5 ms·

> And you are saying if we can't discuss elite trans sports with nuance, then how can we discuss an even more nuanced topic than trans elite sports? That's all

> And you are saying if we can't discuss elite trans sports with nuance, then how can we discuss an even more nuanced topic than trans elite sports? That's all i'm saying. It's pretty obvious having an objection to Fallon Fox fighting biological women has more to it than pure hatred and bigotry towards trans women. If the gender ideology crowd can't acknowledge that or debate that civilly, I really see no chance of debating less clearcut topics. I deliberately chose it as the most extreme example I could think of to demonstrate how unreasonable and emotional I think that segment of the political spectrum is. > So did you want to discuss trans elite sports or were you trying to demonstrate that people cannot handle a conversation with greater nuance? Or both at the same time? The latter, but if you want to talk about the former we can do that too.

threatofrain 5y ago
What do you have to say about the primary phenomena of clinical suffering? Its etiologies and its course in medical debate across the west? That is a discussion which hits squarely on "What is trans?" But when you lead with Joe Rogan, I'd have to ask, is Joe Rogan the best you have?
- Moodles 5y ago
  I have no idea what you're saying. I think clinical suffering is bad? I have not mentioned Joe Rogan. I have no idea what point you're trying to make.
  - pixxel 5y ago
    Like racist, nazi, or phobe, Joe Rogan is used by certain types as a dismissive. They had that one locked and loaded without looking at the target.
    - Jotra7 5y ago
      Anyone listening to Joe Rogan is showing the quality of their brain.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    I think threatofrain is proving your point. Their approach seems to be to try to find something, anything, that they can argue, no matter how unrelated to the point at hand, and to keep arguing forever. Points that they can't answer get silently dropped, with no admission that the other side has a point. I've seen this pattern before. At best it's someone so committed to a position that they are determined to do battle rather than actually have a conversation. At worst it's someone arguing in bad faith. Or, I suppose, most charitably, it's someone who lost the thread of the conversation and replied to the wrong person.
    - threatofrain 5y ago
      > Because I am making the point that even mentioning something as extreme as that still gets me lambasted with abuse. So if we can't even discuss that civilly, how on Earth are we meant to discuss more nuanced issues? I'm not the person who setup a discussion by leading with a tactical argument. If you want an argument on substance, you should lead with a proposition that you have something of substance to give, not that you have tactics to offer because you don't trust real conversation. There are very few cases of transgender elite sports. Leading with that discussion implies that you have very little to say on actual transgenderism, and it implies your taste in curation or how you choose to lead in a discussion. > What do you have to say about the primary phenomena of clinical suffering? Its etiologies and its course in medical debate across the west? That is a discussion which hits squarely on "What is trans?" I asked a question to invite display of expertise on the underlying primary subject -- actual transgenderism. The response is that medical suffering sucks. So far this debate has never elevated past the Joe Rogan level of discourse. You can look at any other branching thread to see the intellectually inspiring quality of opening discussion with trans elite sports.
      - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        You're the person who entered the discussion by assuming that the original post was a tactical argument, rather than a good-faith post of a reasonable position. And, what on earth does Joe Rogan have to do with the original topic? You keep bringing him up, and he's irrelevant to Moodles' point. What on earth does clinical suffering have to do with the original topic? You keep bringing that up, and it's irrelevant to Moodles' point. You're giving off this really strong "only here to do ideological battle" vibe. That's not what HN is for.
- yownie 5y ago
  I see no part where OP mentioned Joe Rogan? Am I mistaken here?
  - Moodles 5y ago
    I'm so confused. I never mentioned Joe Rogan. But even if I did say "Joe Rogan said X", then let's talk about X? How is the fact that Joe Rogan said something automatically invalidating the argument itself? I don't even like the premise that it's a bad thing to even speak the guy's name.
- loopz 5y ago
  Good discussion is give and take. There should be no competition, even if someone decides to bring up sports as an example. Maybe if people tried to listen and understand more, they could ask followup questions and try to get what the other person had in mind, instead of trying to tear down opponents?
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    In order to partake in give and take, you have to have something to give. When you pick up the microphone, that is your chance to make an offering of what you have to give. What we have here an offering of Joe Rogan debates. > What do you have to say about the primary phenomena of clinical suffering? Its etiologies and its course in medical debate across the west? That is a discussion which hits squarely on "What is trans?" The response is "I think clinical suffering is bad?"
    - Moodles 5y ago
      You ask me "what do you think of suffering?". I honestly have no clue what you expect as a response. Yeah, it's bad. I don't want people to suffer. What is your point? What has this got to do with what I was saying? And again, the only person who keeps bringing up Joe Rogan is you. What has this got to do with anything? Can we just focus on actual points being made here? My OP was about how impossible it is to have sensible debates about trans issues without being lambasted. Where is this thread going now? What direction are you taking it?
      - threatofrain 5y ago
        I'm mostly bothered by the focus on trans elite sports, because I find it to be a niche phenomena, and it suggests the curation of those who lead with such an argument. By tactical argument, I mean an argument you make which you don't think is your leading argument, but you make it anyway because you want to demonstrate an effect. Discussing trans elite sports warrants a broad biological and medical discussion on sex. The trans phenomena includes those who have received clinical classification under gender dysphoria to hormonal differences with sexual effects. You keep wondering why I bring up Joe Rogan. It's because I don't think any discussion here will rise above the playground of arguments made by Joe Rogan, a major player on the conversation of trans elite sports. You might look to the entire discussion stemming from the article to see if anything ever rises to this level of discussion.

threatofrain 5y ago

What do you have to say about the primary phenomena of clinical suffering? Its etiologies and its course in medical debate across the west? That is a discussion which hits squarely on "What is trans?" But when you lead with Joe Rogan, I'd have to ask, is Joe Rogan the best you have?

Moodles 5y ago
I have no idea what you're saying. I think clinical suffering is bad? I have not mentioned Joe Rogan. I have no idea what point you're trying to make.
- pixxel 5y ago
  Like racist, nazi, or phobe, Joe Rogan is used by certain types as a dismissive. They had that one locked and loaded without looking at the target.
  - Jotra7 5y ago
    Anyone listening to Joe Rogan is showing the quality of their brain.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  I think threatofrain is proving your point. Their approach seems to be to try to find something, anything, that they can argue, no matter how unrelated to the point at hand, and to keep arguing forever. Points that they can't answer get silently dropped, with no admission that the other side has a point. I've seen this pattern before. At best it's someone so committed to a position that they are determined to do battle rather than actually have a conversation. At worst it's someone arguing in bad faith. Or, I suppose, most charitably, it's someone who lost the thread of the conversation and replied to the wrong person.
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    > Because I am making the point that even mentioning something as extreme as that still gets me lambasted with abuse. So if we can't even discuss that civilly, how on Earth are we meant to discuss more nuanced issues? I'm not the person who setup a discussion by leading with a tactical argument. If you want an argument on substance, you should lead with a proposition that you have something of substance to give, not that you have tactics to offer because you don't trust real conversation. There are very few cases of transgender elite sports. Leading with that discussion implies that you have very little to say on actual transgenderism, and it implies your taste in curation or how you choose to lead in a discussion. > What do you have to say about the primary phenomena of clinical suffering? Its etiologies and its course in medical debate across the west? That is a discussion which hits squarely on "What is trans?" I asked a question to invite display of expertise on the underlying primary subject -- actual transgenderism. The response is that medical suffering sucks. So far this debate has never elevated past the Joe Rogan level of discourse. You can look at any other branching thread to see the intellectually inspiring quality of opening discussion with trans elite sports.
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      You're the person who entered the discussion by assuming that the original post was a tactical argument, rather than a good-faith post of a reasonable position. And, what on earth does Joe Rogan have to do with the original topic? You keep bringing him up, and he's irrelevant to Moodles' point. What on earth does clinical suffering have to do with the original topic? You keep bringing that up, and it's irrelevant to Moodles' point. You're giving off this really strong "only here to do ideological battle" vibe. That's not what HN is for.
yownie 5y ago
I see no part where OP mentioned Joe Rogan? Am I mistaken here?
- Moodles 5y ago
  I'm so confused. I never mentioned Joe Rogan. But even if I did say "Joe Rogan said X", then let's talk about X? How is the fact that Joe Rogan said something automatically invalidating the argument itself? I don't even like the premise that it's a bad thing to even speak the guy's name.
loopz 5y ago
Good discussion is give and take. There should be no competition, even if someone decides to bring up sports as an example. Maybe if people tried to listen and understand more, they could ask followup questions and try to get what the other person had in mind, instead of trying to tear down opponents?
- threatofrain 5y ago
  In order to partake in give and take, you have to have something to give. When you pick up the microphone, that is your chance to make an offering of what you have to give. What we have here an offering of Joe Rogan debates. > What do you have to say about the primary phenomena of clinical suffering? Its etiologies and its course in medical debate across the west? That is a discussion which hits squarely on "What is trans?" The response is "I think clinical suffering is bad?"
  - Moodles 5y ago
    You ask me "what do you think of suffering?". I honestly have no clue what you expect as a response. Yeah, it's bad. I don't want people to suffer. What is your point? What has this got to do with what I was saying? And again, the only person who keeps bringing up Joe Rogan is you. What has this got to do with anything? Can we just focus on actual points being made here? My OP was about how impossible it is to have sensible debates about trans issues without being lambasted. Where is this thread going now? What direction are you taking it?
    - threatofrain 5y ago
      I'm mostly bothered by the focus on trans elite sports, because I find it to be a niche phenomena, and it suggests the curation of those who lead with such an argument. By tactical argument, I mean an argument you make which you don't think is your leading argument, but you make it anyway because you want to demonstrate an effect. Discussing trans elite sports warrants a broad biological and medical discussion on sex. The trans phenomena includes those who have received clinical classification under gender dysphoria to hormonal differences with sexual effects. You keep wondering why I bring up Joe Rogan. It's because I don't think any discussion here will rise above the playground of arguments made by Joe Rogan, a major player on the conversation of trans elite sports. You might look to the entire discussion stemming from the article to see if anything ever rises to this level of discussion.