Where you are on the issues vs how you vote

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

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.

 

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."

Okay.  I still do not see the real "principle" he is protecting.  Is showing someone respect actually affirming them?

[TexasTiger 12,778]

10 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

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

When did I say otherwise?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

When did I say otherwise?

So you believe we should show trans people respect?

[TexasTiger 12,778]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

So you believe we should show trans people respect?

Of course. I believe we should all treat each other with respect.

[TitanTiger 20,459]

2 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Okay.  I still do not see the real "principle" he is protecting.  Is showing someone respect actually affirming them?

Should one's specific means of feeling respected railroad other people's conscience rights?  It appears to me that being willing to avoid pronoun usage and use any name the student chose is being wiling to show someone respect.  Refusing such a compromise and trying to coerce submission to the policy seems like compelling someone to affirm something they cannot in good conscience.

[McLoofus 35,182]

7 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

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?

Define "almost universally". Maybe that almost excludes, ya know, trans people that didn't have a voice a few years ago? Maybe they, like other marginalized groups, have acquired more allies willing to advocate publicly for them in the years since? 

I guess I should make it clear that I'm not claiming anything here, just trying to help you find an answer to your question. 

Edited May 6, 2022 by McLoofus

[icanthearyou 4,462]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

Should one's specific means of feeling respected railroad other people's conscience rights?  It appears to me that being willing to avoid pronoun usage and use any name the student chose is being wiling to show someone respect.  Refusing such a compromise and trying to coerce submission to the policy seems like compelling someone to affirm something they cannot in good conscience.

I still do not understand this "right" to which you refer.  Requiring the professor to be cordial, civil, respectful towards a student violates a professor's rights? 

[TitanTiger 20,459]

2 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I still do not understand this "right" to which you refer.  Requiring the professor to be cordial, civil, respectful towards a student violates a professor's rights? 

No, the right not to be compelled to use speech that in their eyes forces them to lie about something real, important and consequential to them.  Free speech rights are not just about what someone is permitted to say, but what one is permitted NOT to say.  

And being willing to compromise and use any name the student wished in lieu of the pronouns and such *is* being cordial, civil and respectful.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

No, the right not to be compelled to use speech that in their eyes forces them to lie about something real, important and consequential to them.  And being willing to compromise and use any name the student wished in lieu of the pronouns and such *is* being cordial, civil and respectful.

Okay.  So, the right to free speech means that an employer cannot force an employee to be civil towards customers for any reason regarding truth or, principle?

 

[TitanTiger 20,459]

51 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Okay.  So, the right to free speech means that an employer cannot force an employee to be civil towards customers for any reason regarding truth or, principle?

Free speech means that an employer doesn't have an absolute right to define what "civil" means.

[TexasTiger 12,778]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

Define "almost universally". Maybe that almost excludes, ya know, trans people that didn't have a voice a few years ago? Maybe they, like other marginalized groups, have acquired more allies willing to advocate publicly for them in the years since? 

I guess I should make it clear that I'm not claiming anything here, just trying to help you find an answer to your question. 

That presupposes there’s something extraordinarily discriminatory and/or hateful about saying live as you wish in peace & security, which is what she took unfathomable heat and abuse for. 

[TexasTiger 12,778]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

Okay.  So, the right to free speech means that an employer cannot force an employee to be civil towards customers for any reason regarding truth or, principle?

 

Depends on the employer and the nation. A private employer in the USA can place requirements on conduct the state cannot.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Free speech means that an employer doesn't have an absolute right to define what "civil" means.

Obviously from the court's decision.  However, the basic concept of civility is harmed. 

I am not arguing your opinion so much as condemning your concept of basic civility.

 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

4 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Depends on the employer and the nation. A private employer in the USA can place requirements on conduct the state cannot.

So, the state cannot regulate the conduct of employees?  I did not know that.

I appreciate your input but, I still find this as nothing other than a means by which to discriminate against others for simply being different. 

[TexasTiger 12,778]

14 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Obviously from the court's decision.  However, the basic concept of civility is harmed. 

I am not arguing your opinion so much as condemning your concept of basic civility.

 

In regard to preferred pronouns that might be held by hundreds of students some instructors might have, do you draw any limits of which of these that person should be required remember and accurately use? What if a person prefers pronouns not on the lists provided by the institution?

[TexasTiger 12,778]

2 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

So, the state cannot regulate the conduct of employees?  I did not know that.

I appreciate your input but, I still find this as nothing other than a means by which to discriminate against others for simply being different. 

I did not say that. I didn’t deploy a comma or period.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

I did not say that.

Did not say,,,,  ???

[icanthearyou 4,462]

4 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

In regard to preferred pronouns that might be held by hundreds of students some instructors might have, do you draw any limits of which of these that person should remember and accurately use?

That's not really the issue. 

[TexasTiger 12,778]

2 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Did not say,,,,  ???

If you decide to turn a new leaf and engage in good faith discourse, let me know.

[TexasTiger 12,778]

Just now, icanthearyou said:

That's not really the issue. 

That’s not really the issue.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

57 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

If you decide to turn a new leaf and engage in good faith discourse, let me know.

I have been, am, will continue to,,, do just that.

Why do you hide your edits?

Edited May 6, 2022 by icanthearyou

[cbo 7,793]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

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.

It's disturbing to me that you keep bringing up sky-high transgender suicide rates only in the context of how you think it affects you.

It is not a "tactic" to shut down debate. It is a fact that is central to the debate and is worthy of consideration in any civilized society. It is the most severe and consequential effect of the matter under discussion; far more significant than what ever rights you perceive are violated when someone is asked to show a modicum of respect by using preferred pronouns. 

Again, let's look at legislation that has already been passed and examine the real effects. In TN and AL, you are required by law to use bathrooms corresponding to the sex on your birth certificate. Imagine there is a 15 year old female to male who has experienced bullying to the point the family has moved to a new town for a fresh start. Let's say the family has opted against any hormone therapy that you find objectionable. The child has simply transitioned socially and presents as a boy (easier to do as FTM). He is able to pass but now it's time to go to the bathroom. Now his secret is out (which is no one's business) and he WILL be bullied at school. 

On the flipside, if this law did not exist, he could potentially pass as a boy and avoid a world of hurt. The perceived danger here is that the other boys will have to share a bathroom with a boy who was born female. The same boy who will do everything to hide that he has female genitalia. What do we think is going to happen here? Is he going to attack the other kids with his vagina? What are we actually worried about?

[cbo 7,793]

40 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

In regard to preferred pronouns that might be held by hundreds of students some instructors might have, do you draw any limits of which of these that person should be required remember and accurately use? What if a person prefers pronouns not on the lists provided by the institution?

I don't understand why you post things like this or why you are so focused on a random tweet here or there. None of this is central to the conversation. 

Are you truly that worried about JK Rowling? She can tweet whatever she wants. But she has to deal with the response. That's how it works. She's been told many times that some people are offended by the manner in which she discusses gender. For some reason, it is important enough to her to keep pushing her opinions. So, good for her, I guess. But she will get negative reactions.

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

That presupposes there’s something extraordinarily discriminatory and/or hateful about saying live as you wish in peace & security, which is what she took unfathomable heat and abuse for. 

I don't understand this at all. It doesn't presuppose anything extraordinary, and I highly doubt that any meaningful negative response to that tweet was targeted specifically at the words you cherrypicked from a tweet that said other things, also. (That isn't exactly arguing in good faith, either.)

Regardless, I stated my thoughts on a different idea to the person I wished to address. It seems that side conversation has run its course. Perhaps someone else would like to have this separate conversation that you are seeking but, respectfully, I do not. 

[TitanTiger 20,459]

39 minutes ago, cbo said:

It's disturbing to me that you keep bringing up sky-high transgender suicide rates only in the context of how you think it affects you.

It is not a "tactic" to shut down debate. It is a fact that is central to the debate and is worthy of consideration in any civilized society. It is the most severe and consequential effect of the matter under discussion; far more significant than what ever rights you perceive are violated when someone is asked to show a modicum of respect by using preferred pronouns.

If someone is incapable of being able to discuss a subject without sending them spiraling into a mental health crisis, the solution to that is for them to step away from such discussions altogether until such time they can talk about it without the ill effects.  The solution is not to basically tell anyone who holds different views or disagrees with certain aspects of their view to just shut up because I might hurt myself.

I mean, what other subject on earth would we allow someone to shut off discussion period based on how they might react to having to debate it?  Are you hearing what you seem to be arguing for here?

 

39 minutes ago, cbo said:

Again, let's look at legislation that has already been passed and examine the real effects. In TN and AL, you are required by law to use bathrooms corresponding to the sex on your birth certificate. Imagine there is a 15 year old female to male who has experienced bullying to the point the family has moved to a new town for a fresh start. Let's say the family has opted against any hormone therapy that you find objectionable. The child has simply transitioned socially and presents as a boy (easier to do as FTM). He is able to pass but now it's time to go to the bathroom. Now his secret is out (which is no one's business) and he WILL be bullied at school. 

On the flipside, if this law did not exist, he could potentially pass as a boy and avoid a world of hurt. The perceived danger here is that the other boys will have to share a bathroom with a boy who was born female. The same boy who will do everything to hide that he has female genitalia. What do we think is going to happen here? Is he going to attack the other kids with his vagina? What are we actually worried about?

Ok, now let's flip it.  A male is socially transitioning to female.  Whether because he's a minor and can't get surgery yet, or he's an adult who chooses not to, he's more or less able to pass as female.  He may or may not be using hormones, or might be utilizing other non-invasive/non-surgical means to look more female (such as hair removal stuff, etc).  He's wearing makeup, grown his hair out or using wigs, wears a padded bra and wears women's clothing exclusively.  And now he wants to go to the girls locker room at PE or the women's locker room at the local gym.  Or he's homeless and wants to use a local shelter that exclusively for women seeking shelter from abusive relationships. 

What rights to privacy and safety do these women or girls have?  Why should their rights be completely written off as unimportant while the trans woman's right to come into those spaces are paramount?

I know why you chose the FTM example, but as you can see the overwhelming majority of the arguments made for some of these laws are where these automatic "just let em use whatever facilities they fell like using" isn't so simple.  Women are threatened, at risk, traumatized, or treated unfairly by biological men in ways that don't exist in the other direction.  No one except the most hard core folks really care if a woman identifying as a man wants to try and compete with the men in sports.  There's no inherent physical advantage being gained by the trans person in that situation.  In fact, one of the proposed solutions to trans people competing in sports is essentially just that:  to keep the womens/girls divisions for biological females only and to make the men/boys divisions "open" - you can compete in that division no matter what gender or sex you are if you're good enough.  Similarly, while it might make some men uncomfortable having to change in front of a biological female identifying as male, there's no feelings of being threatened or at risk.  But you're damn skippy that's true for women with biological men.  And none of these examples is some far fetched hypothetical I made up for the sake of argument.  They are real situations that organizations, businesses, cities, states are all grappling with.  And the argument from the trans advocates time and again amounts to basically telling the women to get over it and let the natal male in their spaces and if they don't they're backwards bigots, uncaring or whatever.

I'll acknowledge that sometimes the anti-trans side of these debates over simplifies things.  But any fair minded person would have to admit here that the same can often be true of trans rights advocates.  None of this is that simple.  And just defaulting to "whatever trans people want" isn't the right way to go here.