Jump to content

Transgender Issues


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

1. Trans peoples rights should be respected of course, but not at the expense of others.

2. Your right to feel safe, doesn't and shouldn't trump the right of a biological woman of the same right.

3. If you can't answer a simple question like how many genders are there, or what a woman is, if trans women are women, then I can see a handful of reasons.

1. All rights involve some kind of trade off.

2. You don't have a right to feel safe.  You have an expectation that the collective will establish laws and protocols to maximize safety and enhance the possibilities for happiness.

3. The only simple thing is the idea that such a question is simple.  Sex is biologically determined, so that's a lot simpler. Culturally, gender is regarded as a construct. 

So now you are in the realm of epistemology, philosophy, and how words represent reality in an individual, and shared sense.

Should we start with Hegel and his description of the zeitgeist? Or should we go back to Plato's allegory of the cave?

Which one is more simple to you? 

 

How about we try Whitehead's fallacy of misplaced concreteness?

 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)#:~:text=For example%2C the metaphor known,or that water is sentient.

.

How many races do you think there are? Do you think black and white are two races? Is Barack Obama black? Simple question?

I for one can consider such questions, as a matter of interest.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

All rights involve some kind of trade off

Am against some of those trade offs, if they put the rights of trans women over the rights of biological women.

22 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Is Barack Obama black?

He's mixed race. Drake is mixed race. Obama is black when playing politics. They focused heavily on his African roots.

He is free to identify as black or white, but his appearance, his DNA is mixed, whether he likes it or not.

I know what you're trying to do, but I operate on logic.

The day politics makes a return to that, vs divisiveness and playing politics, I will be a happy man.

Today's logic, is if Obama identified as white, then he is white. Even though his daughters appearance disproves of this to begin with.

Again, if he told me he was white, I would smile and agree. 

We are a country of people who have smiled and agreed but some are saying "enough already". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

1. Am against some of those trade offs, if they put the rights of trans women over the rights of biological women.

2. He's mixed race. Drake is mixed race. Obama is black when playing politics. They focused heavily on his African roots.

3. I know what you're trying to do, but I operate on logic.

4. The day politics makes a return to that, vs divisiveness and playing politics, I will be a happy man.

5. Today's logic, is if Obama identified as white, then he is white. Even though his daughters appearance disproves of this to begin with.

6. Again, if he told me he was white, I would smile and agree. 

7. We are a country of people who have smiled and agreed but some are saying "enough already". 

1. Which rights though ?  There's no right to not be offended.  There's no right to "feel safe".  You can't go to the authorities and say "I don't feel safe around this person - get them out of my space please."  The implications of that being allowed for any individual are large.
2. So there are more than just black and white ?  So isn't it conceivable that there could be (COULD be) more than one gender ?  For me, as I say, these words are just approximations, or rough ideas of categories of perception for the individual.  There is no "black" "white" "man" "woman" as easy as there is a "1" or a "2" in the number system.
3. Language is a system that has logic too.
4. Politics has never been and will never be logical.
5. Proofs are for maths, not politics.
6. As most people do when asked about Transgender rights.  That's why, as @August1991 says, "we get along".  Social cohesion is the most important thing in a community and you have professed the #1 attribute of a cohesive community member - TOLERANCE.  For that I thank you.
7. There is no "enough already".  No group gets to veto another group.  There is, however, "we have to talk about this one".  And that applies to everybody including "the" public, minority groups of all kinds, activists, and extremists.  If you acknowledge that you are part of the discussion process you have identified yourself as a member of "a" public - a group of individuals with common traits, also with an interest in the outcome and a means of discussing it.

Maybe the issue is that you see the extremists of having too much power.  If we were to agree that that is true (and I don't know either way) then we'd have to define what is an extremist, how they group together and how they push for "their" way.  Sounds complicated but it could be as easy as identifying a few examples.

"The" American mass audience was repulsed by Bill Maher when he made an OFFHAND comment about the 9-11 terrorists being brave, braver than people launching drones and missiles on the other side of the world.  There was no debate - Maher was gone.  If there was such a thing as a TV watching "public" then they might instead of taken Maher to task and had a meeting or townhall with him to explain his remarks and get clarification or a retraction/apology.  

It all depends on how you set these things up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/30/2023 at 10:12 PM, August1991 said:

Disagree. Strongly.

A person is what a person is.

===

Few people are left-handed. Most are right-handed. Very few are ambidextrous.

IMHO, no child in the West is told they're right-handed - but they feel more left-handed.

If you don't have a penis you can 'feel' you're a man all you want to: You aren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/1/2023 at 12:16 PM, Michael Hardner said:

I thought we already established a framework for the discussion:

Human rights codes define a wide middle path.

No one is obliged to be kind, by law ;

If you are required to be 'kind' by accepting a big, hairy, bearded male is a woman under threat of punishment than you are indeed being required to be kind.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/1/2023 at 4:25 PM, Michael Hardner said:

1. None of this is relevant to your problem with the majority obliging moral responses.  Numbers don't matter, if they did then it would be a vote not a matter of principle.

Is it moral to encourage a child in their belief they're the wrong gender to the point of punishing anyone who argues against it, as well as granting them access to permanently life-altering drugs without regard to what their parents want?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

more than one gender

So now we find the crux of where we disagree. There are two genders. One anomaly. This is easily demonstrable. This is my set in stone belief. Again--demonstrable. Differences between women and men. I could list dozens. Easily demonstrable.

Am all ears if you can demonstrate what you're talking about with actual evidence.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

So there are more than just black and white ? 

Quite demonstrably so. 

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

more than one gender ? 

Correct there are two.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Politics has never been and will never be logical.

Gender always has been, and should remain as such.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

TOLERANCE. 

If I demanded you stop calling me perspektiv and that you respect my blackness by calling me Gogo Chocolate Daddy™.

What would you say, noting that refusing made you racist? 

And that I was a penguin. 

If I felt it, even for a day, it was fair game. No longer there was a need to have a standard, and this included legal documents.

So moving forwards, my passport would read my new name, and my gender was "penguin". Questioning makes you transphobic. 

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Maybe the issue is that you see the extremists of having too much power. 

They have little. Its just disturbing that so much of their garbage is infiltrating school systems.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

extremist

In this case we are eluding to political extremists. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

If you are required to be 'kind' by accepting a big, hairy, bearded male is a woman under threat of punishment than you are indeed being required to be kind.

I already said no one is obliged to be kind so your question is moot.  You don't have to accept anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Is it moral to encourage a child in their belief they're the wrong gender to the point of punishing anyone who argues against it, as well as granting them access to permanently life-altering drugs without regard to what their parents want?

You need to be specific as to what you are asking.  The method for blurring these things is to ask a broad question like you have.   The question is loaded really but ok I get what you're getting at.

-Nobody under 18 should be allowed to get a tattoo much less permanently change their body
-Nobody should be 'convincing' someone what they are feeling
-Arguing against these things is of course ok

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/1/2023 at 10:12 PM, Michael Hardner said:

1. If the mainstream supports them then... they're not the extreme anymore right ?

What is the mainsteam? Is it what most Canadians feel and believe or is it what the mainstream media and academia say? Both these groups are known to have a far higher proportion of progressives than Canadian society as a whole.

On 4/1/2023 at 10:12 PM, Michael Hardner said:


2. Says who now ?  We don't have compelled speech, they just ask you to NOT say certain things.

If a big, hairy, bearded man requires that I acknowledge him as a her I am compelled to respect that and do so, referring to him as her. That's compelled speech.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

If you don't have a penis you can 'feel' you're a man all you want to: You aren't.

I see it like when a white person I knew, told me they were blacker than me. 

One issue. My skin color is black. 

Okay, so you act stereotypically black by American standards. Good for you, you're still white. 

But they were convinced they were black. I was white, and am the whitest black man he had ever met. 

Again. This is the logic we are working with. 

Just because someone tells me am white, then am white.

If they feel black, then they are black.

Some activists would argue that race isn't the same as gender. But again, can't come to a consensus as to how many genders that there are.

That is the epitome of extremism. You can't demonstrate what you're talking about, and push to silence or crush dissenting views as harmful to those who are vulnerable, yet murder rates in neighborhoods which have minorities as a predominant demographic have gone up. This is just the way it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

Fascists are too cowardly to admit they just don't want trans people to have rights.

You are obsessed with this stupid refrain about fascists everywhere.

Do you check under your bed every day in case a fascist is hiding there?

Edited by I am Groot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

1. There are two genders. One anomaly. This is easily demonstrable. This is my set in stone belief. Again--demonstrable. Differences between women and men. I could list dozens. Easily demonstrable.

2. If I demanded you stop calling me perspektiv and that you respect my blackness by calling me Gogo Chocolate Daddy™. What would you say, noting that refusing made you racist? 

3. They have little. Its just disturbing that so much of their garbage is infiltrating school systems. In this case we are eluding to political extremists. 

1. It's a circular explanation because the assumption is that gender is biological.  A lot of people reject that.  At that point, your assertion is just "he said/they said"
2. "
What would you say, noting that refusing made you racist? "  If you think I am racist for not calling you that then I will ignore you.  Very easy.  If for some reason you are in my orbit and I have to deal with you I will work around your ridiculous demand as much as possible.  I already told you to ignore trolls.  They won't bite you.
3. You are repeating yourself and contradicting yourself.  Do they have power/influence or not? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. All rights involve some kind of trade off.

Yes, but should we trade off the rights of women who comprise 50% of the population for the rights of a tiny minority who are mostly following a fad or psychologically ill?

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. You don't have a right to feel safe. 

That's an interesting point to make given so much of the discussion on this subject is that no one is permitted to oppose any aspect of trans rights because even questioning the rules makes them feel 'unsafe'. That high school kid banned from school, for example, was because he made trans kids feel unsafe by questioning and doubting their preferred gender.

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. The only simple thing is the idea that such a question is simple.  Sex is biologically determined, so that's a lot simpler. Culturally, gender is regarded as a construct. 

This is a copout that always ignores that gender is wedded tightly to sex. Any laws which affect the separation of or acknowledgment of gender do the same to sex.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

1. What is the mainsteam? Is it what most Canadians feel and believe...
2. or is it what the mainstream media and academia say?
3. Both these groups are known to have a far higher proportion of progressives than Canadian society as a whole
4. If a big, hairy, bearded man requires that I acknowledge him as a her I am compelled to respect that and do so, referring to him as her. That's compelled speech.

 

1. Yes
2. These are sources of information.  The moral sphere within shouldn't be too far removed from mainstream thought though it happens.
3. Amorphous.  Let's look at a cite for that.
4. Nonsense.  You can call a black person an 'n****' and your life goes on.  The government will not be bound to action based on you insulting someone in any context.  Don't be afraid - go ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:


-Nobody under 18 should be allowed to get a tattoo much less permanently change their body
-Nobody should be 'convincing' someone what they are feeling
-Arguing against these things is of course ok

I agree with those three statements. Society, unfortunately, does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

1. Yes, but should we trade off the rights of women who comprise 50% of the population for the rights of a tiny minority who are mostly following a fad or psychologically ill?

2. That's an interesting point to make given so much of the discussion on this subject is that no one is permitted to oppose any aspect of trans rights because even questioning the rules makes them feel 'unsafe'.

3. Any laws which affect the separation of or acknowledgment of gender do the same to sex.

 

1. Or should we trade of the rights of whites who compose the minority for black people ?  We have answered that.
2. That is correct.  Trans people are not protected by law from feeling unsafe, just their rights.
3. It's an interesting question but I don't think that's really true.  You can still discriminate in sports for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

These are sources of information.  The moral sphere within shouldn't be too far removed from mainstream thought though it happens.

But the 'sources of information' control access to the public square. They control how a given topic is treated in the public sphere, ridiculing and putting down anyone who disagrees on a variety of topics. This is most especially evident on social policy issues where voices of detractors are only very rarely heard or portrayed incorrectly. They propagandize their views and outlaw contrary views. Ordinary people can discuss things among themselves in private away from media condemnation but their views are largely ignored by politicians.

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

You can call a black person an 'n****' and your life goes on.  The government will not be bound to action based on you insulting someone in any context.  Don't be afraid - go ahead.

This is silly. First, you're utterly ignoring the way progressives will seek to have you turned into an outcast, pressuring and threatening you, your friends and family as well as employers or schools. You're also ignoring the implications of the inclusion of trans into human rights and criminal codes on harassment/discrimination, as well as corporate policies.

You are, in effect, demanding we ignore reality because the government won't yet imprison you for calling a man a man, even though other elements of the progressive left will try to destroy you without regard to what the voiceless 'mainstream' might think of what you said.

You are also equating refusing to deny reality with issuing a racist slur. Using a racist slur has no motive and no point but to cause offense. Denying someone's fantasy because it conflicts with reality is quite a different thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Or should we trade of the rights of whites who compose the minority for black people ?  We have answered that.

I see you have seized on this effort to equate racism with doubts about transgender policy. It's not an intellectually honest argument on your part. DIsliking someone for their skin colour has no relationship to a demand that people ignore reality and humor someone in their mistaken belief about their sex.

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

That is correct.  Trans people are not protected by law from feeling unsafe, just their rights.

And their right is to not feel unsafe by anyone denying their fantasy about what sex they are.

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's an interesting question but I don't think that's really true.  You can still discriminate in sports for example.

In Canada? Rarely. Where? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

"Society" ?  You should stick to the terms we were using "mainstream" or somesuch.  I think they do.

I don't agree that our interpretation of mainstream is the same. Yours is based on the public sphere which is denied to those who have doubts about the spread of transgenderism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I gave an example... call someone a name on the street and see what happens.

And your example is also wrong. A more appropriate one would be calling a Black man a Black man when they demand to be acknowledged as an Asian woman because all physical evidence to the contrary that's how they 'feel'. 

Edited by I am Groot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,744
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Mark Partiwaka
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • exPS went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Fluffypants went up a rank
      Rising Star
    • exPS earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • gatomontes99 went up a rank
      Proficient
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Collaborator
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...