Henry Fitzgerald
@henryfitzgerald.bsky.social
Dissolute, but harmless
Canberra, Australia
Canberra, Australia
It's not you in particular I dislike, or wish to express dislike of. It's the dumb things you've SAID. Similarly with others. I've encountered a mix of transparently ludicrous nonsense, absurd misreadings and groundless personal attacks. I think I've held my composure pretty well, considering.
December 6, 2025 at 2:47 AM
It's not you in particular I dislike, or wish to express dislike of. It's the dumb things you've SAID. Similarly with others. I've encountered a mix of transparently ludicrous nonsense, absurd misreadings and groundless personal attacks. I think I've held my composure pretty well, considering.
In interacting with you, you've made an accusation of misogyny that is utterly untrue, and I initially merely pointed out that you didn't have any evidence. Then the evidence you DID offer was so lamentably feeble I didn't know whether to feel exasperation or vicarious embarrassment.
December 6, 2025 at 2:44 AM
In interacting with you, you've made an accusation of misogyny that is utterly untrue, and I initially merely pointed out that you didn't have any evidence. Then the evidence you DID offer was so lamentably feeble I didn't know whether to feel exasperation or vicarious embarrassment.
And that's really the cause of what you perceive of as my being "insulting and rude", or one instance of it. I have been presented with ideological claims with which I don't agree ("Trans women are women and all that nonsense") and I make no bones of my disagreement.
December 6, 2025 at 2:42 AM
And that's really the cause of what you perceive of as my being "insulting and rude", or one instance of it. I have been presented with ideological claims with which I don't agree ("Trans women are women and all that nonsense") and I make no bones of my disagreement.
Aha! Insulting and rude to everyone. Possibly (although certainly no more so than everyone was to me right from the start, and generally less). But therefore, not specifically to women. Your "misogyny" accusation is groundless and idiotic...
December 6, 2025 at 2:42 AM
Aha! Insulting and rude to everyone. Possibly (although certainly no more so than everyone was to me right from the start, and generally less). But therefore, not specifically to women. Your "misogyny" accusation is groundless and idiotic...
PS: I'm still curious about the question I asked earlier. How was all that bragging about your grip strength and so forth, relevant to anything I said?
December 6, 2025 at 2:36 AM
PS: I'm still curious about the question I asked earlier. How was all that bragging about your grip strength and so forth, relevant to anything I said?
I also have to point out the irony I'm sure you've missed: this comment:
"When you make sweeping statements, your comments are no longer relevant"
...is itself a sweeping statement.
"When you make sweeping statements, your comments are no longer relevant"
...is itself a sweeping statement.
December 6, 2025 at 2:35 AM
I also have to point out the irony I'm sure you've missed: this comment:
"When you make sweeping statements, your comments are no longer relevant"
...is itself a sweeping statement.
"When you make sweeping statements, your comments are no longer relevant"
...is itself a sweeping statement.
I certainly haven't said anything medically UNsound. I haven't really spoken about medicine at all.
As for "sweeping statements": nothing wrong with those per se; certainly not when we have strict character counts.
"Anyone breaking the rules is cheating" (for instance) is a fair enough statement
As for "sweeping statements": nothing wrong with those per se; certainly not when we have strict character counts.
"Anyone breaking the rules is cheating" (for instance) is a fair enough statement
December 6, 2025 at 2:34 AM
I certainly haven't said anything medically UNsound. I haven't really spoken about medicine at all.
As for "sweeping statements": nothing wrong with those per se; certainly not when we have strict character counts.
"Anyone breaking the rules is cheating" (for instance) is a fair enough statement
As for "sweeping statements": nothing wrong with those per se; certainly not when we have strict character counts.
"Anyone breaking the rules is cheating" (for instance) is a fair enough statement
Similarly, "Sam says she's a woman" is a fair answer to the epistemic question (How can we tell that Sam is a woman?) But it's clearly an utterly idiotic answer to the constitutive question.
December 6, 2025 at 2:30 AM
Similarly, "Sam says she's a woman" is a fair answer to the epistemic question (How can we tell that Sam is a woman?) But it's clearly an utterly idiotic answer to the constitutive question.
Plausible answers to the epistemic question: He says he's Jewish; He's wearing a yarmulke; His Wikipedia bio says he's Jewish.
NONE of these, however, is a plausible answer to the constitutive question. I'm not saying what IS a good answer to that question; but surely not any of that.
NONE of these, however, is a plausible answer to the constitutive question. I'm not saying what IS a good answer to that question; but surely not any of that.
December 6, 2025 at 2:28 AM
Plausible answers to the epistemic question: He says he's Jewish; He's wearing a yarmulke; His Wikipedia bio says he's Jewish.
NONE of these, however, is a plausible answer to the constitutive question. I'm not saying what IS a good answer to that question; but surely not any of that.
NONE of these, however, is a plausible answer to the constitutive question. I'm not saying what IS a good answer to that question; but surely not any of that.
I make no comment on whether it's an "externally defined factual state" etc etc. I'm only pointing out the difference between the epistemic question ("How can we tell someone is Jewish?") and the constitutive question ("What makes someone Jewish?").
December 6, 2025 at 2:25 AM
I make no comment on whether it's an "externally defined factual state" etc etc. I'm only pointing out the difference between the epistemic question ("How can we tell someone is Jewish?") and the constitutive question ("What makes someone Jewish?").
Sound epistemic policy; but as I made clear, I was not asking the epistemic question. I was asking the constitutive question: what MAKES IT THE CASE that someone is Jewish? This is a completely different question, and admits of a different kind of answer.
December 5, 2025 at 10:00 PM
Sound epistemic policy; but as I made clear, I was not asking the epistemic question. I was asking the constitutive question: what MAKES IT THE CASE that someone is Jewish? This is a completely different question, and admits of a different kind of answer.
I suppose it will do no good to say your remark makes no dialectical sense in this context? Perhaps you wouldn't even notice if it did or not
December 5, 2025 at 9:51 PM
I suppose it will do no good to say your remark makes no dialectical sense in this context? Perhaps you wouldn't even notice if it did or not
No good metaphorical reading, either. Have I ignored the content of people's posts in my responses for instance, and simply broadcast a pre-written? If at all, far LESS than my interlocutors have--and also without regard to sex, which in most cases I don't know and haven't bothered to find out
December 5, 2025 at 9:49 PM
No good metaphorical reading, either. Have I ignored the content of people's posts in my responses for instance, and simply broadcast a pre-written? If at all, far LESS than my interlocutors have--and also without regard to sex, which in most cases I don't know and haven't bothered to find out
I think you accidentally posted this in reply to the wrong comment
December 5, 2025 at 9:45 PM
I think you accidentally posted this in reply to the wrong comment
I want to understand--and yes, sometimes to argue if I think you're mistaken.
Okay: I'll accept that evasive and elliptical though you have been, you've ultimately given me your answer, and I've understood it, and you're determined to neither elaborate nor retract. Understood.
Okay: I'll accept that evasive and elliptical though you have been, you've ultimately given me your answer, and I've understood it, and you're determined to neither elaborate nor retract. Understood.
December 5, 2025 at 9:44 PM
I want to understand--and yes, sometimes to argue if I think you're mistaken.
Okay: I'll accept that evasive and elliptical though you have been, you've ultimately given me your answer, and I've understood it, and you're determined to neither elaborate nor retract. Understood.
Okay: I'll accept that evasive and elliptical though you have been, you've ultimately given me your answer, and I've understood it, and you're determined to neither elaborate nor retract. Understood.
I never mentioned genitals once: not in the post you quoted; not elsewhere in the conversation, either
December 5, 2025 at 9:40 PM
I never mentioned genitals once: not in the post you quoted; not elsewhere in the conversation, either
I'm trying to make sure I've truly UNDERSTOOD your answer. If you really have answered me, it's a crazy answer, with bizarre and deeply counterintuitive consequences.
My suspicion that you've dodged rather than answered the question is actually the charitable reading
My suspicion that you've dodged rather than answered the question is actually the charitable reading
December 5, 2025 at 9:04 PM
I'm trying to make sure I've truly UNDERSTOOD your answer. If you really have answered me, it's a crazy answer, with bizarre and deeply counterintuitive consequences.
My suspicion that you've dodged rather than answered the question is actually the charitable reading
My suspicion that you've dodged rather than answered the question is actually the charitable reading
So you ARE saying the thing I thought you couldn't possibly REALLY have been saying. You really are saying that merely uttering the magic words "I am a trans woman" MAKES IT THE CASE that the speaker is a trans woman.
So if I said those words out loud, I'd become a "trans woman" too?
So if I said those words out loud, I'd become a "trans woman" too?
December 5, 2025 at 8:34 PM
So you ARE saying the thing I thought you couldn't possibly REALLY have been saying. You really are saying that merely uttering the magic words "I am a trans woman" MAKES IT THE CASE that the speaker is a trans woman.
So if I said those words out loud, I'd become a "trans woman" too?
So if I said those words out loud, I'd become a "trans woman" too?
The tendentious armchair psychology in that reply would embarrass Yoda.
There are so many ways you're wrong it's hard to know where to begin, but perhaps the most absurd is this: the claim that I'm "talking over" anyone. This website forces us all to reply sequentially. "Talking over" is impossible
There are so many ways you're wrong it's hard to know where to begin, but perhaps the most absurd is this: the claim that I'm "talking over" anyone. This website forces us all to reply sequentially. "Talking over" is impossible
December 5, 2025 at 8:02 PM
The tendentious armchair psychology in that reply would embarrass Yoda.
There are so many ways you're wrong it's hard to know where to begin, but perhaps the most absurd is this: the claim that I'm "talking over" anyone. This website forces us all to reply sequentially. "Talking over" is impossible
There are so many ways you're wrong it's hard to know where to begin, but perhaps the most absurd is this: the claim that I'm "talking over" anyone. This website forces us all to reply sequentially. "Talking over" is impossible
There are two questions which you are (I suspect deliberately) confusing:
(1) What MAKES IT THE CASE that someone is a "trans woman"?
(2) How can we TELL that someone is a "trans woman"?
I'm asking the first question, but you appear to be answering the second.
(1) What MAKES IT THE CASE that someone is a "trans woman"?
(2) How can we TELL that someone is a "trans woman"?
I'm asking the first question, but you appear to be answering the second.
December 5, 2025 at 7:53 PM
There are two questions which you are (I suspect deliberately) confusing:
(1) What MAKES IT THE CASE that someone is a "trans woman"?
(2) How can we TELL that someone is a "trans woman"?
I'm asking the first question, but you appear to be answering the second.
(1) What MAKES IT THE CASE that someone is a "trans woman"?
(2) How can we TELL that someone is a "trans woman"?
I'm asking the first question, but you appear to be answering the second.
Cool. How was any of that relevant in response to what I said?
December 5, 2025 at 7:48 PM
Cool. How was any of that relevant in response to what I said?
I said sex is OBSERVED at birth; not "determined", unless by "determined" you mean "ascertained". And yes,it cannot be changed.
What sex is someone with this disorder? I don't know. Male appears to be what Wikipedia is saying so let's go with that.
So what? Who cares? How is this relevant?
What sex is someone with this disorder? I don't know. Male appears to be what Wikipedia is saying so let's go with that.
So what? Who cares? How is this relevant?
December 5, 2025 at 7:46 PM
I said sex is OBSERVED at birth; not "determined", unless by "determined" you mean "ascertained". And yes,it cannot be changed.
What sex is someone with this disorder? I don't know. Male appears to be what Wikipedia is saying so let's go with that.
So what? Who cares? How is this relevant?
What sex is someone with this disorder? I don't know. Male appears to be what Wikipedia is saying so let's go with that.
So what? Who cares? How is this relevant?
I don't think it's implausible that some men would pretend to be women in order to win at sports, but set that aside. Let's grant that ALL men pretending to be women do so solely out of "deeply felt dysphoria". Fine, whatever; but if they enter female-only sports contests, they're still cheating.
December 5, 2025 at 7:03 AM
I don't think it's implausible that some men would pretend to be women in order to win at sports, but set that aside. Let's grant that ALL men pretending to be women do so solely out of "deeply felt dysphoria". Fine, whatever; but if they enter female-only sports contests, they're still cheating.
I didn't say they did (although reasons are varied and I'm sure SOME do it for the lulz: Dylan Mulvaney, perhaps).
I asked what makes Levine but not the other two a "trans woman" and YOUR response was: "She says she is".
Okay: so is that all it takes, or isn't it?
I asked what makes Levine but not the other two a "trans woman" and YOUR response was: "She says she is".
Okay: so is that all it takes, or isn't it?
December 4, 2025 at 9:54 PM
I didn't say they did (although reasons are varied and I'm sure SOME do it for the lulz: Dylan Mulvaney, perhaps).
I asked what makes Levine but not the other two a "trans woman" and YOUR response was: "She says she is".
Okay: so is that all it takes, or isn't it?
I asked what makes Levine but not the other two a "trans woman" and YOUR response was: "She says she is".
Okay: so is that all it takes, or isn't it?
Not quite what I said. I said that if a man enters a women's competition by pretending to be a woman, he IS cheating. This doesn't mean he initially adopted the pretence IN ORDER to cheat. It could have been for one or more of a number of other reasons: sexual fetish, delusion, indoctrination, etc.
December 4, 2025 at 9:49 PM
Not quite what I said. I said that if a man enters a women's competition by pretending to be a woman, he IS cheating. This doesn't mean he initially adopted the pretence IN ORDER to cheat. It could have been for one or more of a number of other reasons: sexual fetish, delusion, indoctrination, etc.