Okay, but you imply that anyone opposing trans women in women’s sports or trans women in women’s spaces is doing so for bad reasons. Like I think you think that it just isn’t possible for someone to come to any anti-trans conclusion without being influenced or radicalized or whatever. Or maybe you think that simply coming to anti-trans conclusions is what makes someone a bigot? If neither are the case, how would you persuade such a person that they’re wrong?
Yeah, reading through some of it again, it seems like you and @anonymous45 were trying out something unique in your back and forth, winging it a bit, so I should maybe show more grace (I don’t know if that’s the right word) in your approaches. I just assumed a main goal would be to understand each other’s perspective more.
I don’t think it’s unique to transgenderism, but if I lump them in with the woke left, there was a period of time where it was for sure asymmetrical. I don’t know why it was that way but some of it had to do with their ideology, and they had more motion in academia, media, etc. It was a whole movement that gained popularity.
I purposely asked about the last 10 years or so because I think more recently, it’s started to swing back the other way. It feels closer now with the right gaining ground via government especially. Online/social it seems both sides are active and do it.
I agree. Not just with trans friends but with any trans person. Leave them the fuck alone.
Some of the “questioning” is not in good faith either, it’s straight up harassment or worse. Here’s an example that probably happens more than some would think: https://x.com/latwitchance/status/2060064066354454705?s=46
It’s okay to notice one side is worse than the other, and support the side you think is better.
The things Destiny started to do that turned me off (and these are just “vibes” over an extended period of time) were things like saying terrible shit (whether they were meant to be edgy jokes or not) because Trump and the right were doing similar rhetoric, criticizing dems less and less (it got to a point I stopped seeing him do it at all, even on points I think he would disagree with some dems on publicly in the past), and in some of his debate performances, I noticed more tribalism than before ( maybe I was just noticing it more as it became more important to me overtime. Perhaps he was always like that and I didn’t realize it before).
I think I understand his strategy. If you want dems to win, maybe it’s better to support them publicly and criticize them privately. Play the same games the republicans play, don’t be charitable, do what it takes. But, I’m not even sure that’s a good strategy if winning is your goal. Loyal Dems will vote blue, so you have their vote already. Loyal republicans will vote red. So the ones you want to persuade are in the middle/conflicted. I think if you can criticize your side sometimes, it can actually bring in more of the undecided. They may appreciate the honesty.
Also, I’m a crit rat/ fallibilist, conversations along the party line that have a tribalist agenda are boring to me. It’s not something I want to tune into, even if the strategy is effective.
2 Likes
So, I think your reply here has some significant comprehension errors. I’m going to start by focusing on a couple of those, because I think if they’re left unaddressed then they are going to cause communication to break down much faster than our disagreements about the actual topic. I will probably insert some content arguments as well along the way.
I think you are a bit confused about what happened there. I’m going to recap.
The statement that you made, that I was responding to, was:
So then when I took possible issue with the word “transgenderism” and said this…
So the implication is that I am taking your same statement unchanged with the one exception of replacing the word “transgenderism”, e.g. it would look like this (editing the quote directly):
And then I gave my opinion about whether this revised guess was accurate with respect to my views. I don’t think you or Asmongold would agree with this sentence. I did not even agree with it, but it avoided the ideological issues I had with the previous sentence.
I am not sure why you thought I was arguing anything about whether or not trans people exist.
For the rest of this post I’ll keep using “transgenderism” to basically mean “people being transgender” the same way I did above.
I don’t really understand your point here, and I think you misunderstood mine pretty significantly. But maybe not, maybe I’m just confused.
You quote my opening sentence but none of the examples I cited of negative consequences. You say you “broadly agree” — with my examples? But then you go on to list a bunch of stuff you think are negative consequences, which I disagree with and think are some mix of 1. rare minority scenarios (unlike the major/prominent/common issues I mentioned), 2. harmful anti-trans propaganda, or 3. confused complaints about a general problem that incorrectly frame it as a trans-specific problem.
So what’s the point of that exactly? Now I guess I should argue about your examples, right, since I strongly disagree with them and you’re kind of trying to piggyback them onto my own comments?
Detransitioners are maybe something like 1-2% of trans people. You’re probably going to try to cite a higher number like 10% or 15%, but I promise you that if you’ve seen a number like that it just means you’ve fallen for anti-trans misinformation. The vast majority of technical “detransitioners” are people whose gender identity did not change at all, they just lost access to HRT — so note, with the Trump admin currently attacking trans healthcare very aggressively that number of “detransitioners” will go way up against their will!
The next largest % are people who shifted gender identities without any regret for previous identities. This is a well known thing I’ve talked about before, e.g. many nonbinary people ultimately choose to transition to a binary gender after testing the waters of going against the gender they were assigned at birth by being nonbinary. These people technically detransition and are counted by some stats, but that’s pretty foolish if the goal of the stat is to identify people harmed by gender affirming care.
The only kind you could possibly be discussing here are true “trans regret” detransitioners which are a tiny amount of people. Also, if you look at interviews with such people, many of them still have trans feelings, they just never felt they could actually pass and their dysphoria never went away, so they eventually gave up.
Any trans regret detransitioner is a sad situation but it’s generally a bad idea to condemn an entire category due to an unhappy 1% of that category.
What do you think is the percentage of people who regret surgeries such as LASIK or cochlear implants or skin grafts or organ transplants (edit: or rhinoplasty or labiaplasty or breast implants or gastric bypass)?
It’s not zero.
I don’t think this (kids being groomed into being trans when they weren’t) is happening a significant amount of the time. Can you point me towards some really good argument that it is?
Minors being forced to change in front of each other is a cause of major anxiety and bullying, in cisgendered teens. It is a problematic situation, that I would argue should be reformed totally irrespective of trans teens.
I also take issue with the framing in general. I don’t think this is a common occurrence. I think if you google it you’ll find isolated news stories that have disputed facts, and not much else.
Most trans teens are very anxious about their bodies and strongly prefer to change in privacy anyway. Coincidentally, tons of non-trans teens feel the same way. (Edit: sorry, “coincidentally” was sarcasm here, which I included carelessly without thinking. I don’t actually think it is a coincidence, I think this is a super common and normal feeling in a majority of teens.)
Okay, now that I’ve addressed the problems you added onto what I said, I’m going to refocus.
Given some of the miscommunications, I want to focus in here and make sure we are discussing the same stuff.
When you say:
By “these kinds of things” do you mean your list of problems with transgenderism? Because that would be mistaken. But it kinda seems like that’s what you’re saying, since this question immediately follows your list. That’s why it is such an odd choice for you to see my list of problems, throw on a bunch more controversial problems, then say “I assumed you were fine with this stuff or disagreed” — yeah, I do disagree with your list! That’s why my list was quite different.
Do you think that my list of problems relating to transgenderism somehow implies I would agree with your list? Is that what you’re asking here?
Yes, I am “okay” with “transgenderism”… the “thought?” comment makes me think you are unsure of that now. Why would you be unsure of that?
Did you actually read my list closely? You did not quote it, so here it is again:
One thing to note is that your tacked-on list, that I disagree with, frames trans people as perpetrators of harm against cis people (and against “trans” people who were tricked into it).
My list does not do that. It talks about some of the problems trans people face, and some of the social problems that are caused by bad actors turning trans people into a demonized outgroup.
I don’t really know what you’re saying here. The problems I listed could be slow to be resolved? Backlash from conservative bad actors is predictable? So then what? Does that mean we should bow to the bigots and eradicate transgenderism so that there’s no more demonized other? Or what?
Yeah I would probably recommend not being bigoted towards such a person. Was that your question? Do you remember what your question was, or why that topic came up?
I don’t know. I summarized things a bit in my “big picture post” that still seems relevant.
It seems like you guessed at my views, I told you your guesses were pretty far off and gave lots of clarifications, and now your response has mostly been to argue with my clarifications, kind of treating them like they are new arguments. Does that summary seem about right?
Are you much closer to understanding my actual views? I’m skeptical. Was this exercise effective? I’m skeptical of that, too. But I’m open to continuing it if you like.
I guess the main issue I have would be all the dropped arguments. You make a lot of assertions, or heavily imply assertions (e.g. implying that 20 years ago society primarily or exclusively treated trans people like their assigned sex at birth), I give arguments and examples of why you’re wrong, and mostly they just kinda go unaddressed.
Which by itself isn’t necessarily a big deal. You have limited time and you should focus on what interests you. But I think it is problematic when you seem to repeat the assertions later, or a close variant of them, or otherwise repeat arguments that I’ve got an existent unaddressed rebuttal of. And it was a bit strange for me to be characterized (even in a sort of “I could say this mean thing but I’m totally not saying it” manner) as the one who is unable to answer questions.
IMO this is a big issue that could be worth unpacking in greater detail.
From my perspective, you care about the trans stuff a lot. For some context: I have multiple trans people in my immediate family/circle and many more trans people in my extended social circle, who I see harmed by American society & the current US government on a daily basis. And it seems like this is an issue that matters to you a similar amount that it matters to me (maybe slightly more/less, but not by a huge margin).
For you to care that much, but not know why, seems odd. That, more than anything else you’ve ever said on this topic, reinforces my concern that a big factor in your mindset is the consumption of biased and radicalizing social media content.
Like… from my perspective there is this concerning mix of traits: you feel strongly about it, you don’t know why you feel strongly about it, you make lots of controversial assertions about it, you don’t have a ton of time to argue or defend those assertions but keep making them anyway, you continue feeling strongly about it… it seems like a worrisome cycle. And I think you should be really cautious to assert something like this:
This seems like a big leap. In a sense, this is presupposing that your confusingly strong feelings and unargued assertions are all obviously correct, and anyone who disagrees must be detached from reality.
I think claims that other people are detached from reality should be made reluctantly. At minimum, only when you have a very clear idea of what you think, why you think it, what the other people think and why, and you have coherent arguments against them that they consistently fail to engage with. I don’t think you’re meeting that standard.
This seems like an unreasonable standard. If this is the case then grooming is so commonplace I don’t see why you are so concerned about it re: transness.
By this definition most adults are grooming most kids most of the time. That’s a kinda radical TCS assertion that I used to agree with but don’t really any more. But it fits your description above I think.
Yes.
I don’t think we agreed to that. Part of the issue is I’m not confident you are equipped for that discussion yet, I think it will get even messier and more confusing.
B is explicitly one of your goals. You do not want to include trans women under the heading of “biological woman”, right? I feel like you’ve made that super duper clear. So your definition would need to exclude them.
C isn’t circular, if you think cis women are biological women then your definition of “biological woman” needs to successfully encompass them.
If I have the premise that lettuce is a leafy green, then my definition of leafy green better not accidentally leave out some lettuces. And if I have the premise that cabbage is definitely not a leafy green, then my definition had better not accidentally include some cabbages.
The action would be “identify a biological woman reliably according to this definition.” This could be the “compatible with intuition” part. If your definition of biological woman only works if you have access to chromosomal data of a given person, or have conducted an ultrasound to find their ovaries, then real people in regular life will never be able use that definition to identify biological women.
This isn’t even me making an argument, this is me challenging your basic premises. If you can’t meet these basic thresholds then how can you say trans women aren’t biological women? If you put forth a definition of biological woman that does not exclude trans women, then trans women could count and thus you can’t really say they aren’t. If your definition sounds like it excludes them, but then in daily life people using your definition will reliably fail to exclude them, then again… how can you say they aren’t?
This is what I meant when I said:
It also ties into some of the stuff I said earlier in this post.
No problem.
I don’t think I am intentionally playing into your biases to mislead you, for the record. Maybe I did and forgot. More likely it happened by mistake. In general the main reason I hold things back is to try to keep from confusing the issue, adding unnecessary secondary points, or overwhelming you. Even then I think I fail a lot because my replies are still quite long and address lots of disagreements.
Do I?
Just a reminder, here is something I said to you several months ago*:
How does this message fit into your idea that I think anyone opposing those things are always doing so for bad or bigoted reasons?
*: I did edit a typo from the original post of months back, and left out a final paragraph that was less relevant.
I don’t think all anti-trans conclusions are due to any one source. But I do think right now, today, there is a very big concerted effort by ~all conservative/MAGA influencers to push a particular narrative around trans people. It is a major issue. I think they are reasonable successful at this goal. So due to that I think a lot more anti-trans views today are due to stuff like that than they otherwise would be, yes.
Here is another example from 2025 where I talked about this and continued to try to be understanding towards your misgivings, while also being aware of the reality of the world today (once again, cutting some of the message to keep it more relevant):
I don’t think I’ve been as unreasonable and one-sided as you have been characterizing me in this exercise.
Depends on the specific conclusion. The extent to which I’ll bite this bullet is: often times when one comes to conclusions hostile to a persecuted minority group, that could be a bigoted position.
By discussing it with them, ideally. Doesn’t work very often though.
IMO the main thing you are describing here is just the culture war. Trans people are just a vector on which the war has been fought.
I think there is some truth to the idea that it kind of seemed like the left had won the culture war during the Obama administration. I used to think this was the left’s position, but IDK if it was actually an idea also promulgated by right wing alt media in an effort to frame themselves as counterculture.
Either way, yeah, various kinds of lefty ideology (pro LGBT, pro communist, etc.) gained some popularity and traction leading up to that time. And people who fell too far outside of the Overton Window at that time, especially if they were to the right, suffered some social consequences at minimum. Again, how bad those social consequences were, and whether or not that included unjust consequences beyond the social, is something I am less sure of. I used to agree more strongly with your position here, but I’m skeptical now because I think right wing alt media did a good job of framing the discussions at the time.
So IDK how much I got taken in by that. Because even as far back as like 2014-2015, there was a huge explosion of very successful anti-woke, anti-SJW, right wing (or right wing adjacent) media figures popping up all over YouTube and other alternative media spaces. These people weren’t canceled, they were making tons of money and gaining popularity. And I think they played a part in Trump’s rising popularity at that time as well, in the run up to the 2016 election.
So I think the framing that the left was ultra dominant and canceled anyone who disagreed is, at minimum, overstated. But I don’t think it is totally wrong; I find it plausible that e.g. some random college kids who did not have YouTube channels got unfairly ostracized for not being pro-LGBT enough. I’m not trying to discount your perspective on that period entirely.
I think you’re wrong strategically. Getting pre-existing Dems (who would never vote Repub) to vote instead of not vote is a big deal. Lots of political efforts focus on energizing the base and voter turnout rather than persuading independent or undecided voters. I don’t love this (it’s not good for debate, rational persuasion, truth seeking), but I see the logic to it. Persuading someone in the middle can be a lot more work than convincing someone already on your side to care enough to vote.
1 Like
I agree.
Another thing Democrats have to contend with is being outflanked on the left. The more liberal non-communist influencers (e.g. like Destiny, the guy Neo mentioned) are typically fighting on two fronts. They are up against the illiberal extreme left that refused to turn out in 2024 and said there was no significant difference between voting for Kamala Harris vs. Donald Trump. And they are up against MAGA conservatives.
I think it makes strategic sense to focus their energy primarily on the Democrat-aligned liberals and ensuring they are motivated. Then secondarily arguing against the other groups on the edges. Like you can probably persuade some far lefties that they were wrong, Kamala would have been a lot better, even if they disagree about Israel or whatever. And you can maybe persuade some centrists (or even old school anti-MAGA conservatives/libertarians) that maybe Kamala’s tax policies would’ve been bad but not as destructive as global tariffs and a war with Iran.
In all of these cases I think it makes some sense to focus on the stuff Dems are doing right and not spend much time harping on what they did wrong. I think liberal anti-MAGA influencers may feel like they are currently in a pretty serious ideological fight, and they want to win at the ballot box specifically.
2 Likes
Note: Bold is used to indicate the most important discussion points/questions.
Okay. FWIW I think just quoting with context makes things clearer.
and
So given that, I can see your point, but I don’t think it’s the only way to read what happened. If there was an error, it seems to me that it was to do with the generalization of your comments replying to “transgenderism”. I read it as you making a generalized statement and applying it to the situation. But you meant:
Which I don’t think actually follows necessarily. Moreover, if there are two ways to read something, or you’re relying on an implication about scope, there are times where it’s reasonable to be explicit and unreasonable to be implicit. I’m not convinced it was a comprehension error necessarily. But it seems like this just boils down to we can both get better at communicating. Anyway I’m not sure it’s worth talking about too much because there might be a better path forward.
I didn’t think you were. It was preventative and to show that going further in a direction didn’t yield results.
Anyway, I don’t think we’re making progress on this issue. However, I have been thinking and I am clearer on my position now and have a suggestion for the point of contention between us: trans identity is (in)valid. That’s what I meant by “transgenderism”. And I think it is a divider between your views and mine. Is that fair?
We also disagree about definitions and their purpose and what counts as a definition. What do you think Popper or Orwell would have thought about your take on the expanded definition of woman? Or gender? If you don’t think the definitions have expanded, can you take the prior definitions and show they’re the same as now?
I don’t see how the arguments about trans identity being valid hold up without expansion of the definitions (for ‘woman’ and ‘gender’ specifically, but the bad arguments seep into other things like neo-singular[1] ‘they’). Part of the reason for the bad arguments about language and meaning from the left is that the case obviously falls apart without it; they need the definition of women and gender to change because otherwise it’s obvious that there are substantial issues with the argument.
Meddling with definitions has more issues, particularly with law and technical/scientific content. For example: Textualism argues that the meaning (or correct interpretation or whatever) of legislation comes from the ordinary meaning of the words when they are read. Not the spirit of the law, or what was intended, or what the words meant at the time. Under a strictly textualist interpretation of the law, changing the definition is sufficient to change the law. Not through any legal processes, but simply through some amorphous and unmeasurable sense of what a word means that only a few people (those in power) need to agree on. Anyway, I think that’s bad, not just in this case, but all cases. It undermines the rule of law.
Note: While I personally disagree with textualism, it is right that the words matter and should be taken into account.
Anyway, the point here isn’t one about law per se, but about where my disagreements come from and why I think some of the changes adjacent to trans issues are profoundly bad.
Regarding trans issues, demonstrating I’m wrong either of those would make me seriously reconsider some things. Either being:
- trans identity is invalid (ie that it has no coherent basis in reality)
- the new definitions of woman and gender are new and are distinct from previous definitions and if taken seriously would have meaningful impacts on laws and other areas.
If you like, you can do something like bold the questions you think are really important to answer and I’ll focus on those. But remember my goal is to find out why I’m wrong in a substantial way.
Note: I’ve done this for this post, bolded all the particularly important questions (and the idea so it’s easy to spot).
I’m trying to focus and there are a lot of distracting points that come up. Like the table comparison. You seem to think that definitions need to be perfect, or that somehow showing that I can’t write a perfect definition proves I’m wrong (otherwise, why ask those questions?). IMO this is a silly mistake to make when you’re the one arguing for a nonsense (circular) definition. We could argue about whether one definition being imperfect makes it okay to substitute it with an even more imperfect definition, but what is the point? Where will that lead us?
Similarly, the idea that a definition needs to be perfectly actionable for the purpose of dividing X from not X for all people all the time is too high a standard and obviously isn’t how language works. It isn’t how science works.
Like one of the arguments being made (in favor of trans identity) goes something like this:
- traditional definitions of gender/sex are not able to handle categorizing intersex people cleanly (as is possible for non-intersex people). equivalently: the definitions don’t handle 100% of cases perfectly.
- therefore, the traditional definitions are incorrect and inadequate.
- therefore, the definitions are unsuitable for use in cases where they otherwise work.
you can replace point 1 with an equivalent point for lettuce/cabbage, tables, etc. If I’m missing something, what are the incorrect and/or missing steps?
This argument isn’t the end of the story, because somehow we get from that (which is limited and specific at least) to trans identity is valid. But the follow-on argument for trans identity being valid requires both that we adopt new (contentious) definitions and that we don’t apply the same argument to the new definition.
[Aside]
It just occurred to me that there’s a hypocrisy in the left’s fascist/woman dichotomy. basically, you can’t tell a women from a man by external observation (you need internal access, to know what they identify as), and you can tell a fascist by external observation alone (and what they identify as doesn’t matter).
[meta but related topic]
Okay, just something I wanted to point out. Earlier you said:
But then you also said:
[Last in this section]
Do you have a quote for this? I don’t think I agree with what you think I was implying.
Well you have admitted that you don’t always argue for things you believe, and my intuition is that you are more judgmental than what you quoted implies. So it fits fine and doesn’t change much.
For me to actually believe that you don’t think all people that disagree with trans identity being valid are bigoted simply because they disagree, I would need you to point to an example of someone (or an argument at least) that you at least partially respect that is against trans identity is valid. Hell, even admitting there are unanswered questions would be an improvement.
In terms of things that give me the impression that you think all opposition is bigoted, here’s an example:
This frames all backlash as from bigots, or at least implies a dichotomy (which I think is false).
But, generally, it’s reasonable to expect backlash any time you violate people’s expectations.
After a healthy debate, it might be the case that only bigoted reasons are left for being against some change, but I don’t think that’s the case here primarily because there has not been a healthy debate. Moreover, if pushing an issue is creating social pressure against that issue, then pushing it might be a strategic blunder. However, if you think the healthy debate has happened, and therefore only bigoted reasons are left, then why wouldn’t you think that anyone opposed to X was bigoted?
Not sure if there’s an existing term for it. I made this one up. I mean the usage as a substitute for he/she when referring to a named/known/specific individual. I believe that usage first started on tumblr in like 2008-9. ↩︎
I don’t know what this means. As in, I should not have prefaced it by saying you are having issues comprehending what I’ve written?
What does “the generalization of your comments” mean? What does “making a generalized statement and applying it to the situation” mean? I was making specific comments about your use of one specific word and what I guessed was implied by that word. I explained why I did not like the framing (assuming my guess was correct,) And then in a show of good faith, I said I would continue with the discussion assuming my guess was incorrect. I assumed instead that you did not mean to use the word in that way, because it would cause secondary arguments, and I just used the most neutral interpretation I could think of instead.
Can you explain how I should have communicated my idea instead? In a more explicit way than I did?
At this stage I am not confident that you are capable of discussing something that broad in a productive way. In order to discuss it, we’re going to end up returning to various sub-arguments. Rather than focus on this very broad argument, it might make more sense to pick a few of the many already active sub-arguments and try again there.
But I agree that (depending on what you mean by “trans identity” and “(in)valid”) this is a major “divider” between our views, yes, that’s fair.
Can you give an example of an expanded definition of woman or gender? And explain what exactly has expanded?
It doesn’t matter to me which ones you argue with. The main reason I consider the dropped arguments to be a significant problem is because you carry on making new assertions and new arguments that are potentially relevant to those dropped arguments. They continue to repeat previous already addressed errors.
Simplifying, just so we can agree that if I’m right it would be a problem: Pretend that I think you misuse the word “money” and the word “count” and the word “bank” and I pointed these instances out. And then you did not reply to any of those, amidst a bunch of other misused words that maybe you did reply to. And now imagine you say “well you’re wrong, because yesterday I counted the money and took it to the bank” — that would be a big problem for me, because I would not really be able to trust that sentence. I would have low confidence in your ability to use those three important words, because I’d already pointed out issues with your understanding of them and you never replied.
I know you disagree that my previous arguments were persuasive or worth addressing or whatever. But if I think they were, and you never replied, then the further the conversation goes the less incentive I have to continue, right? Because from my perspective you’re building on unreliable ground. So what’s the point? It’s just going to get messier and messier with no resolution in sight.
You’re continuing to totally misunderstand me.
I don’t think that. I asked the questions for a different reason.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. Can you point to where I said these things?
Sure, I’ll explain one big misunderstanding here:
I agree. The issue you have here is that you are the one making this error.
I think you are engaging in a (probably unintentional) motte and bailey.
The reason I brought up the strict definitions discussion is that I think your position is that we need strict definitions. You need definitions that let you reliably exclude trans people. At least, that is my understanding. Am I mistaken? Do you not care if your definitions are loose enough to include trans people? If that’s the case then let me know.
My understanding is: I’m the one that is in favor of more straightforward, common sense definitions here, which are always going to be fairly inclusive (I am also in favor of being inclusive of other ways, but that is a secondary step. IMO we can’t really engage that productively until this part is resolved). I think you are the one who needs these definitions to exclude the people you want to exclude.
My position is that, if your goal is to exclude people with your definition, then you need to refine your definition so that it does that. To the extent that this is circular, it’s because it is tautological.
And if you refine your definition in that way, you need to refine it consistently. So if e.g. you refine it enough to exclude trans women, but now you’re excluding lots of cis women too… that seems like a big problem for your definition. You would presumably then want to only apply the strict refined definition when excluding trans women, but not apply it when you would need to exclude cis women. That seems like a bad definition.
My position in this discussion is, and has been: I am fine with a definition of woman that includes trans women. I am fine with a definition of table that includes tables with three legs or bench style tables or large flat rocks. I am fine with a definition of leafy greens that includes basically any plant that is vaguely green in color and has edible stuff that vaguely fits my loose definition of “leaf.”
I think you’re the one who wants to say that the definition is more strict, more restrictive. But IMO the problem that arises is that you don’t know how to restrict it in a consistent and coherent way, and when I point that out you retreat and say that I am using an unreasonable standard and that isn’t how language works.
Can you point out what nonsense (circular) definition I am arguing for?
Right.
Do you think these are contradictory? You don’t say what the issue is, so my guess is you think they are so obviously contradictory that it is self evident.
I will try to explain for you. I don’t really know how to explain without potentially saying something you may find offensive, so I apologize if so.
So, to analyze these two quotes… let’s start by pretending I actually do mean both quotes. One interpretation is that they are contradictory and I am confused.
But another possibility is that both things are actually true. I do try to hold back a lot of arguments. I try not to engage with every wrong thing you say. I try not to overwhelm you. But I fail a lot, because from my perspective you are easily confused/easily overwhelmed so even the partial arguments I do give end up being too much. And so then I find it disappointing, because I tried to hold back some arguments, but then it wasn’t enough, and you drop lots of the arguments I did make. And you often leave even the stuff I considered important enough to say unaddressed.
That all seems internally consistent to me. What am I missing?
Sure. Here, this one:
Seems pretty straightforward.
This kind of reminds me of previous conversations where you felt like it would improve things if I would just point out some ways that I think women suck.
Also, just to be clear:
I don’t think I said that?
I think what I said is that I sometimes I argue against things that seem wrong to me, whether or not I would put myself in the traditionally opposed camp. To a lot of people that might seem super similar or like a pedantic distinction but especially in CF I don’t think it should be.
Let’s say that I see Positive Argument A (Pos Arg A) advocating for A and against notA, and I see Positive Argument B (Pos Arg B) advocating for B and against notB.
I might see some big problems with Positive Argument A. And I might articulate those problems. That is me arguing against PoS Arg A. It is not necessarily me advocating for all of notA. It is not necessarily me advocating for B. It is not necessarily me saying I agree with Pos Arg B.
All I’m doing is criticizing Pos Arg A for being flawed. So the problem with what you said is “you don’t always argue for things you believe” — I don’t think I “admitted” that. I think I admitted that sometimes when I criticize stuff I think is wrong, I might also think their opposition is wrong. I might think Pos Arg A and Pos Arg B are both flawed, but I may only mention one criticism in a specific context.
But the way you wrote it sounds like maybe I don’t agree with Pos Arg B but I advocate on their behalf anyway or something. I don’t recall admitting that and I suspect if I did it was either a misspeak or me hedging. I might hedge because the example above is very neat and tidy but reality often isn’t, so maybe I blur the lines on this type of thing sometimes, and my behavior could be debatable or something.
Why’s that?
So the only options are either I think everyone who disagrees with me is a bigot, or I need to respect (and presumably at least slightly agree with?) arguments that trans identities are invalid?
I couldn’t just think some people are good faith and mean well but are mistaken? That’s not an option for some reason?
By “unanswered questions” do you mean like, there are some things that trans advocates claim that I am unsure of? If so, of course that’s the case, yeah. I don’t categorically agree with all pro-trans stances. I’ve never said I did. I don’t really understand why you assume that I do. My guess is: you oriented yourself solidly in one tribal camp and you assume that if I argue with that camp I must be in the opposing camp. And it kinda seems (based on your desire for me to like, offer up unargued off-topic concessions) that the only way you are inclined to believe I am not simply fully aligned with your opposition tribe would be for me to intentionally tell you about all the bad ideas on my “side” that I disagree with.
Again, reminiscent something that came up during discussions of misogyny. I’m not interested in performatively telling you about irrelevant problems with the pro-trans tribe. I’ll just concede on topics we are actually discussing when relevant. If you want to assume that makes me a member of your opposition tribe, that’s your prerogative. But I don’t think it’s very productive.
That isn’t accurate, but it’s not that important.