Philosophy Discussion Forums

As I said, the true disparity is within generations, much more than between generations. Though I acknowledge there are intergenerational differences.

LuckyR wrote: ↑May 8th, 2024, 8:46 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 8th, 2024, 2:15 am Just white males?

Not Chinese, Indian, Russian, Taiwanese, Japanese, South Korean, Indonesian, Turkish, Thai, Mexican, Malaysian etc billionaires?

Since the US is not the whole world, the wealth disparity is, in fact, much more generational than it is racial.

No doubt older people have accumulated more wealth than younger people. Should it be some other way?

Do you disagree with the observation that the differences between generations is smaller than within generations?

No, I'm talking about what is, not what should be. I am, or was, an analyst so I'm not much interested in talking about what should be (and I find other's wish lists tiresome). I am interested in what is.

The difference between generations is clearly growing rapidly. As for the relativities, I've not seen any numbers. Have you?

It was interesting reading about the "Giggle vs Tickle" case that is currently being decided in court in Australia.

Robert Bromwich (known as Tickle) has lived as woman since 2017, has a birth certificate stating that her gender is female, had gender affirmation surgery and “feels in her mind that psychologically she is a woman”. Tickle was excluded from an app (known as Giggle) that was intended as an online refuge for women. The case is testing the meaning and scope of the Sex Discrimination Act. Essentially, it is exploring the meaning of the term "woman" and asking which is paramount, biological sex or gender identity.

It seems to me that cases like this prove that transgender activism goes well beyond just wanting to be left alone to live their lives. And I think this is because for many transgender people, it is not only how they see themselves that is important, but having everyone else in society see them how they want to be seen. If there is anything in society that is for women then they (trans women) should have full access to it otherwise it is serving as a reminder that they are not seen by others as a "real" woman. That's also why "mis-gendering" is such an issue because it serves as a reminder that others do not see them as the gender they identify as.

It is interesting to me that trans men don't seem to be as aggressively pursuing their "rights" to enter male only spaces. At least I haven't heard about any such cases.

I don't see this case as indicative of the trans community, most of whom (as far a I can ascertain from those I've worked with professionally) just want to live their lives in peace and security.

The case is being brought by a militant transexual who wants to test our Sex Discrimination Act. On the wording of the legislation it is possible that the plaintiff, Ms Roxanne Tickle, may succeed. I can't say that it bothers me much one way or the other, and I imagine that most Australians couldn't care less either.

It's the sort of case that tickles the fancy of the rabid religious-right who lobby for the winding back of anti-discrimination legislation, abortion rights and anything else they like to poke their judgmental, moralizing noses into. Let them do their silly prayer meetings and pamphlets hand-outs. Unlike in the religiose USA, they are a minority here. Few care about them or Ms Tickle.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑May 20th, 2024, 5:46 am I don't see this case as indicative of the trans community, most of whom (as far a I can ascertain from those I've worked with professionally) just want to live their lives in peace and security.

The case is being brought by a militant transexual who wants to test our Sex Discrimination Act. On the wording of the legislation it is possible that the plaintiff, Ms Roxanne Tickle, may succeed. I can't say that it bothers me much one way or the other, and I imagine that most Australians couldn't care less either.

It's the sort of case that tickles the fancy of the rabid religious-right who lobby for the winding back of anti-discrimination legislation, abortion rights and anything else they like to poke their judgmental, moralizing noses into. Let them do their silly prayer meetings and pamphlets hand-outs. Unlike in the religiose USA, they are a minority here. Few care about them or Ms Tickle.

When a person "suffers" from prejudice they tend to select the worst sort of stories that support their prejudice.
This phenomenon is called Selective Bias.
I would not take me long to pick any minority; nationality; religion; race; or sexual orientation and go forth into the Internet to collect ahost of negative stories with which to denigrate and traduce that group. Before long I would have convinced anyone following me that I the group was evil, as there is no group you could sunder from the population who did not have members of it that were bad.
Mr Egg should run along and get real

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑May 20th, 2024, 5:46 am I don't see this case as indicative of the trans community, most of whom (as far a I can ascertain from those I've worked with professionally) just want to live their lives in peace and security.

I don't know how indicative it is but I certainly agree that there are many trans people who aren't in favour of invading women only spaces. As usual, it is the extremists that give any movement a bad name.

The case is being brought by a militant transexual who wants to test our Sex Discrimination Act. On the wording of the legislation it is possible that the plaintiff, Ms Roxanne Tickle, may succeed. I can't say that it bothers me much one way or the other, and I imagine that most Australians couldn't care less either.

If you were one of the 20,000 women who used app before it was forced to close down you might care about it more.

It's not just about this individual case though. Many believe the eventual decision on this case to have wide reaching implications and not just within Australia (as they are signed up to the same UN conventions that many other countries are also signed up to).

If it is eventually decided that someone who identifies as a woman should have access to anything in society reserved for women, then we're not just talking about apps on phones.

In the UK, a tribunal recently decided in favour of Roz Adams who brought a case against her former employer (the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre) that fired her for "transphobic" views after she raised concerns that women using their services might want to know that they had employed a trans woman (when they were expecting female only staff). The employer took the view that "trans women are women" and that even to question that was bigoted and transphobic. Common sense prevailed in this case but if Ms Roxanne Tickle eventually wins their case in Australia, who knows what might happen in the future?

This case is society wrestling with the question: What is a woman? And for those things in society reserved for women, how to define those people that should have access to them.

Fried Egg, what, in your opinion, are those things that are, or should be, reserved only for biological women as opposed to trans women?

I can think of a few things such as women's hospitals, for example, but the list doesn't seem to me to be very long. Even women's prisons here take in transexual women who have had reassignment surgery - they can hardly be incarcerated in men's prisons.

Moreover, legal suits have been brought by women seeking to encroach on men' spaces, for example, by challenging the admission rules of "men only" clubs. I agree with the female litigants in these cases. And women have invaded occupations that were one essentially men-only. I'm fine with that, too.

I expect Ms Tickle will win if the letter of the anti-discrimination law is adhered to. Society has become more tolerant, more open and less discriminatory. I think that is a good thing. Live and let live.

I would think that the spaces a transperson can go into are the spaces where they are accepted. There's probably plenty of transwomen and transmen who have been in women's and men's wards in hospital respectively, and the other patients were none the wiser.

Remember, all the public transpeople are the obvious ones, like Roxanne Tickle. It's rather confusing. If a male was going to look like a long haired rugby player, who change over? I would think the idea is to create a better life, not to become a public oddity.

Jim Morrison was right https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgHaGrZkkv4

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑May 20th, 2024, 8:12 amFried Egg, what, in your opinion, are those things that are, or should be, reserved only for biological women as opposed to trans women?

Well, what is the justification for women only restrictions in the first place? The reasons for separating the sexes varies from case to case.

In the case of sport, it is about fairness. One group of human beings has innate and significant physical advantages over the other and if you didn't have that demarcation then it would hardly worth women bothering to compete at all (in most cases). And it doesn't matter how many hormones you have had and what physical adjustments you have made, those innate advantages don't disappear.

In the case of women's refuges, which are places for women to go that have been victims of male violence, it makes perfect sense to me why they would want a male free environment and that the males they are concerned about are the physical, biological males; they don't care about how they identify.

Ultimately, it's not really up to me. I simply believe that women should be able to form women only associations and that demarcation should be able to be according to biological sex if desired. Note, it is not women's right to female only spaces that is at issue here, but rather how they define female.

I think that if Tickle wins this case, and that it does set a broad social precedent, it will ultimately lead to the concept of women's only spaces becoming obsolete and disappearing altogether. Maybe you don't mind if that happens. But for many feminists, they see this right as something that they fought hard to achieve in the first place and they want to defend it.

Moreover, legal suits have been brought by women seeking to encroach on men' spaces, for example, by challenging the admission rules of "men only" clubs. I agree with the female litigants in these cases. And women have invaded occupations that were one essentially men-only. I'm fine with that, too.

Well here we disagree. I would defend the right of men to be able to form men only clubs if they want some men only social time. Personally, I'm not bothered about being able to exclude women from anything I enjoy doing but I don't see a problem with those men that do want that.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 20th, 2024, 9:02 am I would think that the spaces a transperson can go into are the spaces where they are accepted. There's probably plenty of transwomen and transmen who have been in women's and men's wards in hospital respectively, and the other patients were none the wiser.

Remember, all the public transpeople are the obvious ones, like Roxanne Tickle. It's rather confusing. If a male was going to look like a long haired rugby player, who change over? I would think the idea is to create a better life, not to become a public oddity.

Jim Morrison was right ........

Yes, I'm afraid Ms Tickle is not going to win many male hearts. She seems to make a point of looking like a bloke with a handbag and daring anyone to say she's not a woman. It's silly. She could at least have a shave. Most trans people I've met are just the opposite - they at last look like the gender they've always felt themselves to be and they are, at last, happy. What's not to like?

The problem is that gender self identification is all about being having the all the rights of the gender you aspire to be without having had to have any kind of gender re-assignment treatment or having had to have lived "as a women" for any time at all. This is a major goal of the trans rights movement. But I think this is a big part of all this controversy in recent times.

Miss Tickle notwithstanding, I think the trans rights movement (at least in Australia) has largely played itself out. Trans rights are enshrined in legislation. And the vast majority of Australians are fine with it. It's only a small, rabid, religious-right minority who care. But no one cares about them.

It was the same when we had the referendum on gay marriage. The rabid religious-right were out pamphleteering and preaching hellfire and damnation. People didn't care. The referendum passed overwhelmingly. The public were ok with it. So then the rabid-religious right took up this anti-trans stuff. Boring! They need to get with the program. Live and let live. The snooty, superior, moral judgementalism of the religious right is distasteful and so passé.

If trans-gender people all had had access to the treatment they needed, there would be few who would have been forced to live without "any kind of gender re-assignment treatment or without having had to have lived as a women for any time at all". That's all they've ever wanted to do, FCS! Unfortunately, some of the older trans did not get that help when they were younger and so some of them they still look like blokes. I feel sad for them.

Lagayscienza, sometimes you say things that make me think that we essentially agree on a lot of things and at other times, like your last post, I realise that is not the case.

For instance you repeatedly claim that the only people in opposition to the trans rights movement are a few religious nutters. Well, perhaps this is one area in which the UK differs considerably from Australia, but here I don't see any of the detractors coming from the religious right. As I've said previously, most of the detractors are coming from certain sections of the feminist, gay and heterodox communities, many of whom find themselves disenfranchised from the left (that the associate with on most other issues) because they haven't adopted this ideology like many of their counterparts.

Previously you stated in this thread that you agree (for the most part) that children shouldn't be prescribed irreversible gender re-assigning treatments but then you say this:

If trans-gender people all had had access to the treatment they needed, there would be few who would have been forced to live without "any kind of gender re-assignment treatment or without having had to have lived as a women for any time at all". That's all they've ever wanted to do, FCS! Unfortunately, some of the older trans did not get that help when they were younger and so some of them they still look like blokes. I feel sad for them.

The above reads like an argument for giving children access to gender re-assignment surgery as how else do you stop young boys growing up to look like blokes than by blocking their hormones that normally arrive with puberty and giving them cross sex hormones?

Now I realise that many trans people do not subscribe to all this but I don't think the trans activism movement will be "played out" until full access to gender re-assignment medical treatment is given to everyone at any age as soon as they ask for it, until it is a prosecutable hate crime to mis-gender people, until trans women have full access to all female only spaces, etc. Perhaps you think all these aims have been achieved already in Australia? I guess you would know more about that than I do but the Giggle vs Tickle case shows that all is not yet lost. Although if the case goes the way you think it might, that will certainly set Australia well on the way.

Fried Egg, sometimes you say things that make me think that we essentially agree on a lot of things and at other times, like your last post, I realise that is not the case.

Fried Egg wrote: ↑May 20th, 2024, 3:23 pmNow I realise that many trans people do not subscribe to all this but I don't think the trans activism movement will be "played out" until full access to gender re-assignment medical treatment is given to everyone at any age as soon as they ask for it, until it is a prosecutable hate crime to mis-gender people, until trans women have full access to all female only spaces, etc. Perhaps you think all these aims have been achieved already in Australia? I guess you would know more about that than I do but the Giggle vs Tickle case shows that all is not yet lost. Although if the case goes the way you think it might, that will certainly set Australia well on the way.

Lagaya is much closer to the truth than you are here.

Childhood hormones will be outlawed in most jurisdictions, if they aren't already. Your "any age" claim is emotional hyperbole, and as far as I can tell, not very Fried-Eggish. There will be exceptions for cases of intersex or extremely pronounced cases.

The mis-gendering phenomenon has largely been played out. There will be provisions to prevent harassment of transpeople at work. Harassment in general is disruptive in the workplace. Never mind, 40% of jobs are going to be taken by AI by 2030, I hear.

Transwomen, like everyone else, will only be able to go where they are welcome. There is no way that women's refuges would be forced to take in a manly transperson. However, they have probably already taken in a number of feminine transwomen without knowing it. With transpeople, it's like in the movie, The Castle - 'It's the vibe of the thing'.

Elite female sports are already being partitioned again to ensure the competitiveness and safety of regular women.

Is anyone worried about the idea of female-to-male transsexuals being forced to go to women's bathrooms and prisons? If a F-->M trans is beaten up in a relationship, in the unlikely event that he would prefer to go to a women's refuge, should he be allowed in?

Or should are all trans be banned from all spaces? Since no one wants them, maybe governments need to take some mostly unwanted desert lands and give it to transpeople so they can start their own little Israel sate. Population growth would be slow, though.

Fried Egg. I'm totally against reassignment surgery for kids. In severe cases of GD, where there is a risk or suicide, I think there is a place for hormone treatment until the young person is an adult and can decide for themselves about surgery. But hormones should only on be made available on medical advice where the situation is clearly unmanageable otherwise.

There have been too many cases of distraught teenagers who have killed themselves for this not to be available. For example, there was tragic case here of a girl who, with the onset of menopause, could not deal with it and killed herself. She looked and acted so much like a boy already that it was crazy that she could not get puberty blockers. Obviously, her/his parents were devastated. There have been too many cases like this.

But a decision to provide puberty blockers should never be taken lightly. And I doubt it ever is. I know of no "trans activists" who advocate otherwise. This is just a boogeyman used by anti-trans activists.

In respect of sport, I do not a agree that trans women should be allowed to compete as women. That would be unmanageable. Trans people understand this. In respect of toilets, I was at our major hospital yesterday and I noticed that all the toilets for the public are unisex. That solves the problem and such facilities are increasingly being made available in public spaces everywhere.

People like Ms Tickle are outliers. Unfortunately, they get all the publicity. She and her ilk are playing into the hands of anti-trans activists and risk making things even harder for young trans people. I hope that court case in resolved quicky and she disappears. The last thing most trans people want is to cause disruption. Once they have made a successful transition, they just want to get on with their lives like everyone else. And most do.