3 ms·

>This is simply your skewed view and not how many people read the joke. She was named as "woman of the year" BECAUSE she was trans, Fine, and this is "simply y

by slg 4y ago

>This is simply your skewed view and not how many people read the joke. She was named as "woman of the year" BECAUSE she was trans, Fine, and this is "simply your skewed view". Yours is not inherently more right than mine. >Because that is how Progressives have treated the topic in general (at least publicly, privately not so much.) You completely skipped my point. Progressives have treated this topic this way because there is no compromise position. What concession can a progressive hope to accomplish debating someone who believes that sex and gender are the same and binary? >This is not true, it denies how this person views themselves, not their existence; and your existence isn't whatever reality you have chosen for yourself. For example, being gay is something you don't force society to see, you are simply attracted to the same sex. When you change your sex or gender, you are asking for a societal buy-in. That is much different. Trans people don't need "societal buy-in" any more than any other group. They just want to live their life how they see fit. A trans person choice's don't impact you any more than a gay person's choice. Just leave them all alone and mind your own business. >Actually, both are very much connected, because the idea that you could not experience what a naturally born biological female could is perceive in the eyes of many as to why you cannot yourself ever be a biological female...when you were born male. These are very integrated topics. This has no relevance to the issue at hand. They weren't awarding the Cis Woman of the Year Award. They were awarding the Woman of the Year Award. Trans women should be just as eligible for that as cis women. This isn't a weightlifting competition. There is no reason to exclude trans women from this type of award.

throwawaylinux 4y ago
> You completely skipped my point. Progressives have treated this topic this way because there is no compromise position. Isn't the compromise position to tolerate everybody's own personal words and definitions? That certainly used to be the progressive position, at least up to about a decade ago.
- slg 4y ago
  Your "own personal words and definitions" don't matter. That is inconsequential to most trans people's live. What does impact them is the government. What definitions will they use?
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    The thread is about private people and groups speaking to one another, that is what my comment pertains to.
    - slg 4y ago
      I don’t understand your point then. If the Babylon Bee can use their own definitions, so can Twitter. What grounds does that leave to object to a suspension based off Twitter’s definition?
      - throwawaylinux 4y ago
        I don't understand how your question relates to my point. The compromise position is that you tolerate people's personal definitions and words, e.g., you would not demand they be punished for having or using them. I'm not saying there is some legal "grounds" you could use to bar somebody from being intolerant of what you say or think, you just asked what a compromise position would be, and tolerance is one and it's what the progressive position was for a long time.
        slg 4y ago
        Ok, I’m glad we agree that the Babylon Bee should stop complaining about how other people define these words.
        throwawaylinux 4y ago
        We don't agree on that. Pretty disingenuous and infantile that you claim that's the conclusion of my comment now, wasn't it? Do you want to actually have a conversation about this or just come up with some vapid "gotcha"? It's fundamental to democracy and a healthy public discourse that people be allowed to voice their opinions including disagreements. It's quite extremist to believe that people who disagree with us must stop talking about it. That is not what tolerance means. What's the end game? Ban and censor and silence until nobody complains, disagrees, speaks out, or satirizes The Truth™ ?
partiallypro 4y ago
> Fine, and this is "simply your skewed view". Yours is not inherently more right than mine. Yes, exactly, which is why banning/suspending them is wrong. A joke can hit or land based on who is hearing it. You not liking it doesn't mean it's inherently hateful. > You completely skipped my point. Progressives have treated this topic this way because there is no compromise position. No, Progressives treat it this way because they are scared of their base. If you talk to many in private there are serious questions that they are too scared to raise. But I'm telling you, if they don't raise them, they could politically suffer from it. > Trans people don't need "societal buy-in" any more than any other group. This is just factually wrong. It requires you to allow them in women's sports despite tremendous advantages, in women/men's bathrooms (probably the lesser controversial ones,) to be legally held responsible for misgendering, to chemically/hormonally alter children, etc. That is societal buy-in. That is not the same as allowing a Jewish person to practice their Sabbath, employing a black person, or allowing a gay man to get married. I can't even think of anything remotely comparable. > This has no relevance to the issue at hand. They weren't awarding the Cis Woman of the Year Award. They were awarding the Woman of the Year Award. Trans women should be just as eligible for that as cis women. This isn't a weightlifting competition. It is actually very relevant and the fact that you can't see that is frustratingly hilarious. It's also funny you say it's not a weight-lifting competition, when a person born a male could theoretically enter a women's weight-lifting competition and completely dominate...and it would be unquestionably supported by some people.
- slg 4y ago
  >Yes, exactly, which is why banning/suspending them is wrong. A joke can hit or land based on who is hearing it. You not liking it doesn't mean it's inherently hateful. This logic doesn't work for moderation. There ultimately needs to be a judge. Otherwise, "I was just joking" becomes a get out of jail free card for any Twitter moderation. >No, Progressives treat it this way because they are scared of their base. If you talk to many in private there are serious questions that they are too scared to raise. But I'm telling you, if they don't raise them, they could politically suffer from it. You are still skipping over my point. You are placing the blame for not compromising on progressives, so tell me what they should do. What do think is the middle ground between progressives and conservatives who think trans people are mentally ill and shouldn't be allowed to express their trans identity in public? How do you compromise with people with that view? >This is just factually wrong. It requires you to allow them in women's sports despite tremendous advantages, in women/men's bathrooms (probably the lesser controversial ones,) to be legally held responsible for misgendering, to chemically/hormonally alter children, etc. That is societal buy-in. That is not the same as allowing a Jewish person to practice their Sabbath, employing a black person, or allowing a gay man to get married. I can't even think of anything remotely comparable. We are not even debating any of those issues because the belief that the Babylon Bee is putting forward is so extreme as to be unwilling to concede on any of it. Levine wasn't competing in a high school girls soccer game. She wasn't trying to use a public women's room. She isn't threatening legal action based off being misgendered. She is simply doing her job the same way all her colleagues are and yet she is subject of public ridicule and death threats for simply existing. How do you think that gets fixed? Do you think there is some negotiation to be hard in which progressives promise to give up arguing about high school sports and conservatives will stop sending death threats to any openly trans public person? >It is actually very relevant and the fact that you can't see that is frustratingly hilarious. It's also funny you say it's not a weight-lifting competition, when a person born a male could theoretically enter a women's weight-lifting competition and completely dominate...and it would be unquestionably supported by some people. Fine, explain the relevancy. Tell me how that USA Today article supports "the idea that a tran-woman could actually feel and experience the challenges a biological woman faces" or challenges "the fact that many base their identity on media stereotypes rather than the very diverse experiences of womanhood". And yes, I specifically was referencing weightlifting as an issue in which nuance can exist. I was contrasting that with an issue in which no nuance can exist, the idea that sex and gender are the same and both are binary. You either believe that or you don't.

by slg 4y ago

throwawaylinux 4y ago

> You completely skipped my point. Progressives have treated this topic this way because there is no compromise position. Isn't the compromise position to tolerate everybody's own personal words and definitions? That certainly used to be the progressive position, at least up to about a decade ago.

slg 4y ago
Your "own personal words and definitions" don't matter. That is inconsequential to most trans people's live. What does impact them is the government. What definitions will they use?
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  The thread is about private people and groups speaking to one another, that is what my comment pertains to.
  - slg 4y ago
    I don’t understand your point then. If the Babylon Bee can use their own definitions, so can Twitter. What grounds does that leave to object to a suspension based off Twitter’s definition?
    - throwawaylinux 4y ago
      I don't understand how your question relates to my point. The compromise position is that you tolerate people's personal definitions and words, e.g., you would not demand they be punished for having or using them. I'm not saying there is some legal "grounds" you could use to bar somebody from being intolerant of what you say or think, you just asked what a compromise position would be, and tolerance is one and it's what the progressive position was for a long time.
      - slg 4y ago
        Ok, I’m glad we agree that the Babylon Bee should stop complaining about how other people define these words.
        throwawaylinux 4y ago
        We don't agree on that. Pretty disingenuous and infantile that you claim that's the conclusion of my comment now, wasn't it? Do you want to actually have a conversation about this or just come up with some vapid "gotcha"? It's fundamental to democracy and a healthy public discourse that people be allowed to voice their opinions including disagreements. It's quite extremist to believe that people who disagree with us must stop talking about it. That is not what tolerance means. What's the end game? Ban and censor and silence until nobody complains, disagrees, speaks out, or satirizes The Truth™ ?

partiallypro 4y ago

> Fine, and this is "simply your skewed view". Yours is not inherently more right than mine. Yes, exactly, which is why banning/suspending them is wrong. A joke can hit or land based on who is hearing it. You not liking it doesn't mean it's inherently hateful. > You completely skipped my point. Progressives have treated this topic this way because there is no compromise position. No, Progressives treat it this way because they are scared of their base. If you talk to many in private there are serious questions that they are too scared to raise. But I'm telling you, if they don't raise them, they could politically suffer from it. > Trans people don't need "societal buy-in" any more than any other group. This is just factually wrong. It requires you to allow them in women's sports despite tremendous advantages, in women/men's bathrooms (probably the lesser controversial ones,) to be legally held responsible for misgendering, to chemically/hormonally alter children, etc. That is societal buy-in. That is not the same as allowing a Jewish person to practice their Sabbath, employing a black person, or allowing a gay man to get married. I can't even think of anything remotely comparable. > This has no relevance to the issue at hand. They weren't awarding the Cis Woman of the Year Award. They were awarding the Woman of the Year Award. Trans women should be just as eligible for that as cis women. This isn't a weightlifting competition. It is actually very relevant and the fact that you can't see that is frustratingly hilarious. It's also funny you say it's not a weight-lifting competition, when a person born a male could theoretically enter a women's weight-lifting competition and completely dominate...and it would be unquestionably supported by some people.

slg 4y ago
>Yes, exactly, which is why banning/suspending them is wrong. A joke can hit or land based on who is hearing it. You not liking it doesn't mean it's inherently hateful. This logic doesn't work for moderation. There ultimately needs to be a judge. Otherwise, "I was just joking" becomes a get out of jail free card for any Twitter moderation. >No, Progressives treat it this way because they are scared of their base. If you talk to many in private there are serious questions that they are too scared to raise. But I'm telling you, if they don't raise them, they could politically suffer from it. You are still skipping over my point. You are placing the blame for not compromising on progressives, so tell me what they should do. What do think is the middle ground between progressives and conservatives who think trans people are mentally ill and shouldn't be allowed to express their trans identity in public? How do you compromise with people with that view? >This is just factually wrong. It requires you to allow them in women's sports despite tremendous advantages, in women/men's bathrooms (probably the lesser controversial ones,) to be legally held responsible for misgendering, to chemically/hormonally alter children, etc. That is societal buy-in. That is not the same as allowing a Jewish person to practice their Sabbath, employing a black person, or allowing a gay man to get married. I can't even think of anything remotely comparable. We are not even debating any of those issues because the belief that the Babylon Bee is putting forward is so extreme as to be unwilling to concede on any of it. Levine wasn't competing in a high school girls soccer game. She wasn't trying to use a public women's room. She isn't threatening legal action based off being misgendered. She is simply doing her job the same way all her colleagues are and yet she is subject of public ridicule and death threats for simply existing. How do you think that gets fixed? Do you think there is some negotiation to be hard in which progressives promise to give up arguing about high school sports and conservatives will stop sending death threats to any openly trans public person? >It is actually very relevant and the fact that you can't see that is frustratingly hilarious. It's also funny you say it's not a weight-lifting competition, when a person born a male could theoretically enter a women's weight-lifting competition and completely dominate...and it would be unquestionably supported by some people. Fine, explain the relevancy. Tell me how that USA Today article supports "the idea that a tran-woman could actually feel and experience the challenges a biological woman faces" or challenges "the fact that many base their identity on media stereotypes rather than the very diverse experiences of womanhood". And yes, I specifically was referencing weightlifting as an issue in which nuance can exist. I was contrasting that with an issue in which no nuance can exist, the idea that sex and gender are the same and both are binary. You either believe that or you don't.