QT: Why TM don't mind using women's spaces when it suits them? And why TW don't follow their example?

submitted by BiologyIsReal from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

I'm not interested in debating YOU. I am not qt.

I'm here to debate ideas, not individuals. I'm challenging positions you've taken, points you've made, and your posting style and manner of "argument." You're the one making it about identity labels rather than ideas. You're the one making it about persons, not positions. You're the one who has said

I'm not interested in debating YOU

So let me rephrase my earlier question:

If you aren't interested in debating ideas, and you refuse to debate with certain posters like me because you seem to see yourself as superior, why on earth are you here on a debate sub?

Also, where is it written that the debate only has to be between the two different camps? I'm here to debate positions people take and points people make. People who are on the same side generally still can and often do disagree with one another over many things. Moreover, even when people discuss topics we are generally in agreement about, we still can have lively, interesting exchanges and can learn from the perspectives of others.

You're allowed to say whatever the hell you want

Thanks boss!

I don't owe you MY time to respond to tangential arguments

So don't respond to my posts, LOL. I don't care. But spare me the puerile, bad-faith name-calling. You seem to think that labelling someone's arguments as bad or too wordy - "strawman arguments," "tangential arguments," "novella posts" - is the same as effectively challenging and refuting them. Again, I gotta ask:

If you aren't interested in debating ideas, and you refuse to debate with certain posters like me because you seem to see yourself as superior, why on earth are you here on a debate sub?

[–]beris😎 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

certain posters like me because you seem to see yourself as superior

Stop projecting. I don't want to debate you because I believe the exact same thing as you. I'm not challenging or refuting your points, i am actively telling you I am not interacting with them, because I am not in any disagreement with you. Again: I posted a devils advocate post to give a hypothetical reason why a trans male would not want to be in a male space. That is it. Stop trying to act like I'm specifically targetting you because I won't act like I know the intricacies of the minds of every trans person in the world and don't want to debate for them.

Edit: to you and anyone else, this is what I mean when I say you drive trans/qt posters off. Why are you so goddamn confrontational? You're all grown adults, act like it a little.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

You made a claim of something, gave a source of “my assumptions based on a highly specific piece of data that ignores much of what my point is about” When challenged on that, you seemed to take offence at being given better information, and said you aren’t here to debate or that better stats are not relevant.

It’s not about whether you are genuinely qt or not. It’s the response to being told your initial claim was faulty. The devils advocate isn’t just where you make a claim of fact and then ignore correction or decry it as some form of attack.

[–]beris😎 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Did I? Because:

1) I was clear it was an assumption based on related data.

2) the only person who actually gave me anything statistically relevant was Biology, and I don't remember taking offense in my response.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Twain pointed out that the data you based your assumption on only covered a fraction of the violence you brought up. You decided the data was no longer relevant to your claim.

Your claim was proven faulty and you decided it doesn’t matter because you don’t really mean the claim.

You said to me that you didn’t want to find better data and said it’s not relevant. Why would anybody then find you data if you’ve indicated you will dismiss it as not relevant?

You may not have taken offence, but the way you bring it back to old topics like the supposed running off of qt, or the way you leaped to “you’re projecting and I don’t want to debate with you personally” makes it appear that you did take offence.

It generally appears like one has taken personal offence when they react poorly to being given appropriate corrections to their claims, even if the claim is from a devils advocate. The devils advocate should still understand that a bad or untrue claim is going to be contested in a place explicitly for contesting opinions.

[–]beris😎 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

You may not have taken offence, but the way you bring it back to old topics like the supposed running off of qt, or the way you leaped to “you’re projecting and I don’t want to debate with you personally” makes it appear that you did take offence.

Supposed

We're still playing this?

Anyways, my claim wasn't proven faulty by anyone but biology. MT came in to try and explain why I'm clearly wrong (and ableist and ageist, lol) with absolutely zero proof to back their claims. And then took offense that I'm not playing that game. Which I stand by. I'm not here to be the stand in qt punching bag.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

You don’t see what’s faulty about claiming the most at risk are visibly gnc men and using only hate-crime statistics to do so?

Back to what? I’m not opening the discussion back up. I’m explaining as politely as I can why it appeared to some of us that you had taken offence.

You aren’t being treated as a punching bag. You are being expected to make a claim that is intellectually honest.

[–]beris😎 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

You don’t see what’s faulty about claiming the most at risk are visibly gnc men and using only hate-crime statistics to do so?

So besides the fact that this is demonstrably untrue, I don't know what to tell you. Work on reading comprehension? Even from my own statistics racism is the biggest motivator. And besides that, I'm pretty sure I said specifically that they're not directly correlated statistics and I'm just making an assumption based on them. Because I'm not going to put more effort into it. Because in the first place I was just throwing out a reason I've heard trans males use to justify not using mens restrooms. That's it.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

So don’t make weak or untrue claims based on a fraction of the available evidence, if you don’t want to deal with criticism of your claims.

That’s it.

[–]beris😎 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Again, handling criticism of them just fine, criticised them myself, there just might be one or two individuals who are more combative than others. But you already knew that.