I don’t think all biological men should be excluded from women’s bathrooms, changing rooms, or shelters. I — Michael

But most should?

But most should? — Malcolm Parry

Cisgender men, sure.

Cisgender men, sure — Michael

So we disagree on virtually nothing. One small point. I think no man is a woman. Maybe trans women could do the decent thing and not invade women’s spaces.

I think no man is a woman. — Malcolm Parry

And by this you just mean that no biological man is a biological woman, which everyone accepts.

But as I mentioned before, the terms “man” and “woman” are not only used to refer to biological sex; they are also used to refer to gender identity.

Even if sex and gender identity are usually congruent, for some it isn’t: for some their sex is male and their gender is female and for some their sex is female and their gender is male.

Trans activists fucked up. — frank

Agreed.

And honestly, I find it hard to wrap my head around the absolute shit tsunami of suffering that has been created by all of these invasive medications and procedures on children who may very well have been 'going through a phase'.

In a hundred years, people will be looking back at this in the same way we look back at lobotomies and witch burnings - like we are primitive savages. Perhaps we are. — Tzeentch

You guys are right. The alarming thing about woke dogma is how much it hurts the groups is claims to help by fueling tension, by complicating or obscuring, sometimes intentionally, because of the moral 'righteousness' of the cause.

It falls simply under the oppressor / oppressed rubric. Hence "Queers of Palestine". Hence BLM donating millions to trans groups. People justifying murder.

But these are just extreme examples.

A lot of people involved in tran-affirmative care are true believers, who think they are helping trans people.

It's the everyday, run-of-the-mill, banal expressions of ideas like 'gender is a spectrum' that are being missed as a problem. A fine sentiment, some inexact social science around it, but the ubiquity of it is making young, gender-questioning people think they have found a solution. This skews the population, rendering the interventions unproven. The interventions, based on highly motivated and screened populations, are still presented as if they are proven.

Ben Ryan continues to do great journalism on this, despite the risks, he's been targeted for cancelation campaigns for years.

"Diagnoses of gender dysphoria in English minors attending primary care practices increased by 50-fold from 2011 to 2021, according to a new study".

https://benryan.substack.com/p/gender-dysphoria-surges-50-fold-in

50 fold?

Something is wrong, and it can't simply be explained with the 'stigma has been reduced' argument.

https://benryan.substack.com/p/1-in-1000-privately-insured-17-year

"By age 17, about 1 in 1,000 privately insured minors were receiving gender-transition hormones between 2018 and 2022. This broke down to about 140 per 100,000 natal girls taking testosterone and 82 per 100,000 natal boys taking estrogen by this final year before teens hit the age of majority".

just the fact that it is natal girls in the majority, not boys like in previous generations, throughout human history, across cultures and continents. This sort of outlier screams for exploration. But the only 'screaming' we here is from the faux-woke, accusing journalists of bias.

I can't take anyone seriously on this issue who can't at least acknowledge there are major concerns with the radical-affirmation model. But again, it's because they view it a moral imperative, by any means necessary.

Another great journalist on the subject, talking about an active campaign to hide data contrary to woke trans narratives.

https://www.voidifremoved.co.uk/p/new-england-journal-of-misinformation

This is not simply a 'philosophical' issue. Kids lives are being ruined. Legitimately trans kids are been targeted because so many act in bad faith on behalf of trans communities. Do trans soldiers recently targeted for job losses in the military feel good about radical trans acitivsts?

There is nothing 'kind' or 'on the right side of history' in woke activists medicalizing vulnerable kids.

But as I mentioned before, the terms “man” and “woman” are not only used to refer to biological sex; they are also used to refer to gender identity. — Michael

You can repeat this mantra as much as you like.

You can repeat this mantra as much as you like. — Malcolm Parry

It’s not a mantra. It’s an accurate description of the English language. The nouns “man” and “woman” are not each just used in a single way.

It’s not a mantra. It’s an accurate description of the English language. The nouns “man” and “woman” are not each just used in a single way. — Michael

You believe whatever you like. I’m happy to exclude trans women from women’s spaces. Luckily the UK law and most sports bodies are catching up with me.

Neither UK law nor sporting organisations dictate what English language words mean.

They can dictate who is allowed to do what, but that’s not what’s being discussed.

They can dictate who is allowed to do what, but that’s not what’s being discussed — Michael

That is exactly what is being discussed because that is the only thing that matters. As long as men don’t access women’s spaces you can call them whatever you like.

That is exactly what is being discussed because that is the only thing that matters — Malcolm Parry

We’re not discussing what is allowed. We’re discussing what ought be allowed.

One country might allow transgender men to use the men’s bathroom and one country might not. So referring to any individual country’s laws is a red herring.

Some think that bathrooms ought be divided by biological sex, some think by gender identity, and some think they shouldn’t be divided at all.

Your argument appears to be:

P1. The English noun “man” only means “biological man” and the English noun “woman” only means “biological woman”
C1. Therefore bathrooms ought be divided by biological sex

This conclusion is a non sequitur and P1 is false.

We’re not discussing what is allowed. We’re discussing what ought be allowed. — Michael

That is exactly what I’m doing.

The English noun “man” only means “biological man” and the English noun “woman” only means “biological woman” — Michael

That is exactly my argument and you have not convinced me why it should be different.

I’m not saying anything about what words should mean.

I’m saying that:

1) the English noun “man” doesn’t just mean “biologically male”, and
2) transgender men ought be allowed to use men’s bathrooms

Do you understand that these are two completely independent claims and that (1) is simply a descriptive fact about how English speakers speak?

I’m not saying anything about what words should mean.

I’m saying that:

1) the English noun “man” doesn’t just mean “biologically male”, and
2) transgender men ought be allowed to use men’s bathrooms

Do you understand that these are two completely independent claims and that (1) is simply a descriptive fact about how English speakers speak? — Michael

I’m saying that
1) English noun “man” does mean biologically male in the dictionary I use.
2) women should be allowed to use women’s bathrooms. I agree

1) English noun “man” does mean biologically male in the dictionary I use. — Malcolm Parry

It doesn't only mean that, hence the phrase "transgender man" being a meaningful phrase in the English language. And sometimes "man" means "human".

Words don't always have just one meaning.

"transgender man" being a meaningful phrase in the English language. And sometimes "man" means "human". — Michael

Transgender man is a transgender man. Not a man.

A human is a human. He or she can be a man or woman. The two words came from different sources.
I’m not sure what you are trying to prove.

Transgender man is a transgender man. Not a man. — Malcolm Parry

The word "man" in the phrase "transgender man" does not mean "biologically male".

A human is a human. He or she can be a man or woman. — Malcolm Parry

Yes, and the word "man" can mean "human". If you type "define: man" into Google then the second definition is "a human being of either sex; a person" and offers the saying "goodwill to all men" which isn't meant to exclude women.

I’m not sure what you are trying to prove. — Malcolm Parry

That the word "man" doesn't just mean "biologically male". I've been very clear on this.

That the word "man" doesn't just mean "biologically male". I've been very clear on this. — Michael

But a man is a biological male.

So not all lions are large tawny-coloured cats that live in prides, found in Africa and north-western India. A stuffed toy lion is toy made from fabric that is filled with a soft material, like cotton or synthetic fibres and not a large tawny cat.

I’m still not sure what you are trying to prove. It’s fun though.

Remember the uproar when Rachel Dolezal, a white women, identified herself (or tried to) as black? That didn't sit well with a lot of people. — RogueAI

Yes, I remember it well. Have you read Faulkners' Light in August? In a deeply racist country, as in a deeply sexist society such identifications are fraught, and passing is difficult and exposure devastating. But what is your point?

It is a curiosity of a society coming out of a state of open oppression that the status of the oppressed starts to become attractive.

Now, I’m liberal, but to a degree
I want ev’rybody to be free
But if you think that I’ll let Barry Goldwater
Move in next door and marry my daughter
You must think I’m crazy!
I wouldn’t let him do it for all the farms in Cuba — Bob Dylan

I remember too when one was asked whether or on one would 'let your daughter marry one?' for real. A joke against sexism and racism is kinda smart lyrics eh?

But a man is a biological male. — Malcolm Parry

Not everyone uses the word “man” to only refer to a biological male, and the meaning of a word is determined by how language users use words. See Wittgenstein.

And unlike a language like French, there’s no “official” English vocabulary. Even dictionaries are just an attempt to best describe how people use words; they don’t prescribe.

I’m still not sure what you are trying to prove. — Malcolm Parry

That the word “man” doesn’t just mean “a biological male”. How many times do I need to repeat this?

Many English words have more than one meaning. The word “man” is such a word. I can’t be any clearer. It’s a very simple thing.

"All biological males are born equal in dignity and rights."

“One giant leap for biological male kind.”

That the word “man” doesn’t just mean “a biological male”. How many times do I need to repeat this? — Michael

It does. How many times do I have to repeat this.

Mankind is not a man. Transgender man is not a man. Human is not a man. A man is a biological male.

I'm still not sure what you are trying too prove.

You just desperate for men to infiltrate women's spaces?

The phrase “goodwill to all men” from the Bible does not mean “goodwill to all biological males”. It means “goodwill to all people”.

Some words mean more than one thing. The word “bat” can refer to a flying mammal or it can refer to a type of club used in baseball or cricket. The word “man” can refer to a biological male or it can refer to any human.

I'm still not sure what you are trying too prove. — Malcolm Parry

That the English word “man” has more than one meaning.

The fact that I have to keep repeating this clearly shows that you have reading or comprehension problems. I can’t help you any further.

My understanding of what you are doing is expressing a cultural value that was formerly implicit due to the absence of a trans discourse, but you would like to be explicitly accepted in opposition to this new discourse. It seems then that you and your interlocutors have different values that you would like to be discursively dominant. As it stands, the idea of gender being separate to biological sex is dominant in most developed countries. Everyone has a right to openly argue for their discursive preferences, but that dominance can be demonstrated as an institutional fact. E.g. Webster's and the Oxford dictionary recognize gender as having a legitimate meaning that can oppose biological sex.

All I am saying here is that a focus on arguing for your values would seem more productive than denying an institutional social reality. Social discourses can change but for now, it is what it is.

The phrase “goodwill to all men” from the Bible does not mean “goodwill to all biological males”. It means “goodwill to all people”.

Some words mean more than one thing. The word “bat” can refer to a flying mammal or it can refer to a type of club used in baseball or cricket. The word “man” can refer to a biological male or it can refer to any human. — Michael

You still don't get it. What is your point? Just because mankind or human refers to all humans does not mean a woman is "a man".

The fact that I have to keep repeating this clearly shows that you have reading or comprehension problems. I can’t help you any further. — Michael

I'm fine I understand the subtleties of language well. I know when some people are shoehorning nonsense into a conversation to defend their feeble stance.

We agree on everything other than that some men can be women and vice versa.

What is your point? — Malcolm Parry

That words can mean more than one thing and that the English word “man” doesn’t just mean “a biological male”.

My understanding of what you are doing is expressing a cultural value that was formerly implicit due to the absence of a trans discourse, but you would like to be explicitly accepted in opposition to this new discourse. It seems then that you and your interlocutors have different values that you would like to be discursively dominant. As it stands, the idea of gender being separate to biological sex is dominant in most developed countries. Everyone has a right to openly argue for their discursive preferences, but that dominance can be demonstrated as an institutional fact. E.g. Webster's and the Oxford dictionary, recognize gender as having a legitimate meaning that can oppose biological sex.

All I am saying here is that a focus on arguing for your values would seem more productive than denying an institutional social reality. — Baden

I have no issue with anyone one claiming to be whatever gender they like. It is meaningless in the modern world until it comes up against biological reality. When that happens, then biology matters. Sport and women's exclusive places are for women only.

I'm not sure what trans discourse there is that trumps biological reality.

It is a very simple issue people appear to wish to make complicated. I have no idea why.

It is also a fascinating subject. The most fascinating bit is the reactions to the subject.

Well, for example, I typed "Is a transgender man a man?" into Google and got the result:

"Yes, a transgender man is considered a man. The term "transgender man" refers to an individual who was assigned female at birth but identifies as a man. Their gender identity is male, and they live as a man."

The reason I got this result is that the dominant current discourse of developed nations (social reality) does indeed go against biological reality. That doesn't preclude you arguing that it shouldn't be the case though.