5 ms·

cue the downvotes, but, if your 'progressive' ideology requires constant 'progress', eventually you will need to invent new 'progress' to keep 'progressing' wh

by cat199 7y ago

cue the downvotes, but, if your 'progressive' ideology requires constant 'progress', eventually you will need to invent new 'progress' to keep 'progressing' when you run out of things to 'progress' towards, and it's easier to call others hateful than question this core philosophical tenet as part of ones own 'philosophical identity'.. are some trans skeptics transphobic: unequivocally yes are some trans skeptics not transphobic: unequivocally yes but all the easier to tar-and-feather them both as one 'hateful' unit in order to suppress discussion.. (again, cue the downvotes - but realize by doing so you are simply proving me right)

danharaj 7y ago
> are some trans skeptics not transphobic: unequivocally yes How?
- cat199 7y ago
  by disagreeing with the philosophial argument that gender is different from bilological sex without actually being afraid (phobia) of being wrong, nor being 'hateful' to those who claim it (e.g. treat them like people)
- drak0n1c 7y ago
  Phobia is a strong label meaning irrational fear or hatred. Skepticism of mainstream assumptions does not always involve irrational fear or hatred.
  - david38 7y ago
    This. The left loves to redefine words like phobias to weaponize them. They then say anyone who is not welcoming with open arms is x-phobic and lives in fear and hatred of said group and by extension wishes to attack them. It is very possible to disagree with something like homosexuality and simply go about your life. It doesn’t mean you throw stones or spit at them, you just disagree with them. Trans is a little different because the desired outcome is you change your behavior NOT to treat them like everyone else but to treat them according to target identity. So if you choose not to go out of your way to treat them differently, you are phobic. In the past, this wasn’t an issue. You could not believe in mixing races and that simply meant you didn’t date outside your race. You still addressed a black/Hispanic/etc man as sir, woman as m’am, etc. a flat out racist would call the men “boy”, refuse to serve them, whatever. Of course there are people today who will call you a racist for not sleeping with someone outside your race. They redefine racist as any change in behavior based on race instead of the intended idea where your actions deny the person those things they would otherwise have a right to.
- pmarreck 7y ago
  You could make the rational (but... somewhat outrage-triggering) argument that it's cognitively-dissonant to both believe that teens cannot consent to sex with an adult but they CAN consent to a far more permanent and invasive gender change performed by adults (I just googled; hormone-blocking treatment usually begins at puberty onset) And you could (probably) rationally argue against that argument Or you could just deplatform anyone making the original argument against it and accomplish nothing
  - DanBC 7y ago
    You didn't google hard enough: treatment at puberty would be hormone blockers, which are reversible.
    - drak0n1c 7y ago
      Not quite. There's recent studies on both genders finding lasting effects of pre-pubescent hormone blockers on brain development, memory, and IQ. Brain plasticity drops significantly with age, so any recovery in that department if and when a decision to reverse is made is diminished. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5694455/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5694455/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=11683207 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetail... https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00044/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.0004...
      - pmarreck 7y ago
        And this is how one rationally debates a potentially inflammatory topic without deplatforming anyone. By sticking close to the available evidence and using careful reasoning.
      - DanBC 7y ago
        you've failed to address "reverisble", because none of your links look at that.
    - pmarreck 7y ago

by cat199 7y ago

danharaj 7y ago

> are some trans skeptics not transphobic: unequivocally yes How?

cat199 7y ago
by disagreeing with the philosophial argument that gender is different from bilological sex without actually being afraid (phobia) of being wrong, nor being 'hateful' to those who claim it (e.g. treat them like people)
drak0n1c 7y ago
Phobia is a strong label meaning irrational fear or hatred. Skepticism of mainstream assumptions does not always involve irrational fear or hatred.
- david38 7y ago
  This. The left loves to redefine words like phobias to weaponize them. They then say anyone who is not welcoming with open arms is x-phobic and lives in fear and hatred of said group and by extension wishes to attack them. It is very possible to disagree with something like homosexuality and simply go about your life. It doesn’t mean you throw stones or spit at them, you just disagree with them. Trans is a little different because the desired outcome is you change your behavior NOT to treat them like everyone else but to treat them according to target identity. So if you choose not to go out of your way to treat them differently, you are phobic. In the past, this wasn’t an issue. You could not believe in mixing races and that simply meant you didn’t date outside your race. You still addressed a black/Hispanic/etc man as sir, woman as m’am, etc. a flat out racist would call the men “boy”, refuse to serve them, whatever. Of course there are people today who will call you a racist for not sleeping with someone outside your race. They redefine racist as any change in behavior based on race instead of the intended idea where your actions deny the person those things they would otherwise have a right to.
pmarreck 7y ago
You could make the rational (but... somewhat outrage-triggering) argument that it's cognitively-dissonant to both believe that teens cannot consent to sex with an adult but they CAN consent to a far more permanent and invasive gender change performed by adults (I just googled; hormone-blocking treatment usually begins at puberty onset) And you could (probably) rationally argue against that argument Or you could just deplatform anyone making the original argument against it and accomplish nothing
- DanBC 7y ago
  You didn't google hard enough: treatment at puberty would be hormone blockers, which are reversible.
  - drak0n1c 7y ago
    Not quite. There's recent studies on both genders finding lasting effects of pre-pubescent hormone blockers on brain development, memory, and IQ. Brain plasticity drops significantly with age, so any recovery in that department if and when a decision to reverse is made is diminished. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5694455/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5694455/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=11683207 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetail... https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00044/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.0004...
    - pmarreck 7y ago
      And this is how one rationally debates a potentially inflammatory topic without deplatforming anyone. By sticking close to the available evidence and using careful reasoning.
    - DanBC 7y ago
      you've failed to address "reverisble", because none of your links look at that.
  - pmarreck 7y ago