|
On February 03 2019 09:40 xDaunt wrote:Here's an article from Andrew Sullivan discussing the ideological bankruptcy of the trans movement and its attempts to abolish the concept of biological sex/gender. The part of his article that I find particularly amusing is the end where he attempts to reconcile the positions of the trans movement and the homosexual movement: Show nested quote +And so it is not transphobic for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man. It is close to definitional. The core of the traditional gay claim is that there is indeed a very big difference between male and female, that the difference matters, and without it, homosexuality would make no sense at all. If it’s all a free and fluid nonbinary choice of gender and sexual partners, a choice to have sex exclusively with the same sex would not be an expression of our identity, but a form of sexist bigotry, would it not?
There is a solution to this knotted paradox. We can treat different things differently. We can accept that the homosexual experience and the transgender experience are very different, and cannot be easily conflated. We can center the debate not on “gender identity” which insists on no difference between the trans and the cis, the male and the female, and instead focus on the very real experience of “gender dysphoria,” which deserves treatment and support and total acceptance for the individuals involved. We can respect the right of certain people to be identified as the gender they believe they are, and to remove any discrimination against them, while also seeing biology as a difference that requires a distinction. We can believe in nature and the immense complexity of the human mind and sexuality. We can see a way to accommodate everyone to the extent possible, without denying biological reality. Equality need not mean sameness.
We just have to abandon the faddish notion that sex is socially constructed or entirely in the brain, that sex and gender are unconnected, that biology is irrelevant, and that there is something called an LGBTQ identity, when, in fact, the acronym contains extreme internal tensions and even outright contradictions. And we can allow this conversation to unfold civilly, with nuance and care, in order to maximize human dignity without erasing human difference. That requires a certain amount of courage, and one thing I can safely say about that Heritage panel is that the women who spoke had plenty of it. I've read his "solution" about ten times, and I still don't have any idea why he thinks it is a solution. When you get right down to it, he's pretty much telling everyone who thinks that sex is a social construct to fuck off. While I agree with this sentiment, I wouldn't dare call it a "solution." Regardless, the real lesson here is that any kind of world view based in subjectivism sucks and is only going to lead to problems.
It’s the gender identity worldview that is a problem. It goes too far in denying biology. It goes too far in transitioning young children and teenagers.
I think any “solution” involves years-long cultural change in what it means to be transphobic or homophobic. Straight or gay people who won’t date trans people aren’t transphobic. It isn’t a defect of their character or other moral shortcoming.
|
On February 03 2019 10:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2019 10:19 IgnE wrote:On February 03 2019 09:40 xDaunt wrote:Here's an article from Andrew Sullivan discussing the ideological bankruptcy of the trans movement and its attempts to abolish the concept of biological sex/gender. The part of his article that I find particularly amusing is the end where he attempts to reconcile the positions of the trans movement and the homosexual movement: And so it is not transphobic for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man. It is close to definitional. The core of the traditional gay claim is that there is indeed a very big difference between male and female, that the difference matters, and without it, homosexuality would make no sense at all. If it’s all a free and fluid nonbinary choice of gender and sexual partners, a choice to have sex exclusively with the same sex would not be an expression of our identity, but a form of sexist bigotry, would it not?
There is a solution to this knotted paradox. We can treat different things differently. We can accept that the homosexual experience and the transgender experience are very different, and cannot be easily conflated. We can center the debate not on “gender identity” which insists on no difference between the trans and the cis, the male and the female, and instead focus on the very real experience of “gender dysphoria,” which deserves treatment and support and total acceptance for the individuals involved. We can respect the right of certain people to be identified as the gender they believe they are, and to remove any discrimination against them, while also seeing biology as a difference that requires a distinction. We can believe in nature and the immense complexity of the human mind and sexuality. We can see a way to accommodate everyone to the extent possible, without denying biological reality. Equality need not mean sameness.
We just have to abandon the faddish notion that sex is socially constructed or entirely in the brain, that sex and gender are unconnected, that biology is irrelevant, and that there is something called an LGBTQ identity, when, in fact, the acronym contains extreme internal tensions and even outright contradictions. And we can allow this conversation to unfold civilly, with nuance and care, in order to maximize human dignity without erasing human difference. That requires a certain amount of courage, and one thing I can safely say about that Heritage panel is that the women who spoke had plenty of it. I've read his "solution" about ten times, and I still don't have any idea why he thinks it is a solution. When you get right down to it, he's pretty much telling everyone who thinks that sex is a social construct to fuck off. While I agree with this sentiment, I wouldn't dare call it a "solution." Regardless, the real lesson here is that any kind of world view based in subjectivism sucks and is only going to lead to problems. What's your world view based in? Objectivism? Yes, but not in the Randian sense. The better way to put it is that I'm suspicious of any philosophy or worldview that strays from the concept of the truth being objective.
Is the truth knowable?
|
On February 03 2019 10:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2019 09:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2019 09:40 xDaunt wrote:Here's an article from Andrew Sullivan discussing the ideological bankruptcy of the trans movement and its attempts to abolish the concept of biological sex/gender. The part of his article that I find particularly amusing is the end where he attempts to reconcile the positions of the trans movement and the homosexual movement: And so it is not transphobic for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man. It is close to definitional. The core of the traditional gay claim is that there is indeed a very big difference between male and female, that the difference matters, and without it, homosexuality would make no sense at all. If it’s all a free and fluid nonbinary choice of gender and sexual partners, a choice to have sex exclusively with the same sex would not be an expression of our identity, but a form of sexist bigotry, would it not?
There is a solution to this knotted paradox. We can treat different things differently. We can accept that the homosexual experience and the transgender experience are very different, and cannot be easily conflated. We can center the debate not on “gender identity” which insists on no difference between the trans and the cis, the male and the female, and instead focus on the very real experience of “gender dysphoria,” which deserves treatment and support and total acceptance for the individuals involved. We can respect the right of certain people to be identified as the gender they believe they are, and to remove any discrimination against them, while also seeing biology as a difference that requires a distinction. We can believe in nature and the immense complexity of the human mind and sexuality. We can see a way to accommodate everyone to the extent possible, without denying biological reality. Equality need not mean sameness.
We just have to abandon the faddish notion that sex is socially constructed or entirely in the brain, that sex and gender are unconnected, that biology is irrelevant, and that there is something called an LGBTQ identity, when, in fact, the acronym contains extreme internal tensions and even outright contradictions. And we can allow this conversation to unfold civilly, with nuance and care, in order to maximize human dignity without erasing human difference. That requires a certain amount of courage, and one thing I can safely say about that Heritage panel is that the women who spoke had plenty of it. I've read his "solution" about ten times, and I still don't have any idea why he thinks it is a solution. When you get right down to it, he's pretty much telling everyone who thinks that sex is a social construct to fuck off. While I agree with this sentiment, I wouldn't dare call it a "solution." Regardless, the real lesson here is that any kind of world view based in subjectivism sucks and is only going to lead to problems. There's a difference between "ideologically bankrupt" and still searching for ways to communicate between the marginalized and oppressors as well as between marginalized groups in order to remove the shitty hegemonic conception of sex and gender we have and replace it with something functional and accurate. It's good you're trying to understand and that you're learning some of the lingo but it appears there's lots of learning to happen all around. With where society as partisan as it is I don't have a lot of hope we're going to get anywhere positive any time soon. The problem is that there's no where worthwhile to go as long as the trans crowd continues their insane quest to normalize themselves. There's simply no rational way to categorize themselves as "normal," whether you look at the issue statistically, biologically, or philosophically. They should simply embrace the Q in LGBTQ and limit their advocacy to tolerance. Imposing their worldview upon everyone else and projecting their abnormality upon the population at large is simply misguided and counterproductive.
I disagree with pretty much everything you said and think it's related to your positions on other marginalized communities, like ones outside of our border.
I'll just say I'm not confident in your interpretation of gender or sex either or that the people you're describing as "normal" are displaying a desirable reaction to the challenging of hegemony in this area.
|
On February 03 2019 10:30 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2019 10:25 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2019 10:19 IgnE wrote:On February 03 2019 09:40 xDaunt wrote:Here's an article from Andrew Sullivan discussing the ideological bankruptcy of the trans movement and its attempts to abolish the concept of biological sex/gender. The part of his article that I find particularly amusing is the end where he attempts to reconcile the positions of the trans movement and the homosexual movement: And so it is not transphobic for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man. It is close to definitional. The core of the traditional gay claim is that there is indeed a very big difference between male and female, that the difference matters, and without it, homosexuality would make no sense at all. If it’s all a free and fluid nonbinary choice of gender and sexual partners, a choice to have sex exclusively with the same sex would not be an expression of our identity, but a form of sexist bigotry, would it not?
There is a solution to this knotted paradox. We can treat different things differently. We can accept that the homosexual experience and the transgender experience are very different, and cannot be easily conflated. We can center the debate not on “gender identity” which insists on no difference between the trans and the cis, the male and the female, and instead focus on the very real experience of “gender dysphoria,” which deserves treatment and support and total acceptance for the individuals involved. We can respect the right of certain people to be identified as the gender they believe they are, and to remove any discrimination against them, while also seeing biology as a difference that requires a distinction. We can believe in nature and the immense complexity of the human mind and sexuality. We can see a way to accommodate everyone to the extent possible, without denying biological reality. Equality need not mean sameness.
We just have to abandon the faddish notion that sex is socially constructed or entirely in the brain, that sex and gender are unconnected, that biology is irrelevant, and that there is something called an LGBTQ identity, when, in fact, the acronym contains extreme internal tensions and even outright contradictions. And we can allow this conversation to unfold civilly, with nuance and care, in order to maximize human dignity without erasing human difference. That requires a certain amount of courage, and one thing I can safely say about that Heritage panel is that the women who spoke had plenty of it. I've read his "solution" about ten times, and I still don't have any idea why he thinks it is a solution. When you get right down to it, he's pretty much telling everyone who thinks that sex is a social construct to fuck off. While I agree with this sentiment, I wouldn't dare call it a "solution." Regardless, the real lesson here is that any kind of world view based in subjectivism sucks and is only going to lead to problems. What's your world view based in? Objectivism? Yes, but not in the Randian sense. The better way to put it is that I'm suspicious of any philosophy or worldview that strays from the concept of the truth being objective. Is the truth knowable?
At least some of it is. All of it? Maybe not.
|
On February 03 2019 10:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2019 10:23 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2019 09:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2019 09:40 xDaunt wrote:Here's an article from Andrew Sullivan discussing the ideological bankruptcy of the trans movement and its attempts to abolish the concept of biological sex/gender. The part of his article that I find particularly amusing is the end where he attempts to reconcile the positions of the trans movement and the homosexual movement: And so it is not transphobic for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man. It is close to definitional. The core of the traditional gay claim is that there is indeed a very big difference between male and female, that the difference matters, and without it, homosexuality would make no sense at all. If it’s all a free and fluid nonbinary choice of gender and sexual partners, a choice to have sex exclusively with the same sex would not be an expression of our identity, but a form of sexist bigotry, would it not?
There is a solution to this knotted paradox. We can treat different things differently. We can accept that the homosexual experience and the transgender experience are very different, and cannot be easily conflated. We can center the debate not on “gender identity” which insists on no difference between the trans and the cis, the male and the female, and instead focus on the very real experience of “gender dysphoria,” which deserves treatment and support and total acceptance for the individuals involved. We can respect the right of certain people to be identified as the gender they believe they are, and to remove any discrimination against them, while also seeing biology as a difference that requires a distinction. We can believe in nature and the immense complexity of the human mind and sexuality. We can see a way to accommodate everyone to the extent possible, without denying biological reality. Equality need not mean sameness.
We just have to abandon the faddish notion that sex is socially constructed or entirely in the brain, that sex and gender are unconnected, that biology is irrelevant, and that there is something called an LGBTQ identity, when, in fact, the acronym contains extreme internal tensions and even outright contradictions. And we can allow this conversation to unfold civilly, with nuance and care, in order to maximize human dignity without erasing human difference. That requires a certain amount of courage, and one thing I can safely say about that Heritage panel is that the women who spoke had plenty of it. I've read his "solution" about ten times, and I still don't have any idea why he thinks it is a solution. When you get right down to it, he's pretty much telling everyone who thinks that sex is a social construct to fuck off. While I agree with this sentiment, I wouldn't dare call it a "solution." Regardless, the real lesson here is that any kind of world view based in subjectivism sucks and is only going to lead to problems. There's a difference between "ideologically bankrupt" and still searching for ways to communicate between the marginalized and oppressors as well as between marginalized groups in order to remove the shitty hegemonic conception of sex and gender we have and replace it with something functional and accurate. It's good you're trying to understand and that you're learning some of the lingo but it appears there's lots of learning to happen all around. With where society as partisan as it is I don't have a lot of hope we're going to get anywhere positive any time soon. The problem is that there's no where worthwhile to go as long as the trans crowd continues their insane quest to normalize themselves. There's simply no rational way to categorize themselves as "normal," whether you look at the issue statistically, biologically, or philosophically. They should simply embrace the Q in LGBTQ and limit their advocacy to tolerance. Imposing their worldview upon everyone else and projecting their abnormality upon the population at large is simply misguided and counterproductive. I disagree with pretty much everything you said and think it's related to your positions on other marginalized communities, like ones outside of our border. I'll just say I'm not confident in your interpretation of gender or sex either or that the people you're describing as "normal" are displaying a desirable reaction to the challenging of hegemony in this area.
Of course you disagree with me. You only view things through the lens of oppressor/oppressee dichotomies, whereas I really don't give two shits about them and consider them fairly useless. Oppressor/oppressee dichotomies merely serve political ends. They are otherwise irrelevant as expressions of reality.
|
On February 03 2019 10:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2019 10:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2019 10:23 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2019 09:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2019 09:40 xDaunt wrote:Here's an article from Andrew Sullivan discussing the ideological bankruptcy of the trans movement and its attempts to abolish the concept of biological sex/gender. The part of his article that I find particularly amusing is the end where he attempts to reconcile the positions of the trans movement and the homosexual movement: And so it is not transphobic for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man. It is close to definitional. The core of the traditional gay claim is that there is indeed a very big difference between male and female, that the difference matters, and without it, homosexuality would make no sense at all. If it’s all a free and fluid nonbinary choice of gender and sexual partners, a choice to have sex exclusively with the same sex would not be an expression of our identity, but a form of sexist bigotry, would it not?
There is a solution to this knotted paradox. We can treat different things differently. We can accept that the homosexual experience and the transgender experience are very different, and cannot be easily conflated. We can center the debate not on “gender identity” which insists on no difference between the trans and the cis, the male and the female, and instead focus on the very real experience of “gender dysphoria,” which deserves treatment and support and total acceptance for the individuals involved. We can respect the right of certain people to be identified as the gender they believe they are, and to remove any discrimination against them, while also seeing biology as a difference that requires a distinction. We can believe in nature and the immense complexity of the human mind and sexuality. We can see a way to accommodate everyone to the extent possible, without denying biological reality. Equality need not mean sameness.
We just have to abandon the faddish notion that sex is socially constructed or entirely in the brain, that sex and gender are unconnected, that biology is irrelevant, and that there is something called an LGBTQ identity, when, in fact, the acronym contains extreme internal tensions and even outright contradictions. And we can allow this conversation to unfold civilly, with nuance and care, in order to maximize human dignity without erasing human difference. That requires a certain amount of courage, and one thing I can safely say about that Heritage panel is that the women who spoke had plenty of it. I've read his "solution" about ten times, and I still don't have any idea why he thinks it is a solution. When you get right down to it, he's pretty much telling everyone who thinks that sex is a social construct to fuck off. While I agree with this sentiment, I wouldn't dare call it a "solution." Regardless, the real lesson here is that any kind of world view based in subjectivism sucks and is only going to lead to problems. There's a difference between "ideologically bankrupt" and still searching for ways to communicate between the marginalized and oppressors as well as between marginalized groups in order to remove the shitty hegemonic conception of sex and gender we have and replace it with something functional and accurate. It's good you're trying to understand and that you're learning some of the lingo but it appears there's lots of learning to happen all around. With where society as partisan as it is I don't have a lot of hope we're going to get anywhere positive any time soon. The problem is that there's no where worthwhile to go as long as the trans crowd continues their insane quest to normalize themselves. There's simply no rational way to categorize themselves as "normal," whether you look at the issue statistically, biologically, or philosophically. They should simply embrace the Q in LGBTQ and limit their advocacy to tolerance. Imposing their worldview upon everyone else and projecting their abnormality upon the population at large is simply misguided and counterproductive. I disagree with pretty much everything you said and think it's related to your positions on other marginalized communities, like ones outside of our border. I'll just say I'm not confident in your interpretation of gender or sex either or that the people you're describing as "normal" are displaying a desirable reaction to the challenging of hegemony in this area. Of course you disagree with me. You only view things through the lens of oppressor/oppressee dichotomies, whereas I really don't give two shits about them and consider them fairly useless. Oppressor/oppressee dichotomies merely serve political ends. They are otherwise irrelevant as expressions of reality.
Hopefully IgnE will probe a little deeper on your views but I find oppressor-oppressed (it's not a dichotomy) dynamics to be much more practical than any of the other political philosophies or world views available but I haven't studied Anarchism much so I can't say for sure. It's not so much that it's "merely to serve political ends" for myself but I would certainly agree with you that what you describe is at the core of the Democratic party and it's quite frustrating because of precisely this interaction despite you knowing your argument is based off of a description of a party you're well aware I don't see as much of an ally if at all.
|
|
|
On February 03 2019 10:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2019 10:30 IgnE wrote:On February 03 2019 10:25 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2019 10:19 IgnE wrote:On February 03 2019 09:40 xDaunt wrote:Here's an article from Andrew Sullivan discussing the ideological bankruptcy of the trans movement and its attempts to abolish the concept of biological sex/gender. The part of his article that I find particularly amusing is the end where he attempts to reconcile the positions of the trans movement and the homosexual movement: And so it is not transphobic for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man. It is close to definitional. The core of the traditional gay claim is that there is indeed a very big difference between male and female, that the difference matters, and without it, homosexuality would make no sense at all. If it’s all a free and fluid nonbinary choice of gender and sexual partners, a choice to have sex exclusively with the same sex would not be an expression of our identity, but a form of sexist bigotry, would it not?
There is a solution to this knotted paradox. We can treat different things differently. We can accept that the homosexual experience and the transgender experience are very different, and cannot be easily conflated. We can center the debate not on “gender identity” which insists on no difference between the trans and the cis, the male and the female, and instead focus on the very real experience of “gender dysphoria,” which deserves treatment and support and total acceptance for the individuals involved. We can respect the right of certain people to be identified as the gender they believe they are, and to remove any discrimination against them, while also seeing biology as a difference that requires a distinction. We can believe in nature and the immense complexity of the human mind and sexuality. We can see a way to accommodate everyone to the extent possible, without denying biological reality. Equality need not mean sameness.
We just have to abandon the faddish notion that sex is socially constructed or entirely in the brain, that sex and gender are unconnected, that biology is irrelevant, and that there is something called an LGBTQ identity, when, in fact, the acronym contains extreme internal tensions and even outright contradictions. And we can allow this conversation to unfold civilly, with nuance and care, in order to maximize human dignity without erasing human difference. That requires a certain amount of courage, and one thing I can safely say about that Heritage panel is that the women who spoke had plenty of it. I've read his "solution" about ten times, and I still don't have any idea why he thinks it is a solution. When you get right down to it, he's pretty much telling everyone who thinks that sex is a social construct to fuck off. While I agree with this sentiment, I wouldn't dare call it a "solution." Regardless, the real lesson here is that any kind of world view based in subjectivism sucks and is only going to lead to problems. What's your world view based in? Objectivism? Yes, but not in the Randian sense. The better way to put it is that I'm suspicious of any philosophy or worldview that strays from the concept of the truth being objective. Is the truth knowable? At least some of it is. All of it? Maybe not.
What kinds of things are knowable?
|
On February 03 2019 11:09 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2019 10:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2019 10:19 JimmiC wrote:
I thought it couldn't hurt to give you a timeout since what you were posting certainly wasn't helping. Then I didn't think to much more about it after.
This is your blog so I'm happy to discuss this here, but if you want your blog to be about politics I'm also happy to take it to PM up to you! If we could go back to you not posting here and handling this in PM that would be ideal. Sadly that ship has sailed. I let you know the consequences of you doing what you did, you continued to do it so here we are. And I have not broken any site rules and you can't simply ban me because I don't agree with your conspiracy theories. Or presumptions or whatever you want to call them. So when I feel the urge to post here now I will.
If I were to ban you it wouldn't be for disagreeing with me. Evidenced by us all witnessing xDaunt make an argument I think he genuinely believes and I find morally bankrupt whereas I just think your position on Venezuela is poorly thought out and with the best intentions in mind helping to lead to a poor and predictable outcome.
For context xDaunt's position on Venezuela (and elsewhere) is basically "fuck em if it's good for the US"
Your posting here I feel is emblematic of the issues I believe need to be addressed wherever most fitting.
|
On February 03 2019 11:09 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2019 10:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2019 10:19 JimmiC wrote:
I thought it couldn't hurt to give you a timeout since what you were posting certainly wasn't helping. Then I didn't think to much more about it after.
This is your blog so I'm happy to discuss this here, but if you want your blog to be about politics I'm also happy to take it to PM up to you! If we could go back to you not posting here and handling this in PM that would be ideal. Sadly that ship has sailed. I let you know the consequences of you doing what you did, you continued to do it so here we are. And I have not broken any site rules and you can't simply ban me because I don't agree with your conspiracy theories. Or presumptions or whatever you want to call them. So when I feel the urge to post here now I will.
Not gonna lie, this does sound like baiting encouraged by apparent immunity from being punished for it. GH has his quirks that definitely make it understandable if you don't want him to be part of your discussion, that much is true. But I see from the other side a clear case of attempting to start shit. Definitely feels like a bait, from the first post to the entire follow-up that is just the meta-discussion with GH and the "I can do whatever I want" attitude.
Quit it.
|
|
|
On February 03 2019 11:56 JimmiC wrote:Thanks tips. I am just answering his questions as honestly as I can. If you want to go read what I put up with before acting on anythign go ahead. I didn't start this discussion I just posted here, but then he kept asking so I answered. Show nested quote +On February 03 2019 11:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2019 11:09 JimmiC wrote:On February 03 2019 10:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2019 10:19 JimmiC wrote:
I thought it couldn't hurt to give you a timeout since what you were posting certainly wasn't helping. Then I didn't think to much more about it after.
This is your blog so I'm happy to discuss this here, but if you want your blog to be about politics I'm also happy to take it to PM up to you! If we could go back to you not posting here and handling this in PM that would be ideal. Sadly that ship has sailed. I let you know the consequences of you doing what you did, you continued to do it so here we are. And I have not broken any site rules and you can't simply ban me because I don't agree with your conspiracy theories. Or presumptions or whatever you want to call them. So when I feel the urge to post here now I will. If I were to ban you it wouldn't be for disagreeing with me. Evidenced by us all witnessing xDaunt make an argument I think he genuinely believes and I find morally bankrupt whereas I just think your position on Venezuela is poorly thought out and with the best intentions in mind helping to lead to a poor and predictable outcome. For context xDaunt's position on Venezuela (and elsewhere) is basically "fuck em if it's good for the US" Your posting here I feel is emblematic of the issues I believe need to be addressed wherever most fitting. I know, you banned me originally over some issue with the mods to start a fight about something or something I'm not even sure. I know you feel that way, the constant repeating with various forms of insults is one of the things that caused me to ask you to stop.
I'll leave it up to the rest of the thread to determine what's happening here. If they want you to continue, I won't stop you, but if they do, I will.
|
On February 03 2019 11:16 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2019 10:36 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2019 10:30 IgnE wrote:On February 03 2019 10:25 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2019 10:19 IgnE wrote:On February 03 2019 09:40 xDaunt wrote:Here's an article from Andrew Sullivan discussing the ideological bankruptcy of the trans movement and its attempts to abolish the concept of biological sex/gender. The part of his article that I find particularly amusing is the end where he attempts to reconcile the positions of the trans movement and the homosexual movement: And so it is not transphobic for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man. It is close to definitional. The core of the traditional gay claim is that there is indeed a very big difference between male and female, that the difference matters, and without it, homosexuality would make no sense at all. If it’s all a free and fluid nonbinary choice of gender and sexual partners, a choice to have sex exclusively with the same sex would not be an expression of our identity, but a form of sexist bigotry, would it not?
There is a solution to this knotted paradox. We can treat different things differently. We can accept that the homosexual experience and the transgender experience are very different, and cannot be easily conflated. We can center the debate not on “gender identity” which insists on no difference between the trans and the cis, the male and the female, and instead focus on the very real experience of “gender dysphoria,” which deserves treatment and support and total acceptance for the individuals involved. We can respect the right of certain people to be identified as the gender they believe they are, and to remove any discrimination against them, while also seeing biology as a difference that requires a distinction. We can believe in nature and the immense complexity of the human mind and sexuality. We can see a way to accommodate everyone to the extent possible, without denying biological reality. Equality need not mean sameness.
We just have to abandon the faddish notion that sex is socially constructed or entirely in the brain, that sex and gender are unconnected, that biology is irrelevant, and that there is something called an LGBTQ identity, when, in fact, the acronym contains extreme internal tensions and even outright contradictions. And we can allow this conversation to unfold civilly, with nuance and care, in order to maximize human dignity without erasing human difference. That requires a certain amount of courage, and one thing I can safely say about that Heritage panel is that the women who spoke had plenty of it. I've read his "solution" about ten times, and I still don't have any idea why he thinks it is a solution. When you get right down to it, he's pretty much telling everyone who thinks that sex is a social construct to fuck off. While I agree with this sentiment, I wouldn't dare call it a "solution." Regardless, the real lesson here is that any kind of world view based in subjectivism sucks and is only going to lead to problems. What's your world view based in? Objectivism? Yes, but not in the Randian sense. The better way to put it is that I'm suspicious of any philosophy or worldview that strays from the concept of the truth being objective. Is the truth knowable? At least some of it is. All of it? Maybe not. What kinds of things are knowable?
A lot of things. The mathematical and the empirical are just a couple examples.
|
On February 03 2019 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2019 10:44 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2019 10:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2019 10:23 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2019 09:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2019 09:40 xDaunt wrote:Here's an article from Andrew Sullivan discussing the ideological bankruptcy of the trans movement and its attempts to abolish the concept of biological sex/gender. The part of his article that I find particularly amusing is the end where he attempts to reconcile the positions of the trans movement and the homosexual movement: And so it is not transphobic for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man. It is close to definitional. The core of the traditional gay claim is that there is indeed a very big difference between male and female, that the difference matters, and without it, homosexuality would make no sense at all. If it’s all a free and fluid nonbinary choice of gender and sexual partners, a choice to have sex exclusively with the same sex would not be an expression of our identity, but a form of sexist bigotry, would it not?
There is a solution to this knotted paradox. We can treat different things differently. We can accept that the homosexual experience and the transgender experience are very different, and cannot be easily conflated. We can center the debate not on “gender identity” which insists on no difference between the trans and the cis, the male and the female, and instead focus on the very real experience of “gender dysphoria,” which deserves treatment and support and total acceptance for the individuals involved. We can respect the right of certain people to be identified as the gender they believe they are, and to remove any discrimination against them, while also seeing biology as a difference that requires a distinction. We can believe in nature and the immense complexity of the human mind and sexuality. We can see a way to accommodate everyone to the extent possible, without denying biological reality. Equality need not mean sameness.
We just have to abandon the faddish notion that sex is socially constructed or entirely in the brain, that sex and gender are unconnected, that biology is irrelevant, and that there is something called an LGBTQ identity, when, in fact, the acronym contains extreme internal tensions and even outright contradictions. And we can allow this conversation to unfold civilly, with nuance and care, in order to maximize human dignity without erasing human difference. That requires a certain amount of courage, and one thing I can safely say about that Heritage panel is that the women who spoke had plenty of it. I've read his "solution" about ten times, and I still don't have any idea why he thinks it is a solution. When you get right down to it, he's pretty much telling everyone who thinks that sex is a social construct to fuck off. While I agree with this sentiment, I wouldn't dare call it a "solution." Regardless, the real lesson here is that any kind of world view based in subjectivism sucks and is only going to lead to problems. There's a difference between "ideologically bankrupt" and still searching for ways to communicate between the marginalized and oppressors as well as between marginalized groups in order to remove the shitty hegemonic conception of sex and gender we have and replace it with something functional and accurate. It's good you're trying to understand and that you're learning some of the lingo but it appears there's lots of learning to happen all around. With where society as partisan as it is I don't have a lot of hope we're going to get anywhere positive any time soon. The problem is that there's no where worthwhile to go as long as the trans crowd continues their insane quest to normalize themselves. There's simply no rational way to categorize themselves as "normal," whether you look at the issue statistically, biologically, or philosophically. They should simply embrace the Q in LGBTQ and limit their advocacy to tolerance. Imposing their worldview upon everyone else and projecting their abnormality upon the population at large is simply misguided and counterproductive. I disagree with pretty much everything you said and think it's related to your positions on other marginalized communities, like ones outside of our border. I'll just say I'm not confident in your interpretation of gender or sex either or that the people you're describing as "normal" are displaying a desirable reaction to the challenging of hegemony in this area. Of course you disagree with me. You only view things through the lens of oppressor/oppressee dichotomies, whereas I really don't give two shits about them and consider them fairly useless. Oppressor/oppressee dichotomies merely serve political ends. They are otherwise irrelevant as expressions of reality. Hopefully IgnE will probe a little deeper on your views but I find oppressor-oppressed (it's not a dichotomy) dynamics to be much more practical than any of the other political philosophies or world views available but I haven't studied Anarchism much so I can't say for sure. It's not so much that it's "merely to serve political ends" for myself but I would certainly agree with you that what you describe is at the core of the Democratic party and it's quite frustrating because of precisely this interaction despite you knowing your argument is based off of a description of a party you're well aware I don't see as much of an ally if at all.
There's nothing practical about oppressor-oppressed dynamics beyond using it as a political lever. This should be patently obvious from a cursory review of the study's Marxist roots. The practical limitations of oppressor-oppressed dynamics are a direct function of how the framework intentionally distorts reality so as to polarize the debate.
|
On February 03 2019 12:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2019 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2019 10:44 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2019 10:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2019 10:23 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2019 09:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2019 09:40 xDaunt wrote:Here's an article from Andrew Sullivan discussing the ideological bankruptcy of the trans movement and its attempts to abolish the concept of biological sex/gender. The part of his article that I find particularly amusing is the end where he attempts to reconcile the positions of the trans movement and the homosexual movement: And so it is not transphobic for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man. It is close to definitional. The core of the traditional gay claim is that there is indeed a very big difference between male and female, that the difference matters, and without it, homosexuality would make no sense at all. If it’s all a free and fluid nonbinary choice of gender and sexual partners, a choice to have sex exclusively with the same sex would not be an expression of our identity, but a form of sexist bigotry, would it not?
There is a solution to this knotted paradox. We can treat different things differently. We can accept that the homosexual experience and the transgender experience are very different, and cannot be easily conflated. We can center the debate not on “gender identity” which insists on no difference between the trans and the cis, the male and the female, and instead focus on the very real experience of “gender dysphoria,” which deserves treatment and support and total acceptance for the individuals involved. We can respect the right of certain people to be identified as the gender they believe they are, and to remove any discrimination against them, while also seeing biology as a difference that requires a distinction. We can believe in nature and the immense complexity of the human mind and sexuality. We can see a way to accommodate everyone to the extent possible, without denying biological reality. Equality need not mean sameness.
We just have to abandon the faddish notion that sex is socially constructed or entirely in the brain, that sex and gender are unconnected, that biology is irrelevant, and that there is something called an LGBTQ identity, when, in fact, the acronym contains extreme internal tensions and even outright contradictions. And we can allow this conversation to unfold civilly, with nuance and care, in order to maximize human dignity without erasing human difference. That requires a certain amount of courage, and one thing I can safely say about that Heritage panel is that the women who spoke had plenty of it. I've read his "solution" about ten times, and I still don't have any idea why he thinks it is a solution. When you get right down to it, he's pretty much telling everyone who thinks that sex is a social construct to fuck off. While I agree with this sentiment, I wouldn't dare call it a "solution." Regardless, the real lesson here is that any kind of world view based in subjectivism sucks and is only going to lead to problems. There's a difference between "ideologically bankrupt" and still searching for ways to communicate between the marginalized and oppressors as well as between marginalized groups in order to remove the shitty hegemonic conception of sex and gender we have and replace it with something functional and accurate. It's good you're trying to understand and that you're learning some of the lingo but it appears there's lots of learning to happen all around. With where society as partisan as it is I don't have a lot of hope we're going to get anywhere positive any time soon. The problem is that there's no where worthwhile to go as long as the trans crowd continues their insane quest to normalize themselves. There's simply no rational way to categorize themselves as "normal," whether you look at the issue statistically, biologically, or philosophically. They should simply embrace the Q in LGBTQ and limit their advocacy to tolerance. Imposing their worldview upon everyone else and projecting their abnormality upon the population at large is simply misguided and counterproductive. I disagree with pretty much everything you said and think it's related to your positions on other marginalized communities, like ones outside of our border. I'll just say I'm not confident in your interpretation of gender or sex either or that the people you're describing as "normal" are displaying a desirable reaction to the challenging of hegemony in this area. Of course you disagree with me. You only view things through the lens of oppressor/oppressee dichotomies, whereas I really don't give two shits about them and consider them fairly useless. Oppressor/oppressee dichotomies merely serve political ends. They are otherwise irrelevant as expressions of reality. Hopefully IgnE will probe a little deeper on your views but I find oppressor-oppressed (it's not a dichotomy) dynamics to be much more practical than any of the other political philosophies or world views available but I haven't studied Anarchism much so I can't say for sure. It's not so much that it's "merely to serve political ends" for myself but I would certainly agree with you that what you describe is at the core of the Democratic party and it's quite frustrating because of precisely this interaction despite you knowing your argument is based off of a description of a party you're well aware I don't see as much of an ally if at all. There's nothing practical about oppressor-oppressed dynamics beyond using it as a political lever. This should be patently obvious from a cursory review of the study's Marxist roots. The practical limitations of oppressor-oppressed dynamics are a direct function of how the framework intentionally distorts reality so as to polarize the debate.
I can't speak to your interpretation of the dynamics but as I understand them you're oppressed too so I think we'd have to close some of that space before we can continue to discuss your other suppositions.
|
On February 03 2019 12:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2019 12:11 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2019 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2019 10:44 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2019 10:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2019 10:23 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2019 09:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2019 09:40 xDaunt wrote:Here's an article from Andrew Sullivan discussing the ideological bankruptcy of the trans movement and its attempts to abolish the concept of biological sex/gender. The part of his article that I find particularly amusing is the end where he attempts to reconcile the positions of the trans movement and the homosexual movement: And so it is not transphobic for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man. It is close to definitional. The core of the traditional gay claim is that there is indeed a very big difference between male and female, that the difference matters, and without it, homosexuality would make no sense at all. If it’s all a free and fluid nonbinary choice of gender and sexual partners, a choice to have sex exclusively with the same sex would not be an expression of our identity, but a form of sexist bigotry, would it not?
There is a solution to this knotted paradox. We can treat different things differently. We can accept that the homosexual experience and the transgender experience are very different, and cannot be easily conflated. We can center the debate not on “gender identity” which insists on no difference between the trans and the cis, the male and the female, and instead focus on the very real experience of “gender dysphoria,” which deserves treatment and support and total acceptance for the individuals involved. We can respect the right of certain people to be identified as the gender they believe they are, and to remove any discrimination against them, while also seeing biology as a difference that requires a distinction. We can believe in nature and the immense complexity of the human mind and sexuality. We can see a way to accommodate everyone to the extent possible, without denying biological reality. Equality need not mean sameness.
We just have to abandon the faddish notion that sex is socially constructed or entirely in the brain, that sex and gender are unconnected, that biology is irrelevant, and that there is something called an LGBTQ identity, when, in fact, the acronym contains extreme internal tensions and even outright contradictions. And we can allow this conversation to unfold civilly, with nuance and care, in order to maximize human dignity without erasing human difference. That requires a certain amount of courage, and one thing I can safely say about that Heritage panel is that the women who spoke had plenty of it. I've read his "solution" about ten times, and I still don't have any idea why he thinks it is a solution. When you get right down to it, he's pretty much telling everyone who thinks that sex is a social construct to fuck off. While I agree with this sentiment, I wouldn't dare call it a "solution." Regardless, the real lesson here is that any kind of world view based in subjectivism sucks and is only going to lead to problems. There's a difference between "ideologically bankrupt" and still searching for ways to communicate between the marginalized and oppressors as well as between marginalized groups in order to remove the shitty hegemonic conception of sex and gender we have and replace it with something functional and accurate. It's good you're trying to understand and that you're learning some of the lingo but it appears there's lots of learning to happen all around. With where society as partisan as it is I don't have a lot of hope we're going to get anywhere positive any time soon. The problem is that there's no where worthwhile to go as long as the trans crowd continues their insane quest to normalize themselves. There's simply no rational way to categorize themselves as "normal," whether you look at the issue statistically, biologically, or philosophically. They should simply embrace the Q in LGBTQ and limit their advocacy to tolerance. Imposing their worldview upon everyone else and projecting their abnormality upon the population at large is simply misguided and counterproductive. I disagree with pretty much everything you said and think it's related to your positions on other marginalized communities, like ones outside of our border. I'll just say I'm not confident in your interpretation of gender or sex either or that the people you're describing as "normal" are displaying a desirable reaction to the challenging of hegemony in this area. Of course you disagree with me. You only view things through the lens of oppressor/oppressee dichotomies, whereas I really don't give two shits about them and consider them fairly useless. Oppressor/oppressee dichotomies merely serve political ends. They are otherwise irrelevant as expressions of reality. Hopefully IgnE will probe a little deeper on your views but I find oppressor-oppressed (it's not a dichotomy) dynamics to be much more practical than any of the other political philosophies or world views available but I haven't studied Anarchism much so I can't say for sure. It's not so much that it's "merely to serve political ends" for myself but I would certainly agree with you that what you describe is at the core of the Democratic party and it's quite frustrating because of precisely this interaction despite you knowing your argument is based off of a description of a party you're well aware I don't see as much of an ally if at all. There's nothing practical about oppressor-oppressed dynamics beyond using it as a political lever. This should be patently obvious from a cursory review of the study's Marxist roots. The practical limitations of oppressor-oppressed dynamics are a direct function of how the framework intentionally distorts reality so as to polarize the debate. I can't speak to your interpretation of the dynamics but as I understand them you're oppressed too so I think we'd have to close some of that space before we can continue to discuss your other suppositions.
You're missing what I'm telling you. Whether I am oppressed is irrelevant except insofar as I may be pushed into a particular political group. This is the key limitation of the oppressor-oppressed worldview. People who are unable to step outside of this worldview might as well be living in a box. They're the people in Plato's cave trying to watch the shadows on the wall with a pair of sunglasses on.
|
On February 03 2019 12:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2019 12:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2019 12:11 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2019 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2019 10:44 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2019 10:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2019 10:23 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2019 09:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2019 09:40 xDaunt wrote:Here's an article from Andrew Sullivan discussing the ideological bankruptcy of the trans movement and its attempts to abolish the concept of biological sex/gender. The part of his article that I find particularly amusing is the end where he attempts to reconcile the positions of the trans movement and the homosexual movement: And so it is not transphobic for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man. It is close to definitional. The core of the traditional gay claim is that there is indeed a very big difference between male and female, that the difference matters, and without it, homosexuality would make no sense at all. If it’s all a free and fluid nonbinary choice of gender and sexual partners, a choice to have sex exclusively with the same sex would not be an expression of our identity, but a form of sexist bigotry, would it not?
There is a solution to this knotted paradox. We can treat different things differently. We can accept that the homosexual experience and the transgender experience are very different, and cannot be easily conflated. We can center the debate not on “gender identity” which insists on no difference between the trans and the cis, the male and the female, and instead focus on the very real experience of “gender dysphoria,” which deserves treatment and support and total acceptance for the individuals involved. We can respect the right of certain people to be identified as the gender they believe they are, and to remove any discrimination against them, while also seeing biology as a difference that requires a distinction. We can believe in nature and the immense complexity of the human mind and sexuality. We can see a way to accommodate everyone to the extent possible, without denying biological reality. Equality need not mean sameness.
We just have to abandon the faddish notion that sex is socially constructed or entirely in the brain, that sex and gender are unconnected, that biology is irrelevant, and that there is something called an LGBTQ identity, when, in fact, the acronym contains extreme internal tensions and even outright contradictions. And we can allow this conversation to unfold civilly, with nuance and care, in order to maximize human dignity without erasing human difference. That requires a certain amount of courage, and one thing I can safely say about that Heritage panel is that the women who spoke had plenty of it. I've read his "solution" about ten times, and I still don't have any idea why he thinks it is a solution. When you get right down to it, he's pretty much telling everyone who thinks that sex is a social construct to fuck off. While I agree with this sentiment, I wouldn't dare call it a "solution." Regardless, the real lesson here is that any kind of world view based in subjectivism sucks and is only going to lead to problems. There's a difference between "ideologically bankrupt" and still searching for ways to communicate between the marginalized and oppressors as well as between marginalized groups in order to remove the shitty hegemonic conception of sex and gender we have and replace it with something functional and accurate. It's good you're trying to understand and that you're learning some of the lingo but it appears there's lots of learning to happen all around. With where society as partisan as it is I don't have a lot of hope we're going to get anywhere positive any time soon. The problem is that there's no where worthwhile to go as long as the trans crowd continues their insane quest to normalize themselves. There's simply no rational way to categorize themselves as "normal," whether you look at the issue statistically, biologically, or philosophically. They should simply embrace the Q in LGBTQ and limit their advocacy to tolerance. Imposing their worldview upon everyone else and projecting their abnormality upon the population at large is simply misguided and counterproductive. I disagree with pretty much everything you said and think it's related to your positions on other marginalized communities, like ones outside of our border. I'll just say I'm not confident in your interpretation of gender or sex either or that the people you're describing as "normal" are displaying a desirable reaction to the challenging of hegemony in this area. Of course you disagree with me. You only view things through the lens of oppressor/oppressee dichotomies, whereas I really don't give two shits about them and consider them fairly useless. Oppressor/oppressee dichotomies merely serve political ends. They are otherwise irrelevant as expressions of reality. Hopefully IgnE will probe a little deeper on your views but I find oppressor-oppressed (it's not a dichotomy) dynamics to be much more practical than any of the other political philosophies or world views available but I haven't studied Anarchism much so I can't say for sure. It's not so much that it's "merely to serve political ends" for myself but I would certainly agree with you that what you describe is at the core of the Democratic party and it's quite frustrating because of precisely this interaction despite you knowing your argument is based off of a description of a party you're well aware I don't see as much of an ally if at all. There's nothing practical about oppressor-oppressed dynamics beyond using it as a political lever. This should be patently obvious from a cursory review of the study's Marxist roots. The practical limitations of oppressor-oppressed dynamics are a direct function of how the framework intentionally distorts reality so as to polarize the debate. I can't speak to your interpretation of the dynamics but as I understand them you're oppressed too so I think we'd have to close some of that space before we can continue to discuss your other suppositions. You're missing what I'm telling you. Whether I am oppressed is irrelevant except insofar as I may be pushed into a particular political group. This is the key limitation of the oppressor-oppressed worldview. People who are unable to step outside of this worldview might as well be living in a box. They're the people in the cave trying to watch the shadows on the wall with a pair of sunglasses on.
I suppose, but isn't that what your world view is about? "Fuck em if they aint us" if you don't mind the paraphrase. If not I'm open to better understanding the distinction as you see it.
|
|
|
|
|
On February 03 2019 12:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2019 11:16 IgnE wrote:On February 03 2019 10:36 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2019 10:30 IgnE wrote:On February 03 2019 10:25 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2019 10:19 IgnE wrote:On February 03 2019 09:40 xDaunt wrote:Here's an article from Andrew Sullivan discussing the ideological bankruptcy of the trans movement and its attempts to abolish the concept of biological sex/gender. The part of his article that I find particularly amusing is the end where he attempts to reconcile the positions of the trans movement and the homosexual movement: And so it is not transphobic for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man. It is close to definitional. The core of the traditional gay claim is that there is indeed a very big difference between male and female, that the difference matters, and without it, homosexuality would make no sense at all. If it’s all a free and fluid nonbinary choice of gender and sexual partners, a choice to have sex exclusively with the same sex would not be an expression of our identity, but a form of sexist bigotry, would it not?
There is a solution to this knotted paradox. We can treat different things differently. We can accept that the homosexual experience and the transgender experience are very different, and cannot be easily conflated. We can center the debate not on “gender identity” which insists on no difference between the trans and the cis, the male and the female, and instead focus on the very real experience of “gender dysphoria,” which deserves treatment and support and total acceptance for the individuals involved. We can respect the right of certain people to be identified as the gender they believe they are, and to remove any discrimination against them, while also seeing biology as a difference that requires a distinction. We can believe in nature and the immense complexity of the human mind and sexuality. We can see a way to accommodate everyone to the extent possible, without denying biological reality. Equality need not mean sameness.
We just have to abandon the faddish notion that sex is socially constructed or entirely in the brain, that sex and gender are unconnected, that biology is irrelevant, and that there is something called an LGBTQ identity, when, in fact, the acronym contains extreme internal tensions and even outright contradictions. And we can allow this conversation to unfold civilly, with nuance and care, in order to maximize human dignity without erasing human difference. That requires a certain amount of courage, and one thing I can safely say about that Heritage panel is that the women who spoke had plenty of it. I've read his "solution" about ten times, and I still don't have any idea why he thinks it is a solution. When you get right down to it, he's pretty much telling everyone who thinks that sex is a social construct to fuck off. While I agree with this sentiment, I wouldn't dare call it a "solution." Regardless, the real lesson here is that any kind of world view based in subjectivism sucks and is only going to lead to problems. What's your world view based in? Objectivism? Yes, but not in the Randian sense. The better way to put it is that I'm suspicious of any philosophy or worldview that strays from the concept of the truth being objective. Is the truth knowable? At least some of it is. All of it? Maybe not. What kinds of things are knowable? A lot of things. The mathematical and the empirical are just a couple examples.
So who are some "subjectivists" (postmodern neomarxists?) that deny mathematical and empirical truths?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
