|
On October 22 2018 23:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2018 16:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 22 2018 07:17 xDaunt wrote:
Frankly, I think that the various minority groups have an unfounded and misplaced sense of entitlement. For example, while I'm fine with the idea that we should not discriminate against transgendered people, particularly when it comes to things like employment, I do not believe that we should be forced to accept transgenderism as being something that is normal by doing things like allowing them to pick whatever bathroom that they want based upon laughable concepts of self-identity. Stated another way, minority rights advocates jumped the shark when they made the goal "acceptance" rather than just "tolerance." The majority has rights and interests, too. I wholly disagree with the idea that it is always incumbent upon the majority to defer to the minority, which is certainly the current proposition being repeatedly floated by the left on pretty much every issue ranging from illegal immigration to bathroom usage. The transgender debate is a weird one. I agree that it shouldn't be the majority's responsibility to defer to the minority, but when it comes to gender the right simply doesn't seem to know what they are talking about at all, or haven't thought about it all that much and are just resisting change. The idea that gender can vary from biology in a minority of cases is something that society should embrace, and it saddens me that people are holding on to outdated, discredited notions of gender being identical to biological sex. Not only that, but conservative lines of thought on the issue are frankly obsessed with genitals to quite a creepy degree, all in the service of trying to proliferate the idea that transgenderism isn't 'real', its just some psychological problem. That isn't true at all, its very well documented that there are many cases of gender varying from biological sex, and given that gender is simply a socially defined series of behaviours, relationships and interactions, a generation of people are well within their rights to redefine that if it makes people better off. And no, having a transgender person use the 'wrong' bathroom doesn't matter, compared to that person being marginalized and told they do not exist. In the UK trans exclusionary types have extended the bathroom debate to women's only shelters, but there aren't any cases of these being abused by transgender people. Its a made up infringement of rights that don't exist. The rights of the majority that you are trying to protect, in this case, don't matter at all compared to the essential rights that the minority need to survive. There's nothing wrong with the obsession with genitals. It provides a clear, bright line, and manageable rule for policy. For example, you can't put in a spectrum of restrooms at the airport. Maintaining the binary classification of gender also largely reflects reality. A fraction of a percent of the US population identifies as transgender. We aren't talking about a large class of people, much less a large class of disenfranchised people. Moreover, I question the need for any action by the majority to accommodate transgenderism beyond affording them basic Title VII anti-discrimination protections. Again, it is not incumbent upon the majority to accept as normal transgenderism. Even accepting the argument that transgendered individuals don't choose who they are, that still is an insufficient basis for the use force of government to compel societal thought. Conservatives don't hate transgendered people. They simply don't view it as normal (which it statistically is not) and don't want to have to explain that shit to their children. Forcing conservatives to do so will not lead to a good result.
You understand that some people view that as perhaps a legitimate political and legal argument but one that lacks some critical parts of morality, particularly a Christianity based one?
Like is the presumption that Christ would say to God about anyone:
"They simply aren't normal and I don't want want to have to explain them to your children. Forcing me to will not end well"?
I'd contest that perhaps your argument fits your own particular understanding of the world but it is in some ways clearly inconsistent with Christ's behavior as documented and therefore inconsistent with Christian morality (which I understand to be an effort to imitate Christ, knowing you'll fall short, but trying nonetheless).
I also read "There's nothing wrong with the obsession with genitals" aloud and you may want to reconsider that or try it out in real life and see what kind of reactions it draws. Maybe I'm alone in thinking that even with the entire conversation for context that would strike even a lot of conservatives as something they couldn't cosign without some significant consideration, but that's how it struck me.
|
On October 22 2018 23:13 xDaunt wrote:
Again, it is not incumbent upon the majority to accept as normal transgenderism
No, but it certainly is within the realms of decency to have a conversation about it and decide which side to take. There is no specific reason why doing things the way we do them now is better than any alternative. You seem to be aligning your views with the views of the majority here but I'm really not sure that this is the case.
The same arguments were made about homosexuality a couple of decades ago, and life for homosexuals is much better now than it was in many ways. Do you feel you are missing out on something because gay people can kiss in the street? Does it piss you off to have to explain that to your kids?
A fraction of a percent of the US population identifies as transgender. We aren't talking about a large class of people, much less a large class of disenfranchised people. Moreover, I question the need for any action by the majority to accommodate transgenderism beyond affording them basic Title VII anti-discrimination protections.
That depends on whether or not the majority wants to accommodate transgenderism* or not. I would suggest that this is changing and will continue to do so over the next 10-15 years. The resistance we are getting right now to this is the same resistance you get to any sort of progression towards liberal values. People cry and whine because it seems weird or new of different to them and then come to accept it as they get used to it.
*Transgenderism here seems to be used to describe the concept of someone being transgender. Is that what you mean?
Even accepting the argument that transgendered individuals don't choose who they are, that still is an insufficient basis for the use force of government to compel societal thought.
Wait a minute. Which government is compelling societal thought? Is this being done in some abnormal way here? To me it seems like everything else: There's a conversation going around in the media and social/political groups about how we should approach the fact that transgender people have a specific set of problems, it doesn't seem to me as though anyone is compelling anyone to think anything.
If anything, the US government is straight up ignoring all of the evidence about gender varying from biology and simply defining gender the way they want it to be defined so they don't have to have the awkward conversation about things they don't understand.
|
Can we drop the whole “have a conversation about it” and “there’s a conversation about how we should approach the fact?” We had this conversation in the wake of the Obama rule on transgender bathrooms and Title IX.
It went something like “We don’t care about what you believe. Your children will change clothes in restrooms with people of the opposite biological sex if they identify as a different sex. There is no third bathroom options. There’s nothing you can do.” The reply was a simple no. It was delivered by voting in a big orange idiot without some basic presidential qualities.
I view the “have a conversation” types as hopelessly naive or authoritarian-leaning (in fact, like Trump. Ya’ll really have so much in common). It’s been done by fiat by the federal government with no recourse, and the only “conversation” has been “it’s the law now, so get used to it.” It ended a lot of state and local conversations. The mask slipped a little to reveal one side intent on making it national now, instead of letting states have their own conversation, as a federal republic.
One quality of conversations that is missed is it’s still a conversation if one party doesn’t end up moving towards your side. For example, the school districts that let people identifying as transgender and gender-non-binary use the teacher’s bathroom and third bathrooms to change and use the toilet. They literally had the conversation. And people pretended nobody was having the conversation, because it didn’t result in everybody deciding on any sex uses any bathroom. The term is properly “compulsion,” and any honest arguer should own up that it’s compulsion but justifiable for certain reasons. But *ahem* the second conversation the left doesn’t want to have is the one about why they’re compelling the outcome nationally without legislation, instead of within states and localities with parent-student-administrator conversations.
|
On October 22 2018 23:52 Danglars wrote:
Can we drop the whole “have a conversation about it” and “there’s a conversation about how we should approach the fact?” We had this conversation in the wake of the Obama rule on transgender bathrooms and Title IX.
It went something like “We don’t care about what you believe. Your children will change clothes in restrooms with people of the opposite biological sex if they identify as a different sex. There is no third bathroom options. There’s nothing you can do.” The reply was a simple no. It was delivered by voting in a big orange idiot without some basic presidential qualities.
I view the “have a conversation” types as hopelessly naive or authoritarian-leaning (in fact, like Trump. Ya’ll really have so much in common). It’s been done by fiat by the federal government with no recourse, and the only “conversation” has been “it’s the law now, so get used to it.” It ended a lot of state and local conversations. The mask slipped a little to reveal one side intent on making it national now, instead of letting states have their own conversation, as a federal republic.
One quality of conversations that is missed is it’s still a conversation if one party doesn’t end up moving towards your side. For example, the school districts that let people identifying as transgender and gender-non-binary use the teacher’s bathroom and third bathrooms to change and use the toilet. They literally had the conversation. And people pretended nobody was having the conversation, because it didn’t result in everybody deciding on any sex uses any bathroom. The term is properly “compulsion,” and any honest arguer should own up that it’s compulsion but justifiable for certain reasons. But *ahem* the second conversation the left doesn’t want to have is the one about why they’re compelling the outcome nationally without legislation, instead of within states and localities with parent-student-administrator conversations.
Discussing this with you would be much easier if you didn't identify me with everyone on the left from Obama to Stalin.
Conversations about political issues don't stop when one side wins or loses an election. Changing demographics and attitudes in society will happen whether or not you voted Trump in, and the same conversations will be repeated because these issues are important.
I don't understand what it is you want from this discussion if having the discussion is off limits to you.
|
On October 22 2018 23:52 Danglars wrote:
Can we drop the whole “have a conversation about it” and “there’s a conversation about how we should approach the fact?” We had this conversation in the wake of the Obama rule on transgender bathrooms and Title IX.
It went something like “We don’t care about what you believe. Your children will change clothes in restrooms with people of the opposite biological sex if they identify as a different sex. There is no third bathroom options. There’s nothing you can do.” The reply was a simple no. It was delivered by voting in a big orange idiot without some basic presidential qualities.
I view the “have a conversation” types as hopelessly naive or authoritarian-leaning (in fact, like Trump. Ya’ll really have so much in common). It’s been done by fiat by the federal government with no recourse, and the only “conversation” has been “it’s the law now, so get used to it.” It ended a lot of state and local conversations. The mask slipped a little to reveal one side intent on making it national now, instead of letting states have their own conversation, as a federal republic.
One quality of conversations that is missed is it’s still a conversation if one party doesn’t end up moving towards your side. For example, the school districts that let people identifying as transgender and gender-non-binary use the teacher’s bathroom and third bathrooms to change and use the toilet. They literally had the conversation. And people pretended nobody was having the conversation, because it didn’t result in everybody deciding on any sex uses any bathroom. The term is properly “compulsion,” and any honest arguer should own up that it’s compulsion but justifiable for certain reasons. But *ahem* the second conversation the left doesn’t want to have is the one about why they’re compelling the outcome nationally without legislation, instead of within states and localities with parent-student-administrator conversations.
There's plenty of people that would at least identify themselves as "left" or voted for Obama that would be just as disturbed by such "compulsions". All things considered kids far more likely to get sexually abused by a family member or someone at church than in a bathroom that doesn't have gender rules. There is a legitimate point about society adjusting and how best to go about that whether some people have any intention on better understanding differing points of view or not. I can't expect to change either of your perspectives on this but I think you guys are embracing the whole "we shouldn't have to enlarge our empathetic capabilities" a bit further than you're intending by insisting that there's no shortcoming in that.
|
On October 22 2018 23:59 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2018 23:52 Danglars wrote:
Can we drop the whole “have a conversation about it” and “there’s a conversation about how we should approach the fact?” We had this conversation in the wake of the Obama rule on transgender bathrooms and Title IX.
It went something like “We don’t care about what you believe. Your children will change clothes in restrooms with people of the opposite biological sex if they identify as a different sex. There is no third bathroom options. There’s nothing you can do.” The reply was a simple no. It was delivered by voting in a big orange idiot without some basic presidential qualities.
I view the “have a conversation” types as hopelessly naive or authoritarian-leaning (in fact, like Trump. Ya’ll really have so much in common). It’s been done by fiat by the federal government with no recourse, and the only “conversation” has been “it’s the law now, so get used to it.” It ended a lot of state and local conversations. The mask slipped a little to reveal one side intent on making it national now, instead of letting states have their own conversation, as a federal republic.
One quality of conversations that is missed is it’s still a conversation if one party doesn’t end up moving towards your side. For example, the school districts that let people identifying as transgender and gender-non-binary use the teacher’s bathroom and third bathrooms to change and use the toilet. They literally had the conversation. And people pretended nobody was having the conversation, because it didn’t result in everybody deciding on any sex uses any bathroom. The term is properly “compulsion,” and any honest arguer should own up that it’s compulsion but justifiable for certain reasons. But *ahem* the second conversation the left doesn’t want to have is the one about why they’re compelling the outcome nationally without legislation, instead of within states and localities with parent-student-administrator conversations. Discussing this with you would be much easier if you didn't identify me with everyone on the left from Obama to Stalin. Conversations about political issues don't stop when one side wins or loses an election. Changing demographics and attitudes in society will happen whether or not you voted Trump in, and the same conversations will be repeated because these issues are important. I don't understand what it is you want from this discussion if having the discussion is off limits to you.
I’m having trouble understanding why you resort to hyperbole (Stalin!). Is this conversation too tough for you to have? Maybe we can resume when you’re ready to have a conversation on the history of transgender issues in the United States, legislatively and executive-driven. Pause and appreciate that the conversation previously happened underneath societal compulsion by executive fiat. Maybe you too can admit to problems within the conversation that aren’t naughty cons stereotyping.
|
On October 23 2018 00:56 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2018 23:59 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 22 2018 23:52 Danglars wrote:
Can we drop the whole “have a conversation about it” and “there’s a conversation about how we should approach the fact?” We had this conversation in the wake of the Obama rule on transgender bathrooms and Title IX.
It went something like “We don’t care about what you believe. Your children will change clothes in restrooms with people of the opposite biological sex if they identify as a different sex. There is no third bathroom options. There’s nothing you can do.” The reply was a simple no. It was delivered by voting in a big orange idiot without some basic presidential qualities.
I view the “have a conversation” types as hopelessly naive or authoritarian-leaning (in fact, like Trump. Ya’ll really have so much in common). It’s been done by fiat by the federal government with no recourse, and the only “conversation” has been “it’s the law now, so get used to it.” It ended a lot of state and local conversations. The mask slipped a little to reveal one side intent on making it national now, instead of letting states have their own conversation, as a federal republic.
One quality of conversations that is missed is it’s still a conversation if one party doesn’t end up moving towards your side. For example, the school districts that let people identifying as transgender and gender-non-binary use the teacher’s bathroom and third bathrooms to change and use the toilet. They literally had the conversation. And people pretended nobody was having the conversation, because it didn’t result in everybody deciding on any sex uses any bathroom. The term is properly “compulsion,” and any honest arguer should own up that it’s compulsion but justifiable for certain reasons. But *ahem* the second conversation the left doesn’t want to have is the one about why they’re compelling the outcome nationally without legislation, instead of within states and localities with parent-student-administrator conversations. Discussing this with you would be much easier if you didn't identify me with everyone on the left from Obama to Stalin. Conversations about political issues don't stop when one side wins or loses an election. Changing demographics and attitudes in society will happen whether or not you voted Trump in, and the same conversations will be repeated because these issues are important. I don't understand what it is you want from this discussion if having the discussion is off limits to you. I’m having trouble understanding why you resort to hyperbole (Stalin!). Is this conversation too tough for you to have? Maybe we can resume when you’re ready to have a conversation on the history of transgender issues in the United States, legislatively and executive-driven. Pause and appreciate that the conversation previously happened underneath societal compulsion by executive fiat. Maybe you too can admit to problems within the conversation that aren’t naughty cons stereotyping.
There's no conversation to have really. You didn't make any points except to say that I'm like Trump because I think the exact opposite of Trump on this issue.
Otherwise you were just complaining that I dare to categorize making any legislation at all as something other than authoritarian oppression, I assume its because its interferes with your victim thing that all conservatives are being horribly oppressed because now they have to remember that not everyone's gender corresponds to their biological sex
To me, the authoritarian people, the anti-liberty types are the ones telling people what gender they have to be, psychologically interfering in eery single facet of their private lives.
|
On October 23 2018 01:07 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 00:56 Danglars wrote:On October 22 2018 23:59 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 22 2018 23:52 Danglars wrote:
Can we drop the whole “have a conversation about it” and “there’s a conversation about how we should approach the fact?” We had this conversation in the wake of the Obama rule on transgender bathrooms and Title IX.
It went something like “We don’t care about what you believe. Your children will change clothes in restrooms with people of the opposite biological sex if they identify as a different sex. There is no third bathroom options. There’s nothing you can do.” The reply was a simple no. It was delivered by voting in a big orange idiot without some basic presidential qualities.
I view the “have a conversation” types as hopelessly naive or authoritarian-leaning (in fact, like Trump. Ya’ll really have so much in common). It’s been done by fiat by the federal government with no recourse, and the only “conversation” has been “it’s the law now, so get used to it.” It ended a lot of state and local conversations. The mask slipped a little to reveal one side intent on making it national now, instead of letting states have their own conversation, as a federal republic.
One quality of conversations that is missed is it’s still a conversation if one party doesn’t end up moving towards your side. For example, the school districts that let people identifying as transgender and gender-non-binary use the teacher’s bathroom and third bathrooms to change and use the toilet. They literally had the conversation. And people pretended nobody was having the conversation, because it didn’t result in everybody deciding on any sex uses any bathroom. The term is properly “compulsion,” and any honest arguer should own up that it’s compulsion but justifiable for certain reasons. But *ahem* the second conversation the left doesn’t want to have is the one about why they’re compelling the outcome nationally without legislation, instead of within states and localities with parent-student-administrator conversations. Discussing this with you would be much easier if you didn't identify me with everyone on the left from Obama to Stalin. Conversations about political issues don't stop when one side wins or loses an election. Changing demographics and attitudes in society will happen whether or not you voted Trump in, and the same conversations will be repeated because these issues are important. I don't understand what it is you want from this discussion if having the discussion is off limits to you. I’m having trouble understanding why you resort to hyperbole (Stalin!). Is this conversation too tough for you to have? Maybe we can resume when you’re ready to have a conversation on the history of transgender issues in the United States, legislatively and executive-driven. Pause and appreciate that the conversation previously happened underneath societal compulsion by executive fiat. Maybe you too can admit to problems within the conversation that aren’t naughty cons stereotyping. There's no conversation to have really. You didn't make any points except to say that I'm like Trump because I think the exact opposite of Trump on this issue. Otherwise you were just complaining that I dare to categorize making any legislation at all as something other than authoritarian oppression, I assume its because its interferes with your victim thing that all conservatives are being horribly oppressed because now they have to remember that not everyone's gender corresponds to their biological sex To me, the authoritarian people, the anti-liberty types are the ones telling people what gender they have to be, psychologically interfering in eery single facet of their private lives.
Well that’s definitely a difference of opinion we’ll continue to have in any conversation. I think it needs to occur with the backdrop of previous government compulsion, since we need to have the conversation on whether to do it legislatively and locally with parental input on their children’s bathrooms and education. You think that’s not an actual point and I’m just complaining. I think you’re really not interested in having the conversation because you’re dismissing inconvenient conversations, as you’ve done twice now. My guess is that part will persist.
Maybe you’re not a big fan of what Obama did on transgender bathrooms, but we’re not going to get to that conversation if any criticism of authoritarian past actions stumbles past your conceptions of who’s playing the victim. You have to admit, you’re ready to call my perspective authoritarian just as I’m calling past actions on the issue authoritarian. So, yeah, when you’re ready to tackle the points instead of dismissing the points, I’m all ears.
Maybe a little less bringing Stalin into the conversation, before launching into diatribes on that victim thing?
You know, show you’re willing to address issues within the conversation, instead of stereotyping issues conservatives have as just victim thing? If you’re having past problems dealing with stereotypes, the last thing you should do is come in with your preferred stereotypes and dodge the conversation entirely. I’ve had just enough hearing how my conversation is invalid (localism vs top-down, compromise on third bathrooms, parental input) from people that purport to want to hold the conversation.
|
In any discussion of transgenderism with conservatives or conservative viewpoints on the left/liberal side, you end up questioning people's right to exist. Which is a clear problem to me, and I wish it was to everyone. I don't really understand the point of denying objective reality in general, but in cases where denying reality is that dangerous for the target of the denial, I can easily make the case that there's no discussion to even be had, and I don't need to go fully automated luxury gay space communist to do that, that's a position that doesn't even require ideology.
|
On October 23 2018 03:00 Nebuchad wrote:
In any discussion of transgenderism with conservatives or conservative viewpoints on the left/liberal side, you end up questioning people's right to exist. Which is a clear problem to me, and I wish it was to everyone. I don't really understand the point of denying objective reality in general, but in cases where denying reality is that dangerous for the target of the denial, I can easily make the case that there's no discussion to even be had, and I don't need to go fully automated luxury gay space communist to do that, that's a position that doesn't even require ideology.
You'd think... as the preceding discussion demonstrates, it's not that easy. Posters in this thread excepted, there are some people who feel accepting trans people's existence is an inherent threat to them. They're wrong, of course, but the feeling is there and no easier to ignore.
|
On October 23 2018 03:00 Nebuchad wrote:
In any discussion of transgenderism with conservatives, you end up questioning people's right to exist. Which is a clear problem to me, and I wish it was to everyone. I don't really understand the point of denying objective reality in general, but in cases where denying reality is that dangerous for the target of the denial, I can easily make the case that there's no discussion to even be had, and I don't need to go fully automated luxury gay space communist to do that, that's a position that doesn't even require ideology.
In discussions with your brand of leftism, ideas like third bathrooms for a small minority of students becomes “questioning people’s rights to exist.” And people say I’m extreme lol.
Any pushback on “people’s right to exist?” I know this is a segment within the American left, but I rarely here pushback from the left to the tune of “calling this a right to exist issue is hurting compromise” or anything even mildly critical. I gotta say, right to exist on transgender issues in child’s education and bathroom policy is a pretty fun stance to adopt if you think you’re the ones willing to compromise and aren’t doctrinaire ideologues.
|
On October 23 2018 03:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 03:00 Nebuchad wrote:
In any discussion of transgenderism with conservatives, you end up questioning people's right to exist. Which is a clear problem to me, and I wish it was to everyone. I don't really understand the point of denying objective reality in general, but in cases where denying reality is that dangerous for the target of the denial, I can easily make the case that there's no discussion to even be had, and I don't need to go fully automated luxury gay space communist to do that, that's a position that doesn't even require ideology. In discussions with your brand of leftism, ideas like third bathrooms for a small minority of students becomes “questioning people’s rights to exist.” And people say I’m extreme lol. Any pushback on “people’s right to exist?” I know this is a segment within the American left, but I rarely here pushback from the left to the tune of “calling this a right to exist issue is hurting compromise” or anything even mildly critical. I gotta say, right to exist on transgender issues in child’s education and bathroom policy is a pretty fun stance to adopt if you think you’re the ones willing to compromise and aren’t doctrinaire ideologues.
Aren't we here because the Trump administration considers a definition of gender that defines transgender people out of existence, which is literally how you deny someone's right to exist? And you're still talking about bathrooms? But even that talk can be brought up btw: before this step the discussion wasn't limited at bathrooms, it was part of a bigger world view and political strategy. Nobody ever said "You know, I'm totally fine with trans people, I want them near my kids, I think dating them is not gay, it's just this bathroom thing that I'm uncomfortable with." But it's really hard for me to pretend you don't know that, and therefore, as often, I am tempted to believe that you're being disingenuous.
For the rest of your post, you are making a fair point. A position that we shouldn't deny people's right to exist makes it harder to compromise with people who would like to deny those people's right to exist. My solution is to not want to compromise with y'all on that subject (and on many others, if you remember), I think that allows me to have some consistency.
Here's how I justify it:
- A lot of people: "We're slightly uncomfortable with this non normative thing that we don't really understand."
- A small amount of people: "We'd like to exist please."
- Me: "Looks like the second group has a stronger claim."
|
On October 23 2018 03:25 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 03:08 Danglars wrote:On October 23 2018 03:00 Nebuchad wrote:
In any discussion of transgenderism with conservatives, you end up questioning people's right to exist. Which is a clear problem to me, and I wish it was to everyone. I don't really understand the point of denying objective reality in general, but in cases where denying reality is that dangerous for the target of the denial, I can easily make the case that there's no discussion to even be had, and I don't need to go fully automated luxury gay space communist to do that, that's a position that doesn't even require ideology. In discussions with your brand of leftism, ideas like third bathrooms for a small minority of students becomes “questioning people’s rights to exist.” And people say I’m extreme lol. Any pushback on “people’s right to exist?” I know this is a segment within the American left, but I rarely here pushback from the left to the tune of “calling this a right to exist issue is hurting compromise” or anything even mildly critical. I gotta say, right to exist on transgender issues in child’s education and bathroom policy is a pretty fun stance to adopt if you think you’re the ones willing to compromise and aren’t doctrinaire ideologues. Aren't we here because the Trump administration considers a definition of gender that defines transgender people out of existence, which is literally how you deny someone's right to exist? And you're still talking about bathrooms? But even that talk can be brought up btw: before this step the discussion wasn't limited at bathrooms, it was part of a bigger world view and political strategy. Nobody ever said "You know, I'm totally fine with trans people, I want them near my kids, I think dating them is not gay, it's just this bathroom thing that I'm uncomfortable with." But it's really hard for me to pretend you don't know that, and therefore, as often, I am tempted to believe that you're being disingenuous. For the rest of your post, you are making a fair point. A position that we shouldn't deny people's right to exist makes it harder to compromise with people who would like to deny those people's right to exist. My solution is to not want to compromise with y'all on that subject (and on many others, if you remember), I think that allows me to have some consistency. Here's how I justify it: - A lot of people: "We're slightly uncomfortable with this non normative thing that we don't really understand." - A small amount of people: "We'd like to exist please." - Me: "Looks like the second group has a stronger claim."
I had no idea your right to exist was a benefit conferred upon you by the federal government. Maybe I really should look deeper into the European conceptions of governance that your very existence is determined by your government.
I’m interested if we can even have the conversation about programs designed to help women succeed in business, if women can also mean a 40 year old man who lived life as a man, but now considers himself a woman, and the fed affirms. That’s not the fed’s job, that’s not Title IX, so go pass your legislation making sex-selective programs a free for all. Obama didn’t make transgenders exist by altering rules, and Trump can’t make them not exist by reverting them. It takes a religious perspective to think a written word literally conjures in and out of existence. The real question is how to design and administer sex-selective federal programs if and until Congress changes their design and administration.
|
On October 22 2018 23:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2018 23:13 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2018 16:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 22 2018 07:17 xDaunt wrote:
Frankly, I think that the various minority groups have an unfounded and misplaced sense of entitlement. For example, while I'm fine with the idea that we should not discriminate against transgendered people, particularly when it comes to things like employment, I do not believe that we should be forced to accept transgenderism as being something that is normal by doing things like allowing them to pick whatever bathroom that they want based upon laughable concepts of self-identity. Stated another way, minority rights advocates jumped the shark when they made the goal "acceptance" rather than just "tolerance." The majority has rights and interests, too. I wholly disagree with the idea that it is always incumbent upon the majority to defer to the minority, which is certainly the current proposition being repeatedly floated by the left on pretty much every issue ranging from illegal immigration to bathroom usage. The transgender debate is a weird one. I agree that it shouldn't be the majority's responsibility to defer to the minority, but when it comes to gender the right simply doesn't seem to know what they are talking about at all, or haven't thought about it all that much and are just resisting change. The idea that gender can vary from biology in a minority of cases is something that society should embrace, and it saddens me that people are holding on to outdated, discredited notions of gender being identical to biological sex. Not only that, but conservative lines of thought on the issue are frankly obsessed with genitals to quite a creepy degree, all in the service of trying to proliferate the idea that transgenderism isn't 'real', its just some psychological problem. That isn't true at all, its very well documented that there are many cases of gender varying from biological sex, and given that gender is simply a socially defined series of behaviours, relationships and interactions, a generation of people are well within their rights to redefine that if it makes people better off. And no, having a transgender person use the 'wrong' bathroom doesn't matter, compared to that person being marginalized and told they do not exist. In the UK trans exclusionary types have extended the bathroom debate to women's only shelters, but there aren't any cases of these being abused by transgender people. Its a made up infringement of rights that don't exist. The rights of the majority that you are trying to protect, in this case, don't matter at all compared to the essential rights that the minority need to survive. There's nothing wrong with the obsession with genitals. It provides a clear, bright line, and manageable rule for policy. For example, you can't put in a spectrum of restrooms at the airport. Maintaining the binary classification of gender also largely reflects reality. A fraction of a percent of the US population identifies as transgender. We aren't talking about a large class of people, much less a large class of disenfranchised people. Moreover, I question the need for any action by the majority to accommodate transgenderism beyond affording them basic Title VII anti-discrimination protections. Again, it is not incumbent upon the majority to accept as normal transgenderism. Even accepting the argument that transgendered individuals don't choose who they are, that still is an insufficient basis for the use force of government to compel societal thought. Conservatives don't hate transgendered people. They simply don't view it as normal (which it statistically is not) and don't want to have to explain that shit to their children. Forcing conservatives to do so will not lead to a good result. You understand that some people view that as perhaps a legitimate political and legal argument but one that lacks some critical parts of morality, particularly a Christianity based one? Like is the presumption that Christ would say to God about anyone: "They simply aren't normal and I don't want want to have to explain them to your children. Forcing me to will not end well"? I'd contest that perhaps your argument fits your own particular understanding of the world but it is in some ways clearly inconsistent with Christ's behavior as documented and therefore inconsistent with Christian morality (which I understand to be an effort to imitate Christ, knowing you'll fall short, but trying nonetheless).
Being compassionate to people does not necessarily mean given them their own special bathrooms. Nor does Christ advocate "forcing" people to be "compassionate."
I also read "There's nothing wrong with the obsession with genitals" aloud and you may want to reconsider that or try it out in real life and see what kind of reactions it draws. Maybe I'm alone in thinking that even with the entire conversation for context that would strike even a lot of conservatives as something they couldn't cosign without some significant consideration, but that's how it struck me.
I'm merely owning the terminology of the Left. Progressives seem to think that conservatives only care about genitals when it comes to transgenderism, which is why it is an oft-repeated phrase. It certainly isn't how conservatives would describe their position.
|
On October 22 2018 23:36 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2018 23:13 xDaunt wrote:
Again, it is not incumbent upon the majority to accept as normal transgenderism No, but it certainly is within the realms of decency to have a conversation about it and decide which side to take. There is no specific reason why doing things the way we do them now is better than any alternative. You seem to be aligning your views with the views of the majority here but I'm really not sure that this is the case. The same arguments were made about homosexuality a couple of decades ago, and life for homosexuals is much better now than it was in many ways. Do you feel you are missing out on something because gay people can kiss in the street? Does it piss you off to have to explain that to your kids?
I don't want to see anyone making out in the streets. Decency and decorum demand that such things be kept behind close doors, regardless of sexuality. But yes, having to explain open homosexuality to my kids certainly is more challenging, because there are inevitably more questions that are asked.
Show nested quote +A fraction of a percent of the US population identifies as transgender. We aren't talking about a large class of people, much less a large class of disenfranchised people. Moreover, I question the need for any action by the majority to accommodate transgenderism beyond affording them basic Title VII anti-discrimination protections. That depends on whether or not the majority wants to accommodate transgenderism* or not. I would suggest that this is changing and will continue to do so over the next 10-15 years. The resistance we are getting right now to this is the same resistance you get to any sort of progression towards liberal values. People cry and whine because it seems weird or new of different to them and then come to accept it as they get used to it. *Transgenderism here seems to be used to describe the concept of someone being transgender. Is that what you mean?
Correct.
Show nested quote +
Even accepting the argument that transgendered individuals don't choose who they are, that still is an insufficient basis for the use force of government to compel societal thought.
Wait a minute. Which government is compelling societal thought? Is this being done in some abnormal way here? To me it seems like everything else: There's a conversation going around in the media and social/political groups about how we should approach the fact that transgender people have a specific set of problems, it doesn't seem to me as though anyone is compelling anyone to think anything. If anything, the US government is straight up ignoring all of the evidence about gender varying from biology and simply defining gender the way they want it to be defined so they don't have to have the awkward conversation about things they don't understand.
Progressives have been using government to compel social thought for decades. The court system has been their biggest tool. Why do you think that fights over Supreme Court nominations have been so pitched? It's quite simple, really. Progressives have deliberately sidestepped the regular legislative process and used the court systems to enact their radical social agenda because they know that a majority of Americans aren't on board with their ideas. Do you really think that the Masterpiece Cake case was about gay rights? Fuck no. It's about forcing private Americans to swallow the progressive pill. Same thing with social media. Twitter, Facebook, et al. are bastions of social progressivism, and those companies are actively using their platforms to suppress conservative thought and compel progressive thinking. It's pretty obvious where the real intolerance in America is.
|
On October 23 2018 03:54 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 03:25 Nebuchad wrote:On October 23 2018 03:08 Danglars wrote:On October 23 2018 03:00 Nebuchad wrote:
In any discussion of transgenderism with conservatives, you end up questioning people's right to exist. Which is a clear problem to me, and I wish it was to everyone. I don't really understand the point of denying objective reality in general, but in cases where denying reality is that dangerous for the target of the denial, I can easily make the case that there's no discussion to even be had, and I don't need to go fully automated luxury gay space communist to do that, that's a position that doesn't even require ideology. In discussions with your brand of leftism, ideas like third bathrooms for a small minority of students becomes “questioning people’s rights to exist.” And people say I’m extreme lol. Any pushback on “people’s right to exist?” I know this is a segment within the American left, but I rarely here pushback from the left to the tune of “calling this a right to exist issue is hurting compromise” or anything even mildly critical. I gotta say, right to exist on transgender issues in child’s education and bathroom policy is a pretty fun stance to adopt if you think you’re the ones willing to compromise and aren’t doctrinaire ideologues. Aren't we here because the Trump administration considers a definition of gender that defines transgender people out of existence, which is literally how you deny someone's right to exist? And you're still talking about bathrooms? But even that talk can be brought up btw: before this step the discussion wasn't limited at bathrooms, it was part of a bigger world view and political strategy. Nobody ever said "You know, I'm totally fine with trans people, I want them near my kids, I think dating them is not gay, it's just this bathroom thing that I'm uncomfortable with." But it's really hard for me to pretend you don't know that, and therefore, as often, I am tempted to believe that you're being disingenuous. For the rest of your post, you are making a fair point. A position that we shouldn't deny people's right to exist makes it harder to compromise with people who would like to deny those people's right to exist. My solution is to not want to compromise with y'all on that subject (and on many others, if you remember), I think that allows me to have some consistency. Here's how I justify it: - A lot of people: "We're slightly uncomfortable with this non normative thing that we don't really understand." - A small amount of people: "We'd like to exist please." - Me: "Looks like the second group has a stronger claim." I had no idea your right to exist was a benefit conferred upon you by the federal government. Maybe I really should look deeper into the European conceptions of governance that your very existence is determined by your government.
Of course it is, and of course you had an idea that it was, Jesus... How are you going to fight for your rights if the government doesn't even recognize that you are an entity that exists?
|
On October 23 2018 04:09 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 03:54 Danglars wrote:On October 23 2018 03:25 Nebuchad wrote:On October 23 2018 03:08 Danglars wrote:On October 23 2018 03:00 Nebuchad wrote:
In any discussion of transgenderism with conservatives, you end up questioning people's right to exist. Which is a clear problem to me, and I wish it was to everyone. I don't really understand the point of denying objective reality in general, but in cases where denying reality is that dangerous for the target of the denial, I can easily make the case that there's no discussion to even be had, and I don't need to go fully automated luxury gay space communist to do that, that's a position that doesn't even require ideology. In discussions with your brand of leftism, ideas like third bathrooms for a small minority of students becomes “questioning people’s rights to exist.” And people say I’m extreme lol. Any pushback on “people’s right to exist?” I know this is a segment within the American left, but I rarely here pushback from the left to the tune of “calling this a right to exist issue is hurting compromise” or anything even mildly critical. I gotta say, right to exist on transgender issues in child’s education and bathroom policy is a pretty fun stance to adopt if you think you’re the ones willing to compromise and aren’t doctrinaire ideologues. Aren't we here because the Trump administration considers a definition of gender that defines transgender people out of existence, which is literally how you deny someone's right to exist? And you're still talking about bathrooms? But even that talk can be brought up btw: before this step the discussion wasn't limited at bathrooms, it was part of a bigger world view and political strategy. Nobody ever said "You know, I'm totally fine with trans people, I want them near my kids, I think dating them is not gay, it's just this bathroom thing that I'm uncomfortable with." But it's really hard for me to pretend you don't know that, and therefore, as often, I am tempted to believe that you're being disingenuous. For the rest of your post, you are making a fair point. A position that we shouldn't deny people's right to exist makes it harder to compromise with people who would like to deny those people's right to exist. My solution is to not want to compromise with y'all on that subject (and on many others, if you remember), I think that allows me to have some consistency. Here's how I justify it: - A lot of people: "We're slightly uncomfortable with this non normative thing that we don't really understand." - A small amount of people: "We'd like to exist please." - Me: "Looks like the second group has a stronger claim." I had no idea your right to exist was a benefit conferred upon you by the federal government. Maybe I really should look deeper into the European conceptions of governance that your very existence is determined by your government. Of course it is, and of course you had an idea that it was, Jesus... How are you going to fight for your rights if the government doesn't even recognize that you are an entity that exists?
I can only imagine the body count when these entities that exist cease their existence because they no longer have the right to exist. They sprouted into existence when Obama said they had the right to exist, and ended their existence when Trump took away their right to exist. Transgenders exist only if the federal government says they have the right to collect sex selective government programs of their choice. I think you exist apart from whether the government says you can collect this or that entitlement, but maybe that’s a bit too far.
|
I don't even know what to do with this. This is such an impressively stupid hill to die on...
Think of all the complaints that you had about conservative voices being erased, on campuses for example. I don't know your position about the war on Christmas but that was a thing as well according to Trump and a bunch of your party, and we were supposed to treat all of that seriously. Some dude didn't want to bake a cake and you had to stop the country for a few months. This is about 100 times more violent than anything that's ever been done to conservatism.
|
On October 23 2018 04:41 Nebuchad wrote:
I don't even know what to do with this. This is such an impressively stupid hill to die on...
Think of all the complaints that you had about conservative voices being erased, on campuses for example. I don't know your position about the war on Christmas but that was a thing as well according to Trump and a bunch of your party, and we were supposed to treat all of that seriously. Some dude didn't want to bake a cake and you had to stop the country for a few months. This is about 100 times more violent than anything that's ever been done to conservatism.
Yep. Conservatives have the right to exist on college campuses. We have in the past agitated for the right to invite speakers, free from onerous security fees or the protestors veto on the speech. The Colorado baker advocated not for his right to exist as a religious man, but for the right to exercise his religion within his owned business in the way he saw fit. He’s been denied that twice now. He’d be just a foolhardy as you to say he’s been denied his right to exist. Existence kind of sidesteps the whole debate in lines of extremist rhetoric.
|
This idea that transgender people are being denied the right to exist is rhetorical nonsense. This isn't Nazi Germany where we're putting them on trains with the rest of the undesirables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
