The people cited in this article say you’re wrong about that. (The article is on a site that makes no particular pretence of neutrality or objectivity, and the author likewise doesn’t, but the reports they’ve collected from representatives of police departments etc. in places where such rules have been introduced are evidence regardless.)
Well, first they might have been selectively collecting them, if not engaging in worse fraud. Second these policies have been in place for less than two years, it takes time for perverse incentives to manifest. The more general problem is that left-wingers are notorious for creating policies with glaring perverse incentives and then refusing to believe anyone would actually behave so as to take advantage of them. Do you also believe that almost no one avoids getting a job so as not to loose welfare benefits or that the policy of “listen and believe” hasn’t lead to many false rape accusations?
B is not just a restatement of A; one is a matter of bodily appearance, one is a matter of clothing, given name, preferred mode of address, etc.
C is not a restatement of your assertion that the person is deluded or bullshitting, it is a restatement of what you explain that way (namely that they consider themself female).
Ok, so also give the striped lion a collar saying “I’m a tiger”.
Here is a thought experiment (important note: it is intended as an informative thought experiment, not a claim about what is actually happening in the brains and bodies of trans people). Imagine that after a few decades of scientific advancement it becomes possible to transplant brains into different bodies, even somewhat differently shaped bodies. Your brain is transplanted into a woman’s body and given no more changes than are necessary to wire up the different bits of anatomy. Are you now a woman?
In that case there is an important difference, namely the structure of my brain and my personality, behaviors etc., are in male rather than female cluster.
they might have been selectively collecting them, if not engaging in worse fraud.
Sure. So might anyone quoting anyone about anything. What would fraud look like here? It would mean that actually there are a bunch of cases of sexual assault by trans people, or people pretending to be trans, in public restrooms. It shouldn’t be too hard to find some, if so. Please feel free, and I will of course update my opinions in response to whatever you find.
these policies have been in place for less than two years
The first few days listed in the article itself: 2008 in Colorado; 2011 in Connecticut; 2007 in Iowa; 2005 in Maine; 1997 in Massachusetts.
left-wingers are notorious for creating policies with glaring perverse incentives [...] that almost no one avoids getting a job so as not to lose welfare benefits [...]
Well, as it happens, the only example personally known to me at present of someone who contemplated getting a job and changed their mind because of the impact on benefits did so because of changes to the tax and benefit structure introduced by a right-wing government, and the incentives were much better aligned before that government made the change.
Of course one anecdote isn’t much evidence for anything. The general point here is that it’s by no means only left-wing governments that create policies with perverse incentives. (Famous examples: “Abstinence-only” sex ed in schools doesn’t stop kids having sex, but it does make them more likely to get pregnant when they do. Restricting the availability of contraception increases the incidence of abortion and single-parent families, both of which the opponents of contraception usually say they’re more strongly opposed to.)
In any case, what exactly is your argument here? It surely can’t be “Allowing trans people to use public restrooms corresponding to their new gender is a policy brought in by left-wingers; policies brought in by left-wingers often have perverse incentives and do harm; therefore this policy has perverse incentives and if you think it won’t do harm then you’re wrong”, but what is it?
OK, so also give the striped lion a collar saying “I’m a tiger”.
Let’s continue that discussion when you’re prepared to engage seriously with what I’m saying. (If you genuinely can’t see highly relevant differences, let me know and I’ll point some out.)
the structure of my brain and my personality, behaviours etc., are in male rather than female cluster.
OK. So if a trans person’s brain structure, personality, behaviours, etc., were found to be nearer typical-female than typical-male, would you then consider them something other than deluded/hallucinating/bullshitting? What sort of differences in brain structure would be most relevant? (Brain structure is kinda hard to explore, beyond the very coarsest features; what if we couldn’t tell about brain structure but their personality and behaviours were “more female than male”?)
OK. In most cases, so far as I am aware, we have no idea what brain structure differences those are (or indeed whether they are differences in brain structure rather than, e.g., the behaviours in question being learned or a consequence of hormonal differences). What if the person’s behaviour is much nearer typical-female than typical-male in these respects?
What if the person’s behaviour is much nearer typical-female than typical-male in these respects?
Well in the most prominent cases, e.g., Bruce Jenner, this does not appear to be the case. Now are you willing to admit that he’s wrong about his claimed gender?
I regret that I don’t find “VoiceOfRa doesn’t find Jenner’s behaviour sufficiently feminine” a very strong argument. I haven’t myself paid much attention to the Jenner case; would you care to be more explicit about what you have in mind?
Now are you willing to admit that he’s wrong [...]?
Why should I do that? Unless I’ve completely lost the thread here (which I’m pretty sure I haven’t) what we’re discussing here is your criteria for determining someone’s gender, not mine.
(I thought I’d carefully avoided making assertions that go beyond my knowledge, but maybe I slipped up and said more than I meant to or wasn’t clear about what I was saying.)
Well, as it happens, the only example personally known to me at present of someone who contemplated getting a job and changed their mind because of the impact on benefits
Unless you regularly interact with the type of people who live in underclass ghettos, or the class of people sometimes called “white trash”, it’s not surprising that you personally haven’t met people like this.
(Famous examples: “Abstinence-only” sex ed in schools doesn’t stop kids having sex, but it does make them more likely to get pregnant when they do. Restricting the availability of contraception increases the incidence of abortion and single-parent families, both of which the opponents of contraception usually say they’re more strongly opposed to.)
Setting aside the validity of these examples, I note that none of them are actually examples of incentives.
Let’s continue that discussion when you’re prepared to engage seriously with what I’m saying.
I am engaging seriously. I merely applied your epistemology to a slightly different domain and suddenly it becomes clear how silly it is.
OK. So if a trans person’s brain structure, personality, behaviours, etc., were found to be nearer typical-female than typical-male, would you then consider them something other than deluded/hallucinating/bullshitting? What sort of differences in brain structure would be most relevant? (Brain structure is kinda hard to explore, beyond the very coarsest features; what if we couldn’t tell about brain structure but their personality and behaviours were “more female than male”?)
Frankly, I have a hard time believing that something would mess up the development of precisely the sexual characteristics expressed in the brain.
Could you briefly describe your own interactions with that segment of the population?
I note that none of them are actually examples of incentives.
I’d say they’re about as much so as your example of alleged-rape-victim policy. (E.g., if you teach teenagers that they must be sexually abstinent and make it clear that any sexual non-abstinence is disapproved of, you intend to give an incentive not to have sex, but you also give an incentive not to have contraceptives, and then when other deeper-rooted incentives lead them to have sex after all they do it unprotected.)
I merely applied your epistemology to a slightly different domain
Nope, you applied a straw-man version of my epistemology to a very different domain.
Frankly, I have a hard time believing [...]
Noted. I don’t see why that should make it impossible to answer my questions.
(It seems to me that all kinds of individual things in the brain can get messed up, so it would be rather unsurprising if individual things related to sex/gender did; and that since a lot of sex-related things are surely controlled together (after all, in typical men and typical women they go together) it would not be surprising if they could go wrong together.)
when they go wrong together, they affect both brain and body
Sorry, I wasn’t clear. I was conjecturing that there may be single changes in brain development that affect multiple sex-related things in the brain; if so, it would be unsurprising for those things to go wrong together even without changes elsewhere in the body.
Should I take it that you don’t intend to answer the questions I asked at the end of the great-great-grandparent of this comment? Of course you’re under no sort of obligation to answer any questions at all, but I do find it quite interesting how consistently unwilling you are to clarify your statements and opinions in this discussion.
Well, first they might have been selectively collecting them, if not engaging in worse fraud. Second these policies have been in place for less than two years, it takes time for perverse incentives to manifest. The more general problem is that left-wingers are notorious for creating policies with glaring perverse incentives and then refusing to believe anyone would actually behave so as to take advantage of them. Do you also believe that almost no one avoids getting a job so as not to loose welfare benefits or that the policy of “listen and believe” hasn’t lead to many false rape accusations?
Ok, so also give the striped lion a collar saying “I’m a tiger”.
In that case there is an important difference, namely the structure of my brain and my personality, behaviors etc., are in male rather than female cluster.
Sure. So might anyone quoting anyone about anything. What would fraud look like here? It would mean that actually there are a bunch of cases of sexual assault by trans people, or people pretending to be trans, in public restrooms. It shouldn’t be too hard to find some, if so. Please feel free, and I will of course update my opinions in response to whatever you find.
The first few days listed in the article itself: 2008 in Colorado; 2011 in Connecticut; 2007 in Iowa; 2005 in Maine; 1997 in Massachusetts.
Well, as it happens, the only example personally known to me at present of someone who contemplated getting a job and changed their mind because of the impact on benefits did so because of changes to the tax and benefit structure introduced by a right-wing government, and the incentives were much better aligned before that government made the change.
Of course one anecdote isn’t much evidence for anything. The general point here is that it’s by no means only left-wing governments that create policies with perverse incentives. (Famous examples: “Abstinence-only” sex ed in schools doesn’t stop kids having sex, but it does make them more likely to get pregnant when they do. Restricting the availability of contraception increases the incidence of abortion and single-parent families, both of which the opponents of contraception usually say they’re more strongly opposed to.)
In any case, what exactly is your argument here? It surely can’t be “Allowing trans people to use public restrooms corresponding to their new gender is a policy brought in by left-wingers; policies brought in by left-wingers often have perverse incentives and do harm; therefore this policy has perverse incentives and if you think it won’t do harm then you’re wrong”, but what is it?
Let’s continue that discussion when you’re prepared to engage seriously with what I’m saying. (If you genuinely can’t see highly relevant differences, let me know and I’ll point some out.)
OK. So if a trans person’s brain structure, personality, behaviours, etc., were found to be nearer typical-female than typical-male, would you then consider them something other than deluded/hallucinating/bullshitting? What sort of differences in brain structure would be most relevant? (Brain structure is kinda hard to explore, beyond the very coarsest features; what if we couldn’t tell about brain structure but their personality and behaviours were “more female than male”?)
Ones that correspond to the large observable differences in behavior between men and women.
OK. In most cases, so far as I am aware, we have no idea what brain structure differences those are (or indeed whether they are differences in brain structure rather than, e.g., the behaviours in question being learned or a consequence of hormonal differences). What if the person’s behaviour is much nearer typical-female than typical-male in these respects?
Well in the most prominent cases, e.g., Bruce Jenner, this does not appear to be the case. Now are you willing to admit that he’s wrong about his claimed gender?
I regret that I don’t find “VoiceOfRa doesn’t find Jenner’s behaviour sufficiently feminine” a very strong argument. I haven’t myself paid much attention to the Jenner case; would you care to be more explicit about what you have in mind?
Why should I do that? Unless I’ve completely lost the thread here (which I’m pretty sure I haven’t) what we’re discussing here is your criteria for determining someone’s gender, not mine.
Well, you were making assertions about it with rather a lot of confidence up thread.
Please give two examples.
(I thought I’d carefully avoided making assertions that go beyond my knowledge, but maybe I slipped up and said more than I meant to or wasn’t clear about what I was saying.)
Unless you regularly interact with the type of people who live in underclass ghettos, or the class of people sometimes called “white trash”, it’s not surprising that you personally haven’t met people like this.
Setting aside the validity of these examples, I note that none of them are actually examples of incentives.
I am engaging seriously. I merely applied your epistemology to a slightly different domain and suddenly it becomes clear how silly it is.
Frankly, I have a hard time believing that something would mess up the development of precisely the sexual characteristics expressed in the brain.
Could you briefly describe your own interactions with that segment of the population?
I’d say they’re about as much so as your example of alleged-rape-victim policy. (E.g., if you teach teenagers that they must be sexually abstinent and make it clear that any sexual non-abstinence is disapproved of, you intend to give an incentive not to have sex, but you also give an incentive not to have contraceptives, and then when other deeper-rooted incentives lead them to have sex after all they do it unprotected.)
Nope, you applied a straw-man version of my epistemology to a very different domain.
Noted. I don’t see why that should make it impossible to answer my questions.
(It seems to me that all kinds of individual things in the brain can get messed up, so it would be rather unsurprising if individual things related to sex/gender did; and that since a lot of sex-related things are surely controlled together (after all, in typical men and typical women they go together) it would not be surprising if they could go wrong together.)
[EDITED to fix a trivial typo.]
Not much either, which is why I don’t cite my experience as evidence.
Agreed, and they sometimes do. However when they go wrong together, they effect both brain and body.
Sorry, I wasn’t clear. I was conjecturing that there may be single changes in brain development that affect multiple sex-related things in the brain; if so, it would be unsurprising for those things to go wrong together even without changes elsewhere in the body.
Should I take it that you don’t intend to answer the questions I asked at the end of the great-great-grandparent of this comment? Of course you’re under no sort of obligation to answer any questions at all, but I do find it quite interesting how consistently unwilling you are to clarify your statements and opinions in this discussion.