Where you are on the issues vs how you vote

[TexasTiger 12,888]

On 5/6/2022 at 2:02 PM, cbo said:

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. 

 

If someone argues a professor should be fired for not using a person’s preferred pronouns, isn’t it a valid question whether there are any limits or parameters that govern what constitutes a fireable offense? These are pronouns listed by different universities— there’s no real consistency. And what if a person develops their own preferred pronouns?

[homersapien 11,374]

45 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

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

First, it wasn't an argument at all.  It was simply a frivolous response to a simple (idealistic) question - an attempt at humor if you will. 

 

But if it were an actual argument,  the logic it go like this:

The first, most obvious support for such an argument is simply denying - or doubting -  the reality that gender dysphoria actually exists for some unfortunate individuals. (At least one point supporting this position was introduced in this thread.)

Lacking that, there is the general (reactionary) aversion and resistance to the perceived medcal or administrative overreaction to address the condition of gender dysphoria (which is largely fed by anecdotal evidence).  (Not saying it doesn't exist, but no one can objectively quantify it, if it's even possible.)  

Granted, many of these accommodation measures may be actions that are themselves over-reactions to a perceived need to treat gender dysphoria - a condition that may not really require or necessitate such treatments or changes. 

I personally don't think we need to make generalized or wide spread accommodations for transsexuals in our society - certainly not extensive changes.  I think any needed changes can be made by working with transsexuals directly on an individual, common sense basis. (Obviously, half of the responsibility for that resides with transsexuals themselves.)

What's really lacking is the general understanding that transgenders are not a threat to our children, or our society, now or in the future.  Thus the real danger to our society is generating fear, contempt or ridicule for such people as a class because of that lack of understanding. 

Because of their personal beliefs, many people are undoubtedly disgusted, frightened or threatened by the prospect of introducing a "new" sexuality to our lexicon.  That only accentuates the over-reaction to - and fear of - reasonable, accommodating changes to accept and treat them with compassion.

The inevitable result leads to seeing transexuals a threat, an enemy, or simply the "other" who are disrupting our (normal) society simply because they want to be treated normally when they aren't "normal" and we are.

The only problem with that is no one deserves the level of bullying and rejection their suicide rate suggests they are receiving.

 

I know that's kind of a rambling but it's my general perspective on this issue. So if you have any questions or need clarification, please ask before accusing me of making a "strawman" argument.

 

 

[TexasTiger 12,888]

12 minutes ago, homersapien said:

First, it wasn't an argument at all.  It was simply a frivolous response to a simple (idealistic) question - an attempt at humor if you will. 

 

But if it were an actual argument,  the logic it go like this:

The first, most obvious support for such an argument is simply denying - or doubting -  the reality that gender dysphoria actually exists for some unfortunate individuals. (At least one point supporting this position was introduced in this thread.)

Lacking that, there is the general (reactionary) aversion and resistance to the perceived medcal or administrative overreaction to address the condition of gender dysphoria (which is largely fed by anecdotal evidence).  (Not saying it doesn't exist, but no one can objectively quantify it, if it's even possible.)  

Granted, many of these accommodation measures may be actions that are themselves over-reactions to a perceived need to treat gender dysphoria - a condition that may not really require or necessitate such treatments or changes. 

I personally don't think we need to make generalized or wide spread accommodations for transsexuals in our society - certainly not extensive changes.  I think any needed changes can be made by working with transsexuals directly on an individual, common sense basis. (Obviously, half of the responsibility for that resides with transsexuals themselves.)

What's really lacking is the general understanding that transgenders are not a threat to our children, or our society, now or in the future.  Thus the real danger to our society is generating fear, contempt or ridicule for such people as a class because of that lack of understanding. 

Because of their personal beliefs, many people are undoubtedly disgusted, frightened or threatened by the prospect of introducing a "new" sexuality to our lexicon.  That only accentuates the over-reaction to - and fear of - reasonable, accommodating changes to accept and treat them with compassion.

The inevitable result leads to seeing transexuals a threat, an enemy, or simply the "other" who are disrupting our (normal) society simply because they want to be treated normally when they aren't "normal" and we are.

The only problem with that is no one deserves the level of bullying and rejection their suicide rate suggests they are receiving.

 

I know that's kind of a rambling but it's my general perspective on this issue. So if you have any questions or need clarification, please ask before accusing me of making a "strawman" argument.

 

 

I was actually referring to the statement you commented on: “Why should we not allow people to be who they want to be?” Simplistic mantras are easy. As you’ve pointed out, their are many complex and poorly understood issues related to this broader topic. It’s easy to shut those down with smugly delivered statements such as that.
 

The specialists in the WaPo article I posted provide some of the best insights I’ve seen out there and they are pro-transition— when done appropriately.

[homersapien 11,374]

On 5/7/2022 at 3:57 PM, TexasTiger said:

If someone argues a professor should be fired for not using a person’s preferred pronouns, isn’t it a valid question whether there are any limits or parameters that govern what constitutes a fireable offense? These are pronouns listed by different universities— there’s no real consistency. And what if a person develops their own preferred pronouns?

So, you are focused on a random tweet.

But I will respond anyway (even though it wasn't directed toward me).

Yes, it's a "valid question".  It's one for the university administrator who has hiring and firing issues as well as the university employees. 

But I must say this sounds like a pretty good example of the sort of over-reaction to anecdotal "evidence" in order to illustrate the threat of accommodating transexuals represents.

Edited May 9, 2022 by homersapien

[TexasTiger 12,888]

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

So, you are focused on a random tweet.

But I will respond anyway (even though it was directed toward me).

Yes, it's a "valid question".  It's one for the university administrator who has hiring and firing issues as well as the university employees. 

But I must say this sounds like a pretty good example of the sort of over-reaction to anecdotal "evidence" in order to illustrating the threat(?) of accommodating transexuals represents.

 

 

Which tweet are you referring to?

And it’s hardly an overreaction for anyone who’s actually dealt with HR issues— fireable offenses need to be well defined and defensible. Or you end up losing a lot of $400k+ Lawsuits.

You have a framework you filter any information or arguments through and try to make them fit on this topic. That’s common, but it makes it hard to really weigh anything new objectively.

[homersapien 11,374]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I was actually referring to the statement you commented on: “

Why should we not allow people to be who they want to be?” Simplistic mantras are easy. As you’ve pointed out, their are many complex and poorly understood issues related to this broader topic. These specialists in the WaPo article I posted provide some of the best insights I’ve seen out there and they are pro-transition— when done appropriately.

I understand why I made the post. (After all, I posted it. )

My only problem is you misinterpreted it and said I was making a "straw man argument", presumably directed to the thread in general. 

(You might have acknowledged that.)

As for the other stuff about the WaPo article, I read, understood, and agreed with it when first published. I have a subscription and read it first thing every morning.

 

[homersapien 11,374]

13 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Which tweet are you referring to?

And it’s hardly an overreaction for anyone who’s actually dealt with HR issues— fireable offenses need to be well defined and defensible. Or you end up losing a lot of $400k+ Lawsuits.

You didn't reference the anecdote about an opinion(?) from "somebody" that a professor "should be fired" for "not using the appropriate pronoun".

To me, that's the equivalent of a (random) "tweet" even if it originated somewhere else. 

If you have more information than that, I'd love to hear it. I can certainly accept someone having such an opinion, but as evidence that professors are in actual danger of being fired for such, not so much.

As you said, firing offenses need to be well-designed and defensible.

What was your point exactly?

[TexasTiger 12,888]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You didn't reference the anecdote about an opinion(?) from "somebody" that a professor "should be fired" for "not using the appropriate pronoun".

To me, that's the equivalent of a (random) "tweet" even if it originated somewhere else. 

If you have more information than that, I'd love to hear it. I can certainly accept someone having such an opinion, but as evidence that professors are in actual danger of being fired for such, not so much.

As you said, firing offenses need to be well-designed and defensible.

What was your point exactly?

You replied to my reply to @cbo about his reply to a post listing the range of pronouns at different universities. It wasn’t random. You jumped in it, brother. It’s all up thread. Scroll up.

[homersapien 11,374]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

If someone argues a professor should be fired for not using a person’s preferred pronouns, isn’t it a valid question whether there are any limits or parameters that govern what constitutes a fireable offense? These are pronouns listed by different universities— there’s no real consistency. And what if a person develops their own preferred pronouns?

Not to be overly contentious, but I can't help pointing out that without any evidence this has actually happened -  plus no one on this thread has made such an argument, this is a "strawman argument".

 

 

[TexasTiger 12,888]

On 5/6/2022 at 10:55 AM, TitanTiger said:

Recent in the history of human existence.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.
 

Okay, @homersapien . Now we’re done. 😉

[homersapien 11,374]

2 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

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

Well, if you want to get technical all of our major problems are synergistic.

Global warming will result in major famines and migrations directly threatening global security, thus increasing the chances of nuclear war.

Same for income equality on a global basis.  A huge and increasing proportion of the global population will starve  and some of these are currently residing in countries that possess nuclear weapons.

And keep in mind it's not the blast and irradiation (which will kill multi millions) the ultimate threat is the nuclear winter that follows. 

A decade or more of no farming anywhere on the globe will pretty much take care of the billions who survive the wars direct effects.)

We could actually prevent the worst effects of AGW but I don't think we will .

We could also prevent a nuclear war by banning nuclear weapons, which may sound far-fetched but is actually doable.  After all, it's not like anyone on earth can benefit from their use.  (Not that I think we'll do it though).

(Salty - you asked once how I could be depressed? Well, now you know. Guess I'll take your advice and drink a beer.)

I think we are pretty much ******.  The Anthropocene will end badly. Possibly before I die, and I am (only) 72.

[homersapien 11,374]

32 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You replied to my reply to @cbo about his reply to a post listing the range of pronouns at different universities. It wasn’t random. You jumped in it, brother. It’s all up thread. Scroll up.

Well, you'll just have to forgive me for not accepting the dire societal threat of professors being fired for not using transexual's preferred pronouns seriously.

This is a good example of hysterical over-reactions - by some on both sides (however both sides define themselves.)

 It's ludicrous.

 

 

[TexasTiger 12,888]

28 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, you'll just have to forgive me for not accepting the dire societal threat of professors being fired for not using transexual's preferred pronouns seriously.

This is a good example of hysterical over-reactions - by some on both sides (however both sides define themselves.)

 It's ludicrous.

 

 

Again, you either fail to grasp the point, or purposely ignore it because of a tribalistic response. I think this is an example of what @TitanTigerwas referencing about the challenge of having meaningful discourse on this topic.
 

The “threat” of firing them for merely not using pronouns— not taunting, teasing or purposefully misgendering a student— is that states blow lots of tax & tuition dollars in litigation and payouts that could go to educating and supporting students, including those most marginalized. One can argue other less tangible costs of penalizing people for politely not sharing in another’s view of reality. There are other contexts where this expectation may be more obviously troubling. For example, chastising a rape victim during a trial for not denying her experience of being raped by someone with a penis she recalls as being a man. 
https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2022/01/03/the-new-interim-version-of-the-equal-treatment-bench-book/

You can dismiss these things as minimal or used to shock, but they are real and, in the case of rape & assault victims at least in the UK (so far), these are real people, too, who’ve been brutally traumatized. And why think the ramifications of such decisions through? Because as this case cited shows, the consequences of drafting new rules that focus solely one group’s feelings while utterly ignoring another group that has always been subjected to abuse because of their biology can be devastating to them. I see my feminist friends complain that men don’t get it, particularly so-called progressive men, and they are right.

I’m decidedly not anti-trans. I’ll do my best to honor preferred pronouns. But I must say the inability of many on the left to see some of the more complex and nuanced issues involved in this topic reminds me of the mindset of the right on so many topics that has frustrated me for decades.

 

[homersapien 11,374]

On 5/7/2022 at 6:53 PM, TexasTiger said:

Again, you either fail to grasp the point, or purposely ignore it because of a tribalistic response. I think this is an example of what @TitanTigerwas referencing about the challenge of having meaningful discourse on this topic.
 

The “threat” of firing them for merely not using pronouns— not taunting, teasing or purposefully misgendering a student— is that states blow lots of tax & tuition dollars in litigation and payouts that could go to educating and supporting students, including those most marginalized. One can argue other less tangible costs of penalizing people for politely not sharing in another’s view of reality. There are other contexts where this expectation may be more obviously troubling. For example, chastising a rape victim during a trial for not denying her experience of being raped by someone with a penis she recalls as being a man. 
https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2022/01/03/the-new-interim-version-of-the-equal-treatment-bench-book/

You can dismiss these things as minimal or used to shock, but they are real and, in the case of rape & assault victims at least in the UK (so far), these are real people, too, who’ve been brutally traumatized. And why think the ramifications of such decisions through? Because as this case cited shows, the consequences of drafting new rules that focus solely one group’s feelings while utterly ignoring another group that has always been subjected to abuse because of their biology can be devastating to them. I see my feminist friends complain that men don’t get it, particularly so-called progressive men, and they are right.

I’m decidedly not anti-trans. I’ll do my best to honor preferred pronouns. But I must say the inability of many on the left to see some of the more complex and nuanced issues involved in this topic reminds me of the mindset of the right on so many topics that has frustrated me for decades.

 

Oh, I agree with you about the "evil" - or more accurately the wrong-headed stupidity - of firing a professor for such a thing. My argument is that it doesn't happen enough to be a general threat to our society. One anecdote does not constitute a general threat to society.

I recently watched an interview from the Hoover institute on Psychologist John Peterson - who resigned his position rather than submit a "diversity plan" with every grant proposal.  Now that sort of thing is undoubtedly more common than enforcing pronoun usage as a requirement for employment.

(And I tended to agree with Peterson btw.  Universities are capable of over-reacting like everyone else.)

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jordan-peterson-why-i-am-no-longer-a-tenured-professor-at-the-university-of-toronto

 

 

Edited May 9, 2022 by homersapien

[TitanTiger 20,482]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Oh, I agree with you about the "evil" - or more accurately the wrong-headed stupidity - of firing a professor for such a thing. My argument is that it doesn't happen enough to be a general threat to our society. One anecdote does not constitute a general threat to society.

If it happens once, it's a general threat to society because if it is allowed to go on without rebuttal and without the courts responding to curtail it,  eventually it is likely to become enshrined in law.
 

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I recently watched an interview from the Hoover institute on Psychologist John Peterson - who resigned his position rather than submit a "diversity plan" with every grant proposal.  Now that sort of thing is undoubtedly more common than enforcing pronoun usage as a requirement for employment.

(And I tended to agree with Peterson btw.  Universities are capable of over-reacting like everyone else.)

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jordan-peterson-why-i-am-no-longer-a-tenured-professor-at-the-university-of-toronto

Just because something is in the early stages of being enforced doesn't mean it's not a threat.  And one need not wait for it to become a tidal wave to combat it.

[homersapien 11,374]

On 5/7/2022 at 5:50 PM, TexasTiger said:

Okay, @homersapien . Now we’re done. 😉

Well, Titan's post proved my point.

The professor was re-instated with a $400k settlement.   That proves that firing professors for failing to use "proper" pronouns is hardly the societal problem it's been portrayed as, huh?

The university acted stupidly and paid the price. 

Edited May 9, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,374]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

If it happens once, it's a general threat to society because if it is allowed to go on without rebuttal and without the courts responding to curtail it,  eventually it is likely to become enshrined in law.
 

Just because something is in the early stages of being enforced doesn't mean it's not a threat.  And one need not wait for it to become a tidal wave to combat it.

Well, let's not imply it's a tidal wave for the purpose of representing the harm transexuals present.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, let's not imply it's a tidal wave for the purpose of representing the harm transexuals present.

I'm not sure I understand what this is saying, but the point is, when any employer - but ESPECIALLY when the federal, state or local government is the employer - we should be hyper-vigilant about policies that curtail a person's free speech or religious/conscience rights with threats of job loss as a consequence.  Such actions are not minor trivialities or annoyances we can just ignore simply because it's just starting to be something that's happening.

[TexasTiger 12,888]

54 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, let's not imply it's a tidal wave for the purpose of representing the harm transexuals present.

That’s a dishonest framing. I don’t think transexuals or transgendered people represent any inherent harm. The state firing or threatening to fire folks for reasons that aren’t well articulated or consistent with other existing rights is another matter.

[homersapien 11,374]

4 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

That’s a dishonest framing. I don’t think transexuals or transgendered people represent any inherent harm. The state firing or threatening to fire folks for reasons that aren’t well articulated or consistent with other existing rights is another matter.

I don't think it's dishonest.  Look at the amount of discussion on it, all for the purpose of pointing out we (society) is over-reacting to accomodating transexuals.

What was the purpose of publishing the lists of "approved" pronouns other than to illustrate that?

[TitanTiger 20,482]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Well, Titan's post proved my point.

The professor was re-instated with a $400k settlement.   That proves that firing professors for failing to use "proper" pronouns is hardly the societal problem it's been portrayed as, huh?

The university acted stupidly and paid the price. 

They settled because the US Court of Appeals smacked them down.  A lower court ruling went in their favor.  But the professor had to go through years of litigation and basically be in career limbo because of it. And the university has much deeper pockets than he does.  He couldn't afford to lose.  They could.  It's why when an organization tries to pull s*** like this, you sound the alarm and you fight it tooth and nail.

[TexasTiger 12,888]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

I don't think it's dishonest.  Look at the amount of discussion on it, all for the purpose of pointing out we (society) is over-reacting to accomodating transexuals.

What was the purpose of publishing the lists of "approved" pronouns other than to illustrate that?

I stated that purpose. Clearly. Repeated it for you. I’ll do it one more time, although I’m starting to think you have no interest to having an honest conversation on the topic. Your use of the word “harm” is particularly loaded in this case.

A poster appeared to support termination over someone not using a persons preferred pronouns. If one supports that, where’s that line? Pronouns have gotten much more complicated than merely using the ones typically used for male or female. Perhaps you think there is no line. If so, say it. One can take the position that everyone should accommodate every single preferred pronoun that has been or has yet to be created, and if not, face termination. Is that your position? Your position is either that or something short of that—ie, a limit.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

This line of argumentation where we minimize the harm or potential harm done when compelling certain actions or speech from religious people reminds me of The Law of Merited Impossibility:

A construct opinion makers use to frame the discourse about the clash between religious liberty and LBGTQ+ civil rights. It is best summed up by the phrase, “It’s a complete absurdity to believe that orthodox Christians will suffer a single thing from the expansion of LGBTQ rights, and boy, do they deserve what they’re going to get.”

It always seems to start with downplaying the concern, framing the concern as exaggerated hysteria, and so on, then the second the cultural tide shifts to put their side in the majority, we start demanding conformity in speech and conduct.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

This isn't about rights, speech or religious, this is about simply being uncivil.

It's purely political nonsense.  Nothing was proven other than, being a jerk causes everyone pain.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

They settled because the US Court of Appeals smacked them down.  A lower court ruling went in their favor.  But the professor had to go through years of litigation and basically be in career limbo because of it. And the university has much deeper pockets than he does.  He couldn't afford to lose.  They could.  It's why when an organization tries to pull s*** like this, you sound the alarm and you fight it tooth and nail.

I don't believe this is true.  The professor had outside backing from ADF.  And, I doubt the school was attempting to pull any stuff, merely insisting that it's employees show a minimum level of respect for it's customers.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian law firm based in Arizona, has a decadeslong track record of litigating against LGBTQ rights, and has been labeled an anti-LGBTQ “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a designation ADF disputes. According to its website, the group aims to secure “generational wins” to ensure that “the law respects God’s creative order for marriage, the family, and human sexuality.”

 

From Wiki:

ADF has lobbied, brought lawsuits, and provided legal support to groups to prevent decriminalization of homosexuality in the United States and worldwide; oppose same-sex marriage; prevent laws from being passed to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity; force transgender people to be sterilized in order to change their identification documents; and restrict transgender people's rights to use bathrooms and play sports.^[18][19][17] The SPLC described the ADF as "one of the most influential groups informing the Trump administration's attack on LGBTQ rights."^[17]

ADF is one of the most organized and influential Christian legal interest groups in the country^[9] based on its budget, caseload, large network of allied attorneys, and connections to political figures such as Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett^[10] and high-ranking Republicans including former Vice President Mike Pence,^[11] former attorneys general William Barr^[12] and Jeff Sessions,^[13][14] and US Senator from Missouri Josh Hawley.^[15] ADF attorneys have argued a number of cases before the Supreme Court, including cases about religion in public schools, the Affordable Care Act, business owners' right to exclude LGBTQ customers, same-sex marriage, and prayers before town meetings.^[16]

While the ADF states that it works to promote freedom of religion and that it is "not a political organization,"^[37] it is explicitly Christian; employees of ADF must profess "adherence to the inspired, infallible, inerrant, and authoritative Word of God in Scripture."^[38] Moreover, its stated mission is to "keep the door open for the gospel" by seeking to bring United States law in line with their Christian beliefs.

 

These people are just like Jerry Falwell.  They aren't as religious as they are political.

This may be considered "Christian" but,,, it certainly doesn't reflect Jesus.  Jesus is about love, charity, forgiveness, mercy.