GC British guy debating US sceptic.

[Dadalus]

In case anyone finds it interesting...

twitter.com/lecanardnoir/status/1477004076877496328?t=wcSZsecghAvIRo2WozuheQ&s=19

It looks like the idea is to have a long exchange of letters between them, only the opening statements have been made so far.

Uuuugh I skim read past many occasions on which both parties complained about the lack of space to respond in the format and the need to narrow the focus of discussion, until I reached the part where American Dude thought that it was useful and valuable to spend precious word count on discussing his own identity and how it intersects with the bangability of Jason Momoa.

The guy is just a windbag who likes the sound of his own voice. I conclude this whole thing isn’t even an argument, on American Dude’s side, it’s posturing. I think Andy has been sucked into a game of pigeon chess- albeit with a philosophy graduate instead of a pigeon so the poo looks fancier. It’s going to end the same way though.

Ah, the old "there's no point in arguing" when that's precisely what your stated purpose was supposed to be.

Silly testerical man.

I think Andy has been sucked into a game of pigeon chess- albeit with a philosophy graduate instead of a pigeon so the poo looks fancier. It’s going to end the same way though.

That! Very well said.

Also the American appears to conflate the following concepts: “transitioning might be the best treatment for dysphoria in some cases” and “trans identities are real.”

He keeps bringing it back to that as if the latter even means anything. Does he think that “some people live better lives after a religious experience” means “God is real”? I assume he doesn’t even realise he keeps trying to turn the debate into a theological one.

I watched the pigeon ‘debate’ with Dr Hilton about identity. He ended it with… ‘ Lol. Okay. I gotta get stuff done so apologies if I stop responding to what seems like pretty silly discourse.’

He is not that fancy it seems. Silly discourse…

omg I actually hate this guy

AD: Gender! How do I define gender? Great question! Uh, gender, is... a complex construction involving a wide range of inputs and outputs. [so is the tangle of sockets beside my bed]

Andy: that's not a very good definition, it sounds mystical

AD: Sexuality is also a mix of external and internal inputs, allow to me wang on about mine.... so you see, by showing that my definition of gender also applies to sexuality, [and also to the tangle of sockets beside allmywhat's bed] we can see that it's actually a very good definition and not mystical at all, because sexuality isn't mystical or fictional [and neither is that socket tangle unfortunately] and so therefore gender can't be either.

oh to be fair he does also make the argument that gender must be real because "gender affirming care" is good for people who receive it. Very unusual argument for a sceptic to make. I hope he applies the same logic to acupuncture meridians.

Just popped onto the thread to see if we had reached the 'die terf' and flouncing stage yet...

He's a complete idiot.

I watched the pigeon ‘debate’ with Dr Hilton about identity. He ended it with… ‘ Lol. Okay. I gotta get stuff done so apologies if I stop responding to what seems like pretty silly discourse.’

And then he insulted her personally by saying that he thought she was silly and "playing dumb".

And then he insulted her personally by saying that he thought she was silly and "playing dumb".

Oh he did not, did he? Fucking hell. The confidence of a mediocre man etc.

I will do him the justice of saying I don't think he's playing dumb.

Very unusual argument for a sceptic to make. I hope he applies the same logic to acupuncture meridians.

This is precisely what has me bashing my head on my desk. These guys (in general, I don't know this one) are forensic at dismantling the data "supporting" homeopathy, acupuncture etc and even concede that in some cases it's a mixed bag.

Anyway kudos to them both - it's always good to have such a clear example of what the debate looks like.
Usually ppl think you're exaggerating if you try and explain how inconsistent, avoidant, contradictory and ultimately ad-hom, strawman-based the arguments are.

Oh he did not, did he? Fucking hell. The confidence of a mediocre man etc

This whole debate could be characterised as very stupid and ill-informed men telling clever and well-informed women that they're wrong and should shut up. If only they could hear themselves.

And then he insulted her personally by saying that he thought she was silly and "playing dumb".

Then he really is a nincompoop isn’t he?

So US guy has failed to define gender identity, other than to say it’s a complicated system, and in response to being asked to clarify his definition says that gender critical people struggle with the “subjectivity” of gender. It apparently isn’t possible to give a simpler definition of gender identity, as it is inherently a complex topic. It’s weird he keeps saying that sexuality is just as complicated, because the idea that some someone could be attracted to a member of the same sex is very straightforward compared to the claim that a male person believes he is female (what exactly is he believing?)

The fact the focus is just on women’s sports is a sign that this is a “won’t someone think of the women” moral panic (which taken to its logical conclusion means that any focus on female issues constitutes a moral panic. I guess women don’t get to have genuine interests and concerns.)

As far as I can see debate is over because US dude refuses to answer “what is a woman” in case he gets accused of more “mysticism”. The way I see it, we are being asked as a society to accept a new concept of “woman”. Woman never used to refer to a mental state which can be instantiated in a mans head. Trans activists want to change the meaning of the concept, so why are they always so reluctant to explain what they mean by women? And why do they never realise that their extreme reluctance to answer this question is a sign their position is weak ?

I'd be super interested in considering a new definition of 'woman' to replace 'female' in law and policy. Genuinely! Language, definitions, meanings - all should be examined to make sure they are relevant to what they are supposed to be relevant to.

For years now I've been waiting for what the new, replacement definition is going to be. I find the inability to even attempt it quite odd considering people say it's a life and death issue and affects everyone on the planet.

He's now had to ask twice "what does woman mean?" and yet again the American doesn't answer and changes the wording of what AL is arguing to something different.
It's truly astonishing to see from what is presumably an adult of average or above IQ.

Or it would be if I hadn't been on here for several years

A definition of 'real' would help too. I'm not a philosopher, presumably there are thousands of essays on the topic??

@PermanentTemporary

A definition of 'real' would help too. I'm not a philosopher, presumably there are thousands of essays on the topic??

Yes.

It's one of the major areas of discussion in philosophy with several significantly different schools of thought.

This is why it's so frustrating when you get these skeptic types who think it's a simple, self-evident thing.

This AMerican though, seems like kind of a moron.

Maybe they should have started by defining 'skeptic', because he sounds more like a queer theorist.

I gave up after a while. even the British guy was starting to irritate me. Aaron refuses to define women. British guy is trying to make logical arguments about the concerning increase etc. But at the end of the day, they both really want to get on top of the "fairness" aspect and they're not really discussing it. I'd have laughed in Aaron's face when he suggested leaving sport out of it - as a PP said, that is the crux of the issue. That it's NOT fair. That there are genuinely negative impacts for women. He wants to leave sport out of it because it's the easiest one to see and the one that so often leads to the "aha" moment. I don't understand why Andy let him get away with it.

I also struggle with what we'd all LIKE to happen vs the reality and I don't know why that isn't discussed more. Theoretically, I'd love to say trans women can use my changing spaces etc and that I'd be happy to treat them as women much of the time. But you don't have to look hard to see that there are so many many "trans women" who are using self id purely as a tool to harm women or reap unfair benefits - across the full gamut of sexual predators to sportspeople. I wish that wasn't true but it just is. And I wish people would just acknowledge this fact.

I'm rereading all the letters just to refresh memory.

Earlier in the thread I guessed before looking what this exchange would be like. And I was right, at least I think so.

Why do so many people IME esp men. Write like this.

My cynical side says that it's with things like this.

Because part of this predominantly (imo) male taking to male. About something seen as complex, contentious, and 'debating' different sides
Seems to involve not just pretending that it's a dick swinging competition and they both want to 'win'.
But also there's an aspect of dick swinging battle around 'whose posts sound cleverer? With the criteria for judging how 'clever' the letters are. To do with-

How many respectful compliments/ recognition of the others insights, intelligence, communication skills, knowledge, etc etc are in the letter.

How many really long sentences are present, with extra points for words that sound brainy, and how many times most people will have to read long sentences before they can parse it.

I mean.

This is supposed to be a factual, analytical, data driven science based conversation between them, I think?

Who are they trying to emulate?

Why so hideously indirect?
Why 6 paragraphs when a handful of words will do?

If I had taken this approach for my physics studies, or in fact any of my jobs.
I would have been told in no uncertain terms to go away and rewrite it completely. And get to the fucking point in the most accessible language possible.

I know the exchange is about gender/ sex.
And the sex matters view being put by a fellow brit (yay!).

And of course I want him to talk the other guy into a corner.

But in the end it IS two men having a good old back slapping/ dick swinging chat about something that is to do with women/girls.

And as ever, points are avoided, the exchange heads into esoteric ponderings rather than the actual real life issues and consequences.

***ALERT! ALERT! LESBOPHOBIA!!!

'Sometimes they violate gender norms in similar ways to gender norm non-conforming lesbians, which makes it particularly difficult to effectively police including one group in women's spaces like restrooms without impacting the other group.'

no you utter pillock.

YES we know that most men have difficulty seeing women as people in their own right rather than existing in relation to YOU!

YES we know that your blatent fascination with the world as you see and experience it. Yes we know that patriarchal society is big on lesbians being a massive source of confusion, fascination to you. Yes we know that lesbians make you deeply uncomfy because they often don't give a toss about pandering to men's egos. Because they aren't tied via sexuality into demurring to you all the fucking time. They aren't interested in you. They don't CARE if you don't think they look good, desirable, conform well enough to man pleasing Feminine expectations.

And yes we KNOW that you are red blooded men with mighty cocks. Who are highly sexed, and some men are sexually predatory and that's bad but the D wants what it wants!

BUT... and this is really important.

We need you to at least try and get to grips with the fact that WOMEN WHO FANCY WOMEN DO NOT THEREFORE HAVE SAME PATTERNS OF SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR AS MEN!

They're women. Not dickless wannabe men. Women exist as actual whole people in our own right!

So you all need to take your Misogynistic cock obsessed BIZARRE ideas about homosexual women and just fucking stop with this shit!

'Sometimes they violate gender norms in similar ways to gender norm non-conforming lesbians, which makes it particularly difficult to effectively police including one group in women's spaces like restrooms without impacting the other group.'

'Violate' is an interesting choice of word, isnt it.