Serious PC thread

[britbox]

Good lord, changing rooms aren't unisex. They are very by-and-large binary gendered. You really are taking a notion to its farthest extreme. As to the bolded above, I don't think people take lightly the notion that they are not of the gender assigned at birth. I'm not sure what "genie" you thinks gets let out of the bottle, but the notion that "women will suffer the worst of the consequences" is about fear and paranoia on your part. If you think trans women make cis-women uncomfortable, you're just mostly wrong. (Except Mrs. Britbox, obviously.) Likewise, trans men. Women feel most threatened by straight men, who demonstrate straight. Like the ones who denigrate us in the workplace. That's really a huge thing for us, but I don't see you getting all up in arms about that. That's really a lot more common than men in dresses trying to peer up our skirts in the ladies room. You mentioned you have a wife and a sister and a daughter...that's what you should care about. No tranny is likely to abuse them in a bathroom, but plenty of men will undermine them and harass them in the work environment. That is what you should be worried about.

Eh? You were just telling me that communal changing rooms were widespread in New York and various other places? Now it's an extreme view to mention it?

You're really missing the whole point here. I was trying to elicit what you considered to be a threshold for trans. You didn't answer, said you were being bullied for a response and then claimed you'd answered the question. No you didn't.

And then signed off, saying nobody was listening to you...

Well, maybe if we're having a debate, taking the fifth on any questions you don't like kind of kills it anyway.

 

[britbox]

The issue of transgender people is very complicated and anyone willing to characterize it as a black or white thing is full of shit. Even as an extreme liberal myself, I fully concede there are very obvious needs for pause when it comes to even the most rudimentary aspects of accepting the trans community. However, the amount of violence, hate and abuse they receive is no joke, and downplaying that makes for a dangerous wilful ignorance of reality (not suggesting you're doing that).

That said, taking the literal "phobic means scared of" approach is a lazy way out. It's just as lazy as "some of my best friends are black" and "Islam is not a race so I'm not being racist."

If someone hates and discriminates against say, Muslims, but isn't particularly afraid of them (ie he doesn't believe they'll blow him up, he just hates them), are we seriously going to waste our time over technicalities and semantics because of the very literal definition of "Islamophobic"?

Likewise, if someone doesn't believe homosexuals are a scary threat to society that will eventually lead to paedophilia and beastiality (those are legit talking points among homophobes by the way), but they just hates gays nonetheless, are we seriously going to argue he/she's not a homophobe?

It's very complicated. That's why I posed a question to Moxie on what would be the threshold on being classed as trans... which she failed to answer.

If a man says he identifies a woman, is he immediately trans? If that's the case, then you're opening a gigantic can of worms.

Federberg already provided an example of a sexual predator, deciding to reclassify as a woman in the prison system. They got moved to a women's prison and immediately committed sexual assault. If your threshold is as low as personal identification, then it's rife for rampant abuse.

The people most at risk here are women.

 

[britbox]

That said, taking the literal "phobic means scared of" approach is a lazy way out.

More often than not, it's a lazy assertion, in the sense of "Disagree", and you're "____phobic" - fill in the gaps.

Tolerance of diverse opinions and ideologies no longer seems enough. Buy-in is demanded - tolerance is rarely a two-way street.

 

[Moxie]

It's very complicated. That's why I posed a question to Moxie on what would be the threshold on being classed as trans... which she failed to answer.

If a man says he identifies a woman, is he immediately trans? If that's the case, then you're opening a gigantic can of worms.

Federberg already provided an example of a sexual predator, deciding to reclassify as a woman in the prison system. They got moved to a women's prison and immediately committed sexual assault. If your threshold is as low as personal identification, then it's rife for rampant abuse.

The people most at risk here are women.

You never explained that that was the purpose of that idiotic multiple-choice exercise...you posed it as what I would be comfortable with in a changing room. BTW, do you mean "bathroom" when you say changing room? But if you want to talk about defining terms, that's a different question and you could answer it, as well.

 

[Moxie]

I think you misunderstood my statement, but I'm happy to clarify. I haven't had it confirmed to me that the correct descriptive for a man who has transitioned to a woman is a trans-woman. Or perhaps it's more accurate to say that I have also seen/read a woman transitioned to a man being described as a trans-woman as well. People who are trying to be sensitive to the issue but wanting to avoid gender pitfalls often use the descriptive trans-person. I should add that I've listened to lectures by or about trans-genders and the use of the neutral was common and certainly wasn't considered offensive. So it was rather amusing to me for my caution to be used as an attack point

No, you absolutely said you'd never heard the term before, in a short declarative sentence.

 

[Federberg]

No, you completely said you'd never heard the term before.

ha! Call it hyperbole if you want, but when you claimed "trans-woman" was common that was my off the cuff response. Feel free to nitpick if you want

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

The president of the United States is more or less a literal fascist.

Of course he is. Read my post before. I said I hate far right as much as far left. Those people are slaves to ideologies on both end of the spectrum. The problem with far left these days is that they label ordinary people racist, homophobic neanderthals with their far left ideology and those people go to the other extreme to vote, which is Trump. Far left IS the reason there is a Trump. Middle right and middle left did not decide one day "Oh man, we have tons of common sense options but fuck that, let's elect the racist fascist bigot".

 

[Federberg]

Of course he is. Read my post before. I said I hate far right as much as far left. Those people are slaves to ideologies on both end of the spectrum. The problem with far left these days is that they label ordinary people racist, homophobic neanderthals with their far left ideology and those people go to the other extreme to vote, which is Trump. Far left IS the reason there is a Trump. Middle right and middle left did not decide one day "Oh man, we have tons of common sense options but fuck that, let's elect the racist fascist bigot".

I did find it a bit shocking that The Squad accused Pelosi of racism and the moderate Democrats of worse. If Trump wasn't completely inept we could have been watching the implosion of the Democratic Party right now. What were AOC and Rep. Talib thinking?

 

[britbox]

You never explained that that was the purpose of that idiotic multiple-choice exercise...you posed it as what I would be comfortable with in a changing room. BTW, do you mean "bathroom" when you say changing room? But if you want to talk about defining terms, that's a different question and you could answer it, as well.

The facilities are just examples... bathrooms, changing rooms, refuge centres... at the end of the day, it makes no difference. What is important is your threshold of the definition of trans.

If a man simply says "I identify as a woman"... in your opinion, is that enough to be classified as a woman?

 

[Moxie]

The facilities are just examples... bathrooms, changing rooms, refuge centres... at the end of the day, it makes no difference. What is important is your threshold of the definition of trans.

If a man simply says "I identify as a woman"... in your opinion, is that enough to be classified as a woman?

Ok, then. I never said that communal changing rooms are common in NY. I don't know of any, anywhere. I was specifically talking about a French-style of toilet facility that we have some of here, i.e., very private stalls with a common sink area. That is NOT a unisex changing room, OK? Where I think we've been butting heads is that I've been talking about transgender people, and you're talking about faux-transgender people who are actually sexual predators, is that fair to say? You and Federberg have both said you're basically fine with transgender people, though he and I are still working out the pronouns issue, which is where we started. So you're asking me how we identify "real" transgender people, as opposed to someone who is opportunistically "self-identifying" as a woman in order to access places where women are basically alone and vulnerable. Is that correct? I can admit that this is a difficult question...who can examine a person's heart and motivations and psychological make-up as their reasons for presenting as the opposite sex from their birth-assigned one? I found this article from Time Magazine that speaks to the issue of bathrooms/locker rooms, etc., and finds it a red-herring. I really urge you to give it a look:

https://time.com/4314896/transgender-bathroom-bill-male-predators-argument/

Bottom line is that, in states where people have been allowed to use the facilities that conform to their identified gender, some for many years now, there is no uptick in sexual assaults. It also makes an interesting point: that trans-men often present very much as cis-men (men born as men,) and it would be much less trouble for a man to access a women's space by claiming to be a trans-man, without even having to change clothes. As I said, and Broken reiterated, the people most at-risk of violence are actually trans people. I appreciate that you have anxieties of misuse, on behalf of the women in your life, but it seems that the statistics don't back it up.

 

[Moxie]

Of course he is. Read my post before. I said I hate far right as much as far left. Those people are slaves to ideologies on both end of the spectrum. The problem with far left these days is that they label ordinary people racist, homophobic neanderthals with their far left ideology and those people go to the other extreme to vote, which is Trump. Far left IS the reason there is a Trump. Middle right and middle left did not decide one day "Oh man, we have tons of common sense options but fuck that, let's elect the racist fascist bigot".

Forgive me, but I think this is a simplistic notion of how we got Trump. While I can agree that some of my fellow-travelers on the farther left can be small-minded, insulting and condescending towards Conservatives, as obviously, can the far right, as you say, you unfairly paint us all with the same brush. We all of us do know there was a backlash against Obama and the 8 years of progressive policies, and Trump did shamelessly exploit the racist aspect. But there is a tinge in everything you've posted to this conversation, which is the PC thread, after all...that you feel somehow forced to conform to certain notions by the far-left PC police. I'm not clear that it can ever actually happen, as you are all sentient people with your own freedom of will, but I realize that there is a resentment towards PC language. That's why we have this thread. And it's another thing that Trump exploited...by being outrageous. Saying what he would, no matter how sexist, racist, xenophobic, and it worked. Well, to some extent. HRC actually won the popular vote by 3 million votes. And it didn't hurt to have Comey's finger on the scale. Or Russian fiddling. So, was it really just folks like you in the middle that were fed up with the PC police, and so you picked a racist, fascist bigot? I'm astonished if you voted that way out of resentment of the left, but clearly plenty of people did.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Forgive me, but I think this is a simplistic notion of how we got Trump. While I can agree that some of my fellow-travelers on the farther left can be small-minded, insulting and condescending towards Conservatives, as obviously, can the far right, as you say, you unfairly paint us all with the same brush. We all of us do know there was a backlash against Obama and the 8 years of progressive policies, and Trump did shamelessly exploit the racist aspect. But there is a tinge in everything you've posted to this conversation, which is the PC thread, after all...that you feel somehow forced to conform to certain notions by the far-left PC police. I'm not clear that it can ever actually happen, as you are all sentient people with your own freedom of will, but I realize that there is a resentment towards PC language. That's why we have this thread. And it's another thing that Trump exploited...by being outrageous. Saying what he would, no matter how sexist, racist, xenophobic, and it worked. Well, to some extent. HRC actually won the popular vote by 3 million votes. And it didn't hurt to have Comey's finger on the scale. Or Russian fiddling. So, was it really just folks like you in the middle that were fed up with the PC police, and so you picked a racist, fascist bigot? I'm astonished if you voted that way out of resentment of the left, but clearly plenty of people did.

I only paint far left with the same brush. And the far right. Millions of decent folks trying to get by in the center right and left. And right now, far left seems to be a small (thank god) but the loudest group. They have actually convinced people that being offended was a right ! They are the ones that block free speech at universities. Their sick minds came up with the idea of "safe spaces". As if shielding yourself from an opposing view is a good thing. They are the ones that are pushing compelled speech. They are the ones pushing for identity politics that divide people. They are the ones pushing the victimhood mentality. They are the ones that assign gender to ideas and opinions. Many actually believe in communism, like the ACTUAL communism. Proudly wear their Che t shirts but when you tell them Che despised homosexuals they look at you funny. That is what happens when you don't read a meaningful book in your life, let alone something like the Gulag Archipelago.

Moxie, here is something to think about: There is this guy , lives in a small town, maybe a second or third generation farmer, coal miner, something like that. Never had an easy life but does not complain. Some years are good, some years are bad. He goes to his church on Sundays and tries to live a decent life, as far as he knows how. Tries to provide for his family. Works hard. When the far left describes him as having "white privilege" (far left uses this racist term as a blanket statement because far left believes in collectivism, they will never look at an individual's situation) this guy really does not appreciate that. And when the far left calls him a homophobe and a bigot because he tends to think a man and a woman work better when it comes to marriage but to each his own, he is not particularly happy either. He might have voted for union (democrats) before. He is not doing that any more. I believe there are millions of this guy in the US and Canada.

 

[Moxie]

I only paint far left with the same brush. And the far right. Millions of decent folks trying to get by in the center right and left. And right now, far left seems to be a small (thank god) but the loudest group. They have actually convinced people that being offended was a right ! They are the ones that block free speech at universities. Their sick minds came up with the idea of "safe spaces". As if shielding yourself from an opposing view is a good thing. They are the ones that are pushing compelled speech. They are the ones pushing for identity politics that divide people. They are the ones pushing the victimhood mentality. They are the ones that assign gender to ideas and opinions. Many actually believe in communism, like the ACTUAL communism. Proudly wear their Che t shirts but when you tell them Che despised homosexuals they look at you funny. That is what happens when you don't read a meaningful book in your life, let alone something like the Gulag Archipelago.

Moxie, here is something to think about: There is this guy , lives in a small town, maybe a second or third generation farmer, coal miner, something like that. Never had an easy life but does not complain. Some years are good, some years are bad. He goes to his church on Sundays and tries to live a decent life, as far as he knows how. Tries to provide for his family. Works hard. When the far left describes him as having "white privilege" (far left uses this racist term as a blanket statement because far left believes in collectivism, they will never look at an individual's situation) this guy really does not appreciate that. And when the far left calls him a homophobe and a bigot because he tends to think a man and a woman work better when it comes to marriage but to each his own, he is not particularly happy either. He might have voted for union (democrats) before. He is not doing that any more. I believe there are millions of this guy in the US and Canada.

You have a lot of anger, Murat. I hear it. You see these things your way. Fair enough. Just a couple of things...I'm pretty sure there really aren't any Communists anymore. The Soviets took care of that issue. Even the Italians, who loved being comfortable Communists gave it up. And let's not pretend the Chinese are. And your example of a guy in the last paragraph? I know he's theoretical. You're putting your own tropes on him as much as you perceive people like I am. And he's exploited by the right as much as disdained by the left, let's not kid ourselves.

 

[britbox]

Ok, then. I never said that communal changing rooms are common in NY. I don't know of any, anywhere. I was specifically talking about a French-style of toilet facility that we have some of here, i.e., very private stalls with a common sink area. That is NOT a unisex changing room, OK? Where I think we've been butting heads is that I've been talking about transgender people, and you're talking about faux-transgender people who are actually sexual predators, is that fair to say? You and Federberg have both said you're basically fine with transgender people, though he and I are still working out the pronouns issue, which is where we started. So you're asking me how we identify "real" transgender people, as opposed to someone who is opportunistically "self-identifying" as a woman in order to access places where women are basically alone and vulnerable. Is that correct? I can admit that this is a difficult question...who can examine a person's heart and motivations and psychological make-up as their reasons for presenting as the opposite sex from their birth-assigned one? I found this article from Time Magazine that speaks to the issue of bathrooms/locker rooms, etc., and finds it a red-herring. I really urge you to give it a look:

https://time.com/4314896/transgender-bathroom-bill-male-predators-argument/

Bottom line is that, in states where people have been allowed to use the facilities that conform to their identified gender, some for many years now, there is no uptick in sexual assaults. It also makes an interesting point: that trans-men often present very much as cis-men (men born as men,) and it would be much less trouble for a man to access a women's space by claiming to be a trans-man, without even having to change clothes. As I said, and Broken reiterated, the people most at-risk of violence are actually trans people. I appreciate that you have anxieties of misuse, on behalf of the women in your life, but it seems that the statistics don't back it up.

I'm simply asking what your definition of a trans-person is? You are talking around it a lot but not answering the question. Is somebody identifying as the opposite sex enough?

The reason I've been asking these questions is that you seem oblivious to the practicalities in society and law.

 

[britbox]

You have a lot of anger, Murat. I hear it. You see these things your way. Fair enough. Just a couple of things...I'm pretty sure there really aren't any Communists anymore. The Soviets took care of that issue. Even the Italians, who loved being comfortable Communists gave it up. And let's not pretend the Chinese are. And your example of a guy in the last paragraph? I know he's theoretical. You're putting your own tropes on him as much as you perceive people like I am. And he's exploited by the right as much as disdained by the left, let's not kid ourselves.

The minute you started talking about Murat's tropes probably had the effect of proving the point for him.

 

[Moxie]

I'm simply asking what your definition of a trans-person is? You are talking around it a lot but not answering the question. Is somebody identifying as the opposite sex enough?

The reason I've been asking these questions is that you seem oblivious to the practicalities in society and law.

I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer, which I think I've expressed. I don't think you've offered one, though you keep hammering on me. I'm not sure what I'm "oblivious" about, but you didn't so much care for that article I offered you, I guess. I've really tried to have a reasonable discussion here, and you are being very aggressive.

 

[Moxie]

The minute you started talking about Murat's tropes probably had the effect of proving the point for him.

Or at least for the two of you. But you both already know what you think.

 

[Federberg]

I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer, which I think I've expressed. I don't think you've offered one, though you keep hammering on me. I'm not sure what I'm "oblivious" about, but you didn't so much care for that article I offered you, I guess. I've really tried to have a reasonable discussion here, and you are being very aggressive.

Oh good lord Moxie! Where is the aggression in what he asked? You swerve like a politician It’s actually entertaining to watch, but it fools no one

 

[brokenshoelace]

More often than not, it's a lazy assertion, in the sense of "Disagree", and you're "____phobic" - fill in the gaps.

Tolerance of diverse opinions and ideologies no longer seems enough. Buy-in is demanded - tolerance is rarely a two-way street.

The problem is sometimes these ideologies and beliefs are incompatible with very existence or, at least, the basic rights of certain groups, and therefore, why should they be tolerated and respected?

Why should I respect a far right ideology if it goes against everything I believe in, and is eating up the rights of so many groups/minorities/etc...?

 

[mrzz]

Guys, I am following the conversation and cannot participate properly as my time is compromised... and I hate to post with little time, let alone in delicate topics. All in all I lean more to the "trio" (as Federberg put) position, but I see Moxie's points. The thing I guess is key here is to consider two things:

1) Transgender people are a (numeric) minority. They have specific needs/demands that may challenge the norm (by the way "norm" should not be a bad word). How do we address it?

[key aspect in this discussion] 2) Part (quite possibly a very small minority) of the transgender group is not "honest" and use it for multiple dishonest/aggressive/offensive purposes. Once "transitioning" becomes more accepted, more and more dishonest people (which would not be transgender in an "honest" world) will explore the breaches -- that is what dishonest people do. How do we address it?

3) There are a lot of mental disorders related to sexuality. There are transgender people who are completely (how do I say it in English... ) "solved", (I mean, that are OK with their own issues and have dealt with them). Those are two completely different groups which are commonly thrown in the same bucket (even if there might be some soft frontier between them). I actually do not know which one is the largest, but usually "conservatives" just see the first (not the case here though) and "progressives" only see the second.

Not that I think you guys haven't noticed all that but I do feel in the heat of the argument some of those distinctions are being forgotten.