From Jerry Coyne fans!
I am appalled at the ad hominem attacks which you – as a scientist – seem willing to deliver against people like Prof Jerry Coyne et al.
No, no, no. An ad hominem attack would be something like “Coyne’s cowboy boot fetish is stupid, therefore his ideas about trans people are wrong.” Just pointing out that his ideas about transgender biology are stupid is not an ad hominem.
This is just an annoyance. A lot of my hatemail flings around the “ad hominem” accusation without understanding it.
Having read pretty much all of Coyne’s comments on this issue it is quite apparent that he is not a transphobe as you falsely claim.
As the definition of a phobia is ‘an irrational fear’ this means that I too am not transphobic.
OK, this is another common trope: literal dictionary translation of a term to weasel out from under it. That’s not how it works. A transphobe is someone who opposes allowing trans people rights and opportunities, who has an irrational contempt to justify their biases.
If you’re not afraid, then why oppose them at all? I mean, I would concede that I am “Republicanphobic,” because I am afraid of what they’re doing to our country, but not transphobic, because even if I thought they were wrong (I don’t), I’m not at all concerned about letting them participate in sports or write books or talk to people about their experiences. Leave them alone!
So perfect I had to use it:
Why on earth would you then presuppose that JK Rowling, Helen Joyce, Kathleen Stock, Richard Dawkins et al are ‘transphobic’ – particularly as all of them have expressed supportive views towards the trans community.
Oh, wow. Rattle off the names of some of the most notorious transphobes in the public sphere, and then think it excuses you and Coyne because you’re just like them. OK, you win, you’re no more transphobic than Rowling & Joyce & Stock & Dawkins. Great defense.
Utter nonsense on your part.
However, what Coyne and I share in common is in the defence of biological women, and in their right to retain women-only spaces and sports etc, and which should not be invaded by individuals who possess male genitalia and male musculature, but who wish to be regarded as women.
Perhaps you need to take a step back and consider the rights of (biological) women who have fought against male oppression for centuries?
Great. Now we get the “biological women” canard. We’re all biological, you know, we’re all people. All these traits people use to put people into two categories exhibit a wide range of overlapping variation. The one reason Coyne fans have retreated to basing their arguments on gametes is because there, at least, they can find one criterion that is binary…never mind that all the other features are not, and can contradict the evidence from gametes. Get used to it — humans are complicated and don’t fit into just two bins.
I do wonder if your personal attacks represent the weakness of your position on this issue?
They certainly represent a failure on your part to adhere to Science.Back in the day men who wished to dress as women regarded themselves as being cross-dressers, or transvestites. What they never claimed to be was a ‘woman.’
I consider extreme reductionism — such as claiming that human identity can be reduced to two simple categories — to be a failure of science. Simplistic explanations make me skeptical.
Has it occurred to you that unsubstantiated, unscientific views like yours are actually doing harm to the cause of trans people, a group of our fellow humans who no doubt you would want to claim you support?
You haven’t demonstrated that my views are unsubstantiated or unscientific. The basis for your disagreement is that you don’t like my position because it contradicts your superficial biases.
Also, I kind of suspect that denying their existence does more harm to the cause of trans people.
As a result, the extreme right and extreme left will no doubt welcome you into their nasty little cliques with open arms…..
Both sides! The correct answer is in the middle!
This is just like slapping down creationists.
Yep. That surely was quite the email. Yikes.
It’s always the same old song and dance. Never an original thought with these people.
“Back in the day?” Something makes me suspect this person thinks trans people were invented circa 2002. Like lots of people they think that X didn’t exist until it was given a name. Like how atoms didn’t exist until scientists came up with the concept.
I also wonder what dimension this person comes from where being trans is considered a good thing by the average right winger.
You know you’re doing something right when assholes like this disapproves.
First sentence is wrong.
I find that when the first sentence is wrong, the email usually goes downhill from there.
I just read the rest of his gibberish and every sentence is wrong. One example.
He is denying the existence of Trans people!!!
This is just wrong. Trans people exist whether he likes it or not.
.1. Cross dressers, transvestites, and drag queens still exist. We call them cross dressers, transvestites, and drag queens.
They aren’t the same as Trans people!!!
Crossdressers do not = Trans people
.2. Oh yeah, he left out Trans men.
It’s like he is only obsessed with Trans women for some weird reason.
The next sentence he contradicts himself.
Trans people, who don’t exist, are being harmed by PZ Myers because he calls out transphobic haters like Coyne, Shrier, Rowling and the rest of them.
It hasn’t occurred to PZ Myers and the rest of us that we are harming Trans people because we aren’t.
It’s the mindless haters like Coyne and this idiot email writer who actively will do Trans people as much harm as they can.
Got that wrong too.
The extreme left barely exists in the USA any more.
They probably don’t like PZ Myers or me either.
The extreme right is Jerry Coyne and his dwindling fan club of idiots.
The Trumpists/MAGAts definitely exist, comprise a large amount of the US adult population, and hate PZ Myers, myself and people like us. They occasionally send me death threats. I forward the ones that look serious to the FBI.
“They certainly represent a failure on your part to adhere to Science.”
This kinds of logic really makes me shake my head at it’s stupidity. Making up categories for living creatures is not science, it is not scientific and it only serves to help our puny brains to understand things. Nature doesn’t give a shit about your definitions, your species, classes, sexes or whatever. The dumbass Welsh’s “What’s a woman” question is not a scientific question.
Erlend Meyer @ 4
Yup.
It brings me back to Ed Brayton and his ‘Mikey gets email’ posts.
But this is not as entertaining; decent spelling, no physical threats and no anti-semitic slurs.
PZ needs to up his game and attract more delirious hate mail writers.
Definitions make sense in the case of “which categories are likely to get this kind of disease”. The rest is cultural.
Oh? Your “appalled” by what PZ wrote, are you? I ensure you, he and the rest of us can say a lot, lot worse about him… and you by association.
Me @ 8
A modest proposal.
Write something attacking Kristina Karamo , the Qanon freak that is the leader of the Republican party in Michigan.
As she is practically an Alex Jones clone (apart from skin color) that will bring out the really entertaining freakzoids in all their mis-spelling glory.
At some point I expect someone to clearly identify an irrelevant characteristic if they use “ad hominem”. I don’t see where they did that. Assertions about PZ and phobia definitions don’t do any of that and neither does the rest.
Name-dropping a fallacy.
Frankly I’m surprised your previous post attracted this much email at all. Why the fuck do they care what you have to say? I don’t care what Jerry Coyne has to say and you don’t see me writing emails to him about it.
“OK, this is another common trope: literal dictionary translation of a term to weasel out from under it. That’s not how it works.”
This is what linguists call the “etymological fallacy,” or the belief that etymology, not usage, governs what a term means. Etymology has an influence on what a term means, but it is not determinative. Terms mean what people intend and understand them to mean.
Surely ternary at least – there are many people who never produce gametes, and even more who haven’t started or have ceased to do so!
As a “biological woman” (yeah, I know basic, I’d prefer augmented human) I can’t remember having called for help.
That email was from pschaeffer, I suppose. The “not a phobe” trope is too familiar.
Maybe the biological upgrade was a mistake. Geochemistry is better.
@6 I would be considered “extreme left” in many heads , and if you look up some of the core ideas of “extreme left” ideas, you would probably be shocked they are quite agreeable to anyone with a conscience. I for one, do not think “extreme left” people would dislike PZ, why should they?
I see every little effort to avoid transwoman or transman as a shunning ritual. It’s the same word, there’s this extra bit.
Oops. It’s NOT the same word.
… the “biological women” canard. We’re all biological…
A question for y’all: In the particular cases where specific bodily characteristics do pertain, I’ve come to preferring the term “anatomical” [women/men]. I know I can’t be the first to think of that, yet I rarely/never see others use it – have I missed a problem here?
PZ, thanks for your efforts, in this and other regards. I can, sometimes, find humor in these ludicrous opinions; I just do not have your stamina. So I am glad someone does!
As usual, there’s a comic about this:
https://leftycartoons.com/2022/07/16/you-cant-call-me-a-homophobe-if-im-not-afraid/
As best as I can tell, Jerry Coyne doesn’t believe that trans women ( at least those who have undergone male puberty) should compete in women’s sports. As long as sports are divided into two categories on the basis of biological sex, that seems reasonable to me. If sports require additional categories to fit people who don’t fit into those two, then create additional categories.
“As the definition of a phobia is ‘an irrational fear’ this means that I too am not transphobic.”
I quote the online Cambridge dictionary, which gives 2 definitions, one being: “an extreme fear or dislike of a particular thing or situation, especially one that is not reasonable”. The very first example given for this definition is, of course, transphobia.
Dictionary thumpers are exactly like Bible thumpers: they’ve never actually read the book they claim holds the absolute truth.
“Why on earth would you then presuppose?”
You didn’t presuppose. Better questions please.
@22 Pierce R. Butler
“biological” and “anatomical”
Both are going to be wrong if you dig down into the details. And biology is details all the way down. The bigots, who don’t know any science and are too lazy to learn, want to judge sex and gender by some select subset of gross anatomy. Such as: penis-having = male, non-penis-having = female. Note that they are already running into trouble, because hermaphrodites exist.
Knowing a bit more biology, one might realize that sex and gender include other traits, such as hormonal systems and brain organization. And I, being trained in biology, am going to point out that brain organization is most certainly anatomy.
If you look up the definition, you will find that anatomy is
For contrast, physiology is about function. But of course if you dig down into the details, structure and function are always related.
The ad hominem fallacy fallacy
ad hominem?
Ask anyone who claims to differentiate the genders based on gametes (or chromosomes) if they have ever actually examined a gamete (or chromosomes).
Ask anyone who claims to differentiate the genders based on gametes (or chromosomes) if they have ever actually examined a gamete (or chromosomes).
I’m I the only one detecting the subtle hint of a threat in that line?
“I aint a-feared of no queer-mo-sexuals. It’s good ol’ boys like me they should be afraid of.”
In Realityland, the Transphobes aren’t actually afraid that Trans people will go all…I don’t know…Trans on Cis people. Whatever that means.
What Transphobes are phobic about, what they really fear, is that Trans people really exist.
Not only are they afraid that Trans people really exist, but they are afraid that they are real humans and real US citizens with all the rights and privileges that humans and US citizens are entitled to by law and social conventions.
Like the idiot email writer, their claim that Trans people don’t exist is a way of dealing with their fears by hiding from reality.
@Pierce R. Butler
The adjective “cis” is right there for you to use.
@Chris61 et. al.
OK, let’s talk sports. The argument usually is that trans women who underwent natal puberty have an advantage over cis women and that it was therfore unfair for them to compete. Now, I don’t concede that claim, the science does mostly not confirm it, and it often gets used against intersex women, expecially of colour. The question I have is why such things are never an issue with cis men? Why isn’t Michael Phelps required to change his body chemistry to an average level?
@25
If this is all there is to it, than Coyne is not (necessarily anyway) transphobic anymore than one would be androphobic for excluding a 7′ man from a 6′ and under men’s basketball league.
I’d like to confess something: I’m a fucking idiot.
While I like to think that I know a little more about science than most Americans, what knowledge I do have is mere trivia when compared to a lot of commentators on this board. I got the same xy vs. xx chromosomes spiel back in 7th grade, but I realize there is a lot more to sex and gender development than just that. I don’t presume to know what causes some people to be transgender, so I leave that to better minds than mind.
What I do know with absolute certainty is I don’t like bullies, and the anti-trans crowd reminds a lot of the schoolyard shibags who used to abuse of me when I was a weird, unathletic kid who liked Star Trek and was in “special education.”
Loved the comment about cowboy boots, but those aren’t ANY cowboy boots that Jerry Coyne worships, those are Steven Pinker’s cowboy boots.
https://www.pinkerite.com/search?q=coyne+boots
Coyne is Pinker’s most pathetic groveling fanboy. And speaking of pathetic groveling fanboys, thanks for sharing letters from Coyne’s mob of reactionary ghouls so we can all laugh together at their self-righteous stupidity.
Fans of P. Z. Myers will enjoy the additions I made to the Rational Wiki entry for Coyne – it starts with a quote from P. Z.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jerry_Coyne
Pierce@22–
The only advantage of using a term like ‘anatomical’ is that it has not been weaponised by transphobes. But it still indicates a false binary, which means that if it ever becomes a commonly used term, it will be gleefully adopted in transphobic arguments.
Even two years ago nobody was talking about gamete size as it applies to transgender issues as it has precisely zero relevance, but it has become a talking point because the previous go-to psuedoscientific ‘gotcha’ argument of XX/XY chromosome count kept getting hammered by anyone who knows even basic genetics (and the more you know, the more stupid it gets). So they moved the goalposts to something that is actually even more stupid than the XX/XY fallacy, but on a topic that most people were even less familiar with, i.e. the history of classification fetishes among pre-Victorian biologists.
An etymological literalist would insist that subatomic physics is a contradiction in terms and therefore there is no such thing as nuclear energy.
@38– Thanks for the good work.
@25
Oh goodie, we have a motte-and-bailey troll! Jerry Coyne specifically attacked the right of trans people to get basic endocrine health care. He said nothing about whether or not someone had “gone through male puberty:” that’s your own nonsensical addition (how would you even measure such a quality?), and instead made a bunch of absurd claims about gametes.
You have two options:
a)If you want to defend Jerry Coyne, you have to defend his actual position, which is to support state bans on trans people getting the same health care as cis people because he’s a transphobe.
b)You can acknowledge that Jerry Coyne is a transphobe and his position on health care and bathrooms is indefensible, and instead argue for the far less consequential position about banning trans women from some entertainment media. In this case, you should try defining “male puberty” as well as how you think entertainment media producers should measure whether a possible contestant has undergone “male puberty.” Then you should explain why such a thing is worth passing laws about.
Nancy McClernan @38
I mostly like your Pinkerite but when I saw you refer to obnoxious neo-IDW jackass Konstantin Kisin as a Putinbot I was a bit in doubt.
Eg:https://www.pinkerite.com/2023/12/steven-pinker-fights-to-maintain-his.html
I don’t like Triggernometry, but I do hatewatch it. The episode with Sam Harris and Eric Weinstein was priceless as a multiple WTF moment.
But given his wikipedia page: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Kisin] where it says:
In context: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/bbc-question-time-konstantin-kisin-comic-russian_uk_6221ca51e4b0bd1df769b7cc
I really don’t like the obnoxious prick but is it fair to call him a Putinbot? Maybe you have a deeper insight into what makes him tick.
Troll @25: Coyne has never cared about sports, much less women’s sports, until it became something that trans people could be excluded from.
I hate to break this to you, but you’re in the wrong timeline. In this timeline they’re fucking awful people who wield their influence to make trans people lives as hellish as possible. They’ve made a large number of public comments that seek to degrade and extinguish trans people. Rowling, Joyce and Stock have encourage supporters to engage in harassment campaigns against even the mildest of critics.
Meh, whats the point. It’s obvious that the shit head who wrote that email only cares for the feelings of their “Great Leader” and doesn’t understand/give a shit about trans issues.
@41
It was my pleasure!
@45
Also, the email-writer doesn’t seem to know what “presuppose” means. We aren’t “presupposing” that Rowling, Joyce, Stock, and Dawkins are transphobes: we are concluding they are transphobes by observing their behavior.
@43 – He’s a Putin apologist –
https://twitter.com/KonstantinKisin/status/1627712408251662348
He claims the invasion of Ukraine isn’t REALLY about Ukraine.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineCrisis2022/comments/xsfqfc/konstantin_kisin_i_wish_every_single_person_in/
And not coincidentally he’s pro-Trump
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=940828880131859
He’s an apologist and he’s a weasel. Which is why he’s been called “incoherent.”
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/10/the-most-incoherent-conservative-take-on-israel-yet.html
I have no qualms about calling him a Putinbot.
@22
If you’re in the one particular case where specific bodily characteristics are important (i.e. medicine), then you’re probably best off talking about the specific bodily characteristic that’s relevant.
For example, if you’re a medical doctor planning on treating testicular cancer, the relevant criteria is not whether someone had “male” on their birth certificate, but whether they currently have testicles. You want to make sure trans women who still have testicles are checked for testicular cancer, but you do not need to check trans women who no longer have testicles (or never had them to begin with).
A term like “anatomical male” is unhelpful: Is a cis man who has had his testicles removed an “anatomical male?” For some purposes maybe, but he does not need to worry about testicular cancer screening.
This is part of the absurdity of transphobes insisting it is “impossible to change sex:” the status of having or not having testicles is easily verifiably something you can change.
So if you’re talking about testicular cancer, you might want to use the phrases “people with testicles” and “people without testicles.” If you’re talking about pregnancy, you should probably refer to whether or not someone has a uterus, since that’s the necessary organ for getting pregnant (even ovaries are not needed thanks to IVF). If you are talking about another medical condition, then you should refer to the body part that is relevant.
Nancy McClernan @43
I think your links show a descending arc of unsupportable crap from Kisin, but the first video makes me ask if you’ve heard of “shock therapy”. The second maybe is an analysis of Putin’s speech more than full on support.
See: https://www.konstantinkisin.com/p/putin-speech-america-has-nothing
And:
The rest (last two links) I cannot defend. Masha Gessen and Pussy Riot are far more what I can empathize with. But still Kisin has agency, no? Is he getting his marching orders from the Kremlin? That’s my main point.
@47 Joyce has come straight out and said that we need to “immediately reduce the number of trans”, as a way of answering the “Trans Question.”.
They’re kind of like anti-vaxers in that they try to claim that they’re pro-safe vaccines. They’ll claim that they have been misrepresented, but there is no criteria that they could ever agree to that didn’t involve them conceding to even the smallest dram of criticism.
@51
Helen Joyce also wrote an entire freaking book whose central thesis was that trans people are a plot by “globalists” like George Soros to destroy western civilization.
@35 Giliell
If Michael Phelps had pharmacologically modified his body chemistry to give himself an advantage, itmost certainly would be an issue.
Why are you opposed to a third category?
chris61, heh. You have form here, I remember. This is your particular interest.
(Sealioning is your thing)
The thing about the whole “phobia means fear and I’m not afraid” crowd is that it’s a lie. Most homophobic and transphobic arguments against the rights of gay and trans people are fear-based, and a lot of straight cis men are terrified of being attracted to a woman and finding out she’s trans (and this has led to a LOT of anti-trans violence), or the first thing out of their mouths after finding out that someone they know is gay is “He’d better not hit on me.”
Also to note, anyone who argues that trans women “who have gone through male puberty” should not be allowed to participate in women’s sports and also argue against puberty blockers for trans youth make it very clear that they just don’t want trans people to exist.
Technically, it actually is an ad hominem, a personal attack against Coyne.
But you weren’t debating anything. It didn’t refer to or distract from any arguments Coyne made with you.
This ad hominem attack was not a logical fallacy. You were just being an asshole.
Own it, PZ!
@4 As definitive refutation, consider:
Furter, F.N.; Scott, E.V. [untitled transmission] J. Transyl. Soc’y 2:1 (1975).
which is a quarter of a century prior to the purported initiation date and clearly reflects data-gathering for some time prior to that, including development of specialized instrumentation such as the sonic transducer.
Good grief!
I’ve covered this multiple times here.
See, when stupid punters (such as you, Drew) talk about ad hominem, they intend to talk about arbumentum ad hominem; but of course, because they indulge in cargo cult culture, they don’t get it.
One needs to know about informal fallacies (that is, fallacies of irrelevance, rather than formal fallacies which are fallacies of inference) and have at least some linguistic nous to get the silliness of it all.
See, saying someone is being stupid when they make stupid claims is not an attack, it is an observation.
So, yes, in this case ‘to the man (person, that is)’ it is, but more properly (with apologies to cartomancer, who I hope corrects my autodidactic latinism) contumeliam ad hominem.
That is, it’s a claim about a person’s nature, rather than about the claim at hand.
And PZ actually gets it, as demonstrated in the OP.
You, Drew, do not. That is most obvious.
Not only is it not an attack (rather, a characterisation), but you are evidently an ignoramus.
<snicker>
Try taking that stained underwear from your head, Drew.
(Own it, Drew!)
[argumentum — I should look at the keyboard when typing!]
@56 tabby lavalamp.
I was wondering when someone would mention that. It was my first thought.
Some time ago before things got truly weird, I believe JK Rowling did try to defend herself by saying she had an irrational fear triggered by past assault/trauma. I am not going to trawl through years of crap to find it because I would rather plow through a literal sewerage farm.
But these people seem to think their fear is both non existent and rational (how does that not cause their heads to implode???).
Oh, ‘women only spaces’, huh? Like women’s toilets. Ok, so what are you hanging around them for, sonny jim??? I am not afraid of the trans person in the women’s toilet, but that creepy white-knight hanging around outside and checking out everyone who walks in is making me feel really unsafe.
These people absolutely do have an irrational fear of trans people and homosexual people, and most likely for the reasons you said.
@chris61:
Two points:
Sports is not fair and it will never be. One point of rules and regulations is to reduce the amount of unfairness. In this regard, the idea of trans athletes having to transition and wait for a year or two sounds reasonable. If it’s fair to have someone who is born with good genetics, resources and training opportunities to compete against someone with more dedication and passion but with worse opportunitoes in a third world country who has to work a day time job and train at night, then it’s also fair to allow people who were born in the wrong bodies to fully transition and compete.
“Women’s spaces” is the official position of Jerry Coyne but that’s because he is a coward. The signal boosts the rapid gender bullshit theory, throws shade at the concept of being trans without officially saying it and most importantly, he doesn’t rein in his commentators who write more explicit forms of transphobic comments; this last point is telling because his blog is highly moderated.
[meta]
Heh. I just remembered the featured cartoon (credit to 183231bcb?).
I reckon you belong there, Drew. Your very own panel!
(, LOL)
Prediction: neither drew nor chris61 will dare to contend with my claims, evident and solid as they are.
(We’ll see, shan’t we? ;) )
As best as I can tell, Jerry Coyne hates transgender people, and transwomen participating in women’s sports is just a convenient excuse for that hatred. When has he shown any actual concern for improving women’s access to or facilities for sport?
I dunno, maybe it due to my vanishly small interest in professional sports, but why am I supposed to consider the theoretical of Michael Phelps “pharmacologically modifying his body chemistry” the moment when im supposed to clutch my pearls and alert the authorities when the man in reality does things like sleep in a fucking hyperbaric chamber in order to give himself an advantage over opponents, and that’s apparantly hunky-dory?
“i’m not transphobic, i just think being trans is a fake idea and the lived experience spoken directly from the mouths of people who claim to be trans is meaningless to me!”
this is not an ad-hominem or reducto ad absurdum–this the core essence of the argument.
@57: No, Drew, you don’t get it.
An ad hominem fallacy is not the same thing as a “personal attack”, and it’s definitely not an automatic I-win-the-argument card that lets you float away on sanctimonious wings without having to give another person’s ideas any thought. The fallacy, specifically, is claiming that conclusions about a person’s arguments can be drawn based on the person’s character.
If I say “John Doe smells like beef, and his arguments are bad”, that is two separate claims; no fallacy has been committed. If I say “John Doe smells like beef, therefore his arguments are bad”, that is an ad hominem fallacy.
Your refusal to engage PZ’s arguments based on the fact that he insulted someone is arguably a twisted form of the ad hominem fallacy, ironically (“He insulted someone, therefore his arguments are bad”. Physician, heal thyself.
In addition to the post about this I just put up at Pervert Justice, I want to say that “cissexist” is a valid alternative to “transphobe” or “transphobic” (depending on whether cissexist is used as a noun or an adjective).
Sure, I think that a lot of people would say that the words are being used to describe the same thing, but the connotations are different. With “transphobe” there’s an implicit assumption that I care what’s in your heart, what you feel that motivates your statements and actions. While we are of course correct that “phobia” is not an unmodified translation of the greek “phobos”, the word transphobia was derived by variation from homophobia, which itself was used to ironically medicalize trans hatred at a time when queers (mostly gay and bi men) were fighting to demecialize same-sex attractions by removing gayness from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). The coining of homophobia was in short about psychoanalyzing the people fighting against queer rights.
My position is that I don’t give a goddamn whether your fears are logical or not, rational or not, founded or not. I don’t give a goddamn whether your fears exist at all.
I’ve said this before, but there was a time period after a long relationship with an abusive partner where my PTSD would trigger at seeing a certain color in a corner of my eye. It made sense to become vigilant at that signal, because the color was the color of my abuser’s hand, a hand that often struck me unexpectedly, with little warning and from the edges of my perception. My abuser was African (having emigrated from Nigeria as a child). This meant that my reaction triggered around certain Black people, but never around caucasian people. And again, it was a fearful reaction (making phobia a reasonable descriptor) but also a somewhat rational one (my abuser still lived in the same city and striking when I least expected it was a deliberate strategy on their part).
The problem for me (or one of the problems and the one relevant to this discussion) is that it didnt’ fucking matter whether my response was or wasn’t “phobic” according to either popular usage or technical definitions. My reactions showed fear around Black persons that I didn’t show around white people. Stopping to explain my idiosyncratic history would not have been feasible in most cases and would not have helped in most of the rest. Black people are used to being disproportionately feared, and this social dynamic curtails both the extent and nature of their otherwise full participation in society.
If I cared about ending racism — a systematic diminution of the rights and privileges of a racial group — I had to get over my shit regardless of whether it was based in fear and regardless of whether or not it was rational. The etiology of my behaviour didn’t actually matter at all, but use of “phobia” might suggest that it did. The actual issue was racism, not colorphobia.
By extension, when I think of Mike Johnson, I don’t give a shit whether he quakes in fear at the thought of two men kissing. I don’t care if he shivers with irrational revulsion at seeing two women holding hands in public. I certainly don’t give a flying fuck whether he really believes that there are only 2 genders or if he’s cynically using popular prejudice for political gain.
The issues I have with Mike Johnson are about the actions he takes to harm other people. If he voted like a decent human being and convincingly portrayed one to the people around him, any private demons he might have to fight to pull off that act are none of my business. If he doesn’t want to feel that uncomfortable mess, he can go to a therapist. If he was my brother or my fuckbuddy or my best friend I might feel different, but he’s not.
He’s sexist, he’s heterosexist, and he’s cissexist. If he also happens to be transphobic in the psychological sense (or more properly I suppose, the psychologizing sense) I wouldn’t know it and it ain’t my problem anyway.
Sure, in important senses cissexist and transphobic describe the same thing, but I never want to accidentally give Mike Johnson or his ilk the gross misimpression that I actually care what’s going on in their heads or hearts.
Cissexist it is.
Sometimes, though, I can’t help but wonder if it isn’t fear that they’re trying to pass off as good, old-fashioned bigotry.
I mean, it isn’t an instinctive, unthinking, purely emotional chill. But a fair number of people whom you ask about why they don’t tolerate trans folks will respond with something about the collapse of society, or offending a holy god who has set things in a particular order that we defy at our peril. If we simply allow the behavior to exist, society as we know it will collapse, or sporting events will be thrown into chaos, or we might get caught in the blast radius whenever god gets around to smiting.
That response — that need to wipe out something seen as an offense, or flee the consequences — is fear, even if it’s not inchoate fear. That particular facet of fear seems to be the defining characteristic of modern conservativism; at least, it’s hard for me to understand defending their desire to be allowed to carry heavy weaponry on shopping errands any other way, or their desire to control everything everyone’s children are exposed to.
If we allow that they shouldn’t be called “transphobes” because they don’t exhibit a particular kind of (subconscious, adrenaline-pumping) fear, I worry that similar “logic” might excuse not calling them “bigots” because they don’t exhibit a particular kind of (subconscious, bile-at-the-back-of-the-throat) hatred.
For some reason, younger me would set off gay men’s gaydar, and I would get hit on fairly regularly. Didn’t phase me a bit; I’d just respectfully decline. My sister was always amused. I can’t understand homophobia.
More to the point, one of my co-workers and one of my jobs was a depressed, mousy guy who hid in his office mostly so he didn’t have to interact with people. Then he transitioned. She is this adventurous, vivacious woman who hangs out in bars drinking fruity drinks and likes to go to adventurous spots like Vegas.
In fact, she’s one of the reason I became an ally.
Oh, and studies have shown that trans women’s brains respond to stimuli in much the same way as cis women’s brains.
@Chris61
Nice try at having it both ways. Let’s talk about the three different scenarios here:
1. Trans women who went through natal puberty are on average taller than cis women’s. This is a natural process. Trans women usually have medical interventions that lower their physical fitness. The argument “taking medications that improve performance” therefore does not work.
2. Intersex women have bodies that may give them advantages (again, most science says yes). This is again their natural body, yet they are asked to take medication to artificially lower their performance.
3. Cis men like Phelps have bodies, in his case very well documented, that give advantages. In case of Phelps, his muscles don’t get sore like normal people’s do. This is his natural body. He is celebrated for it and not asked to take medical interventions so it would be fair for the others.
Please explain the difference.
@69
I prefer transmisia, which is a bit more etymologically accurate. Of course there’s still troll counterarguments of “I don’t hate trans people, I just think they’re mentally ill and we need to ‘help’ them by sending them to prison for life without a trial!”
#71: Me,too! Part of it was that I was young, and that I hung out in some of the rougher parts of Seattle. I was flattered that anyone found me attractive, but disappointed that I never ever got that kind of attention from women.
@53
Since you continue to focus your attention on entertainment media, should I presume you concede that Coyne’s transmisic position on health care and bathrooms is indefensible and wrong?
So after years of telling us that your body’s “biology” is fixed, immutable, and impossible to alter with even hypothetical future medical technology, now you suddenly shift to claiming your “body chemistry” can be modified with medicine?
@73 Giliel
Why are you opposed to a third category?
@Chris 61
1. I have not seen anything that would have convinced me that it is necessary.
2. It would discriminate against trans people in a way nobody else is.
3. It doesn’t address the discrimination of intersex women
4. It’s obvious that you are avoiding to answer my question.
Again, why is Phelps celebrated for the proven advantages provided by his body, while trans women and intersex women are vilified for alleged advantages?
There are 3?
HA!
When particular sports are found where people with tourette syndrome or people on the autism spectrum what then? When sports advantages of estrogens or something else become evident what then?
The genital/gamete frame, that stereotypes all the hormones.
@chrissy get lost, your concern trolling is boring an easily decipherable
Helen183231bc @ 52
It would have been more interesting if James Joyce had written a trasphobic book blaming the globalist conspiracy.
@50 Hemidactylus
When Kisin publicly states “Vladimir Putin is a murderous dictator who should get out of Ukraine” I will begin to reconsider my opinion – until then, I think he’s a political operative who is earning his oligarch pay.
@Captaintripps
If you did email Jerry Coyne he would ignore you and if you tried to post a response on his blog, he would refuse to post it and if you tried to argue with him on Twitter he would block you immediately. Coyne is absolutely NOT interested in hearing anything outside his right-wing reactionary IDW echo chamber. And he’s been like this for years. Which is why right-wingers and Steven Pinker adore him. Plus Pinker loves all that ass-kissing Coyne delivers regularly.
@Chris61:
Do you believe that oppression of trans people exists?
If yes, do you believe that it’s the responsibility of cis people to end it, or of trans people to end their own oppression?
Thank you in advance.
Coyne doesn’t argue his reactionary positions.
Because he can’t.
He lies, ignores any data that doesn’t support his positions (which is most of it), blocks anyone he can any where, and tries to push people around. He is a bully at heart.
I’ve saved myself at least an hour or two of my lifespan by not reading his blog for over a decade It is a waste of time.
@25, in addition, Coyne, possibly up to this most recent post, always used the word “transsexual(s)” on his blog, never once said “transgender”.
So, he disregards the more correct term, the one that shows respect towards trans peoples’ own choice, and suggests that trans people delusionally think that they are changing their sex (gametes), and so are not valid.
Aka, transphobic.
In addition, “get a new sports category.” Completey ridiculous. How many trans students are there in a typical, say, high school, at any one time? One? Two? They can be on their own sports teams consisting of one person! Stupidly unfeasible, as you well know, but want to ignore.
And I believe ADHD has elements useful in lots of sports.
Why are you opposed to a third category?
First, as garnestar said, there would never be enough trans, non-binary or non-conforming athletes in any region to form even one full sports team, let alone one for each sport.
Second, do you really think there’d be just ONE “third category?” Would transmen, transwomen AND intersex people be in it? That’s clearly not intended to be a “category,” it’s meant to be a dumping-ground.
And third, do you really think the people who create a “third category” would willingly fund it at the same level as even the women’s teams, let alone the men’s?
chrissy, if you really thought this “third category” was a serious proposal, you would have thought through all of the above issues. You’ve shown absolutely no sign of any such thought, so it’s pretty obvious the whole idea is bullshit and you know it. Now fuck off to bed.
This may be overly cynical on my part, but I’m frankly highly suspicious of the flood of individuals who I know, both in my personal life and in the public sphere, who are suddenly so goddamn concerned with preserving the supposed sanctity of athletic competition when there was previously never any indication that they cared who won what sport or how.
Look, I have a compromise proposal on the Chris61. We just need a third bathroom for Chris61s. We can have male, female, and Chris61 bathrooms. Of course, it’s okay to have fewer Chris61 bathrooms than bathrooms for biological men or biological women, since there are far fewer Chris61s than there are men or women. We can probably get away with having just 61 Chris61 bathrooms in the country: one in each of the 61 largest cities. And of course, we can allocate much less funding for renovating Chris61 bathrooms than we do for the bathrooms used by normal people. Obviously, once we’ve set up enough Chris61 bathrooms it ought to be a felony for a Chris61-identified person to use a bathroom designated for a normal person.
Some CRAs are calling me “Chris61phobic” (which is a slur), but I don’t understand why they won’t support third-spaces?
@69 crip dyke, splendid post! I fully agree it is our responsibility to call out the bigot’s actions, and it is not necessary to figure out what’s going on in the bigot’s head. Re cissexist (and cissexism), I’d like to consider an alternative cissupremacist (and cissupremacism) as maybe at first hearing clearer what the meaning is. On the downside, perhaps the supremacist part might also seem to point to what the bigot’s motivation is.
Personally, I do not want to share my toilet stall with anybody whatsoever. I presume that’s true of most people. Is it then the washing up area that people don’t want to share with certain others?
Thanks, imback!
I do use those from time to time. I rarely use them about individuals though, because again it’s more about motivation and less about effects. You can think you’re supreme all you want, as long as you’re not acting in ways that cause any harm (including not saying out loud that others are inferior) then your own thoughts can be anything at all. It’s behaviours and effects that I want to focus on — not because other things don’t matter (motivations, after all, give you important clues on how to effectively motivate someone to change harmful behaviours), but just because it’s rarely a productive part of a given conversation.
When it is a productive thing to talk about, knock yourself out. But the difference between a Lex Luthor who pretends to be an ally to the poor and downtrodden by using his money for lots of antipoverty programs and good works but secretly is laughing at how pathetic I am for not being able to afford all this on my own and a Superman who does lots of good works and inspires people to give money to do lots of antipoverty programs without ever laughing secretly inside his own head is … zero. Because I can’t detect the laughing inside someone else head.
If they pretend to be my ally well enough that I don’t notice any difference, then I don’t really care whether or not there’s some dark secret hidden in someone’s brain.
@86. Raven
Yeah, that’s a good way to deal with Coyne. But since he promotes and defends purveyors of race pseudoscience I feel I have to respond now and then on my Pinkerite blog – Coyne is part of the hereditarian gang along with Michael Shermer and Steven Pinker who are doing their best to mainstream race pseudoscience.
All the bathrooms in the local mega-hospital are unisex, single occupancy, locking from the inside bathrooms.
It’s the same at the coffee house I go to often as well.
And in some of the parks as well.
The public library has all three types, male, female, and unisex, single occupancy. I think the unisex ones were originally for parents to bring their opposite sex toddlers into (family) without having people like Chris61 fainting if a 3 year old girl sees them…washing their hands. But anyone can use them.
This seems to be the current trend everywhere.
The issue of having people you fear and hate in the same public restroom, never even comes up. I mean, the Transphobes of course. I wouldn’t want them around me any where much less a restroom.
@78 Giliell
“It would discriminate against trans people”
And allowing those who have gone through male puberty ( or take illegal performance enhancing substances) to compete against those who have not gone through male puberty (and don’t take performance enhancing substances) discriminates against the latter. Why should one form of discrimination be preferable to the other?
Intersex athletes raised as female are a different issue than transwomen. I personally would be inclined to let them compete as women. Their advantages ( if they exist), like Phelps, were not acquired through pharmacological interventions.
Having not read everything Jerry Coyne has ever written, I have no idea how he believes intersex athletes should be treated.
As I have some mutation that makes me indifferent to sports (if we believe in stereotypes, that probably makes me Jewish) the whole controversy seems stupid to me. Those who say they are women are women, etc.
.
Also, if PZ wants more entertaining nut job emails he should spread a rumor that Myers is an abbreviation of some Jewish name. That is like pheromones to bring out the freaks.
@Chris61:
Do you believe that oppression of trans people exists?
If yes, do you believe that it’s the responsibility of cis people to end it, or of trans people to end their own oppression?
Thank you in advance.
Chris61, so you want to also segregate sports by puberty vs not going through puberty? Mid-puberty standing where in these new divisions?
I’ll not even go into female athletes that were forced to undergo surgery, as their testosterone was “too high”…
More like, if they die during that major surgery, mission accomplished, another problem solved. I’m not supposing that remark, I’ve actually heard it and I’m hard of hearing, so the individual wasn’t muttering, put proudly articulating quite loudly and clearly.
Fortunately, my wife restrained me, for I was quite incensed and prepared to introduce a surgical intervention of my own to the speaker.
Personally, I’m inclined to think that at least some sports ought to get rid of “gender” as a category at all, and divide athletes up by some other factor.
I know about dinghy sailing, as I used to do it as a teenager. There, the biggest factor is weight – if you’re not heavy enough, you can’t use a bigger sail (though if there’s very little wind, being light is an advantage). So instead of having a “men” race and a “women” race, there could just be “above x kg” and “below x kg”, or even three or four weight categories, with different standard sail size (or type of boat) depending on weight category.
Basketball presumably has height as a defining category (I confess I don’t know much about the sport). The teams for the tallest people would probably be largely male, but especially if you had three height categories there would be nicely mixed teams in the middle.
Obviously there are sports where (a) there is a distinct difference between elite men and elite women in performance and (b) it can’t be explained by a single factor. And the whole point of this idea was to try and redefine the categories so that there would be cis women and cis men in both, so that trans women and intersex women end up in a category with other women, and trans men and intersex men end up in a category with other men (as a usual state of affairs, not just “there’s two trans women on the team!”). So “level of testosterone” isn’t really helpful. But it feels like maybe this is an idea worth exploring? At any rate it feels like a better way to introduce a third category than chris61’s ridiculous and insulting “misc” idea.
@99 Crip Dyke
I believe a lot of people are oppressed, including many transpeople. I don’t however believe that oppression is relevant to how one fairly sets up sports competitions.
This side-steps the question. do you believe that trans people are oppressed for being trans, in a sense analogous to how women are oppressed for being women and Black people are oppressed for being Black?
What do you think that sports competitions are for? What do they achieve? What function(s) do they serve?
For instance if sports competitions are for fun, then winning isn’t the point and whether or not someone has an advantage is entirely irrelevant to the appropriate league or sport in which they play.
When you say that trans inclusion is unfair, what purpose is being undermined by trans inclusion? And if none, then what is the point of even having the discussion?
I don’t ask this to be argumentative, I am trying to get from a nebulous, “This is unfair,” objection to an actual problem that we can consider and solve.
Wait, is the claim now that trans women take medicine that increases their performance at sports?
Aside from being clear nonsense, this talking point also exposes how completely bad-faith any appeals to “fairness” are. Access to medical care is one of the few things that could be made fair in a sports league: for example, the league organizers could pay to ensure all contestants have access to health care. That would increase performance and also make it more fair. By contrast, genetic advantages, such as those possessed by Micheal Phelps, are completely unfair.
Of course, that’s still dodging the question of how you’d measure whether someone “goes through male puberty,” which you’d need to do if your entertainment media league were to enforce such an obviously discriminatory rule.
Interesting, so now immutable binary biological sex is not gametes and not hormones and not puberty. It’s “upbringing,” something obviously non-biological.
Honestly, for me the most entertaining part of these discussions is how quickly and frequently the supposedly fixed definition of “biological sex” changes even within a single comment. It’s a pretty clear indicator that the bigots don’t actually believe their own talking-points.
Nowhere in this thread have you been arguing for Coyne’s position: his position is quite clear that he wants state-enforced bans on trans people accessing essential things like health care and public bathrooms. You’ve been laser-focused on trans people acting in entertainment media.
Since you’ve read everyt
@ Also, if PZ wants more entertaining nut job emails he should spread a rumor that Myers is an abbreviation of some Jewish name. That is like pheromones to bring out the freaks.
Myers was one form of my grandfather’s first name. He was Jewish, so let the conspiracy theories begin!
No.
Here, I’ll translate from bigot-speak:
(I know you weren’t trying to do the straw dummy thing, but still)
And allowing those who have gone through male puberty … to compete against those who have not gone through male puberty … discriminates against the latter.
How do you know that? Do actual transwomen consistently beat ciswomen by huge margins in all sporting events? You’re gonna need actual citations and statistics to show a pattern of unfair discrimination — AND to show that such discrimination is more gross and unfair than, say, taller vs. shorter ciswomen in basketball or running events. And so far, NO ONE has made any credible case that any such “unfair discrimination” is really happening.
Intersex athletes raised as female are a different issue than transwomen.
Again, how do you know this? Do you not know that not all intersex people are alike? (Also, “raised as female” has nothing at all to do with how male or female puberty affects development. You’re muddying the water here, and being transparently dishonest.)
PS: I notice you’re not talking about a “third category” anymore. Baby steps, I guess…
I can’t recommend enough the RationalWiki entry on Coyne. It takes his claim of being to the left and shows it for the mendacious bullshit it is.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jerry_Coyne
@Chris 61
Do you have any evidence that trans women who have gone through natal puberty have a consistent advantage over cis women? And I mean data, not “it stands to reason” claims.
I know it’s beside the point but for folks who started this thread complaining etymology, this really is a nonsense phrase. No one is born already going through puberty, so it isn’t “natal.” The alternate phrase “natural puberty” (which hasn’t been used in this thread but has been used in similar discussions) is even more ridiculous: naturally most children die before reaching puberty.
Our resident troll has instead repeatedly used the phrase “male puberty,” which seems like it might actually have a meaning. Unfortunately for Chris61 Rights Activists, it doesn’t mean what they want it to mean. The obvious plain meaning of “male puberty” would be puberty that a male person goes through: so, not something any trans women done.
Chris61 is pretending to believe in some non-etymological “male puberty” that some (but not all?) non-male people have undergone. If they want to put such a “male puberty” into law they’d have to actually define it and figure how how to test for it.
@77. chris61 :“@73 Giliel : Why are you opposed to a third category?”
Not Giliel, me, but wondering why do you think Giliel opposes that & do you think there’s as few as just three categories here?
Hint : There’s probly more & its likely much more complex than you think.. Specifics depending. Think spectra.
@ 102. chris61 : “I believe a lot of people are oppressed, including many transpeople. I don’t however believe that oppression is relevant to how one fairly sets up sports competitions.”
Really? Why not?
How would you set up fair sports competitions? Where would trans people fit in your model?
How would you address the oppression you admit is happeneng to trans people?
Chris61, let us consider the data on fairness in sports:
1) the Olympics have allowed trans men/women to compete in mens/womens sports at the games since 2000. The only requirement for trans women is that they have the same maximum blood level of testosterone as all the other women athletes.
2) no trans woman ever made it to the Olympics until the last games (I believe it was 2022?). She was a weightlifter, had been through natal puberty, and was eliminated in the second round.
3) Sometime lately in the world professional weight lifting championships, the two top contenders were a cis woman and a trans woman. They had competed against each other ten times, of which the cis woman won seven of those. In the championships, the trans woman won, and the cis one whined about unfairness.
4) Before puberty cis girls and boys, and so trans girls, are the same in height and muscle, and actually the cis girls are slightly taller on average. I.e., the trans girls have no competitve advantage, and can compete on all middle school sports teams.
Do you think that’s a hideous amount of unfairness to cis women athletes?
@112
All sports are unfair by design. Every human body is different, and that means none of us can play sports on equal footings.
Some sports leagues have actually tried to increase “fairness,” but whenever they do they face backlash from the other thing conservatives pretend to like: the invisible hand of the free market. Notably, in horse racing, it used to be standard practice for fast horses to carry more weight than slow horses. This rule was intended to balance out the unfair advantage that fast horses have over slow horses. But it turns out the paying customers weren’t interested in watching a fair horse race, so the big races switched to a system where fast horses have an unfair advantage and slow horses have no chance at winning.
The rules of professional sports are designed to be entertaining for the audience, while amateur sports are designed to be entertaining for the players. They are not fair, and they are not supposed to be fair. Sports are entertainment media, and talking about “fairness in sports” makes about as much sense as talking about “fairness in Star Wars.” Oh, force-sensitives have an unfair advantage! The rebellion has an unfair advantage! It doesn’t matter because nobody’s watching a Star Wars movie to see a “fair” space fight.
Happens every time.
I show up and ask questions and suddenly chris61 runs away. There are some others who do it as well. I remember one melon-fucking assgadget who wanted to yell about services for victims of DV and SA like women’s safe houses/shelters. They yelled about it to everyone in the thread. I showed up, and I was legit an expert on this topic — no fucking lie, there were years and years when there was a very good chance that I was the most expert person in the english-speaking world at providing trans-inclusive DV/SA services in an otherwise gender segregated service environment. I left the field a while ago and I presume that there are now many people more expert than I, but what I know about this topic is both nothing to sneeze and quite foundational.
And when I showed up and started talking about actually providing trans inclusive services, they quickly reached the point where they would reply to anyone but me. Then they left.
Chris seems to reply once, but actually evades the first question and treats the second as if it does not exist and then… gone.
I am, apparently, kryptonite to these jackasses.
On the one hand, I would have loved to actually get chris61 to respond, to answer the questions to get at what is really going on here instead of just hearing some twit yelling PUBERTY over and over.
On the other hand, there are worse things than driving away every bigot in the area.
@ ^ Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden :
Also you’ve demolished his “case” – or atleats teh e-mauilers here – brilliantly and I’m guessing Chris61 has never turned up at your blog to spout that shit there? See :
https://proxy.freethought.online/pervertjustice/2024/01/10/lordamighty-pzs-e-mailers-errors/
PS. By co-incidence the snippety but interesting Mysteries at the Museum doco on TV just now is discussing Dr James Barry, historic, brilliant trans (?) surgeon :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Barry_(surgeon)
Yet anothre counter-example.
Thank you Crip Dyke.