5 ms·

> Although parlor was only used for hate > Right. I used parler to do such things as <hate>. I stopped using Twitter for <hate> because I figured that ... it w

> Although parlor was only used for hate > Right. I used parler to do such things as <hate>. I stopped using Twitter for <hate> because I figured that ... it was only a matter of time before they were banned (for <hate>) I know you don't think it's hate. I know you think trans rights are a subjective ethical issue. But what if you're wrong? What if it's an objectively human rights issue? Like sexuality, and race? I know there is still an ongoing "cultural war" about these subjects in the more conservative western nations like the US and the UK. But on every socially progressive position, for the last few decades, countries like The Netherlands, Sweden, and Canada, lead the way, and the US/UK eventually follows. So my question is genuine - do you genuinely believe that you will come out ahead on this issue on a historical timeline? That the trans discussion will be nothing but a passing fad?

indigochill 6y ago
Sexual mores have been fluid throughout history. There's no particular reason to think one side is more on the "right side" than the other from an absolute sense, looking at the historical track record. For that matter, the notion of human rights as we conceive of them is a relatively modern invention. Liberalism isn't even 400 years old yet (and the notion of universal rule of law as codified in the Magna Carta is itself only just past 800). By comparison, Ancient Egypt lasted for around 3,000 years, and Rome for 1,200. We've got a while yet before we can declare our way is any more successful than theirs. Particularly if someone believes that it's a religious issue dictated by a deity who takes an active interest in the world, then they'll definitely believe they're on the right side of history.
- deanCommie 6y ago
  Transgenderism is not a sexual more, though. Is the trend of human history on the scale of thousands of years old relevant? Is that no different than saying "It's pointless to worry about climate change because the sun will explode and then there will be the heat death of the universe?" Surely there is some evidence that society and humanity is "stabilizing" to a certain plateau of morality and ethics not driven by religion but driven by humanism? Lastly, "Particularly if someone believes that it's a religious issue dictated by a deity who takes an active interest in the world, then they'll definitely believe they're on the right side of history." is exactly why I ask! Because the perspective of what is acceptable from these religious institutions is rapidly changing! 50 years ago a Christian church that is "gay-friendly" would be inconceivable. Today there are many. Of course there are those that would dismiss those out of hand, but by default the ethical positions of groups that supposedly represent eternal immortal deities is shifting - from evolution, to birth control, to homosexuality. I'm genuinely wondering if people believe that transgender acceptance is somehow unique.
  - indigochill 6y ago
    > Is the trend of human history on the scale of thousands of years old relevant? Yeah, because... > Surely there is some evidence that society and humanity is "stabilizing" to a certain plateau of morality and ethics not driven by religion but driven by humanism? My point in my previous post is that I don't think we can make that claim yet because we don't have enough data. Surely the ancient Romans and Egyptians would have believed the same, yet here we are.
  - xupybd 6y ago
    Humanism is one world view. One that you can build a moral framework around. Much the same way religious people build a world view based on their religious beliefs. It's hard to make an argument that one world view is better than another. Because to do so you have to agree how to measure the outcomes of world views. Often this is impossible as the world views conflict. The makes most assessments of societies progress subjective.
- mr_toad 6y ago
  Or you could argue that as long as no one is getting hurt what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ for other people is none of your business.
cbozeman 6y ago
You realize trans people are going to go extinct right? It should be clear as day to anyone with even a passing interest in biology. Once we've identified exactly what genes influence transgenderism, and genetic editing of our embryos is commonplace for the populace, no one is going to allow their children to be born with a predilection for being transgender. You'd be literally putting your child at an enormous disadvantage for no discernable reason. Look how long its taken for gay people to be accepted by society. Not decades, but centuries. Transgender people don't have that long. In a century, we'll be editing genetically superior superbabies. No parents in their right mind would give their children such a tremendous disadvantage in life when they could make them "normal". I suspect gay people will probably go extinct too, but one never knows with 100% certainty how these things play out. I suspect a great many classes of people / traits will go extinct. Down's Syndrome babies will certainly be screened out of the population, because again... in a society of beautiful 200 IQ super athletes, why would you deliberately hinder your child?
- ModernMech 6y ago
  Haven’t you seen Gattaca? There will be plenty of babies born to parents who can’t afford to genetically modify their children. We can’t even get insulin to the people who need it today.
  - cbozeman 6y ago
    > There will be plenty of babies born to parents who can’t afford to genetically modify their children. Yes, and how far behind will they be left?? This is one of my primary concerns. GATTACA tells the story of a single individual with Herculean willpower. That's simply not most of society. For every one Vincent Freemans, there's 999,999 Carls from The Breakfast Club.
- KraftKacke 6y ago
  You vastly underestimate the complexity of the human genome and also assume transsexuality is _all genetics. Ontogenesis, epigenetics, environmental factors, ... there is a lot more on sex variant hardware front than genetics. Sex is bimodal, by definition parents can't define a "right body" in this regard. And anyway, at that point of understanding and manipulating human biology, "people" will likely moved beyond limiting categories such as 'sex'.
_fq4v 6y ago
I am a brown man who has been subject to many racist attacks. After 9/11 my elementary school classmates called me a terrorist. My father and I (when I was a young boy) was chased out of a car dealership by a mad salesman yelling strawberry picker at us. Walking through the downtown of my city with my white wife, I have been harassed by people who don't like we are in an interracial marriage. I still do not believe that racism or incidents of racism, including the ones I described above, are 'objectively' human rights issues. They are clearly quite subjective, since they only really exist in my experience. My religion (which most would also describe as subjective) tells me that these experiences have absolute moral character, but barring my reference to that, I cannot say for sure whether or not such discourse is objectively wrong. I especially have trouble labeling the discourse as 'objectively' a human rights violation when none of the behavior I described above has come from anyone in any position to have power over my life or my rights. Honestly, to continue to harp on those individuals that have mistreated me would be incredibly childish.
- deanCommie 6y ago
  Do you think your personal subjective experience with tolerating racism is therefore broadly applicable to other people's subjective experience with racism? I'm probably misunderstanding but your post reads as "I don't call personal racist discrimination I faced hatred or racism, therefore my own personal discrimination of transgender people is not hatred or <ism>"...

indigochill 6y ago

Sexual mores have been fluid throughout history. There's no particular reason to think one side is more on the "right side" than the other from an absolute sense, looking at the historical track record. For that matter, the notion of human rights as we conceive of them is a relatively modern invention. Liberalism isn't even 400 years old yet (and the notion of universal rule of law as codified in the Magna Carta is itself only just past 800). By comparison, Ancient Egypt lasted for around 3,000 years, and Rome for 1,200. We've got a while yet before we can declare our way is any more successful than theirs. Particularly if someone believes that it's a religious issue dictated by a deity who takes an active interest in the world, then they'll definitely believe they're on the right side of history.

deanCommie 6y ago
Transgenderism is not a sexual more, though. Is the trend of human history on the scale of thousands of years old relevant? Is that no different than saying "It's pointless to worry about climate change because the sun will explode and then there will be the heat death of the universe?" Surely there is some evidence that society and humanity is "stabilizing" to a certain plateau of morality and ethics not driven by religion but driven by humanism? Lastly, "Particularly if someone believes that it's a religious issue dictated by a deity who takes an active interest in the world, then they'll definitely believe they're on the right side of history." is exactly why I ask! Because the perspective of what is acceptable from these religious institutions is rapidly changing! 50 years ago a Christian church that is "gay-friendly" would be inconceivable. Today there are many. Of course there are those that would dismiss those out of hand, but by default the ethical positions of groups that supposedly represent eternal immortal deities is shifting - from evolution, to birth control, to homosexuality. I'm genuinely wondering if people believe that transgender acceptance is somehow unique.
- indigochill 6y ago
  > Is the trend of human history on the scale of thousands of years old relevant? Yeah, because... > Surely there is some evidence that society and humanity is "stabilizing" to a certain plateau of morality and ethics not driven by religion but driven by humanism? My point in my previous post is that I don't think we can make that claim yet because we don't have enough data. Surely the ancient Romans and Egyptians would have believed the same, yet here we are.
- xupybd 6y ago
  Humanism is one world view. One that you can build a moral framework around. Much the same way religious people build a world view based on their religious beliefs. It's hard to make an argument that one world view is better than another. Because to do so you have to agree how to measure the outcomes of world views. Often this is impossible as the world views conflict. The makes most assessments of societies progress subjective.
mr_toad 6y ago
Or you could argue that as long as no one is getting hurt what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ for other people is none of your business.

cbozeman 6y ago

You realize trans people are going to go extinct right? It should be clear as day to anyone with even a passing interest in biology. Once we've identified exactly what genes influence transgenderism, and genetic editing of our embryos is commonplace for the populace, no one is going to allow their children to be born with a predilection for being transgender. You'd be literally putting your child at an enormous disadvantage for no discernable reason. Look how long its taken for gay people to be accepted by society. Not decades, but centuries. Transgender people don't have that long. In a century, we'll be editing genetically superior superbabies. No parents in their right mind would give their children such a tremendous disadvantage in life when they could make them "normal". I suspect gay people will probably go extinct too, but one never knows with 100% certainty how these things play out. I suspect a great many classes of people / traits will go extinct. Down's Syndrome babies will certainly be screened out of the population, because again... in a society of beautiful 200 IQ super athletes, why would you deliberately hinder your child?

ModernMech 6y ago
Haven’t you seen Gattaca? There will be plenty of babies born to parents who can’t afford to genetically modify their children. We can’t even get insulin to the people who need it today.
- cbozeman 6y ago
  > There will be plenty of babies born to parents who can’t afford to genetically modify their children. Yes, and how far behind will they be left?? This is one of my primary concerns. GATTACA tells the story of a single individual with Herculean willpower. That's simply not most of society. For every one Vincent Freemans, there's 999,999 Carls from The Breakfast Club.
KraftKacke 6y ago
You vastly underestimate the complexity of the human genome and also assume transsexuality is _all genetics. Ontogenesis, epigenetics, environmental factors, ... there is a lot more on sex variant hardware front than genetics. Sex is bimodal, by definition parents can't define a "right body" in this regard. And anyway, at that point of understanding and manipulating human biology, "people" will likely moved beyond limiting categories such as 'sex'.

_fq4v 6y ago

I am a brown man who has been subject to many racist attacks. After 9/11 my elementary school classmates called me a terrorist. My father and I (when I was a young boy) was chased out of a car dealership by a mad salesman yelling strawberry picker at us. Walking through the downtown of my city with my white wife, I have been harassed by people who don't like we are in an interracial marriage. I still do not believe that racism or incidents of racism, including the ones I described above, are 'objectively' human rights issues. They are clearly quite subjective, since they only really exist in my experience. My religion (which most would also describe as subjective) tells me that these experiences have absolute moral character, but barring my reference to that, I cannot say for sure whether or not such discourse is objectively wrong. I especially have trouble labeling the discourse as 'objectively' a human rights violation when none of the behavior I described above has come from anyone in any position to have power over my life or my rights. Honestly, to continue to harp on those individuals that have mistreated me would be incredibly childish.

deanCommie 6y ago
Do you think your personal subjective experience with tolerating racism is therefore broadly applicable to other people's subjective experience with racism? I'm probably misunderstanding but your post reads as "I don't call personal racist discrimination I faced hatred or racism, therefore my own personal discrimination of transgender people is not hatred or <ism>"...