Where you are on the issues vs how you vote

[TitanTiger 20,482]

1 hour 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.

And I condemn yours in that you evidently believe that compelling a person to express sentiments they believe to be tantamount to lying is perfectly civil.

[cbo 7,852]

8 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

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?

No one ever said they are committing suicide because they can't handle discussion. You are once again trivializing this. The reasons for the high suicide rate are feeling out of place in their own body, emotional neglect by family, lack of social belonging, etc. 

What would help is a kinder society that accepts them whenever possible. Like a professor who could simply use a preferred pronoun. 

What doesn't help is "funny" memes ridiculing them or being misgendered and deadnamed because someone else decided who they are allowed to be. 

[cbo 7,852]

19 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

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?

 

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.

I'm fine with keeping women divisions for biological females only. In this case, there is a logical reason for doing so. I'm also fine with separate locker rooms, if the alternative is that male genitalia actually must be exposed to other women. These are reasonable approaches for valid reasons. And, even though it may suck, a transgender person does not have to participate in sports if they are uncomfortable with this arrangement. They do have to attend school and use the bathroom. 

See, I never argued for "whatever trans people want." Most trans people don't either. Of course it's not that simple. 

[TitanTiger 20,482]

5 minutes ago, cbo said:

No one ever said they are committing suicide because they can't handle discussion. You are once again trivializing this. The reasons for the high suicide rate are feeling out of place in their own body, emotional neglect by family, lack of social belonging, etc. 

Time and again, people try to shut down debate on this by claiming that failing to affirm, failing to agree is tantamount to violence.  Discussions get shut down over the idea that "you're causing harm" or "you're denying my existence" or "this is why trans people kill themselves."  I'm not trivializing it.  If anything, the people throwing out this stuff in lieu of offering a cogent argument are trivializing it.

 

5 minutes ago, cbo said:

What would help is a kinder society that accepts them whenever possible. Like a professor who could simply use a preferred pronoun. 

What doesn't help is "funny" memes ridiculing them or being misgendered and deadnamed because someone else decided who they are allowed to be. 

All of us could stand to be kinder to one another.  But all of us could stand to give a little more grace to people who aren't on board with all of our beliefs and ways of viewing the world too.  It would help if clearer distinctions could be made between those who are actively bullying, ridiculing, being cruel and those who are pushing back on some of the underlying logic and reasoning behind a position or belief.  Right now, far too often, those who are trying to engage in serious debate about these weighty matters are being lumped in with bully that beat up the trans kid in the school bathroom and wrote "TRANNY PERV" on his or her windshield in shoe polish.  People who question the paradigm being presented to support trans views are being equated to folks that physically assault a trans person in the mall parking lot.  Every instance of not following your preferred manner of handling all things trans related can't be a 10.  If everything is a 10, nothing's a 10.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

35 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

And I condemn yours in that you evidently believe that compelling a person to express sentiments they believe to be tantamount to lying is perfectly civil.

Fair enough but, I do not believe anyone was asking him to lie, simply be courteous.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

19 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Fair enough but, I do not believe anyone was asking him to lie, simply be courteous.

Well that's because it wouldn't be a lie for them.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

As for the real topic of this discussion.  I have two main issues.  Both, in my opinion represent real existential threats to our society.

1. Extreme and accelerating income inequality, the narrowing of our economy

2. Global Warming

 

If we do not effectively address these two issues, the rest will not matter.  The "culture wars" merely distract us from taking care of what should be our priorities.

 

 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

Well that's because it wouldn't be a lie for them.

I disagree.  No one was asking him to affirm the persons identity, merely be courteous.  I just cannot understand why that is so triggering for some.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

13 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I disagree.  No one was asking him to affirm the persons identity, merely be courteous.  I just cannot understand why that is so triggering for some.

I always find it odd how qualified some seem to feel telling other people what violates their religious beliefs or conscience.  I mean, the entire reason he sees it as a lie is that he does believe that to use those pronouns would be false and is affirming their identity.  And that's really a determination neither of us can make for him.  I'd never presume to tell a Hindu or a Muslim that they are wrong to believe that a certain action they deem to be immoral, "Eh, it doesn't really violate any of your beliefs."

And I believe he wasn't attempting to find a compromise that was courteous in its intent in being willing to use whatever chosen name they wished for him to use in lieu of the pronouns.

Edited May 6, 2022 by TitanTiger

[icanthearyou 4,463]

16 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I always find it odd how qualified some seem to feel telling other people what violates their religious beliefs or conscience.  I mean, the entire reason he sees it as a lie is that he does believe that to use those pronouns would be false and is affirming their identity.  And that's really a determination neither of us can make for him.  I'd never presume to tell a Hindu or a Muslim that they are wrong to believe that a certain action they deem to be immoral, "Eh, it doesn't really violate any of your beliefs."

And I believe he wasn't attempting to find a compromise that was courteous in its intent in being willing to use whatever chosen name they wished for him to use in lieu of the pronouns.

Understood.  I just don't believe this was about his "beliefs".  I understand your viewpoint though.  We are just very different types of Christians.

[TexasTiger 12,876]

4 hours ago, cbo said:

I'm fine with keeping women divisions for biological females only. In this case, there is a logical reason for doing so. I'm also fine with separate locker rooms, if the alternative is that male genitalia actually must be exposed to other women. These are reasonable approaches for valid reasons. And, even though it may suck, a transgender person does not have to participate in sports if they are uncomfortable with this arrangement. They do have to attend school and use the bathroom. 

See, I never argued for "whatever trans people want." Most trans people don't either. Of course it's not that simple. 

I agree with you on these. 

Over the last couple of years I've taken the time to really listen to progressive feminist friends of mine, particular those in the UK, who are deeply concerned about the direction things have gone there on issues such as this. The key reason I've referenced JK Rowling is she is the most high-profile person I've seen pilloried over having the same views you cite here-- biological women are entitled to their own spaces for their own comfort. 

In the UK, women's rape crisis centers lose their funding if they don't allow any person with male genitalia that self-IDs as a transgender woman. That's just one example. A woman who was assaulted in the UK was required by the judge to refer to the 6' transwoman who attacked her as "she" at trial and chastised for not doing so. This led to a change in the Equal Treatment Bench Book that would have required a rape victim to refer to her assailant by their preferred pronouns, even if doing so totally contradicted the reality of what that victim experienced-- gaslighting in the extreme. After protests from feminists, those rules were modified somewhat.

When I saw reports a couple of years ago of Rowling being "transphobic" I was surprised because I thought of her as "progressive" so I tried to better understand what she had done to warrant such a strong reaction. Article after article just referenced her "transphobic" comments along with statements from folks claiming such things as she didn't think they should exist, etc. I was appalled. What horrendous things had she said? I looked, but found nothing of the sort. Turns out, her views aren't that different than yours here. And she has received numerous vile, hateful, misogynistic and grotesquely violent threats. Most Americans haven't really taken the time to understand the backstory. The ironic thing is I suspect most folks who have written her off as "transphobic" based on media characterizations likely have similar views to those that resulted in her being given that label.

Prior to this, my views on these subjects were similar to what you, @icanthearyouand @McLoofushave stated here. I assumed most folks raising any concerns about transgender related issues were likely bigoted and dismissed them without much thought or deeper inquiry. Frankly, I didn't have a particular reason to spend much time on it before. If anyone I encountered asked me to call them by a preferred name or preferred pronoun I'd do my best to comply -- I still would. That hasn't changed.  
 

I also believe transgendered, gender fluid and gender questioning people should be protected from employment, housing and school admission discrimination-- that's always been my view and hasn't changed. I also think everyone needs grace and understanding. No one deserves cruelty, harassment or taunting over differences, including differences related to gender identity. Everything I've just said, I discovered JK Rowing has said as well. Didn't matter. She was still labeled as transphobic for favoring women's only places and objecting to the word "women" increasingly being erased by terms such "birthing person;" "people who menstruate"-- I've listened to women express deep frustration that the identity they possess based on a lifetime of experiences (their own "lived experience") was being discounted and increasingly erased by some efforts to even remove the word "women" from certain discourse. The tweet I posted yesterday by the ACLU deputy director for transgendered rights readily illustrated this is not some fringe view, but rather the view held by the most litigious civil rights organization in our country.

A person, particularly a woman, who believes, as you state here, in "keeping women divisions for biological females only," is derisively referred to as a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist). Once someone has been labeled a TERF, anything goes. Try searching for the term on twitter and other social media platforms. It's even used by more mainstream celebrities as a dehumanizing term. You can get a taste of that here:

terfisaslur.com

As I explored this I became appalled at the misogyny tolerated by twitter, the larger media and many mainstream institutions by readily dismissing someone as a TERF. To be fair, I have seen some women ascribed this label who do strike me as transphobic. Most I've seen, however, are expressing great frustration toward the tactics of certain trans rights activists to diminish what they see as their rights as a group that has been marginalized since the beginning of time, including being the victims of violence, based on their biology. For them, their biology is very much central to their womanhood.

The reality is, I once agreed with some of y'all that issues related to the transgender debate were very simple and straightforward- That was naive of me. It's much more complex. Details matter.  Taking time to understand the concerns of women matters. I better understand the frustrations these feminists articulate with generally educated, progressive white men, like myself and perhaps some of you, so readily dismissing their concerns.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Prior to this, my views on these subjects were similar to what you, @icanthearyouand @McLoofushave stated here. I assumed most folks raising any concerns about transgender related issues were likely bigoted and dismissed them without much thought or deeper inquiry.

I don't understand why these two sentences follow each other. 

You seem to have taken a very small exchange and extrapolated a lot of bad information from it. 

I guess we all jump to conclusions sometimes.

[TexasTiger 12,876]

6 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

I don't understand why these two sentences follow each other. 

You seem to have taken a very small exchange and extrapolated a lot of bad information from it. 

I guess we all jump to conclusions sometimes.

Those are two separate sentences. My views were similar to some that you’ve expressed AND  “I assumed most folks raising any concerns about transgender related issues were likely bigoted and dismissedthem without much thought or deeper inquiry.” I’m solely owning the second sentence.

 

You seem to have taken a very small excerpt and extrapolated a lot of bad information from it. 

I guess we all jump to conclusions sometimes. 😉

[McLoofus 35,182]

12 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Those are two separate sentences. My views were similar to some that you’ve expressed AND  “

I assumed most folks raising any concerns about transgender related issues were likely bigoted and dismissedthem without much thought or deeper inquiry.” I’m solely owning the second sentence.

You seem to have taken a very small excerpt and extrapolated a lot of bad information from it. 

I guess we all jump to conclusions sometimes. 😉

Maybe at least own up to how that could easily be misinterpreted? Maybe you can at least do that?

[TexasTiger 12,876]

3 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Maybe at least own up to how that could easily be misinterpreted? Maybe you can at least do that?

Dude, if you want to hone into to my sentence order and obsess over whether I was jabbing you by it, that’s your choice. Based on what you know about me, if that’s what I was intending to convey, do you really think I’d back off so quickly? I clearly owned my own assumptions and never claimed to know yours. 

[homersapien 11,374]

On 5/6/2022 at 10:12 AM, TitanTiger said:

What concept would someone have of being a different gender if the concept of gender identity or gender as distinct from sex had never been taught to them?  This isn't some understanding human beings have been born with since the dawn of time here.

And I'm not debating with you over why religion is prevalent, which ones make sense to you, or how we decide which one is correct.  I'm telling you that being a theist and being a Christian specifically is central to who I am, my concept of existence, my reason for being here, my understanding of how the world works or should work.  This is true whether you like it, want to believe it, or not.

But we could name any number of other things that various people see as central to their existence and identity.  We all have them even if we don't bother to think them through or analyze them to such a degree.  The point is, there are billions of people on this planet and massive segments of them are going to reject your concept of identity and reality.  They will hold to an entirely different understanding of reality, identity and existence.  Some of them will argue vehemently for their understanding over yours.  They will not only exalt their understanding but denigrate yours.

What are we to do with that?  One group today seems to think that the way to combat it is to shift the terms of acceptable debate such that even debating it in the first place is off limits.  To question or debate their self-conception is to do violence and inflict mental anguish on others.  All I'm arguing is that this way of dealing with it is bull****.  We can discuss this like adults, have major disagreements, but also hopefully find some areas of common ground to respect the privacy and autonomy of individuals.  But this thing where any time someone calls your beliefs and concepts into question, or suggests there are limits to what your self-conception can compel everyone else to do or say or allow in society they are "denying your existence" or sending people like you careening toward suicide needs to stop.  

I think you are overreacting to the "do I exist" comment.

Many people who are appalled by the very idea of transexuals don't believe they exist. They think of it as a passing social fad.  So it's understandable why someone who has gender dysphoria might use "do I exist?" as part of the response to the debate on how they should be regarded.

My understanding is that you are primarily concerned about those who condone or promote irreversible treatments for transgenders who may not qualify for such treatments medically or psychologically (long term), - especially for younger people (for obvious reasons).

That's a very reasonable concern and I agree with it. There have been documented cases of people "changing" their minds or experiencing regret. 

But, we should all be aware and accept that people who suffering from gender dysphoria need some sort of care or therapy, otherwise they wouldn't be killing themselves at the rate they do. (And as far as I am concerned, if they are not suffering, then live and let live, but I digress.)

Bottom line, it's a complicated issue and we are - including psychiatric professionals - are still learning about it.

Meanwhile, I submit that none of us are qualified to seriously debate the nature or extent of gender dysphoria or it's optimal treatments. 

So, unless you really think that gender dysphoria doesn't exist, such a question shouldn't bother you because it doesn't apply.  

But if you believe it doesn't exist, which logically implies they don't exist (as transgenders) what would you expect their reaction to be?

 

 

[homersapien 11,374]

On 5/6/2022 at 10:12 AM, TitanTiger said:

What concept would someone have of being a different gender if the concept of gender identity or gender as distinct from sex had never been taught to them?  This isn't some understanding human beings have been born with since the dawn of time here.

 

Actually I would argue that's exactly what it is.

One doesn't need to be "taught" to experience (in their brains) what their personal sexuality is or should be.  Most people are naturally cisgender.  Some people are born with gender dysphoria. Some born with hermaphroditism.  etc...

Transgenders, homosexuals, whatever, have existed as long as our species.  

One could argue it's all natural and thus, part of "God's plan". 

 

Edited May 7, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,374]

On 5/6/2022 at 12:48 PM, 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.

If someone desires others to simply respect the way God made them, why is there a conflict with your "conscience"?

What does your conscience tell you that is so different from what Jesus would tell you?

[homersapien 11,374]

On 5/6/2022 at 11:37 AM, 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.

Geez.  Toughen up Titan. 

Take responsibility of the logical implications your arguments might have on people who may not share your assumptions on nature and/or God.

[homersapien 11,374]

On 5/6/2022 at 12:34 PM, icanthearyou said:

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

Because we know they are wrong?  

[TexasTiger 12,876]

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Because we know they are wrong?  

It’s a strawman argument that no one has made on this thread. 

[homersapien 11,374]

On 5/6/2022 at 12:36 PM, 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.

From the perspective of people who are of different sexualities the issue is about compassion, empathy, acceptance and fair treatment (if not respect).

Using logic to argue against those goals is an admirable task, but is more likely to reveal a lack of real understanding of the subject.  

 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

23 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

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?

 

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.

I agree with you.  Which is why, I still cannot understand, or respect, your original argument for the professor, his "rights".

[homersapien 11,374]

22 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

As for the real topic of this discussion.  I have two main issues.  Both, in my opinion represent real existential threats to our society.

1. Extreme and accelerating income inequality, the narrowing of our economy

2. Global Warming

 

If we do not effectively address these two issues, the rest will not matter.  The "culture wars" merely distract us from taking care of what should be our priorities.

 

 

I would add nuclear war in the major category.  We could literally end our species in 30 minutes

On a lower lever, the trend to authoritarianism in the U.S. as well as other democracies world wide.

 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

I would add nuclear war in the major category.  We could literally end our species in 30 minutes

On a lower lever, the trend to authoritarianism in the U.S. as well as other democracies world wide.

 

Agreed.  However, I believe both are covered by number 1.  I believe history makes a strong case.