PE, spyman, where the hell were you guys for the first 5 pages of this thread?? Nice that two debaters stronger than I'll ever be cared to drop in and pick up the points I missed entirely. I'll just pat myself on the back and tell myself I laid the foundation for your arguments over my time :P

'and that ordinary people who still prefer to view sex as biological when it comes to their own sexual preferences are persecuting a minority.'

Define 'ordinary' (also who said you could continue this thread while i was sleeping?)

Also again, it is a choice and bigotry when what you find attractive changes not based on the body you find before you - which you wouldn't have considered hooking up with if you did 't find it attractive - but based on the sex assigned at birth (which is sometimes chosen on the flip of a coin, if the genetalia are ambigious)

This whole debate makes me question the Darwinian theory of sex selection. The imperative falls on those who uphold this theory to place it in a trans-gender, trans-sexual context. Fortunately, although they may not teach it yet in school, some enlightened biologists think differently:
''Are selfishness and individuality—rather than kindness and cooperation—basic to biological nature? Does a "selfish gene" create universal sexual conflict? In The Genial Gene, Joan Roughgarden forcefully rejects these and other ideas that have come to dominate the study of animal evolution. Building on her brilliant and innovative book Evolution's Rainbow, in which she challenged accepted wisdom about gender identity and sexual orientation, Roughgarden upends the notion of the selfish gene and the theory of sexual selection and develops a compelling and controversial alternative theory called social selection. This scientifically rigorous, model-based challenge to an important tenet of neo-Darwinian theory emphasizes cooperation, elucidates the factors that contribute to evolutionary success in a gene pool or animal social system, and vigorously demonstrates that to identify Darwinism with selfishness and individuality misrepresents the facts of life as we now know them.''
http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520265936

orthaic putin vaftruder thanks for doing what I dont have the patience/energy for

"You can be such an elitist sometimes Putin. Do you really have that much contempt for the human race?"

Keep sticking it to those "elites", like transgendered people who "inconvenience" you by not wanting to be abused by angry cisgendered people.

"Nothing I have said touches on the treatment of transgender people.
"

And that's your problem. All of that escapes your attention while you have a laser like focus on anybody that might be called out for their prejudices. And you rail about "academics" who evidently don't understand "real people" who don't have "time" to be sensitive to anybody's feelings, much less not abuse them for so-called "betrayal".

soooo glad I got out of this before Putin got in :P

Do your side a favor, Putin. Stop helping.

I've concluded what you have to do to stay on YJ, the fat hating bro's, "good side", be very self deprecating and apologize at least three times whenever you dare disagree with him. Keep cheerleading for "your side", YJ.

*yawn*

Whatever else happens, all constructive or respectful conversation dies the moment you enter, P-Money.

Enjoy that!

Indeed, you class up the place with your talk of 'fat fucks'. Your Mr. Congeniality routine is cute, if boring.

"Does a "selfish gene" create universal sexual conflict? "

Try reading the book for once. The selfish gene is not about human selfishness. It's about how genes replicate.

Christ if I find one Dawkins critique who has actually bothered to read any Darwin or Dawkins, it would be the first time.

You forgot privileged and pathological :P

"This whole debate makes me question the Darwinian theory of sex selection." - Somehow I doubt this. I rather suspect you already questioned Darwinian sex selection and have just found an opportunity to shoehorn it in. At any rate, yes, that isn't what is meant by the selfish gene. The selfish gene can in fact create altruistic behaviour. The term "selfish" here describes the gene itself. The gene itself behaves "selfishly" (obviously this is anthropomorphizing, but you know what I mean). The selfish gene is not a gene that makes people behave selfishly.
And I have to say, I completely fail to see the implications of transgenderism on sex selection.

"And you rail about "academics" who evidently don't understand "real people" who don't have "time" to be sensitive to anybody's feelings, much less not abuse them for so-called "betrayal"

Putin, I am not advocating that transgender people be abused.
I think it is probably best at they are upfront about who they are. But as I have already stated this is the same category as other potential relationship issues that it is probably best to be upfront about and this also applies to normal couples. On the other side of the coin it is also wise to ask the right questions of prospective partners.
I don't think that trangender women are women in every sense of the word, but I do think that they are in some senses women. And I don't think the rest of society should be compelled to accept them as women in every sense of the word, but think there are circumstances where it is best that society accepts transgendered people as women or at least that society should respect their choice to live as women.

I think where some people in this thread have crossed the line into lala-land absurdity is the insistence that if you don't to want to have sex with a woman who use to be a man that you are a bigot.

I also don't think it is bigotted to to think that the term woman should be confined to biological women. I think there is quite a bit of debate in this subject. Maybe in time views will change, but I think it is premature to declare a winner, such that those who disagree are intellectually out-of-touch, like people who believe in creationism, or people who think *same-sex attraction is a mental illness.

(*I use this term because apparently the word homosexuality is not allowed anymore, even though at time it seems a bit more succinct, but I am happy to go with the flow on this one).

The problem here is none of us in this debate (as far as anyone has said, and obviously I would not want someone who was trans but uncomfortable coming out to do so) really understands the experiences of transgendered individuals. We're all sitting here making declarations about how they are and are not allowed to present themselves, but you know what? That's not really up to us. Transgender people need to be allowed to define their own identities. If someone says that they feel they are a woman or a man with every ounce of their being, who the hell gave you the right to decide that your opinion of who they are matters more than their own?

"Transgender people need to be allowed to define their own identities."

I don't think anyone has categorically stated that they disagree with this. If so I missed it.

No one... I don't believe I personally said as much. Who in here is doing so?

So... I can now hang out in the girls changing rooms without being arrested?

I need clarification on this to plan my weekend please.

When you decide that transgender people aren't really fully members of their chosen genders you're denying them exactly that.

Also, I have to say, it sounds to me as though some wires are getting crossed in terms of the word bigotry here. A lot of people seem to be under the impression that the only thing which qualifies as bigotry is direct out and out hatred and violence. What people need to understand is that within a social justice and a wider anti-oppression context, the term bigotry refers to anything which serves to marginalize, dismiss, or otherwise harm or oppress disadvantaged groups, or anything which serves to perpetuate social systems or social norms which already have this effect. You may ask what good the term is if it can refer to such a wide range of behaviours. The point is that if we limit the term bigotry to only the very worst forms of hatred and violence, it becomes all to easy for people to congratulate themselves on not being a bigot, when literally all you're doing is the bare minimum; not actively and consciously participating in a behaviour which is obviously oppressive, hateful and violent to minorities. If things are going to improve for marginalized groups people have to hold their behaviour to a higher standard than that, and so if we can make it clear that actions and words which are oppressive in more subtle ways can also be harmful, this becomes a lot easier to do.

"I don't think anyone has categorically stated that they disagree with this." - I don't think anyone has either, if they did it would be far too easy to call them out on it. Instead nearly everyone has implicitly indicated it instead, perhaps not even intentionally, but regardless it has still had that effect.

@fiedler - Don't be stupid.

Mafiaalligator do you think you could please pick a statement you disagree with and tell us why. I can respect a difference of opinion. We wouldn't be able to enjoy these debates unless we disagree about some things.

This statement...
"Instead nearly everyone has implicitly indicated it instead, perhaps not even intentionally, but regardless it has still had that effect."

... is too vague. I might learn something here but you you're not giving us much to work with. We might share more common ground than you realize. Or we might not, but that's okay.

I'll say it more plainly then. You're correct in that no one has said outright "transpeople do not have the right to define their own identities" but by saying "in some ways transwomen are not really women in the same way as people who are born women", transpeople are still denied the right to define their own identities. That is what I mean by that.

"Christ if I find one Dawkins critique who has actually bothered to read any Darwin or Dawkins, it would be the first time."

lol, that's a +1.

Cross-dressers are some of the nicest people I have ever met. Lovely.

"...by saying "in some ways transwomen are not really women in the same way as people who are born women" transpeople are still denied the right to define their own identities."

That statement leads us into into some pretty heavy philosophical territory. To what extent is it even possible for us to *define* our own identities in such a way that everyone else *must* accept that definition? That is what you seem to be saying: "I see myself as this therefore I am this and others must also see me as this". It is as if you are saying that we can self-create an objective reality -ie one that is true for all observers.

The philosophical heaviness of this concept is the reason I drew a distinction between what some academics think about sex/gender and ordinary people's notions. I wasn't being anti-intellectual as Putin suggested. I think it is genuinely hard to get your head around and I don't think the answer is clear cut.

I said (as you quoted): "in some ways transwomen are not really women in the same way as people who are born women"

I'll suggest *one* way that I think we should both agree with - biological sex. It is defined by our chromosomes. We have no say over this. Our status is an objective fact. Now for me, that is pretty much as far as my opinions extend. A man is not a biological woman. Maybe a man can be a woman in another sense, but we are using a different definition of woman. But I can accept that. But I can also understand why some people might not accept that, which brings us to the concept of identity...

Part of the process of defining some thing is also defining what that some thing is not. "All crows are black" is equivalent to "all non-crows are not black".
Thus to self-identity as a woman, also must entail some concept of what is not a woman. So by insisting that people the right to define their identity for all observers denies others the right the define their own identities. We have a logical problem here. It is not possible to define ones own identity in this way and insist that everyone else has the same right.

As far as how people should behave in society is a different question than what is an objective identity. Men who see themselves as woman should be able to do live as women. We live in a permissive liberal society (not as permissive and as liberal as some might like, but it is better than most). I think it is in everyone best interest to allow everyone respect and freedom of choice.

""All crows are black" is equivalent to "all non-crows are not black"."
Actually scrap this. This is not quite the idea I am trying to convey. I don't think it connects properly with the point I was trying to make.

spyman you give me a boner when you speak. I am not ashamed.