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 a…
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.
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.