Philosopher responds to Jane Clare Jones et al

what the Tavi does is irrelevant anyway. There is a world out there, of which the Tavi is not significant. The A.P.P. is ahead of the Tavi.

I take it you're not in the UK. The Tavi is not 'irrelevant' here, since it is the only gender clinic for children.

What is the APP? Why is it relevant?

And please do tell us what you think are 'conspiracy theories' that you are accusing people on here of 'seeing value in'.

Sorry I was meaning the A.A.P. above, and the affirmation model.

www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/AAP-Policy-Statement-Urges-Support-and-Care-of-Transgender-and-Gender-Diverse-Children-and-Adolescents.aspx

"Typical tactics from Lisa. No specific points; no detailed arguments. Some generalised insults - never able to point to specifics to demonstrate their point.
Then run away.
It’s A level results day tomorrow. I’m worried for her. It’s not going to go well."

Typical? I've been on here for five minutes, and I consider myself Gender-critical.
I didn't run away, I don't particularly want to debate conspiracy theory nonsense, with who see value in it.
Why would I seriously want to spend my spare time discussing what I consider to be full-on crazy.
Someone just said the BBC had something about the Tavi and resignations, as though it somehow usurps global discussions and practices in treatment of trans people.

The BBC don't know anything about what is valid, and what the Tavi does is irrelevant anyway. There is a world out there, of which the Tavi is not significant. The A.P.P. is ahead of the Tavi.

Picking individuals, or individual clinics, is exactly what I am talking about, and as stated in the article, these are perfect examples of cherry-picking outside the bell curve to preserve a erroneous belief.

If defending womens rights from trans rights relies on denigrating the medical community and shouting Big Pharma, then we have already lost.

I consider myself a relatively able philosopher having multiple philosophy degrees, and I found that SO boring. I mean I read what other people had written about it being unreadable, and I thought surely it can’t be that complex? I mean I know Derrida can get a little dense but it’s still readable.

So I thought I’d have a crack. Nup. Got too bored.

From the first section that I managed to work through the analysis is this: it’s a straw man; his critique of the GC view is in fact what he’s doing himself. Creating a caricature of the GC view, criticising that, and then saying “and that’s why they’re wrong.” By deliberately avoiding the most penetrating aspects of the GC critique of trans ideology, he just waffles for an extended period.

As mentioned above, he fails to actually discuss clearly what it means to be trans, and what that means without non-circular definitions or non-stereotype references. So it becomes hard to take him seriously.

Interesting that anti-vaxers should be mentioned as I was perusing this article regarding certain anti-vaxers and the 'treatment' they developed for autism from 2009 just yesterday.

sciencebasedmedicine.org/chemical-castration-for-autism-after-three-years-the-mainstream-media-finally-notices/

Why yes, it is our old friend Lupron, being pushed on autistic children.

4th Wave Now had linked both this and an accompanying article by the Chicago Tribune at the time, but the latter does not seem to be accessible from the EU unfortunately.

I particularly dislike the attempt to === gc views and flat-earth and anti-vax. I recognise that from some of the young/naive/tra (lowercase) twitter stuff, so it tells me who this person listens to.

I wonder why we feel compelled to engage with people who use these tactics. If you decline to give substance to your allegations, if giving evidence or explaining your assertions is beyond you, then fuck off. you don’t get to accuse people of all sorts of error, produce nothing to back it up, and still get treated as a serious human being.

I'm am really interested to know which part is a conspiracy. #tumbleweed

I’ve checked behind the cushions, maybe they’re down the back of the sofa?!

I do not believe some of the hogwash in this thread and conspiracy nonsense

It would be helpful if you could point out the bits of the thread that include ‘conspiracy nonsense’.

I don’t understand why a BBC report about clinicians’ concerns would be regarded as conspiracy nonsense.

It’s A level results day tomorrow. I’m worried for her. It’s not going to go well.

Hee hee

I'm am really interested to know which part is a conspiracy. #tumbleweed

Typical tactics from Lisa. No specific points; no detailed arguments. Some generalised insults - never able to point to specifics to demonstrate their point.
Then run away.
It’s A level results day tomorrow. I’m worried for her. It’s not going to go well.

He lost me at 'middle-class white male' since this is exactly the population group that is pushing the TRA agenda the most, either as transwomen or as supporters of the TRA cause or as MRAs. I've heard enough from that segment of the population, thank you very much.

Also, this paragraph:

..."You’ve read those long comment threads on Daily Nous, you’ve read some duelling articles on Medium, you’ve looked at the things the GC side is saying and to you they all seem, if not true, at least reasonable enough to be within the arena of respectful debate. The denunciations from the pro-trans side seem so out of sync with the measured, careful, tone and modest, plausible-sounding claims of the GC side. It doesn’t feel like you’re reading the writings of a hate group. Indeed, it feels like you’re watching people being unfairly shouted down – and you’re used to identifying with whoever looks like they’re asking questions, and you can’t help but feel empathically defensive when it looks like the GC side are just asking questions and being attacked for it."

Totally putting words in the mouths of both GC and noncommittal feminists and assuming what we think or don't think, all in a transparent attempt to win the reader over to his point of view and make it seem utterly reasonable and obvious. That's just a rhetorical tactic used by speech-makers and propagandists, not real philosophers with anything serious to say.

So, in conclusion, bye-bye philosopher guy!

Hi Lisa,

There is no conspiracy. But not all "science" is equal, because science is not monolithic truth that falls from the sky.

In the case of - say - climate change, there is a huge, very well buttressed consensus, build on a mountain of evidence and endless different lines of evidence, many of which have been around for over a century. If that was false, it would indeed require a conspiracy - reams of data would have had to have been faked.

In the case of gender dysphoria, particularly in young females (which is largely a new phenomenon) there is hardly any science at all. Thus no conspiracy is necessary. In the absence of knowledge, doctors and medical societies have been just going along with what patients have been asking for. An increasing number - including the Royal College of GPs - are starting to express serious concerns though.

Anyway, I don't need to be a doctor to know whether or not it makes any sense to talk of gendered souls, it is a philosophical matter. I'm sure that transition helps some people in some contexts. That does not require believing that they literally have the soul of the other sex and I will never believe that, because it makes no sense.

@lisavito I think the problem with trying to argue female rights without discussing transwomen is that the issue we are facing are due to trans rights encroaching on female rights, the two are linked. The motivation of preditory males to take advantage of this situation is something that needs to be highlighted as I don't think discomfort (no matter how justified) is nessesarily reason enough for the powers that be, to prevent people who identify as trans being allowed to access female safe spaces as if it was there would not be an issue.

@LisaVito What conspiracy theories have you seen here? Most of us are in favour of critical thinking, so you seem to be criticising us for something which is the opposite of what goes on here.

I came to this discussion mostly through JY and a friend who has been GC for a few months talking about women's sports and rights.
I wholeheartedly agree with most of the GC discussion I hear in this area.

I do not believe some of the hogwash in this thread and conspiracy nonsense, I'm sorry, and as I said others are free to do so.
A handful of people with strong opinions don't interest me, expert or not, nor will I be swayed by a handful of passionate flat-earthers or anti-vaxxers.
If I have to give up all semblance of critical thinking and support conspiracy theories in order to be accepted for my views, which until I registered was led to believe were also gender-critical, then I'm not sure this movement was what I thought it was.

I feel like I've stumbled into the twilight zone with some of the posts on this thread.
That people are trying to double down is a little bit jarring I have to say.
I'm going to step back from this thread, I've given my opinion and I'm fully aware, that's all it is.

The whole blog from Daniel A. Kaufman is worth reading, theelectricagora.com/2019/08/10/philosophys-woke-triangle/

Reading his article again, he goes on and on about bathrooms as though public toilets are the only space where sexes are segregated.

Yes, it would have been more convincing if he'd tackled things like sports, prisons, girl guides and Yaniv.

There was a rogue / at the end, Prawn. Try this.
leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/

Toenails, the Leiter blog link doesn't work for me. Any tips?

That's brilliant NotAtMyAge

Unrolled thread here.
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1155534660316913665.html

Reading his article again, he goes on and on about bathrooms as though public toilets are the only space where sexes are segregated.

Unfortunately I think we are all aware that women have been taken to court in Canada for refusing to allow a male bodied person into their home.

I suppose you don't have to worry about that kind of thing if you think reality is a social construct.

OP it sounds like you have been doing fabulous work. I am not 'out' and I admire anyone who has taken the plunge. You are already making a difference, but not everyone will agree with us, impossible though that seems.

I am sure you are right to post stock's article. If you post it as a comment to your friend's post you may just take a few of her friends to stock's website or medium which is A Good Thing in itself (is its published elsewhere say 'you can find more by the same author here....') . Many people have realised that 2 and 2 is actually 4 by stumbling across writings by stock and Co.

If you do want to engage your friend in convo then I agree with people upthread who suggest asking her to explain it.

I also enjoyed this thread on the same topic which I just happened to see.

twitter.com/Mgardner2000/status/1155534660316913665

''Leiter describes as 'funny and apt'. ''

One of the tags he uses is ''posturing, preening wankers''.