5 ms·

I'm sorry, but this is a classic example of what I'm talking about. > People don’t like their identity being debated. But this is reframing. I'm not debating

I'm sorry, but this is a classic example of what I'm talking about. > People don’t like their identity being debated. But this is reframing. I'm not debating that someone is trans or should be treated with respect or anything like that. > Bringing up trans women in sports as a talking point would be pretty upsetting to most trans women as it is likely to feel like you’re invalidating their personal experience of being trans. Ok? Feelings might be hurt. Feelings are subjective. That's not an argument. It's also pretty upsetting for the women who are now competing at a biological disadvantage. Particularly in combat sports where there's potentially dier consequences for losing. What about their feelings? > Trans people’s existence is not for you to challenge or debate. Again... That's not what I'm challenging or debating at all. I'll be honest, I fucking hate this debate switcheroo. I'm not challenging someone's existence. Listen to what I'm actually saying. This is so annoying to me. > The best thing to do in situations like this is to let the marginalized people figure out what they need and then quietly listen to their conclusions No, it isn't. Not when it affects more than just the marginalized community. If their actions affect others (e.g. women) then it's not primarily up to just them to figure out what they want to do. Again, this is nothing to do with hate or bigotry. I'm not "debating their existence". I literally don't know how much clearer I can be here. Sorry, I can't respond anymore since my account has been rate limited.

TaylorAlexander 5y ago
You can say you’re not debating their existence till they’re blue in the face, but I’m telling you that’s how it will feel to 9/10 trans people when you try to discuss this topic with them. You can ignore their feelings but that’s the problem. You don’t care that it’s upsetting. To you it’s just some abstract intellectual thing to discuss but to them it could be a source of trauma and pain. I don’t think you’re appreciating what you’re asking a trans person to do when you bring up topics that relate to trauma they’ve experienced.
- Moodles 5y ago
  > You can say you’re not debating their existence till they’re blue in the face, but I’m telling you that’s how it will feel to 9/10 trans people when you try to discuss this topic with them. Indeed. Though I'm honestly not sure if it's "9/10 trans people" or just the gender ideology crowd. Regardless, having strong feelings doesn't win the debate. I can give platitudes all day about how sympathetic I am to people with gender dysmorphia or any other difficulties in life, but when it comes to debating issues, we need to be more dispassionate as my original point and the point of the Economist article is that these topics are nuanced and shutting down the conversation as "hate speech" is not productive at all. > You can ignore their feelings but that’s the problem. You don’t care that it’s upsetting. No, in my view, this type of comment is the problem. You're assuming I don't care at all just because I disagree. Please just take my comments at face value. I said in my original comment I have sympathy for trans people. > To you it’s just some abstract intellectual thing to discuss but to them it could be a source of trauma and pain Take the women in mixed martial arts. To them, it's a source of actual, physical pain.
  - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
    > having strong feelings doesn't win the debate You’re presuming that there’s a debate here that you’re part of. I don’t see why you think that. No one owes you an explanation for their needs. No one owes you debate. I wrote a comment describing how I think these differences should be resolved without forcing marginalized people to endlessly participate in “debate” about the legitimacy of their needs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27610009 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27610009
    - Moodles 5y ago
      Again, there quite clearly is a debate going on in society and I think the salient point you’re missing is that trans folks aren’t just deciding for themselves among themselves; there’s obvious negative externalities for women involved (such as in sport). Literally, world records have been broken, women lose spots in the Olympics, and there are even potentially severe physical consequences for fighting trans women who have massive strength differentials. So I think just to say “shut up and listen!” snd “don’t deny my existence!” aren’t really arguments here. So let me ask you: why do you think only trans voices are allowed in the debate? Why do their feelings superseed everyone else's? I have actually read White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo and for the most part vehemently disagree but to be honest I don’t want to comment so much on it right now as I’m afraid my account will be rate limited again... But listen, as I said before, I understand being trans must be hard. But that’s simply not good enough. You don’t get everything you want just because it’s hard for you. You don’t (necessarily) decide if you can compete with biological women on a level playing field. That’s really the realm of science, not feelings. Also, is it really that traumatic if trans women have to compete with men as opposed to women if they want to compete in certain sports? Not to sound callus, but given there’s biological reasons for it, I honestly don’t think it’s that offensive? It's reality. And, again, it’s not denying their existence and bigotry and hatred, etc. It’s just a question of science and what’s fair: There’s a reason we separate men and women in certain sports. Let’s even stick to combat sports as my original, extreme example, to find some common ground. Do you agree trans women shouldn’t be the only ones deciding if they’re allowed to fight biological women? Do you at least think women, and scientists, and combat experts should get a say in that debate? Do you agree they shouldn’t fight them at all? Or do you think us even talking about it is too traumatic (or at least inappropriate) for trans people to listen to? Honestly, if it's the latter, I don't see us finding any common ground at all, and that's what my OP and The Economist article was talking about.
mike00632 5y ago
But people are literally proposing a separate a set of laws and class of citizen for trans people over a fear that, as you admit, something that happens so seldomly that it's irrelevant. The same thing happened with the "debate" about gays in the military. Bigots brought up the problem of shared showers in the military even though most gym showers are individual stalls. Still, this was used actually used as a rational to keep a ban on gay people, not recognize gay marriage (which means less pay for gay people in the military) and more. Now we have proposals to ban trans people from public facilities, outlaw medical procedures for trans people and defund any publicly funded trans-related medical drug. And what is fueling this "discussion"?: bullshit stories about trans women assaulting people in bathrooms and sports being dominated by trans athletes (both of which are demonstrably false).

TaylorAlexander 5y ago

You can say you’re not debating their existence till they’re blue in the face, but I’m telling you that’s how it will feel to 9/10 trans people when you try to discuss this topic with them. You can ignore their feelings but that’s the problem. You don’t care that it’s upsetting. To you it’s just some abstract intellectual thing to discuss but to them it could be a source of trauma and pain. I don’t think you’re appreciating what you’re asking a trans person to do when you bring up topics that relate to trauma they’ve experienced.

Moodles 5y ago
> You can say you’re not debating their existence till they’re blue in the face, but I’m telling you that’s how it will feel to 9/10 trans people when you try to discuss this topic with them. Indeed. Though I'm honestly not sure if it's "9/10 trans people" or just the gender ideology crowd. Regardless, having strong feelings doesn't win the debate. I can give platitudes all day about how sympathetic I am to people with gender dysmorphia or any other difficulties in life, but when it comes to debating issues, we need to be more dispassionate as my original point and the point of the Economist article is that these topics are nuanced and shutting down the conversation as "hate speech" is not productive at all. > You can ignore their feelings but that’s the problem. You don’t care that it’s upsetting. No, in my view, this type of comment is the problem. You're assuming I don't care at all just because I disagree. Please just take my comments at face value. I said in my original comment I have sympathy for trans people. > To you it’s just some abstract intellectual thing to discuss but to them it could be a source of trauma and pain Take the women in mixed martial arts. To them, it's a source of actual, physical pain.
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  > having strong feelings doesn't win the debate You’re presuming that there’s a debate here that you’re part of. I don’t see why you think that. No one owes you an explanation for their needs. No one owes you debate. I wrote a comment describing how I think these differences should be resolved without forcing marginalized people to endlessly participate in “debate” about the legitimacy of their needs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27610009 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27610009
  - Moodles 5y ago
    Again, there quite clearly is a debate going on in society and I think the salient point you’re missing is that trans folks aren’t just deciding for themselves among themselves; there’s obvious negative externalities for women involved (such as in sport). Literally, world records have been broken, women lose spots in the Olympics, and there are even potentially severe physical consequences for fighting trans women who have massive strength differentials. So I think just to say “shut up and listen!” snd “don’t deny my existence!” aren’t really arguments here. So let me ask you: why do you think only trans voices are allowed in the debate? Why do their feelings superseed everyone else's? I have actually read White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo and for the most part vehemently disagree but to be honest I don’t want to comment so much on it right now as I’m afraid my account will be rate limited again... But listen, as I said before, I understand being trans must be hard. But that’s simply not good enough. You don’t get everything you want just because it’s hard for you. You don’t (necessarily) decide if you can compete with biological women on a level playing field. That’s really the realm of science, not feelings. Also, is it really that traumatic if trans women have to compete with men as opposed to women if they want to compete in certain sports? Not to sound callus, but given there’s biological reasons for it, I honestly don’t think it’s that offensive? It's reality. And, again, it’s not denying their existence and bigotry and hatred, etc. It’s just a question of science and what’s fair: There’s a reason we separate men and women in certain sports. Let’s even stick to combat sports as my original, extreme example, to find some common ground. Do you agree trans women shouldn’t be the only ones deciding if they’re allowed to fight biological women? Do you at least think women, and scientists, and combat experts should get a say in that debate? Do you agree they shouldn’t fight them at all? Or do you think us even talking about it is too traumatic (or at least inappropriate) for trans people to listen to? Honestly, if it's the latter, I don't see us finding any common ground at all, and that's what my OP and The Economist article was talking about.

mike00632 5y ago

But people are literally proposing a separate a set of laws and class of citizen for trans people over a fear that, as you admit, something that happens so seldomly that it's irrelevant. The same thing happened with the "debate" about gays in the military. Bigots brought up the problem of shared showers in the military even though most gym showers are individual stalls. Still, this was used actually used as a rational to keep a ban on gay people, not recognize gay marriage (which means less pay for gay people in the military) and more. Now we have proposals to ban trans people from public facilities, outlaw medical procedures for trans people and defund any publicly funded trans-related medical drug. And what is fueling this "discussion"?: bullshit stories about trans women assaulting people in bathrooms and sports being dominated by trans athletes (both of which are demonstrably false).