4 ms·

Could you clarify what exactly your internal moral voice objects to? The school curriculums basically boil down to "Most people are either men or women. Some p

by crote 3y ago

Could you clarify what exactly your internal moral voice objects to? The school curriculums basically boil down to "Most people are either men or women. Some people aren't, and that's okay - you should still treat them like anyone else." Does your internal moral voice object to any part of that, or is it something else I am missing here? Do you also disagree with schools teaching kids in a similar fashion about the existence of left-handed people, redheaded people, or handicapped people?

ta8645 3y ago
> Could you clarify what exactly your internal moral voice objects to? I'm arguing the point, not my own conviction. The inner moral voice I was defending was someone who believes that it's important to acknowledge and respect the differing roles of the sexes. And object to the scientific insistence that we should concentrate as much on the exceptions as on the normal case. And I don't think you've accurately depicted the typical stance of schools today, where sex is not based on biology, but instead on social construction. If you need any proof of that, look through this thread and see how many people object to the idea that the physical characteristic of say a penis, and its insemination role in reproduction, is a defining characteristic of a male of the species. People aren't even pretending to make a distinction between gender and sex, they literally have a problem with defining human sexual roles via genitalia.
implements 3y ago
> "Most people are either men or women. Some people aren't, and that's okay - you should still treat them like anyone else." Is that what they're just teaching, or are they saying that a) human nature is fundamentally gendered, and b) men and women are gender rather than sex classes - that how you look, think and feel relative to socially constructed and recognised gender stereotypes determines what sex you actually are, and that early medical intervention may be necessary to put your mind in the correct type of body? I agree that society shouldn't police gender non-conformity (perhaps what many home-schoolers would actually like society to do) but as a 'people are a collection of unique individuals, differentiated by sex for the narrow purposes of biological reproduction' kind of person I also object to the 'viewing society through the prism of innate gender' position - which some schools seem to be teaching as scientifically correct when it's actually much more like a ideological and / or metaphysical belief.
suoduandao3 3y ago
I'll bite again. My inner moral voice objects to putting male rapists in a female prison because they claim they are trans. No, that is not a strawman https://nypost.com/2022/04/25/transgender-rikers-inmate-gets-7-years-for-raping-female-prisoner/ https://nypost.com/2022/04/25/transgender-rikers-inmate-gets...
- ipaddr 3y ago
  But you are okay with putting male rapists who rape out males with males? Or female rapists who rape other females with females? Your morality stops at protecting females against males?
  - suoduandao3 3y ago
    My point is more that if this outcome wasn't entirely predictable to the people in the courts system who set this situation up, it's indicative of deeper problems with their assumptions. I'm happy to go into what I think those problems are (though it would be an essay) but a single shocking example is often enough to act as an intuition pump.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    Even if their morality stops there, ot's a good first step to separate a natural class of physically more powerful rapists (men rapists), from a natural class of physically less powerful potential victims (women), no? Or should our morality stop at: "since we can't or don't protect everybody let's leave an obvious, extremely vulnerable, and much more common (male-> female rape vs male->male rape) victim class unprotected?"
  - pelch 3y ago
    No-one is okay with any of this but it makes no sense whatsoever to try to solve a problem within men's prisons, i.e. men raping men, by moving some of these men to women's prisons. Women's prisons do not exist for the purpose of forcing women to be human shields against male-on-male sexual violence.
    - 3y ago

by crote 3y ago

ta8645 3y ago

> Could you clarify what exactly your internal moral voice objects to? I'm arguing the point, not my own conviction. The inner moral voice I was defending was someone who believes that it's important to acknowledge and respect the differing roles of the sexes. And object to the scientific insistence that we should concentrate as much on the exceptions as on the normal case. And I don't think you've accurately depicted the typical stance of schools today, where sex is not based on biology, but instead on social construction. If you need any proof of that, look through this thread and see how many people object to the idea that the physical characteristic of say a penis, and its insemination role in reproduction, is a defining characteristic of a male of the species. People aren't even pretending to make a distinction between gender and sex, they literally have a problem with defining human sexual roles via genitalia.

implements 3y ago

> "Most people are either men or women. Some people aren't, and that's okay - you should still treat them like anyone else." Is that what they're just teaching, or are they saying that a) human nature is fundamentally gendered, and b) men and women are gender rather than sex classes - that how you look, think and feel relative to socially constructed and recognised gender stereotypes determines what sex you actually are, and that early medical intervention may be necessary to put your mind in the correct type of body? I agree that society shouldn't police gender non-conformity (perhaps what many home-schoolers would actually like society to do) but as a 'people are a collection of unique individuals, differentiated by sex for the narrow purposes of biological reproduction' kind of person I also object to the 'viewing society through the prism of innate gender' position - which some schools seem to be teaching as scientifically correct when it's actually much more like a ideological and / or metaphysical belief.

suoduandao3 3y ago

I'll bite again. My inner moral voice objects to putting male rapists in a female prison because they claim they are trans. No, that is not a strawman https://nypost.com/2022/04/25/transgender-rikers-inmate-gets-7-years-for-raping-female-prisoner/ https://nypost.com/2022/04/25/transgender-rikers-inmate-gets...

ipaddr 3y ago
But you are okay with putting male rapists who rape out males with males? Or female rapists who rape other females with females? Your morality stops at protecting females against males?
- suoduandao3 3y ago
  My point is more that if this outcome wasn't entirely predictable to the people in the courts system who set this situation up, it's indicative of deeper problems with their assumptions. I'm happy to go into what I think those problems are (though it would be an essay) but a single shocking example is often enough to act as an intuition pump.
- coldtea 3y ago
  Even if their morality stops there, ot's a good first step to separate a natural class of physically more powerful rapists (men rapists), from a natural class of physically less powerful potential victims (women), no? Or should our morality stop at: "since we can't or don't protect everybody let's leave an obvious, extremely vulnerable, and much more common (male-> female rape vs male->male rape) victim class unprotected?"
- pelch 3y ago
  No-one is okay with any of this but it makes no sense whatsoever to try to solve a problem within men's prisons, i.e. men raping men, by moving some of these men to women's prisons. Women's prisons do not exist for the purpose of forcing women to be human shields against male-on-male sexual violence.
  - 3y ago