RugbyRebels

What is "arguing in bad faith" ........

Donny osmond wrote:Just checking in from a spanish hotel pool and giving myself a massive high five on how this thread has gone.

It occurs to me, now that we've introduced race, what if I as a white man decide I've been in the wrong body my whole life and want to live as and be treated as a black man. Presumably you all are gonna have to accept me as a black man now?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Coco wrote:

Stom wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Just checking in from a spanish hotel pool and giving myself a massive high five on how this thread has gone.

It occurs to me, now that we've introduced race, what if I as a white man decide I've been in the wrong body my whole life and want to live as and be treated as a black man. Presumably you all are gonna have to accept me as a black man now?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal

I will... go on with your bad self Donny.

Isnt giving yourself a massive high 5 in public frowned upon over there?

I remember this woman.. I think it was her own parents that outted her.

I expect white people would struggle to get away with it.

I was thinking about that lady when I posted. I remember wondering when she was in the news, why we are bound to unquestioningly accept when someone wants to change gender but when someone wants to change skin colour, thats a MAJOR no no.

After all, that white lady had a hell of a lot more in common, biologically, with a black lady than she does with a white man. But one of those transitions is acceptable and understandable to the point where you're a bigot if you dont accept it, but the other is unacceptable and really just weird, even tho its really a much smaller transition.

As to why thats a contemplation thats in bad faith or a false equivalence, I dont know.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

I think maybe because one is now known to be a product of the epigenetic developmental landscape and the other is what happens after you make Thriller?

Donny osmond wrote:
As to why thats a contemplation thats in bad faith or a false equivalence, I dont know.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

The argument that physical issues take such precedence over mental issues is an ongoing issue for the treatment of mental disorders the world over, and oddly a position that many arguing with you on this would normally object to (I assume)

morepork wrote:I think maybe because one is now known to be a product of the epigenetic developmental landscape and the other is what happens after you make Thriller?

I say this without having a clue what epigenetic developmental landscape means, but is it inconceivable that the knowledge you've been born into the wrong body could apply across skin colour as well as gender?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Digby wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:
As to why thats a contemplation thats in bad faith or a false equivalence, I dont know.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

The argument that physical issues take such precedence over mental issues is an ongoing issue for the treatment of mental disorders the world over, and oddly a position that many arguing with you on this would normally object to (I assume)

Sorry, the Spanish sun is scrambling my synapses. Are we not talking about mental health issues exclusively?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:

Digby wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:
As to why thats a contemplation thats in bad faith or a false equivalence, I dont know.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

The argument that physical issues take such precedence over mental issues is an ongoing issue for the treatment of mental disorders the world over, and oddly a position that many arguing with you on this would normally object to (I assume)

Sorry, the Spanish sun is scrambling my synapses. Are we not talking about mental health issues exclusively?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Perhaps, I suppose I've been thinking if you want your toddler cut off or a banana stitched on there are some physical issues on the one side, whereas the other is more mental.

We could just go back to locking the lunatics in an asylum and going along to laugh at them

We’re nearing a breakthrough here. I can feel it.

We’re all going to be glad we persisted with this thread.

Mikey Brown wrote:We’re nearing a breakthrough here. I can feel it.

We’re all going to be glad we persisted with this thread.

I know I am.

Puja

Donny osmond wrote:

morepork wrote:I think maybe because one is now known to be a product of the epigenetic developmental landscape and the other is what happens after you make Thriller?

I say this without having a clue what epigenetic developmental landscape means, but is it inconceivable that the knowledge you've been born into the wrong body could apply across skin colour as well as gender?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

The sum of the environmental and genetic influences on the development of the unique thing that is you. The weird and wonderful interactions of genes and their environment. Personality and gender are two of the many complex traits that arise thereof. Skin colour is too, but it is much less of a fundamental biological function than the other two. Cultural identity, on the other hand is a complex manifestation of the mind. This is why psychiatry is a discipline and homeopathy is a massive bunch of shit.

Digby wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Digby wrote:

The argument that physical issues take such precedence over mental issues is an ongoing issue for the treatment of mental disorders the world over, and oddly a position that many arguing with you on this would normally object to (I assume)

Sorry, the Spanish sun is scrambling my synapses. Are we not talking about mental health issues exclusively?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Perhaps, I suppose I've been thinking if you want your toddler cut off or a banana stitched on there are some physical issues on the one side, whereas the other is more mental.

We could just go back to locking the lunatics in an asylum and going along to laugh at them

Oh I see, so man to woman or vice versa is proper physical medicine involving Surgery and Powerful Drugs, hoo-ah

Cultural jealousy is just a tiny little mental health issue and not worth our while...

That what you mean?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

morepork wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

morepork wrote:I think maybe because one is now known to be a product of the epigenetic developmental landscape and the other is what happens after you make Thriller?

I say this without having a clue what epigenetic developmental landscape means, but is it inconceivable that the knowledge you've been born into the wrong body could apply across skin colour as well as gender?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

The sum of the environmental and genetic influences on the development of the unique thing that is you. The weird and wonderful interactions of genes and their environment. Personality and gender are two of the many complex traits that arise thereof. Skin colour is too, but it is much less of a fundamental biological function than the other two. Cultural identity, on the other hand is a complex manifestation of the mind. This is why psychiatry is a discipline and homeopathy is a massive bunch of shit.

Ok I think I'm lost in the vocabulary here. If gender in the above paragraph refers to being born biologically male or female is that the result of an interaction between genes and the environment?

If gender refers to identity in ones mind of being male or female is that not cultural identity?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:

morepork wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:I say this without having a clue what epigenetic developmental landscape means, but is it inconceivable that the knowledge you've been born into the wrong body could apply across skin colour as well as gender?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

The sum of the environmental and genetic influences on the development of the unique thing that is you. The weird and wonderful interactions of genes and their environment. Personality and gender are two of the many complex traits that arise thereof. Skin colour is too, but it is much less of a fundamental biological function than the other two. Cultural identity, on the other hand is a complex manifestation of the mind. This is why psychiatry is a discipline and homeopathy is a massive bunch of shit.

Ok I think I'm lost in the vocabulary here. If gender in the above paragraph refers to being born biologically male or female is that the result of an interaction between genes and the environment?

If gender refers to identity in ones mind of being male or female is that not cultural identity?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Biology is telling us that gender is subject to tremendous evolutionary drivers so it is getting increasingly difficult to rigidly compartmentalise gender. Look at hermaphroditism in nature.There are millions of species that are naturally intersex. All biological phenomenon are the product of genes and environment, and that includes conciousness.

morepork wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

morepork wrote:

The sum of the environmental and genetic influences on the development of the unique thing that is you. The weird and wonderful interactions of genes and their environment. Personality and gender are two of the many complex traits that arise thereof. Skin colour is too, but it is much less of a fundamental biological function than the other two. Cultural identity, on the other hand is a complex manifestation of the mind. This is why psychiatry is a discipline and homeopathy is a massive bunch of shit.

Ok I think I'm lost in the vocabulary here. If gender in the above paragraph refers to being born biologically male or female is that the result of an interaction between genes and the environment?

If gender refers to identity in ones mind of being male or female is that not cultural identity?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Biology is telling us that gender is subject to tremendous evolutionary drivers so it is getting increasingly difficult to rigidly compartmentalise gender. Look at hermaphroditism in nature.There are millions of species that are naturally intersex. All biological phenomenon are the product of genes and environment, and that includes conciousness.

Right, so gender exists more as a spectrum, and traditional male/female identities are culturally inaccurate interpretations of an actually more fluid scientific reality? Much like 'race', no?

(An aside, been reading about ancient Greece who completely accepted a "3rd gender" including masculine women and feminine men, so our cultural interpretations are more modern failings?)

I introduced the idea of changing 'race' as a comparison, for that lady involved it wasn't just about skin colour but about cultural identity. Being a better dancer for one thing. Ahem... sorry. Is it more/less difficult to rigidly compartmentalize human gender than human "race"?

I'm not trying to be obtuse, bottom line is live and let live.... I just genuinely don't see why its a false comparison. Unless I'm being massively thick, which is always possible. But after all, you can actually compare apples and oranges, there are parallels. As Diggers pointed out, dismissing one desire for change but accepting another seems like trivializingor ignoring genuine mental health issues.

Thanks for your patience btw its appreciated.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

I don't know if I would call race "fluid". Race is a much broader entity. Evolutionary pressure would for instance be much more likely to change a species than it would a race. That is putting the scientifically obvious very politely.

Also, traditional cultural definitions of gender could well turn out to be an incorrect scientific interpretation. We have a lot more to learn.

Again, anyone calling me PC gets a punch in the kok. I can see the scientific validity of debating gender definition because of exposure to the real biological mechanisms and environmental pressures at play. Sexual recombination resulted in an explosion of diversity on this planet, and when you think about it, the concept of a rigid gender classification in the face of such a rapid and constant vehicle of change is a bit of a theoretical anomaly. Which is a far better approach to a discussion of gender than this dildo:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... s-campaign

Ok but would you say human race exists on a spectrum or as discrete entities, biologically?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote: (An aside, been reading about ancient Greece who completely accepted a "3rd gender" including masculine women and feminine men, so our cultural interpretations are more modern failings?)

A third gender is found all over the world - Pacific Islands, Native Americans, First People in Canada, India, Greece as you mentioned. A lot of what we see as "normal" gender and sexuality was beaten into a lot of the world by the puritan values of the British Empire, the Victorians especially.

Donny osmond wrote:I introduced the idea of changing 'race' as a comparison, for that lady involved it wasn't just about skin colour but about cultural identity. Being a better dancer for one thing. Ahem... sorry. Is it more/less difficult to rigidly compartmentalize human gender than human "race"?

I'm not trying to be obtuse, bottom line is live and let live.... I just genuinely don't see why its a false comparison. Unless I'm being massively thick, which is always possible. But after all, you can actually compare apples and oranges, there are parallels. As Diggers pointed out, dismissing one desire for change but accepting another seems like trivializingor ignoring genuine mental health issues.

Thanks for your patience btw its appreciated.

I would say the difference is that "trans race" (for want of a better word) is largely a thought experiment. There isn't a historical record of people throughout the centuries needing to live in a race that's different to the one assigned at birth and the few examples noted are where someone has been immersed in the culture of that other race for most of their life (so a nurture, rather than nature argument).

If they existed, then yeah, I'd say it probably brooked discussion. But I call it a false equivalence because it's comparing real life documented people with a "Hey, imagine if this were the case."

Puja

Donny osmond wrote:Ok but would you say human race exists on a spectrum or as discrete entities, biologically?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

I need a metric. What do you mean by a spectrum of race? That makes no sense. Biologically, anthropological assignment, at least over time, can be defined by haplotype. This is neither a spectrum nor discrete, but the probability of shared characteristics based on inheritance patterns resulting from sexual recombination. Are you looking for me to say that race is fixed at birth, or what?

morepork wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Ok but would you say human race exists on a spectrum or as discrete entities, biologically?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

I need a metric. What do you mean by a spectrum of race? That makes no sense. Biologically, anthropological assignment, at least over time, can be defined by haplotype. This is neither a spectrum nor discrete, but the probability of shared characteristics based on inheritance patterns resulting from sexual recombination. Are you looking for me to say that race is fixed at birth, or what?

No fair enough I was thinking about people born of parents from different races and thinking that would create some kind of spectrum of characteristics but it is clearly bollocks, sorry

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Puja wrote:

Donny osmond wrote: (An aside, been reading about ancient Greece who completely accepted a "3rd gender" including masculine women and feminine men, so our cultural interpretations are more modern failings?)

A third gender is found all over the world - Pacific Islands, Native Americans, First People in Canada, India, Greece as you mentioned. A lot of what we see as "normal" gender and sexuality was beaten into a lot of the world by the puritan values of the British Empire, the Victorians especially.

Right... isnt trans as in trans-woman short for transitioning? If non binary genders are the way life really is, why are we putting people thru massive amounts of surgery and drugs to get them to fit into these biologically incorrect boxes of male or female? Shouldnt we be celebrating their own unique identities?

Puja wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:I introduced the idea of changing 'race' as a comparison, for that lady involved it wasn't just about skin colour but about cultural identity. Being a better dancer for one thing. Ahem... sorry. Is it more/less difficult to rigidly compartmentalize human gender than human "race"?

I'm not trying to be obtuse, bottom line is live and let live.... I just genuinely don't see why its a false comparison. Unless I'm being massively thick, which is always possible. But after all, you can actually compare apples and oranges, there are parallels. As Diggers pointed out, dismissing one desire for change but accepting another seems like trivializingor ignoring genuine mental health issues.

Thanks for your patience btw its appreciated.

I would say the difference is that "trans race" (for want of a better word) is largely a thought experiment. There isn't a historical record of people throughout the centuries needing to live in a race that's different to the one assigned at birth and the few examples noted are where someone has been immersed in the culture of that other race for most of their life (so a nurture, rather than nature argument).

If they existed, then yeah, I'd say it probably brooked discussion. But I call it a false equivalence because it's comparing real life documented people with a "Hey, imagine if this were the case."

Puja

Not that much of a thought experiment, there's all kinds of evidence of mixed race people feeling alienated by both of their parents communities, or not fitting neatly into a "cultural" box due to their genetic heritage. Fair enough the original comparison was daft, a white person wanting to be black. But how about a mixed race person who feels unaccepted?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:

Puja wrote:

Donny osmond wrote: (An aside, been reading about ancient Greece who completely accepted a "3rd gender" including masculine women and feminine men, so our cultural interpretations are more modern failings?)

A third gender is found all over the world - Pacific Islands, Native Americans, First People in Canada, India, Greece as you mentioned. A lot of what we see as "normal" gender and sexuality was beaten into a lot of the world by the puritan values of the British Empire, the Victorians especially.

Right... isnt trans as in trans-woman short for transitioning? If non binary genders are the way life really is, why are we putting people thru massive amounts of surgery and drugs to get them to fit into these biologically incorrect boxes of male or female? Shouldnt we be celebrating their own unique identities?

If life were perfect and everyone was very accepting, then gender should absolutely be recognised on a spectrum and everyone should feel able to express themselves however they like. However, this is the world that we're in.

Donny osmond wrote:

Puja wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:I introduced the idea of changing 'race' as a comparison, for that lady involved it wasn't just about skin colour but about cultural identity. Being a better dancer for one thing. Ahem... sorry. Is it more/less difficult to rigidly compartmentalize human gender than human "race"?

I'm not trying to be obtuse, bottom line is live and let live.... I just genuinely don't see why its a false comparison. Unless I'm being massively thick, which is always possible. But after all, you can actually compare apples and oranges, there are parallels. As Diggers pointed out, dismissing one desire for change but accepting another seems like trivializingor ignoring genuine mental health issues.

Thanks for your patience btw its appreciated.

I would say the difference is that "trans race" (for want of a better word) is largely a thought experiment. There isn't a historical record of people throughout the centuries needing to live in a race that's different to the one assigned at birth and the few examples noted are where someone has been immersed in the culture of that other race for most of their life (so a nurture, rather than nature argument).

If they existed, then yeah, I'd say it probably brooked discussion. But I call it a false equivalence because it's comparing real life documented people with a "Hey, imagine if this were the case."

Puja

Not that much of a thought experiment, there's all kinds of evidence of mixed race people feeling alienated by both of their parents communities, or not fitting neatly into a "cultural" box due to their genetic heritage. Fair enough the original comparison was daft, a white person wanting to be black. But how about a mixed race person who feels unaccepted?

That's not really a comparator to someone assigned female at birth realising they're a man though. If we're really stretching the comparison, it'd be closer to an intersex person wanting to pass as male or female, which doesn't really seem germane to the original point.

Puja

Not to reopen old scores, but going back to Eugenes post... here are some excerpts and a link to a talk given by Dr Emma Hilton recently, that seem to contradict what has been said in this thread about transwomen athletes...

So, up to 2015, the body of information available to the IOC comprised four studies showing that transwomen even five years past transition and their testes long gone retain more muscle mass and remain much stronger than reference females.

Since 2015, there have been eight published studies assessing aspects of transwomen physiology. Two focussed solely on bone health. Four confirmed previously-observed data on body composition. That is, transwomen gain a fair bit of body fat and lose a small amount of lean body mass.

The final two, both published last year, tracked the effects of transition in around 100 males before or shortly into puberty, to around 20 years of age. Males as young as 12 were treated with puberty blockers, followed by hormone treatment at 16 years old, with some opting for gonadectomy after 18 years of age. Attained height was male-typical. Body fat was female-typical. Lean body mass and grip strength was lower than in reference males and in males transitioning as adults, but still, despite the early intervention, remained far higher than in age-matched reference females.

Maybe the science actually, as far as it can, paints a different picture to what has been presented in this thread?

https://fairplayforwomen.com/emma_hilton/

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:Not to reopen old scores, but going back to Eugenes post... here are some excerpts and a link to a talk given by Dr Emma Hilton recently, that seem to contradict what has been said in this thread about transwomen athletes...

So, up to 2015, the body of information available to the IOC comprised four studies showing that transwomen even five years past transition and their testes long gone retain more muscle mass and remain much stronger than reference females.

Since 2015, there have been eight published studies assessing aspects of transwomen physiology. Two focussed solely on bone health. Four confirmed previously-observed data on body composition. That is, transwomen gain a fair bit of body fat and lose a small amount of lean body mass.

The final two, both published last year, tracked the effects of transition in around 100 males before or shortly into puberty, to around 20 years of age. Males as young as 12 were treated with puberty blockers, followed by hormone treatment at 16 years old, with some opting for gonadectomy after 18 years of age. Attained height was male-typical. Body fat was female-typical. Lean body mass and grip strength was lower than in reference males and in males transitioning as adults, but still, despite the early intervention, remained far higher than in age-matched reference females.

Maybe the science actually, as far as it can, paints a different picture to what has been presented in this thread?

https://fairplayforwomen.com/emma_hilton/

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

I think its very possible, and with such differing outcomes depending on the study, it may never be definitively figured out. I also believe studys can have weighted outcomes depending on who or what organizaion is conducting a study, or who is financing a study.

Coco me old mate, conflict of interest include funding sources as disclosure. A real actually rigorous peer review process accounts for funding sources in the assessment of claims of efficacy. This is why the FDA in America is such an important template for the peer review process. Look up Frances Kelsey . Peer reviewed science is based on the laws of nature independently of lobbying power, and the FDA model is a big reason scientific refugees like me come here to work. Funding bodies have very little to do with assessment of an alternative hypothesis in real science. This is why “fuck Facebook”

She's worth a follow on twitter too, for calm reasoned science based debate...

@fondofbeetles