I like the cut of your jib. And agreed--no amount of logic will convince them, because "you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into" (Some Guy On the Interwebs, Some Date).
Being plainspoken and blunt is the best policy.
Oh, and mockery where suited. Authoritarians HATE it! =D
Sadly, or not, most of us -- even apart from various "gender ideologues" -- have those "ill opinions" that are no more than articles of faith, certainly nothing that they ever "reasoned" themselves into. As Mark Twain once put it:
MT: "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking. And out of it we get an aggregation which we consider a boon. Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it the Voice of God."
More particularly and relative to the OP, a great many people take it as an article of faith that "sex is immutable" (!!11!! 🙄), even in humans. For instance, evolutionary biologist Colin Wright asked, in a WSJ article:
CW: "Are sex categories in humans empirically real, immutable and binary, or are they mere 'social constructs'?"
But by standard biological definitions -- at least those published in reputable sources like the Oxford Journal of Molecular Human Biology, and the Oxford Dictionary of Biology -- to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless:
"Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes"
Bit of a stretch to see how one might "reason" oneself from that definition to "immutable" ... 🤔:
Colin clearly has a different definition for the sexes in mind. Which may have some use in limited applications, but it sure the hell isn't mainstream biology.
You will now be accused of violence. I agree 100% with everything you stated. Time to go on the offensive. This will get me accused of promoting violence, for drawing a hard line in the sand. This is more of trying to break down boundaries. I wouldn't argue or debate with a flat-earther. Debating the cult members makes it look like they have some credibility.
Great rushed exciting writjng style. I’m enjoying the “how to talk to a gender thing” notes from posts; and I’m fond of the word “crapola” (I love all “ola” words, “shit from shinola”, “on the payola”, “Victrola”, “granola”, but not “cupola”, wrong accent.)
Responding to your article., one tricky thing to realize is that when you begin talking with an aggressive trans, you may be entering their sex fantasyland. A not uncommon (written) porn fantasy for this group is convincing people to trans a child - not grooming children, as the naive complain about, it’s about grooming adults. It’s so far from people’s imagination, nobody considers this. Perusing “nifty.org” you can find such stories effortlessly. I’m also trained in biology, I’ll share my notes through time.
Helpful essay. I will stand strong on the fact that what I'm saying is my belief based on a lot of research. I would probably not waste too much time, unless there were other people around listening to the argument. Although I guess it's good to practice.
I think body language is important in something like this. You can relax and act confident without getting into the haranguing 'tude of the gender activist.
Hazel, I'd love to hear more about what happens when you use these (very clear and logical) words IRL. Have you won any people over? Lost any friends? Any trips to ER :)? I'd love to hear more of people who stood up for the truth and lived to tell their stories!
I’ve always been up front when pushing back on the rank insanity and incoherence of gender ideology.
“I’m not here to convince you, I’m here to show your friends/followers what a misogynist and predatory asshat you are.”
I’m confident I’ve changed several minds just by Letting Them Speak (goading/encouraging, if I’m totally honest lol). Which is a delicious irony as the TRAs and their allies are so violently and defamatorily against Letting Women Speak.
Based!
I like the cut of your jib. And agreed--no amount of logic will convince them, because "you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into" (Some Guy On the Interwebs, Some Date).
Being plainspoken and blunt is the best policy.
Oh, and mockery where suited. Authoritarians HATE it! =D
Agreed!
Jonathan Swift, 1721. More or less:
JS: "Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired."
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/07/10/reason-out/
Sadly, or not, most of us -- even apart from various "gender ideologues" -- have those "ill opinions" that are no more than articles of faith, certainly nothing that they ever "reasoned" themselves into. As Mark Twain once put it:
MT: "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking. And out of it we get an aggregation which we consider a boon. Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it the Voice of God."
http://www.paulgraham.com/cornpone.html
More particularly and relative to the OP, a great many people take it as an article of faith that "sex is immutable" (!!11!! 🙄), even in humans. For instance, evolutionary biologist Colin Wright asked, in a WSJ article:
CW: "Are sex categories in humans empirically real, immutable and binary, or are they mere 'social constructs'?"
https://archive.ph/ioBPC
But by standard biological definitions -- at least those published in reputable sources like the Oxford Journal of Molecular Human Biology, and the Oxford Dictionary of Biology -- to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless:
"Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes"
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441
Bit of a stretch to see how one might "reason" oneself from that definition to "immutable" ... 🤔:
Colin clearly has a different definition for the sexes in mind. Which may have some use in limited applications, but it sure the hell isn't mainstream biology.
You will now be accused of violence. I agree 100% with everything you stated. Time to go on the offensive. This will get me accused of promoting violence, for drawing a hard line in the sand. This is more of trying to break down boundaries. I wouldn't argue or debate with a flat-earther. Debating the cult members makes it look like they have some credibility.
Great rushed exciting writjng style. I’m enjoying the “how to talk to a gender thing” notes from posts; and I’m fond of the word “crapola” (I love all “ola” words, “shit from shinola”, “on the payola”, “Victrola”, “granola”, but not “cupola”, wrong accent.)
Responding to your article., one tricky thing to realize is that when you begin talking with an aggressive trans, you may be entering their sex fantasyland. A not uncommon (written) porn fantasy for this group is convincing people to trans a child - not grooming children, as the naive complain about, it’s about grooming adults. It’s so far from people’s imagination, nobody considers this. Perusing “nifty.org” you can find such stories effortlessly. I’m also trained in biology, I’ll share my notes through time.
I like it. Well done.
Well stated. Good to find you.
Helpful essay. I will stand strong on the fact that what I'm saying is my belief based on a lot of research. I would probably not waste too much time, unless there were other people around listening to the argument. Although I guess it's good to practice.
I think body language is important in something like this. You can relax and act confident without getting into the haranguing 'tude of the gender activist.
Hazel, I'd love to hear more about what happens when you use these (very clear and logical) words IRL. Have you won any people over? Lost any friends? Any trips to ER :)? I'd love to hear more of people who stood up for the truth and lived to tell their stories!
Alas, the goal here is not to win anyone over, it’s to stand up to and fight off aggressors and demoralize them.
If you find yourself in an argument, it’s likely too late to win anyone over, especially if they’re the ones who started the argument.
I personally am not much help in the winning people over department right now.
I’ve always been up front when pushing back on the rank insanity and incoherence of gender ideology.
“I’m not here to convince you, I’m here to show your friends/followers what a misogynist and predatory asshat you are.”
I’m confident I’ve changed several minds just by Letting Them Speak (goading/encouraging, if I’m totally honest lol). Which is a delicious irony as the TRAs and their allies are so violently and defamatorily against Letting Women Speak.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/crime/posie-parker-protest-activist-pleads-guilty-to-punching-elderly-woman-at-heated-auckland-trans-rights-protest/A5RG2HY2TJFLFKAP4OT7JLGIGU/
https://theconversation.com/moira-deemings-defamation-win-shows-nobody-can-play-fast-and-loose-with-language-not-even-politicians-245837
And yet the Conversation article still calls LWS “an anti-trans rights rally”. So close, but oh so far.
As always, simply Letting Women Speak is cast as being anti-trans.