Transgender Issues- not just "men in dresses"

Are you affected by trans issues?

Yes- I'm trans/I think I might be trans	16.2%	[ 919 ]
Yes- I have a trans friend or relative	12.1%	[ 687 ]
Indirectly- I have a trans acquaintance	6.0%	[ 341 ]
Not directly, but I feel these issues affect me indirectly/ I feel that these issues affect everyone	23.5%	[ 1336 ]
Not at all	31.1%	[ 1766 ]
I don't know	11.1%	[ 630 ]
Total Votes:			[ 5679 ]

[Aino Ailill]

I've gone back ten pages now and I'm still not certain how the personality debate originated. Could someone summarize the debate, please?

[Agent Cougar Draven]

Aino Ailill

I've gone back ten pages now and I'm still not certain how the personality debate originated. Could someone summarize the debate, please?

Short version, Syn is of the opinion that Blair (and I) can't accurately quantify his personality based on the MBTI matrix. Blair and I are of the opinion that it can be done, and, in fact, we're in agreement on his type factors.

[Aino Ailill]

Agent Cougar Draven

Aino Ailill

I've gone back ten pages now and I'm still not certain how the personality debate originated. Could someone summarize the debate, please?

Short version, Syn is of the opinion that Blair (and I) can't accurately quantify his personality based on the MBTI matrix. Blair and I are of the opinion that it can be done, and, in fact, we're in agreement on his type factors.

'Kay, thanks.

[Syndactyly]

Agent Cougar Draven

Syndactyly

Agent Cougar Draven

Syndactyly

You're not going to make me have an emotional response so you can label me as a F instead of a T.

Example of a strawman.

No it isn't. I was preemptively stating my expectations. I hadn't said she'd yet argued that.

You assumed Blair would, and set up a strawman argument.

No, it was preemptively stated as a preventative. To insure she wouldn't.

Agent Cougar Draven

Syndactyly

Agent Cougar Draven

Syndactyly

And no, unlike you, I don't assume I know exactly what someone else is thinknig and how their brain works "beecuz im a geniuz dat kin diturman ur persunalitee frum ur wrods."

Example of stating the obvious. Also, implied argumentum ad hominem.

Implicit, not explicit. You assumed. Also, stating the obvious, as far as I know, isn't a fallacy. If you can link me to that, I'll concede.

Wow, I ******** this one up. I should have said "stating the opposite". Which is just a form of poisoning the well.

Hmmmm...

How was that an example of stating the opposite? I'm genuinely not understanding this here.

[Syndactyly]

Agent Cougar Draven

Syndactyly

Agent Cougar Draven

Syndactyly

Agent Cougar Draven

Syndactyly

Really? How is that? I was feigning a personality in that instance. =o

On an unrelated note, how do you so precisely determine your certainty on something?

Oh, I know you were faking. It's how you fake it, what you choose to fake, and again, the simple fact that you choose to.

And how do I precisely determine my certainty? There are four type factors. I know three. I am therefore unsure of one factor, of which there are two possibilities. Hence I can say that I am 50% certain.

And upon reflection, I have a guess.

Which I'm not going to give to you, because you're not playing nice. smile

(PS you can say that I don't actually have a guess all you want, but the simple fact is that you're wrong.)

Wow, you fell right into that. I wasn't faking, but I did just lie to you about faking. Now I'm suspecting you'll say you've lied too in order to collect information on my personality that you're so completely and accurately formulating.

You admit it's a guess. You don't really know anything in this situation.

Or you're lying now. Because I'll tell you something. I wasn't. I assumed you were lying, and even if I was wrong, the fact that you lied about lying pretty much means the same as if you were just lying.

Except it makes me double-check my friends and family for anyone named Wellington Yueh. Can't ever be too safe.

Right, but lying about lying does mean that the original lie was a truth and thus according to how this conversation went down makes your last claim incorrect. Unless YOU were lying. But you won't admit to that because I said you might, which is why I said that. To prevent you from saying it. Because when a person is in an argument, they won't let their opponent be right about anything. So all I gave to do is tell you what you're gonna do and you won't do it. Saves me a lot of trouble.

I used the word "gonna." I bet that says A LOT about who I am, right?

You didn't use the word "gonna".

And no. The more chains of deceit within deceit within deceit that you pull, the further you drag yourself down. I'm now 100% sure of two out of four, and about 66% on the other two, bringing me to an adjusted certainty of 83%.

I did say "gonna."

"So all I gave to do is tell you what you're gonna do..."

Except I meant "got" instead of "gave," that wasn't even a typo as much as it was a slip.

As for the next... No, there wasn't a chain within deciet within deciet within deciet. I was only deciet within deciet, after that I was honest with you about my deciet.

You know, I honestly don't see your point in "determining" my personality type, or what the point is, other than keeping me in some sort of suspense. To be frankly honest, I really don't care what you think my personality type is, because I know you can't possibly accurately determine that simply from my posts. The personality tests require situational examples of decision making, and it's obvious in this instance that not enough information is present for an accurate educated guess with enough evidence behind it to hold much value.

[Agent Cougar Draven]

Syndactyly

Agent Cougar Draven

Syndactyly

Agent Cougar Draven

Syndactyly

You're not going to make me have an emotional response so you can label me as a F instead of a T.

Example of a strawman.

No it isn't. I was preemptively stating my expectations. I hadn't said she'd yet argued that.

You assumed Blair would, and set up a strawman argument.

No, it was preemptively stated as a preventative. To insure she wouldn't.

...which you cannot know that she would. "Preventative" arguments are necessarily strawmen.

Syndactyly

Agent Cougar Draven

Syndactyly

Agent Cougar Draven

Syndactyly

And no, unlike you, I don't assume I know exactly what someone else is thinknig and how their brain works "beecuz im a geniuz dat kin diturman ur persunalitee frum ur wrods."

Example of stating the obvious. Also, implied argumentum ad hominem.

Implicit, not explicit. You assumed. Also, stating the obvious, as far as I know, isn't a fallacy. If you can link me to that, I'll concede.

Wow, I ******** this one up. I should have said "stating the opposite". Which is just a form of poisoning the well.

Hmmmm...

How was that an example of stating the opposite? I'm genuinely not understanding this here.

You started your argument with "unlike you", which is setting up an argument that you are the opposite of your statement.

And, as I've said, preemptively stating something about Blair's percieved argument is poisoning the well.

[Agent Cougar Draven]

Syndactyly

Agent Cougar Draven

You didn't use the word "gonna".

And no. The more chains of deceit within deceit within deceit that you pull, the further you drag yourself down. I'm now 100% sure of two out of four, and about 66% on the other two, bringing me to an adjusted certainty of 83%.

I did say "gonna."

"So all I gave to do is tell you what you're gonna do..."

Except I meant "got" instead of "gave," that wasn't even a typo as much as it was a slip.

You're right. I apologize. I'm up late, and I misread that.

Syndactyly

As for the next... No, there wasn't a chain within deciet within deciet within deciet. I was only deciet within deciet, after that I was honest with you about my deciet.

You know, I honestly don't see your point in "determining" my personality type, or what the point is, other than keeping me in some sort of suspense. To be frankly honest, I really don't care what you think my personality type is, because I know you can't possibly accurately determine that simply from my posts. The personality tests require situational examples of decision making, and it's obvious in this instance that not enough information is present for an accurate educated guess with enough evidence behind it to hold much value.

Really, I'm only doing it to prove that I can. I don't care what your personality type is, because I know you're willing to lie to cover up whether or not I got it right.

[e-Claire rc1]

Syndactyly

The fact thay you're constantly dodging my responses, and have been since the beginning, says a lot.

Also if you consider my arguments "immune" to yours, that says a lot about your arguments.

Lastly, I was hoping you'd be more specific than just aying, "You may fallacy A, B, and C." I was hoping you might quote it and being like, "This is an example of fallacy D." That would be much easier to understand and possibly concede to if you were right. Otherwise it just looks like you're spitting out excuses to ignore what I've said.

The fact now that you have to indirectly respond to me, and now lower yourself to petty insults, says that you've given up. For good reasons probably.

Okay, fine, I'll respond to that whole post, if that'll make you happy and STOP HITTING ME crying

Syndactyly

Really? You think that the types are so solid that a person of one of those types would never say something like that for any reason?

Basically, yes. I mean, not if they were quoting directly. But there are some types that don't chameleon at all. And some types that would never admit to doing it. I can tell you weren't lying about it because you just did - switched molds again. I don't know why you're doing it, but the fact that you *are* is one data point.

Syndactyly

I am not saying you can't figure out maybe a VERY vague idea of who I might be. But you certianly can't pinpoint a distinct type like you're saying you can. If you try, I probably will be able to counter it, unless you've made an extremely lucky UNeducated guess.

16type is only a very vague idea of who you might be, anyway. I'll tell you my guess, though, and give you a bit of the education behind it. ISTP.
-You can't fake N. I mean, you yourself are pretty good at it, superficially. But you won't fool a professional who's worth their salt. You can stop trying, now.
-You're not in control of your emotions or mine. But you are pretty good at the whole logic thing, despite not knowing s**t about it.
-As much as you like to act judgemental, you baby-proof everything. It took you until just recently to get out the hatchet. That's not 'being nice', it's indecision. I still love you, though.
-E/I is a pretty close match. There's a few things you could have done to indicate E and you haven't. But you're on the internet. That tips the scale in I's favour.

Syndactyly

As for typos, wow, you're really being stupid on that point. Typos don't say anything about a person's personality. Especially if they have a physical disability. It could tell you I'm tired, or lazy, or that I broke my middle finger and didn't notice the typo caused by my injury. You have no way to know WHICH exactly is causing the typo unless I give you INFORMATION... which is not the words themselves, but the ideas they present. I also could be lying though.

Sure. And by considering all the possibilities why you might be leaving a typo, I can determine which types don't fit. Even if you were neurotic enough to edit a single typo into every post, that still doesn't allow for certain possibilities. Oh, but you'll want something specific. Okay, the relative absence of typos shows me that you're not an ESFJ or ESFP.

Syndactyly

I tried to avoid being a total a*****e this whole time, but I'm going to say it: stop pretending like you're an expert. You're a ******** amatuer, you can't read my mind. And if you think I'm mad because I cussed, then you really don't know "reading words" as well as you say you do. I choose my words carefully.

That's just poisoning the well or ad hominem or whatever. I don't really know or care. It's bullshit. The fact that you included it is an indication of something. Probably frustration. My guess: You picked up on a bit of insecurity that I showed, and figured it might bring me down a notch or two, thinking you could hide behind "I was just faking it".

Syndactyly

No, the concept of knowing a person's personality type based on an arbitrary response... would be extremely unwise, and a very uneducated assumption.

Just stating the opposite. I gave my reasoning; why didn't you?

Syndactyly

You're way high on your goddamn pedestal, thinking no one else understands fairly well-known psychological concepts (which I believe are bullshit, by the way).

The ones I'm toying with aren't well-known. Jung was a ******** monster. MBTI is a feeble attempt to understand and help people using his work. I'm not using MBTI, I just use the codes because they are familiar to people.

So, this one's a straw man ^^

Syndactyly

You're doing what a lot of ******** on the internet do. "I r ov supeereeor inteligance, i kin reed ur maind, i kno ur thots, ur intenchuns, ur waes n evryting u desair bekuz i kno ur pursunalitee taip." You are NOT the first person to try to play this game with me.

This is an actual ad hominem argument. Saying that I can't be right because my methodology vaguely resembles some kid who tried to read your mind before. Heck, he might have even have been right. You've done nothing to show any of it wrong.

[Syndactyly]

Aino Ailill

I've gone back ten pages now and I'm still not certain how the personality debate originated. Could someone summarize the debate, please?

Blair knows sosmone who studies personality types, so s/he dragged it into the discussion somewhere. To me, it appeared to come out of nowhere and have rlevance to notihng, other than distracting from the actual argument we were having, which was about how gender roles are inforced by gender separation. I don't believe that gender separation automatically inforces gender roles, she has yet to prove that it does. Instead of showing how separation DIRECTLY influences gender roles, she has only stated things that usually happen AFTER separation. She has yet to explain how the separation causes the next action, because I gave examples of how those situations could also arise in co-ed situations.

[Syndactyly]

Agent Cougar Draven

Syndactyly

Agent Cougar Draven

Syndactyly

Agent Cougar Draven

Example of a strawman.

No it isn't. I was preemptively stating my expectations. I hadn't said she'd yet argued that.

You assumed Blair would, and set up a strawman argument.

No, it was preemptively stated as a preventative. To insure she wouldn't.

...which you cannot know that she would. "Preventative" arguments are necessarily strawmen.

No, it isn't a strawmen unless I've claimed she actually made that argument. Which I haven't.

Agent Cougar Draven

Syndactyly

Agent Cougar Draven

Syndactyly

Agent Cougar Draven

Example of stating the obvious. Also, implied argumentum ad hominem.

Implicit, not explicit. You assumed. Also, stating the obvious, as far as I know, isn't a fallacy. If you can link me to that, I'll concede.

Wow, I ******** this one up. I should have said "stating the opposite". Which is just a form of poisoning the well.

Hmmmm...

How was that an example of stating the opposite? I'm genuinely not understanding this here.

You started your argument with "unlike you", which is setting up an argument that you are the opposite of your statement.

And, as I've said, preemptively stating something about Blair's percieved argument is poisoning the well.

That is not what "stating the opposite" logical fallacy is. Thanks for playing.

[Agent Cougar Draven]

Syndactyly

Aino Ailill

I've gone back ten pages now and I'm still not certain how the personality debate originated. Could someone summarize the debate, please?

Blair knows sosmone who studies personality types, so s/he dragged it into the discussion somewhere. To me, it appeared to come out of nowhere and have rlevance to notihng, other than distracting from the actual argument we were having, which was about how gender roles are inforced by gender separation. I don't believe that gender separation automatically inforces gender roles, she has yet to prove that it does. Instead of showing how separation DIRECTLY influences gender roles, she has only stated things that usually happen AFTER separation. She has yet to explain how the separation causes the next action, because I gave examples of how those situations could also arise in co-ed situations.

Thank you, Syn. I rarely, if ever, get to call someone on an ignoratio elenchi.

Aino asked for a debate summary, not a treatise on how it pulled everything off track.

[Syndactyly]

Agent Cougar Draven

Syndactyly

As for the next... No, there wasn't a chain within deciet within deciet within deciet. I was only deciet within deciet, after that I was honest with you about my deciet.

You know, I honestly don't see your point in "determining" my personality type, or what the point is, other than keeping me in some sort of suspense. To be frankly honest, I really don't care what you think my personality type is, because I know you can't possibly accurately determine that simply from my posts. The personality tests require situational examples of decision making, and it's obvious in this instance that not enough information is present for an accurate educated guess with enough evidence behind it to hold much value.

Really, I'm only doing it to prove that I can. I don't care what your personality type is, because I know you're willing to lie to cover up whether or not I got it right.

Yes, I can be a joker. But in order to know my personality type you'd have to know my motivation behind my mischief. The fact that you refuse to reveal it says a lot about your confidence in the conclusion. And if you are really doing this accurately, I'd probably agree with the conclusion, unless you wildly accuse me of doing the opposite of what I'm doing. Like for instance saying I'm a feeler rather than a thinker, when it's obvious I think things to death (even if I don't always get it right).

[Agent Cougar Draven]

Syndactyly

Agent Cougar Draven

Syndactyly

Agent Cougar Draven

Syndactyly

No it isn't. I was preemptively stating my expectations. I hadn't said she'd yet argued that.

You assumed Blair would, and set up a strawman argument.

No, it was preemptively stated as a preventative. To insure she wouldn't.

...which you cannot know that she would. "Preventative" arguments are necessarily strawmen.

No, it isn't a strawmen unless I've claimed she actually made that argument. Which I haven't.

Yet you implied that Blair would make that argument, because you chose to preemptively counter it above all others. Hence you believed that that would be the argument. Hence that is a strawman.

Syndactyly

Agent Cougar Draven

Syndactyly

Agent Cougar Draven

Syndactyly

Implicit, not explicit. You assumed. Also, stating the obvious, as far as I know, isn't a fallacy. If you can link me to that, I'll concede.

Wow, I ******** this one up. I should have said "stating the opposite". Which is just a form of poisoning the well.

Hmmmm...

How was that an example of stating the opposite? I'm genuinely not understanding this here.

You started your argument with "unlike you", which is setting up an argument that you are the opposite of your statement.

And, as I've said, preemptively stating something about Blair's percieved argument is poisoning the well.

That is not what "stating the opposite" logical fallacy is. Thanks for playing.

Because "stating the opposite" is not strictly a logical fallacy. It is not logical reasoning, but it is also not quite fallacious. However, what you did was poisoning the well. Read my post next time.

[Agent Cougar Draven]

Syndactyly

Agent Cougar Draven

Syndactyly

As for the next... No, there wasn't a chain within deciet within deciet within deciet. I was only deciet within deciet, after that I was honest with you about my deciet.

You know, I honestly don't see your point in "determining" my personality type, or what the point is, other than keeping me in some sort of suspense. To be frankly honest, I really don't care what you think my personality type is, because I know you can't possibly accurately determine that simply from my posts. The personality tests require situational examples of decision making, and it's obvious in this instance that not enough information is present for an accurate educated guess with enough evidence behind it to hold much value.

Really, I'm only doing it to prove that I can. I don't care what your personality type is, because I know you're willing to lie to cover up whether or not I got it right.

Yes, I can be a joker. But in order to know my personality type you'd have to know my motivation behind my mischief. The fact that you refuse to reveal it says a lot about your confidence in the conclusion. And if you are really doing this accurately, I'd probably agree with the conclusion, unless you wildly accuse me of doing the opposite of what I'm doing. Like for instance saying I'm a feeler rather than a thinker, when it's obvious I think things to death (even if I don't always get it right).

First of all, Blair and I are in agreement, and Blair labeled you ISTP. I didn't have to reveal my conclusions.

Second of all, I can't know that you'll agree or disagree, and so, based on your track history of lying, I have to assume that you'll be dishonest about it.

[e-Claire rc1]

Syndactyly

Aino Ailill

I've gone back ten pages now and I'm still not certain how the personality debate originated. Could someone summarize the debate, please?

Blair knows sosmone who studies personality types, so s/he dragged it into the discussion somewhere. To me, it appeared to come out of nowhere and have rlevance to notihng, other than distracting from the actual argument we were having,

There are 3 reasons, some of which I haven't gotten to yet because you're being dense about it.
1) To show that roughly 75% of people will not be able to grasp the relevance of certain key issues facing transpeople today, and why.
2) To examine the potential link between Jungian types and outlook on transgender issues.
3) To explore possibilities for digging to the root of gender inequality, including a focus on the different priorities held by different people.

Syndactyly

which was about how gender roles are inforced by gender separation. I don't believe that gender separation automatically inforces gender roles, she has yet to prove that it does. Instead of showing how separation DIRECTLY influences gender roles, she has only stated things that usually happen AFTER separation. She has yet to explain how the separation causes the next action, because I gave examples of how those situations could also arise in co-ed situations.

Hm? I'm afraid you've lost me here. I'm fairly certain I, at the very least, mirrored your arguments and tried to account for whatever misunderstanding you might have expressed at the time.