5 ms·

You do realize that you’re in the second group, yeah? That’s wildly hateful. It’s the exact same discrimination-based position but on gender identity instead of

You do realize that you’re in the second group, yeah? That’s wildly hateful. It’s the exact same discrimination-based position but on gender identity instead of race.

hansvm 4y ago
> wildly hateful To be clear, the bit where they mention biology exists, or the bit where they say they won't conform to other people's preferred language?
- CrazedGeek 4y ago
  Both and neither? The language itself isn’t the core issue, it’s the overt repudiation of someone’s identity. The biology bit is just an excuse, made worse by it being wrong: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony...
  - ohCh6zos 4y ago
    Do you believe that there exists a moral obligation to affirm someone's identity?
    - ryandrake 4y ago
      Not OP, but I think we are not obligated to be respectful and nice, but why deliberately be an asshole? It's like someone preferring a nickname. If I know my friend Michael prefers to go by "Mike" and will get upset if I use "Michael", I'm not obligated to call him Mike, but I would be an asshole to deliberately call him Michael. Why be an asshole when you can do something very simple to not be an asshole?
      - ohCh6zos 4y ago
        I think I agree with you, up to the line of participation in beliefs I do not share. It would be awful to go out of my way to harass someone with religious dietary requirements, but lacking belief I would refuse to refrain from beef, or go along with fasting during Ramadan.
        ryandrake 4y ago
        Calling someone by their preferred nickname or pronouns does not require you to participate in anything. Nobody's asking you to change your own name or fast during Ramadan if you don't want to. Using another analogy, I have vegetarian friends and acquaintances, and when they come visit, I serve us all veg-friendly food because... I'm not an asshole! Doing this small act does not require me to adopt their religion or become vegetarian myself.
        deltasevennine 4y ago
        Sure I agree with all of that. However the culture war you see nowadays is the result of etiquette becoming part of compelled behavior enforced by rules and law. Not just that it is redefining our interpretation of reality and science. It's not just about respect anymore; it's about truth. https://www.newyorker.com/sports/sporting-scene/how-one-swimmer-became-the-focus-of-a-debate-about-trans-athletes https://www.newyorker.com/sports/sporting-scene/how-one-swim... Because we didn't want to her feelings Mia, a biological male with a female gender was allowed to compete in women sports. She's dominating that sport now; and it's starting to display a comical mismatch between the old reality and a new reality. The argument is more complex then simply truth and etiquette. Because proponents of etiquette are literally redefining objective truth. So when you talk to both sides, they literally think they're side is the objective truth. Truth is as fluid as gender and it's literally hard to know which one is real. There is as much validity to say most humans are male or female as there is to say that gender is a gradient, a small minority of people are neither male or female. These are just arbitrary categorizations that are being redefined.
        ohCh6zos 4y ago
        I don't disagree with you on any of this, I think that's a fairly non-controversial opinion. What about things like letting males into female only spaces? Do we have a moral obligation to affirm their identity? Several religions present a duty for women not to expose themselves to men so we have a conflict.
      - Banana699 4y ago
        If your boy Mike, however, had a temper tantrum every time someone called him "Michael", or exerted public pressure on corporate HR and lawmakers to make it illegal to call him "Michael", I would indeed go out of my way to call him Michael, even if I don't actually know or care about him. It gives me pleasure to enrage entitled people demanding things they have no right to expect. In order to have my respect and niceness, you have to ask for it with respect and niceness. Otherwise you're just begging for abuse, and you have nobody to blame but yourself when it comes. I suspect I'm far from the only one who see it this way.
  - naasking 4y ago
    > The language itself isn’t the core issue, it’s the overt repudiation of someone’s identity. If gender is a social construct then it doesn't really exist except as a cultural artifact. If your identity is based on any kind of social construct, I don't see how it follows that anyone has to agree with or affirm that such claims ought to be a cultural norm. Furthermore, disagreeing with such claims are cultural disagreements rather than moral disagreements. Cultural disagreements are not innately hateful. Therefore it doesn't seem to follow that affirming gender identity has any moral force, or that not affirming it is innately hateful. That said, this obviously doesn't justify harassing trans people in any way, shape or form because of such disagreements.
carapace 4y ago
To me it seems clear that GP wrote without hate. A charitable reading is that they just don't have the experience to understand transgender experience. In the context of a discussion about the motivations for and arguments against political correctness it seems to me that we should try to create a safe space for folks (like deltasevennine) to express their perspectives evidently offered in good faith. (Even, and especially, if they seem wrong. You can't have a constructive discussion slinging mud.) - - - - > That to me is a profound question, and the core central question that's being asked by this culture war. We'd all be happier if everyone was politically correct. But of course we'd also be, in a way, lying to ourselves. To me too this is a profound and fascinating question. It cuts to the epistemological root of the matter. "How do you know?" I think a lot of what we're seeing as culture war actually boils down to an axis of Cosmopolitan vs. Provincial. With the advent of globalism and the Internet everyone has to confront everyone else in a giant distributed city. Things that seemed like bedrock (i.e. "There are only two genders") crash up against reality where that "rule" is just not applicable (i.e. there are human cultures with more than two genders, and biologically there are e.g. hermaphrodites, etc.)
- deltasevennine 4y ago
  >Things that seemed like bedrock (i.e. "There are only two genders") crash up against reality where that "rule" is just not applicable (i.e. there are human cultures with more than two genders, and biologically there are e.g. hermaphrodites, etc.) Have you heard of BIID? The term body integrity identity disorder (BIID) describes the extremely rare phenomenon of persons who desire the amputation of one or more healthy limbs or who desire a paralysis. Some of these persons mutilate themselves; others ask surgeons for an amputation or for the transection of their spinal cord. Psychologists and physicians explain this phenomenon in quite different ways; but a successful psychotherapeutic or pharmaceutical therapy is not known. Lobbies of persons suffering from BIID explain the desire for amputation in analogy to the desire of transsexuals for surgical sex reassignment. Medical ethicists discuss the controversy about elective amputations of healthy limbs: on the one hand the principle of autonomy is used to deduce the right for body modifications; on the other hand the autonomy of BIID patients is doubted. Neurological results suggest that BIID is a brain disorder producing a disruption of the body image, for which parallels for stroke patients are known. If BIID were a neuropsychological disturbance, which includes missing insight into the illness and a specific lack of autonomy, then amputations would be contraindicated and must be evaluated as bodily injuries of mentally disordered patients. Instead of only curing the symptom, a causal therapy should be developed to integrate the alien limb into the body image. Transexual sex reassignment involves the usage of chemicals and surgery that twists the flesh of their genitals to look like the opposite sex. The parallel with BIID is uncanny. Yet one is considered truth and normal, while the other is considered to be a disease. How do I know? I don't. But I get your point. Things that seem like a Bedrock truth can change. But did it change for the better? Is the new truth... the actual truth... or not? The existence of BIID and it's almost identical parallel to transexualism confuses me. BIID feels wrong. That's about as far as I can get. But if someone truly desires to amputate a limb... who are we to stop him? What right do we have to call what they feel a disease? I bring up BIID because I have a strong feeling that it's wrong... That what they feel is universally agreed to NOT be the objective truth. But I cannot grasp the logic behind it. If I examine BIID long enough I feel eventually the logic behind this controversy can be crystallized.
deltasevennine 4y ago
I'm either 100% on your side or I'm in the same group as the KKK? Do you not see the parallel here of forcing people into binary categories of being male or female? If gender can be non-binary why can't political correctness be as well? The biases of binary thinking pervades even those that believe themselves to be beyond it.

You do realize that you’re in the second group, yeah? That’s wildly hateful. It’s the exact same discrimination-based position but on gender identity instead of race.

hansvm 4y ago

> wildly hateful To be clear, the bit where they mention biology exists, or the bit where they say they won't conform to other people's preferred language?

CrazedGeek 4y ago
Both and neither? The language itself isn’t the core issue, it’s the overt repudiation of someone’s identity. The biology bit is just an excuse, made worse by it being wrong: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony...
- ohCh6zos 4y ago
  Do you believe that there exists a moral obligation to affirm someone's identity?
  - ryandrake 4y ago
    Not OP, but I think we are not obligated to be respectful and nice, but why deliberately be an asshole? It's like someone preferring a nickname. If I know my friend Michael prefers to go by "Mike" and will get upset if I use "Michael", I'm not obligated to call him Mike, but I would be an asshole to deliberately call him Michael. Why be an asshole when you can do something very simple to not be an asshole?
    - ohCh6zos 4y ago
      I think I agree with you, up to the line of participation in beliefs I do not share. It would be awful to go out of my way to harass someone with religious dietary requirements, but lacking belief I would refuse to refrain from beef, or go along with fasting during Ramadan.
      - ryandrake 4y ago
        Calling someone by their preferred nickname or pronouns does not require you to participate in anything. Nobody's asking you to change your own name or fast during Ramadan if you don't want to. Using another analogy, I have vegetarian friends and acquaintances, and when they come visit, I serve us all veg-friendly food because... I'm not an asshole! Doing this small act does not require me to adopt their religion or become vegetarian myself.
        deltasevennine 4y ago
        Sure I agree with all of that. However the culture war you see nowadays is the result of etiquette becoming part of compelled behavior enforced by rules and law. Not just that it is redefining our interpretation of reality and science. It's not just about respect anymore; it's about truth. https://www.newyorker.com/sports/sporting-scene/how-one-swimmer-became-the-focus-of-a-debate-about-trans-athletes https://www.newyorker.com/sports/sporting-scene/how-one-swim... Because we didn't want to her feelings Mia, a biological male with a female gender was allowed to compete in women sports. She's dominating that sport now; and it's starting to display a comical mismatch between the old reality and a new reality. The argument is more complex then simply truth and etiquette. Because proponents of etiquette are literally redefining objective truth. So when you talk to both sides, they literally think they're side is the objective truth. Truth is as fluid as gender and it's literally hard to know which one is real. There is as much validity to say most humans are male or female as there is to say that gender is a gradient, a small minority of people are neither male or female. These are just arbitrary categorizations that are being redefined.
        ohCh6zos 4y ago
        I don't disagree with you on any of this, I think that's a fairly non-controversial opinion. What about things like letting males into female only spaces? Do we have a moral obligation to affirm their identity? Several religions present a duty for women not to expose themselves to men so we have a conflict.
    - Banana699 4y ago
      If your boy Mike, however, had a temper tantrum every time someone called him "Michael", or exerted public pressure on corporate HR and lawmakers to make it illegal to call him "Michael", I would indeed go out of my way to call him Michael, even if I don't actually know or care about him. It gives me pleasure to enrage entitled people demanding things they have no right to expect. In order to have my respect and niceness, you have to ask for it with respect and niceness. Otherwise you're just begging for abuse, and you have nobody to blame but yourself when it comes. I suspect I'm far from the only one who see it this way.
- naasking 4y ago
  > The language itself isn’t the core issue, it’s the overt repudiation of someone’s identity. If gender is a social construct then it doesn't really exist except as a cultural artifact. If your identity is based on any kind of social construct, I don't see how it follows that anyone has to agree with or affirm that such claims ought to be a cultural norm. Furthermore, disagreeing with such claims are cultural disagreements rather than moral disagreements. Cultural disagreements are not innately hateful. Therefore it doesn't seem to follow that affirming gender identity has any moral force, or that not affirming it is innately hateful. That said, this obviously doesn't justify harassing trans people in any way, shape or form because of such disagreements.

carapace 4y ago

To me it seems clear that GP wrote without hate. A charitable reading is that they just don't have the experience to understand transgender experience. In the context of a discussion about the motivations for and arguments against political correctness it seems to me that we should try to create a safe space for folks (like deltasevennine) to express their perspectives evidently offered in good faith. (Even, and especially, if they seem wrong. You can't have a constructive discussion slinging mud.) - - - - > That to me is a profound question, and the core central question that's being asked by this culture war. We'd all be happier if everyone was politically correct. But of course we'd also be, in a way, lying to ourselves. To me too this is a profound and fascinating question. It cuts to the epistemological root of the matter. "How do you know?" I think a lot of what we're seeing as culture war actually boils down to an axis of Cosmopolitan vs. Provincial. With the advent of globalism and the Internet everyone has to confront everyone else in a giant distributed city. Things that seemed like bedrock (i.e. "There are only two genders") crash up against reality where that "rule" is just not applicable (i.e. there are human cultures with more than two genders, and biologically there are e.g. hermaphrodites, etc.)

deltasevennine 4y ago
>Things that seemed like bedrock (i.e. "There are only two genders") crash up against reality where that "rule" is just not applicable (i.e. there are human cultures with more than two genders, and biologically there are e.g. hermaphrodites, etc.) Have you heard of BIID? The term body integrity identity disorder (BIID) describes the extremely rare phenomenon of persons who desire the amputation of one or more healthy limbs or who desire a paralysis. Some of these persons mutilate themselves; others ask surgeons for an amputation or for the transection of their spinal cord. Psychologists and physicians explain this phenomenon in quite different ways; but a successful psychotherapeutic or pharmaceutical therapy is not known. Lobbies of persons suffering from BIID explain the desire for amputation in analogy to the desire of transsexuals for surgical sex reassignment. Medical ethicists discuss the controversy about elective amputations of healthy limbs: on the one hand the principle of autonomy is used to deduce the right for body modifications; on the other hand the autonomy of BIID patients is doubted. Neurological results suggest that BIID is a brain disorder producing a disruption of the body image, for which parallels for stroke patients are known. If BIID were a neuropsychological disturbance, which includes missing insight into the illness and a specific lack of autonomy, then amputations would be contraindicated and must be evaluated as bodily injuries of mentally disordered patients. Instead of only curing the symptom, a causal therapy should be developed to integrate the alien limb into the body image. Transexual sex reassignment involves the usage of chemicals and surgery that twists the flesh of their genitals to look like the opposite sex. The parallel with BIID is uncanny. Yet one is considered truth and normal, while the other is considered to be a disease. How do I know? I don't. But I get your point. Things that seem like a Bedrock truth can change. But did it change for the better? Is the new truth... the actual truth... or not? The existence of BIID and it's almost identical parallel to transexualism confuses me. BIID feels wrong. That's about as far as I can get. But if someone truly desires to amputate a limb... who are we to stop him? What right do we have to call what they feel a disease? I bring up BIID because I have a strong feeling that it's wrong... That what they feel is universally agreed to NOT be the objective truth. But I cannot grasp the logic behind it. If I examine BIID long enough I feel eventually the logic behind this controversy can be crystallized.

deltasevennine 4y ago

I'm either 100% on your side or I'm in the same group as the KKK? Do you not see the parallel here of forcing people into binary categories of being male or female? If gender can be non-binary why can't political correctness be as well? The biases of binary thinking pervades even those that believe themselves to be beyond it.