Transsexual Toilet Trouble

[Beskar]

His Brexit view wasn't much, but his views on transsexuals pretty much amounted to "I don't want male perverts near my daughter in the bathroom". Clearly hasn't heard of this meme campaign (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/we-just-need-to-pee), might change his view on how dumb he sounded.

[InsaneApache]

Don't tell me you've fallen for clownworld. :clown:

honk honk

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

His Brexit view wasn't much, but his views on transsexuals pretty much amounted to "I don't want male perverts near my daughter in the bathroom". Clearly hasn't heard of this meme campaign (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/we-just-need-to-pee), might change his view on how dumb he sounded.

Is that not a valid concern?

[CrossLOPER]

Don't tell me you've fallen for clownworld. :clown:

honk honk

If you try to mock something hard enough, you'll eventually turn into a clown yourself.

[Beskar]

Is that not a valid concern?

Why would it be a valid one?

The idea that allowing people who essentially are male and female to use the bathroom legitimately, see pictures:
https://i.imgur.com/eTHFK2K.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/bVXoWdN.jpg

- essentially opens the 'floodgates' that makes you want (after all, you are male) want to don a dress then try to peep on women peeing is absolutely absurd. They don't even need dresses if they want to do that, or even they might try to pose as a women even without allowing transgender people anyway. Anyone trying to 'perv' would be appropriately face the consequences. It is pure Daily Mail-esque Boogeyman trash with no basis in reality.

If we are worried about 'exposure' to the daughter. Which would be the weirdest one? I would argue it is the top picture of the FTM guy (and where the majority of people) wouldn't be able to tell and say "There is a man in the female toilets!".

[Viking]

people who essentially are male and female

That, they are not. If anything, they are artificially intersex.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why would it be a valid one?

The idea that allowing people who essentially are male and female to use the bathroom legitimately, see pictures:
https://i.imgur.com/eTHFK2K.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/bVXoWdN.jpg

- essentially opens the 'floodgates' that makes you want (after all, you are male) want to don a dress then try to peep on women peeing is absolutely absurd. They don't even need dresses if they want to do that, or even they might try to pose as a women even without allowing transgender people anyway. Anyone trying to 'perv' would be appropriately face the consequences. It is pure Daily Mail-esque Boogeyman trash with no basis in reality.

If we are worried about 'exposure' to the daughter. Which would be the weirdest one? I would argue it is the top picture of the FTM guy (and where the majority of people) wouldn't be able to tell and say "There is a man in the female toilets!".

Argument ad absurdum is a fallacy and I know how you like to point out others' fallacies.

You haven't explained why removing the legal prohibition from someone society identifies as a man entering the women's facilities shouldn't be a concern.

The reason it is a concern is because it removes the prima facie case for arresting perverts BEFORE they do anything. I recall the pre-op trans-woman who persuaded the government to place her in a woman's prison and then assaulted several female inmates.

Even if society decides that changing the law is something that should be done that does not make the concerns foolish or illiterate or prejudiced. I saw Long Walk to Freedom with Idris Elba today - part of the plot relates to white fears of reprisal once blacks can control of the government. At no point does Mandela say these fears are not legitimate, he says, in fact, that he wants revenge - but he continues to insist on majority rule (and he says he wants peace more than revenge anyway).

[Montmorency]

*sigh* Pre-crime again? First, "concerns" without reasonable basis such as these must be prejudicial inasmuch as they are not merely delusional or otherwise arbitrary without reference to justification. Second, the bare possibility that someone somewhere may have concerns that are not "foolish or illiterate or prejudiced" gives no indication as to whether yours fall afoul.

One example of a possible non-prejudicial concern might appear as motivation to give every person a single-occupancy bathroom because of a generic fear that having any multiple persons in a bathroom creates an unacceptable risk of shenanigans. But whether or not unfounded, such a non-prejudicial concern could not arise suddenly with respect to transgender issues; it would have to be longstanding.

[Beskar]

You haven't explained why removing the legal prohibition from someone society identifies as a man entering the women's facilities shouldn't be a concern.

I like to use flair to makes points and I am lazy into going into details, but let's do a summary.

The burden of proof is on those expressing the concern, not me, but let's make it easy and just unpack what you are stating. You are arguing the following:
- Perverts are Males
- Perverts prey on women in bathrooms.
- Banning everyone born as a male from entering the bathroom would ban the perverts.
- By banning men, you prevent perverts from being perverts. (Pre-Crime)
- Perverts will exploit LGBT rights to be perverts.

Given the expressed concern did not state FTM going into the male bathrooms as a concern and you avoided my points about this. I assume it based solely on some distrust of males in particular.

If we bring some facts to your points:
- Perverts are unisex. Instead of an obscure unknown eference, I will just throw Myra Hindley into this one. Everyone knows her.
- Perverts generally speaking do all sorts and can do it legally with money or even free. It is also hard term to actually define, but I think we agree it is significantly far greater than simply males peeping on females peeing without their conaent. Let's change the term being used to 'unsoliciated acts for sexual gratification in bathrooms'. A fair alternative?
- As you bring up logical fallacies, all men does not equal all perverts as stated before. The acts can continue without males even being present. Also those who do that are likely to be in the statistically minority. What is a fair number, 1 on 100,000 ? Compared with the effect this ban has on individuals such as the female above who can be distressed or extremely uncomfortable given their presentation.
- Pre Crime arguments. Let's ban you from driving your car so you don't run someone over. There is a significantly higher chance of you running someone over (assuming you are a competent driver) than the incidences of 'perversion' being alluded too by trans people. Now you can rightly argue we recognise this risk as a society and don't ban people from driving for the greater good.
- Now, this is assuming the argument followed the example of someone who is not trans simply putting on a dress and walking into the ladies. Going to be honest, given the level of discrimination in a thread as well mannered as this one would make someone uncomfortable. Nevermind those individuals risk being abused and assaulted for simply wearing a dress. Again, it completely overlooks the real life examples which people posted who are genuinely just wanting to pee without sticking out like a sore thumb.

Personally I don't see any valid arguments for the claimed concern. As I said, it is trumped up hogwash by people who want to descriminate against trans individuals by a very flawed argument they are 'perverts in disguise'.

So let's turn this back to yourself. I have posted pictures of two individuals who shared their experience publicly for awareness. Do you genuinely think they should be forced into those bathrooms when they are so clearly out of place in them?

[Pannonian]

Argument ad absurdum is a fallacy and I know how you like to point out others' fallacies.

You haven't explained why removing the legal prohibition from someone society identifies as a man entering the women's facilities shouldn't be a concern.

The reason it is a concern is because it removes the prima facie case for arresting perverts BEFORE they do anything. I recall the pre-op trans-woman who persuaded the government to place her in a woman's prison and then assaulted several female inmates.

Even if society decides that changing the law is something that should be done that does not make the concerns foolish or illiterate or prejudiced. I saw Long Walk to Freedom with Idris Elba today - part of the plot relates to white fears of reprisal once blacks can control of the government. At no point does Mandela say these fears are not legitimate, he says, in fact, that he wants revenge - but he continues to insist on majority rule (and he says he wants peace more than revenge anyway).

Bwahahaha. In the Brexit thread, a Brexiteer argues that just because people vote for something to be made law, does not mean the idea is not foolish. I agree with on re: this bare argument, but shouldn't this argument be applied to something rather more wide-ranging than who can go into a specific toilet?

[Furunculus]

I like to use flair to makes points and I am lazy into going into details, but let's do a summary.

The burden of proof is on those expressing the concern, not me, but let's make it easy and just unpack what you are stating. You are arguing the following:
- Perverts are Males
- Perverts prey on women in bathrooms.
- Banning everyone born as a male from entering the bathroom would ban the perverts.
- By banning men, you prevent perverts from being perverts. (Pre-Crime)
- Perverts will exploit LGBT rights to be perverts.

Given the expressed concern did not state FTM going into the male bathrooms as a concern and you avoided my points about this. I assume it based solely on some distrust of males in particular.

If we bring some facts to your points:
- Perverts are unisex. Instead of an obscure unknown eference, I will just throw Myra Hindley into this one. Everyone knows her.
- Perverts generally speaking do all sorts and can do it legally with money or even free. It is also hard term to actually define, but I think we agree it is significantly far greater than simply males peeping on females peeing without their conaent. Let's change the term being used to 'unsoliciated acts for sexual gratification in bathrooms'. A fair alternative?
- As you bring up logical fallacies, all men does not equal all perverts as stated before. The acts can continue without males even being present. Also those who do that are likely to be in the statistically minority. What is a fair number, 1 on 100,000 ? Compared with the effect this ban has on individuals such as the female above who can be distressed or extremely uncomfortable given their presentation.
- Pre Crime arguments. Let's ban you from driving your car so you don't run someone over. There is a significantly higher chance of you running someone over (assuming you are a competent driver) than the incidences of 'perversion' being alluded too by trans people. Now you can rightly argue we recognise this risk as a society and don't ban people from driving for the greater good.
- Now, this is assuming the argument followed the example of someone who is not trans simply putting on a dress and walking into the ladies. Going to be honest, given the level of discrimination in a thread as well mannered as this one would make someone uncomfortable. Nevermind those individuals risk being abused and assaulted for simply wearing a dress. Again, it completely overlooks the real life examples which people posted who are genuinely just wanting to pee without sticking out like a sore thumb.

Personally I don't see any valid arguments for the claimed concern. As I said, it is trumped up hogwash by people who want to descriminate against trans individuals by a very flawed argument they are 'perverts in disguise'.

So let's turn this back to yourself. I have posted pictures of two individuals who shared their experience publicly for awareness. Do you genuinely think they should be forced into those bathrooms when they are so clearly out of place in them?

i think you have just demolished the very concept of bathrooms separated by sex [or] gender.

if these things are all imagined problems, then why have two sets of bathrooms at all?

[Beskar]

i think you have just demolished the very concept of bathrooms separated by sex [or] gender.

if these things are all imagined problems, then why have two sets of bathrooms at all?

Here is an article on that particular topic applied to the United States.
(http://theconversation.com/how-did-public-bathrooms-get-to-be-separated-by-sex-in-the-first-place-59575)

TL;DR Answer was to discriminate against women, such as in many cultures women were forced into separate rooms and not allowed to mingle with the males. With some Victorian values of modesty thrown in there. In short, until the end of the 19th Century, all public restrooms were unisex.

To quote near the end of the article applied to this argument:

Opponents of transgender rights have employed the slogan “No Men in Women’s Bathrooms,” which evokes visions of weak women being subject to attack by men if transgender women are allowed to “invade” the public bathroom.

In fact, the only solid evidence of any such attacks in public restrooms are those directed at transgendered individuals, a significant percentage of whom report verbal and physical assault in such spaces.

[Beskar]

That, they are not. If anything, they are artificially intersex.

They are for all intents and purposes that gender.

You are also an artificially constructed consciousness manifested from a gurgling meat-suit made of billion of cells using an artificial box constructed out of inorganic materials transmitting photons to interact with other gurgling meat-suits.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Bwahahaha. In the Brexit thread, a Brexiteer argues that just because people vote for something to be made law, does not mean the idea is not foolish. I agree with on re: this bare argument, but shouldn't this argument be applied to something rather more wide-ranging than who can go into a specific toilet?

So, what you got from my post was that majority-rule in South Africa was foolish?

Go read my post again, I said that just because someone does NOT vote for something that the majority believe is right does not mean that person is foolish. In the context of Brexit that means that I do not think Remain voters are foolish for being worried about Brexit.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They are for all intents and purposes that gender.

You are also an artificially constructed consciousness manifested from a gurgling meat-suit made of billion of cells using an artificial box constructed out of inorganic materials transmitting photons to interact with other gurgling meat-suits.

You believe in Intelligent Design now? Or Aliens?

Disregarding the rest of your colourful description wherewith is the human consciousness "artificial"?

If you respond "gender is artificially constructed" I'll simply respond "no it isn't" because you have no evidence for that claim - in fact your entire argument here rest on gender being spontaneously generated.

[Furunculus]

[URL="http://theconversation.com/how-did-public-bathrooms-get-to-be-separated-by-sex-in-the-first-place-59575"]HWith some Victorian values of modesty thrown in there. In short, until the end of the 19th Century, all public restrooms were unisex.


i have no real objection if that is the outcome.

but as long as there is an argument to justify the separation then i suppose i have more sympathy drawing the line at sex rather than gender.

if someone has legally transitioned then fair enough, but if someone has simply decided to 'identify' as a chick then I can't say that I care if their choice is given no weight when it come to enforcing the separation that is the status quo.

[Beskar]

Disregarding the rest of your colourful description wherewith is the human consciousness "artificial"?

It is interesting out of all that, the thing you highlight is me making a silly reference to the theories of.consciousness and it's arguments. You sure like to avoid being challenged Phillip.

Aside from the obvious strawman fallacy as bait... (side-note: it was HoreTore who liked to pull out logical fallacies in their Latin glory, not myself. He was also big on rationalwiki)... It is a topic that is vast, it's arguments are.many,.and to have no desire to get into them.

Though best to ignore the artificial part as a word, as can become too confusing with the concept of 'artifical intelligence' opposed to the nature of consciousness itself. Try the TED talk on conscious reality being a shared hallunication as a starting point.

[Beskar]

if someone has legally transitioned then fair enough, but if someone has simply decided to 'identify' as a chick then I can't say that I care if their choice is given no weight when it come to enforcing the separation that is the status quo.

Given the argument is about those who have legally transitioned or sufficiently through the process being banned because people who even here have argued against it, making it about birth sex, due to banning the mythical 'man in a dress being a pervert'.

Since you agree it is okay, we are not opposing. As I am sure you are happy with those two individuals I posted for example using the respective toilets.

[Viking]

They are for all intents and purposes that gender.

The terms male and female often refer specifically to sex; they are the terms used in biology.

Separately, unless you can somehow define the genders in a manner that is completely independent of sex (good luck), that such individuals should be of the claimed gender for all intents and purposes does not seem reasonable.

[Furunculus]

Given the argument is about those who have legally transitioned or sufficiently through the process being banned because people who even here have argued against it, making it about birth sex, due to banning the mythical 'man in a dress being a pervert'.

Since you agree it is okay, we are not opposing. As I am sure you are happy with those two individuals I posted for example using the respective toilets.

sure, but in a similar vein to my caution over gay marriage; i would suggest that recent attempts to make gender reassignment a beurocratic triviality preclude me from agreeing with you so readily.

[Montmorency]

sure, but in a similar vein to my caution over gay marriage; i would suggest that recent attempts to make gender reassignment a beurocratic triviality preclude me from agreeing with you so readily.

?

Removing legal sanction is fundamental to the whole premise of queer activism. Your caution is not respectable. There is no available law or rule against the abusive "man in a dress" of legend that in its implementation does not overwhelmingly impinge on "real" transgenders, in the way that a law against 'being bad' would undermine the whole population subject to capricious enforcement (here just the absolute whole population of subjects). And it's important for everyone to keep in mind that the metaphysics of gender and the application of law and politics are distinct subjects so long as one does not seek the coercive enforcement of a concrete preferred social order. As a classical liberal you probably already uphold the pieties of individual liberty over the Great Chain, right?

[CrossLOPER]

The terms male and female often refer specifically to sex; they are the terms used in biology.

I was going ask you about your thoughts about social interactions with regards to gender. Instead, I am going to ask you why your argument for supposedly allowing intersex people go about life as they please does not apply to people suffering from dysphoria?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It is interesting out of all that, the thing you highlight is me making a silly reference to the theories of.consciousness and it's arguments. You sure like to avoid being challenged Phillip.

Aside from the obvious strawman fallacy as bait... (side-note: it was HoreTore who liked to pull out logical fallacies in their Latin glory, not myself. He was also big on rationalwiki)... It is a topic that is vast, it's arguments are.many,.and to have no desire to get into them.

Though best to ignore the artificial part as a word, as can become too confusing with the concept of 'artifical intelligence' opposed to the nature of consciousness itself. Try the TED talk on conscious reality being a shared hallunication as a starting point.

That's not a strawman, that's me chiding you for saying something I consider foolish and logically inconsistent. Specifically, your post implied that the human consciousness is artificially, wilfully constructed. If this was the case then the human conception of gender would also be artificially constructed, and if that were the case there would be no legitimate transgender people - because people would be able to willingly choose there gender.

The entire basis of transgender identity is that gender is not a choice.

Viking said that transexuals were artificially a certain gender you said they were "to all intents and purposes" that gender - then you said Viking was an artificially constructed consciousness.

Something which is "artificial" is man-made, constructed through "artifice", whereas the human consciousness (assuming it is not divinely inspired) is generally held to be a naturally emergent phenomenon, not something that humans deliberately bring into being.

Further, before you run any further in the wrong direction - I did NOT say it was wrong to allow transgender people into a certain bathroom or toilet - I said it was wrong to assume people had no reasonable objections to that.

In response to your previous post, which I did not have to time address this morning.

1. Our society practices a lot of what you call "pre crime", we have banned guns and the carrying of almost all knives in public, including basic pen knives and swiss army knives.

2. You're quite right to pick me up on the word "pervert", let's replace that with "sexual predator".

3. You've reduced this to a niche issue of "men watching women peeing" but that misses the point entirely. This is not about some specific, bizarre, fetish it's about exposing women at their most vulnerable to predator men - especially young women. Consider a simple example - woman goes into toilet to adjust her bra - man walks in. Consider another, woman washing her hands - man slaps her arse whilst she's bent over the sink.

Given that we can probably rely on public conveniences remaining CCTV-free exactly because that's an undue invasion of privacy that makes public conveniences a convenient CCTV black spot for sexual predators.

4. It's certainly true that not all men are sexual predators... wait is it? Anyway, it is true that not all sexual predators are men, but straight women get enough unwanted attention from lesbians already - I hardly think that is an argument to expose them to male predation as well.

At the end of the day the average man is bigger, stronger, taller and heavier than the average woman - he's more able to enforce his physical will on a woman within the same part of the height/weight curve that vice versa. I'm not quite 5'9, but if I were a woman I would be around 5'4 (just under average height in both cases). It's the basics of physical mechanics that tends to make men the majority of sexual predators - they just tend to be bigger in most instances.

It's also all well and good for you or I to argue this but at least one of us is a relatively civilised person - there is a vast population of uncivilised men out there - as evidenced by the use to which smartphone cameras are put in schools and universities. How do you suppose those Law Students from my university here in Exeter would have felt about the prospect of mixed bathrooms? The ones at Warwick? The 500,000 who downloaded the "Depp Nudes" App before it was withdrawn (look it up).

There are some nasty men out there who would casually grope your teenage daughter for a cheap thrill and think nothing of it 2 minutes later. It's perfectly reasonable as a father to worry about her not even being able to escape them in a gendered public toilet - if you can't see that you're just too evolved.

None of what I have just written in any way denies the possibilities of young men being predated upon by women but realistically they're also probably more at risk from other men.

Here's a source on this: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html


Just under 90 per cent of complaints regarding changing room sexual assaults, voyeurism and harassment are about incidents in unisex facilities.

The concern is not about some transgender guy who likes to wear muscle shirts and live in the gym being in the Gents', or about some waifish transgender woman in the Ladies' - it's about the move to unisex facilities and the implication of that.

This is your argument ad absurdem - you are taking the fringe case that people like to talk about and ignoring the wider long-term policy implications, and smearing anyone who does worry about that as ignorant and transphobic.

[Montmorency]

1. Our society practices a lot of what you call "pre crime", we have banned guns and the carrying of almost all knives in public, including basic pen knives and swiss army knives.

Pre-crime is not the principle behind what you listed, which was a restriction on property or commerce rather than people. A better comparison would be to demographic profiling. There is reasonable profiling, such as passing over infants for murder suspects, and unreasonable profiling, such as banning those who regularly consume alcohol from driving vehicles. From the viewpoint of state action, pre-crime is pre-punishment, so demographic profiling can immediately become group discrimination or collective punishment. This unsurprisingly inflicts real-life costs on the targeted demographics.


Further, before you run any further in the wrong direction - I did NOT say it was wrong to allow transgender people into a certain bathroom or toilet - I said it was wrong to assume people had no reasonable objections to that.
[...]
This is your argument ad absurdem - you are taking the fringe case that people like to talk about and ignoring the wider long-term policy implications, and smearing anyone who does worry about that as ignorant and transphobic.

The mere possibility that some objection somewhere is reasonable does not entail anything about a specific objection.

Spend less energy protesting virtue and more examining your premises to see if they fall afoul of your ostensible commitments.


2. You're quite right to pick me up on the word "pervert", let's replace that with "sexual predator".

3. You've reduced this to a niche issue of "men watching women peeing" but that misses the point entirely. This is not about some specific, bizarre, fetish it's about exposing women at their most vulnerable to predator men - especially young women. Consider a simple example - woman goes into toilet to adjust her bra - man walks in. Consider another, woman washing her hands - man slaps her arse whilst she's bent over the sink.

Given that we can probably rely on public conveniences remaining CCTV-free exactly because that's an undue invasion of privacy that makes public conveniences a convenient CCTV black spot for sexual predators.

Such men already exist and are already subject to legal sanction on the basis of demonstrable transgressions.


It's also all well and good for you or I to argue this but at least one of us is a relatively civilised person - there is a vast population of uncivilised men out there - as evidenced by the use to which smartphone cameras are put in schools and universities. How do you suppose those Law Students from my university here in Exeter would have felt about the prospect of mixed bathrooms? The ones at Warwick? The 500,000 who downloaded the "Depp Nudes" App before it was withdrawn (look it up).


Men routinely set up hidden cameras in women's bathrooms at this very moment, because they have the motivation and opportunity.


There are some nasty men out there who would casually grope your teenage daughter for a cheap thrill and think nothing of it 2 minutes later. It's perfectly reasonable as a father to worry about her not even being able to escape them in a gendered public toilet - if you can't see that you're just too evolved.

So what does this have to do with restrictions on transgender people?


None of what I have just written in any way denies the possibilities of young men being predated upon by women but realistically they're also probably more at risk from other men.

Here's a source on this: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html

The concern is not about some transgender guy who likes to wear muscle shirts and live in the gym being in the Gents', or about some waifish transgender woman in the Ladies' - it's about the move to unisex facilities and the implication of that.

I was going to contest your impression of the safety of unisex spaces or the right of 'concerned fathers' to demand a restriction of others for the sake of their comfort, but I realized there's an immediate logical inconsistency embedded: what does any of that have to do with transgender people? It should be immediately apparent that maintaining segregated spaces is compatible with deference to transgendered individual preferences.

If your reasonable and non-prejudicial anxiety is over unisex spaces, why are you talking about transgender people?

[Beskar]

If this was the case then the human conception of gender would also be artificially constructed, and if that were the case there would be no legitimate transgender people - because people would be able to willingly choose there gender.

If we are going to go into this, let's go. Gender is an artificial construction. It is based on social and cultural norms opposed to biological sex. Women are not born with dresses and men into black-tie dress. I will lazily just point to this topic on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_construction_of_gender) for you to read as it contents all the information there.

In fact, gender has never always been a simple binary into masculine and feminine either. This is a product of Western culture and you can easily see differences by looking into other cultures.

In India, there were the Hijra (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-48442934).
In Native American society (https://www.nps.gov/articles/gender-and-sexuality-in-native-america.htm), known as the umbrella term of Two-Spirit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-spirit).
We also have the Māhū (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%81h%C5%AB) in Hawaiian and Tahitian cultures.
We also have the Takatāpui (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takat%C4%81pui) as an umbrella term describing differences of understanding within Maori culture.
There are the Kathoey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathoey) in Thailand.
There are the Fa’afafine (https://theculturetrip.com/pacific/samoa/articles/fa-afafines-the-third-gender/)in Somoa.
The Skoptsy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skoptsy) which are a Christian Sect in Russia.
The Femminiello (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femminiello) in Neopolitan society.
The Mino (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahomey_Amazons) in Benin, known as the Dahomey Amazons.
There is also Iran's take on transsexuality. I remember watching a documentary about it where the Imam describes it akin to baking bread. Cannot remember the source though.


There is are many more examples I can list. I think I will stop here because I think I have made my point.

The world is an amazing diverse place. You can learn a great deal if you put your head outside its comfort zone.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If we are going to go into this, let's go. Gender is an artificial construction. It is based on social and cultural norms opposed to biological sex. Women are not born with dresses and men into black-tie dress. I will lazily just point to this topic on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_construction_of_gender) for you to read as it contents all the information there.

In fact, gender has never always been a simple binary into masculine and feminine either. This is a product of Western culture and you can easily see differences by looking into other cultures.

In India, there were the Hijra (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-48442934).
In Native American society (https://www.nps.gov/articles/gender-and-sexuality-in-native-america.htm), known as the umbrella term of Two-Spirit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-spirit).
We also have the Māhū (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%81h%C5%AB) in Hawaiian and Tahitian cultures.
We also have the Takatāpui (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takat%C4%81pui) as an umbrella term describing differences of understanding within Maori culture.
There are the Kathoey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathoey) in Thailand.
There are the Fa’afafine (https://theculturetrip.com/pacific/samoa/articles/fa-afafines-the-third-gender/)in Somoa.
The Skoptsy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skoptsy) which are a Christian Sect in Russia.
The Femminiello (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femminiello) in Neopolitan society.
The Mino (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahomey_Amazons) in Benin, known as the Dahomey Amazons.
There is also Iran's take on transsexuality. I remember watching a documentary about it where the Imam describes it akin to baking bread. Cannot remember the source though.


There is are many more examples I can list. I think I will stop here because I think I have made my point.

The world is an amazing diverse place. You can learn a great deal if you put your head outside its comfort zone.

I contest your premise - the fact that some express a non-binary gender does not make gender an artificial construction, the fact that not everyone fits a binary gender does not mean that those who conceive of their gender in binary terms do so primarily because they are conditioned to do so. Some humans have twelve fingers and twelve toes and yet the accepted scientific number is ten of each - variance does not obliterate "normal".

AGAIN - your argument undercuts the transgender people you are purporting to defend. If gender is a purely artificial construct then transgenderism is a purely artificial construct, it's not a real thing.

I think your mistake is that you are confusing gender and gender roles - so a soldier who is female must be partly masculine, and Russian heretics who mutilate their bodies as a commitment to chastity must be intersex.

Monasticism is both asexual and robustly masculine and that is in no way a contradictory statement. Not for the first time I note that you try to pigeonhole me into some sort of cookie-cutter right-wing intellectual box, which is ironic given the current thrust of your argument.

The fact your argument has a thrust doesn't make it any more masculine, in case you were wondering.

You've actually pivoted from supporting transgender rights to talking about gender-non conformity when the transgender examples you pictured ARE gender conformant, in fact most trans-gender people you will see tend to either be highly conformant or they look like they are in drag. I've encountered both and the latter are, frankly, quite bizarre in their bearing - the trans-women who fall into that category are really a terrible parody of womanhood.

22741

But please, tell this young lady her gender-identity is an artificial construct.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Pre-crime is not the principle behind what you listed, which was a restriction on property or commerce rather than people. A better comparison would be to demographic profiling. There is reasonable profiling, such as passing over infants for murder suspects, and unreasonable profiling, such as banning those who regularly consume alcohol from driving vehicles. From the viewpoint of state action, pre-crime is pre-punishment, so demographic profiling can immediately become group discrimination or collective punishment. This unsurprisingly inflicts real-life costs on the targeted demographics.[quote]

In the UK we infringe upon the "Right to Bear Arms" enumerated in our Bill of Rights because a few people have used arms for terrible purposes.

Therefore, it is assumed that anyone who wishes to practice with arms will do the same and so almost all arms are restricted. This is the same as saying any man who enters a woman's bathroom is a sexual predator and therefore all men shall be banned from women's bathrooms. The relatively small risk that this will happen has led to the complete ban on handguns and the banning of all non-bolt-action centrefire rifles.

[quote]The mere possibility that some objection somewhere is reasonable does not entail anything about a specific objection.

Spend less energy protesting virtue and more examining your premises to see if they fall afoul of your ostensible commitments.

This argument started because Beskar implied that anyone with anxiety over the safety of his teenage daughter in allowing men into female bathrooms to accommodate transgender rights was morally bankrupt.

I merely argued that this was not necessarily the case and now apparently I hate transgender people - I don't feel like I'm the one making the logical leap here.


Such men already exist and are already subject to legal sanction on the basis of demonstrable transgressions.

We used to have men who owned guns and knives too - now we arrest them all and send them to prison before they even think of hurting anyone. We do this because we are not a liberal society- which is fine - but its inconsistent to be liberal in some areas and not others.


Men routinely set up hidden cameras in women's bathrooms at this very moment, because they have the motivation and opportunity.

Be a spate of that in Costa Coffee shops here - guess what. Those toilets are unisex.


So what does this have to do with restrictions on transgender people?

Not wanting transgender people to be in the bathroom of the sex they were not assigned at birth is not about "restricting transgender people" it's about our society being over-liberal and creating opportunities for abuse that do not currently exist.

I'd quite like to own a semi-automatic rifle in 7.62mm, preferably an SLR, because I enjoy shooting - I'm good at it - and if you're going to have a boom stick you might as well have something with some KICK. 5.56mm doesn't have kick, rifles like the SA80 are very easy to shoot and not very satisfying. I'm not talking about my arse here, I'm speaking from personal experience and I miss shooting. However, I accept it's illegal in the UK for reasons of collective safety.


I was going to contest your impression of the safety of unisex spaces or the right of 'concerned fathers' to demand a restriction of others for the sake of their comfort, but I realized there's an immediate logical inconsistency embedded: what does any of that have to do with transgender people? It should be immediately apparent that maintaining segregated spaces is compatible with deference to transgendered individual preferences.

If your reasonable and non-prejudicial anxiety is over unisex spaces, why are you talking about transgender people?

AM I talking about transgender people? See, I though I was criticising Beskar for suggesting that anyone who DARED question the current transgender orthodoxy was morally bankrupt. Remember, this started because Beskar intimated that the reason a union activist lost his job was not because of Brexit but because of his view on transgender use of bathrooms and Beskar's tone indicates his disdain for those views.

Essentially, this man is being pilloried for being unsophisticated, and this is supposedly enough to lose him his role in organising his union despite his obvious unionist credentials - and shortly after he went on Youtube to make the "Left Wing case for Brexit" too. Frankly, given Beskar's own lack of sophistication I find this deeply ironic.

[Viking]

Instead, I am going to ask you why your argument for supposedly allowing intersex people go about life as they please does not apply to people suffering from dysphoria?

I haven't argued for or against any particular policy in this thread. I think the only solution that will make everyone reasonably happy is to include one or more unisex toilets in addition to the usual gender-segregated ones, but that will often take more space and cost more money, and not make the enterprises happy.

[rory_20_uk]

I haven't argued for or against any particular policy in this thread. I think the only solution that will make everyone reasonably happy is to include one or more unisex toilets in addition to the usual gender-segregated ones, but that will often take more space and cost more money, and not make the enterprises happy.

Have one thing with unisex cubicles and another with unisex urinals.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

?

Removing legal sanction is fundamental to the whole premise of queer activism. Your caution is not respectable. There is no available law or rule against the abusive "man in a dress" of legend that in its implementation does not overwhelmingly impinge on "real" transgenders, in the way that a law against 'being bad' would undermine the whole population subject to capricious enforcement (here just the absolute whole population of subjects). And it's important for everyone to keep in mind that the metaphysics of gender and the application of law and politics are distinct subjects so long as one does not seek the coercive enforcement of a concrete preferred social order. As a classical liberal you probably already uphold the pieties of individual liberty over the Great Chain, right?

I can't parse "Your caution is not respectable" as a statement. Generally speaking, caution and deliberation in decision making are respectable virtues, the only time this is not the case is when they are used to hide some sort of moral fault - such as prejudice or cowardice.

[Beskar]

But please, tell this young lady her gender-identity is an artificial construct.
Want to know what else is a social/artificial construct? Your national identity. Doesn't stop people getting upset when you point that out.


Remember, this started because Beskar intimated that the reason a union activist lost his job was not because of Brexit but because of his view on transgender use of bathrooms.
I never intimated this. Though I indicated disdain for the 'male sexual predator in a dress around every corner' argument on this topic.


Frankly, given Beskar's own lack of sophistication I find this deeply ironic.
When you accuse me of lack of sophistication, it is a compliment.

It is rather simple and easy to understand where my arguments come from. I am from the belief in constructing a positive future, eliminating divisions and creating a utopia not so dissimilar to the United Federation of Planets. I believe in a fair open society where people are not discriminated against based on arbitrary prejudice. I want a better future for all.

Speaking of Sci-Fi and the breaking down of barriers. A famous scene which offends your sensibilities is the Shower Scene from Starship Troopers (unable to post for obvious reasons). On the other-hand, I am completely fine with it.
https://i.imgur.com/zgyvtOY.jpg

I also imagine on the discussion on breast feeding, you will talk about breast-feeding orthodoxy when I am accepting and for the practice of mothers feeding their babies in public areas opposed to shoo-ing them into smelly toilets to do it in private.

I suppose you also enforce current law which bars humanist celebrants from conducting marriages for non-religious people. Because you know, non-religious people do want to marry outside a registrar's office just like religious people's freedoms.

You just like to pop up and oppose everything. Where we actually do agree, you go out of your way to say we are vehemently opposed.


Have one thing with unisex cubicles and another with unisex urinals.
~:smoking:

I am sure I have read somewhere about a school who had unisex bathroom facilities. The cubicles are fully enclosed, and the public area around the sink has CCTV. There is also a teacher stationed nearby and there is reportedly no issues at all.

Unisex bathrooms can be easily done with no threat of sexual predation.

[CrossLOPER]

and not make the enterprises happy.
You can legalize enslavement and remove all regulations regarding worker welfare and pollution, and throw billions at them in subsidies, and the only thing that the heads of those enterprises will consider in terms of improvement is the type of jewels they will use to stud their superyachts.

This is a gross overgeneralization. The fact remains is that enterprises can either learn to deal with human rights like rational human beings by trusting people to not all be subhuman rapists just because they are different, build/convert to unisex facilities to weasel out of the argument (perfectly acceptable), or move to a more enlightened place that fits their ideology like the PRC or Saudi Arabia.


I've encountered both and the latter are, frankly, quite bizarre in their bearing - the trans-women who fall into that category are really a terrible parody of womanhood.
Do you feel the same way about cismen who grow out neckbeards and talk about eating bacon all day and ciswomen who claim to be physically incapable of opening a door by themselves?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Do you feel the same way about cismen who grow out neckbeards and talk about eating bacon all day and ciswomen who claim to be physically incapable of opening a door by themselves?

You needed to lean harder into the comparison - the men need to be eating meatbread, not bacon, and they need to complain about Bree Larson all day. The women need to use their womanhood as an excuse to never take any responsibility for anything in life.

Then, sure, I feel the same way.

I'm thinking of trans-women who wear ill-fitting clothes that are too revealing, wear six inch heels, have two inch press-on nails and wear hot pink wigs. The fact they're trans really isn't really the issue, it's that they're terrible examples of womanhood - like a parody of what a man thinks a woman should look like to be "hot".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Want to know what else is a social/artificial construct? Your national identity. Doesn't stop people getting upset when you point that out.

From your response I get the impression you don't know who this is.


I never intimated this. Though I indicated disdain for the 'male sexual predator in a dress around every corner' argument on this topic.

So you DO think he was fired over his Brexit stance?


When you accuse me of lack of sophistication, it is a compliment.

I was meant as an insult, but Banquo and Kukri taught us to play the ball, not the man, so I apolagise.

My point, however, is that you seem only willing or able to see things from your own perspective - you resist seeing things from the perspective of others, this prevents you from understanding their position - which is why your attacks often miss. This is especially true in my case.


It is rather simple and easy to understand where my arguments come from. I am from the belief in constructing a positive future, eliminating divisions and creating a utopia not so dissimilar to the United Federation of Planets. I believe in a fair open society where people are not discriminated against based on arbitrary prejudice. I want a better future for all.

Utopia is a place that doesn't exist as described by a liar to a moron. That was Thomas Moore's point - there is no perfect society.

As for the UFP - it tended to strangle individuality and creativity - something Deep Space Nine explored at length.


Speaking of Sci-Fi and the breaking down of barriers. A famous scene which offends your sensibilities is the Shower Scene from Starship Troopers (unable to post for obvious reasons). On the other-hand, I am completely fine with it.
https://i.imgur.com/zgyvtOY.jpg

This scene does not offend my sensibilities in any way - you have incorrectly assumed that my argument comes from a visceral distaste, possibly of trans-gender women. I would have thought I explained this by comparison to my support for the ban on most firearms despite my love of shooting.


I also imagine on the discussion on breast feeding, you will talk about breast-feeding orthodoxy when I am accepting and for the practice of mothers feeding their babies in public areas opposed to shoo-ing them into smelly toilets to do it in private.

I have no problem with women breastfeeding in public. However, our society frowns on public nudity and for that reason, and to avoid exciting the undue interest of teenage boys, I really think they should use a shawl - but apparently that makes me a monster for expecting women who are breastfeeding to only be as modest as women who aren't.


I suppose you also enforce current law which bars humanist celebrants from conducting marriages for non-religious people. Because you know, non-religious people do want to marry outside a registrar's office just like religious people's freedoms.

Sorry, what?

Humanism is not a religion, looking at the website makes it very clear that the wedding has no set form, how then is it to be recognised as legally valid?

It should be entirely possible for a Humanist to register to conduct weddings and hold the wedding in a registered venue, then it would be valid. I struggle to understand why this is a problem, given that Humanism, or rather Secular Humanism, is not a religion and has no governing beliefs.

https://humanism.org.uk/ceremonies/non-religious-weddings/faqs/#25

It seems the main complaint of Humanists is that they want to be able to marry anywhere - which is not a right extended to any religious group - even Jewish people must marry in either the Synagogue or their own home.

I'm sorry, I really fail to see the great injustice here. If I want to have a CofE wedding I can't have it on a mountainside, either.


You just like to pop up and oppose everything. Where we actually do agree, you go out of your way to say we are vehemently opposed.

This just sounds bitter and petty and it makes me think that:

A: You aren't engaging in debate in good faith.

B: You aren't even trying to read me in good faith.


I am sure I have read somewhere about a school who had unisex bathroom facilities. The cubicles are fully enclosed, and the public area around the sink has CCTV. There is also a teacher stationed nearby and there is reportedly no issues at all.

Unisex bathrooms can be easily done with no threat of sexual predation.

Hiring someone to attend the bathroom and installing CCTV are not "easy" - nor am I entirely happy about CCTV in public bathrooms - first over the sink - then in the cubicle.

[Montmorency]

I haven't argued for or against any particular policy in this thread. I think the only solution that will make everyone reasonably happy is to include one or more unisex toilets in addition to the usual gender-segregated ones, but that will often take more space and cost more money, and not make the enterprises happy.

I think PVC's sentiments have mostly been properly addressed, and though I'll do so again tomorrow I'd just like to emphasize here that the bare minimum the transgender demographic is asking for is radically simple: just do nothing.

This was almost revelatory once I grokked it, but most of what they want will be realized under the condition that the state stops attempting to actively enforce discriminatory policies or practices (most concretely in terms of police enforcement, because that's the core element of state coercion). Just plain inaction. This puts opponents of transgender claims in the awkward position of advocating an affirmative course of action in the face of mere laissez faire, whereas with gay marriage (as distinct from gay rights more broadly) at least there was an affirmative demand for new legislation on the part of gay activists.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think PVC's sentiments have mostly been properly addressed, and though I'll do so again tomorrow I'd just like to emphasize here that the bare minimum the transgender demographic is asking for is radically simple: just do nothing.

This was almost revelatory once I grokked it, but most of what they want will be realized under the condition that the state stops attempting to actively enforce discriminatory policies or practices (most concretely in terms of police enforcement, because that's the core element of state coercion). Just plain inaction. This puts opponents of transgender claims in the awkward position of advocating an affirmative course of action in the face of mere laissez faire, whereas with gay marriage (as distinct from gay rights more broadly) at least there was an affirmative demand for new legislation on the part of gay activists.

Just to add another wrinkle to this - a British medic is currently suing the Department of Work and Pensions for what he claims is religious discrimination after being "allowed" to exit his contract for refusing to address "a six-foot-tall bearded man" as "madam".

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/10/christian-doctor-lost-job-government-department-refusing-identify/?li_source=LI&li_medium=li-recommendation-widget

Now, yes, he's that kind of Christian who believes are transgender people are sinful but the case does raise an important point.

We, as a society, now tend to treat all cases of gender dis-morphia as transgenderism rather than as a psychological disorder. This is a very new idea, relatively speaking, and it is perhaps not entirely wise. The majority of children who display gender dis-morphia historically resolved their issues during puberty, but now we put teenagers on puberty-blocking drugs which can have harmful side effects and prevent them going through the process that might cause their condition to naturally resolve itself.

Of course, we're now discouraged from even seeing is as a "condition".

[CrossLOPER]

The fact they're trans really isn't really the issue.
You are back-peddling so hard, you are going to forget how to use fire.

[Beskar]

From your response I get the impression you don't know who this is.

To be honest, I have absolutely no idea where you are going with it.
I don't see how Doe v. Regional School Unit 26, her TED Talks, (I got the love the related-to-topic jib of "Don't worry, I am not here to raid your bathrooms and take your women") has anything to do with anything against anything I said. :dizzy2:


Utopia is a place that doesn't exist as described by a liar to a moron. That was Thomas Moore's point - there is no perfect society.
Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence. - Vince Lombardi

It is about making the best with what we have. It is about making progress.


This scene does not offend my sensibilities in any way - you have incorrectly assumed that my argument comes from a visceral distaste, possibly of trans-gender women. I would have thought I explained this by comparison to my support for the ban on most firearms despite my love of shooting.
Actually, the scene doesn't involve any trans-gender individuals. It is simply a unisex washing facility.
Which you do oppose by your explained comparison to support a ban on firearms despite your love of shooting.


I have no problem with women breastfeeding in public. However, our society frowns on public nudity and for that reason, and to avoid exciting the undue interest of teenage boys, I really think they should use a shawl - but apparently that makes me a monster for expecting women who are breastfeeding to only be as modest as women who aren't.

Or we can just recognise that some elements of our society are unnecessarily sexualised.
There are many cultures who don't bat an eye-lid at a breast feeding woman. It is simply natural and not objectified in the slightest.
American society also has the strange taboo of wanton violence being shown is okay, but a nipple? Hell no. It is a simple case of being a society of prudes.

Then again, I see also men and women naked regularly as par of my work and I have never had such thoughts. I very much doubt I am a ubermensch to do this.


Humanism Stuff
Was a random based on this. Scotland has it better. (https://inews.co.uk/news/wedding-reforms-will-allow-couples-to-legally-marry-outside-own-homes/)


This just sounds bitter and petty and it makes me think that:
A: You aren't engaging in debate in good faith.
B: You aren't even trying to read me in good faith.

That is just flipping what I just said. :laugh4:
Though on reflection, I probably have unfairly written-off any hope of it being different based on your stubborn refusal to engage with multiple attempts at reconciliation over the years.

Random example: You once stated that the downside of Brexit is being the loss of development funding from the EU in Devon. I stated in response, that government should decentralise more of their funding from London to compensate, minimising this effect in Devon, also suggesting other areas as us northerners feel this pinch too. I thought we would have agreed, shared common interest... ... then you bizarrely claimed that if I suggested this in a Devon pub, the locals won't let me leave without black eyes.


Hiring someone to attend the bathroom and installing CCTV are not "easy" - nor am I entirely happy about CCTV in public bathrooms - first over the sink - then in the cubicle.

Firstly, it is completely self-enclosed cubicles. There is no perversion by people trying to look in from the top or the bottom. That is one simple measure.
You are also not entirely happy with your own slippery slope argument no one is advocating or supporting. I don't think Urolagnia is a big of a thing you think it is.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You are back-peddling so hard, you are going to forget how to use fire.

It's absolutely possible that I've failed to convey my point - it's also possible that you've miss-read me.

Let's be clear, though, some people who claim to be transgender, especially "trans-gender women" I just don't buy. An incredibly blokish man doing doing an embarrassing, sexist, drag act - am I really expected to believe this is a "real" woman?

I am not allowed to question this?


To be honest, I have absolutely no idea where you are going with it.
I don't see how Doe v. Regional School Unit 26, her TED Talks, (I got the love the related-to-topic jib of "Don't worry, I am not here to raid your bathrooms and take your women") has anything to do with anything against anything I said. :dizzy2:

Your support for the Queer agenda undermines the Transgender agender. If gender is a choice then transgenderism isn't real.

I really struggle to understand how you can fail to see that. Doe v. Regional School Unit 26 pretty much hinges on trangenderism not being a choice.

Also - you forgot to mention she killed it in last year's season of Supergirl. I confess, I was amused she didn't come out as trangender on the show for several episodes - I'm sure that tweaked a few noses, especially given how cute she it.


Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence. - Vince Lombardi

Several people have tried Communism - you need to ask yourself why it doesn't work - it wasn't for lack of effort.


It is about making the best with what we have. It is about making progress.

Repression of Freedom of speach is not necessarily "progress".


Actually, the scene doesn't involve any trans-gender individuals. It is simply a unisex washing facility.
Which you do oppose by your explained comparison to support a ban on firearms despite your love of shooting.

In general, yes, I think that unisex washing facilities - especially for non-adults - are a bad idea. They do not, however, offend my "sensibilities".


Or we can just recognise that some elements of our society are unnecessarily sexualised.
There are many cultures who don't bat an eye-lid at a breast feeding woman. It is simply natural and not objectified in the slightest.
American society also has the strange taboo of wanton violence being shown is okay, but a nipple? Hell no. It is a simple case of being a society of prudes.

Maybe - those societies also don't have minimum ages of consent for sexual activity, though.

We are discussing our society, where both women and men are generally expected not to be topless - and women especially. The argument, "well, if you saw tits all the time you'd stop caring" is besides the point. Teenage boys spend all their spare time trying to see tits - that what made the Sun so popular and it's such a problem our government is currently trying to put it behind an ID wall.


Then again, I see also men and women naked regularly as par of my work and I have never had such thoughts. I very much doubt I am a ubermensch to do this.

You long ago ceased to be a teenage boy.


https://inews.co.uk/news/wedding-reforms-will-allow-couples-to-legally-marry-outside-own-homes/

It would be easier to have some respect for Humanists if they weren't so damn smug - reading that you'd think that ONLY a Humanist marriage was special, or meaningful.

In any case, I'm biased because I consider Secular Humanism absurd.

[qupte]That is just flipping what I just said. :laugh4:
Though on reflection, I probably have unfairly written-off any hope of it being different based on your stubborn refusal to engage with multiple attempts at reconciliation over the years.

As an example supporting my statement: You once stated that the downside of Brexit is being the loss of development funding from the EU in Devon. I stated in response, that government should decentralise more of their funding from London to compensate, minimising this effect in Devon, also suggesting other areas as us northerners feel this pinch too. I thought we would have agreed, shared common interest... ... then you bizarrely claimed that if I suggested this in a Devon pub, the locals won't let me leave without black eyes.[/quote]

I have only a vague recollection of this, but I suspect what you did was conflate Cornwall and Devon - liable to earn a beating here. Dig up the thread and I'll give you a more nuanced explanation.

In any case, I'm not from Devon - I was just born and raised here - and no, that's not a joke.


Firstly, it is completely self-enclosed cubicles. There is no perversion by people trying to look in from the top or the bottom. That is one simple measure.
You are also not entirely happy with your own slippery slope argument no one is advocating or supporting. I don't think Urolagnia is a big of a thing you think it is.

You attach this to a specific fetish - I am talking about invasion of privacy (CCTV) and loss of safety (unisex facilities). We are already the most surveilled society outside China - the amount of CCTV we have isn't normal, it's pathological. At this point more CCTV is just bad.

[Beskar]

Your support for the Queer agenda undermines the Transgender agender. If gender is a choice then transgenderism isn't real.

I never discussed choice into this argument.
To quote: B: You aren't even trying to read me in good faith.


Several people have tried Communism - you need to ask yourself why it doesn't work - it wasn't for lack of effort.
I think my 84 on my 'Totalitarian Regimes of the 20th Century' module involved the answer to that question.
Outside of the odd-meme-ing for being on the left. My political affiliation would probably be closer to Libertarian Socialism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism) which opposes the adoption of an authoritarian apparatus.


Repression of Freedom of speach is not necessarily "progress".

Where have I advocated repression of freedom of speech? In any context that matters. Not including legitimate use of forum powers.
To quote: A: You aren't engaging in debate in good faith. B: You aren't even trying to read me in good faith.

How many times have you looked at your account infractions fuming about how I have repressed your speech? The answer is none, as I have never given you one.
When or where have I repressed your freedom of speech?

In regards to Fireman. You unfairly misrepresented my statements (again), look at the post at the very top. To even quote it for your convenience:
His Brexit view wasn't much, but his views on transsexuals pretty much amounted to "I don't want male perverts near my daughter in the bathroom". Clearly hasn't heard of this meme campaign, might change his view on how dumb he sounded.

Where or when did I advocate for repressing his speech?


In general, yes, I think that unisex washing facilities - especially for non-adults - are a bad idea. They do not, however, offend my "sensibilities".
Children are innocent. They don't see anything wrong until you tell them different. It is the adults which are the worst offenders.


The argument, "well, if you saw tits all the time you'd stop caring" is besides the point. Teenage boys spend all their spare time trying to see tits - that what made the Sun so popular and it's such a problem our government is currently trying to put it behind an ID wall.

As I said, society of prudes.


In any case, I'm biased because I consider Secular Humanism absurd.

I consider your viewpoint that I cannot be a good person or have a morality because I don't believe in god to be absurd. I would argue that my absurd is the more absurd than your absurd too!


I have only a vague recollection of this, but I suspect what you did was conflate Cornwall and Devon - liable to earn a beating here. Dig up the thread and I'll give you a more nuanced explanation.

tl;dr version: I said "Cornwall and Devon were part of the Union just like Northern Ireland is". With this I was intending to state that the population and physical locations should be treated fairly.(and yes, you are going to bring in 'B: You aren't even trying to read me in good faith.' no matter how I word this statement as you did back then.)

You brought up the differences of Country, Duchy and County, with emphasis Cornish identity politics when it wasn't a discussion I was or attempting to engage, resulting me in calling you pedantic over wording when you refused to accept my explanation.

In all honesty, I would be willing just to agree with "burying the hatchet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burying_the_hatchet)" with you. I don't hate you, PFH nor do I care too, nor will I ever do(unless you reeeeeealllly went out of your way to deserve it). I know from your previous comments (well, it even has it's own thread) that this is not reciprocated.


You attach this to a specific fetish - I am talking about invasion of privacy (CCTV) and loss of safety (unisex facilities). We are already the most surveilled society outside China - the amount of CCTV we have isn't normal, it's pathological. At this point more CCTV is just bad.
I feel you may sometimes fail to recognise my dry humour or choose to ignore it. Not intended as a insult, merely an observation. I know you have confessed to difficulties to Husar's on occasions.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I never discussed choice into this argument.
To quote: B: You aren't even trying to read me in good faith.

I disagree - you said gender was artificial - that which is artificial is man-made, which implies man's intent and therefore choice.

I said that I think you're confusing gender and the construction of gender-identity and you posted several wikipedia articles which reference one or the other - further indicating you conflate the two.

So as we are clear - I do not believe gender is artificial or a matter of choice in the same way that sexually is not artificial or a matter of choice.


I think my 84 on my 'Totalitarian Regimes of the 20th Century' module involved the answer to that question.
Outside of the odd-meme-ing for being on the left. My political affiliation would probably be closer to Libertarian Socialism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism) which opposes the adoption of an authoritarian apparatus.

In another thread we've been having the argument over whether or not Imperialism is inherently evil. There I made the point that Imperialism is a form of expansionism and might therefore be considered evil or as least negative even if the subsequent imperial administration is largely benign.

From my historical reading and observation of contemporary politics I have come to the conclusion that any nation larger than, say, Germany, tends to become coercive because in order to function the central government has to remain below a certain size lest it become unwieldy. From this it follows that elected representatives have unacceptably large constituencies and therefore become unacceptably remote from the people they are meant to represent.

Your dream of the one-world government can, following this logic, never be anything better than a benign oligarchy like the EU, or a corrosive one as the US Congress has become.


Where have I advocated repression of freedom of speech? In any context that matters. Not including legitimate use of forum powers.
To quote: A: You aren't engaging in debate in good faith. B: You aren't even trying to read me in good faith.

How many times have you looked at your account infractions fuming about how I have repressed your speech? The answer is none, as I have never given you one.
When or where have I repressed your freedom of speech?

You do not think modern Liberal Western governments are repressive?

No guns, not allowed to say the majority of swear words because they offend someone, tried to censor "Fairy-tale in New York".

Not that I necessarily disagree with banning homophobic or racial slurs, but it IS repression. Saying it isn't is rather like claiming Christianity isn't a cult.


In regards to Fireman. You unfairly misrepresented my statements (again), look at the post at the very top. To even quote it for your convenience:
His Brexit view wasn't much, but his views on transsexuals pretty much amounted to "I don't want male perverts near my daughter in the bathroom". Clearly hasn't heard of this meme campaign, might change his view on how dumb he sounded.

Were you not responding to this:


https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dark-days-democracy-you-can-17388243


Outrageous.

IA expresses his outrage that the man was sacked over Brexit and you downplay his Brexit views and play up his supposedly trans-phobic views - views which most men would understand in view of their own daughters/sisters etc. From this I conclude you think he wasn't actually sacked over Brexit (as he claimed) but over his other views. Your disdain for those views further implies you approve of said sacking.

IF this is not the case then you should have caveated your post.


Where or when did I advocate for repressing his speech?

I never said you did - I just said that the sort of society you envisage (one like the UFP) is repressive and stifles individual freedoms. You made that connection btw, not me, and I specifically referenced the fact they deal with this in D£9 - they deal with it in Voyager as well, but it wasn't done as well.


Children are innocent. They don't see anything wrong until you tell them different. It is the adults which are the worst offenders.

So, as a teenage boy you didn't spend a lot of your time looking at teenage girls? We used to call it "bird watching" at College, and we did it pretty much every free period. We were, at that time, still technically "children". Hardly something I'm proud of, but then children tend to have poorly developed empathy - which is why they are capable of such cruelty.


As I said, society of prudes.

Really? You're the one who claims not to spend his time looking at girls - isn't that more prudish?


I consider your viewpoint that I cannot be a good person or have a morality because I don't believe in god to be absurd. I would argue that my absurd is the more absurd than your absurd too!

I never said that you were necessarily unable to be a good person without believing in God, I said that it was impossible to be a good person "without God" because without a Divine arbiter there's no way for Good and Evil to be distinguished. That's a criticism of the incoherence of your worldview - not your personal morality. A system of Divine Justice does not require your personal belief in order to function.

At this point I've spent about a decade and a half studying Christian and Pagan moralist texts - I'm not some ignorant "Evangelical Theologian".

Oh, and before you even think of going there - I don't believe me believing in God MAKES me a Good person.

I see a similar logical inconsistency in your insistence that gender is "artificial" whilst supporting trans-gender rights.


tl;dr version: I said "Cornwall and Devon were part of the Union just like Northern Ireland is". With this I was intending to state that the population and physical locations should be treated fairly.(and yes, you are going to bring in 'B: You aren't even trying to read me in good faith.' no matter how I word this statement as you did back then.)

You brought up the differences of Country, Duchy and County, with emphasis Cornish identity politics when it wasn't a discussion I was or attempting to engage, resulting me in calling you pedantic over wording when you refused to accept my explanation.

Right, conflating Devon and Cornwall will get you two black eyes in a rural pub in both counties. The two sides can't even agree on how to have tea and scones, and when a National Trust property posted an advert in Cornwall with it the "wrong" way they received threats of boycott and even, irrc, violence, that caused them to issue an abject grovelling apology. Now, if you don't like me telling you that I'm sorry, but I see no reason to sugarcoat it - and I see no reason not to criticise you for trying to downplay regional differences which two regions consider essential to their identity.

See - this is the gap between the world you think other people want and the world other people actually want, and it's why I find your dream so objectionable. You probably think the Cornish and Devonians should "get on" right? They don't want to though, and the only way they will is if you force them, either directly or by erasing their local identities.


In all honesty, I would be willing just to agree with "burying the hatchet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burying_the_hatchet)" with you. I don't hate you, PFH nor do I care too, nor will I ever do(unless you reeeeeealllly went out of your way to deserve it). I know from your previous comments (well, it even has it's own thread) that this is not reciprocated.

Never read that thread, in case you were wondering, I didn't hang around to see what people said about me after - never read the last PM you sent me either. However, you may recall I said that I left specifically so I didn't end up hating you. I came back because my dislike of you caused me to miss the last year or so of Fragony's life. That's a sin for which I can never atone and therefore I shall have to carry to my grave - I have enough reasons to hate myself, so I'm trying not to add to the list.

As far as "burying the hatchet" goes, I've found that rarely works and in any case you haven't changed in any way that would make such an exercise meaningful, and nor have I.


I feel you may sometimes fail to recognise my dry humour or choose to ignore it. Not intended as a insult, merely an observation. I know you have confessed to difficulties to Husar's on occasions.

Have you considered applying a smiley if the joke doesn't have an obvious punch line? In this case though, you're mocking me, which is something you should only do with someone you know has a good opinion of you and your character - especially when I made it quite clear what people are worried about is sexual assault and not peeping toms.

[Beskar]

So as we are clear - I do not believe gender is artificial or a matter of choice in the same way that sexually is not artificial or a matter of choice.
I similarly agree about gender and sexuality on that they are both similarly constructed but it is not a matter of "choice". It is a preference. Deciding to choose I don't want to dislike coffee doesn't stop me from having the utter disgust when I drink it.

To me, a social construct =/= choice and it is a separate thing. It may be simply we disagree on that and leave it there.


From my historical reading and observation of contemporary politics I have come to the conclusion that any nation larger than, say, Germany, tends to become coercive because in order to function the central government has to remain below a certain size lest it become unwieldy. From this it follows that elected representatives have unacceptably large constituencies and therefore become unacceptably remote from the people they are meant to represent.

If you read the wikipedia on libertarian socialism, it is not a top-down construct. It is a horizontal one. The concept also has it's flaws and practicalities which impairs it from working. It works differently to both the EU and the USA.


You do not think modern Liberal Western governments are repressive?
Not that I necessarily disagree with banning homophobic or racial slurs, but it IS repression. Saying it isn't is rather like claiming Christianity isn't a cult.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with finding it difficult with certain concepts and examples. You linked an article about a GP calling a 6foot man with a beard "Ma'am". He was asking to simply follow the process/procedure as per his training. He wasn't asked to suddenly change his world view on the subject and there are tactful ways of going about things rather than outright refusal such as not using any gender pronounce and merely documenting that said person who identify self with a female gender.

What is disallowed is enforcing beliefs which are detriment to someones care. I am not saying that the GP in question did this.


Were you not responding to this:
IA expresses his outrage that the man was sacked over Brexit and you downplay his Brexit views and play up his supposedly trans-phobic views - views which most men would understand in view of their own daughters/sisters etc. From this I conclude you think he wasn't actually sacked over Brexit (as he claimed) but over his other views. Your disdain for those views further implies you approve of said sacking

You are right but not right. I was downplaying his Brexit views and I did not find them to be negatively. I fundamentally do not oppose Brexit at an irrational level. I simply disagree on a lot of issues surrounding Brexit. I want a second referendum based on clarification and purpose. Not as an excuse to stop Brexit which I have consistently tried to convey.

Going further to suggest than this was incorrect. I wasn't suggesting he was removed due to transrights instead. He could have sadly been removed due to his views on Brexit which I believe was the thrust of the article. If anything I disagree with such a move.

[will come back later.]

[Montmorency]

In the UK we infringe upon the "Right to Bear Arms" enumerated in our Bill of Rights because a few people have used arms for terrible purposes.

I'm still not sure what subject we're currently on, but a couple problems:

1. This assumes that any attempt, or any means, to mitigate "small risk" is equally appropriate or salutary. To some extent deterrence is a component of any criminal justice system - yet we do not condone systematic torture toward deterrence basically because it's evil (and less saliently ineffective). Alternatively, men commit the lion's share (tee hee) of violent crimes. Would it be just to establish matriarchy and heavily subordinate men in the name of public safety?
2. It is historically false to say that gendered bathrooms were introduced as a response to men assaulting women in shared spaces. Perhaps you made this assumption because you were applying your contemporary perspective to historical contexts.



This argument started because Beskar implied that anyone with anxiety over the safety of his teenage daughter in allowing men into female bathrooms to accommodate transgender rights was morally bankrupt. I merely argued that this was not necessarily the case and now apparently I hate transgender people - I don't feel like I'm the one making the logical leap here.

Maybe it's not necessarily the case. But is it not the case? Justification is warranted. An employer may genuinely be worried that Asian candidates are indolent thieves; what's the source of this worry, and is it changeable?




We used to have men who owned guns and knives too - now we arrest them all and send them to prison before they even think of hurting anyone. We do this because we are not a liberal society- which is fine - but its inconsistent to be liberal in some areas and not others.

You arrest on the basis of ownership, not on the basis of intention. And anyway, you neglect consideration of whether a particular law is reasonable or not. I'm confident you don't believe that literally any restriction is legitimate or desirable; thus the necessary recourse is to the facts of the matter.

Sure you are, as you admit in the next clause. But every system has inconsistencies, are you really complaining that we haven't realized some utopian ideal?


Be a spate of that in Costa Coffee shops here - guess what. Those toilets are unisex.

And?


Not wanting transgender people to be in the bathroom of the sex they were not assigned at birth is not about "restricting transgender people" it's about our society being over-liberal and creating opportunities for abuse that do not currently exist.

THe problem here is two-fold, that you assume without evidence there are significant opportunities for abuse created, and that you fail to even notice the "over-liberalization" is advocated for the opportunities for abuse that it eliminates. Again, why do you think there's a problem with transgender people doing what they already do when they can? You are proposing a restriction, like how before the 1970s Britain restricted gay men by pursuing them into bathrooms in the name of public morality. And what do these restrictions do in service of segregating genders. It is difficult to make sense of the logic unless you reject the social status of transgenders and seek to characterize their behavior as injurious to public safety - which would be a prejudicial stance.


However, I accept it's illegal in the UK for reasons of collective safety.

Again, the fact that guns are restricted does not mean that any hypothetical restriction is merited.


AM I talking about transgender people? See, I though I was criticising Beskar for suggesting that anyone who DARED question the current transgender orthodoxy was morally bankrupt.

Correct me if I'm missing something, but here you've argued that it is appropriate to (eliding implementation) prevent transgenders from using bathrooms not aligned with their assigned birth sex, and you have argued that unisex spaces are bad and contribute to sex crimes. I'm not sure whether you are trying to link these two lines of thought. Do you argue the two points above, and if so, do you have any connection to make between them? And why?


My point, however, is that you seem only willing or able to see things from your own perspective - you resist seeing things from the perspective of others, this prevents you from understanding their position - which is why your attacks often miss. This is especially true in my case.

I haven't seen you try to understand our positions very hard. :creep:

Per the preceding, go ahead and clarify your position. Be sure to specify how we can tell there is no whiff of prejudice.


My point, however, is that you seem only willing or able to see things from your own perspective - you resist seeing things from the perspective of others, this prevents you from understanding their position - which is why your attacks often miss. This is especially true in my case.


I have no problem with women breastfeeding in public. However, our society frowns on public nudity and for that reason, and to avoid exciting the undue interest of teenage boys, I really think they should use a shawl - but apparently that makes me a monster for expecting women who are breastfeeding to only be as modest as women who aren't.

I would ask why women should adhere to your standard of modesty, and why two different categories of women should adhere to the same standard despite your highlighting that they are different categories, but really the important thing is that what you personally feel is whatever, you're entitled to your opinion - so long as you don't advocate regulation of breastfeeding women by law, business, or civil society. Same by garishly-dressed transpersons or anyone else whose style you disapprove of. We've all been there. (I really hope you are not so traditionalist as to advocate reinstating sumptuary laws...)


We, as a society, now tend to treat all cases of gender dis-morphia as transgenderism rather than as a psychological disorder. This is a very new idea, relatively speaking, and it is perhaps not entirely wise. The majority of children who display gender dis-morphia historically resolved their issues during puberty, but now we put teenagers on puberty-blocking drugs which can have harmful side effects and prevent them going through the process that might cause their condition to naturally resolve itself. Of course, we're now discouraged from even seeing is as a "condition".

Are you making this judgement after diligent reference to modern medical literature and practice? Why do you think there is a willy-nilly approach to gender dysphoria?


An incredibly blokish man doing doing an embarrassing, sexist, drag act - am I really expected to believe this is a "real" woman?

I am not allowed to question this?

Hmm. Do you think they can be "allowed" to question your view of them?


Teenage boys spend all their spare time trying to see tits

Is your social hierarchy centered on (a monolithic image of) teenage boys? Who cares.


No guns, not allowed to say the majority of swear words because they offend someone, tried to censor "Fairy-tale in New York".

Not that I necessarily disagree with banning homophobic or racial slurs, but it IS repression. Saying it isn't is rather like claiming Christianity isn't a cult.

Hmmm, Britain may be your city but you're forgetting the diversity that exists among liberal Western governments. For example, over nearly a century American jurisprudence has increasingly reinforced a free-speech regime that is perhaps the closest a society has ever come to absolutism.


but then children tend to have poorly developed empathy - which is why they are capable of such cruelty.

So teach them. From what I see and hear children are less cruel and chauvinistic than they were a generation ago. There's nothing wrong with looking at girls or boys so long as one isn't an asshole about it, and doesn't develop derogatory or exclusionary mindset.


especially when I made it quite clear what people are worried about is sexual assault and not peeping toms.

Oh yeah, just to shoehorn another instantiation for the upper reaches: I might be worried about black students attending my daughter's school because I'm worried about sexual assault... That would be a shameful worry to maintain. To act on it would be a basic exercise of racism, and ought-need be called out as such.


From my historical reading and observation of contemporary politics I have come to the conclusion that any nation larger than, say, Germany, tends to become coercive because in order to function the central government has to remain below a certain size lest it become unwieldy. From this it follows that elected representatives have unacceptably large constituencies and therefore become unacceptably remote from the people they are meant to represent.

I think that's a reasonable conclusion. Presumably a world-government would have to be structured in a bipolar fashion to maximize subsidiarity, local autonomy plus self-sufficiency, and inter-municipal solidarity and cooperation alongside the global apparatus. The latter would have to have built-in safeguards to shrink or restructure over time while augmenting and safeguarding the horizontal mechanisms of democratic power at the bottom of the dumbbell-form. It would not work well for long without a universally-educated and activated populace. It would be the hardest thing we've ever done. But we can never let perfect be the enemy of good - while juggling the importance of aspiration and high expectations.

Also, there's the whole thing with the specter of species-wide civilizational collapse dogging us...


I have enough reasons to hate myself, so I'm trying not to add to the list.

As long as we're speaking of bygones, you seem much colder this go around. I've been feeling it almost for half a year. Is that a real thing?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm still not sure what subject we're currently on, but a couple problems:

Neither am I.


1. This assumes that any attempt, or any means, to mitigate "small risk" is equally appropriate or salutary. To some extent deterrence is a component of any criminal justice system - yet we do not condone systematic torture toward deterrence basically because it's evil (and less saliently ineffective). Alternatively, men commit the lion's share (tee hee) of violent crimes. Would it be just to establish matriarchy and heavily subordinate men in the name of public safety?
2. It is historically false to say that gendered bathrooms were introduced as a response to men assaulting women in shared spaces. Perhaps you made this assumption because you were applying your contemporary perspective to historical contexts.

1. You are correct that not all restrictions are necessary salutatory, but the argument over restrictions in bathroom use (and other breastfeeding in public) take the opposite extreme - any restriction is discrimination. It is this latter position I have a problem with. I use the comparison of gun ownership because, contrary to popular belief, gun ownership is actually historically quite popular in the UK, and also in Australia and New Zealand - but all three countries have ultimately taken the same stance on gun ownership in response to pretty much their first or second mass shooting.

Similar arguments are even being had over the actual process of assigning sex at birth where some queer people see this as an infringement of the child or parents' rights. In my view our society is becoming overly permissive in allowing people to self-define their identity rather than having their identity be at least partially defined by society. Remember, society is the collection of people you live with - it needs to have some rules and structures so that people understand how to get along. Something like assigning sex (as opposed to gender) at birth should not be controversial except in the unlikely event that the child is intersex.

2. Prior to female-only bathrooms there were only male-only bathrooms. Women had to urinate in gutters.


Maybe it's not necessarily the case. But is it not the case? Justification is warranted. An employer may genuinely be worried that Asian candidates are indolent thieves; what's the source of this worry, and is it changeable?

Honestly, I've seen the "man in a dress" on the street. It's something you notice precisely because of the incongruity, it's usually a middle-aged man, walking like a middle-aged man, wearing a very silly dress and a very bad wig. This will be, in some cases, a transgender woman only coming out late in life trying to shake off a mess of learned behaviours where "he" was trying to be as manly as possible to cover up who she was.

I'm not unsympathetic, but the bald truth is that if you saw her walking into the female toilets following your teenage daughter it looks like a middle-aged man wearing a dress as an excuse to walk into the toilets following your teenage daughter.

Now, as a father, what do you do in that circumstance? Risk your daughter being assaulted, or risk being arrested for assaulting a woman who has spent her life pretending to be a man? It's quite easy to see why many fathers would just default to option one on a visceral level, even if they don't follow through.

It's also quite easy to understand why a man who's never had to think hard about his sexuality or gender, and even more so one who has but concluded he's actually a straight man anyway, will be sceptical of the "man in a dress."


You arrest on the basis of ownership, not on the basis of intention. And anyway, you neglect consideration of whether a particular law is reasonable or not. I'm confident you don't believe that literally any restriction is legitimate or desirable; thus the necessary recourse is to the facts of the matter.

That's right - we arrest anyone carrying a penknife in public without a good excuse. I think that's repressive, don't you?


Sure you are, as you admit in the next clause. But every system has inconsistencies, are you really complaining that we haven't realized some utopian ideal?

Britain is simply not a liberal society - America is - my point is that when you are only selectively Liberal about the things YOU think people should be allowed to do you aren't really Liberals. Liberals let people do the things they think they shouldn't be allowed to do.


And?

Pretty obviously it's much easier for a man to deploy a camera in a unisex toilet with a sinlge cubicle - he has a legitimate reason to be there and nobody can see him. So, this is clearly a downside of unisex toilets, especially single cubicle ones - although the same applies to enclosed cubicles.

The only way around that is to either have regular sweeps for bugs or CCTV in the cubicles.


THe problem here is two-fold, that you assume without evidence there are significant opportunities for abuse created, and that you fail to even notice the "over-liberalization" is advocated for the opportunities for abuse that it eliminates. Again, why do you think there's a problem with transgender people doing what they already do when they can? You are proposing a restriction, like how before the 1970s Britain restricted gay men by pursuing them into bathrooms in the name of public morality. And what do these restrictions do in service of segregating genders. It is difficult to make sense of the logic unless you reject the social status of transgenders and seek to characterize their behavior as injurious to public safety - which would be a prejudicial stance.

When did I actually say "transexuals should be barred from the bathroom of the sex they identify with"?

Good God, I posted a picture of Nicole Maines, challenged Beskar to tell her her gender was artificial and said I thought she was cute the last season of Supergirl.

Here's her wikipedia bio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicole_Maines

That being said, I can understand why some people WOULD want such a ban


Again, the fact that guns are restricted does not mean that any hypothetical restriction is merited.

Again, whilst this is true the reverse also follows - if we can accept gun restriction then not all restrictions are immoral.


Correct me if I'm missing something, but here you've argued that it is appropriate to (eliding implementation) prevent transgenders from using bathrooms not aligned with their assigned birth sex, and you have argued that unisex spaces are bad and contribute to sex crimes. I'm not sure whether you are trying to link these two lines of thought. Do you argue the two points above, and if so, do you have any connection to make between them? And why?

Yes - you completely missed the part where I didn't argue against transexuals using the appropriate (as in the one corresponding to their identified sex) bathroom. I am, however, against unisex facilities - which is something many Queer people (which is not the same lobby as the transgender lobby, necessarily) are increasingly pushing for.

I'm 100% behind the transgender lobby on this issue. Having said that, I do have reservations about a trend developing where every teenager with gender dis-morphia is diagnosed as transgender or transexual.


I haven't seen you try to understand our positions very hard. :creep:

Per the preceding, go ahead and clarify your position. Be sure to specify how we can tell there is no whiff of prejudice.

My position is that I don't think people should be punished for holding view which were mainstream 20 years ago but which now have become unfashionable. I note that you described Furunculus' expression of caution on this topic as "not respectable" which verges on an accusation of prejudice, just for not wholeheartedly agreeing.

That sort of thought pattern is prevalent in religious fundamentalists, it's the sort of think that the Taliban thinks - executing people who aren't Muslim "enough".

A Liberal society should be tolerant of differing views, it should be able to debate them calmly and rationally without resorting to name-calling.


I would ask why women should adhere to your standard of modesty, and why two different categories of women should adhere to the same standard despite your highlighting that they are different categories, but really the important thing is that what you personally feel is whatever, you're entitled to your opinion - so long as you don't advocate regulation of breastfeeding women by law, business, or civil society. Same by garishly-dressed transpersons or anyone else whose style you disapprove of. We've all been there. (I really hope you are not so traditionalist as to advocate reinstating sumptuary laws...)

Why shouldn't breastfeeding be regulated by law? Urination is regulated by law, sleeping is regulated by law.

It's not my standard of modesty, anyway, it's the generally accepted standard in most Anglophone countries - women are expected to not bear their breasts in public. From that it logically follows that it should be fine for women to breastfeed in public, so long as they don't expose their breasts. The women sitting on public benches with a child suckling their dress around their waste and both breasts exposed are making a political statement.

They are using their nudity to force society to acknowledge that they are breastfeeding in public. I get it, but I don't approve of the tactic, and I don't approve of people life that Museum steward being punished for asking them to adhere to the same standards of PUBLIC decency as EVERYONE else.

Asking women to use a shawl is not some terrible patriarchal imposition, it's asking them to have consideration of others, especially other parents with children who may not want them exposed to nude women.


Are you making this judgement after diligent reference to modern medical literature and practice? Why do you think there is a willy-nilly approach to gender dysphoria?

I've read quite a lot of journalism on the topic and also a few papers - look up the Tavistock Centre and the recent controversy there. It's not a "willy-nilly" approach so much as a "one size fits all" approach which includes mastectomy for teenage girls and castration for teenage boys.

I've definitely read of cases where teenage girls have been identified as transgender and undergone hormone treatment and surgery at age 16.


Hmm. Do you think they can be "allowed" to question your view of them?

At the present time I would say that anyone who, on meeting someone who claims to be transgender, questions that person's claim can probably expect to lose their job.


Is your social hierarchy centered on (a monolithic image of) teenage boys? Who cares.

I think the greatest threat the teenage girls is probably teenage boys, from personal experience.


Hmmm, Britain may be your city but you're forgetting the diversity that exists among liberal Western governments. For example, over nearly a century American jurisprudence has increasingly reinforced a free-speech regime that is perhaps the closest a society has ever come to absolutism.

I referenced this above, that doesn't make the supposedly Liberal Britain less repressive.


So teach them. From what I see and hear children are less cruel and chauvinistic than they were a generation ago. There's nothing wrong with looking at girls or boys so long as one isn't an asshole about it, and doesn't develop derogatory or exclusionary mindset.

Who was it said, "Children are little barbarians and the purpose of education is to civilise them before they grow up cause the collapse of society."?

Walking down the street of a Saturday Night I don't think the students are that much more enlightened than they were a decade ago. Certainly, few are the young, intelligent, assertive female academics not relived when I offer to walk them home.


Oh yeah, just to shoehorn another instantiation for the upper reaches: I might be worried about black students attending my daughter's school because I'm worried about sexual assault... That would be a shameful worry to maintain. To act on it would be a basic exercise of racism, and ought-need be called out as such.

What about, say, an influx of young boys from a country like Afghanistan where "woman's rights" are considered optional at best? Is it still shameful to be worried? Or, what about merging of school districts that brings in a group of which boys from a rough neighbourhood with a reputation for drug use and not being safe after dark. Still shameful?

There's a difference between being concerned about people outside your social group not adhering to your standards and racism. If you're just worried because the boy is black then that's obviously racist, it's a little different if he's from a slum because then you need to ask yourself if it's the colour he is or the slum he's from.


I think that's a reasonable conclusion. Presumably a world-government would have to be structured in a bipolar fashion to maximize subsidiarity, local autonomy plus self-sufficiency, and inter-municipal solidarity and cooperation alongside the global apparatus. The latter would have to have built-in safeguards to shrink or restructure over time while augmenting and safeguarding the horizontal mechanisms of democratic power at the bottom of the dumbbell-form. It would not work well for long without a universally-educated and activated populace. It would be the hardest thing we've ever done. But we can never let perfect be the enemy of good - while juggling the importance of aspiration and high expectations.

I don't see world government as necessarily "good", I think world peace is good - but that's just the absence of violence, it's not a political order.


Also, there's the whole thing with the specter of species-wide civilizational collapse dogging us...

Rome is always falling, and always because of natural disasters.


As long as we're speaking of bygones, you seem much colder this go around. I've been feeling it almost for half a year. Is that a real thing?

Colder? I don't know, life's not much fun these days, aside from still being trapped in this PhD I'm in increasing pain as my joints take a beating from my Palsy. I'm probably less playful and more direct than I used to be. I don't really have the time or mental energy to write page-long screeds on one line of the Bible any more just for fits and giggle.

Plus, if I make an offhand comment suggesting maybe, just maybe, a man with a teenage daughter might have some legitimate reservations about allowing non-certified people who claim a transgender identity sharing a washroom with said daughter it becomes a whole thing.

Now I'm having to explain, repeatedly, that I don't personally have a problem with trangender people in certain bathrooms, but I have a problem with people who do just being tarred as prejudiced - as though that sort of view wasn't completely normal less than two decades ago.

I come from a fairly liberal family that generally goes along with trying to strike a balance between tradition, common courtesy and everyone just getting along. Increasingly the world, online and offline, seems to resemble an Early-Modern state where any deviation from the accepted social orthodoxy is severely punished by society, and that orthodoxy is also rapidly changing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I similarly agree about gender and sexuality on that they are both similarly constructed but it is not a matter of "choice". It is a preference. Deciding to choose I don't want to dislike coffee doesn't stop me from having the utter disgust when I drink it.

To me, a social construct =/= choice and it is a separate thing. It may be simply we disagree on that and leave it there.

I'll allow that view is more consistent than the one you have previously enumerated but I still dispute the idea that gender or sexuality are "constructed".


If you read the wikipedia on libertarian socialism, it is not a top-down construct. It is a horizontal one. The concept also has it's flaws and practicalities which impairs it from working. It works differently to both the EU and the USA.

I don't have a problem with your theoretical goals - I have a problem with the fact that you actually seem to want to implement them. In the case of Libertarian Socialism it falls flat for the same reason as every other form of Socialism - everybody has to buy into the social aspect for it to work.

That has worked relatively well in the Nordic countries but they have relatively small populations with relatively high homogeneity. Even then you have issues over eugenics (especially against people with mental disabilities) and endemic racism against native non-Scandinavians like the Sami.


There is nothing fundamentally wrong with finding it difficult with certain concepts and examples. You linked an article about a GP calling a 6foot man with a beard "Ma'am". He was asking to simply follow the process/procedure as per his training. He wasn't asked to suddenly change his world view on the subject and there are tactful ways of going about things rather than outright refusal such as not using any gender pronounce and merely documenting that said person who identify self with a female gender.

What is disallowed is enforcing beliefs which are detriment to someones care. I am not saying that the GP in question did this.

What if she insists you call her Madam? What if ze insists you call them by a made up pronoun xhey invented for xheself? At what point does the clinician have the right to their own personal beliefs, so long as they treat the patient?

This is a question we do not ask often enough.


You are right but not right. I was downplaying his Brexit views and I did not find them to be negatively. I fundamentally do not oppose Brexit at an irrational level. I simply disagree on a lot of issues surrounding Brexit. I want a second referendum based on clarification and purpose. Not as an excuse to stop Brexit which I have consistently tried to convey.

Going further to suggest than this was incorrect. I wasn't suggesting he was removed due to transrights instead. He could have sadly been removed due to his views on Brexit which I believe was the thrust of the article. If anything I disagree with such a move.

[will come back later.]


Then why mention it at all? Or rather, why slate him for it in such an offhand manner without any additional context?

[Beskar]

[Continued.]


So, as a teenage boy you didn't spend a lot of your time looking at teenage girls? We used to call it "bird watching" at College, and we did it pretty much every free period. We were, at that time, still technically "children". Hardly something I'm proud of, but then children tend to have poorly developed empathy - which is why they are capable of such cruelty.
Wait for it.. I got a really good reply this one after in the next quotation. [Cue suspense, wanton anticipation. A cliff-hanger.]

As for the children, I wasn't really discussing Teenagers as they are developing their earlier experiences. I am making references to Jane Elliott's famous experiment school children.
Video from 03/26/85 with original footage. (WATCH THIS - Very Good) (https://www.pbs.org/video/frontline-class-divided/)
Here is an article on the experiment (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/introduction-2/). It is a really big insight on Social Construction of identities.


On reflection, I should probably clarify my experience in Social Construction and Identity work. I have a MSc in Social Psychology with my thesis discussing 'faces' we use in personal and private realms in regards to phenomena such as Group Polarisation, with me performing an qualitative study with 4 groups, 2 topics of Morality (Heinz dilemma, War in Afghanistan), where participants adopting more extreme positions (risky-shift) within the group. I am not randomly talking out of my ass even if I am lazy in my explanations on the topic.


Really? You're the one who claims not to spend his time looking at girls - isn't that more prudish?
On the discussion where you bring up the topic of sexual orientation (as a crux against me), you failed to consider my own. Would you really accuse a gay man of being a prude for not spending his time looking at girls?
Don't worry, I don't identify as homosexual either. I am a Demisexual (http://wiki.asexuality.org/Demisexual).
So in reply to your other comment, it isn't because I am no longer a teenage boy either. I didn't have it back then either. Oh, it is a royal a pain in the behind when it comes to relationships.


I never said that you were necessarily unable to be a good person without believing in God, I said that it was impossible to be a good person "without God" because without a Divine arbiter there's no way for Good and Evil to be distinguished.

This ties in with my disclosure 'on reflection' either where I alluded to Kohlberg's stages of moral development in the use of the Heinz Dilemma. I embrace human reason, ethics, and philosophical naturalism as driving forces behind morality and decision making. I find this viewpoint significantly superior and to borrow your word, sophisticated than Cloud-Guy "Making it so". You can easily see why I easily find myself identifying with the Secular Humanism movement. (even if you classify it as absurd.)

As you know, I was raised in a church environment. I used to know the bible like the back of my hand. I was very well thought of in my church community and I even keep touch with people from there still. I even got an 'adoptive' grandmother that still to this day gifts with me home-baked cookies (she is great). I have deep respect for those individuals even if we don't share beliefs.
As an intelligent child growing in their teen-age years, I asked questions and I was always left wanting, I remember my Sunday teacher once going: "That is wrong because it is wrong" Me:"But why?" Them:"You should know better than that." This grow worse as I grew older, as I found myself challenging and being challenged for views I could not support. I saw homosexuals being mistreated, people in need of help being shunned due to being 'desperate in the wrong way'. I even saw sexual abuse by 'good men', yeah, it is not just in newspaper over there in the middle of no where, it happens right under your nose.
I was even stigmatised heavily against by my devout catholic (and overall horrible person) Religious Studies teacher for being the 'wrong kind of Christian'!

It is no wonder I am an apostate, the religion is a lie. Means of control over the masses. Don't get me wrong, spirituality is an important aspect to a person, but you don't need religion to have that. You find receive it in other ways.


Right, conflating Devon and Cornwall will get you two black eyes in a rural pub in both counties. The two sides can't even agree on how to have tea and scones, and when a National Trust property posted an advert in Cornwall with it the "wrong" way they received threats of boycott and even, irrc, violence, that caused them to issue an abject grovelling apology. Now, if you don't like me telling you that I'm sorry, but I see no reason to sugarcoat it - and I see no reason not to criticise you for trying to downplay regional differences which two regions consider essential to their identity.
I have absolutely no issue with you telling me about Cornish and Devon identities. I personally find the concept to be intriguing, I am happy for you to tell me more about it and listen intently.
The problem was, I wasn't conflating those identities but you repeatedly insisted at the time that I was. This is despite my explanations that I wasn't even discussing identities.


See - this is the gap between the world you think other people want and the world other people actually want, and it's why I find your dream so objectionable. You probably think the Cornish and Devonians should "get on" right? They don't want to though, and the only way they will is if you [I]force them, either directly or by erasing their local identities.
You can exchange "Cornish" and "Devonians" with pretty much any other identity. Though I disagree that you need to erase their local identities. Modify them? Possibly. I am not one for stagnation.


Never read that thread, in case you were wondering
Everyone wished you well, including myself. ACIN even said fondly about how his first post on the Org was in response to you (and how you trashed him in your reply after!).


my dislike of you caused me to miss the last year or so of Fragony's life. That's a sin for which I can never atone and therefore I shall have to carry to my grave.
A sin? You are definitely taking far too much responsibility upon your shoulders!

This is Fragony! Bas! He is the live life loose and fast without a care in the world. Life of the party. A good heart even if some of his views are misplaced. He would be pleasantly mocking you for making such a statement. All he would want you to do is not worry about him and live your life to the fullest.


As far as "burying the hatchet" goes, I've found that rarely works and in any case you haven't changed in any way that would make such an exercise meaningful, and nor have I.
Well, I am burying regardless. Because I am a forgiving person and I dislike disliking people.


Have you considered applying a smiley if the joke doesn't have an obvious punch line?
The definition of dry humour is that it doesn't have an obvious punch-line. I also tend to have a quality of doing it without a forced intention.


In this case though, you're mocking me, which is something you should only do with someone you know has a good opinion of you and your character
I am not mocking you. I am 'throwing a spanner in the works' of your slippery-slope with some healthy ridicule. You need tp detach yourself from your statements if you took my comment personally.

An example [only an example] of insulting you as a person would be saying if I am the Federation of Plants, you are Gilead. [Now, this is only for example purposes to demonstrate. Not intended as a personal attack.]

[Beskar]

What if she insists you call her Madam? What if ze insists you call them by a made up pronoun xhey invented for xheself? At what point does the clinician have the right to their own personal beliefs, so long as they treat the patient?

As a clinical, the exchange would go something like this:

Good to meet you, would you prefer to be called Phillippus?
"Hello (hypothetical)Dr Beskar, thank you for seeing me. Phillipuu if you don't mind. I do identify as zir/ze",
That is okay Phillipuu, tell me what brought you to see me here today.
*some time later*
It has been a pleasure meeting you Phillipuu, I hope we are able to resolve this issue. I am going to refer you to XYZ services as discussed, and hopefully they will be able to support you from there. If you need further assistance, please feel free to make another appointment.
"Thank you Dr Beskar".

Medical Notes:
Outpatients appoint - First meeting, Phillipuu (Phillippus) has expressed an interest in being referred as zir/ze. We discussed an ongoing issue ABC and I have referred them to XYZ services. I will follow this up in 2 months time but I have advised Phillipuu they can make an appointment at any time if they require further support."


At no point during this interaction my personal views interfere with my line of work. I am not overly familiar with those gender-neutral terms (I prefer they/them) so they appear awkward and unwieldy, but they are recognised never-the-less. My personal views do not negatively affect my services at any time. At what point does I (the clinician) or the service user (Phillipuu) have any issue with this interaction?

The example of the Dr was similarly instructed as such. You are entitled to your views, but follow process/procedure. That is to respect the individuals wishes and have a duty of care. That Doctor failed in the fundamental basics of what it means to be a Doctor in delivering Person-Centred Care. No wonder he was told he should consider early retirement because if he cannot do the basics... do you really trust him to have your best interests?

In examples of abortion, as a Roman Catholic you may have an issue with it. You recognise that you are unable not to impose your views, professionally, it would be best to state to the patient "I am a Roman Catholic, but we do have specialist services to advise you", and you would actively sign-post the individual to another clinician. Even then, you could still provide basic information on Abortion without going: "You will go to Hell and burn in everlasting fire, sinner!".


This is a question we do not ask often enough.
For you maybe. But this is something actively discussed since day one in Healthcare and continually throughout.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

[Continued.]

Wait for it.. I got a really good reply this one after in the next quotation. [Cue suspense, wanton anticipation. A cliff-hanger.]

[Philip has no useful comment here but felt that this part needed to be broken off]


As for the children, I wasn't really discussing Teenagers as they are developing their earlier experiences. I am making references to Jane Elliott's famous experiment school children. Here is an article on the experiment (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/introduction-2/). It is a really big insight on Social Construction of identities.

OK, well I'm talking about my experience of being a teenager, and also my experience of having to help coral them in the ACF. They'd literally be off in the bushes up to all sorts if we were enclosed in a camp for more than three days. It's actually a miracle there weren't more sexual assaults now that I think about it.

Maybe we were just good at terrifying the boys into submission.


On reflection, I should probably clarify my experience in Social Construction and Identity work. I have a MSc in Social Psychology with my thesis discussing 'faces' we use in personal and private realms in regards to phenomena such as Group Polarisation, with me performing an qualitative study with 4 groups, 2 topics of Morality (Heinz dilemma, War in Afghanistan), where participants adopting more extreme positions (risky-shift) within the group. I am not randomly talking out of my ass even if I am lazy in my explanations on the topic.

That is easily the most interesting thing you've written on these boards in years.


On the discussion where you bring up the topic of sexual orientation (as a crux against me), you failed to consider my own. Would you really accuse a gay man of being a prude for not spending his time looking at girls? [insert smiley here]
Don't worry, I don't identify as homosexual either. I am a Demisexual (http://wiki.asexuality.org/Demisexual).
So in reply to your other comment, it isn't because I am no longer a teenage boy either. I didn't have it back then either. Oh, it is a royal a pain in the behind when it comes to relationships. How do you convey sexual attraction to initiate a relationship without it looking forced/wrong? There aren't love movies where the protagonist is essentially "After getting to know you, I have decided you are worthy of my attention and efforts and I would like to request to take this to the next level".

Honestly, this is not a great revelation to me, I more or less figured it was something like that. The fact you don't spend your time having to remember to look every "well endowed" woman in the eyes is not something I would describe as a character flaw. It is not, however, something that is especially common.

If I might observe, though, you'd do well to be more "old fashioned" and cultivate polite but friendly relationships with multiple women. The worst that can happen is that you become sufficiently interested in someone to become attracted to her and she doesn't reciprocate - at which point you're in the same boat as every other poor bastard.

Also - the Netherlands has absolutely no gentlemen left, apparently, there are some women there who are very appreciative of men who are polite and considerate. This piece of advice is useful for all Englishmen, though, and probably Canadians too.


This ties in with my disclosure 'on reflection' either where I alluded to Kohlberg's stages of moral development in the use of the Heinz Dilemma. I embrace human reason, ethics, and philosophical naturalism as driving forces behind morality and decision making. I find this viewpoint significantly superior and to borrow your word, sophisticated than Cloud-Guy "Making it so". You can easily see why I easily find myself identifying with the Secular Humanism movement. (even if you classify it as absurd.)

"Man is the measure of all things, of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." - Protagoras, the first Sophist.

We've had the this argument before - my observation remains the same - any claim to objective truth as regards right or wrong presupposes some "higher power" whereas any appeal purely to human reason and ethics is an appeal to utility.

I reject Utilitarianism from an ideological standpoint. Where I find Secular Humanists philosophically incoherent is their rejection of any higher power whilst still using the language and logical framework of Neo-Platonic Christian morality.


As you know, I was raised in a church environment. I used to know the bible like the back of my hand. I was very well thought of in my church community and I even keep touch with people from there still. I even got an 'adoptive' grandmother that still to this day gifts with me home-baked cookies (she is great). I have deep respect for those individuals even if we don't share beliefs.
As an intelligent child growing in their teen-age years, I asked questions and I was always left wanting, I remember my Sunday teacher once going: "That is wrong because it is wrong" Me:"But why?" Them:"You should know better than that." This grow worse as I grew older, as I found myself challenging and being challenged for views I could not support. I saw homosexuals being mistreated, people in need of help being shunned due to being 'desperate in the wrong way'. I even saw sexual abuse by 'good men', yeah, it is not just in newspaper over there in the middle of no where, it happens right under your nose.
I was even stigmatised heavily against by my devout catholic (and overall horrible person) Religious Studies teacher for being the 'wrong kind of Christian'!

It is no wonder I am an apostate, the religion is a lie. Means of control over the masses. Don't get me wrong, spirituality is an important aspect to a person, but you don't need religion to have that. You find receive it in other ways.

No, it is no wonder you are an apostate. However, just because people use religion to justify or excuse terrible things does not mean there is no God. You don't need religion to cover up abuses - all the depredations practised by the Christian Churches were also practised within the BBC, that big cuddly corporation that tells us what to think from cradle to grave.


I have absolutely no issue with you telling me about Cornish and Devon identities. I personally find the concept to be intriguing, I am happy for you to tell me more about it and listen intently.
The problem was, I wasn't conflating those identities but you repeatedly insisted at the time that I was. This is despite my explanations that I wasn't even discussing identities.

You can exchange "Cornish" and "Devonians" with pretty much any other identity. Though I disagree that you need to erase their local identities. Modify them? Possibly. I am not one for stagnation.

See, this is the thing you do that's so infuriating, really, honestly makes me want to hit you sometimes.

When you tell a Cornishman his identity is "intriguing" you belittle it, it's not intriguing, it's important and if you can't see that it's not worth his time explaining his tin mines to you. It's certainly not worth his time if you think the identity might need "modifying".

Funny how Monty thinks I'm cold when you're the one who expects everyone else to be as dispassionate about their lives as you are.


Everyone wished you well, including myself. ACIN even said about how his post on the Org was in response to you (and how you trashed him in your reply after!).

Well that's sad, really, isn't it? On multiple levels.



A sin? You are definitely taking far too much responsibility upon your shoulders!

This is Fragony! Bas! He is the live life loose and fast without a care in the world. Life of the party. A good heart even if some of his views are misplaced. He would be pleasantly mocking you for making such a statement. All he would want you to do is not worry about him and live your life to the fullest.

Who should I blame for my leaving, then? You for being impossible?

Guilt is an essential part of being a good person, if I didn't feel guilty I might get infuriated and leave again, mightn't I?

Guilt is very underrated, if people spent more time feeling guilty they'd spend more time trying not to do bad things and making up for the things they did do.



Well, I am burying regardless. Because I am a forgiving person and I dislike disliking people.

Like I said, I don't hate you - I just don't want any part of the world you want to create.


The definition of dry humour is that it doesn't have an obvious punch-line. I also tend to have a quality of doing it without a forced intention.

Face to face dry humour is delivered in a deadpan or with a wry expression - hence the need for a smiley.


I am not mocking you. I am 'throwing a spanner in the works' of your slippery-slope with some healthy ridicule. You need tp detach yourself from your statements if you took my comment personally.

An example [only an example] of insulting you as a person would be saying if I am the Federation of Plants, you are Gilead. [Now, this is only for example purposes to demonstrate. Not intended as a personal attack.]

So you're ridiculing me instead of mocking me? I'm sorry Beskar, either way I'm entitled to be offended if I so choose. Ridicule is not better than mocking, it just sounds cleverer because the word has a Latin root.

[Beskar]

---
I have a tendency to go back and re-edit posts for clarity when I notice errors. I recommend going back up to see the video link for example for the experiment.


If I might observe, though, you'd do well to be more "old fashioned" and cultivate polite but friendly relationships with multiple women. The worst that can happen is that you become sufficiently interested in someone to become attracted to her and she doesn't reciprocate - at which point you're in the same boat as every other poor bastard.
I have many female friends, they are taken in that regard.
Also 'old fashioned' approach tends to lead to ghosting... the modern world we live in.


Also - the Netherlands has absolutely no gentlemen left, apparently, there are some women there who are very appreciative of men who are polite and considerate. This piece of advice is useful for all Englishmen, though, and probably Canadians too.
I love the dutch honesty.


However, just because people use religion to justify or excuse terrible things does not mean there is no God. More to it than that (obviously). The hypocrisy is utterly disgusting though.
I don't need to say I find any culture of abuse to be abhorrent.


See, this is the thing you do that's so infuriating, really, honestly makes me want to hit you sometimes.

When you tell a Cornishman his identity is "intriguing" you belittle it, it's not intriguing, it's important and if you can't see that it's not worth his time explaining his tin mines to you.
Forgive me for flipping this to make a point. You stated that you studied pagan morality, yes?
"When you tell a Pagan that his morality is 'intriguing', you belittle it. It's not intriguing, it's important and if you can't see that it's not worth his time explaining his thunder bolts to you".

Most people actually like having an active interest being taken in them. They understand you are different, but the fact you are willing to understand them more makes them proud to show off their achievements. Intellectual curiosity is not a bad thing. People practice exchange of faiths where for example a Christian and Muslim may inform each other more about their religions to have better understanding.
In your eyes, are they belittling and insulting each-other? If not, why not, because in the why not, you will be explaining why I am not belittling being interested to learn more about Cornish identity.

As for modification.. well... if they are the violent brutes you describe them as, Cornish and Devonians face to face pitchforks to the hand. They require some mediation and peace-making. Or are you against peace-making? Are Cornish people defined by their hatred of the Devonians that if they were friendly, they would cease to exist? if so, I hope they don't make peace soon, I have a soft-spot for Cornish Ice-creams... the pastries are pretty okay too.


Well that's sad, really, isn't it? On multiple levels.
That everyone wished you well, including your 'worst enemy' ?
Honesty, maybe you should re-evaluate things and realise 'maybe they are not actually that bad'.


Who should I blame for my leaving, then? You for being impossible?
Guilt is an essential part of being a good person, if I didn't feel guilty I might get infuriated and leave again, mightn't I?
Sadly, your leaving was your own decision.
I am far from impossible. Any serious thinking about that would easily dispel that notion. I would contend it was closer to home, but I have a feeling you will take more slight from that then I ever intend.


Guilt is very underrated, if people spent more time feeling guilty they'd spend more time trying not to do bad things and making up for the things they did do.
I am my own worst critic. There is an element of guilt when it comes to some behaviours, there is also anger, there is disappointment, there is a range of various emotions.


So you're ridiculing me instead of mocking me? I'm sorry Beskar, either way I'm entitled to be offended if I so choose. Ridicule is not better than mocking, it just sounds cleverer because the word has a Latin root.

The slippery-slope example, not you.
There is a distinction there, even if you don't recognise it.

They are separate entities to yourself, even if related. If you still, I cannot help you other than point it out then hope you can tolerable it if you are unable to move from your position. I don't intend that to be rude but I cannot control your offence.

[Gilrandir]

Similar arguments are even being had over the actual process of assigning sex at birth where some queer people see this as an infringement of the child or parents' rights.


1. Sex is not assigned. It is what the person is inevitably born with. Otherwise you might as well talk of assigning lefthandiness or righthandiness.

2. Sex is neither assigned nor formed AT BIRTH. It happens during pregnancy.

[Don Corleone]

A friend of mine was talking about trans-rights. He lives in Charlotte, NC, I'm in Athens GA. We're both relatively recent transplants into what is becoming an increasingly resurgent fundamentalist Southern US...

We also live in a part of the world where the average daytime high is 93-95F (~35C) in the summertime.

He said "A trans friend of mine was asked, if it was made legal, where would you go first?"... with the expectations being locker rooms, restrooms or changing rooms being at the top of the list.

"A public swimming pool" was the answer. :shame: This whole 'love one another as I have loved you" thing... yeah, we're failing that.

[CrossLOPER]

As a clinician, the exchange would go something like this:

Good to meet you, would you prefer to be called Phillippus?
"Hello Dr Beskar, thank you for seeing me. Phillipuu if you don't mind. I do identify as zir/ze",
That is okay Phillipuu, tell me what brought you to see me here today.
*some time later*
It has been a pleasure meeting you Phillipuu, I hope we are able to resolve this issue. I am going to refer you to XYZ services as discussed, and hopefully they will be able to support you from there. If you need further assistance, please feel free to make another appointment.
"Thank you Dr Beskar".

Medical Notes:
Outpatients appoint - First meeting, Phillipuu (Phillippus) has expressed an interest in being referred as zir/ze. We discussed an ongoing issue ABC and I have referred them to XYZ services. I will follow this up in 2 months time but I have advised Phillipuu they can make an appointment at any time if they require further support."
This would require frontal lobe development. Some people prefer to act on their underdeveloped feelings.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As a clinician, the exchange would go something like this:

Good to meet you, would you prefer to be called Phillippus?
"Hello Dr Beskar, thank you for seeing me. Phillipuu if you don't mind. I do identify as zir/ze",
That is okay Phillipuu, tell me what brought you to see me here today.
*some time later*
It has been a pleasure meeting you Phillipuu, I hope we are able to resolve this issue. I am going to refer you to XYZ services as discussed, and hopefully they will be able to support you from there. If you need further assistance, please feel free to make another appointment.
"Thank you Dr Beskar".

Medical Notes:
Outpatients appoint - First meeting, Phillipuu (Phillippus) has expressed an interest in being referred as zir/ze. We discussed an ongoing issue ABC and I have referred them to XYZ services. I will follow this up in 2 months time but I have advised Phillipuu they can make an appointment at any time if they require further support."


At no point during this interaction my personal views interfere with my line of work. I am not overly familiar with those gender-neutral terms (I prefer they/them) so they appear awkward and unwieldy, but they are recognised never-the-less. My personal views do not negatively affect my services at any time. At what point does I (the clinician) or the service user (Phillipuu) have any issue with this interaction?

The example of the Dr was similarly instructed as such. You are entitled to your views, but follow process/procedure. That is to respect the individuals wishes and have a duty of care. That Doctor failed in the fundamental basics of what it means to be a Doctor in delivering Person-Centred Care. No wonder he was told he should consider early retirement because if he cannot do the basics... do you really trust him to have your best interests?

In examples of abortion, as a Roman Catholic you may have an issue with it. You recognise that you are unable not to impose your views, professionally, it would be best to state to the patient "I am a Roman Catholic, but we do have specialist services to advise you", and you would actively sign-post the individual to another clinician. Even then, you could still provide basic information on Abortion without going: "You will go to Hell and burn in everlasting fire, sinner!".


For you maybe. But this is something actively discussed since day one in Healthcare and continually throughout.

OK - now rewind.

"Good to meet you, would you prefer to be called Phillip?
"Hello Beskar Medicus, thank you for seeing me. Phillippus if you don't mind. I do identify as Romanus."

Let's assume I'm not a total jerk and deliver that in English and not Latin. What would you write in the notes? Especially if I tell you that my problem is lack of sleep due to stress and living in the modern "barbarian" world?

What if I tell you identify as the Second Coming of Christ (I don't, to be clear)?

How would a doctor who trained 30 years ago have perceived those three patients?

All delusional?

Is there any practical difference between me identifying as a member of a dead culture and me identifying as a gender that has only come to be articulated in the last few years thanks to the Internet?

[Beskar]

The short answer: Mental State Examination.

Treat the underlying cause if there is an issue. For example, the second coming self-identity might be disclosed by someone who presents with mania. Similarly, treat the stress by building up the coping mechanisms the Roman is experiencing, as again, it could be secondary.

Alternatively, it could be the Roman is simply eccentric with a fixation on the time period. If it is causing no harm, then best left alone.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have a tendency to go back and re-edit posts for clarity when I notice errors. I recommend going back up to see the video link for example for the experiment.

I have many female friends, they are taken in that regard.
Also 'old fashioned' approach tends to lead to ghosting... the modern world we live in.

I love the dutch honesty.

I fear the point I was making has been lost on you.

Dutch men are unromantic, blunt, expect all Dutch women to be utterly self-reliant because these men are so woke. Shockingly, some women like Romance. I'm suggesting there may be a market there.

As to all the nice girls being taken, that's our age - I'm afraid - in a few years they'll start getting divorced though.


More to it than that (obviously). The hypocrisy is utterly disgusting though.
I don't need to say I find any culture of abuse to be abhorrent.

This is a totally separate topic for another time - I will merely note that there are hypocrites and abusive people in all cultures.


Forgive me for flipping this to make a point. You stated that you studied pagan morality, yes?
"When you tell a Pagan that his morality is 'intriguing', you belittle it. It's not intriguing, it's important and if you can't see that it's not worth his time explaining his thunder bolts to you".

See - here I could make a joke about your narrow philhellenic bias, but that might not land well, so I won't - it's only funny if you've read Cicero anyway.

To point - I never said Pagan morality was "intriguing", I said I studied it. You also forget I used to be a Pagan, but that's besides the point. Frankly, most Western philosophy is either unintelligible without Plato and Aristotle, or worthless if it ignores them.

Only idiots think they're smarter than Aristotle or Plato.


Most people actually like having an active interest being taken in them. They understand you are different, but the fact you are willing to understand them more makes them proud to show off their achievements. Intellectual curiosity is not a bad thing. People practice exchange of faiths where for example a Christian and Muslim may inform each other more about their religions to have better understanding.
In your eyes, are they belittling and insulting each-other? If not, why not, because in the why not, you will be explaining why I am not belittling being interested to learn more about Cornish identity.

As for modification.. well... if they are the violent brutes you describe them as, Cornish and Devonians face to face pitchforks to the hand. They require some mediation and peace-making. Or are you against peace-making? Are Cornish people defined by their hatred of the Devonians that if they were friendly, they would cease to exist? if so, I hope they don't make peace soon, I have a soft-spot for Cornish Ice-creams... the pastries are pretty okay too.

Pastries or Pasties? Do you mean a Cornish Pasty (side crimp) or Devon one (top crimp)?

These are all important questions to local people, the point I am making and you are deliberately ignoring is that they would not thank you for making light of this.


That everyone wished you well, including your 'worst enemy' ?
Honesty, maybe you should re-evaluate things and realise 'maybe they are not actually that bad'.

How about "It was a pointless and vain expression of my own pride, intolerance and moral weakness that I was unable to at least tolerate you."?


Sadly, your leaving was your own decision.
I am far from impossible. Any serious thinking about that would easily dispel that notion. I would contend it was closer to home, but I have a feeling you will take more slight from that then I ever intend.

Yes, we've established I feel terrible. Are you aware you are twisting the knife here? Probably not. This is an excellent example of you continuing to pursue a topic the other party clearly finds distressing and has no further desire to discuss.

The bit where you were supposed to stop is the bit where I told you I never came back and read the thread I posted when I left - i.e. - "I have no desire to revisit the past, I cannot change it and I do not wish to dwell."

Yet here we are, still, twist, twist.


I am my own worst critic. There is an element of guilt when it comes to some behaviours, there is also anger, there is disappointment, there is a range of various emotions.

You should voice more of that criticism, then.


The slippery-slope example, not you.
There is a distinction there, even if you don't recognise it.

They are separate entities to yourself, even if related. If you still, I cannot help you other than point it out then hope you can tolerable it if you are unable to move from your position. I don't intend that to be rude but I cannot control your offence.

Ah, no, there is no distinction, really.

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/ridicule

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/mocker (https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/mockery)y

As the OED makes clear, they mean the same thing - the origin is different, the former is from modern French, the later from Middle English via Old French.

You and I are not friends, therefore any attempt made by you to engage in which might by called "gentle mockery" will not be well received. This is because I do not consider you to be very funny, among other reasons.

I don't make jokes at your expense and expect you to laugh, do I? The fault here is your failure to modify your tone based on your audience. Such a failure implies you find my position contemptible - as does your response above "well, if you want to be offended I can't stop you". Given your over-inflated impression of my "hatred" for you I would have thought that mocking or ridicule would be something you would actively avoid if you were sincere about "burying the hatchet."

If you follow your usual pattern at this point you'll probably deploy something other than the OED or refer to a difference in an alternative meaning and try to argue I'm wrong about the two words. I'm not - and I have the pieces of parchment and the grey hairs to demonstrate I've spent years studying the development of the English language and the use of specific words in specific contexts.

In conclusion, there is no material difference between "mockery" and "ridicule" and it is rude to mock those with whom you do not share a relationship based on trust and mutual respect - we have no such relationship, as you have demonstrated.

[Gilrandir]

Frankly, most Western philosophy is either unintelligible without Plato and Aristotle, or worthless if it ignores them.


That's because the greatest minds of philosophy wrote in synthetic languages (Old Greek, German, Russian). An arbitrary claim, but ...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's because the greatest minds of philosophy wrote in synthetic languages (Old Greek, German, Russian). An arbitrary claim, but ...

No, they just wrote in Greek, sometimes Latin.

[Gilrandir]

No, they just wrote in Greek, sometimes Latin.

I mean later than Plato or Aristotle. Greek and Latin were in use in the Middle Ages, I speak of XVIII and later centuries philosophers.

[Beskar]

Yes, we've established I feel terrible. Are you aware you are twisting the knife here?
Wasn't my intent. I apologise.


You should voice more of that criticism, then.
I would contend posting my internal monologues would not satisfy. But I think evidence would be my notorious habit of constantly editing my own posts. Removing, addition, changing, removing those, etc. Apparently, I have been told that I personally make up a significant portion of the Org's edit history.


...If you follow your usual pattern at this point you'll probably...[etc]
In conclusion, there is no material difference between "mockery" and "ridicule" ...[etc]

Unfortunately, I wasn't contending the difference of words. I was contending I wasn't aiming the mockery/ridicule at your personally, but throwing it into the argument you were making. The concept being the absurd result which is provided would cause a review of the argument. I was trying different between the two (yourself, the argument). However, I failed.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I mean later than Plato or Aristotle. Greek and Latin were in use in the Middle Ages, I speak of XVIII and later centuries philosophers.

I'm sorry, you lost me with "later philosophers".

Seriously though, as far as I can tell the entire last hundred years has been a re-tread and up until the 18th Century anything worthwhile WAS written in Latin or Greek - so as to be intelligible to the widest number of people.

Which is not to say the "largest".

[Montmorency]

1. You are correct that not all restrictions are necessary salutatory, but the argument over restrictions in bathroom use (and other breastfeeding in public) take the opposite extreme - any restriction is discrimination. It is this latter position I have a problem with. I use the comparison of gun ownership because, contrary to popular belief, gun ownership is actually historically quite popular in the UK, and also in Australia and New Zealand - but all three countries have ultimately taken the same stance on gun ownership in response to pretty much their first or second mass shooting.

It is discrimination on its face. It is always up to proponents of discrimination to justify it, not the other way around.


In my view our society is becoming overly permissive in allowing people to self-define their identity rather than having their identity be at least partially defined by society.

I too believe that a significant component of gender construction is external. I am a man not merely because I identify as a man, but because I have been socialized for all my life with the understanding that (presumably almost) all around me view and treat me as a man/boy, set against my observation of the treatment of others as women/girls. So in a sense, I am a man insofar as others perceive me to be a man. But for society this could be a self-correcting problem; if people who reject transpeople in their gender perception diminish in number...


2. Prior to female-only bathrooms there were only male-only bathrooms. Women had to urinate in gutters.

Huh? People used pots and outhouses, AFAIK indiscriminately; I'm not aware of what or when you're referring to.


Honestly, I've seen the "man in a dress" on the street. It's something you notice precisely because of the incongruity, it's usually a middle-aged man, walking like a middle-aged man, wearing a very silly dress and a very bad wig. This will be, in some cases, a transgender woman only coming out late in life trying to shake off a mess of learned behaviours where "he" was trying to be as manly as possible to cover up who she was.

It could very well be a man wearing drag, if that helps. I'm not sure which conservatives revile more, transwomen or men in drag. (Yet another public blow-up in American conservative intellectual circles about this recently.)

Or it could be a trans woman who doesn't want to transition many or any physical features but experiences a sort of social dysphoria in not being perceived as feminine. Don't worry about it too much, unless she wants you to.


I'm not unsympathetic, but the bald truth is that if you saw her walking into the female toilets following your teenage daughter it looks like a middle-aged man wearing a dress as an excuse to walk into the toilets following your teenage daughter

Why? This is exactly prejudice. Where are the men doing this, let alone for nefarious purpose? Does the father in that moment observe any concrete behaviors or traits that suggest this specific person is a security risk?


It's also quite easy to understand why a man who's never had to think hard about his sexuality or gender, and even more so one who has but concluded he's actually a straight man anyway, will be sceptical of the "man in a dress."

Again, this is prejudice, the very essence. When prejudice is defended there is a frequent dissonance and circularity where the object is deemed outside the boundary because then one would be in the position of defending prejudice, and one wouldn't like to think of themselves like that, so what they're discussing can't be prejudice. If the man literally has no concept of what he's looking at, it's forgivable and they deserve an explanation. If they have some familiarity with the transgender concept and persist, condemn away. To you the sentiment you describe "understandable" to a far extent, but why should one give the benefit of the doubt to someone who refuses to give the benefit of the doubt when given the opportunity and will express recalcitrance through violence? Then there is little choice but to fight back through law and norms.


That's right - we arrest anyone carrying a penknife in public without a good excuse. I think that's repressive, don't you?

Sure. But just in case that's where you're heading, 'misery loves company' is also not a good motivation.


Britain is simply not a liberal society - America is - my point is that when you are only selectively Liberal about the things YOU think people should be allowed to do you aren't really Liberals. Liberals let people do the things they think they shouldn't be allowed to do.

That's preposterous. Every single society ever is "selective", or there wouldn't be law in the first place. Or government really. You're complaining about the absence of utopia.


That being said, I can understand why some people WOULD want such a ban

I can as well, I just think it's worthier of challenge than you do.


Yes - you completely missed the part where I didn't argue against transexuals using the appropriate (as in the one corresponding to their identified sex) bathroom. I am, however, against unisex facilities - which is something many Queer people (which is not the same lobby as the transgender lobby, necessarily) are increasingly pushing for.

Cool, I'm glad we could clarify. I think you're empirically wrong about unisex toilets, but I'm not going to challenge you in yet another sub-thread.


I'm 100% behind the transgender lobby on this issue. Having said that, I do have reservations about a trend developing where every teenager with gender dis-morphia is diagnosed as transgender or transexual.

[Not "diagnosed" as transgender, it's no longer treated as a medical condition]

Why do you think there is a trend of gender dysmorphic individuals being mistakenly or improperly treated? Why shouldn't we be comfortable deferring to the judgement of physicians and patients?


My position is that I don't think people should be punished for holding view which were mainstream 20 years ago but which now have become unfashionable. I note that you described Furunculus' expression of caution on this topic as "not respectable" which verges on an accusation of prejudice, just for not wholeheartedly agreeing.

How are people being punished? Anti-trans is very much mainstream today. If the caution is baseless and regularly deployed in the mainstream in prejudicial fashion, it isn't respectable. Don't mischaracterize a criticism of content and form as a reaction to the mere fact of disagreement, it's annoying.


That sort of thought pattern is prevalent in religious fundamentalists, it's the sort of think that the Taliban thinks - executing people who aren't Muslim "enough".

A Liberal society should be tolerant of differing views, it should be able to debate them calmly and rationally without resorting to name-calling.

Tell that to the anti-trans people. Hard to take this sort of harrumphing seriously in light of what the discourse actually looks like and why. Think about who needs to lay down the knife here. :shrug:


Why shouldn't breastfeeding be regulated by law? Urination is regulated by law, sleeping is regulated by law.

Why should it? What does sleeping or urination have to do with breastfeeding?


It's not my standard of modesty, anyway, it's the generally accepted standard in most Anglophone countries - women are expected to not bear their breasts in public.

This isn't fixed, and the social disapprobation - including legal restrictions - has increasingly degraded over recent years. I'd expect in the UK included, get back to us.


From that it logically follows that it should be fine for women to breastfeed in public, so long as they don't expose their breasts. The women sitting on public benches with a child suckling their dress around their waste and both breasts exposed are making a political statement.

How about we let the breastfeeders figure out what works for them?


They are using their nudity to force society to acknowledge that they are breastfeeding in public.

Or it's just convenient for them. Have you considered many instances of breastfeeding with breast visible may not be political statements, but the outcome of a more permissive climate? That because political statements were made these women no longer have to make them.


Asking women to use a shawl is not some terrible patriarchal imposition, it's asking them to have consideration of others, especially other parents with children who may not want them exposed to nude women.

I prioritize the other consideration.


I've read quite a lot of journalism on the topic and also a few papers - look up the Tavistock Centre and the recent controversy there. It's not a "willy-nilly" approach so much as a "one size fits all" approach which includes mastectomy for teenage girls and castration for teenage boys. I've definitely read of cases where teenage girls have been identified as transgender and undergone hormone treatment and surgery at age 16.

I can't identify the negative trend. I'm charitable with you, but don't be surprised if an encounter with someone working in the field leads to them putting you down; listen carefully in that event.


At the present time I would say that anyone who, on meeting someone who claims to be transgender, questions that person's claim can probably expect to lose their job.

If this were the case, we would see many thousands being fired. On the contrary, it pops into the news rarely and typically in connection with public figures or celebrities who tend to face minimal, if any, repercussions.


I think the greatest threat the teenage girls is probably teenage boys, from personal experience.

Men in general, but this is correct. Hence feminists speak of patriarchy. I myself can attest to the changes in norms among children, from what I have personally seen, read, and heard from others, including the experience of having a much-younger sister still in high school. We're both speaking from our own world-knowledge; I suspect you have a very particular experience of boyhood in yourself and those around you. I sure hope we continue to work on diverting it.




What about, say, an influx of young boys from a country like Afghanistan where "woman's rights" are considered optional at best? Is it still shameful to be worried? Or, what about merging of school districts that brings in a group of which boys from a rough neighbourhood with a reputation for drug use and not being safe after dark. Still shameful?

On the basis in the first clause, certainly. Interesting elaborate second clause. Since you're not American there is plausible deniability as to who it refers to.


There's a difference between being concerned about people outside your social group not adhering to your standards and racism.

In the final sense I doubt it. It could theoretically be purely class-based, but in practice I've always seen it racialized. This may be easier for an American to grasp than a conservative Englishman.


Colder? I don't know, life's not much fun these days, aside from still being trapped in this PhD I'm in increasing pain as my joints take a beating from my Palsy. I'm probably less playful and more direct than I used to be. I don't really have the time or mental energy to write page-long screeds on one line of the Bible any more just for fits and giggle.

That sounds like an opening for me to start drawing these threads down. Most propositions and attitudes in your posts I admittedly find to be wrong or ill-considered. More so than in the old days?


Plus, if I make an offhand comment suggesting maybe, just maybe, a man with a teenage daughter might have some legitimate reservations about allowing non-certified people who claim a transgender identity sharing a washroom with said daughter it becomes a whole thing.

Now I'm having to explain, repeatedly, that I don't personally have a problem with trangender people in certain bathrooms, but I have a problem with people who do just being tarred as prejudiced - as though that sort of view wasn't completely normal less than two decades ago.

It was prejudiced when it was normal. You know prejudice as category isn't a function of prevalence or contestation, right? Also, since you keep pushing this logic I should point out an essay (http://crookedtimber.org/2019/05/07/the-steelwool-scrub-a-fallacy/) on the very subject.


I come from a fairly liberal family that generally goes along with trying to strike a balance between tradition, common courtesy and everyone just getting along. Increasingly the world, online and offline, seems to resemble an Early-Modern state where any deviation from the accepted social orthodoxy is severely punished by society, and that orthodoxy is also rapidly changing.

What you're seeing is a - yet another - period of heavy contestation in society over what is acceptable, which social groups can petition for what standing, and so forth. Contrary to what you appear to have concluded, there is no Orthodoxy on trans issues ready to strike you down, just specific people who may fall in or fall out with you depending on the intensity of your or their positions. Conservatives are kind of schizophrenic in this, believing they have already been defeated while still wielding a preponderance of authority. In America (I don't know about the UK) there is a strong paleoconservative/neoreactionary movement in the major right-wing party to roll back social norms and legal protections to an 18th-century state, in some regards perhaps to go even further; and these people are losing their minds that they can no longer expect a non-conforming person to be randomly beset and beaten in the street for their effrontery. The loss of hegemony is not in truth equivalent to dissolution. They have not been defeated, and they remain very dangerous. Maybe that offers some perspective on why various agitating groups are not prioritizing displays of patience or deference.


When you tell a Cornishman his identity is "intriguing" you belittle it, it's not intriguing, it's important and if you can't see that it's not worth his time explaining his tin mines to you. It's certainly not worth his time if you think the identity might need "modifying".
[...]
So you're ridiculing me instead of mocking me? I'm sorry Beskar, either way I'm entitled to be offended if I so choose.

Duuuuude. You're getting worked up over what to others seems like trivial cultural markers that no one gives a crap about, but now you know a little of how non-whites/women/LGBT/etc. feel when you tell them you just want to "calmly and rationally" discuss the fundamental matters of their identity and social participation. Think about it.


Guilt is very underrated, if people spent more time feeling guilty they'd spend more time trying not to do bad things and making up for the things they did do.

It's not working out for me that way. :sweatdrop:

[Strike For The South]

Bathroom bills are the satanic panic of the 2010s. You would never even notice a transgendered person going into the bathroom they choose.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It is discrimination on its face. It is always up to proponents of discrimination to justify it, not the other way around.

If women are required to cover their breasts in public is is for nursing mothers to explain why they are the exception. Your argument is affective, not logical.


I too believe that a significant component of gender construction is external. I am a man not merely because I identify as a man, but because I have been socialized for all my life with the understanding that (presumably almost) all around me view and treat me as a man/boy, set against my observation of the treatment of others as women/girls. So in a sense, I am a man insofar as others perceive me to be a man. But for society this could be a self-correcting problem; if people who reject transpeople in their gender perception diminish in number...

You're entitled to opinion but I contend that you, like Beskar, are confusing Gender-Identity with Gender-Role.

I am a man because I am a man - however society helps to define what about me is manly and what is not. Men crying is a great example of this - in pre-Victorian English society crying was not considered itself to be "unmanly" but the restrictive social mores of the Victorian period proscribed crying as a specifically "feminine" activity.

Now go tell Achilleus that it's not manly to cry over Patroculus.


Huh? People used pots and outhouses, AFAIK indiscriminately; I'm not aware of what or when you're referring to.

Public "conveniences" were for men - women had to hold it go in the gutter.

https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/History-of-Womens-Public-Toilets-in-Britain/


It could very well be a man wearing drag, if that helps. I'm not sure which conservatives revile more, transwomen or men in drag. (Yet another public blow-up in American conservative intellectual circles about this recently.)

Or it could be a trans woman who doesn't want to transition many or any physical features but experiences a sort of social dysphoria in not being perceived as feminine. Don't worry about it too much, unless she wants you to.

Why? This is exactly prejudice. Where are the men doing this, let alone for nefarious purpose? Does the father in that moment observe any concrete behaviors or traits that suggest this specific person is a security risk?

Concrete behaviour indicating risk - man follows my daughter into toilet. Let's lose the wig and the dress - how about now? Men are naturally protective of their daughters and are more likely to err on the side of extreme caution given the potential horror of not doing so. Labelling this thought pattern "prejudice" is highly reductive and, frankly, a bit elitist.


Again, this is prejudice, the very essence. When prejudice is defended there is a frequent dissonance and circularity where the object is deemed outside the boundary because then one would be in the position of defending prejudice, and one wouldn't like to think of themselves like that, so what they're discussing can't be prejudice. If the man literally has no concept of what he's looking at, it's forgivable and they deserve an explanation. If they have some familiarity with the transgender concept and persist, condemn away. To you the sentiment you describe "understandable" to a far extent, but why should one give the benefit of the doubt to someone who refuses to give the benefit of the doubt when given the opportunity and will express recalcitrance through violence? Then there is little choice but to fight back through law and norms.

There's an awful lot of prejudice in the world - I've met gay people (and straight people) who believe all Christian ministers are repressed homosexuals and also abusive. To an extent all stereotypes, all "common knowledge" is ultimately a form of prejudice. The point at which we usually call it out is when we feel the prejudice is no longer useful, i.e. when we feel the prejudice no longer reflects some form of reality.

In this case the assumption is that any man who comes near my daughter is out to do her harm. Therefore, any man who follows my daughter into a public convenience has nefarious motives. Therefore, the wig and the dress are just a cover in case he gets caught.


Sure. But just in case that's where you're heading, 'misery loves company' is also not a good motivation.

I'm not, I'm pointing out that in other cases the State is happy to regulate individual freedom for what it deems the common good.


That's preposterous. Every single society ever is "selective", or there wouldn't be law in the first place. Or government really. You're complaining about the absence of utopia.

We prosecute people for making foul jokes in this country, we almost passed a law criminalising criticism of other people's religions.


I can as well, I just think it's worthier of challenge than you do.

Eh.


Cool, I'm glad we could clarify. I think you're empirically wrong about unisex toilets, but I'm not going to challenge you in yet another sub-thread.

I think I presented empirical evidence there's cause for concern - but let's move on.


[Not "diagnosed" as transgender, it's no longer treated as a medical condition]

Why do you think there is a trend of gender dysmorphic individuals being mistakenly or improperly treated? Why shouldn't we be comfortable deferring to the judgement of physicians and patients?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-47359692

"There is pressure from the child who is in a distressed state, there is pressure from the family and the peer group and from the pro-trans lobbies - and all of this puts pressure on the clinician who may want to help the individual to resolve their distressed state by going along with a quick solution."

Also, saying "not diagnosed" is sophistry, people are diagnosed with "gender dismorphia" and this is now often concluded to be the result of them being trans-gender. There are other explanations - such as them just going through puberty.


How are people being punished? Anti-trans is very much mainstream today. If the caution is baseless and regularly deployed in the mainstream in prejudicial fashion, it isn't respectable. Don't mischaracterize a criticism of content and form as a reaction to the mere fact of disagreement, it's annoying.

Right, so you believe the caution to be a symptom of prejudice - in which case it's not caution, is it? It's phobia.

Caution itself is respectable, inherently.

If you do not wish me to pick at you please be more precise, or better yet don't imply another member is prejudiced.

It's probably different in the US but in the UK anti-trans is definitely not part of the mainstream discourse, regardless of opinion "on the street".


Tell that to the anti-trans people. Hard to take this sort of harrumphing seriously in light of what the discourse actually looks like and why. Think about who needs to lay down the knife here. :shrug:

In the UK I'd say you have a small anti-trans lobby, a collection of people uneasy with the speed of change and concerned about the consequences, the generally apathetic middle, a group generally in favour of more inclusivesness and the pro-trans lobby. The two extremese walk avoid blades out 24/7 and everyone else gets caught in the middle.

If you don't immediately buy into 100% of what the trans-lobby is saying you're trans-phobic, suggests some children are being given a transgender diagnosis for their gender dismorphia incorrectly and your trans-phobic, suggest there are long-term concerns with "puberty blockers"... You get my drift.

I get why the trans lobby is militant, but we're starting to see people coming up saying their wish they hadn't transitioned and then transitioning back - except without their gonads. That's bad, that's the medical profession having really screwed up.

So, great caution.


Why should it? What does sleeping or urination have to do with breastfeeding?

This isn't fixed, and the social disapprobation - including legal restrictions - has increasingly degraded over recent years. I'd expect in the UK included, get back to us.

How about we let the breastfeeders figure out what works for them?

What people do in public spaces is a matter for the general public. In exactly the same way as we do not allow people to run around naked because the general public consider this to be unacceptbale we also do not generally allow women to be topless. It follows logically that no matter how natural breastfeeding may be, and accepting the right that women should be allowed to do it in public it does NOT follow that women should be allowed to do it visibly topless.

The counter argument is literally just "patriarchal repression" but the same people who make this argument do not argue that women should generally be allowed to be topless in public, interestingly enough.

One notes that this is a specifically anglophone problem - in France women regularly walk around topless, for example.


Or it's just convenient for them. Have you considered many instances of breastfeeding with breast visible may not be political statements, but the outcome of a more permissive climate? That because political statements were made these women no longer have to make them.

Perhaps - but then I've never actually seen it in public myself, that is without some sort of shawl or something. Most of the reported cases involve the woman complaining to someone's (usually a man's) employer because he asked her to cover up, not go to a separate room, just cover up.

My suspicion is that most women are more reasonable if you are polite, but sometimes museum staff etc. come up against someone who'd prefer to make everyone else uncomfortable because of a perceived principle.


I prioritize the other consideration.

That prioritises the satisfaction of one person over the majority to little or no practical benefit to that person. You are, therefore, making the stance on the basis of principle. This is not a principle I accept - that asking someone to have consideration for others is repressive.


I can't identify the negative trend. I'm charitable with you, but don't be surprised if an encounter with someone working in the field leads to them putting you down; listen carefully in that event.

See above, the Tavistock Clinic was condemned by the NHS as "not fit for purpose" and one of the Governors resigned.


If this were the case, we would see many thousands being fired. On the contrary, it pops into the news rarely and typically in connection with public figures or celebrities who tend to face minimal, if any, repercussions.

Oh people definitely get fired over anti-trans prejudice - often legitimately.


Men in general, but this is correct. Hence feminists speak of patriarchy. I myself can attest to the changes in norms among children, from what I have personally seen, read, and heard from others, including the experience of having a much-younger sister still in high school. We're both speaking from our own world-knowledge; I suspect you have a very particular experience of boyhood in yourself and those around you. I sure hope we continue to work on diverting it.

I grew up in a rural area, and the area I live in has gone down the tubes (moving next month) so I'm very familiar with male-on female violence, sexual and otherwise. The feminist idea of "the Patriarchy" is interesting here because I would argue some of our current issues with this relate to the narrative of "the Patriarchy" and the way this has eroded certain societal restrictions which were designed to protect women from male predation.

That's a different topic, though, and it revolves around whether it's realistic or not to expect men to stop being sexual predators.


On the basis in the first clause, certainly. Interesting elaborate second clause. Since you're not American there is plausible deniability as to who it refers to.

With regards to my first sentence - I contend that fear is natural and therefore not shameful. With regard to my second sentence I was trying to illustrate that you can remove the racial element entirely and still have the same fear. So, I'm questioning whether it's shameful because it's a race-based fear (or potentially race-based) or because it's just fear of people you don't know.


In the final sense I doubt it. It could theoretically be purely class-based, but in practice I've always seen it racialized. This may be easier for an American to grasp than a conservative Englishman.

In the UK conflict is often more inter-class or inter-regional than inter-racial. We have inter-racial conflict but not to the same extent as in the US.

Of course, this depends on your definition of "race" Skipping ahead to the Devon/Cornish feud - this is considered a "racial" issue by some.


That sounds like an opening for me to start drawing these threads down.

This sentence is poorly constructed too, and deciphering it is somewhat beyond me. You have not defined a specific object here, what are "these threads"? Do you mean the threads we have been arguing over the last several weeks which you are now going to give up on? Or is it the threads of your impressions which you can now draw together?

Regardless, I really need you to be more specific if you're going to give me a post it takes two hours to reply to.


Most propositions and attitudes in your posts I admittedly find to be wrong or ill-considered. More so than in the old days?

Well, if anything I'm more liberal than I used to be, so it's not that.

I suspect it is a combination of three things.

1. We disagree about certain things on a fundamental, ethical, level - making actual agreement impossible. If you don't recognise this you probably think I'm talking out the side of my mouth, but I'm really not.

2. You have an inaccurately favourable view of our past interactions. I'm not sure if this is flattering or not, to be honest.

3. I suspect you are, simultaneously to point 2., conflating your memory of me with other posters you also disagree with - this is causing you to incorrectly attribute certain views to me which I do not hold.

For example, you jumped to the view that I was against transsexuals using certain toilets, following Beskar, and it too a great deal of effort for me to point out I had never actually taken that position.


It was prejudiced when it was normal. You know prejudice as category isn't a function of prevalence or contestation, right? Also, since you keep pushing this logic I should point out an essay (http://crookedtimber.org/2019/05/07/the-steelwool-scrub-a-fallacy/) on the very subject.

This is a good crossing point to the Hong Kong thread. To begin with, by no means do I have to accept your assertion as fact, it is a matter of perspective. The prejudice to which you refer is the idea that men dressed as women are actually doing so not because they identify as women but to gain privileged access to the fairer sex.

This is, excuse me, historically "a thing". Shakespeare's comedies often included cross-dressing for this reason, as did Gilbert and Sullivan musicals - notably Princess Ida - and all the way back to the Ancient Greeks. The practice reflects the reality that lovers, especially young ones, could not meet openly due to sexually segregated societies.

Therefore, historical prejudice against men dressed as women had some practical justification, modern prejudice has inherited this. It's also worth pointing out that, irrc, some Jihadists were able to escape the UK a few years back by posing as their female relative in Burkhas.

Ultimately, this is heterosexual men mistaking transexual women for heterosexual men.

Whether all this is "bad" or not depends on the moral stance you adopt.

An absolutist moral stance that proposes one objective standard for morality simply lables this prejudice, calls it wrong and be done.

A Utilitarian stance that believes morality must be applicable in fact asks if the prejudice is "useful", i.e. is it not actually prejudice or experience?

A Relativist stance would asks if the majority of a given society consider it to be prejudiced.

All three stances, and they are more than three, have their supporters, and there is no settled answer. Personally, I'm inclined to agree with you that is is prejudiced but it seems to me that even if this is the case that has not been recognised historically and expecting every single person in society to recognise it today is not reasonable.


What you're seeing is a - yet another - period of heavy contestation in society over what is acceptable, which social groups can petition for what standing, and so forth. Contrary to what you appear to have concluded, there is no Orthodoxy on trans issues ready to strike you down, just specific people who may fall in or fall out with you depending on the intensity of your or their positions. Conservatives are kind of schizophrenic in this, believing they have already been defeated while still wielding a preponderance of authority. In America (I don't know about the UK) there is a strong paleoconservative/neoreactionary movement in the major right-wing party to roll back social norms and legal protections to an 18th-century state, in some regards perhaps to go even further; and these people are losing their minds that they can no longer expect a non-conforming person to be randomly beset and beaten in the street for their effrontery. The loss of hegemony is not in truth equivalent to dissolution. They have not been defeated, and they remain very dangerous. Maybe that offers some perspective on why various agitating groups are not prioritizing displays of patience or deference.

You are quite correct, we are in a period of social contest - the like of which our societies have not seen at least since the Reformation. However, you seem to be using language which implies these moral issues are settled. It may be you have settled on them, but settled they are not.


Duuuuude. You're getting worked up over what to others seems like trivial cultural markers that no one gives a crap about, but now you know a little of how non-whites/women/LGBT/etc. feel when you tell them you just want to "calmly and rationally" discuss the fundamental matters of their identity and social participation. Think about it.

You suppose I do not see the parallels? I do - the arguments over scones is ludicrous. I also consider the argument over pronouns to be ludicrous - the yourtube echo chamber has started to argue everyone should introduce themselves as "Hi, my name is... my pronouns are..."

If that happens I'm going to start saying, "Ave, ego sum Philippus Flavius, Filius Iohannus, Homovallumus."


It's not working out for me that way. :sweatdrop:

I'm sorry.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Bathroom bills are the satanic panic of the 2010s. You would never even notice a transgendered person going into the bathroom they choose.

Noticing would require me to be seeking active interaction in a restroom. I am there to excrete, not 'meet-and-greet,' so I am not going to be noticing much about anyone else except whether or not they are leaving the urinal so I can go whiz.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The only people we should ban from public restrooms are the ones who take the urinal next to you when there are other spots available.

[Montmorency]

If women are required to cover their breasts in public is is for nursing mothers to explain why they are the exception. Your argument is affective, not logical.

Assuming there is a legal requirement for women to cover their breasts in general, the argument on behalf of nursing mothers is that they are performing a necessary and routine bodily function and that the harm caused by refusing them accommodation is greater than the harm caused by allowing them accommodation. Meanwhile, what's the argument against - invocation of "public decency?" I don't think this is colorable in terms of "affective vs. logical."


What people do in public spaces is a matter for the general public. In exactly the same way as we do not allow people to run around naked because the general public consider this to be unacceptbale we also do not generally allow women to be topless.

What if they consider it to be acceptable? I mean, you are aware you've lost the legal and social debate by now, right? So unless you feel really strongly about the issue and want to relitigate it to the point of having the inverse of French-style burqa police, it's probably not worth your energy (nb. if the latter is your real aim it would be reprehensible).


It follows logically that no matter how natural breastfeeding may be, and accepting the right that women should be allowed to do it in public it does NOT follow that women should be allowed to do it visibly topless.

The motivation is not the naturalness of breastfeeding but the legal principle of not imposing undue burdens.


The counter argument is literally just "patriarchal repression" but the same people who make this argument do not argue that women should generally be allowed to be topless in public, interestingly enough.

What's wrong with opposing "patriarchal repression?"

I've frequently seen the two arguments paired, idk what you mean. And haven't you heard of all the topless parades and protests in America and throughout Europe (no links)?


Most of the reported cases involve the woman complaining to someone's (usually a man's) employer because he asked her to cover up, not go to a separate room, just cover up.

Here's a short comment (https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/question-breastfeeding-public-law-legal-28220.html) on the state of American law on breastfeeding (though it only discusses state, not federal, law).

I hope we can get to the point where no one feels the need to complain about it, or that complaints are ignored.


Perhaps - but then I've never actually seen it in public myself, that is without some sort of shawl or something.

You've never actually seen it in public, but it's such a big deal for you? :laugh4:

I'll reply to the rest of the post later, I just want to post some stuff about breastfeeding.


First, since you're a stuffy old chap and not a breastfeeding woman let's go direct to the source and see what nursing mothers are saying. To that end I turn to Mumsnet (https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/breast_and_bottle_feeding/1730879-Anyone-ever-SAID-anything-to-you-about-breastfeeding-in-public), the UK's pre-eminent forum for... mums.

And some photos:

https://i.imgur.com/hM7re9w.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/9BudQBD.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/4InftZn.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/ZmwbfmU.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/wrZRaCz.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/JNTl5Fg.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/hBo4f22.png
https://i.imgur.com/wyWYIOU.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/RWKXVO2.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/YNYlN4r.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/Lf7JKNs.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/UFADiAu.jpg


For the piece de resistance:

https://i.imgur.com/f5HkKJB.jpg

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Assuming there is a legal requirement for women to cover their breasts in general, the argument on behalf of nursing mothers is that they are performing a necessary and routine bodily function and that the harm caused by refusing them accommodation is greater than the harm caused by allowing them accommodation. Meanwhile, what's the argument against - invocation of "public decency?" I don't think this is colorable in terms of "affective vs. logical."

What if they consider it to be acceptable? I mean, you are aware you've lost the legal and social debate by now, right? So unless you feel really strongly about the issue and want to relitigate it to the point of having the inverse of French-style burqa police, it's probably not worth your energy (nb. if the latter is your real aim it would be reprehensible).

The motivation is not the naturalness of breastfeeding but the legal principle of not imposing undue burdens.

What's wrong with opposing "patriarchal repression?"

I've frequently seen the two arguments paired, idk what you mean. And haven't you heard of all the topless parades and protests in America and throughout Europe (no links)?

Here's a short comment (https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/question-breastfeeding-public-law-legal-28220.html) on the state of American law on breastfeeding (though it only discusses state, not federal, law).

I hope we can get to the point where no one feels the need to complain about it, or that complaints are ignored.

You've never actually seen it in public, but it's such a big deal for you? :laugh4:

I'll reply to the rest of the post later, I just want to post some stuff about breastfeeding.

First, since you're a stuffy old chap and not a breastfeeding woman let's go direct to the source and see what nursing mothers are saying. To that end I turn to Mumsnet (https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/breast_and_bottle_feeding/1730879-Anyone-ever-SAID-anything-to-you-about-breastfeeding-in-public), the UK's pre-eminent forum for... mums.

And some photos:

https://i.imgur.com/hM7re9w.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/9BudQBD.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/4InftZn.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/ZmwbfmU.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/wrZRaCz.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/JNTl5Fg.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/hBo4f22.png
https://i.imgur.com/wyWYIOU.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/RWKXVO2.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/YNYlN4r.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/Lf7JKNs.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/UFADiAu.jpg


For the piece de resistance:

https://i.imgur.com/f5HkKJB.jpg

I've lost the legal and social debate, hmm?

It's the same debate as the one that has Republicans deciding it's OK to gerrymander their districts to prevent Democrats ever getting elected. The same debate that says someone can force other people to agree to their minority view of gender. It's also the same debate that has people electing Trump and not caring about his personal behaviour. The same debate that has the members of the Labour Party ignoring the Antisemitism of their leader because he's a good Socialist.

This isn't about practicalities, it's about individuals being seen to exercise their personal autonomy, even at the expense of others. Ultimate individual expression, disregarding the collective. So, it's essential for the nursing mother to be able to be SEEN to be nursing, even if she offends parents with older children. Her individual right to display her literaly "naked truth" trumps any concerns anyone else might have about her behaviour.

As opposed to her wearing a shall, or even a towel (not a practical hindrance) so that she isn't visibly topless.

This is just one element of a social outlook which gives paramount concern to the autonomy of each individual, rather than considering the welfare of society in general. Another is electing Thump, or gerrymandering Districts.

[Montmorency]

I've lost the legal and social debate, hmm?

It's the same debate as the one that has Republicans deciding it's OK to gerrymander their districts to prevent Democrats ever getting elected. The same debate that says someone can force other people to agree to their minority view of gender. It's also the same debate that has people electing Trump and not caring about his personal behaviour. The same debate that has the members of the Labour Party ignoring the Antisemitism of their leader because he's a good Socialist.

This isn't about practicalities, it's about individuals being seen to exercise their personal autonomy, even at the expense of others. Ultimate individual expression, disregarding the collective. So, it's essential for the nursing mother to be able to be SEEN to be nursing, even if she offends parents with older children. Her individual right to display her literaly "naked truth" trumps any concerns anyone else might have about her behaviour.

Wew lad. Totally off the mark in your comparisons (which gather very unlike items that represent the opposite dynamic in your construction of individual vs. collective than you would seem to intend), and self-centered in your framing of the issues involved in public breastfeeding.

'Breastfeeding women are flaunting their individuality over our collective good as represented by some random offended individual' is a position that's only tenable if you disregard the practicalities of breastfeeding mothers - which you refuse to even entertain - and conflate your individual preferences for mass political preferences.

I say you've already lost the debate precisely because most people do not agree with you that women exposing their breasts in public to breastfeed impinges on any collective good. Moreover, even if there were a majority or plurality who shared your position that wouldn't make it intrinsically right; the boundaries of the collective good are constantly being contested, especially now. You're just making a countervailing push, which I think is wrong because I oppose reaction.

Do you have any reaction to the photos I posted?