, your visually placing your body in different places or positions to signal a new point, your voice inflection, and other things that allow me to compartmentalize random things and then return to the main branch.
For instance, I like broccoli. I recommend that you try it.
I love broccoli. Especially air fried with a little bit of olive oil. ;)
The reason I suggest the warrior weekend because for me it helped me understand my view of myself and my communication style and how my inner self influences that. Especially in use of I when making statements versus you.
I like Steve's writing because he at times addresses controversial topics. Steve has a tendency from my perspective to over simplify which for me comes across as black and white. For other people (e.g. you) it does not seem to.
Absolutely writing is different than meeting face to face. It requires much more thought to create.
Seems like you have some issues with my writing style. I know I can be terse and direct. The one thing that I try very hard when writing is to not generalize and not to project. My thoughts are about me. Your responses create impressions in me. My impressions can be right, wrong or somewhere in between. But the only way to communicate clearly is to not project. For example: I have never made the statement "You then state that until everyone meets to discuss, you have experience with which to educate." That's a projection you have gotten from reading my comments. Its not something I literally said.
I can infer that you got this from my suggestion that trans-activists need to make peace with JK Rowling.
As for educating. If you are educated from my comments, outstanding. My goal is not to educate you so much as inform you of how I receive your comments. Largely my goal is to educate myself on all the views out there. I do that be responding to how I take your comments or in Steve's case his article and point out where I agree, don't understand (e.g. need clarity) and disagree. Those are about me. How Steve takes them is about him.
From my perspective, Steve seems to be ruffled by my comments and for example deflects by saying that I'm weird. That's about him, not about me. If he did a mankind project weekend, he would understand that. If he wants to understand me, he needs to first own its about him and not try an make it some universal "truth".
Steve is very frustrated that I keep bringing up the JC Superstar line
"But what is truth? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths. Are mine the same as yours."
That line describes my thoughts perfectly. It seems to frustrate Steve because he believes there are moral truths. I'm very cynical on the concept of moral truths. Including the UN human rights charter.
That's me. Thanks for the comment. Helps me understand you.
😅 Just dropping in to say that almost everything you’ve stated about me here is wrong. In some cases, like me calling you weird, you’re wrong in a way that I’ve already addressed with you in the comments of this very article (https://commentary.steveqj.com/p/the-long-overdue-question-of-what/comment/113709834).
My assumption would normally be that you’re being deliberately dishonest. But I’m starting to genuinely believe you’re just incapable of absorbing new information once you’ve formed an opinion about something.
So even though you could literally go and see that I called your *comment* weird, not *you* weird, even though I directly corrected you when you made this same claim to someone else, here you are, repeating it again as if none of that ever happened.
Your comments about moral truths are similarly dishonest/confused. You’ve also done exactly the same projection about me that you’re criticising “some guy” for and claiming you never do.
THIS is why I find talking to you frustrating.
The thread has gotten too complicated for me to respond to this in any specific way.
It is clear that somehow I trigger you.
On projecting, its certainly possible. I don't spend allot of time editing to make sure my statements are about me and my view of your comment versus absolutes "truths" about you.
In the mankind project there is a process called a "clearing" that helps the person making a judgement claim about someone else sort out whether they are projecting. Its a very interesting process to go through. Very insightful to help me understand when I make a judgement whether I its a projection.
Finding me frustrating is not necessarily bad. You're being exposed to communication styles that you seem to not like. That's OK.
Differentiating be whether you're saying I'm weird by saying my comment is weird is a red herring. If I make comments that you find weird, you are saying that at times I'm weird. You're basically just saying my writing and thus I'm not weird all the time. Just at times.
No, saying someone said something weird, or even that they do weird things sometimes, is clearly not the same as saying that they ARE weird.
You can say someone is funny sometimes, that doesn't mean you think they ARE a funny person. You can say someone is mean sometimes, that doesn't mean you think they ARE a mean person. Silly, angry, smart, these can all be transitory qualities.
Almost everyone has said something weird at some point in their lives, same for, funny, unreasonable, etc. that doesn't mean they ARE weird, funny, unreasonable etc, people.
It is rather simple-minded to be unable to distinguish between an observation of your behaviour and a judgement of you as a person.
I guess I'm simple minded.
In general I refrain from characterizing comments as weird. What I'm looking for is whether they make the comment about them or me. I get in that case I am weird. I challenge comments about me versus about you.
One of the biggest faults that I have is that I don't proof read my comments very well. It would be good if I did that more. Including possibly running my comments through ChatGPT to get its perspective. I haven't done that because for me this is just learning. Even writing the comment helps me clarify what my position is on the topic.
You on the other hand are soliciting a following of readers. Making sure the content is engaging, proof read, and coherent is part of the product you are creating.
This was all interesting and useful for ongoing discussion. If our discussion were instead information systems, we would be like two devices attempting to TX and RX 'handshake' with what communication protocols we can use, to then use the most secure or highest speed one available to both of us. In systems, this handshake occurs first, and we are doing it only lately!
Freely tell me this is wrong, but I think you are most comfortable with less-structured communication where many potential points can be made in one statement and there is no obligation to continue/address prior ones, but interesting related ones may be started. Or not. It feels like something a creative person would do (versus the linear ones common to engineers with whom I work).
It tempts me to go more with the total vibe from the sum of it all more than to depend upon all of the supporting parts. This does not mean that it is not well qualified in parts, but perhaps you wish to emphasize the forest more than the trees? I am probably wrong.
I do have a tip. You don't like voice that amounts to projection (did I just project?, LOL), and I am listening to that request. At the same time, when you say that Steve or I like or don't like something, it feels like a similar sin. This ask (don't project) and this frequent mention (Steve does not like) seem too similar to each other to come from the same person. What is the practical difference that others would appreciate and should they? Sincere ask.
I believe we are both trying to find constructive consensus, and I am enjoying that. For you and for anyone, I always look for the most flattering possible interpretation of whatever is said, because I believe we are all more similar than different until proven otherwise.
If you're into Myers-Briggs, I'm an ENTF.
On the projection in writing. Its the style.
I say "From my perspective, you seem confused". That's about me.
Projections are "You're confused". That about the person you're talking to.
That's the difference.
As for a "constructive consensus", always a great ideal. Not something I believe will happen here. On Medium, I had a bunch of articles, one was about what writers are looking when people comment. It's a great question to Steve, he wrote the article and opened it for comments. He does not specifically ask what type of comments he's looking for. The articles I wrote on Medium, I usually ended with a question on what type of feedback I was interested in.
I comment because it helps me clarify my position and ideally get feedback on my position from others. I have gotten much feedback from you and Steve. On some things you seem to agree, on some you feel I'm not on point, on some Steve thinks I'm weird.
As for staying on topic, I believe I'm on topic. You suggest I'm not.
As you said, about the forest versus the trees. Many questions are focused on the details of a situation and fail to see the larger picture or overall context.
The analogy I like to bring up on this one is the famous "the answer is 42" from Douglass Adams Hitchhiker's Guide. Don't know if your familiar with. 42 was supposed to be the answer to "life the universe and everything". No one could understand the answer. Douglass Adams point was that the question many times is more important than the answer.
For the trans discussion, what question is Steve really trying to address? The article is titled "The Long Overdue Question Of What A Trans Woman Is." You would think that question would be clearly stated in the article. As far as I can tell, the question is "Is a trans woman is a woman?". He ends with a statement "Trans women are not women". But he never ask the question. The title of the article is not a question. It's a statement.
My first response to Steve was really about trying to clarify what the question might be.
Thanks for the discussion.
“ On some things you seem to agree, on some you feel I'm not on point, on some Steve thinks I'm weird.”
😅Like a belligerent goldfish. I was having a quiet bet with myself about how long it would be before you claimed I called you weird again, even though I’ve clarified that three, or I guess four times now. But even I thought you’d do better r than the same article, twenty-four hours later. You really are hopeless. I’ll stop wasting my time.
Steve, Steve, Steve….
The sentence begins “some things”. I state three ways you interpret my “things”:
A. I’m on point
B. I’m not on point.
C. I’m weird
It’s all about my “things, not about me.
Maybe I just don’t understand the basic structure of the English language.
Regardless, you’re beating a dead horse. Hope my restructuring of the sentence helps you understand my intended goal with the sentence.
As I said, for me, writing and responding are casual for enrichment and distraction. Not my profession. For many years I was in technology. Now I run a bakery business.
I’m more interested in what “the question” was for your article.
I’m also interested in what question you’re asking us as readers to comment on.
“Maybe I just don’t understand the basic structure of the English language.”
This much is clear. I don’t care what you do for a living or why you write, all I’m asking is that you don’t lie about/misrepresent the things I say.
I didn’t call you anything. You have no idea what I think (projection, remember?), I have clarified several times that I didn’t call YOU weird, I called your comment weird, which I stand by. So every time you repeat the claim that I called you weird or even the “projection” that I think you’re weird you are consciously lying about me.
I would like you to stop doing that. In fact, I’d appreciate it if you stopped discussing me altogether and stuck to discussing the article.
LOL, you have unlocked level '42'. Consequently all of Monty Python is in fair play.
Hello ENTF, I am ESTP. This article accurately defined major peeves I have:
https://www.psychologyjunkie.com/2016/11/15/5-ways-annoy-estp/
1 – Plan Their Schedule
2 – Seek Attention at All Costs
3 – Complain Without Wanting a Solution
4 – Do Everything Slowly
5 – Dismiss Their Analysis and Logic
From AI:
Shared Traits: Both ENTPs and ESTPs are extroverted and enjoy engaging with the world around them. They are also both thinking types, which means they value logic and rationality in their decision-making processes 1.
Differences:
Intuition vs. Sensing: ENTPs are intuitive, meaning they focus on possibilities and abstract concepts. ESTPs, on the other hand, are sensing types who prefer concrete information and practical experiences 1.
Flexibility: Both types are perceiving, which means they are adaptable and spontaneous. However, ENTPs might lean more towards exploring new ideas, while ESTPs might prefer hands-on activities 1.
Compatibility: These differences can complement each other well, with ENTPs bringing innovative ideas and ESTPs providing practical implementation. Their shared extroversion and thinking traits can help them understand each other's perspectives and work together effectively.
I feel the above AI summary is accurate to us. I had already figured that I would listen to you as a bit more of a brainstormer versus me which is a bit of a solution-committer. These are all relative, of course. We all dip into creativity and solutions, just with different things and emphasis.
Reacting to your wanting From my perspective" to avoid projection, I appreciate the request for more precise language. At the same time, everything I write is from my perspective, so this is understood unless I am trying to quote you with quotation marks to indicate this is not my interpretation but your literal words.
You also said things about others positions without the "from my perspective", so I don't think you are very insistent on it. I don't really care about that or when I do it, because everything we all say is "from my perspective" unless air quoting otherwise. I won't be distracted when seeing it and then not seeing it in use.
Reacting to your points about larger context and addressing (or even properly stating) the original question, this too I appreciate, but properly the larger context more than anything. Time and time again people move off of the original intent of a query, so yes, stating a strong question and sticking to it can help. In the case of the OP though, I see that Steve QJ is writing in an appealing/entertaining style and not as a scientific paper for peer review. If he doesn't get clicks through big headline and rapid movement in the first paragraph, his substack will not maximize appeal and growth. Just being real here.
(You can call what I say next is projection, but again, everything I say is in my voice, and I don't need to say that explicitly. I would rather say more with fewer words.) Your style is spontaneous, unedited commenting to what you feel should be more structured OPs from Steve. Steve's style is his style, and he isn't changing it for you. I don't think you should hold Steve and I to the same standard since I am your peer in being only in comments and not OP, and it matters not whether I claim to edit my comments or not. We all write from our own seats. All of us communicate how we do. So, after all these dozens or even hundreds of comments, why not accept the communication style differences, the apparent use of projection, and instead focus on the substantive arguments within the OP?
The communication style comments are not worthless! They are the TX and RX of systems handshaking in an attempt to communicate at the most-effective protocol. But protocols should be negotiated in initial handshakes and not renegotiated ad-nauseum. Our common denominator for communicating is not at the fastest and most secure protocol that each of us would individually prefer, and that is necessary and okay. I mean it must be okay, because here we all are doing it.
TL;DR summary. In order to focus on the juicy issues and not communication protocols, I accept any of your communication foibles and hope you can see through mine to any potentially salient ideas I potentially have. I will take the best from your creative, unedited style and hope you can do the same with whatever it is that I am. I enjoy the differences, because I want new ideas that are not already in my own head, and you have lots of them. I have sincere thanks for your travelling this journey with me.
You’re attributing words to me that I never wrote. I never mentioned “true” or “sincere”.
I talk about gender dysphoria being real and that a trans woman (a person with gender dysphoria who mitigated it by looking like a woman) has nothing to do with malicious men posing as woman.
Everything else you attribute to me is a projections of your thoughts onto me. Better just to own them than project them!
Yes, I acknowledge that gender dysphoria is real. I see no evidence on this substack to the opposite.
Look, you make it easy to speculate as to where you are going with things, because you constantly seek validation for something that no one here has taken away. If you feel the harsh world outside of this substack needs this message and that this is frustrating, I completely agree with you. If that makes you feel like blowing some steam, then I get it. But it's just us here, man. We get it. Are we cool?
It’s interesting how you make your comments about me instead of about you.
Instead of statements like “you constantly seek validation”, “if you feel”, or “if that makes you feel like blowing some steam” how about try
I feel like you want me to validate your position, is that true?
I feel you think of the world as harsh, is that true?
Note, my comments are all about how I interpret Steve’s article. I then ask a question to validate whether my interpretation is right?
When I read your comments, they come across as projections of your interpretation of what I wrote.
It’s very hard for me to understand what your view is of the topic.
I am not trying to make you look bad. I am just hoping to build bridges and see the best of ideas from those around me. Admittedly, I am imperfect at it, and I am fine with that.
"Trans-woman does not equal malicious man posing as a woman."
But it undeniably includes them which is why I wrote that the trans "community" needs to clean its own house.
The trans-community has no way to police malicious men.
Anymore than the male community has a way to police malicious men.
Because the world no longer is communities of people who know each other, communities are made up of people who can be malicious and not malicious. That's just humanity 101.
"The trans-community has no way to police malicious men. Anymore than the male community has a way to police malicious men."
Yes! This is precisely why ALL men are barred from women's spaces.
You can speak out against non-binary and gender flued attention seekers who by definition are not trans in the sense of gender dysphoria where you identify as the opposite sex ALWAYS.
Just like you can speak out against racism in your own tribe. Gay and lesbians are not trans. The LGBTQ+(ashamed of P for pedophile) and they could champion LGB≠TQ+ because they are not equal. Trans harmed gay and lesbians with the false association.
What does this mean "The LGBTQ+(ashamed of P for pedophile)"? What does the LGBTQ+ community have to do with pedophiles?
You have an interesting writing style by using “you can.” That writing style from my perspective is focused on projection.
Rephrase what you wrote using “I” instead of “you”.
No! I'm not a part of the LGBTQ+ community so when I mention people cleaning their own house it's not my house to clean. You appear to be gay with the Rogue4Gay handle and apparently are a trans advocate (correct me if that's wrong) so I am not projecting, I am saying exactly what I meant.
I do not know what a "trans-advocate" means.
I am clear on my position. Seems Steve agrees with my position.
What do you believe a "trans-advocate" is?
No, you are not clear on your position. And Steve can only rarely decipher what your position IS, because you twist and turn seemingly in whatever direction prevents you from acknowledging when you make a mistake. Please don't use me as an argument from authority.
Its amazing how hard it is for people to communicate now a days.
No wonder the US, UK and much of the world is so divided.
"It's amazing how hard it is for people to communicate now a days."
Weren't you just criticising people for not speaking for themselves? Why not acknowledge that it's hard for YOU to communicate? The only person who seems to be having communication problems is you.
LOL. I’m the only person in the world that you know that you have communication problems with. I very very very much doubt that.
Once again, I suggest you look at going on a mankind warrior weekend. After you do that, I’m confident we’ll be able to communicate!
If you are not something yourself but speak of their behalf you are an advocate. An English language thing.
I don't speak on their behalf. I speak on what I believe. There are trans-activists who don't agree with my position including the HRC. There are trans people who largely agree with my thoughts.
From an action point of view I have made the following suggestion to trans-activists. If you really want to help the larger trans community, make peace with JK Rowling. They generally don't like me suggested that to them.
With that, am I a trans-advocate or not?
That's good advice for them, I agree. I asked you to tell me if it was wrong. So you don't consider yourself to be a trans advocate. Thanks for the clarification.