[In good faith] FWIW, I don’t think you did. I got the feeling you were reacting to mainstream views, but I don’t think I hold many of those in these matters, or to the extent I do, we haven’t really discussed or challenged them. That’s why I’m interested in what you think my current ideas are, because I think there’s a gap there and that discussing it will help. I also think that ordering the discussion in such a way that we both write about the other’s ideas simultaneously instead of in series will be better.
While I can’t cite anything particularly, my intuition is that this is an element of a lot of conflict resolution or mediation techniques. That’s why I suggested it, because I think it might help improve the quality of our conversation. Maybe I should have floated that more explicitly or something, but I think the questions are also just fine as part of a debate, so it’s not necessary to try to steer it so early.
Perhaps an additional thing we can do at the same time is also answer the questions for ourselves, so we have 4 sets of documents all up covering all permutations. That will probably help keep us honest, as such.
No, I’m not using it as evidence of that. Specifically I mean that I’m not adjusting my beliefs. I imply that what I actually (honestly) think is that 105 just reacted a bit emotionally. I do the same sometimes, and I come back from it later, too. Right now, I’m at like 10% emotional arousal, but I’ve made posts when I’m like above 50%. The angry letter kind of state. Anyway, I know these topics can be upsetting (in that they can lead to a variety of negative emotions, including anger and contempt), and I think 105 probably just had an emotional moment. That’s okay, and I want to try and communicate that it’s okay, too, and a big part of that is by offering to reduce the temperature, bury the hatchet, and change tack. Granted I haven’t said this exactly to 105, but I get the feeling that none of this (that I’m saying now) is a surprise to them.
Saying this kind of thing is usually risky, though (IRL). If there’s a tense moment and one party plays the ‘lets take it easy’ role but also signals status and superiority (and the act of saying things explicitly like this is sometimes a tactic to do exactly that), well people generally don’t like that. That’s one reason that having a 3rd party do the mediating is a good idea. In this case, I hope 105 reads it as me just explaining where I’m at and all the moving parts. I suspect that 105 can read enough into what I said and how I said it that they had some idea of what I was trying to do.
Re: why not say that it is evidence of that – well it’s not, at least not yet. For me to generalize from it I’d want a lot more corroborating evidence; not to mention the bigger problem: that I already have contradictory evidence from all the past discussion we’ve had, and the fact we’re having the discussion here. And also there are issues with generalizing in this way but they’re more complex and I’m getting tired.
Re: disagreeing with myself, yes I can see why you think that. It’s not exactly disagreeing with myself, but there are two contradictory tacks to take. If I thought 105 was consistently a bad-faith asshole, then the latter option doesn’t make sense, and if I thought 105 was decent, then the former doesn’t make sense. Setting up this kind of bifurcation is used to put the ball in someones court without a question and without seeking their approval or permission. I’m saying: here are two options, and you choose which one you want to be. It’s somewhat common when communication is breaking down. I actually do it again later:
Thinking about it now, I’m not sure this is a good technique, but it is pretty common and it’s not outwardly hostile. It’s also not fake-nice. I am still expressing some frustration and indicating that I think 105’s choices in-this-moment are part of the problem, but also acknowledging their autonomy and asking for their cooperation.
Do you think you’re matching my energy with this line of argumentation?
The reason I keep engaging is because I think it’s interesting how far you’ll go before conceding even the most basic facts. I get the feeling maybe this kind of meta analysis bothers you but maybe I’m wrong, so I will do a bit more before moving on because I think it’s important.
You asked me a question:
Another question I thought of the other day but haven’t asked, I think you described me as radicalized somewhere above, what exactly do you think I’m radical about? Like which views are radical and why? (Note: the ‘why’ doesn’t have to be long.)
I answered it. We just spent the last few messages confirming we both agree that I did answer the question you asked, but you had a different kind of answer in mind and you hoped I would re-answer it with more details. No problem! Miscommunication happens all the time, not a big deal.
The problem arose in your initial response, though. You said this, which I’ll call Reply A:
And then in the same post you said this, which we can call Reply B:
Reply B is fine. You’re trying to clarify the issue. No problem. But Reply A is also there. Ostensibly it is in response to you feeling attacked about an unrelated comment, but it specifically includes these words (adding bold this time):
What could this be referring to? I don’t think I have a significant history in our discussions of not answering simple questions properly. And given in the same post you say I did not answer the question you were intending, I think the conclusion here is pretty clear. You’re referring to my answers in that post as not answering simple questions properly.
I also understand that you meant that as an example of how you could be hostile but you totally were not being hostile. But you wrote up and posted the hostile thing, which still conveys it to me effectively. Most people will interpret “I could call you a rapist” as at least indicating that you think the other person has a high chance of being a rapist or something. It’s not a totally neutral hypothetical, right?
So I assumed you believed you thought there was some underlying truth to the comment about not answering simple questions properly. You did not really want to go down that hostile road, but you thought you could, you thought that would be a valid (but hostile and unproductive) thing to say.
So I objected to that. Also, I gave you an out with a simple nudge to investigate before jumping to conclusions:
You could have answered the first question with “no, I was just being a bit hostile with a hypothetical comment I could make, I did not actually believe that” and that would have ended it. You also could have answered the second question if you wanted. You ignored both, though.
I continued with an analysis of what happened, because I did not think I had failed to answer simple questions properly. That’s the part you replied to. Ignoring the clarifying question and continuing to argue with me in the part where I explain what happened implies further that you did think I was failing to answer your question properly. So this seemed to reinforce the idea that you had actually meant the substance of the hostile remark, if not the hostility: you thought I failed to answer your simple questions properly.
You continued to forget/lose track of the fact that you had initially not phrased your question how you intended, e.g.
So I continued replying in kind. From my perspective, that’s what all of this was. I was not pedantically trying to spite you, I was replying to your hostile accusation.
Just to reiterate: I actually think everything I have said here is not spiteful, and is an honest evaluation of where communication broke down.
I’m not offended by any of this analysis, you’re fine. Though… do you genuinely think you were primarily communicating “lets take it easy” with this? The message again:
I don’t read that as “lets take it easy.” I read that as something more like: “Watch it, what you said pissed me off, you are the one who isn’t answering simple questions clearly here so you are in no position to attack me. I’m going to assume you were just upset and being irrational, so I will give you another chance to engage productively.”
The second attempt is a bit different:
This one makes more of an effort to be even-handed and IMO reads more like you apparently intended it to. It still has issues, but I think the primary message is something like “lets take it easy”.
One issue with both attempts, even the more measured second attempt, is that one additional thing they do is attempt to deflect responsibility for the current state of the discussion off of yourself.
I don’t know and have not given it much thought up to this point. I didn’t enter these discussions with your goals in mind.
It’s possible you’re trying to expose yourself to different opinions to get some kind of sanity check for your views. Challenge yourself, see if your views make sense. I think you did explicitly mention something close to this during discussions of trans stuff & misogyny like 6ish months ago but I’m not going to go hunting for a quote right now. Also even if my memory is correct, that may have been an unintended effect, not sure if that was your goal going in or simply a result of the arguments after the fact. But this would be my first guess.
Also you might care a lot about the topics and consider them important to discuss. You might not have any particular interest in challenging your views, but that can still happen if you discuss something in good faith. So maybe your goal was just to put forth your views and persuade people.
If we trace back these discussions I think they largely originate with Elliot posting some video or other content that you have issues with, you post your issues, and then some kind of argument arises from that. Even this thread kinda has that same origin if you trace it back far enough, I think?
Did you have some other type of answer in mind w/this question or is this what you hoped for?
Lumping these together to properly set the framing. I’ll do a couple of more specific ones now.
--
I think your view on trans people is that there is a good chance it is some sort of collection of bad ideas and/or mental illness, like anorexia. I don’t think you said this as a random hypothetical that you think is implausible:
I think that view is radical because it demonizes trans people and frames them as grooming predators (and probably pedophiles.) This is a common framing one can find all over the internet in radical anti-trans spaces.
--
I think your view on trans people is that many trans people are insane. I think this is radical because it demonizes trans people and denies them agency.
I think your view on trans people is that many trans people think that taking HRT turns one biologically into a woman, and this is preposterous.
I think this is radical because I do not think you really understand what they even mean when they say that; I do not think you could provide a very good definition of “biological woman” that A: is actionable by real people in real life, B: reliably excludes all trans women and C: reliably includes all cis women. So having such a strong opinion about it is largely just a way to delegitimize trans people and frame them as ridiculous and crazy.
--
I think your view on Asmongold is that he is a useful/informative/interesting content creator, entertaining, and a good news source.
I think this is radical because Asmongold says lots of radical stuff. And he is a self-admitted direct funnel towards some of the most radical extremists on the internet, such as Nick Fuentes.
I think your view on immigration is that the US (and presumably the UK and presumably all other countries broadly lumped into “the west”) should dramatically reduce immigration rates, e.g. down to 10% of current rates. Or 0% if that was practically feasible. You think this would be a good idea both socially and economically.
I think this is radical because it is economically destructive, xenophobic, and antithetical to American historical immigration. It is an illiberal position generally put forth by nationalists, who I generally consider radical.
Okay, thank you. Some things (I think) you were right about, some I disagree with. I’m hedging even though my own beliefs/goals were the subject because I’m open to my own account being questioned. If I want to make speculations about eg subconscious things that might affect you, then I should be open to the same kind of mechanics affecting me, too.
Anyway, here are my answers from the other day. I didn’t add anything about immigration but I can do later if you like.
I’ll respond to your ideas about mine later.
I think your view on transgenderism is that it’s okay, has no significant negative consequences (to people or society), and is so obviously okay that anyone opposing it must be a bigot or an idiot or worse.
I think your view on gender identity is that it’s valid, without limitation, and that questioning it is itself only done out of bigoted and unprincipled positions. Sometimes people question it and mean well, but these people don’t put up much of a fight, and certainly don’t make loud and/or public statements. They universally end up agreeing. Anyone who does not can only be doing it due to bad reasons.
I think your view on sex is that it is trumped by gender identity, and there are no significant, substantial, or valid reasons for treating them separately, with the sole exception of medical matters, and even then that might be only those that necessarily need correct information about sex/gender. The idea of biological men having free entry into women’s restrooms is just something we’ll have to get used to, and it’s preferable to tolerate any sexual assault that results and that our criminal justice system will handle those cases fine.
I do not think you see any substantive issues with the logical formulation or argumentation you have put forward so far. I do not think you see any substantive contradictions between the beliefs that most men (or at least a double-digit percentage) will do opportunistic SA and that allowing trans women in women’s bathrooms is the right thing to do.
I think these views are radical for at least these two reasons:
These views are treated as principled despite there being no coherent principled argument in favor of it, and despite the implied changes having considerable impact and being far reaching.
Many of the views you hold would be wild 20 years ago; many rational, liberal people (from 20 years ago) would find it hard to believe that in 2026 biological males would be allowed to enter women’s bathrooms, teenage males would be winning girl’s sporting events and injuring (female) girls in the process, and that the common and widely-practiced feminist ideology says that this is right and correct, that you’re a bigot if you don’t agree, and that, when it came to wedge issues, some feminist factions now had more in common with conservatives than the left. These are radical because they are a large shift in a short space of time.
If there is an argument to be made that these are not radical, I think it is that these ideas are now pretty widespread and largely implemented.
Note that I’m not arguing that radical ideas are bad. Sometimes they are good. The enlightenment was radical. America’s founding was radical. Feminism was radical. But also: Reganomics was radical (and IMO bad). The Bolsheviks were radical (also bad). Nazis and Fascism was radical (also bad).
On (my impression of) your goals:
Note: I’m ignoring things like entertainment/recreation.
I think you want to make the world better and are engaging with me as part of that. One goal is to change my mind about some things that you think are bad (and you have done that on some things (or been part of that happening at least)).
I also think you want to win and do not want to concede any points, whether that’s really a goal or not is maybe moot. I could say more but it’s highly speculative and mostly based on how I have felt in the past (particularly pre-FI/CF).
If you want to share anyway, feel free. I find it fascinating, though I’m not sure if it will have much value. It might only be interesting in a sorta morbid curiosity way or something.
Would you like me to go through and correct your ideas about what I think? I am not sure what your goal with this exercise is. To test how well we understand one another? To identify and correct the ways we don’t? Happy to engage further once I know what you’re expecting.
I do notice a broad trend with my statements as contrasted with yours. A different in what kinds of claims we’re making, I think. Do you see it too?
I should say: I am kind of making this up as I go along. I have some implicit ideas about conflict resolution and I’m mixing that with CF.
So my idea to proceed is like: this gives us a chance to synchronize on what we each think. Granted, you’ve said before IIRC that you haven’t necessarily been making all arguments from the same PoV so maybe this isn’t exactly applicable. We can adjust the method however to suit as we go. The point is to do error correction on what we meta-think. Meta-think is ad-hoc here as a shorthand for like ‘both what we think and what we think each other thinks’, and I don’t want to type that out each time if I need the idea again.
A discussion should probably have goals. Like we’re each here to achieve something. So if meta-goals are aligned, we should see a win-win path forward. Then we can pursue that. Also having a shared goal is a civilizing factor.
Had an idea and wondering if you agree: with regards to receiving criticism (where here is like corrections on views and goals), it seems like doing things upfront like we just did is interesting in that it’s likely that we are both wrong about stuff in some way. → Errors are expected, so it’s easier to be humble about getting the guesses wrong. Hmm IDK. Feel free to ignore.
Next steps are to align meta-views and meta-goals, then come up with ideas about how to proceed, hopefully in a more directed way. meta-views means roughly the same as meta-think (as i’m using it here).
To be specific, we should now comment on each other’s idea of our views/goals and raise differences. Then we’ll have 4/4 permutations and we can think about what we want to do.
Note, it might be a bit before I post that. Today sometime.
offtopic, chud-woke values test
[offtopic]
Oh also not that it necessarily matters, but I took the chud-woke values test. I have no idea if there is anything meaningful to the results. I thought its axes were interesting though (it looks like a political compass but isn’t). I suspect that my variance was higher than normal. This result doesn’t feel wrong to me.
I doubt that’s his view. I don’t think it’s a good guess. It looks to me like biased strawmanning. Your other guesses about his views also look poor to me.
Also, even if transgender stuff were both bad and cultural/memetic, oppressing people and being mean about it (as is currently widespread) won’t fix the problem. Gender role rigidity and pressuring people towards gender conformity may be one of the causes of more people being transgender. Generically, rebellion is a common reaction to dumb authorities. And specifically, the more narrowly you restrict what being a “man” or “woman” is, the more people won’t fit into it. The same comments have relevance to other LGBT categories too.
Do you think he’s just calling you a bigot indirectly (or maybe its been direct, I haven’t kept up with this too well) just cause you have an opposing view in general? Not because of your specific opposing views on the manner? I don’t think that’s fair.
I think you mean this in the sense of some kind of philosophical ideology, like wokeism. If so, I don’t accept that premise and basically reject this entire entry. If you mean it only as literally synonymous with “people being transgender” then that’s fine. I’ll proceed assuming the latter even though my guess is you meant the former. But even in that case I think this guess isn’t very good, there’s some more specific language I find very questionable.
I think being transgender definitely has significant negative consequences to people and society.
For “people” examples, being transgender often comes along with a lot of fear, anxiety, and dysphoria. Medical transition is expensive and can have significant negative physical consequences. Inability to medically transition can cause even more severe mental consequences.
Also, bigotry is quite high right now so initiating the process of a transition can also expose one to tons of social risk and physical danger.
For “society” examples, fascist and nationalist forces in the world have recognized that they can amplify non-passing trans people and present them as an uncomfortable mascot towards otherwise indifferent regular people. They’ve had a lot of success demonizing trans people as a nefarious other. So in that sense, transgender people existing and being visible has negative consequences for society. I wouldn’t blame them for that though, since they are the primary victims. Also, historically, fascists and nationalists are pretty good at finding people to turn into a nefarious other, so if transgender people weren’t the target of the moment maybe there would be a different one. But maybe not, IDK.
I don’t agree with this at all. I don’t think it’s “obviously okay” — it’s a strange unfamiliar issue for many people. I think lots of normal people who have never encountered a trans person and know nothing about it could find the idea weird and off-putting. And because the right and alt media have done such a great job of demonizing them, such ignorant normal people could hold a variety of bigoted views in good faith without realizing how bigoted the views are.
I don’t really consider such people bigots or idiots. Are they holding some bigoted views? Yes. Do I consider them to be ignorant and uninformed, or like biased and uncurious? Sure. But IMO labeling someone a bigot or an idiot takes more than that.
If someone investigates the issue a lot, spends a lot of time thinking about it and consuming propaganda, fails to understand (or perhaps engage with?) any of the best opposing arguments, advocates loudly to strip people of their rights, etc… then that person might be more fairly labeled a bigot/idiot.
This is such a caricature that it’s kind of comical and/or offensive. I am not actually offended, but this seems to just be a standard boilerplate summary of the conservative conception of the “woke” perspective with no real thought given to our actual discussions, as far as I can tell.
I think your view on gender identity is that it’s valid, without limitation,
I don’t really know what this means. I mean, I can guess what you think it means – I identify as an attack helicopter, as space gender, as otherkin, etc. etc.
But I don’t think that stuff has any real relevance to this discussion. That’s like teenage 2010 tumblr stuff, for the most part. I am familiar with multiple trans communities, online and in person, and familiar with most of the trans-related attempts at legislation that have occurred in the US. None of them ever have anything to do with otherkin or whatever. That stuff is mostly silly.
On the other hand, if this just means “accepts various interpretations of nonbinary gender identities and nonbinary neopronouns as valid” then sure, I agree.
This is largely a reiteration of your confused claim on the previous point, so I’d refer you to my answer there.
This is more caricaturizing. This is the standard new (and quite effective) conservative framing, where “the woke left” has a uniform ironclad stranglehold on the culture and any form of dissent is brutally crushed. I don’t think that’s realistic or an accurate portrayal of culture, much less of my own views. People can and do question aspects of transgenderism constantly for years, and consistently find it difficult to understand, without being labeled bigots.
Though making “loud and/or public statements” does imply they are not at the “good faith questioning” stage and are at the “activism in opposition stage” most of the time, sure.
Nope. It’s the part where they go from disagreeing to actively trying to harm trans people and strip away their rights where I think they have bad reasons. If they don’t get to that stage, then I don’t think they necessarily have bad reasons.
And the idea that all people who approach a given topic in good faith would “universally end up agreeing” is kinda ridiculous, especially in a CF context. Why would I agree with that?
This one is a bit more difficult.
I don’t really think you understand “sex” very well, since e.g. you have mostly avoided answering any of my questions trying to get at the distinctions between sex, sex characteristics, gender identity, and how transition might or might not change things.
In general, the idea that sex is “trumped” by gender identity doesn’t make much sense to me. What would “trumped” even mean in this context? I don’t think I agree, but I might agree in some contexts. I think your framing around this kind of topic is a bit confused so it makes discussion difficult. I think you imagine roughly 2 categories per gender, something like:
“Real women” are cis women, who have the woman gender identity and are the female sex. Everyone can obviously tell these details.
“Artificial women” are trans women, who claim the woman gender identity and are the male sex. Whether or not one can obviously tell they are the male sex varies, but it’s usually obvious.
I’m open to being wrong about this, but you’ve said things along these lines numerous times. Assuming this is an accurate guess, I think the view expressed is not very accurate and leads to confusion/misunderstandings.
But I can try to answer some aspects anyway. For example, yes, sex assigned at birth is an important aspect of medical history that should be disclosed to doctors.
It also might be a good idea to care about sex characteristics (which often correlate heavily to assigned sex at birth, but not exclusively) in many situations, not just medical ones. For example, if you are sexually interested in female sex characteristics, you might want to exclusively have sex with people who have breasts and a vulva. If you want to have children, you might seek people who have a currently functional uterus and ovaries (with eggs) instead of adopting. Etc.
Gender identity and sex characteristics and sex assigned at birth can all be relevant factors in a variety of situations, but it is highly dependent on context.
I don’t endorse this statement. Once again, I think this statement is basically misconceived… I don’t agree, and I reject the premise.
The idea that we need to “get used” to it is already confused. Trans people have been using the bathrooms of their gender identity for at least like… almost 100 years? I believe the earliest sex reassignment surgeries were in the 1930s, but I may be off by a decade or two.
“We” as a society were already used to this. We haven’t been forcing bathroom users to submit to genital inspections or present birth certificates or anything like that. And we don’t have any notable increase in sexual assault instances due to that.
So like I said, the premise doesn’t really make sense. In general, the framing of “this is a big change that will result in sexual assaults but we’ll just have to get used to it” is mostly just a conservative fantasy, detached from reality.
Yeah, I don’t think there’s any logical issues there. Your framing here might imply some, but my perspective is that your framing is confused.
I disagree that there is no coherent principled argument in favor of it.
I think it’s fine that you disagree with me, but I do find it a bit questionable to assert this given our context. You currently have lots of pending arguments on this topic that you haven’t addressed. Yet you are confident in asserting not only that your ideas are right, but there are no coherent principled arguments in opposition to your ideas. So I guess your position is that all of the arguments I’ve made are incoherent and unprincipled and presumably can be dismissed without specific rebuttal?
That seems very biased and arrogant to me. Am I misunderstanding something?
Also, I dispute that the implied changes are as impactful and far reaching as you think. Again, I’ve already discussed that topic some above.
This is false. I would say that it is sufficiently false that it’s a bit disconcerting and surprising. Presumably as a consequence of you being inundated with anti-trans right wing propaganda?
Again… trans women have been using women’s’ restrooms for many decades without issue. In pop culture, trans women were in some ways more accepted 20 or 30 years ago and are more targeted and persecuted today. There was still plenty of anti-trans bigotry in the 90s and early 00s, but a lot more of it was more along the lines of finding trans people weird outliers, not understanding them too well, and making jokes about them. A lot less of it was about explicitly targeting them for persecution, being directly cruel to them, etc.
Here is an example from 20 years ago about trans people and a specific piece of trans media:
Some of the language is outdated but the perspective is less hostile than many people today. Also there is some mention of how trans people tended to operate if you go further back than 20+ years ago, which is “stealth” – moving to a new location and living as their preferred gender identity once they’ve transitioned enough to pass. What bathrooms do you suppose such trans people would typically use?
In the 90s there was a trans character on a few episodes of Friends who was the butt of a lot of jokes but was also portrayed by a cis woman and generally “passed” to people who were not related to her (she was a main character’s father). In 1977 there was an episode of the Jeffersons that featured a trans person in a sympathetic light.
In the 90s there was also a movie called To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar (it released in theaters, and starred Patrick Swayze and Wesley Snipes during high points in their careers, along with John Leguizamo). The movie was about drag queens but at least one person (John Leguizamo’s character) was clearly implied to be a trans girl, just without that language since it was not as widely known. In any case, all three of them live as women for most of the movie while stranded in a small rural town. At the end it turns out at least one of the sympathetic women in town was able to clock them as AMAB, but she still treated them as women out of kindness and respect.
In general, things were less progressive then. There were lots of jokes that might be viewed as transphobic today. And yet even in those cases the jokes were often more trans-inclusive in certain ways than the standard right wing positions today.
For example, a common transphobic punchline in those days, designed to elicit trans panic, would be a phrase like “She used to be a man.” Many trans people today might find that offensive. But fundamentally, it is more trans-inclusive than the standard anti-trans rhetoric of today. e.g. “No matter how he mutilates himself, he’ll never be a woman”. See the difference?
I disagree, I don’t think that’s the main argument against these ideas being radical.
I don’t disagree with this. However, it is a bit odd in light of one of your explanations for why you think my positions are radical…
These views are treated as principled despite there being no coherent principled argument in favor of it, and despite the implied changes having considerable impact and being far reaching.
This seems strictly like a bad thing, and it would make any view highly suspect. Now, I am not sure anything in this quote actually is a reason to call a view radical. But you said it was, so I’m a bit confused about your own views. Do you think the stuff on your list like the Enlightenment had no coherent principled argument in favor of it? Or is that a criteria for calling something radical that you only apply intermittently?
Abstractly, sure. I wouldn’t say that is my primary goal though. I enjoy discussing this sort of thing because I think the discussions are interesting and I find value in getting more chances to flesh out my ability to articulate them. IDK if you would consider that under the “entertainment/recreation” header or not.
Secondary goals could include changing your mind, though I think that’s usually not too likely and not something I typically worry about. I generally think my arguments are more likely to be persuasive to more neutral observers, which would be another secondary goal and reason for having these arguments in a public forum.
I don’t think this is a conscious goal, but of course it could be an unconscious one. Though it is worth noting that if I consistently felt this way then I probably would not have changed my own mind as much as I have on some of these issues. My views haven’t been particularly static, and I have been persuaded by arguments.
Would you like me to go through some of your recent posts and explicitly call out stuff that I agree with/would concede to you? Would that provide some specific value to you?
Big picture, I think your guesses were a lot less accurate, and less precise, than my guesses. I tried to restrict my guesses to fairly specific contexts, and I tried to ground them out with direct quotes from you.
By contrast, a lot of your guesses seem more like boilerplate positions that a conservative would attribute to their mental image of a woke leftist. It seems like they come from you staking out a standard tribal position, experiencing me criticizing that position, and then you default to assuming that I have taken the standard opposing tribal position.
This might feel unfair to you, and I apologize if so. Maybe you can clarify your reasoning for the guesses about my positions that I noted as especially confused or off the mark.
Maybe @anonymous45 worded it wrong (or maybe that’s not what he meant at all) but there are versions of it (I’d go as far as saying more charitable versions of it) that are true. Like you said, there are people who question transgenderism who aren’t labeled bigots, but there are also people who get banned from forums for questioning, get canceled, fired, etc. Not to mention implicit pressure not to discuss it in certain groups. It’s common enough.. What we do here on the forums is rare. Attempting to be rational and error correct, consider criticisms, etc is uncommon. Even if you don’t look into the other side’s claims of questioning transgenderism leading to bad outcomes at all, the fact there is a lot of bad epistemology out there, and a lot of people tend towards tribalism and low effort group enforcement of norms should at least make you consider their claims plausible.
Also notice what you chose to comment on.
There’s no mention of people who do question aspects of transgenderism and are labeled bigots. Writing about some things and not others is a choice. You could say it’s because you wanted to directly respond to the quotes, which is an option logically (but I don’t think its the best option when it comes to communication. Especially when it seems like he’s trying to discover what your beliefs are.) But, it could also be pointing to a tribal mental block.
For example, if someone told me “People in the US are racist and it makes it hard for a poc like me to get by” I could respond with something like “that’s a standard framing of the left, where racism is still a huge, overwhelming part of society and if you’re a poc, you’re pretty much doomed from the start. I don’t think that’s an accurate portrayal of culture. People are constantly and consistently not racist in the US.” But, I think that would be a weaker form of communication (based on a goal of wanting to understand each other’s beliefs). It would be better to rebut the point and also add in whether you think there are problems with racism at all. Maybe even come to some common ground.
I guess I can just ask you directly: Over the last 10 years or so outside of your social circle, do you think it has been common in certain spaces where questioning transgenderism has led to social, professional, or platform consequences? Also, over this same time period, has there been implicit pressure not to critique or question transgenderism? (and to what extent have you looked into this? Is any of your reasoning ad-hoc)
@anonymous45 I’m interested in your response to this. I got a similar vibe based on your previous comments about Asmongold. I don’t think he’s a good news source at all and isn’t informative based on my standards. Has your view of him changed at all based on evidence @anonymous105 has brought up?
Asmongold has a similar approach to the news as Hasan. Mostly insta react to Twitter posts without doing good, deeper research.
An example of an informative streamer who does a good job at research is Lonerbox from the UK. I first saw him on Destiny’s stream. He was especially informative on Israel/Palestine.
I used to like Destiny but I stopped watching him as he got more and more tribalist. I think it’s literally part of his strategy when it comes to his goal of democrats winning.
Sorry, just to clarify: I was responding to him guessing about my beliefs. Not just generally discussing the topic. So I think me directly responding to the quotes makes even more sense in that context.
A key part of what I said is (bold added):
I don’t agree that there is a uniform “woke left” that is consistently and brutally crushing dissent. But even if it did exist, I do not participate in it. The guess anon45 was making about my views implied that I would probably participate in it, which was the main thing I was objecting to.
Reminder that he guessed that I thought this:
So… in the context of him making a guess about my beliefs, that I don’t agree with, wouldn’t it make sense for me to address that?
I agree, but this is not unique to transgenderism. And you shouldn’t think so either. For example:
Wouldn’t this mean that those behaviors are relatively common across basically all topics? There is bad epistemology, bad arguments, people are tribal. Sure. If transgender people are approximately a normal amount of those things, then they would do the bad stuff you’re discussing an approximately normal amount of the time. My perspective is that the claims @anonymous45 made are implying there is a unique or at least uncommon amount of this stuff with regards to trans discussions, and I don’t think he’s demonstrated that. I could even concede, if you restrict the discussion to specific contexts, then trans issues may have had a greater-than-normal amount of bad ideas. On both sides (my guess would be especially on the anti-trans side, in America in 2026).
But that’s also not really relevant to the claims anon45 has made so far.
This question is quite broad, so the answer is probably yes. Of course. Do you think the topic of transgenderism is a unique example of this? I would say that there are often consequences for expressing views on controversial topics, as a general rule. Particularly social consequences, but potentially also professional or platform consequences, depending on the specific controversial topic.
Yes. But I would say that overall there has been at least as much implicit and explicit pressure in the other direction, to critique or question transgenderism.
Especially recently, where culture (at least in the USA) is heavily swinging the other direction, and explicitly anti trans rhetoric is constantly coming out of the government and the most popular mainstream media network (plus tons of popular alternative media sources).
That’s not surprising, IMO. Trans people have become a major culture war issue. Many people have basically made entire highly paid careers as social media influencers in great part by aggressively critiquing transgenderism, or attacking trans people in ways I would say are not even rightly classified as “critique”, e.g. saying transgenderism should be eradicated or similar.
Also, many people who conservatives say have been “canceled” for speaking out on this subject have ended up with much more prominent careers due in part to their aggressive stance against trans people, e.g. Jordan Peterson. Or had their reputation damaged in some circles, but remained wealthy and highly successful in their field, e.g. JK Rowling, Dave Chapelle, etc.
That’s not to say that all cancellations are like that. Some people suffered from unfair cancellation online and had exclusively negative consequences.
Also, many people could suffer social consequences in their friend circles that may or may not deserve it. But again, this seems like a general issue with people being intolerant of disagreement, etc.
Regarding friend circles, I’m going to spotlight one thing you said earlier:
This could be bad but also could be totally reasonable. For example, trans people may be tired of constantly having to justify their existence. So if you e.g. start an argument with a trans friend about the validity of transgenderism, that they did not agree to ahead of time, they might choose not to hang out with you anymore. Or they may try to pressure you to leave the topic alone for the sake of the friendship.
I assume you will disagree but I just wanted to say: I think that’s a laudable goal given the current state of the US.
I don’t think it is necessarily tribalist to look at a situation and conclude one side is drastically less damaging/foolish/evil than the other side. One could retain non tribalist views and disagree with one’s preferred party on many issues, but still conclude that party should be supported enthusiastically due to the current context.
Kind of in the middle? I’m not sure how “people being transgender” would be an opposite end. If it were “being okay with people being transgender”, well that’s too lenient because Asmongold falls into that category (as do I). There’s a further point of like ‘accepting that they exist’ but I don’t think this is particularly contentious or interesting. Arguing they don’t exist would be like arguing a religion you don’t believe in doesn’t exist.
I roughly agree, though I’d include additional categories like detransitioners and any minor who is persuaded (to be trans or t-adjacent) or gaslit or groomed. I’d also include the minors that are expected and pressured to change in front of members of the opposite sex (ie cis gendered teens mostly) and in general all other things we’d consider harmful that are downstream consequences.
Question: you don’t say much about these kinds of things, and I’ve assumed that meant you were fine with them (or didn’t think they were happening). You seem to reject that, though, so how should I see your views relating to those other issues? Like the reason I think (thought?) you are okay with ‘transgenderism’ and has no significant negative consequences is that cultural change doesn’t address any of the issues you raised (maybe fear/anxiety contextually but that was true in the 90s, too). And if cultural change is slow, it seems like a lot of the backlash is predictable.
Okay, but that happens on both sides (rights aside, but I don’t think that’s the line, just a symptom of being on one side).
Yeah, but obviously you’re picking stuff that sounds bad. You can pick examples like identifying as a system of AIs (which happens legitimately, or at least as legitimately as one can reasonably determine). Anyway the person that I’m thinking of (they’re just a person, not a public figure) refers to themselves as ‘we’, is broadly treated as being under the trans banner, etc. Also it’s a curious case because if picking your pronouns/identity is acceptable, then they/them (plural) is the correct pronouns. It’s still just as confusing because it’s incoherent but at least that part is reasonable (in that it doesn’t need to create new definitions to attempt coherence).
anyway I’m going to run out of time at this pace (if i repsond to the whole thing). Is there anything you’d like me to prioritize?
Sorry again about the lack of frequency. I feel bad having suggested we do a thing and you’ve been more available than I have.
I’m going to focus on responding to your views on my views next + any particular stuff you want me to answer or discuss.
Yeah, and it’s not only that. I think I am probably wrong about some stuff and that is making my life worse.
one example is dating. first, the life worse stuff: if I have more of a negative/pessimistic view, that’s going to mean I do it less or don’t try, and that has worse outcomes compared to having an optimistic view (even if it’s wrong). So I’d prefer to have a more positive view on dating, but I can’t make myself believe something just for that reason. Maybe I could expose myself to a bunch of content where people say good things about it, but IDK where to find that.
am I wrong though? Well arguably something’s misaligned because it should be possible to have an accurate appraisal of the situation and not be miserable, but also I won’t find out if I’m wrong if I don’t discuss.
Some things, yes, but tbh I don’t know why I care about the trans stuff. I do want kids and want to protect them from developmental interference, so that’s part of it maybe. I also think how it’s being handled (pre-trump US and around the UK/EU/etc) is an example of how the left doesn’t really care about reality compared to either feelings or votes or ideology or something.
Yeah, starting with BFITF. I haven’t always had the above goal front of mind when responding to stuff though.
Small minority, maybe. Like there definitely is a problematic subsubculture but it’s not the norm.
Yep, probably not entirely, but mostly.
The ideas one holds are a big reason for the ways that one feels and acts and reacts and all that. They are the dominant factor, I think. In practice this means I think it’s possible to gaslight someone or yourself into believing basically anything. That’s why it’s important to ground things outside of the human experience where possible.
Also like anorexia, it seems to be a phenomenon that didn’t really exist before people learnt about it. (This is probably contentious, some academic must maintain a list of historical maybe-trans cases, right? Also I’m not talking about cases of culturally-imposed non-heteronormative gender stuff; but my impression is that I should be against that kind of thing for the same reason I should be against the patriarchy.)
Do you deny it’s happening though?
Also the groomers don’t have to be trans, or be ‘real’ trans if they are. Also grooming doesn’t need to be sexual for the groomer, just gently nudging the kid towards a radical life change they otherwise wouldn’t pick counts as grooming IMO. so an adult suggesting to a confused kid that they might be trans is grooming. IDK what psychologists do to determine the difference between a gay kid and a trans kid, but if they can’t do that reliably and are biased and tell the kid they might be trans, that’s grooming. Also, just on psychologists, if there’s any negligence, that’s also grooming (eg literally flipping a coin, not being appropriately critical and humble, letting ideology influence their diagnosis, etc). Maybe that’s not technically grooming, but it’s obviously not right. I don’t know how much that happens except that it probably does at least a little.
I think preposterous here is describing my view, right? Because I thought we agreed that HRT doesn’t turn you into a woman, I guess it works either way. Regarding what proportion of them think that, IDK. Maybe I’m not giving trans people enough credit and the vast majority realize it’s incoherent. So IDK. Obviously some people do think that because we saw them.
I think these standards are too high. Why would (B) even be one of my goals? The question of (C) is kind of circular, but I get the gist: compatible with intuition. What does ‘actionable’ mean and what are the actions?
In terms of criticisms of what I’ve suggested before, from memory we had loki’s wager (thanks Dev) and, if we were strict about bathrooms, some harassing of cis women because they don’t look enough like women (eg short hair, small breasts, muscular, tall, etc, or some combination; hell, even butch lesbians might get harassed). I can’t remember if there are more.
If we want to go back to that topic we can, but I reject the criteria.
Not sure I said he’s a good news source. But I also think he’s crass, hypocritical on some things, inflammatory, sometimes disingenuous, sometimes does call out the right and sometimes doesn’t, and combative.
Is the the barbeque question a thing where you are? The idea is that you pick people you’d invite to a barbeque. example. Anyway I was thinking about this re: asmongold, and I don’t think I’d get on with him in person, so I wouldn’t invite him. Maybe this isn’t indicative of anything important.
One thing I should mention: I deliberately didn’t mention things I didn’t like about him before. I knew this would probably mislead you by playing into your biases. I also think you’ve essentially done the same, though. Thinking about this more generally, I think doing it knowingly probably counts as bad faith.
Broadly, I’d like to apologize for those times.
In the near term, yeah socially, but not generally necessarily. Things aren’t going how they were promised (including economically), and if that’s the case, maybe we should reconsider our policies. Also I think resisting such a reduction or actively encouraging the opposite (esp via illegal immigration) is somewhat-to-very inflammatory at the moment. I don’t see how tolerating thousands-to-millions of illegal undocumented immigrants is good or economically beneficial (except if you’re rich because underclass to exploit) or, for govt, doing right by your citizens or fiduciary duty as a government/representative. Welfare programs make this problem worse. If, at some point, the pragmatic decision is to reduce immigration, not because of the immigrants but because of reactionary xenophobia, then even in this case I still think it’s the right thing to do if the alternative means civil strife. It’s better to be less permissive temporarily so that the discussion can be less heated.
Also note that I think UK and EU are probably worse in this regard than the US.
I think there are, pretty objectively, cultures that are more and less compatible with western culture, too. The more different they are the more potential issues.
I don’t think economics is the be-all-end-all of this topic, either, and now that I’ve thought more about it, I’m not even sure studies we have on immigrant-economic relationships would be applicable. I think there might be a similar effect to what we see with UBI studies: the more limited and targeted you are, the better the results, but once you start generalizing, it’s an issue.
I also think we should apply immigration standards and reasoning about in/out group intermingling (of this kind) uniformly, so like if an indigenous culture is worried about their culture being affected by mass immigration, it’s not unreasonable for the US/EU/UK (or citizens of) to be concerned about that too.
In general I don’t think the left are very good at empathizing with or understanding the actual issues affecting poor conservatives.
A relevant bias of mine is that I think the left largely consider themselves intellectually superior to the right but they’ll act just as badly and be fine with it. If they want to argue that they’re on the right side of history, they should also be on the right side of logic and pragmatic-ness. And they should be more open to discussion and be able to answer questions or criticisms without refusing to debate or discuss.
