4 ms·

> His comments-section ban on people who engage in so-called dead-naming is a good indicator. I think that if enough people engage in a sort of behavior to be

> His comments-section ban on people who engage in so-called dead-naming is a good indicator. I think that if enough people engage in a sort of behavior to be mean assholes to others, they wiľ rightfully get banned whether there exists a coordinate system in which they are “correct” or not.

brindlejim 3y ago
[flagged]
- WesolyKubeczek 3y ago
  "Ad hominem", "cancellation". You keep using those words, but I don't think they mean what you think they mean.
  - brindlejim 3y ago
    Few would disagree that "mean asshole" = ad hominem "ban" = cancellation Edit to respond to the comment below, since we've reached the limits on the depth of nested comments: "Ad hominem" = "directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining." Calling someone a name, like "mean asshole", is an attack against their person, whether it is true or not. Therefore it is ad hominem, whether it is true or not. The definition of ad hominem does not require that it be untrue. You can, of course, redefine it, as gender ideology seeks to redefine many things by substituting a foreign meaning for a familiar word. But forcing people to adopt a new language and set of names, and therefore to implicitly recognize false claims in which a trans person attempts to occupy the role and spaces of the opposite sex, is coercive. Society is starting to realize that the substance of those claims is false, and the coercion is contrary to civil liberties. No amount of bans or insults will change that.
    - howinteresting 3y ago
      It's only ad hominem if it isn't true. Anyone who deliberately deadnames a trans person is a mean asshole, and if you disagree you're a mean asshole enabler.
- howinteresting 3y ago
  The only "gender ideology" that exists is fervent adherents of traditional religions forcing their backwards beliefs on the rest of society, and so-called "gender-critical" people organizing with them to deny trans people a public existence. That's ideology.
  - brindlejim 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - howinteresting 3y ago
      Blah blah blah yes yes I know what the GC positions are. The fact remains that being treated as the gender I want to be treated as and updating my hormone profile and getting surgery to align with that has taken away all of my social anxiety and body image issues, and that this is a widely reported phenomenon that has been well-studied over decades. Now whether as a matter of public policy you think we should have cruelty inflicted upon us or not is a separate question, but if you want to be cruel at least be honest about it. > There is no gender This is just plainly false. Gender is the social projection of sex, just like a shadow is a projection of an object onto a plane. When you are making claims like "[e]ach of us is born to a sex that is immutable", you are defining and setting up a system of gender. There is no escape from gender because we live in a society. You don't get to say "there is no shadow". You cannot simply define it away like that. > But they should not falsely claim the category of a biological sex that is not theirs There is no falsehood going on, just a different way to set boundaries. One that is better because it leads to greater justice. > Each of us is born to a sex that is immutable. This depends entirely on your definition of sex. You have chosen to define sex to mean gametes. I have a different, more expansive definition that also includes sex characteristics. My definition is better than yours because it leads to greater justice in the world. > The belief that gender exists, or that we have a gender identity that somehow infused the wrong body, is a profoundly religious idea. And by the same token, ungrounded in fact. What you call religion, I call the massive weight of decades of medical science: https://medicine.yale.edu/lgbtqi/research/gender-affirming-care/biased-science/ https://medicine.yale.edu/lgbtqi/research/gender-affirming-c... If you do not believe in the legitimacy of transgender identities, it is you who are choosing bigoted religiosity over actual science.

brindlejim 3y ago

[flagged]

WesolyKubeczek 3y ago
"Ad hominem", "cancellation". You keep using those words, but I don't think they mean what you think they mean.
- brindlejim 3y ago
  Few would disagree that "mean asshole" = ad hominem "ban" = cancellation Edit to respond to the comment below, since we've reached the limits on the depth of nested comments: "Ad hominem" = "directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining." Calling someone a name, like "mean asshole", is an attack against their person, whether it is true or not. Therefore it is ad hominem, whether it is true or not. The definition of ad hominem does not require that it be untrue. You can, of course, redefine it, as gender ideology seeks to redefine many things by substituting a foreign meaning for a familiar word. But forcing people to adopt a new language and set of names, and therefore to implicitly recognize false claims in which a trans person attempts to occupy the role and spaces of the opposite sex, is coercive. Society is starting to realize that the substance of those claims is false, and the coercion is contrary to civil liberties. No amount of bans or insults will change that.
  - howinteresting 3y ago
    It's only ad hominem if it isn't true. Anyone who deliberately deadnames a trans person is a mean asshole, and if you disagree you're a mean asshole enabler.
howinteresting 3y ago
The only "gender ideology" that exists is fervent adherents of traditional religions forcing their backwards beliefs on the rest of society, and so-called "gender-critical" people organizing with them to deny trans people a public existence. That's ideology.
- brindlejim 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - howinteresting 3y ago
    Blah blah blah yes yes I know what the GC positions are. The fact remains that being treated as the gender I want to be treated as and updating my hormone profile and getting surgery to align with that has taken away all of my social anxiety and body image issues, and that this is a widely reported phenomenon that has been well-studied over decades. Now whether as a matter of public policy you think we should have cruelty inflicted upon us or not is a separate question, but if you want to be cruel at least be honest about it. > There is no gender This is just plainly false. Gender is the social projection of sex, just like a shadow is a projection of an object onto a plane. When you are making claims like "[e]ach of us is born to a sex that is immutable", you are defining and setting up a system of gender. There is no escape from gender because we live in a society. You don't get to say "there is no shadow". You cannot simply define it away like that. > But they should not falsely claim the category of a biological sex that is not theirs There is no falsehood going on, just a different way to set boundaries. One that is better because it leads to greater justice. > Each of us is born to a sex that is immutable. This depends entirely on your definition of sex. You have chosen to define sex to mean gametes. I have a different, more expansive definition that also includes sex characteristics. My definition is better than yours because it leads to greater justice in the world. > The belief that gender exists, or that we have a gender identity that somehow infused the wrong body, is a profoundly religious idea. And by the same token, ungrounded in fact. What you call religion, I call the massive weight of decades of medical science: https://medicine.yale.edu/lgbtqi/research/gender-affirming-care/biased-science/ https://medicine.yale.edu/lgbtqi/research/gender-affirming-c... If you do not believe in the legitimacy of transgender identities, it is you who are choosing bigoted religiosity over actual science.