From time to time, I will run across as example of rhetoric, that is so lame, so incredibly flawed, so filled with obvious distortions, that it is apparent that the person writing it thinks the people who will be reading it, will believe anything. Mr. Williams' reply to Mr. "Autumn" Sandeens' attempt at rational argument is just such an example. And to be honest, it is hilariously bad.
Well, actually, what Mr. Williams is actually doing is attempting to refute the quite excellent article written by Elizabeth at "Notes From the T Side." You might expect Mr. Williams would have posted this there, but it is obvious why he didn't. He clearly hopes his readers won't actually compare what he claims with what the actual article says.
For example, Elizabeth quotes him as saying....
Stealth people say things like “I just want to get on with my life as the woman I am” – a sentiment that sounds rational enough on the surface. The problem with that sentiment is that it’s also a delusion. Stealth people rationalize their lies by believing that being trans was only a medical problem that was fixed – kind of like a cleft palate; purposefully pretending that there wasn’t a social transition that entailed violating numerous cultural norms. Stealth is purposefully taking away the choice of letting the people you claim to love the most decide if they are willing to take on the potential social costs (as unfair and stupid as those social costs might be) of breaking those backwards cultural norms by being with you. If you believe that it is only a medical condition, remember that I said that you’re delusional when your best friend, your husband or wife, your boyfriend or girlfriend, your adopted child, etc finds out that you lied about your social and medical history. Yes, it is a medical condition that should be treated medically, but to pretend that this medical condition is exactly like having laser eye surgery is nothing more than living in denial. Living an authentic life means having the courage to stand firmly on the ground on truth regardless of what stupid, moronic and asinine stereotypes and/or fears others may choose to cling to.She then proceeds to tear this statement into shreds. In seven paragraphs, she succinctly shows how totally ridiculous Mr. Williams' claims are. I'm not going to quote them here, go read the article for yourself, the link above will take you there.
How does Mr. Williams respond to this? Well...
Wow. I just read Elizabeth’s response. It’s nonsensical in that she does things like quote me where I say:
“Yes, it is a medical condition that should be treated medically, but to pretend that this medical condition is exactly like having laser eye surgery is nothing more than living in denial.”
And responds – in the first sentence under that quote – saying:Simply puts, he cherry picks out a small part of a much longer quote, and tries to imply that what he quoted is what she addressed. This is not clever, it is a lie. I mean, really.... If that was all he said, that would be different, but he said a whole lot more, and Elizabeth took it apart and showed the fallacies in what he really said.
“CW does not believe this is a medical condition but a social condition complicated by a self perceived medical condition.”
Not only does he ignore the fact that she said far more about his quote, which he implies was a rather short one, he misrepresents what she actually said, after saying much more, about the line he chooses to focus on...
The pathetic analogy that SRS is like a cleft palate or laser eye surgery is quite telling about CW. Anyone that has gone through SRS would never and I mean NEVER be that flip about it because it is incredibly painful and the recovery time is extensive. I doubt CW has had SRS but I could be wrong.Well, I have had eye surgery, twice, and SRS, granted only once, and I have to agree with Elizabeth. I've had cataracts removed from both eyes. The first time was in 2003, the second was earlier this year. It was certainly nice having my vision returned to relatively normal, but to compare that to the life changing experience of SRS in 2006...well, I have long believed that Mr. Williams tries to mislead people into thinking he has had it. That he has had facial surgery is pretty obvious. But I agree with Elizabeth, either he has not had it, or if he did, he regrets it.
He ignores what she actually said, and tries to twist it around to sound like she has distorted what he said...
Then she goes on to be deliberately obtuse so that she could claim that I believe having SRS is just like having laser eyes surgery. She uses that strawman to bolster her questioning of my surgical status to cast me as someone who’s less than a True Transsexual(TM) and who is therefore not qualified to offer a valid view.No, she did not say that he believes SRS is just like having "laser eyes surgery," she questioned how he could make such an inane analogy. His original point was dismissing the significance of SRS, and that is what she addresses.
Now is where things get really silly. Mr. Williams then goes on to claim to use accusations of "logical fallacies" to counter Elizabeth's arguments, but instead, well, like Mr. Sandeen yesterday, he engages in a "logical fallacy created from a logical fallacy about a logical fallacy." In this case, he actually does it repeatedly.
He again abuses the "True Scotsman" argument, attempting a sort of logical gymnastics that comes down to "I must be a True Transsexual because I am claiming that they are using the True Scotsman logical fallacy to show I am not." The problem is, that is not what has been done, as I showed yesterday in responding to Mr. Sandeen.
Just to be clear, let me repeat... For an argument to be a True Scotsman fallacy, it has to be, first and foremost, a fallacy. That is, it lacks any basis other than a false assumption. If you actually use evidence, and reason, to argue that someone is not what they claim they are, then it is not a logical fallacy. Claiming it is, in order to avoid actually addressing the evidence, is itself not only a logical fallacy, but is a lie as well.
Mr. Williams is a walking textbook of logical fallacies. From the simplest straw man, to the most vicious ad hominem, he engages in them as his stock in trade. This bit of silliness is just one example of many.
And he concludes with a ridiculous claim...
I’m so happy that their movement – as Elizabeth knew it even 5 years ago – is dead. They had nothing to build their community upon by demonstrably false history and deep transphobic antipathy.Our movement? I don't know where he gets this from. We are simply living our lives, and telling extremists like him to stop claiming we are "girls like him." We never sought to build a community, and basically reject the idea of such. He is the one who has tried to built a false history, and who hides behind accusations of transphobia to dismiss any valid argument against his extremist positions.