-->
@Lemming
If refusing to use a person's pronoun is considered hate speech,
I AM ALSO 100% AGAINST "HATE SPEECH" LAWS
Pronouns
Posts
Total:
327
-->
@Lemming
Probably be best if they use a third bathroom,
ok, what if there is no "third bathroom" ?
-->
@Bones
So you would also agree then, on that note, that a 40 year old who's personal preference is that they are eight should be able to go to childcare then?
height, weight, age, skin-tone, hair and eye color are quantifiable descriptions of a citizen that do not require a microscope and or a strip-search to determine
-->
@rbelivb
Also, I disagree with your framing of this as a scientific question. Imagine I said "you are lying that your name is Bones, it's because you're delusional and ashamed of your real name." Obviously, I would be ignoring the distinction between your actual name and your username. It would not make sense to make the case by saying, that your name is scientifically, legally, your real name. Your username is your chosen username, and there is nothing scientific about it other than verifying what your chosen username is. Does that make your username completely meaningless, because it has no basis in scientific or legal reality? No, because it provides you with the freedom of expression to identify yourself that way.
well stated
-->
@Bones
Manhood and womanhood are things which one ought be proud of
i'm not sure how much sense it makes to be "proud of" something you did not accomplish
-->
@3RU7AL
@rbelivb
What if there's no 2nd bathroom, or even a 1st?
Well, when there's no second bathroom, usually it's a one toilet bathroom with a locking door,
When there's no bathroom, then one is usually in the great outdoors, and must improvise.
-->
@Lemming
What if there's no 2nd bathroom, or even a 1st?
the scenario is two, multi-stall bathrooms (marked "men" and "women")
but no "third bathroom"
-->
@3RU7AL
'Build a third.
-->
@Lemming
'Build a third.
this might be somewhat impractical in the moment
But that's the same as saying "ok I'll give a new definition of species which is made up and i'll therefore say I'm not a human". It's silly. There's no point of it. You haven't achieved anything by creating a new word. That's like me saying "God as defined as that which is me" exists. You haven't done anything meaningful. You haven't argued why your definition is good, why it is necessary, or why it helps in any way.But at least we have established the terms of the disagreement. We seem to agree that the statement that "trans women aren't women" or that they are "delusional" is a piece of empty rhetoric, and wrong.
No I still think it is wrong, trans women are men, under the best, most scientific and useful definition. What you have done is essentially saying "1+1 is 15 because well under my definition of the word, it's the case". You haven't proved why the term is necessary, or how it helps.
Then, we agree that the debate is really about whether the changes to language proposed by trans are good for society, useful, helpful, etc. Which is different from debating whether their claims are biologically incorrect or delusional.
You say you don't support age because it obfuscates the difference between biological boys and men. That's a perfectly good critique, and I'm confused as to why you don't apply it to gender.
You say that you value the biological difference between sexes, that you don't want it obscured. That is what you value, but that needs to be weighed against the reasons on the opposite side.
The reasons on the other side is literally to make >1% percent of the society correct. Oughtn't truth prioritize such an endeavour?
One reason for the new language would be that there are a large enough minority of people who simply want to identify that way, that they prefer or enjoy it.
0.5 percent of the population identify as trans.
Imagine I said "you are lying that your name is Bones, it's because you're delusional and ashamed of your real name." Obviously, I would be ignoring the distinction between your actual name and your username. It would not make sense to make the case by saying, that your name is scientifically, legally, your real name. Your username is your chosen username, and there is nothing scientific about it other than verifying what your chosen username is. Does that make your username completely meaningless, because it has no basis in scientific or legal reality?
But I know all this. I know that Bones isn't a real name, so people who argue that it is not my given legal name are correct. I don't mind that. Bones is a different label for a different purpose. Whatever my name is, whether it Bone or Bones, does not and cannot change any objective fact about me.
I've already established why this name-gender link is fraudulent - the term "man" is a noun, and you still haven't given me a cogent definition of the term and thus your entire argument is void on that ground.
-->
@rbelivb
Above
-->
@Bones
0.5 percent of the population identify as trans.
if this number is "too small to consider" then why bother making new laws to systematically exclude these individuals from public spaces ?
-->
@3RU7AL
i'm not sure how much sense it makes to be "proud of" something you did not accomplish
"Proud" in a patriotic sense.
So you would also agree then, on that note, that a 40 year old who's personal preference is that they are eight should be able to go to childcare then?height, weight, age, skin-tone, hair and eye color are quantifiable descriptions of a citizen that do not require a microscope and or a strip-search to determine
But those are all circumstantial. Are you defining a 40 year old man as that who looks a certain way? You realise some medical conditions make it so that 30 year olds have not gone through puberty? To avoid all these very unlikely circumstances (just like how the trans ideogue argues intersex means we can abandon the gender binary) why don't we create an entire new term "aje" which refers to the way in which one feels in relation to their age?
0.5 percent of the population identify as trans.if this number is "too small to consider" then why bother making new laws to systematically exclude these individuals from public spaces ?
The same reason why you would make laws excluding the very small percent of pedophilles we have from being within schools. Just because there isn't an abundance of something, doesn't mean they oughtn't be held to a firm standard.
-->
@Bones
The same reason why you would make laws excluding the very small percent of pedophilles we have from being within schools.
Strangely, "being trans" is not a criminal act.
Your comparison to criminals is incoherent.
-->
@3RU7AL
The same reason why you would make laws excluding the very small percent of pedophilles we have from being within schools.Strangely, "being trans" is not a criminal act.
Strangely, I never argued that. If you actually read what I say, you'll notice just because there isn't an abundance of something, doesn't mean they oughtn't be held to a firm standard.
Also, I assume all else is conceded by you?
-->
@Bones
i'm not sure how much sense it makes to be "proud of" something you did not accomplish"Proud" in a patriotic sense.
why ?
-->
@Bones
> The same reason why you would make laws excluding the very small percent of pedophilles we have from being within schools.
the same reason
which is presumably, BECAUSE THEY ARE CRIMINALS AND GENERALLY CONSIDERED A DANGER TO SOCIETY
If we were to look at the statistics of trans individuals who have molested students compared to police officers who have I can almost bet which number is going to be bigger.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
the overwhelming majority of child molesters are "straight"
As usual, hypocritical straight, old white men, guilty of conducting, aiding and abetting rampant pedophilia throughout the church, use the resulting scandal not to address their underlying responsibility or the roots of the problem but to cast blame on gay men ["For Gay Catholic Priests, New Scrutiny," Metro, June 24].
Scientific research finds that pedophilia is a disease separate from and in no way related to homosexuality. In fact, research demonstrates that most pedophiles (more than 95 percent) are heterosexually oriented. [**]
-->
@Bones
No I still think it is wrong, trans women are men, under the best, most scientific and useful definition. What you have done is essentially saying "1+1 is 15 because well under my definition of the word, it's the case". You haven't proved why the term is necessary, or how it helps.
You are basically building into your view the idea that it's never legitimate for people to use words in a new way, to use different definitions or grammatical rules. How can you enforce that onto that community? You say that because they are less that 1% of the population, it's not legitimate. How big would the proportion need to be before they are allowed to innovate on how they understand and use language?
You say you don't support age because it obfuscates the difference between biological boys and men. That's a perfectly good critique, and I'm confused as to why you don't apply it to gender.
I don't know why you keep asking this question, because I already said that it's because children lack autonomy. I also answered why it's different for race and explained why this whole kind of comparison really doesn't matter, because even if I can't articulate a reason why they're different, we aren't obligated to apply the same rules to every instance that has some superficial similarity to it. My position is not that every proposed change to language by any community should be automatically accepted and adopted. I didn't actually ever say that you or anyone else needs to accept and adopt the language of trans, I am only saying that I choose to, and pointing out the misleading framing around the issue of language vs truth.
The reasons on the other side is literally to make >1% percent of the society correct. Oughtn't truth prioritize such an endeavour?
You already agreed that it isn't an issue of truth, but about how we use language.
But I know all this. I know that Bones isn't a real name, so people who argue that it is not my given legal name are correct. I don't mind that. Bones is a different label for a different purpose. Whatever my name is, whether it Bone or Bones, does not and cannot change any objective fact about me.
The same thing applies with biological sex. Trans women are aware that their biological sex is not female, and their preferred gender pronoun implies nothing about their biology.
I've already established why this name-gender link is fraudulent - the term "man" is a noun, and you still haven't given me a cogent definition of the term and thus your entire argument is void on that ground.
So your problem with "trans ideology" comes down to, we shouldn't be using a noun in a way that doesn't follow the usual grammatical rules for nouns? It seems like a trivial issue to me.
-->
@3RU7AL
I worked in criminal justice for over 20 years and have stated this myself, so you can address it to somebody other than me.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I worked in criminal justice for over 20 years and have stated this myself, so you can address it to somebody other than me.
i'm trying to agree with you
-->
@rbelivb
You say that because they are less that 1% of the population, it's not legitimate. How big would the proportion need to be before they are allowed to innovate on how they understand and use language?
of course,
0.5% of 8 billion is 40 million
-->
@3RU7AL
Why does that number matter?
I don't mean that as a disagreement,
I just have trouble with numbers and percents application, meaning, perspective.
-->
@Lemming
Why does that number matter?
it is sometimes argued that the rights of trans and inter-sex individuals are of little to no concern because they represent approximately 0.5% of the population
0.5% of the world population is 40 million
-->
@3RU7AL
"Schizophrenia affects approximately 24 million people or 1 in 300 people (0.32%) worldwide. This rate is 1 in 222 people (0.45%) among adults (2)."
I'd argue if even '1 person suffered from a mental illness, it would be right to treat them with respect,
But that there is 24 million people with schizophrenia, doesn't mean I have to change laws to respect their beliefs.
Though if they were enough that they could vote their laws, I'd likely be required to.
It doesn't matter that there's X many Communists or X many Atheist or Theist,
What matters is context.
I don't mean this as a gotcha,
I just have trouble with numbers and percents application, meaning, perspective.
I have the same trouble when people say X many people died from Covid or X many people died in school shootings,
People die all the time, what I need is comparisons with other deaths, to tell me if it's enough to take concern over,
Don't want to get into argument on Covid though,
I just don't understand why . . . Hm, was .5 America or 'World for identify as trans?
But also, even if there are tiny number of criminals, we still make laws that disallow an action.
-->
@Lemming
People die all the time, what I need is comparisons with other deaths, to tell me if it's enough to take concern over,
good example
total deaths from all causes were up -on average- about 11% for 2020 and 2021
of course many countries reported FEWER than expected total deaths from all causes (for the same time period), including japan and new zealand
-->
@Lemming
But that there is 24 million people with schizophrenia, doesn't mean I have to change laws to respect their beliefs.
hold on.
the trans and inter-sex community doesn't want to change any bathroom laws.
it's the CONSERVATIVES who want to change the bathroom laws (specifically to exclude trans and inter-sex individuals).
-->
@Lemming
It doesn't matter that there's X many Communists or X many Atheist or Theist,
well, it sort of does, if you plan on locking them all up in prisons
-->
@Lemming
But also, even if there are tiny number of criminals, we still make laws that disallow an action.
this type of equivocating trans with criminals is incoherent.