The costs of trans visibility
Yesterday, Dylan Mulvaney broke her silence: https://www.tiktok.com/@dylanmulvaney/vi....
For context, this is a trans influencer who built a 10 million strong following on TikTok. She took a brand deal with budweiser to post an ad on an instagram, and the anti-trans right went absolutely ballistic, calling for a boycott, condemning the company, and to some perhaps unknowable degree it influenced that Budweiser sales dropped by a 1/4 and
. Dylan speaks more personally about the effect of the hatred on her.
What strikes me about this story is that it is just about visibility. This isn't inclusion in sports or gender-affirming care for minors, it was just that a trans person was visible. This wasn't even visibility in a TV commerical that a poor right-winger is forced to see, it was an ad on her own instagram page. We're all in our own social media algorithm influenced bubbles, but from my vantage point it really has seemed that in the last year or so things have just gotten worse for trans people and the backlash to even minor visibility is growing.
We need to do better.
I really don't know what you mean by "behavioral patterns". I don't think I personally exhibit any behavioral patterns that would be indicative of gender. I guess my playing poker is more common for men than for women, but there are still plenty of women who play poker, and most other things I do are either not indicative at all or are behaviors more common for women.
Man women behave differently than men on a whole pletora of things.
The way they have arguments and debate is different, any AI would easily identify you as man from any 30 random post of yours. We apply logic differently, we build arguments differently we focus on different things.
Voice intonation is different, vocabulary choices are different, tastes are different.
We have a far higher propensity for use of violence, far less risk aversion, and we manifest extremist behavior in at least one element of our lives far more often than women do.
Yes every individual then can vary a lot vs the sex average but still, the average is different for basically any behavior.
If you take 100 actual trans people and average measurements of any of their behavior they will be very similar to the average of their pretended sex, not the biological one.
That's how we can claim trans ness actually exists and isn't a made up by leftists idea
I agree that the averages are different in a lot of those things, but with the individual variance, you couldn't prove anything from measuring a single person.
You may be right about the vocabulary use and argument style; I haven't heard anything about that but there likely is some correlation.
I agree that the averages are different in a lot of those things, but with the individual variance, you couldn't prove anything from measuring a single person.
You may be right about the vocabulary use and argument style; I haven't heard anything about that but there likely is some correlation.
Except many countries had evaluations of that kind that included using witnesses and so on, before allowing legal sex changes. Some still do.
Ofc trans activists are working as hard as they can to remove the objectivity part in trans ness but for normal people it's still there and very clearly so
I think it's really horrible when the word woman in a binding contract gets changed in meaning , with legal consequences
https://reduxx.info/kappa-kappa-gamma-wo...
Chillrob this is an example of who wouldn't be considered a woman (nor a trans) under my definition
I agree that the averages are different in a lot of those things, but with the individual variance, you couldn't prove anything from measuring a single person..
This is one of the central confusions people have in most social metrics. Imagine two normal distributions for whatever your favourite personality trait is, say extravertedness for men and women. Those two distributions may have different averages. But they might also still really overlap. Something like this:
So the standard confusion people have when they not differences in averages of two distributions is to confuse the above image with one more like this:
These are much less common when measureing most social phenomena. One of the key things is that when you have really overlapping distributions, during the big middle it doesn't make a big difference, but right at the ends it does. So for example in terms of violent crime and agressiveness the far right tail of the distribution becomes overwhelmingly male.
This is one of the central confusions people have in most social metrics. Imagine two normal distributions for whatever your favourite personality trait is, say extravertedness for men and women. Those two distributions may have different averages. But they might also still really overlap. Something like this:
So the standard confusion people have when they not differences in averages of two distributions is to confuse the above image with
There is no confusion.
Given the different measurable traits are 100+, even the tiniest average aggregate difference is enough. You measure them all and easily determine if the person is actual trans or not.
And btw hand grip strength men vs women actually looks like the second graph
When "what is a woman?" leaves you flabbergasted
When traditional religion is dissolved and a new cult stomps over science with gender ideology by the force of reputation savaging, threats of , bigotry, cancellation, licensing, etc.
Finally people are stepping up
This is one of the central confusions people have in most social metrics. Imagine two normal distributions for whatever your favourite personality trait is, say extravertedness for men and women. Those two distributions may have different averages. But they might also still really overlap. Something like this:
So the standard confusion people have when they not differences in averages of two distributions is to confuse the above image with
How do you understand personality traits, sex differences in personality traits, and then become so incredibly lost in gender ideology that you can't instantly recognize it is useless made up nonsense?
Yes we have sex, personality, and sexuality. What exactly do we need "gender" (as used in gender ideology) for? Oh to ram insanity in to our lives? Well it worked I guess. But obviously "gender" is already covered by those three categories that can actually be defined and isn't a completely contradictory circus
Ah yes the Elon Musk stans. Gotta respost what he reposts...right? OR you could think critically for a moment.
[QUOTE=the actual context]First and foremost, let’s clarify: The American College of Pediatricians, or ACPeds, is not a legitimate organization representing the field of pediatrics. Founded in 2002, ACPeds is a small, ideologically driven group that promotes abstinence-only sex education, opposes same-sex marriage, rejects vaccine mandates, and links homosexuality with pedophilia. It endorses gay conversion “therapy” and falsely claims transgender identities are a mental illness. The Southern Poverty Law Center has even labeled ACPeds a hate group. This is not an organization focused on children’s health and well-being; it’s a propaganda machine pushing a dangerous, far-right agenda.[/QUOTE]
Buddy, you just gotta find a better source of information that Elon Musk retweets.
When "what is a woman?" leaves you flabbergasted
When traditional religion is dissolved and a new cult stomps over science with gender ideology by the force of reputation savaging, threats of , bigotry, cancellation, licensing, etc.
Finally people are stepping up
uke will battle you to the grave on this one. Uke is a sheep's sheep. I would guess the type of person that waits in line for days when a new iphone comes out. Don't waste your time
uke will battle you to the grave on this one. Uke is a sheep's sheep. I would guess the type of person that waits in line for days when a new iphone comes out. Don't waste your time
Oh goodie, a second sheep who didn't think critically enough about the source content to realize:
First and foremost, let’s clarify: The American College of Pediatricians, or ACPeds, is not a legitimate organization representing the field of pediatrics. Founded in 2002, ACPeds is a small, ideologically driven group that promotes abstinence-only sex education, opposes same-sex marriage, rejects vaccine mandates, and links homosexuality with pedophilia. It endorses gay conversion “therapy” and falsely claims transgender identities are a mental illness. The Southern Poverty Law Center has even labeled ACPeds a hate group. This is not an organization focused on children’s health and well-being; it’s a propaganda machine pushing a dangerous, far-right agenda.
baaaa.
The source is illegitimate because it doesn't agree with radical leftists and uke.
That's the rule
Ah yes the Elon Musk stans. Gotta respost what he reposts...right? OR you could think critically for a moment.
Buddy, you just gotta find a better source of information that Elon Musk retweets.
Same crap different pile. This is like the time you saw a CBC report of a minor visiting the dr and being transitioned without any parental involvement and went on a 5 page debate on how much or little the CBC is biased
So the organization that you find ideologically driven makes sane statements against the ideologically driven movement that is rapidly walking back the policy and procedures that has them mutilating children. Thanks for clarifying
How do you understand personality traits, sex differences in personality traits, and then become so incredibly lost in gender ideology that you can't instantly recognize it is useless made up nonsense?
Yes we have sex, personality, and sexuality. What exactly do we need "gender" (as used in gender ideology) for? Oh to ram insanity in to our lives? Well it worked I guess. But obviously "gender" is already covered by those three categories tha
Again. With sex, personality, and sexuality covered, what and why do we need gender ideology? How is it not a covered? What important part is missing from those 3 categories that makes gender ideology real and/or important? I won't hold my breathe. This question is also open to all the usual geniuses that failed to give a definition of a woman also
This is quite the collection from the SPLC about when the Elon Musk Retweet's subject earned its "hate group" designation: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/.... You guys can keep the gay conversion therapy folks on your team imo.
you can be wrong about gay conversion but right about minor mutilations.
the validity of a claim is not related to who makes the claim.
and it's licensed doctors so the same creentialism you guys use to allege experts all agree with you.
well they don't
Glad that wreckem has revealed - once and for all - which side he is batting for.
if you study the issue deeply enough, rather than debate it on forums where you are correct in saying that most people dont understand this issue, you will eventually realize transgender men are men and transgender women are women. Once you realize this, then your arguement seems trite,
In truth your argument is no different than any other discriminatory belief , but it’s only discriminatory because you dont believe the truth. You sound ind
I've read a fair bit about by now. Ive read most post several months back.
I don’t understand your post well but it would be pretty absurd to pretend that "trans women are women" is a scientific claim at all, let alone that it's settled science.
It's not even a good philosophical claim. If you mean that they are indistinguishable or identical you are obviously wrong.
If you mean that their gender identity is "woman," ok. But saying "transwomen are women" to make this claim is at best confusing. You could just say some people born males identity as women, and I think most people would agree.
There are people with gender dysphoria who don't view themselves as interchangeable with the opposite gender. Others who view themselves as gender fluid. Etc. Science has proven them wrong?
It's a scientific fact that, although one can be mistaken about events they clearly remember, having PTSD, or a heart attack or speaking with God, or virtually any external or internal reality, they have direct and perfect access to truth on this one point? But they are also sometimes wrong?
There are things like this, showing the phenomenon has roots in brain differences.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-0...
Our results support the hypothesis that brain structure in TW differs from brain structure of their biological sex (male) as well as their perceived gender (female).
But that says TW brains differ from both male and female.
If all you're saying is the definition of 'woman' should be this or that, that's obviously not science.
You can't avoid subjectivity here. By its nature it is about how someone identifies. If you tell me you identify as a woman, who am I to say otherwise?
In rare places in our society we have to make external decisions, for example in prisons, where there might be safeguard requirements like psychiatric evaluation or whatever, but in the vast majority of situations I have nothing to do but to accept what you tell me. And this isn't unique to
I agree on a personal level, not policy.
If someone tells me they are part black, are an observant Muslim. trans or have depression I will usually accept what they say and treat them accordingly.
There are other contexts where evidence might be reqired. (To get a scholarship for black people, medicine for depression).
E.g. it would be reasonable for WSOP ladies event to reqire you ID as a woman on your ID. A woman's prison might set the bar higher, or be strictly female.
Wait a minute, you call uke a "sheep" when he believes things that are believed by a small minority of the world and based on things he was likely not taught as a child, but learned about in his own. While you follow rules handed down from a 3000 year old book because your parents took you to a brainwashing room every Sunday while you were a child and told you to believe this because everyone else here believes it. Which description sounds more like a "sheep"?
Wait a minute, you call uke a "sheep" when he believes things that are believed by a small minority of the world and based on things he was likely not taught as a child, but learned about in his own. While you follow rules handed down from a 3000 year old book because your parents took you to a brainwashing room every Sunday while you were a child and told you to believe this because everyone else here believes it. Which description sounds
when did I mention my parents and brainwashing from youth?
