Where you are on the issues vs how you vote

[McLoofus 35,182]

18 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Being victimized by bigotry doesn't make one exempt from criticism or disagreement.  It's not a free pass to force everyone to bend to your terms, nor to resort to emotional manipulation to shut down debate.  

I should have just quoted this, actually. You're literally doing it while complaining about it. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

6 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

I should have just quoted this, actually. You're literally doing it while complaining about it. 

I'm advocating for everyone to be able to discuss the issues and concepts in question while others are literally trying to shut down even the possibility of debating the matter by resorting to emotional accusations of suicidal thoughts and denial of existence by even daring to question it.  But ok.

[TexasTiger 12,829]

17 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Oh my goodness, no it's not. It's only that it's recently become a topic about which people feel safe advocating for themselves and others.

So you're sticking with just the one group. Huh.

Also, man, it's really bubbling up now, isn't it? I mean, you actually make some good points, but the problem is that you still can't recognize your hypocrisy regarding how the conversation is conducted.

That's not what I claimed, so I'm not sure why you typed any of this. What I (quite plainly) said is that *not* being victimized by bigotry throws up some blinders in the more fortunate among us. 

No, you're off the rails about it because you spent that much time obsessing over something that doesn't affect you. And make no mistake, you are obsessed with these issues. I've shared this space with you long enough that I have a very informed opinion on that. And you just acknowledged that you spend a lot of time with it away from here.

Again, not the issue here and I never said it was. So your response kind of proves the point I made when I brought up that meme you posted.

Like I said, believe what you want, but do check those blind spots in terms of how you approach the conversation. 

 

Do you see transphobia in this tweet?

[McLoofus 35,182]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

I'm advocating for everyone to be able to discuss the issues and concepts in question while others are literally trying to shut down even the possibility of debating the matter by resorting to emotional accusations of suicidal thoughts and denial of existence by even daring to question it.  But ok.

Because you have skin in the game and understanding of their experiences, I guess? That's how you feel qualified to judge their participation in the conversation and declare your own- riddled with hyperbole, exaggeration and straw men (especially straw men in this thread)- to be superior?

Let your convictions speak for themselves, maybe? Because all you're really doing is crying victim yourself.

And make no mistake. It is not your convictions that I've taken issue with, other than thinking that boys think they're girls specifically because they were taught that's possible. That is profoundly primitive thinking. Perhaps you might get further by considering how society and religion have made us think it matters?

[McLoofus 35,182]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

Do you see transphobia in this tweet?

I see anti-science. I don't have context to decide if it rises to the level of transphobia. And I don't know who Maya is or what her job is or was.  

[TexasTiger 12,829]

17 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

I see anti-science. I don't have context to decide if it rises to the level of transphobia. And I don't know who Maya is or what her job is or was.  

What exactly in her words do you see as “anti-science”?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

37 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Oh my goodness, no it's not. It's only that it's recently become a topic about which people feel safe advocating for themselves and others.

Recent in the history of human existence.

 

37 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

So you're sticking with just the one group. Huh.

Also, man, it's really bubbling up now, isn't it? I mean, you actually make some good points, but the problem is that you still can't recognize your hypocrisy regarding how the conversation is conducted.

Yeah, because it's primarily the action of one group that's driving things right now.  I mean, we literally just had a federal appeals court ruling reasserting a professor's civil rights - forcing the university to settle with him for $400,000 and reinstate his job - because a public university fired him for being willing to use a trans person's chosen name, but not being willing to alter pronoun usage because he felt it violated his conscience.

Right now, when it's largely one side that's saying "I disagree with your concept of gender identity and what rights it gives you over how other people act and speak" and the other going, "You're driving trans people to suicide.  Is it that you don't believe I exist or you simply with I didn't exist," or when one side is firing people in public work places over whether they should be forced to affirm this notion of gender identity, the playing field of debate is a tad tilted.

 

37 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

That's not what I claimed, so I'm not sure why you typed any of this. What I (quite plainly) said is that *not* being victimized by bigotry throws up some blinders in the more fortunate among us. 

But you are essentially claiming it.  By expecting "people victimized by bigotry" to be able to handle it when others disagree with them on certain aspects of their beliefs and identity and such, I'm "blinded."  

I'm not blinded here.  I'm not unfeeling as to the hard things that various people go through because of minority status and such.  What I'm saying is, that there are limits to how far that goes.  If one is so sensitive to pushback, critique, disagreement, etc that they start throwing out emotional bombs about suicide and denying they exist rather than engaging the crux of the disagreements, the onus isn't on others to stop debating them or stop voicing disagreements.  It's on them to mature and be able to discuss the matter like a grown person.  And if the discussions in and of themselves are this triggering to them, then they need to seek counseling and perhaps abstain from social media and other forums where they subject is likely to come up.

 

37 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

No, you're off the rails about it because you spent that much time obsessing over something that doesn't affect you. And make no mistake, you are obsessed with these issues. I've shared this space with you long enough that I have a very informed opinion on that. And you just acknowledged that you spend a lot of time with it away from here.

I think about matters that are important, that are being debated in the culture, in the political realm and that have moral, legal and societal ramifications.  I think about them, spend time researching them and listening to the arguments on either side because I want to be informed about them and ponder them before I land on an opinion or engage in discussions about them.  I think this is what everyone should do about weighty matters.  That's not obsession, it's being a thoughtful, considered person.

As far as it being something that "doesn't affect [me]," we wouldn't be discussing this if the only people it affected were the individuals who feel this way and perhaps their friends and family.  No one here has said or even implied that we give one whit what someone does in their private life in terms of gender identity, how they dress, wearing makeup or not, getting gender reassignment surgery, or hormones with regard to interactions in their family, in their circle of friends, or even with a church or place of employment who wishes to affirm them in this regard.  It is precisely because there are those who hold these views that wish all of culture/society and government to bend to their understanding of this and actively affirm and accommodate their views in law that it's something that doesn't just affect me.  And it's why I spend time trying to grasp it, think about it, and formulate my views on it.
 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

A university has no right to require it's employees show respect towards it's customers?  The example above actually has nothing to do with gay or trans issues at all.

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

What exactly in her word do you see as “anti-science”?

That ties into a second response I was about to post:

Actually, "Call yourself whatever you like" is a very backhanded concession. It's dismissive of the entire notion that some human beings are, mentally and emotionally- based on chemical activity in the brain- a gender other than the one they were anatomically assigned.

As for transphobia, I don't know if it can be indicated by a simple lack of empathy or acceptance. But an argument can certainly be made that "...and I'm going to call you whatever I like" is implied in her tweet. That's her choice, and it's anyone else's choice not to buy her book. 

I'm not sure why you're asking, though. I made no claim that there's no inappropriate behavior coming from the "pro trans" side. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

3 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

A university has no right to require it's employees show respect towards it's customers?  The example above actually has nothing to do with gay or trans issues at all.

A public university has no right to compel an employee to violate his or her conscience and lie about something in order for someone else to feel "respected."  He was willing to basically avoid pronoun usage altogether and simply use the person's chosen name when addressing them and they fired him for it.  It absolutely has to do with trans issues.  One's internal concept of self is certainly one's right.  But you do not have the right to compel others to affirm it.

[McLoofus 35,182]

Quote

the playing field of debate is a tad tilted.

If you mistake anecdotes and tweets for the entire playing field- you know, rather than including laws and various forms of discrimination and bullying, lack of parental understanding, etc- then I can see how you think that. 

14 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

But you are essentially claiming it.  By expecting "people victimized by bigotry" to be able to handle it when others disagree with them on certain aspects of their beliefs and identity and such, I'm "blinded."  

Couldn't have said it better myself. That whole bit about you trying to equate your religions beliefs to their fundamental understanding of their own bodies said it just as clearly.

16 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

If one is so sensitive to pushback, critique, disagreement, etc that they start throwing out emotional bombs about suicide and denying they exist rather than engaging the crux of the disagreements, the onus isn't on others to stop debating them or stop voicing disagreements.  It's on them to mature and be able to discuss the matter like a grown person.

Except they've tried to argue their case based on science and common sense and people still think it's just a "belief". How long are they meant to just passively let the other side argue like children with hyperbole and straw men?

18 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

And it's why I spend time trying to grasp it, think about it, and formulate my views on it.

As long as "grasping it" doesn't include "thinking about" why the word "suicide" keeps popping up? Or do you have data showing that claims of high suicide rates among transgender people aren't actually that high relative to other groups?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

A public university has no right to compel an employee to violate his or her conscience and lie about something in order for someone else to feel "respected."  He was willing to basically avoid pronoun usage altogether and simply use the person's chosen name when addressing them and they fired him for it.  It absolutely has to do with trans issues.  One's internal concept of self is certainly one's right.  But you do not have the right to compel others to affirm it.

I respect your opinion but, I disagree.  I believe the professor went out of his way to be petty and confrontational. 

If you were in a college atmosphere and, a professor began to refer to you as her, she because you did not fit his idea of ideal masculinity, how would you feel? 

 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 minute ago, McLoofus said:

If you mistake anecdotes and tweets for the entire playing field- you know, rather than including laws and various forms of discrimination and bullying, lack of parental understanding, etc- then I can see how you think that. 

It's not just anecdotes and tweets.  The anecdotes and tweets are simply examples of the way the discussion is being steered and controlled.

 

1 minute ago, McLoofus said:

Couldn't have said it better myself. That whole bit about you trying to equate your religions beliefs to their fundamental understanding of their own bodies said it just as clearly.

Categorically disagree.

 

1 minute ago, McLoofus said:

Except they've tried to argue their case based on science and common sense and people still think it's just a "belief". How long are they meant to just passively let the other side argue like children with hyperbole and straw men?

The science on this is anything but settled and neither is it "common" sense and thus the discussion is valid and worthwhile.  Getting to shut it down with emotional blackmail isn't a reasonable response.

 

1 minute ago, McLoofus said:

As long as "grasping it" doesn't include "thinking about" why the word "suicide" keeps popping up? Or do you have data showing that claims of high suicide rates among transgender people aren't actually that high relative to other groups?

Have I asserted otherwise?

[TexasTiger 12,829]

 

 

16 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

That ties into a second response I was about to post:

Actually, "Call yourself whatever you like" is a very backhanded concession. It's dismissive of the entire notion that some human beings are, mentally and emotionally- based on chemical activity in the brain- a gender other than the one they were anatomically assigned.

As for transphobia, I don't know if it can be indicated by a simple lack of empathy or acceptance. But an argument can certainly be made that "...and I'm going to call you whatever I like" is implied in her tweet. That's her choice, and it's anyone else's choice not to buy her book. 

I'm not sure why you're asking, though. I made no claim that there's no inappropriate behavior coming from the "pro trans" side. 

Still not sure you’ve marshaled any actual evidence her words were anti-science, but let me ask you this: how do you define sex? How do you define gender? Would you define both exactly the same?

[McLoofus 35,182]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

Have I asserted otherwise?

No, but your entire premise is that a transgender person bringing it up in response to behaviors that are adjacent at worst to more obviously traumatic experiences is "emotional manipulation". I don't think it's a stretch to wonder just how hard you've tried to "grasp" or "think about" that person's point of view. Unless, of course, you have reason to believe that suicide isn't actually a major problem for the folks bringing it up in that manner. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

2 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I respect your opinion but, I disagree.  I believe the professor went out of his way to be petty and confrontational. 

If you were in a college atmosphere and, a professor began to refer to you as her, she because you did not fit his idea of ideal masculinity, how would you feel? 

The school instituted a policy forcing professors to use chosen pronouns.  He expressed his disagreement with the policy to the administration. During the back and forth a series of compromises was proposed where the professor agreed to use any name the student requested other than titles and pronouns.  The school refused to compromise on it and thus the court case happened.  And frankly, the only reason the school decided to settle is to avoid the case making it all the way to the SCOTUS and establishing a firm legal precedent.

If a professor decided to ignore fairly obvious biological indicators and call me "she," I'd be insulted and think he or she was just being a dickhead.  I have thicker skin than most so I'd probably give back as good as I was getting.  If it didn't go any further than that, I'd just finish the class and be done with them.  If me pushing back on it unfairly affected my grade or having access to the professor's help outside of class like everyone else or something like that, I'd take it up with the administration.  If we couldn't come to some kind of compromise where my given name was used or guarantees of unequal grading and treatment were curtailed, then I'd look at legal action.

But the bottom line is, no one owes you agreement or acquiescence to your chosen pronouns or concept of self.  People are allowed beliefs and behaviors you take as rude or uncouth with modern society.  Part of living in a pluralistic society is the understanding that this will happen and you have to learn to be ok with it.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

 

 

Still not sure you’ve marshaled any actual evidence her words were anti-science, but let me ask you this: how do you define sex? How do you define gender? Would you define both exactly the same?

Why should we not allow people to be who they want to be?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

5 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

No, but your entire premise is that a transgender person bringing it up in response to behaviors that are adjacent at worst to more obviously traumatic experiences is "emotional manipulation". I don't think it's a stretch to wonder just how hard you've tried to "grasp" or "think about" that person's point of view. Unless, of course, you have reason to believe that suicide isn't actually a major problem for the folks bringing it up in that manner. 

And there are some behaviors I'd probably agree with them on - that they are traumatic, triggering, and so on.  

But I've seen this tactic employed over and over again as society wrestles with this subject when literally all that is happening is that someone dares to question the way the issue is being framed, certain legal requirements that are being proposed or enforced on others, the attempts to compel or curtail certain types of speech and so on.  When threats of suicide and claims of denial of existence are used to simply shut down the debate altogether - yes, it absolutely is emotional manipulation; a pluperfect example of the logical fallacy argumentum ad passiones (appeal to emotion) over being made to argue one's position with logic, facts and reason.

[McLoofus 35,182]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

Still not sure you’ve marshaled any actual evidence her words were anti-science, but let me ask you this: how do you define sex? How do you define gender? Would you define both exactly the same?

Nor do I owe you any evidence. You approached me seeking my opinion on something and I gave it to you.

The dictionary defines them very similarly, giving more weight to social and cultural differences with gender. 

 

 

[TexasTiger 12,829]

2 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Why should we not allow people to be who they want to be?

Do you think the JK Rowling quote says anything to the contrary? If so, please be specific.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

The school instituted a policy forcing professors to use chosen pronouns.  He expressed his disagreement with the policy to the administration. During the back and forth a series of compromises was proposed where the professor agreed to use any name the student requested other than titles and pronouns.  The school refused to compromise on it and thus the court case happened.  And frankly, the only reason the school decided to settle is to avoid the case making it all the way to the SCOTUS and establishing a firm legal precedent.

If a professor decided to ignore fairly obvious biological indicators and call me "she," I'd be insulted and think he or she was just being a dickhead.  I have thicker skin than most so I'd probably give back as good as I was getting.  If it didn't go any further than that, I'd just finish the class and be done with them.  If me pushing back on it unfairly affected my grade or having access to the professor's help outside of class like everyone else or something like that, I'd take it up with the administration.  If we couldn't come to some kind of compromise where my given name was used or guarantees of unequal grading and treatment were curtailed, then I'd look at legal action.

But the bottom line is, no one owes you agreement or acquiescence to your chosen pronouns or concept of self.  People are allowed beliefs and behaviors you take as rude or uncouth with modern society.  Part of living in a pluralistic society is the understanding that this will happen and you have to learn to be ok with it.

I agree.  So, this isn't about beliefs or trans/gay issues.  This is about the employers rights versus the employees rights.

And again, I understand you believe the professor is principled.  I believe he is petty and confrontational. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

But I've seen this tactic employed over and over again as society wrestles with this subject

But you've only seen that from one side? 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Just now, icanthearyou said:

I agree.  So, this isn't about beliefs or trans/gay issues.  This is about the employers rights versus the employees rights.

From a legal perspective, yes, it's about the rights of employers vs employees.  But it is also about how far it is reasonable and legal to go to force others in society to affirm your personal sense of identity.

 

Just now, icanthearyou said:

And again, I understand you believe the professor is principled.  I believe he is petty and confrontational. 

He might be a mixture of both.  I don't know him enough to say.  But I don't think the mere act of voicing disagreement with the policy and trying to forge a compromise that left both side's rights intact is by definition "petty and confrontational."

[icanthearyou 4,462]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Do you think the JK Rowling quote says anything to the contrary? If so, please be specific.

What does she have to do with this?  Why are you using her as some sort of measuring stick?

[TexasTiger 12,829]

Just now, McLoofus said:

Nor do I owe you any evidence. You approached me seeking my opinion on something and I gave it to you.

The dictionary defines them very similarly, giving more weight to social and cultural differences with gender. 

 

 

Ok, you inserted a claim of “science”, though when my question was whether you saw it as “transphobic.” Then you claimed it was a “notion.” A few years ago the Rowling quote would have been broadly, almost universally, seen as an open-minded, live and let live approach. What changed?