There's no such thing as Transexuals

If you admit that

A You only care about in this discussion that you percieve your opponents demonize the subjects being considered,

B That actually there is a possibility that these subjects could be a threat to girls

C That you won’t honestly assess whether they are a threat because A,

Then:

You have admityed that you allowed your fear of your perception of the demonization of people to affect clear and intelligent assessment.

Not a fan of logic, but it’s the only thing you prople seem to respect.

https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF16F27.pdf

A list of 25 incidents where men and fauxfemales broke the law in women’s restrooms or changing rooms is at the end of the article. Tip of the iceberg that list.

@Carleas

even if she doesn’t cross dress as a woman, she’s androphilic, which many transwomen are, there’s plenty of potential for sex and romance with heterosexual men in social situations.
A persons physical sex is socially relevant, not just in one, two or a few ways, but many.
It’s part of their social identity.

Transwomen aren’t women, so it doesn’t do any, real harm.

And some Christians and Muslims identity as good Christians and Muslims, when most Christians, Muslims and others identify them as bad Christians and Muslims.
The point is identity isn’t just personal, it’s social.

For me, this is a really interesting point you bring up.
How much should we consider peoples introspective experience of themselves?
I’ll address it in a bit.

A: I think it’s unjust to deny people the right to their identity, and I care about justice, if that’s what you mean.

B: “There is a possibility” is a an almost meaningless claim. It is literally a truism that everything is possible.

C: This is a ‘liar’s paradox’ accusation. Both yes and no are the wrong answer when asked to “admit that you won’t honestly assess the threat”.

I’ve acknowledged that my self-knowledge is imperfect. So is yours.

I can’t believe how much shit you give me over sources.

You don’t know that. Don’t make me have to copy/paste more clown murder article URLs.

I agree with this. And there are some parts of identity in which society gives individuals great deference. I am arguing that certain facets of sex should be among them.

So… you are not perfect but your past reasoning on this sensitive matter is?

Or,

You are not perfect so you’re not really responsible?

Having a hard time understanding your point.

What’s your beef with the Family Research Council and the list of media reports included in the organizations article?

Mind explaining specifically how clowns have anything to do with female safety in female public restrooms and changing rooms that have been opened up to men who commit more crimes against women? Are you arguing that all costume wearing freaks should be kept out of female restrooms and changing rooms as well? Or that fauxsexual costume wearing freaks are less criminal than clown costume wearing freaks?

My point is that I’m not perfect because no one’s perfect. This isn’t an argument that targets me or my arguments specifically, it’s just a fact about human knowledge and reasoning: it’s flawed and can be misled. Acknowledging that doesn’t support your claim.

My point with the clowns is that a collection of news reports of incidents involving clown-generated violence don’t tell us much about how we should treat clowns. Similarly, a bunch of news reports involving men and bathrooms, or even transwomen and bathrooms, don’t tell us much about what the effect of permitting people to self-identify for the purpose of bathroom use will be. Your ‘source’ (which is a lobbying organization on behalf of policies that reflect Christian morality regardless of their empirical basis) includes reports of cis men entering women’s rooms for nefarious purposes. Cross-dressing was available to them, and they chose not to cross-dress. This doesn’t support a claim that permitting people who identify as women to use women’s restrooms will increase the incidence of bad behavior in women’s restrooms.

What you need is to compare rates across natural experiences like legal jurisdictions or the implementation of new laws or policies. The closest I found to support your position looked at the rate of incidents in Target following a company policy change around bathrooms. But the methodology here was pretty silly: counting up news reports of incidents in bathrooms. The problem is that news reporting isn’t an unbiased metric. Millions of crimes don’t make the news because editors and journalists don’t think their readers are interested them. Contrast that with a situation where a policy change by a national corporation occurs during a significant increase in the national conversation about trans bathroom use, and where you should expect an increase in reporting without an associated increase in incidents. (To their credit, they acknowledge the further issue that older news stories are harder to find, which creates the false impression that more such incidents occurred recently).

Supporting my position is reports from police chiefs, civil and human rights commissioners, and people who study sexual assault finding that state laws that protect trans use of bathrooms matching their gender identity have not led to an increase in sexual assaults in restrooms. The methodological problem here is just that there’s no consistent, stated methodology, it’s just asking people who should know of any increase and don’t. Some appeal to internal investigations and review of incident reports, which seem like a good approach but don’t appear to be published.

But that’s the kind of thing you need. Dozens of these policies have been rolled out over the past few decades. If, as you claim, they lead to a measurable increase in incidents, that increase should be discoverable using some sound empirical methodology. To my knowledge, no such increase has been found.

This is utterly confusing.

Especially a left wing media establishment who would not want to blemish their liberal agenda with news of higher fauxpeople transgressions in unisex or changed restroom and changing room policies that favor men in those places. That’s called bias, not reporting on increasing trends that place the public safety at risk, due to a liberal all is equal agenda.

Hasn’t a majority of scientists been turned out from liberal agenda colleges over the last 30 years? They graduate with liberal agenda mindsets and political bias that affects their goals and work. They support the crazy liberal agenda and would not investigate or even research such a fauxsexual trend of aggression. This has been my point regarding a scientists agenda politically, their goals are compromised which compels the type of biased studies they pursue and their methodologies when they undertake a crazy liberal scheme are compromised to show the results they are determined to achieve whether they are accurate or not, their peer reviews will be made by other crazy liberal scientists who support their agenda and their faulty methodologies as well. Hence, my lack of trust for much recent science done by those who’ve been schooled by the liberal mindset of denying actual reality as well as trying to change the perceptions of actual reality to fit their progressive ideologies.

But more to my point, fauxfemales are not females so they have no place in women’s restrooms or changing rooms and men who commit most sex crimes, especially against women have no business in these sacred places reserved only for the more vulnerable sex to be safe during vulnerable moments.

I don’t understand why. I interpreted your comment here to be suggesting that I’m biased. My response here (“Certainly could be!”) was intended to convey that it is of course true that anyone could believe what they believe for bad reasons. I then continued to give my reasons. You seem to have taken that as an admission of some particular bias or bad faith on my part. It wasn’t. I believe myself to hold my beliefs for good reasons, and I’ve offered and defended my reasons in this thread. It remains true that I could hold by beliefs for bad reasons, but if that’s the case you need to demonstrate that my proferred reasons are bad.

Great, so we agree that just linking to news reports of crimes is a bad methodology and doesn’t prove what you are offering it as evidence to prove.

Focus on methodology, not the people employing it. A sound methodology produces sound results, regardless of who employs it.

So if they are women, then it is appropriate for them to be in women’s restrooms. In analyzing this claim, I’ve suggested that sex as a composite concept with multiple parts with no necessary implication between them, and you haven’t offered anything in response more than, “But muh genitals!”

I take this as trivially true, but must point out that the set of “men who commit most sex crimes” and “transwomen” are not the same. Indeed, we know that transwomen are less disposed to crime than are men.

No no, I wasn’t questioning whether you think you’re a good guy.

I did during our debates about blacks experiencing police harassment and longer prison sentences. I gave specific reasons why I disagreed with the methodologies and you only gave me…their peers reviewed it and it passed the reviews. My questions were valid, the reasons for the differences were expressly mentioned in detail which was not encompassed in the research methodologies which you said in so many words that researchers can’t take everything into account. They should, particularly when it matters to the outcome, the findings that are then put forward towards their liberal agenda of playing the victim cards which propels policies that wrongfully claim racism, makes perpetrators into victims, and the operation of the justice system into a conspiracy of villians. Your not questioning their methodologies and just accepting them when they support your ideologies is exactly the bias you are claiming I employ.

Also people’s belief systems affect their behaviors and not incidentally their work which includes scientists, their intents, and their methodologies.

@Carleas

I’m not saying we can’t infer a persons mind (mind not being something separate from the brain, but just being how the brain perceives itself introspectively) from their brain, nor am I saying we shouldn’t consider peoples claims about their thoughts, feelings and so on, what I am saying is: if peoples claims about their thoughts and feelings don’t have any bearing on their behavior and/or neurophysiology, or at least if we can’t find any, at some point in time, on some level, after earnestly looking, than there’s no way to verify their existence, and there’s no need to take them very seriously.
That being said, I’m not saying we should completely dismiss them either.
Just because we can’t find any correlation between purported mind states on the one hand, and behavior and/or neurophysiology on the other, doesn’t guarantee they’re not there, or we won’t find any in the future, as people, science and psychologists get to know x population group better, but the more we look for them, and the less they come up, the less they’re worth considering.

I think we should consider everything relevant.
We should consider what the trans community individually and collectively has to say about their, psyches, but we should also consider what scientists (and what scientists are saying about them is most of them appear to be androgynes) and the public individually and collectively has to say about them, as we all get to know this previously marginalized and ostracized group of people, because identity is both personal, and interpersonal.
That being said, there’s no question what their physical sex is, and physical sex, as we’ve seen, is just as socially, and generally relevant as neuropsychological sex.
I don’t necessarily have anything against…whatever you want to call them, I’m not even sure what to call them (gynopsyche, andropsyche, androgyne?), if you think your psychological sex doesn’t fully or partly align with your physical sex…maybe you’re right, but while you may be able to modify it a little, cosmetically, superficially, you can’t actually change your sex, and if you claim to be the opposite sex, you’re a fauxsexual, a fraud.

What bothers me is the sense of entitlement they have.
They’re not entitled to have us define them however they wish irrespective of the facts and our interactions with and interpretations of them, and they shouldn’t be entitled to steroids, surgery, to the opposite sexes washrooms and sports, or to the join the military for that matter, if the military deems them physically unfit.
I think LGBT and women should be able to pursue any career they wish, but at the same time, we shouldn’t lower the bar so, more of them can be admitted, assuming any of them can make the cut at all.
The LGBT community, like feminism and Afro-supremacism have grown way too powerful in the west, and I think if they keep pushing, there’s going to be a, major backlash against them.

I wonder if there’s any people out there who believe their psychological sex is the opposite of their physical sex, yet identify more with their physical sex, or identify equally with their physical and psychological sex?
And if so, do some of them want to change their psychological sex to match their physical sex?
And are there any androgynes who wish they were also hermaphrodites, or vice versa?

Why do people believe their minds are the opposite sex of their bodies?

Did they ‘reason’ they’re the opposite sex?
Or did they intuit they’re the opposite sex?
Do they feel rejected or mistreated by the same sex?
Do they feel accepted or treated well by the opposite sex?
Did they have poor same sex role models?
Did they have good opposite sex role models?
Were they treated like the opposite sex by others?
Did they fail to live up to what’s expected of the same sex?
Do they want attention?
Are they bored, or curious about the opposite sex?
Do they believe the same sex is inferior, and the opposite sex superior?
Do they believe the opposite sex has more privileges than the same sex?
Are their hormones imbalanced?
Are they suffering from malnutrition/toxicity?
Are they confused about their identity in general?

Perhaps it’s varying degrees of all of the above.

What about misassociating aspects of themselves with the opposite sex?

For example, a nerdish man believes: nerdishness is feminine, therefore I must be a woman.

Or a lesbian who believes: only a man can like a woman, therefore I must be a man.

You did, and I’ll let our discussion there speak for itself. Here, we agree that news reports are biased and thus bad evidence for your position.

You’ve said this, but I don’t think you’ve made a case for this claim. In most social situations, we don’t know what a person’s physical sex is, and it doesn’t and shouldn’t matter.

@Carleas

If you mean know in a hard sense, there’s not much we can be absolutely certain of, reading Descartes or spending a few months on a philosophy forum will teach you that.
But In almost all situations, we can be pretty darn sure.
How many times have you mistaken a man for a woman or vice versa?
It almost never happens.
How many fauxsexuals are passable as the opposite sex?
Not many, and there’s not many of them out there, they make up less than 1% of the population.

I can’t find good studies on passing. A blog I follow did a survey of its readers (which skew liberal and decidedly trans-friendly), and got mixed results. There are a lot of problems with the survey, but it does at least call into question the claim that trans people don’t pass.

First, note that the result was much less trans-friendly than the author expected. The author is disappointed to present the results, and admits they undermine her position (that trans people generally pass pretty well). And the results back up the idea that tranwomen are generally identifiable when you’re given a set of 10 people and told 5 are physically women and 5 aren’t. But there are also some weird results: several of the cis women were more often scored as trans. That’s a weird result, and may be noise, but suggests that when people are looking for transwomen, they see them everywhere. In the discussion of the results, the author points out that base rates have a lot to do with our perceptions, and that’s probably at play here too: transwomen are very rare, as you note, so in most places we aren’t looking for them and don’t see them, deferring readily to larger social cues like “wearing a dress” or “has long hair” or “doesn’t smell like a barnyard animal”. In places where there is a higher density of trans people, everyone becomes better at spotting them and it’s harder to pass.

I’d love to see a larger study with less selection bias, fewer priming effects, and better experimental design. If you know of any, do share.

EDIT: word.