Canary in the bullshit mine
How “skepticism” has fallen.
You are what’s in your head, not what your body is. Could it be any more “spiritual” and religion-like? Thoughts determine physical reality; physical reality does not.
It’s all the more fatuous given the emphasis skepticism normally puts on how easy it is to fool ourselves, how difficult it is to see ourselves clearly, how prone we all are to flattering self and disparaging others (like “GC idiots” for instance). There’s all that, but on the other hand there’s also “if you like to fantasize about being a woman then you are a woman.” Puh-leeze.
If you are what’s in your head and not your body, then if you spend enough time fantasizing about being a cheetah or a crocodile or a hummingbird then you are one. Now what? Do we all have to buckle down to affirming all those exciting new idenninies? Install perches everywhere? Resign ourselves to being eaten?
If identity matters more than observable material reality, why aren’t we saluting Rachel Dolezal as an accomplished Black scholar?
Or why are we testing psychics?
If skeptics want to make the argument that it really doesn’t matter if someone is a woman or a man because we should always prioritize letting people do what they want as long as they’re not hurting anybody who’s not just being huffy about other people being allowed to do as they want, they can make that argument. It abandons the meta-argument “but is it true?” for an Accomodationist position.
There’s no necessary conflict between sex and gender. Trans people need to believe so let them. The problem isn’t accepting trans people for who they say they are, it’s the bad people who try to force them to believe something else. Live and let live. Accommodate. Strident transphobes need to keep it to themselves.
Been there; done that; got the t-shirt.
And of course we’ve been pointing out how it does harm women and LGB people for years now.
@Ophelia;
The perfect counter argument to the harm done to women and LGB requires abandoning Accomodationism and going right to Trans Women Are Women. If that’s true then none of our objections makes a difference. Women are in danger from other women? Throw some women under the bus because unscrupulous men use them for a cover? Worry about some women having natural gifts that help them excel? Let LGB people refuse to acknowledge that some women are really truly women? And each time it’s the women who are the most fragile and needy? Now, really.
If they grant that trans-identified males are a kind of man rather than a kind of woman, they can still throw a pity party and fret about our need to be sensitive to The Little People who can’t handle the truth like we can. But if we grant that “transgender” is only a descriptive modifier for women like “blond,” “tall,” or “black” are, we can’t (wouldn’t) argue that we should hurt their feelings anyway for the fun of it.
I sometimes wonder if this implicit imbalance between the two positions — they can still make a case if they concede on the Major Issue of Truth but we can’t— might partially account for the puzzling popularity of Genderism.
In my head, I am Tom Williamson. I would like access to my bank account now.
I’ve gone a few rounds with Tom on Facebook. You all know that Edith Sitwell quote, “I’m patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it”?
Tom is proud of it.
His cornbread ain’t done in the middle, is what I’m saying.
I’d be inclined to agree with Tom, but then we’d both be wrong.
What’s “between my legs” is an outwardly visible sign of my sex, but the meat and two veg isn’t the only thing that makes me male. I’m sure a biologist could explain it better than I, but for simplicity’s sake, Tom is full of shit.
“You are what’s in your head, not what’s between your legs.” — Spoken like a true peckerhead.
Rev David Brindley
Males and females differ in our bones, in our muscles, in our cardiovascular systems, and much more, as well as in our reproductive systems, and, yes, our chromosomes.
Genderists like to frame sex as if it were as simple and inconsequential as belly buttons: Who’s an innie and who’s an outie? Then they tell their critics we’re shallow or “obsessed with genitals.”
The funny thing is, Tom was of the skeptic faction that was anti-feminist & gamergatey and all the rest of it. Feminism is terrible but Transism is sacred. How does that work?
Ophelia, I think I know.
I don’t understand what guides Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu, or RW the Skepchick, but I think I know what drives Tom. He knows what a man is.
In the tabletop war-game Warhammer 40k there are a number of different armies that you can play. One of those is Orcs, who are actually fungal rather than animal. All of the vehicles that Orcs drive are devoid of engines or any other means of propulsion – they go purely because the Orcs believe that they will.
So, we have arrived at a point where adults are proposing a mechanic in real life from a fantasy game. If you believe it then it must be true. Sad.
Tom is infamous amongst gender critical skeptics. His skeptical views against homeopathy, crystal healing etc. are completely vanilla.
But when it comes to gender ideology, he has abandoned all reason (in the name of ‘kindness’ and ‘inclusivity’ perhaps?)
His often pushed definition of woman is “Anyone who genuinely thinks that they are a woman”.
When pressed on the circularity of his definition he puts up a brick wall stating “I’ve already given you my definition, you just don’t like it”.
He isn’t a stupid person. At some level he must know he’s pushing BS.
Fascinating that a self-identified skeptic thinks “anyone who genuinely thinks that they are” is a solid definition. Just for a start, how does anyone know which people “genuinely” think that and which don’t? And for a little more, since when does genuinely thinking something absurd trump all the evidence and arguments? Lots of people genuinely believe homeopathy works, and they’re wrong. Now what?
Yes. Which is exactly why it’s such a strange position for a self-proclaimed skeptic to take.