4 ms·

Yeah, that’s fair as an argument from first principles. But speaking from a more practical standpoint: we know, empirically, that there are a lot of transgende

by ketzo 4y ago

Yeah, that’s fair as an argument from first principles. But speaking from a more practical standpoint: we know, empirically, that there are a lot of transgender people out in the world. We know that many of them feel much healthier when they are able to transition, in various different ways. It’s not just an appeal to authority, it’s an appeal to a fairly significant consensus in medical science. Which feels better to me. We just don’t have any meaningful evidence for “I identify as black so I can say the N-word” being anything other than an annoying troll argument. Or at least, I certainly haven’t seen any. But if you want to talk about race/gender as social constructs, that’s a whole ‘nother conversation — one very worth having!

willcipriano 4y ago
I don't disagree that people are suffering from a condition and feel the way they do. I'm sure if I had it, I would feel the same way. I don't care one bit what clothes you wear or what name you want me to call you. My problem is mainly when I think about other, similar conditions, like elderly people who think they are 8 years old or patients who think they are celebrities. I'm not asked to think of them in the manner that they think of themselves. Another example: a teenage girl with body dysmorphia identifies as obese, but you'd have to be evil to go along with that dysmorphia. It just seems to me that this one case is different but I can't point to a good reason why.
- sumeno 4y ago
  This kind of argument has been used to deny people their rights forever. In the 90s and 00s one of the arguments was that if you legalized same-sex marriage then bestiality would be next. These arguments are just a new flavor of that so that people can still be jerks to transgender people.
  - grajam_hons 4y ago
    I think the crucial difference is that nobody was disadvantaged by legalizing same-sex marriage. At least in how it was implemented in the UK, religious venues are not compelled to officiate such marriages. So the LGB folks still get to enjoy marriage equality, but the reverends and imams and suchlike don't feel disrespected.
    - sumeno 4y ago
      Who is disadvantaged by using someone's preferred pronouns? or not using racist slurs?
      - grajam_hons 4y ago
        I was thinking more along the lines of how women's rights are affected, for instance. What's recently been happening to women in prisons quite exemplifies the issue.
        grajam_hons 4y ago
        [flagged]
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - UncleMeat 4y ago
      Conservatives have complained bitterly that legalizing same-sex marriage disadvantaged people. You've got clerks who say it violates their rights. You've got people who say that it devalues their own straight marriages.
      - grajam_hons 4y ago
        Some clerks have claimed that, but that's akin to a vegetarian working in a butcher's shop and complaining that they have to handle meat. If the job description changes such that conflicts with your religious beliefs then you do have a choice to resign, or, ideally, be made redundant and given redundancy pay to tide you over until finding a more suitable job.
        UncleMeat 4y ago
        Of course, but the point is that “gay rights and trans rights are distinct because trans rights disadvantage people” isn’t something that everybody agrees on. We shouldn’t let the fact that pronouns aggravate some people create toxic environments for trans people.
BazzeractQ 4y ago
It's gone a bit too far now though. I mean, previously it was just a polite fiction to assuage the mental anguish of those who feel at odds with their sex for whatever reason. Now we're all compelled to actually believe it, in all situations. Or at least, convincingly act as if we do.
- ketzo 4y ago
  I suppose the question I would ask you is: why do you need it to be a fiction? Why can’t you just… make it a new reality?
  - BazzeractQ 4y ago
    The honest answer is that I've not yet heard any convincing argument that would cause me to accept this as a reality. Perhaps this is partly because I used to be a biologist and worked in the medical research field for a while (before pivoting to software development to get out of academia), so I have a very critical eye when it comes to the studies that proponents of this set of beliefs tend to use to support their arguments.

by ketzo 4y ago

willcipriano 4y ago

I don't disagree that people are suffering from a condition and feel the way they do. I'm sure if I had it, I would feel the same way. I don't care one bit what clothes you wear or what name you want me to call you. My problem is mainly when I think about other, similar conditions, like elderly people who think they are 8 years old or patients who think they are celebrities. I'm not asked to think of them in the manner that they think of themselves. Another example: a teenage girl with body dysmorphia identifies as obese, but you'd have to be evil to go along with that dysmorphia. It just seems to me that this one case is different but I can't point to a good reason why.

sumeno 4y ago
This kind of argument has been used to deny people their rights forever. In the 90s and 00s one of the arguments was that if you legalized same-sex marriage then bestiality would be next. These arguments are just a new flavor of that so that people can still be jerks to transgender people.
- grajam_hons 4y ago
  I think the crucial difference is that nobody was disadvantaged by legalizing same-sex marriage. At least in how it was implemented in the UK, religious venues are not compelled to officiate such marriages. So the LGB folks still get to enjoy marriage equality, but the reverends and imams and suchlike don't feel disrespected.
  - sumeno 4y ago
    Who is disadvantaged by using someone's preferred pronouns? or not using racist slurs?
    - grajam_hons 4y ago
      I was thinking more along the lines of how women's rights are affected, for instance. What's recently been happening to women in prisons quite exemplifies the issue.
      - grajam_hons 4y ago
        [flagged]
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - UncleMeat 4y ago
    Conservatives have complained bitterly that legalizing same-sex marriage disadvantaged people. You've got clerks who say it violates their rights. You've got people who say that it devalues their own straight marriages.
    - grajam_hons 4y ago
      Some clerks have claimed that, but that's akin to a vegetarian working in a butcher's shop and complaining that they have to handle meat. If the job description changes such that conflicts with your religious beliefs then you do have a choice to resign, or, ideally, be made redundant and given redundancy pay to tide you over until finding a more suitable job.
      - UncleMeat 4y ago
        Of course, but the point is that “gay rights and trans rights are distinct because trans rights disadvantage people” isn’t something that everybody agrees on. We shouldn’t let the fact that pronouns aggravate some people create toxic environments for trans people.

BazzeractQ 4y ago

It's gone a bit too far now though. I mean, previously it was just a polite fiction to assuage the mental anguish of those who feel at odds with their sex for whatever reason. Now we're all compelled to actually believe it, in all situations. Or at least, convincingly act as if we do.

ketzo 4y ago
I suppose the question I would ask you is: why do you need it to be a fiction? Why can’t you just… make it a new reality?
- BazzeractQ 4y ago
  The honest answer is that I've not yet heard any convincing argument that would cause me to accept this as a reality. Perhaps this is partly because I used to be a biologist and worked in the medical research field for a while (before pivoting to software development to get out of academia), so I have a very critical eye when it comes to the studies that proponents of this set of beliefs tend to use to support their arguments.