All purpose news and politics thread part VII: News & Politics Total Landscaping

[Dalak]

Can we maybe make a separate "Mets defends is his awful opinions" thread, because this is crowding out some good posts.

He isn't getting the result he thought he would, but if anyone genuinely agrees with him about me I encourage them to speak up again. I'll be surprised but I'd like to hear you out and see what you think has merit, if you'll do me the favor of indulging the same.

It seems like a massive case of cognitive dissonance at this point: He's knows that being seen as transphobic is a negative, but despite that he has transphobic views anyway and instead of deciding to change that behavior he seeks out "evidence" that rationally confirms and justifies his bias and cannot see the very obvious short comings and fallacies in his evidence because then he'd have to admit that he was just transphobic.

This could very well be true as people have convinced themselves of more with less, but I think it's less innocent than that as I've described his behavior plenty of times before (Deliberate, Faux, etc).

-----

War a real threat and Europe not ready, warns Poland's Tusk

Yeah, this is a post that shouldn't be missed. Putin is chaotic enough to seriously consider nukes as he has threatened, but it doesn't mean that every time a country shakes the nuclear sabre they should be given what they demand. This is a very serious and potentially volatile situation.

Some rare good news from Texas. A case most of us probably remember:

Very good news.

Texas appeals court overturns Crystal Mason’s conviction, 5-year sentence for illegal voting

It only took 7 years . . still it's good to see a bit of positivity.

[Mister Mets]

I know a non-binary, gender-fluid AMAB person who wouldn't call themselves trans at all, and has no interest in HRT.

F1nnster, a well known streamer, recently came out as gender-fluid specifically, and specifically avoided the trans label even while supporting trans charities and starting HRT.

Another person I know online only realized that they were trans after a stop at non-binary. For many people, such as Nex Benedict, they may come out as non-binary to themselves or their family as a step along the way to acknowledging being trans.

All of this is to say it's very complicated, and assigning 'transness' to people who describe themselves as gender fluid or non-binary is a mistake.

There's a valid argument for that definition of trans, but it's not the only option.

There are at least four views.
One is that transgender is an umbrella term that includes anyone whose gender does not correlate to the gender assigned at birth. This would include people who are nonbinary, agender, trans men, etc.
Another is that transgender is a term that exclusively applies to trans people who see themselves as part of the gender binary (IE- trans men, trans women.)
Another is that transgender is a term that applies to people who seek gender-affirming medical care.
And then there's the view that transgender is a term that refers to people who consider themselves transgender, so that it would be most trans men and trans women, but only the gender non-conforming people who consider themselves to be transgender.

I don't think the last choice is obviously correct for a mainstream periodical. If Steve comes out as nonbinary will their relationship with their parents, or the response at work, be any different if they clarified that they were transgender nonbinary or that they're nonbinary but don't consider themselves transgender? Will someone reading an article feel differently about college students who identify themselves as transgender genderfluid than those who identify as genderfluid but not transgender?

I'm picking up on a subtext, but I don't recall it being clearly articulated. Is there a sense that people who are gender nonconforming and consider themselves transgender take it much more seriously than people who are gender nonconforming (in this context this would be people who do not identify as boys, girls, men or women) who don't call themselves transgender? Is the assumption that if someone says they're gender-conforming but isn't saying they're trans that it's more of a phase? I want to be very clear it is not my view, but it would explain why some people feel very passionately about a particular definition.

It definitely is, my future brother in law for instance describes themselves as gender-nonconforming. He wears what on a woman would typically be called a "tasteful" amount of makeup, not emo or goth, just natural toned foundation, light eye shadow,non-dramatic eyeliner, mascara and nude lipstick...and he's a straight guy engaged to my sister. He's definitely in the minority in that he isn't gay and self identifies as gender-nonconforming, but he's definitely not alone so it really just illustrates that it's VERY silly to lump these various groups of people under any single umbrella other than human.

You're always seem to pride yourself on wanting to be correct and accurate Mets, this seems like a very obvious case where you definitely were not. Why not own that?

Because I still don't think I'm wrong.

The question isn't whether it would be better if a magazine's style guide used a definition of transgender that excluded certain gender nonconforming people, but whether this is such an obvious choice that doing otherwise is an effort to mislead.

I address all these points in the argument multiple times, and Dalak seems to change his mind on how the magazine was misleading.

Does your future brother in law identify with a gender other than man?

You're still very obviously in the wrong...and again, it's right in the articles you're presenting. "People in the transgender community may describe themselves using one (or more) of a wide variety of terms" "May" does not mean must or always, it means sometimes or possibly. Again, for someone who prides themselves on being correct and accurate this seems like a strange oversight.

Building on that, what you're doing, and the person who presented the study in the Week did, is presenting a false syllogism.

Premise 1: Trans people may also identify as genderqueer, non-binary, gender-nonconforming or genderfluid.

Premise 2: This study shows a percentage break down of various titles such as genderqueer, non-binary, gender-nonconforming.

Conclusion: Therefore the total percentage of the study is trans.

The flaw? Not everyone who identifies as genderqueer, non-binary or gender-nonconforming identifies as trans so thus you cannot logically reach your presented conclusion.

And there is no indication that people who may identify solely as genderqueer, non-binary, or gender-nonconforming would be targeted if they're not protected under the umbrella of trans rights as they're still protected under the larger umbrellas of gay rights and basic human rights. But that's rather superfluous, as you wanting to include them under the number of trans individuals so they are better protected comes across solely as a deflection as you haven't illustrated that you value the protection of trans rights to begin with.

If you were to say, "Trans rights are human rights, and using terms like mutilation to describe gender affirming care is wrong." maybe we could entertain your argument about broader legal protections...but without that,no it's a very obvious deflection and nothing more.

One issue is that different sources use different definitions.

The Human Rights Campaign primer doesn't clarify that some gender nonconforming people are not part of the Transgender community, and talks about the broad spectrum, including the idea that kids who do not consider themselves boys or girls are part of that.

"Roughly three-quarters of trans youth that responded to an HRC Foundation and University of Connecticut survey identified with terms other than strictly “boy” or “girl.” This suggests that a larger portion of this generation’s youth are identifying somewhere on the broad trans spectrum."

https://www.hrc.org/resources/unders...nder-community

For political activism, an advantage of a more encompassing definition is that a bigger group has more of a constituency.

I generally avoid platitudes, and don't see much of a need to discuss things that the board is in agreement on. I did say "If someone is in need of the procedure, the word "mutilation" is wrong" and mentioned it again in a comment to Dalak.

You keep posting more and more evidence that you were factually incorrect. It's kind of weird. Wouldn't it just be easier to recognize that you fell for a false syllogism and admit that you were mistaken?

Maybe I didn't sleep well last night, but how is this a syllogism? (something like all dogs are animals; all animals have four legs; therefore all dogs have four legs).

The question isn't what I would decide if I were in charge of editorial standards, but whether a newspaper was misleading.

You aren't looking at identification as you are claiming in that quote though, if you were placing value on how people specifically identify you wouldn't be supportive of a blanket term that doesn't fit everyone. Your very own posts are showing that your whole point is mistaken.

Tradeoffs are possible. Sometimes a term that is more encompassing has advantages, like increasing the number of people who know someone a political organization supports, which will help with funding, finding volunteers, voter outreach, etc.

It seems like a massive case of cognitive dissonance at this point: He's knows that being seen as transphobic is a negative, but despite that he has transphobic views anyway and instead of deciding to change that behavior he seeks out "evidence" that rationally confirms and justifies his bias and cannot see the very obvious short comings and fallacies in his evidence because then he'd have to admit that he was just transphobic.

What have I said that's transphobic?

[thwhtGuardian]

If you cannot see that your opinion isn't rational I don't know where to go from there but I'll lay it out one more time. The false syllogism you fell for is

Premise 1: Everyone who identifies as genderqueer, non-binary or gender-nonconforming is trans.
Premise 2: There is the survey you presented showing an increase in trans people that includes people who identify as genderqueer, non-binary, gender-nonconforming
Conclusion: The Trans population is growing.

But the first premise is demonstrably false, so you cannot reach the conclusion.

A true syllogism would go as follows


Premise 1: Not all people who identify as trans identify as non-binary

Premise 2: Not all people who identify as non-binary identify as trans

Conclusion: The two groups cannot be said to be one and the same.

Further, if the two groups cannot be said to be the same, what rational reason is there to group them together?


The answer? there is no rational reason.

As for your transphobic views? They are many, but the most egregious was you defense of the use of the word mutilation to describe gender affirming care. No one who actually cares about trans rights would defend that and yet you did repeatedly and you even weirdly linked them here as if they aren't ugly and it somehow vindicates your point.

[zinderel]

Like how I said surgery isn't necessary and having it spun as saying they won't have it with a connotation of Never put on it.

I genuinely hope that anyone who agrees with Mets decides to chime in with the ones who have disagreed, because so far I've seen no evidence that his deliberate misinterpretations & faux ignorance has been excused yet.

E:

I certainly think it would be.

The Gish-galloping is easier than admitting he was wrong.

Meanwhile, Saudi’s Arabia being put in charge of a UN panel on women’s rights is like if Uganda was put in charge of LGBTQ+ rights.

Laughable, wildly inappropriate, offensive, dangerous, corrupt as hell, and disgusting.
.

[godisawesome]

Can we maybe make a separate "Mets defends is his awful opinions" thread, because this is crowding out some good posts.

Oh man, that'd be a sight! One stop shopping for a poster supporting the current train wreck of a Republican Party, the decision making and status quo of One More Day in Spider-Man, and screwed up prioritization and cynicism of Star Wars: The Last Jedi!

I kid; such a thing would actually provided a decent showcase of how nerdy arguments over franchises can get heated, have inferred insults throughout, but... not actually require genuine insults, and how much art-interests don’t have to align to political opinions, while political opinions are going to lead to personal judgement regardless.

I mean, I’m passing almost every single Mets post *here* because I can tell he’s dug himself into a hole, and can’t stop digging because of the implications on politics. In contrast, I still *know* he’s wrong on the geeky stuff, but that stuff doesn’t actually say anything about the real person, just their taste in art.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Very good news.

Texas appeals court overturns Crystal Mason’s conviction, 5-year sentence for illegal voting

That poor woman should never have spent so much as a day in prison for what was basically a clerical error. Now, if Mason were white, or voted Republican, would she have been jailed? Short answer----NO!

[Mister Mets]

If you cannot see that your opinion isn't rational I don't know where to go from there but I'll lay it out one more time. The false syllogism you fell for is

Premise 1: Everyone who identifies as genderqueer, non-binary or gender-nonconforming is trans.
Premise 2: There is the survey you presented showing an increase in trans people that includes people who identify as genderqueer, non-binary, gender-nonconforming
Conclusion: The Trans population is growing.

But the first premise is demonstrably false, so you cannot reach the conclusion.

A true syllogism would go as follows


Premise 1: Not all people who identify as trans identify as non-binary

Premise 2: Not all people who identify as non-binary identify as trans

Conclusion: The two groups cannot be said to be one and the same.

Further, if the two groups cannot be said to be the same, what rational reason is there to group them together?


The answer? there is no rational reason.

As for your transphobic views? They are many, but the most egregious was you defense of the use of the word mutilation to describe gender affirming care. No one who actually cares about trans rights would defend that and yet you did repeatedly and you even weirdly linked them here as if they aren't ugly and it somehow vindicates your point.

I've gone over the mutilation thing many times. My only point on that was that it's an opinion (and not one I endorse) rather than a fact that a fact-checker should call out. You may think I'm lying, but I doubt that would be an egregious position worthy of personal insults.

By any definition, the trans population is growing, even if you're limiting it to trans men and trans women.

But the main premises are...
Premise 1: Some definitions of transgender are more of an umbrella term including various gender non-conforming individuals. I have posted the Human Rights campaign definition of transgender.

https://www.hrc.org/resources/unders...nder-community

The word “transgender” – or trans – is an umbrella term for people whose gender identity is different from the sex assigned to us at birth. Although the word “transgender” and our modern definition of it only came into use in the late 20th century, people who would fit under this definition have existed in every culture throughout recorded history.

What does it mean to be trans?
The trans community is incredibly diverse. Some trans people identify as trans men or trans women, while others may describe themselves as non-binary, genderqueer, gender non-conforming, agender, bigender or other identities that reflect their personal experience. Some of us take hormones or have surgery as part of our transition, while others may change our pronouns or appearance. Roughly three-quarters of trans youth that responded to an HRC Foundation and University of Connecticut survey identified with terms other than strictly “boy” or “girl.” This suggests that a larger portion of this generation’s youth are identifying somewhere on the broad trans spectrum.

Premise #2- It is reasonable for a magazine article from 2021 to go with the Human Rights campaign definition, even if there is a dispute about it.

I'll also note in the argument with Dalak, he doesn't always stick to the idea that transgender exclusively means trans men and trans women.

You may agree or disagree with my interpretation, but I am open about it. Why should I believe a reporter is lying for using the definition of transgender supported by the Human Rights campaign?

[Dalak]

The Gish-galloping is easier than admitting he was wrong.

Meanwhile, Saudi’s Arabia being put in charge of a UN panel on women’s rights is like if Uganda was put in charge of LGBTQ+ rights.

Laughable, wildly inappropriate, offensive, dangerous, corrupt as hell, and disgusting.
.

I definitely started off with a gish gallop list of disruptive debate behaviors, posters who objected to some, and a list of topics where they've been used in discussion. The poster list is easy enough to get links for if necessary as you can advanced search for posts with Mister Mets in them for any poster. I was pleasantly surprised that several of those topics I brought up have also made their way into his many attempts to make it seem like I'm transphobic, inconsistent, and/or trolling. I'm glad to see they are failing as much as I assumed they would from the beginning, and I'll note that despite several people showing him that he's wrong in this case he still can't admit it for whatever reason.

I like CaptainEurope's idea.

It would help for posts about News & Politics to be discussed more before potentially getting shut down by the same debating behavior as usual. Such behavior requires context to be provided from time to time to educate those reading along at home.

Oh, and as someone got temp-banned for something similar to your picture I'd take it down just in case.

That poor woman should never have spent so much as a day in prison for what was basically a clerical error. Now, if Mason were white, or voted Republican, would she have been jailed? Short answer----NO!

I agree with all of this, Texas is still a very bigoted state in general, but as it is getting more purple despite the gerrymandering & voter suppression it shows there are people fighting it there too.

[thwhtGuardian]

I've gone over the mutilation thing many times. My only point on that was that it's an opinion (and not one I endorse) rather than a fact that a fact-checker should call out. You may think I'm lying, but I doubt that would be an egregious position worthy of personal insults.

By any definition, the trans population is growing, even if you're limiting it to trans men and trans women.

But the main premises are...
Premise 1: Some definitions of transgender are more of an umbrella term including various gender non-conforming individuals. I have posted the Human Rights campaign definition of transgender.

https://www.hrc.org/resources/unders...nder-community





Premise #2- It is reasonable for a magazine article from 2021 to go with the Human Rights campaign definition, even if there is a dispute about it.

I'll also note in the argument with Dalak, he doesn't always stick to the idea that transgender exclusively means trans men and trans women.

You may agree or disagree with my interpretation, but I am open about it. Why should I believe a reporter is lying for using the definition of transgender supported by the Human Rights campaign?

It's not really growing, any more than the gay population is growing, it's simply that society is thankfully becoming more open so people are more free to truly express themselves. The idea that it's a "growing" population is yet another transphobic sentiment as it implies ugly things like it's a contagious phenomenon.
As to why you should disbelieve the article you keep quoting? Try because they are quoting from a source by a known transphobic author, and the conclusions support the transphobic myth that the "evil trans people" are coming for young girls. If that's the drive then conclusions are not believable.

[CaptainEurope]

Some gross news from Northern Ireland:

Sir Jeffrey Donaldson: DUP leader resigns after rape charge

According to wikipedia:

The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) is a unionist, loyalist, British nationalist[8][9] and national conservative political party in Northern Ireland. It was founded in 1971 during the Troubles by Ian Paisley, who led the party for the next 37 years. It is currently led by Gavin Robinson, who is stepping in as an interim after the resignation of Jeffrey Donaldson. It is the second largest party in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and is the fifth-largest party in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. The party has been described as centre-right[10][11][12] to right-wing[13][14][15][5] and socially conservative,[

It's almost always the socially conservatives.

Could we call this a Good Friday Disagreement?

[hyped78]

Yeah, except the "study" was garbage and it even admits it by literally saying the results can't actually be applied with any accuracy to the population at large. But heck, even if that wasn't outright admitted it's the obvious conclusion by anyone with any knowledge of polling.

It's flawed from the start as they selected the 615 athletes they sent the questionnaire. Who did the selecting? What were the criteria? What was the geographic spread?
The answer?
We don't know...which is problematic, if you're attempting to say the results are typical. And there's a lot more we don't know like: what were the respondents ages? Where do they live? How do they self identify politically? Are they college educated?
Without those filters you can't tell if the sample presents an accurate cross section of the population which again is problematic if you're attempting to paint a picture of the larger population.

And then there's the very issue that the questionnaire was sent by mail, which is limiting. Who opens unsolicited mail? Older people, not younger people so you're going to skew your responses.

And finally, of the 615 sent the survey only 143 people responded. And because there were no filters we have no idea how representative even that small population is.

It's frankly silly that the survey was even published, and sillier still that you think it means anything even though it admits that no broader conclusions should be drawn from the responses given.

Quoting from the BBC:
"However, it is the largest public study to date in the UK revealing elite athletes' views on the issue."

Obviously not perfect… But do you have a bigger study on that in the UK? You don't. And you just prefer to outright dismiss it because it doesn't align with your confirmation bias. Do you actually think the BBC don’t know how to do studies better than you or I, or anyone else on this forum? (that would be quite funny)

Who are you to say what should be published or not published, calling something "garbage" just because you don't agree with it? I see that some americans like selective democracy, apparently. If it was “garbage” you wouldn’t have news media like Reuters reporting on it:

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/eli...es-2024-03-26/
(Reuters: Elite UK sportswomen survey finds majority uneasy with transgender athletes in female class)

Here is another one for you, from YouGov (wider population, not pro athletes):
"Britons are strongly opposed to transgender women being allowed to take part in women's sporting events" (61% no, 16% yes)
https://yougov.co.uk/society/article...ender-rights-1

Now I'll just wait for you to dismiss the big majority of respondents to this survey as "transphobic", of course.


And here’s more, March 22 - “IOC transgender framework goes against science, says academic paper”
https://www.reuters.com/sports/ioc-t...er-2024-03-22/

“A group of 26 academics have challenged the International Olympic Committee's framework on the inclusion of transgender athletes in sport, saying it does not protect fairness for women nor align with scientific or medical evidence.
The paper, published this week in the Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, said decisions on eligibility for female competition must consider male development rather than testosterone levels.
"We urge the IOC to re-evaluate the recommendations of their framework to include a comprehensive understanding of the biological advantages of male development to ensure fairness and safety in female sports," the paper said.
"Sports face the uncomfortable reality that the inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories cannot be reconciled with fairness, and in some instances safety, for females in athletic sports."”

I guess this is “garbage” and “transphobia” too, huh?

[hyped78]

Biden campaign raises $25m ‘money bomb’ at event with Obama and Clinton
Chuck Schumer and Lizzo made appearances before the presidents talked onstage in event that widens fundraising lead over Trump

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-obama-clinton

Boom! The GOP is gonna lose the fundraising race badly!

[tv horror]

Some gross news from Northern Ireland:

Sir Jeffrey Donaldson: DUP leader resigns after rape charge

According to wikipedia:



It's almost always the socially conservatives.

Could we call this a Good Friday Disagreement?

Too sooooooon!

[Dalak]

It's not really growing, any more than the gay population is growing, it's simply that society is thankfully becoming more open so people are more free to truly express themselves. The idea that it's a "growing" population is yet another transphobic sentiment as it implies ugly things like it's a contagious phenomenon.
As to why you should disbelieve the article you keep quoting? Try because they are quoting from a source by a known transphobic author, and the conclusions support the transphobic myth that the "evil trans people" are coming for young girls. If that's the drive then conclusions are not believable.

Whatever the topic, Bad Information is worse than No Information as ignorance can be corrected whereas wrong decisions made with bad information cannot be undone easily/at all. EX: If you only have a poll interviewing chosen conservative targets, it's not going to be a valid poll of general political opinions of average people and even if it's all you've got it's worse than having nothing because it's effectively a lie.

In this case we have The Week making transphobic lies and attacking the reaction to transphobic misinformation by 2 known peddlers of it, and the results of the only study they cite which do not support their argument without fuzzy math. They are not factually right, or accidentally correct.

Some gross news from Northern Ireland:

Sir Jeffrey Donaldson: DUP leader resigns after rape charge

According to wikipedia:



It's almost always the socially conservatives.

Could we call this a Good Friday Disagreement?

Covering up something like this is highly despicable.

[thwhtGuardian]

Quoting from the BBC:
"However, it is the largest public study to date in the UK revealing elite athletes' views on the issue."

Obviously not perfect… But do you have a bigger study on that in the UK? You don't. And you just prefer to outright dismiss it because it doesn't align with your confirmation bias. Do you actually think the BBC don’t know how to do studies better than you or I, or anyone else on this forum? (that would be quite funny)

Who are you to say what should be published or not published, calling something "garbage" just because you don't agree with it? I see that some americans like selective democracy, apparently. If it was “garbage” you wouldn’t have news media like Reuters reporting on it:

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/eli...es-2024-03-26/
(Reuters: Elite UK sportswomen survey finds majority uneasy with transgender athletes in female class)

Here is another one for you, from YouGov (wider population, not pro athletes):
"Britons are strongly opposed to transgender women being allowed to take part in women's sporting events" (61% no, 16% yes)
https://yougov.co.uk/society/article...ender-rights-1

Now I'll just wait for you to dismiss the big majority of respondents to this survey as "transphobic", of course.


And here’s more, March 22 - “IOC transgender framework goes against science, says academic paper”
https://www.reuters.com/sports/ioc-t...er-2024-03-22/

“A group of 26 academics have challenged the International Olympic Committee's framework on the inclusion of transgender athletes in sport, saying it does not protect fairness for women nor align with scientific or medical evidence.
The paper, published this week in the Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, said decisions on eligibility for female competition must consider male development rather than testosterone levels.
"We urge the IOC to re-evaluate the recommendations of their framework to include a comprehensive understanding of the biological advantages of male development to ensure fairness and safety in female sports," the paper said.
"Sports face the uncomfortable reality that the inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories cannot be reconciled with fairness, and in some instances safety, for females in athletic sports."”

I guess this is “garbage” and “transphobia” too, huh?

It literally admits it's garbage in the reporting, I'm not sure why you're trying to dispute that. It literally says, "this cannot be used to draw any conclusions about the broader public" which is true due to the various points I raised, which anyone who knows anything about surveys would understand. And the fact that the Reuters article just regurgitates the BBC article doesn't do anything to dispute that it's poor reporting.

And the yougov poll? Yikes, you think that's a defense? Granted, methodology wise it's definitely a better conducted survey and it's promising as it shows that the younger the person is, and if they actually know a transperson they are likely to be decent human being towards trans people but overall it's a cornucopia of intolerant opinions.
Even if we just take the question regarding sport, it's a bad look as the results don't only say that trans women shouldn't be able to compete with people born as women but also that trans men shouldn't be allowed to compete with men either. I mean, you can't have it both ways it can't be we have to protect the integrity of women's sports and trans women have an unfair advantage due to physiological differences AND transmen can't compete with people born as men. Both of those positions being held at the same time just illustrates that it's transphobia motivating the response and not protecting the integrity of the completion.

As I said earlier, saying, "Hey, lots of other people are intolerant too!" isn't the defense you seem to believe it is.