Article on "arguing with a TERF"

[MyAmpleSheep]

I love to keep up with the other side, so here's a lot of words just to say "it's complicated." meanwhile he ignores the obvious answer to his own question.

www.fasttrackfemme.com/p/why-you-cant-win-an-argument-with

OMG! I love love love the way you did this! It's brilliant - and hilarious 😂

This app is funny, you can type in any old rubbish and confuse it into giving you the thumbs up.

We know exactly how any sort of you must reach X threshold rules would go down.

You can't ask to see my lady certificate.

You can't make giving a lady certificate dependant on surgery/ hormones.

You can't stop Dave who is Davina every third Sunday and alternate Tuesday evenings in because when he is she he is a woman.

Yeah just Stevie and me because I'm also special.

Oh you’ve changed it to a thanks instead. So maybe you still can’t bring yourself to agree or let others see I think you have agreed, but thanked me for the information? I know emojis mean different things to different groups but on mumsnet it does clarify what they mean when you press them.

Don’t worry - no one can see what you clicked anymore, other than the original person. So if you are part of a big group, no one else will know what you pressed.

I am only mentioning what you clicked because my previous post is incorrect and I deal with facts.

As stated in the blog about the site, it is not an ai which judges if an argument is correct, it judges if the argument is delivered in good faith.
Even if you make up a bullshit statistic, if the findings of that stistics are relevant to the debate, then it will flag it as an argument in good faith.

I'm pretty darn sure that @DameKatysShenis 's argument was not delivered in good faith 😂

People have said that me telling someone I agree with them or noting they presented something in a good way, comes off as me 'patting their head', so to fix that, I just switched to doing it with a 'like button'

🤣 👏

🤣

As stated in the blog about the site, it is not an ai which judges if an argument is correct, it judges if the argument is delivered in good faith.
Even if you make up a bullshit statistic, if the findings of that stistics are relevant to the debate, then it will flag it as an argument in good faith.

In other words, it's completely bloody useless!
I'm sure TRAs will love it.

No, it's the 'You are absolutely correct' the 'That's a good breakdown of it' etc that come across as patronising pats on the head.

I don't need a man to tell me I'm right, especially one who does so in the tone of an owner who feels a bit smug at having taught his pet a new trick.

To "Elizabeth" in the comments on that site, if you're on here - thank you! Your comments are spot on. Direct and truthful (which means they'll probably be deleted at some point)

My coding knowledge is limited, but:
For us, that's a joke.
But for a script, 'good faith' just means structural syntax.
Basic NLP's don't possess a fact-checking database.They look at the architecture of the string.
DameKatysShenis provided exactly what the algorithm was filtering for:

Causal logic connectors: "Because if...", "which led to..."

Statistical formatting: "98%", "95%", "sample size of 3,000"

Institutional citations: "University of Brighton", "Swedish survey"

The app was built to reject definitional slogans (like "men are males") and demand empirical risk assessments.

So in order to "crack" the site, instead of using slogans, you have to construct a fully formed, data-driven policy argument... even if the data is about fish pie.

Right now, the website only checks the how, and not the what.
Making it more accurate would require things like adding another LLM specifically to check for coherence or connecting it to a news API.

Personally, if I were to rebuild such a site, I'd make it work like how Socrates is known to debate:
If a user would argue, "Any demographic with a statistical risk factor should be banned from public facilities," the app would then ask: "You have established that statistical risk justifies a blanket ban. Men are statistically responsible for 90% of violent crimes. To apply your logic consistently, do you agree that all men should be banned from accessing public transit? (Yes/No)."
Then the user, based on their answer, will have to move into a deeper layer to explain the specifics.

Would be hard to make but I think it would be a great stress test for anyone using it, to check if their logic is consistent, which is good for everyone.

If a user would argue, "Any demographic with a statistical risk factor should be banned from public facilities"

A user is not arguing that. A user is arguing that men should not be permitted in women's public facilities. Let's start from there. No need to move to a deeper layer to explain the specifics. The specifics are crystal clear from the start.

I picked something that would not be controversial by itself as an example. But let's use your point.
If a user stated: "Men should not be permitted in women's public facilities."
Then the AI would ask: "To enforce this policy, a facility must have a mechanism to identify who is a man. Is this exclusion based on chromosomal makeup, or visible physical presentation? If it is based on chromosomes, how do you propose enforcing this at the door without violating the privacy of all women entering? If it is based on visible presentation, does your policy mandate that a trans man with a full beard, deep voice, and male secondary sex characteristics must use the women's facility? (Yes/No)"

Is this exclusion based on chromosomal makeup, or visible physical presentation?

The exclusion is based on the law.

You don't know if the AI would assume this needs to be enforced. It might consider that having this rule clearly communicated and adopted as a social norm would be sufficient.

How about we base the exclusion on people being law abiding and truthful?

Why, now the law has been clarified as women only spaces are for biological women, are we still being subjected to men with special feelz trying to justify why they should be allowed to break the law.

Why have they not shifted to trying to make mens spaces safe /more welcoming to transwomen? Or to having some mixed sex spaces in addition to male and female spaces?

Because for all his guff and waffle Stevie isn't looking for safer spaces, he is looking for validating spaces. It's not about his safety, it's about getting the female NPCs to behave how he wants them to be programmed instead of having their own thoughts and opinions.

An AI can be trained. If users notice the website does not consider their approach, then they can send in feedback and the AI will start considering it.
It would adapt then ask, for instance: "Would this rule rely on physical enforcement mechanisms at the door, or on the adoption of clearly communicated social norms?"

The AI stress-tests the user's logic, and if the AI misses a valid approach, the users' feedback trains the AI to be more comprehensive the next time around.

Are you really suggesting there’s any difficulty in deciding who should use which toilet?

Or are you saying that a rule without an enforcement mechanism is worthless?

Because both are wrong.

@GreyskySexRealistsky

"The exclusion is based on the law."

Suppose the woke mind virus takes over the institutions and they change the law to be based purely on functionality. The new law dictates that anyone with a penis goes to the men's room, and anyone with a vagina goes to the women's room.
Since your exclusion principle was built on the law, would you accept that new law, or would you change your foundation?

This is what the website would stress test in that case.

The SC even covered the bearded the transman issue but I don't expect TRAs to notice because it's not about the transmen is it? It's about the actual men.

would you accept that new law, or would you change your foundation?

I would question the law on it's definition of vagina and penis, a surgical hole is not a vagina.

@GriseldaandMike

"Or to having some mixed sex spaces in addition to male and female spaces?"
This is an argument that would pass the app's filter.
It addresses the female risk assessment without forcing trans women into male facilities where they are statistically more likely to be assaulted.

forcing trans women into male facilities where they are statistically more likely to be assaulted

really?