Guest post: Okay, whatever, the point is…
Originally a comment by Sastra on The genderist version of the German-Russian Non-Aggression Pact.
Getting clear definitions of these concepts is like nailing jello to the wall; that’s intentional. That nobody on the genderist side seems to care is interesting.
Indeed it is. It’s particularly interesting when the insouciance is coming from skeptic or atheist communities which up till now have been laser-focused on the weakness of poorly-defined concepts shoring up elaborate edifices of practice.
“Homeopathy works because (garble garble) … okay, whatever, the point is that it works.”
“God exists as (garble garble) … okay, whatever, the point is that He exists.”
“The ‘gender’ in ‘gender identity’ means (garble garble) … okay, whatever, the point is that trans people just want to be accepted as who they truly are.”
There are two common apologetic arguments based on the needs of the believer. The first is that the need of the believer to believe is good reason to think their belief is true. CS Lewis liked this one. The world fits together. We don’t have thirst without water to slake it; the desire for God could not exist without a God to fulfill the desire. Yeah.
The second apologetic is that the need of the believer to believe is good reason to play along with the belief. People who go to psychics who claim to talk to the dead are weak, damaged, and grieving. If they find some comfort here, why take it away from them? They can’t handle the truth. Stop investigating, stop talking. And again— uh huh.
I see both Arguments from the Needs of the Believer being used in transgender doctrine by those who reject them in other contexts. The strong desire to be the opposite sex means that person must actually be the opposite sex. Forget the definitions. No better way to account for it. And given how vulnerable, marginalized, and needy trans people are, why are we blathering on about consistency and coherency? What about compassion?
It’s possible that the (garble garble) doesn’t seem to bother them because something diverted the thought process into an emotional journey: it’s better to be nice than right. Sure.
A fact that is easily disputed, since people and other living organisms get thirsty in the desert even when there is no water to slake it. And it is possible to die of thirst.
Yeah, it’s mostly garble garble. Don’t look behind the curtain.
I think Lewis was thinking more about inborn characteristics. We feel thirst when our bodies need liquid. A planet without liquids wouldn’t contain creatures which needed liquid to survive. “Thirst” would make no sense. The argument fails because the concept of “God” is filled with references to ideas and things we’re familiar with. Parents, safety, love, commitment, morals, explanation. It’s just a giant extrapolation.
When arguing against the existence of God, I usually avoided nitty gritty detail arguments like Biblical contradictions & creationism rebuttals in favor of going for the foundation: incoherency in the concept & the way it pulled from prescientific, “common sense” ways of thought. I basically followed the same strategy with transgender ideology. I didn’t want to be throwing around statistics on suicide or get bogged down in bathrooms. Start at the beginning: definitions, concepts, conflicts. And, in both cases, be prepared to ignore the attempts to deflect back to what they felt was surer ground. Yes — but first let’s start at the beginning. Definitions, concepts, & contradictions.
Being able to appreciate the strategy in one area didn’t necessarily mean someone would or could appreciate on another topic. They didn’t want to discuss gender by discussing gender; they wanted to discuss gender by discussing trans friends who deserved to go about their day unhampered by rampant hate & bigotry from people who thought it was all “academic.”
Indeed. Curtain is all they’ve got. It’s not that emperor is naked; there is no emperor.
I’m sure this is actual violence. Why do you hate trans people so much?
Sastra, haven’t you heard? Definitions are a product of western colonialism. They are racist and homophobic, and to be avoided at all costs. Definitions? We don’t need no stinkin’ definitions!
I decided yesterday I was too tired to keep going. While most of it is work, the nonsense on the sociopolitical scene is wearing me down. I’m so glad I’m retiring at the end of the next school year.
Yes, telling is that Harriet Hall’s book review that Science-Based Medicine took down was “not science based” according to Gorsky/Novella, and that it was countered with three articles of personal narrative. Three testimonials of how hard it is for trans people who are just too pretty for this world.