6 ms·

(1) The concept of an inherent “gender” makes no biological nor logical sense. You can’t have been born in the “wrong body.” (2) Socrates was mostly right abou

(1) The concept of an inherent “gender” makes no biological nor logical sense. You can’t have been born in the “wrong body.” (2) Socrates was mostly right about democracy. (3) Seriously violent criminals, once convicted, should never bet let out of prison. (4) The US (and all nations) should have essentially open borders. (5) The US should make health insurance illegal and provide health care as a function of government, the way they provide national defense. (6) All gun control is against the US constitution and poor public policy. These are all my sincere opinions, and, although I think most of them are clearly, sometimes self-evidently true, most of them are heresies.

noelsusman 5y ago
The only one of these that could fit Graham's definition of a heresy is the first one, and even then it would depend on what exactly you mean.
- leephillips 5y ago
  Some are surely more heretical than others. The reason I think most of them are heresies is because of the hysterical reactions they cause when I utter them.
  - noelsusman 5y ago
    Heresies are not merely unpopular opinions. They're unpopular opinions that will also get you aggressively ostracized and fired from your job.
beaconstudios 5y ago
Doesn't everybody think their ideas are self evident? As for the gender one: imagine you woke up in the body of somebody of the opposite sex tomorrow. Wouldn't you be in the wrong body? My understanding is that the "wrong body" argument is actually not an accurate explanation of trans people's experience though.
- leephillips 5y ago
  No. I think these are, more or less. But I have other ideas that are works in progress, or that I’m not so sure about. Gender: I was talking about reality, not science fiction scenarios. Yes, by definition, in your example, you would be in the wrong body.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    In reality, people report not identifying with the body they were born in. What more evidence do you need? I think that's a good example of how people can be certain of their beliefs despite flying in the face of the evidence.
    - umvi 5y ago
      Maybe what OP was getting at is more like a "transgenderism is a mental illness" type of heretical statement
      - beaconstudios 5y ago
        I don't know, I don't like to assume these things. Either way, some ideas are "heretical" for a reason: they lead to worse outcomes. You could argue under the same "trans are mentally ill" model that gay people are too. But we don't, because letting gay people live their lives (or more accurately, not oppressing them) leads to better outcomes. That's what it's all about. And it's the same with trans people - if they're accepted and allowed to present how they want, outcomes are better.
        leephillips 5y ago
        So you the person that PG is describing. Someone who feels that some things must not be said, even if they might be true, because of the outcomes that might result if we say them.
        5y ago
tlogan 5y ago
The first one is problematic and it needs have some context. Do you think that person can define its own gender which is different that genitalia which define sex? The other ones are opinions and I’m not aware of anybody being canceled or fired for saying those.
- leephillips 5y ago
  Can you try to reformulate your question? I can’t parse it.
- erikpukinskis 5y ago
  About to get this thread detached, but I wanted to take a stab at answering your good faith question! My understanding is there are two groups here, and depending on where you live one or the other of them will get you into hot water: Group A-1 believes: 1. Gendered identities are a social construct, meaning your gender is dictated by how you are perceived socially 2. Gendered expression is good 3. Every person should have equal access to all social structures 4. Therefore every person should be allowed to access whichever gender identity they prefer 5. Because gender is socially constructed, this requires your social group to be on board with assisting in the social construction of your gender identity (using the correct pronouns, etc) 6. Therefore it's wrong, and anti-freedom to deny someone's gender identity. 7. Sex is an outdated concept, existing for historical reasons to prevent #4, and in the rare cases it might be medically or sexually relevant should be replaced by a "basket of physical characteristics"... hormone levels, genital structure, etc, as the individual situation may require Group A-2 believes: 1. Most of what A-1 believes, except: 2. Gendered expression is not good, because it is a conduit for misogyny 3. But it's inescapable in today's society 4. And people expressing gender outside of their social assignments helps break that down Group B-1 believes: 1. Sex is still a relevant concept medically 2. Sex is still a relevant concept because some peoples' sexualities are tied to sex not gender identity 3. Sex is still a relevant concept for understanding patriarchy, and it's counterproductive to the goals of women's liberation to try to dismantle sex groups before dismantling patriarchy. 4. Encouraging transitioning as a solution to #3 is bad, because it reifies gender roles. 5. Sex is not malleable 6. Forcing others to reify your gender identity impinges on their right to build social groups around sex identities (for reasons like #2 and #3) 7. Gendered expression is not good, because it is a conduit for misogyny 8. People should express themselves however they like, but this has nothing to do with sex or "gender" 9. Gender doesn't really exist Group B-2 believes: 1. Most of what A-2 believes, except: 2. Gendered expression is good, because tradition 3. Patriarchy is about as powerful as Matriarchy so it is not important to dismantle 4. Encouraging transitioning is bad, because tradition IMO this debate can rage on forever because whichever side you're on, you can pick and choose from the -1 and -2 variants to concoct an evil version of either perspective. Also, I truly love all three of: A-1, A-2, and B-1 and I think all three of them hold very important kernels of truth. As of 2022 I can't see how they could be reconciled but it one of my greatest desires that one day they could! Save us Gen Z! I don't think I'm supposed to support B-1 in public though, so I mostly don't. And from your question I think you agree that B-1 is problematic? If I had to pick just one for society I'd pick A-2, but I think it misses a lot of the picture that B-1 is trying to hold on to. Anyway, I thought this breakdown might help answer your question? Did it?
kemayo 5y ago
I think you're exaggerating what qualifies as a "heresy". It's different from people thinking you're wrong, loudly disagreeing with you, or even not wanting to associate with you once your opinion is known. If we agree with Graham's definition, you need to be fired for saying them.
Beltalowda 5y ago
All except the first one (possibly? I'm actually not 100% sure what your view is since it's phrased a bit confusing) aren't really "heresies" in the sense of "people will vigorously attack you for it". They are perhaps way outside of mainstream politics, but that's not quite the same thing. I happen to think that private ownership cars should be severely restricted, perhaps even outright banned. I think everyone will be better off. It's a pretty hot take and something of a "heresy", but no one is going to call my employer to get me fired, or round up a gang on Twitter to badger me over it. They make thing I'm an idiot, but that's perfectly fine.
maccolgan 5y ago
Post 3, it's quite the inverse in my experience.
odonnellryan 5y ago
None of these would get you fired?

noelsusman 5y ago

The only one of these that could fit Graham's definition of a heresy is the first one, and even then it would depend on what exactly you mean.

leephillips 5y ago
Some are surely more heretical than others. The reason I think most of them are heresies is because of the hysterical reactions they cause when I utter them.
- noelsusman 5y ago
  Heresies are not merely unpopular opinions. They're unpopular opinions that will also get you aggressively ostracized and fired from your job.

beaconstudios 5y ago

Doesn't everybody think their ideas are self evident? As for the gender one: imagine you woke up in the body of somebody of the opposite sex tomorrow. Wouldn't you be in the wrong body? My understanding is that the "wrong body" argument is actually not an accurate explanation of trans people's experience though.

leephillips 5y ago
No. I think these are, more or less. But I have other ideas that are works in progress, or that I’m not so sure about. Gender: I was talking about reality, not science fiction scenarios. Yes, by definition, in your example, you would be in the wrong body.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  In reality, people report not identifying with the body they were born in. What more evidence do you need? I think that's a good example of how people can be certain of their beliefs despite flying in the face of the evidence.
  - umvi 5y ago
    Maybe what OP was getting at is more like a "transgenderism is a mental illness" type of heretical statement
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      I don't know, I don't like to assume these things. Either way, some ideas are "heretical" for a reason: they lead to worse outcomes. You could argue under the same "trans are mentally ill" model that gay people are too. But we don't, because letting gay people live their lives (or more accurately, not oppressing them) leads to better outcomes. That's what it's all about. And it's the same with trans people - if they're accepted and allowed to present how they want, outcomes are better.
      - leephillips 5y ago
        So you the person that PG is describing. Someone who feels that some things must not be said, even if they might be true, because of the outcomes that might result if we say them.
        5y ago

tlogan 5y ago

The first one is problematic and it needs have some context. Do you think that person can define its own gender which is different that genitalia which define sex? The other ones are opinions and I’m not aware of anybody being canceled or fired for saying those.

leephillips 5y ago
Can you try to reformulate your question? I can’t parse it.
erikpukinskis 5y ago
About to get this thread detached, but I wanted to take a stab at answering your good faith question! My understanding is there are two groups here, and depending on where you live one or the other of them will get you into hot water: Group A-1 believes: 1. Gendered identities are a social construct, meaning your gender is dictated by how you are perceived socially 2. Gendered expression is good 3. Every person should have equal access to all social structures 4. Therefore every person should be allowed to access whichever gender identity they prefer 5. Because gender is socially constructed, this requires your social group to be on board with assisting in the social construction of your gender identity (using the correct pronouns, etc) 6. Therefore it's wrong, and anti-freedom to deny someone's gender identity. 7. Sex is an outdated concept, existing for historical reasons to prevent #4, and in the rare cases it might be medically or sexually relevant should be replaced by a "basket of physical characteristics"... hormone levels, genital structure, etc, as the individual situation may require Group A-2 believes: 1. Most of what A-1 believes, except: 2. Gendered expression is not good, because it is a conduit for misogyny 3. But it's inescapable in today's society 4. And people expressing gender outside of their social assignments helps break that down Group B-1 believes: 1. Sex is still a relevant concept medically 2. Sex is still a relevant concept because some peoples' sexualities are tied to sex not gender identity 3. Sex is still a relevant concept for understanding patriarchy, and it's counterproductive to the goals of women's liberation to try to dismantle sex groups before dismantling patriarchy. 4. Encouraging transitioning as a solution to #3 is bad, because it reifies gender roles. 5. Sex is not malleable 6. Forcing others to reify your gender identity impinges on their right to build social groups around sex identities (for reasons like #2 and #3) 7. Gendered expression is not good, because it is a conduit for misogyny 8. People should express themselves however they like, but this has nothing to do with sex or "gender" 9. Gender doesn't really exist Group B-2 believes: 1. Most of what A-2 believes, except: 2. Gendered expression is good, because tradition 3. Patriarchy is about as powerful as Matriarchy so it is not important to dismantle 4. Encouraging transitioning is bad, because tradition IMO this debate can rage on forever because whichever side you're on, you can pick and choose from the -1 and -2 variants to concoct an evil version of either perspective. Also, I truly love all three of: A-1, A-2, and B-1 and I think all three of them hold very important kernels of truth. As of 2022 I can't see how they could be reconciled but it one of my greatest desires that one day they could! Save us Gen Z! I don't think I'm supposed to support B-1 in public though, so I mostly don't. And from your question I think you agree that B-1 is problematic? If I had to pick just one for society I'd pick A-2, but I think it misses a lot of the picture that B-1 is trying to hold on to. Anyway, I thought this breakdown might help answer your question? Did it?

kemayo 5y ago

I think you're exaggerating what qualifies as a "heresy". It's different from people thinking you're wrong, loudly disagreeing with you, or even not wanting to associate with you once your opinion is known. If we agree with Graham's definition, you need to be fired for saying them.

Beltalowda 5y ago

All except the first one (possibly? I'm actually not 100% sure what your view is since it's phrased a bit confusing) aren't really "heresies" in the sense of "people will vigorously attack you for it". They are perhaps way outside of mainstream politics, but that's not quite the same thing. I happen to think that private ownership cars should be severely restricted, perhaps even outright banned. I think everyone will be better off. It's a pretty hot take and something of a "heresy", but no one is going to call my employer to get me fired, or round up a gang on Twitter to badger me over it. They make thing I'm an idiot, but that's perfectly fine.

maccolgan 5y ago

Post 3, it's quite the inverse in my experience.

odonnellryan 5y ago

None of these would get you fired?