Moonbox

No, I'd not exclude you. You've shown the ability to debate my arguments and opinions, rather than attack me personally and try to get me fired and generally ruin my life. As for "definitive line of reasonability", it's not black and white. I think we can at least start with people being allowed to voice their opinions without having their lives ruined, and that cancel-culture should be restricted to only the intentionally rude, demeaning and discriminatory (or the obstinately ignorant and inconsiderate). Folks should have a chance to explain their positions , to be corrected (where warranted), to be educated and to have an opportunity to apologize in good faith rather than have their employers panic and fire them. What sort of consequences did they face? None from their employer. They (and the university) are being sued, and this will be a precedent-establishing case and (hopefully) a warning signal to overzealous academia. We'll have to wait and see, but I don't expect much. They have a point, and I'll argue to support it where I feel it's warranted. I can agree with Donald Trump on certain issues, though I loathe the man himself and think he's danger to humanity. I don't even know where to begin on how we fix things. I can't speak up myself publicly. Most people can't. It's going to require a bold stand from self-reliant (privately wealthy) public figures and probably a good number of martyrs to start making any meaningful change. Barring that, the alternative is a culture war, as you've said before. That will likely work itself out eventually, but at what cost?

For some reason I thought you worked at a university. My mistake. We've already discussed the Lindsay Shepherd case, but she was far from unique. She was just local for me. As for ideas as viruses, I'm not talking about Burroughs. I'm talking about how ideas set root in people's brains and can become almost impossible to dislodge, particularly when they're taken up as a group. Religion is the most obvious examples of this, but then anti-vaxxers, D-E-E-P S-T-A-T-E conspiracies, lamestream media or McCarthyism would be examples too. Runaway political correctness at universities and elsewhere is another.

No, and I don't suppose you did either? While they're usually written in plain language, the full 26 pages is meant for lawyers and legal scholars, particularly in a precedent-setting case like this one. Forstater's tweets (the subject of the case) are an easier chew. and Forstater was against being forced to change her definition of woman - or being forced to say the word in a way she disagreed with. The distinction you're drawing here is pretty weak. Forstater explained that she accepts gender identity, but that it doesn't override biological sex. You speak of trans women "womanhood" as something taboo to talk about, debate or disagree with, and that's the problem. The topic is declared closed and anyone who doesn't just fall in line is automatically considered "hateful" and essentially excommunicato. That's an incorrectly narrow definition of censorship. It's far more broad than that. While I agree that you can be fired for being rude/distasteful, that in itself can be a form of censorship. If standards were applied more equitably, I'd not be complaining. Where I do feel our institutions are failing us (on a academic, cultural and political level) is the both the draconian enforcement of the new language "laws" against those who question them , and then the blind pass their critics get when they bully, threaten and shout their opposition into silence. This is not the same thing at all. Unlike the black civil rights, women's rights, homosexual rights, transgender activists are redefining the use of words that others were already using to describe themselves. There's zero possibility for debate until there's a safe environment for it. You can't say you want to see that debate if you're also supporting the behavior that makes it impossible to happen. That means we need an environment where people aren't instantly attacked, de-funded and de-platformed for presenting dissenting viewpoints. It means disciplining and de-platforming the more inflammatory and militant among the activists as well, like professors who make accusations of transphobia when presented with anything but meek acquiescence to conclusions, or who try to censor people like Lindsay Shepherd for basically nothing. It's one thing to censor a deliberately inflammatory or egregiously ignorant mouthpiece, but what we're seeing today is absurd.

What are you trying to communicate here, exactly? Can you even explain what "idea" he's describing? I'd check your logic on this one, because this seems like petty semantics. He's criticizing the pernicious (and institutional) weakening of standards for free speech/debate, and you're trying to characterize this as...somehow contrary to free speech - because he called it a disease? As an academic yourself, I imagine you're familiar with the concept of ideas-as-viruses?

**I'm not much of a weekend poster, so my apologies if you've moved on by now. ** The judgement doesn't tell you much other than that they were throwing the book at her. It gives you very little insight on what she's actually trying to say or what her arguments are. Read what she actually said and her reasoning behind it, then talk about it. In case you don't feel like it, her position is very close to Jordan Peterson's initial podcast (which you supported?). You're clearly talking about censorship, and from your responses it's equally clear you support it (though you claim otherwise). Within limits, I suppose I support it too, but not to the extent we're seeing with this sort of stuff. It's worth noting, as you said, that her contract wasn't renewed (rather than her being fired), but how is that any different than Jordan Peterson having his research funding denied (which you thought was wrong, IIRC)? What we're seeing with examples like this is systematic word-and-thought policing. Though we're hardly in Orwellian territory at this point, we are watching our ability to disagree with one another curtailed and the standards being applied are very lopsided. One the one side, folks who are questioning and wanting to debate the language, implications and conclusions of social value issues are being cowed into silence. The other side of the debate is not only emboldened by the inability of their opponents to speak up, they're also being given what seems to be carte-blanche to loudly and angrily throw their rhetoric wherever they please with little/no consequences. This is a feedback loop and it's not just a matter of reddit trolls flinging insults and threats at each other. It's being reinforced at an institutional level and especially at our universities. You keep saying "let's debate", but that's being facile. Where and how do we debate? When it's okay for university professors to call me transphobic for saying I don't want to date trans women, what platform do I have? What platform does a university professor have if he gets de-funded for speaking against the prevailing winds? How do I share an opinion or criticize exaggerated hyperbole when I can lose my job for it (or "not have my contract renewed")? You're criticizing Argus' OP for being too broad and vague, but you're arguing semantics and not really addressing the issue itself.

It's not a competition. If you want to start a productive and intelligent conversation on a topic, and hear other people's thoughts on it, it's best to clearly state your thoughts and provide some background reasoning and support. You would agree, I hope? I've had a similar experience. I took one poli sci course in university, and only went to a single lecture. The professor was useless and boring, and it ended up being a bird course where I just read the textbook and aced the tests and essays. What are we actually talking about here though, other than a bunch of random stuff and experiences? I don't have a profile picture.

When you write posts like your OP, explain what points you're trying to make and provide citations. Listing a bunch of bullet points and then asking for thoughts is not going to result in much of a debate. It's like: -Cheese tastes good -Most of the cheese in Canada comes from Quebec -Dairy Board Thoughts???

Why is the belief that trans women aren't women unfair? It's not just a value opinion. There are pretty straightforward, objective biological differences. The only value judgment here is whether or not you choose to accept the expanded/updated definition of "woman". The people who don't, however, will have their views and language and opinions policed. You only have make one small adjustment to the language, however, to see how absurd the argument is. Add a prefix or an adjective to the word "woman" and are you still violating someone's human dignity? Forstater should have said a biological man can never become a cisgender woman? Of course her meaning and intention haven't changed, but how to the Courts enforce that sort of more nuanced language? Much of the Court's reasoning falls apart with these tweaks. Your comment on "evil" Christians is just silly moral equivalency. In some senses yes, but then in many no. Women and Men are equal in the eyes of the Law, of course, but they're not the same. That's not an opinion. It wasn't a workplace issue. It was her tweeting. If you care to understand it more, you can see exactly what she wrote and how it all went down here: https://medium.com/@MForstater/i-lost-my-job-for-speaking-up-about-womens-rights-2af2186ae84 This is censorship, and it's an overreach.

I'm pretty sure you don't know much about what the political and intellectual environment in Nero's Rome. While you may actually have a worthwhile point to discuss somewhere, you're hardly making a case for it with this sort of silly rhetoric.

To be fair, you asked for a cite and then followed up with a "zinger" about alt-right conspiracies. You are are a better poster than this, so I'd humbly recommend you at least hold yourself to the standard you're asking other people to.

She wasn't using it at work. She was tweeting. Though I don't support her opinion, I do think it's remarkable that she lost her job for what amounts to disagreeing with the new and changing definitions of "woman/man". Like Peterson, she didn't feel she should/could be compelled to use terminology she didn't agree with. This was a precedent-setting case and it serves as a warning to anyone who'd speak out against or question new gender definitions, while emboldening those who wield terms like transphobia as a weapon to muzzle and punish opposing viewpoints. Though hardly academic, I found this article from the BBC interesting. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-42652947 It's celebrity Big-Brother, so take that for what you will, but the article is about one of the contestants (rapper Ginuwine) explaining that he wouldn't date a transgender woman. Some of the responses (on Twitter and elsewhere) for his viewpoint were: "If you have a sexual preference that discriminates against transgender men or transgender women, you are transphobic. This is fact." and "What Ginuwine said was that of an ignorant person who has not been with a trans woman before. It was more of an ignorance, fed by a media that often depicts trans women in a sensationalised way, with strong bone structure and husky low-baritone voices," Miss SaHHara says. "The majority of straight men are worried about what society thinks of them if they date a trans woman," she says. "Toxic masculinity makes them violent and rude about their attraction." and then my favorite, from a Columbia University professor/doctor: "There are hormonal sweet spots where trans women can transition and be effectively indistinguishable at a certain level from cisgender women," Dr Timmins says. "So being unwilling to date on the basis of someone being trans, rather than on the basis of individual stimuli is something I would personally call transphobic." As I said before, there are precious few instances where the distinction between cis and transgender women even matters, but where it does, the current environment of public discourse is not conductive to a fair or even civil debate. Even something as personal as specific sexual preference is subject to public attack from transgender advocates and academics. I'd argue that calling someone transphobic and ignorant on the basis of their personal sexual preferences is itself discriminatory and demeaning, but Professor Timmins didn''t face censure or discipline. The irony and double-standards are obvious, I think.

People complain about being attacked on twitter etc because it happens all the time...everywhere. I know that if I tried to make the arguments I'm making here on facebook or twitter, I'd be skewered. If you don't believe me on that, I dare you to try for yourself...or to even ask if it's something that should be debated. It's extremely naive, I think, to downplay this sort of censorship as the far-right crying wolf. You and I have reviewed a multitude of examples and have talked about how Jordan Peterson's research funding was pulled or how WLU made a mess out of the Lindsay Shephard affair. We've talked about Martina Navartalova (who's only recanted her rhetoric on transgender "cheaters" as far I've read) and the complaint in Connecticut (which is being criticized as dangerous and discriminatory). I can keep giving you more. Look up Maya Forstater, who was fired for saying that men cannot change into women. That leads to the next point, which is whether trans women are women. To say that they are, you're accepting that "woman" is gender identity concept, rather than a biological distinction. It used to just mean a person with two X chromosomes (or as JK Rowling would say, people who menstruate). The latter definition, however, is "not worthy of respect in democratic society" (as per Forstater case ruling) and publicly holding that belief can, according to British courts, legally get you fired. There you have a common law precedent of the sort of censorship that I, at least, find troubling.

Well...I think we're going to see far more than Trump against China in the coming years. Even Trudeau has abandoned his demure-kitten diplomacy with China. India has gone from considering China an important strategic partner to their biggest and most immediate adversary, as has most of the South China Sea. If I were you I'd expect things to get much worse before they get better.

1) You're being trite. Not only are you anonymous here, nobody would take someone calling you a cuck as anything but an insult from a someone who was angry with you. 2) Nobody's denying the existence of trans women, and if they are then we can laugh at them. What's being disputed is that trans women are the same thing as biological women. There are precious few instances where the distinction really matters, but where it does there are objective arguments to be made against it. 3) It's not just elite sports. There's a lawsuit in Connecticut where 3 high school students are suing the state over Transgender athletes, where two trans women have won 15 state titles in 2 years. https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/14/us/transgender-athletes-connecticut-lawsuit/index.html Your bogeyman argument is pretty silly, at least in respect to whatever conversation you and I are having. I don't see why I need to frame and qualify the people who are denouncing and labeling individuals offering dissenting viewpoints, especially by what would end up being an arbitrary category. I have provided examples of the phenomenon and can continue to, so eventually you either have to acknowledge that this sort of censorship is happening or try to refute it. Additionally, I'd argue that there's a fairly clear political divide on this sort of issue, and would suggest that a Jefferson City Republican is far less likely to support transgender definitions than a Portland Democrat. Would you disagree?

No he didn't. He said a bunch of vague nonsense in a 2016 interview and avoided clarifying when given the opportunity. Wikileaks later made an explicit statement saying that they were not implying that Seth Rich was there source, or that his murder was connected to their publications, but that didn't stop all the morons who were happy to make up their own facts and run with the story. It takes a special kind of intellect to call that "evidence". I'm not vouching for CNN or NBC, nor am I vouching for CTV or CBC. What I did do is refer to Fox News as a worthless clown show and that Rebel Media is even worse. All that ranting and carrying on and you're pretty much arguing with yourself. You're so caught up in your own nonsense that you can't even follow the debate you're participating in. Instead, you make up opinions and positions to argue against and then brag to nobody in particular about how you're "destroying" them. All of this is built on a foundation of absolutely stunning ignorance. Thanks for the laughs. I'm done with your foolishness.

1) You're being semantic. Nobody ever loses the ability to disagree, so if you're going to argue this point then you're assuming the OP is utter nonsense and you're arguing against utter nonsense. 2) Again, I think you're being disingenuous here. You getting trolled on an internet forum is hardly the same thing as being publicly declared as a racist, misogynistic or "transphobic" for disagreeing with the cause of the day. JK Rowling's attempt at distinguishing a "biological" woman from a trans woman is the sort of example we're talking about. Writers, actors, celebrities etc have all piled on and she's being called "hateful" now because she doesn't agree with the LGBT's vague definition of "woman". 3) She apologized for the original statement (probably for the rhetoric, and hopefully for the claims that there are men who are deliberately getting hormone therapy to beat women in sports) but then doubled down on her conclusion later that the she doesn't think it's fair for them to participate in women's sports. Again, this is another woman being labeled as "transphobic" for that. 4) That's what we're doing here, isn't it? I do agree that the alt-right and their mooks are using the issue, but that's probably because it's a complaint that they can more easily articulate. Keep in mind, of course, that not EVERYTHING the far right opines for is wrong. On this topic, they actually have facts and science on their side, and will find broader support than their typically poorly-educated white male base. This is low-hanging fruit where they can actually demonstrate that the nebulous "left" is overreaching.

Except it wasn't just a conspiracy "theory". When you claim you have evidence supporting the theory (but actually don't), then by definition that's a lie. The theory has been debunked because not a shred of supporting evidence has been unearthed and we therefore have no reason to believe any of it. This is as clear an example as we need of your ability to re-shape reality to suit your comical world views. You were talking about cognitive dissonance earlier, and I thought that was pretty funny. You're a shining exemplar of the concept. Wait...what!? I never said anything even remotely to that effect. Go back and read my post because I made it explicitly clear that fool Hannity didn't start the conspiracy theory. I could not have been any clearer on that. The extent of your nonsense and your ability to befuddle yourself are starting to get pretty boring at this point. It was funny for awhile, but I'm barely even reading your posts anymore. It's largely incoherent ranting and not worth responding to.

Instead I'd maybe just check out the late night shows. They can sum it up for you, and at least it will be funny.

I gave you the Seth Rich conspiracy. You argued against it and now you're saying...what? That I never brought up Seth Rich or...something? Oookay. He can't be in the drive-thru lane passed out drunk without being at the drive-thru. What you're trying to say here is categorically absurd. What part of that is a lie? Do you know what lying actually means? I'm not sure if I'm supposed to laugh at you or cry for you at this point. Except it started at Fox with an "investigative report" (quotations for mockery purposes) by Malia Zimmerman, referring to "evidence" that Seth Rich had provided the emails to WikiLeaks. There was no evidence, of course, but that didn't stop Fox and Friends from running the story, or for the world's dumbest news personality from jumping all over it (that's Hannity btw). You're making this worse for yourself every time you reply.

As you ignore any information that doesn't conform to your reality. Another brilliant "NO YOU!" So...did Brooks not fall asleep in his car outside of Wendys? Did he not get shot running from police? Oops! You can't even differentiate between editorial bias and outright lying. This is too easy.

Rather than "better" use of social media, I'd instead they've been far more successful in weaponizing it. You're explaining tribalism at the end of your post here, but you have to realize that it's equally prominent on both sides of the debate. Just as the right will dig their talons into a single issue and paint it on the entire left side of the "debate", so too will the "left" take any questioning or disagreement with a social issue and automatically paint it as "hateful".

I gave you one of the most obvious examples available, and you did a bunch of mental gymnastics to try and rationalize it. By attempting to rationalize the truly stupid and absurd, you've proven that you're either unwilling (or perhaps incapable) of an intelligent debate, and thus not worth engaging with further (other than for laughs). I'm not going to spend 4 hours watching Fox News and their clown show anchors just to watch you drink your own bathwater.

There's no doubt that you can argue in favour of trans women in sports - the fact that they're allowed to participate makes that explicit. What's not so clear, however, is the ability to argue against it without being labeled as transphobic. The pile-on of Martina Navritolova is a good example of this, and far from the only one. Though Martina ventured a little too far into rhetorical scenarios when she originally spoke out (and gave ammunition to her critics), her argument was pretty straightforward and clearly demonstrated the unfairness of the current environment. If transwomen are not allowed to compete in women's sports, there's certainly a question of where would they compete, but then there's also the question of why should their feelings and needs take precedence over the women in sports that they displace or unfairly compete against?

Except for the fact that you're operating on an entirely different plane of reality - one where your mind-bending powers of rationalization allow you to exaggerate and make huge leaps in logic for any information that (you feel) supports your world view, and then also to make excuses for and downplay any that could potentially weaken it. Your comments on the Seth Rich conspiracy tell us everything we need to know. I brought up one of the dumbest, most blatantly dishonest and biggest screw-ups in Fox News history, and you spun your wheels trying to justify it. If you'll attempt to rationalize even the most obvious nonsense, there's zero hope of any sort of intelligent, informed debate with you.

I think the belief is implicitly "promulgated" by the continued participating of trans-women in female sports. It does seem to be a point that the right-side of the debate really hones in on and exaggerates, but don't be disingenuous and pretend it's not happening. That it's unfair to have transgender men clobbering female athletes in competitions is obvious, so the arguments supporting their inclusion are ideological whereas (in a real twist) the arguments against them are both scientific and objective. Regardless, you really, really don't have to look hard to find examples of LGBT advocates piling on to people who speak out against trans men participating in women's sports. "Transphobia" is the usual rallying cry.