There's no such thing as Transexuals

I’m understanding trans more and more.
Many or most trans don’t want people to know their actual sex, because if they did, many or most people wouldn’t treat them like their coveted sex, which’s what trans wants.
For trans, being treated like their coveted sex, makes them feel more like their coveted sex, which’s their ultimate objective.
This’s why they refuse to be called by their actual sex, why they don’t even really want to be called transwomen, transmen or androgynes, even tho they’re more accurate names for them.
So we’re rewriting the rules of language and socializing to make a tiny minority of mentally ill people more comfortable, and they are mentally ill (fauxsexuals), if they believe they’re wholly neuropsychologically the opposite sex, because they’re not, if they lie about their actual sex, if their gender dysphoria causes them a great deal of anxiety and depression, or if they go to desperate lengths risking life and limb to look and feel more like the opposite sex, because they can’t accept who and what they are.
Minorities are now being financially compensated at our expense and rewriting conventions customs to suit them
And in all likelihood it’s only going to get worse from here on.

I:
Fact: females have, and do, question the intent of big hulking transsexual he-she males. Why? because of a safety and security dictat.

Can that be argued against?

Would that hold up in any court case, even? assault by balloon?

This is all very Minority Report-esque, so forewarned should definitely be forearmed, and a pattern of criminal activity is obviously a pattern not to be ignored, no?

Where I live, I have had many effeminate males smiling at me and eyeing me up, but their slim frame and wide hip belied their true-born gender, and nothing progressed beyond that first glance. They had wider hips than me, and they want me to play the subservient female role? Really!

Some don’t mind faux, but the many do, so how would and does this pan out in court?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG9Q2_Hv83k[/youtube]

I don’t have a problem with transmen, transwomen, the people who are, and aren’t attracted to them, it’s the deception, and insisting we must refer to, think of and treat them as their coveted sex, I have a problem with.

This is what I have a problem with:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgQy70_LPS4[/youtube]

Never mind his chromosomes, there’s nothing even remotely feminine about this guy, he looks, walks and talks like a prick.

I went and watched the full Dr. Drew’s show segment…feelings over reality. Ben Shapiro was spot on. Talk about liberal hate in general and specifically a threat of placing Ben in an ambulance…definitely a female thing done by Zoey the trans-woman. Women often threaten to put men in ambulances since it would be a cinch to do with their buffness.

While groups will always try to impose themselves on one another, we, as in those of us who care, can work towards a world where this happens less.

As a matter of ontology, on some topics it does. I can appreciate the position that sex, even social sex, is not one of those things (though I disagree with it), but denying the existence of intersubjective reality is not tenable.

Take language. We here are using words that have a roughly shared meaning. You can do empirical tests about what a word means, e.g. by telling a bunch of test subjects that the box on the right has some object they value and the box on the left has nothing and asking them to pick whichever box they want. If they consistently pick the box on the right, we’ve established an objective truth about the meaning of the words “the box on the right”. But that meaning is just a matter of agreement between people. It’s true, objectively true, solely by virtue of the fact that people agree about it.

Other intersubjective realities are political facts like laws and national borders, religious facts like “the Pope is the head of the Catholic church” and “the New Testament is the holy book of Christianity”, and economic facts like “a bitcoin costs more than $6000”. These claims are true, predictions we make about them will reveal that they have an objective reality, but nonetheless that reality is entirely dependent on what people believe. When people stopped believing that “bitcoin is worth more than $12000”, bitcoin stopped being worth more than $12000.

I’d argue that the social aspects of sex are like this. Someone is a woman in social situations if we all agree that they are a woman in social situations. If everyone in a room were independently asked to divide the room into men and women, and everyone put the transwoman in the women column, then she is a woman. That does break some implications from the statement “X is a woman”, e.g. that it entails “X has XX chromosomes”, but those claims are conceptually distinct and there’s no necessary implication. It isn’t the case that only those people who have XX chromosomes are considered to be women in social situations.

Where you make inferences from calling someone a “man”, you will often make more accurate inferences when you call trans men “men” than when you call them “women”, particularly when you weight inferences by relevance. That means calling transmen “men” is more effective than calling them “women”.

But you’re also admitting that you have no knowledge from which to derive your certainty.

I’m not sure of the ratio, but there’s clear evidence of cultures that have taken either approach (sometimes simultaneously). This again undermines any claim to necessary implication being a historical universal.

I appreciate this. But you’re simultaneously saying that despite all the ways in which someone born with a penis can have other characteristically female traits, the only characteristic we should consider is genital shape. That’s a weird thing to do in situations where other sex characteristics are much more salient and relevant. Why should generally inaccessible information be preferred over accessible information in contexts where the accessible information is more relevant anyway? (and to return your tone of good faith, I acknowledge that genital shape is more relevant in the context of gendered bathrooms, but I still don’t find it compelling)

A bit aside, but: loan words are, for the most part, not brought in by linguists but by immigration and second languages. “Shenanigans” came out of the north east not because of Harvard linguists, but because of a dense population of 1st and 2nd generation Irish Americans who grew up hearing their parents and grand parents using a word from their ancestral language with no adequate equivalent in English. No one said, “let’s make ‘Shenanigans’ a thing”, they just used a word that was already in their vocabulary, and continued using it when they adopted a second language.

In the domain people have been trying for a generation at least to introduce e.g. a gender neutral pronoun into English (ey, xe, ze, etc.). But instead, despite few people explicitly advocating for it and plenty of misguided pedants resisting it, “they” is becoming the accepted third person singular generic pronoun.

New words are coined for new concepts, or for concepts that don’t have good words yet, but more often (and particularly where we’re borrowing from another language, it’s a lot more likely to be organic use by polyglots and cultural transplants.

I am pretty sure that almost all transsexuals do in fact do this.

I think you’re overestimating this set of things. Look at the wiki article for causes of transsexuality, particularly the sections on brain structure and brain function. The neurological and psychological parts of transsexuals are in many ways closer to the sex they choose than the sex as determined by their genitals or chromosomes.

Let me use an analogy to show you the mistake I think you’re making. If I present myself as a Muslim, that does not in itself make me a Muslim. It’s possible to lie about being a Muslim, in the same way that you would be lying if you intended someone to believe your string of adjectives. Nonetheless, if I sincerely believe myself to be a Muslim, that is sufficient to make me a Muslim.

You’re offering as a reductio something that transsexuals aren’t doing and no one is defending here, so it doesn’t work as a reductio.

Who’s talking about assault? I thought we were just trading tales of unjustified fears.

Carleas, is Rachel Dolezal black?

exactly, just the fact that men have stronger bodies, means they can be more brash and aggressive, never mind the thousands of other ways men differ from women neurophysiologically.
It makes no sense to treat a man mostly like a woman or vice versa, physically, and mentally, altho I am acknowledging men can occasionally have some feminine traits that aren’t just an act and vice versa.

Yea, only conservatives are hateful, right?
Pffft

I haven’t actually seen the whole interview, going to look for it.

Conservatives are more tolerant and rational than liberals.

When transgender women go to straight, hetro clubs to pretend that they are really women, some transwomen are petite with fairly feminine features who fool most when they are glammed up, but at no time during their flirting do they confess that they are transwomen. The very fact that they are in a straight club is to fool the straight men into thinking they are legitimately females inside and out which is as Gloominary said to feel more like what they covet which is womanhood. I haven’t heard anything recently in the news about transwomen getting beaten up or killed (tried to google it but not one article surfaced), but it happened quite a bit in the '80s and '90s. Trans people play a very dangerous game when they are not honest from the get-go.

These days you’re probably right.

I’m certainly in no place to tell her otherwise.

I’ve got one for you: how many generations back before you get to your first black ancestor?

Ok, so take all such traits a biological man can have, and imagine an outlier who has all of them to an extreme degree, such that the only traits that aren’t feminine are 1) chromosomes, and 2) genital shape. In a social situation that doesn’t involve chromosomes or genitals, why shouldn’t that person be treated as a woman? By hypothesis, everything that matters about gender in that context is feminine. Social expectations and intuitions around that interaction will be more accurate if the mental model we use there is “woman” rather than “man”.

Let’s ignore for the time being that by your own admission you’re unable to actually find an example of what you’re describing, and just assume that it happens. What is the syllogism you’re plugging this into? Sometimes transwomen who go to bars and pick up men get assaulted, therefor…? I don’t see what part of your position follows from that claim (which, not for nothing, you have admitted to being unable to substantiate).

Are fears ever unjustifiable? otherwise what purpose would they be, and why would we even possess them in the first place?

…a pattern of criminal activity is obviously a pattern not to be ignored, no? and such predatory patterns have to be accounted for in amendments to laws, in order to safeguard the security of females in public places and spaces, in the same way that transsexual and vulnerable males have to be safeguarded within the prison system.

Fears are frequently unjustified (not sure that’s the same as unjustifiable). See, for example, the fear of balloons.

In this case, they’re unjustified because they’re based on the belief that there is a pattern of criminal activity which we don’t have any evidence of. If there were a pattern of criminal activity, and if the law proposed were effective at curtailing that criminal behavior without causing more harm than it prevents, then such a law is appropriate. But (1) there is no such pattern of criminal behavior, there’s only unjustified fear, and (2) in the absence of a harm to be prevented, any law is likely to cause much more harm than it prevents.

We do know that males who identify themselves as females enter female sports leagues, causing great damage, often physical, often of morale.

It is not unreasonable to think they might apply this abuse in less visible circumstances. Or do you think it is?

I think the philosophical question is: can gender really be transited from and into? Are these males who identify as females successful in becoming female? To what extent?

And, as the debate has turned in this direction, what laws should therefore apply?

https://reason.com/blog/2017/10/20/a-transgender-woman-assaulted-a-child-in

http://www.bdtonline.com/news/transgender-sex-offender-jailed/article_db329672-bb85-11e7-a272-b7754882a456.html

Unjustified…pfft.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/06/transgender-calls-filming-girl-in-target-dressing-room-a-mistake/

https://www.fpiw.org/blog/2016/02/25/convicted-sex-offender-seeks-access-to-womens-locker-rooms-through-bathroom-law/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12183349/Girl-15-raped-by-transgender-woman.html

So unjustified…pfft.

There’s more but I’m over listing the offences.

Women are justified.

I think sports are a harder case, because there biology is much more salient. It touches on debates about gene doping and steroids, which are ongoing and controversial in themselves.

But I don’t think the fact that a transwoman can be dangerous in an MMA match says too much about how dangerous they are in other circumstances. In sports, transwomen who play entirely by the rules can be dangerous in the same way that an adult who plays a child’s sport entirely by the rules can be dangerous.

If the level of danger someone poses in non-sports contexts is highly dependent on how strong we think that person is, then a transwoman would pose a danger. But that doesn’t seem to be the case; much more important is how readily someone will ‘break the rules’, and that doesn’t seem to be any greater for male-to-female transsexuals (greater than women, slightly lower than men).

I agree with your assessment of the philosophical questions, but I think a major one posed by the existence of transsexuals is what gender and sex really are. We see here that Gloominary and Wendy want to use a definition that’s basically limited to genetics, and I’m arguing for a definition that divides genetic gender/sex from social gender/sex.

Why are we even talking about transsexuals when we have so much reason to be afraid of clowns!!!..

A half dozen one-off incidents tell us almost nothing about how justified our fear is. That’s particularly where the stories are driven by the fear.