3 ms·

As I've said before: we agree on this point. Where we seem to disagree is on the question of whether government, employers or other institutional powers have

As I've said before: we agree on this point. Where we seem to disagree is on the question of whether government, employers or other institutional powers have the power to silence those who don't see it our way. If we do indeed disagree, then by definition you lean towards authoritarian politics. You are willing to go further than I in restricting freedom of expression to defend trans people. You may even be right, but that makes you more authoritarian than me. Why does this matter? Because it's the actual subject of debate. I want trans people to be treated with respect too, but my political opinion is that authoritarianism is the wrong way to achieve this outcome. I think you will find that many people who reject identity politics / CRT / etc don't actually hate trans people. They fear authoritarian mobs and the governments they elect. (Apologies for the multiple stealth-edits. It sometimes takes me a few tries to articulate my thoughts.)

klyrs 5y ago
Woah there, you're putting a whole lot of assumptions on me. I'm not against the rights of white men being up for debate in the public sphere any more or less than the rights of transgender people. But we live in an authoritarian system which limits the rights of transgender people by various means. It's better in the US than it is in the UK, which in turn is much better than Saudi Arabia. The Gender Critical folks want more authoritarianism. They want the government to decide your gender, and segregate transgender people from cisgender people.
- omginternets 5y ago
  >you're putting a whole lot of assumptions on me Not at all, I promise. If you reread, you'll surely notice the qualifier "seems". I used it precisely because I can't be sure what you actually think, and can therefore only talk about surface-level appearances. Please be assured that I am doing my best to interpret your comments charitably, and assuming the best of your character :) >But we live in an authoritarian system which limits the rights of transgender people by various means. I believe you are confusing authoritarianism with something else. Authoritarianism is roughly the idea that institutions (government, businesses, etc.) should exert more control over individuals. The presence of inequities don't qualify as authoritarianism on their own, and neither does outright discrimination. To illustrate: discriminating against a group doesn't imply that government should have more control over individuals. It's definitely bad, but it's something else. I would urge you not to conflate the two, as this is precisely what prevents the majority of liberals from adhering to CRT et al. >They want the government to decide your gender, and segregate transgender people from cisgender people. I don't know if you're talking about the US, the UK or Saudi Arabia here, but in the US and UK -- two countries in which I have, incidentally, lived for quite some time -- this is not what the majority of CRT-critics want. The majority are attached to liberal values, and are concerned that the confusion of ideas that permeates CRT discourse (of which your earlier conflation is an example) lead its proponents to the conclusion that authoritarian measures are desirable.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    > You are willing to go further than I in restricting freedom of expression to defend trans people. You may even be right, but that makes you more authoritarian than me. Sorry, no. I'm not sure how many "seems" you've inserted since my first reading, but those two sentences are what I characterize as putting assumptions on me. You continue to respond to things I haven't said, so I'll stop trying. Have a nice day.
    - omginternets 5y ago
      Yes, that quoted text follows from the “seems” bit. If that premise is wrong, then you’re off the hook! That’s precisely why the “seems” was there to begin with! I can’t shake the feeling that you’re storming off to avoid having an actual conversation. Hopefully I’m wrong about that too.
      - klyrs 5y ago
        > I can’t shake the feeling that you’re storming off to avoid having an actual conversation. Hopefully I’m wrong about that too. After I pointed out that your assumptions were wrong (rendering, I don't know how much of, that comment nothingburger), you edited your post a bunch and act like I'm the weirdo for not liking what you've put in my mouth. After hedging a pile of ungenerous assumptions with "seems" (on the basis of a statement we appear to agree upon), you're now having so much trouble refraining from ungenerous assumptions that you continue to voice them behind another hedge. Does this help you understand why I'm not interested in further conversation?
alach11 5y ago
> Where we seem to disagree is on the question of whether government, employers or other institutional powers have the power to silence those who don't see it our way Isn't it the default case that employers can set rules about how employees speak to each other? Do you see anything wrong with an employer saying "you must make a good-faith effort to call people by their preferred name and pronouns"?

klyrs 5y ago

Woah there, you're putting a whole lot of assumptions on me. I'm not against the rights of white men being up for debate in the public sphere any more or less than the rights of transgender people. But we live in an authoritarian system which limits the rights of transgender people by various means. It's better in the US than it is in the UK, which in turn is much better than Saudi Arabia. The Gender Critical folks want more authoritarianism. They want the government to decide your gender, and segregate transgender people from cisgender people.

omginternets 5y ago
>you're putting a whole lot of assumptions on me Not at all, I promise. If you reread, you'll surely notice the qualifier "seems". I used it precisely because I can't be sure what you actually think, and can therefore only talk about surface-level appearances. Please be assured that I am doing my best to interpret your comments charitably, and assuming the best of your character :) >But we live in an authoritarian system which limits the rights of transgender people by various means. I believe you are confusing authoritarianism with something else. Authoritarianism is roughly the idea that institutions (government, businesses, etc.) should exert more control over individuals. The presence of inequities don't qualify as authoritarianism on their own, and neither does outright discrimination. To illustrate: discriminating against a group doesn't imply that government should have more control over individuals. It's definitely bad, but it's something else. I would urge you not to conflate the two, as this is precisely what prevents the majority of liberals from adhering to CRT et al. >They want the government to decide your gender, and segregate transgender people from cisgender people. I don't know if you're talking about the US, the UK or Saudi Arabia here, but in the US and UK -- two countries in which I have, incidentally, lived for quite some time -- this is not what the majority of CRT-critics want. The majority are attached to liberal values, and are concerned that the confusion of ideas that permeates CRT discourse (of which your earlier conflation is an example) lead its proponents to the conclusion that authoritarian measures are desirable.
- klyrs 5y ago
  > You are willing to go further than I in restricting freedom of expression to defend trans people. You may even be right, but that makes you more authoritarian than me. Sorry, no. I'm not sure how many "seems" you've inserted since my first reading, but those two sentences are what I characterize as putting assumptions on me. You continue to respond to things I haven't said, so I'll stop trying. Have a nice day.
  - omginternets 5y ago
    Yes, that quoted text follows from the “seems” bit. If that premise is wrong, then you’re off the hook! That’s precisely why the “seems” was there to begin with! I can’t shake the feeling that you’re storming off to avoid having an actual conversation. Hopefully I’m wrong about that too.
    - klyrs 5y ago
      > I can’t shake the feeling that you’re storming off to avoid having an actual conversation. Hopefully I’m wrong about that too. After I pointed out that your assumptions were wrong (rendering, I don't know how much of, that comment nothingburger), you edited your post a bunch and act like I'm the weirdo for not liking what you've put in my mouth. After hedging a pile of ungenerous assumptions with "seems" (on the basis of a statement we appear to agree upon), you're now having so much trouble refraining from ungenerous assumptions that you continue to voice them behind another hedge. Does this help you understand why I'm not interested in further conversation?

alach11 5y ago

> Where we seem to disagree is on the question of whether government, employers or other institutional powers have the power to silence those who don't see it our way Isn't it the default case that employers can set rules about how employees speak to each other? Do you see anything wrong with an employer saying "you must make a good-faith effort to call people by their preferred name and pronouns"?