Serious PC thread

[Moxie]

I don't have a fear of trans people either. I don't recall ever even hinting anything of the sort. So it continues to confuse me why you sustain that characterisation. As I stated before it's one thing to be/ or do something that has no impact on anyone else. But trans people trying to assume another gender effectively require an alteration in how people interact with them. That impact is not only on themselves it affects others. I stand with my view...

I only said that I have no fear of trans people. I said nothing about your fears or lack thereof. Britbox was trying to make a big deal out of who uses the bathroom I'm using. It's not an issue for me. You're welcome to stand by your view...whatever it is. I can only guess that it's that they've cut off all of their bits, because I'm not sure you stated it that clearly.

 

[Federberg]

I only said that I have no fear of trans people. I said nothing about your fears or lack thereof. Britbox was trying to make a big deal out of who uses the bathroom I'm using. It's not an issue for me. You're welcome to stand by your view...whatever it is. I can only guess that it's that they've cut off all of their bits, because I'm not sure you stated it that clearly.

If you have the XY gene, you can't be a woman. You can cut or add whatever you want. I'm not introducing you as a woman. Same thing the other way around. My standard is...would I consider myself lying if I introduced this person to someone else as the gender they "changed" to?

 

[Moxie]

If you have the XY gene, you can't be a woman. You can cut or add whatever you want. I'm not introducing you as a woman. Same thing the other way around. My standard is...would I consider myself lying if I introduced this person to someone else as the gender they "changed" to?

This is the example you used at the beginning of the argument, having to do with the "bro code." You said at one point that you didn't have a problem with trans people, but what you seem to be saying is actually that you don't really believe there are trans people. That there are men and there are women, and there are men who dress like women and women who dress like men. I have no problem if that's the way you see it...just trying to be clear.

 

[Federberg]

This is the example you used at the beginning of the argument, having to do with the "bro code." You said at one point that you didn't have a problem with trans people, but what you seem to be saying is actually that you don't really believe there are trans people. That there are men and there are women, and there are men who dress like women and women who dress like men. I have no problem if that's the way you see it...just trying to be clear.

that's an interesting request for clarification and I'm happy to oblige. I have no problem with anyone wanting to be transgender. That's their decision, it's their free will, I'll celebrate their change with them. But...and this is why I think the trans issue is completely different from homosexuality... being trans-gender requires a suspension of science that is a step too far for me. Homosexuality is different, who they are, who they choose to love is inherent within them. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it, and frankly it's not my business, nothing is imposed on society by accepting what someone's sexual preference is. But where transgenderism is concerned...just because a man transitions towards the female form doesn't make them a woman. I hope you appreciate that I am not saying they are still a man? I respect their determination to discard the male gender, but it doesn't make them a woman. I'm happy to go with trans-woman if that's an acceptable compromise. But they cannot ever be a woman. Certainly not under our current level of technological development, that might change in future, but we're talking about here and now. Requiring others to accept the new gender and the privileges conferred on that gender is an imposition, it requires society at large to suspend scientific reality. Others have to accept that someone who was formally a man can now go into the women's changing room etc, that is an imposition (and it's not just women accepting trans-women into their changing rooms, with the greatest of respect. I'm not sure I'm happy at the thought of a trans-woman sharing a changing room with my partner, whether she's ok with it or not!). And trying to be PC about being accepting and being called an -ism if you don't accept it, strikes me as wrong

 

[britbox]

I guess I go with self-declared. If your answer is "full-op," I don't think it has to go that far. I don't have a fear of trans people, so I can live with accepting their own definition of self. I haven't found a single instance where their choices impact me.

Thanks, you finally answered the question. If a man decides he is a woman, then he is.

I asked you the question because of the implications around the answer you would choose.

So, if a man is a woman simply by identifying as one, then they'll be able to enter women's sports, women's changing rooms, women's prisons, women's refuges...

You're going to change the world as you know it and that kind of system will be open to rampant abuse. But it won't affect you right?

 

[Moxie]

that's an interesting request for clarification and I'm happy to oblige. I have no problem with anyone wanting to be transgender. That's their decision, it's their free will, I'll celebrate their change with them. But...and this is why I think the trans issue is completely different from homosexuality... being trans-gender requires a suspension of science that is a step too far for me. Homosexuality is different, who they are, who they choose to love is inherent within them. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it, and frankly it's not my business, nothing is imposed on society by accepting what someone's sexual preference is. But where transgenderism is concerned...just because a man transitions towards the female form doesn't make them a woman. I hope you appreciate that I am not saying they are still a man? I respect their determination to discard the male gender, but it doesn't make them a woman. I'm happy to go with trans-woman if that's an acceptable compromise. But they cannot ever be a woman. Certainly not under our current level of technological development, that might change in future, but we're talking about here and now. Requiring others to accept the new gender and the privileges conferred on that gender is an imposition, it requires society at large to suspend scientific reality. Others have to accept that someone who was formally a man can now go into the women's changing room etc, that is an imposition (and it's not just women accepting trans-women into their changing rooms, with the greatest of respect. I'm not sure I'm happy at the thought of a trans-woman sharing a changing room with my partner, whether she's ok with it or not!). And trying to be PC about being accepting and being called an -ism if you don't accept it, strikes me as wrong

I appreciate your candor. I will respond with the same respect for your opinion, and I hope you will hear my response that way. I agree that homosexuality is beside the point on this issue. I brought it up earlier because, in my own progression, as a straight person, getting to some kind of sympathy/empathy with non-straight/non-binary people began with opening my mind to gay people. Because, as straight people, the rest never occurs to us until we're confronted with it. I thought that would be helpful to mention, but apparently it only confused the issue. Let's forget about that, as it is not relevant.

As to the rest, I'm struggling a bit to figure out what bothers you, but bear with me. You say "the privileges conferred on that gender." I'm not clear what you mean with that. Men are the privileged gender, in the world we live in, so does it bother you that women can become men (or take on their form) and thereby gain the privileges of the male gender? Do you think that men who become trans women take on some privilege that women have, when they have obviously given up their male privilege? I'm not trying to be controversial, I'm just trying to be clear, as to what bothers you. Also, you are leaning on science here, and a specific XX v XY chromosomal differentiation. This is not always the case. Please note that the link is from the UN's WHO.

So back to the changing rooms, or bathrooms: you say that you might have a problem even if your partner did not. But why? Can I ask you what your problem is with it, without being accused of saying that you are phobic? (Is that what you meant by "-ism?" Or not?) I was talking to my sister-in-law about this conversation. She is liberal in her politics, but conservative in her life-style. She is much more likely than me to be uncomfortable or phobic in situations. Yet, she thought, as I do, that men caring about trans women in the bathrooms was by far missing the mark about what makes us afraid, as women, in various and sundry situations, and particularly the bathrooms. This is something we discussed: we never go into a public toilet without being aware of the situation. We both feel that we're more aware, and cautious of, homeless women in the toilet than we have ever seen trans women. Because frankly sometimes the homeless women are crazy. If the situation looks the least dodgy, we get out. Also, that most often in a public toilet we are FAR from the only women in there. Have you ever seen the lines for the women's room? Safety in numbers. My greatest danger in a public toilet or changing room is when I'm in there alone. But there is no difference between a man in a dress coming in there to assault me or a man in male drag coming in there to assault me. No guard is standing at the door checking the DNA or even the dress code. Does this make sense to you?

 

[Moxie]

Thanks, you finally answered the question. If a man decides he is a woman, then he is.

I asked you the question because of the implications around the answer you would choose.

So, if a man is a woman simply by identifying as one, then they'll be able to enter women's sports, women's changing rooms, women's prisons, women's refuges...

You're going to change the world as you know it and that kind of system will be open to rampant abuse. But it won't affect you right?

I'm not saying that the conversation isn't complicated...I think I made that clear. Sports is one of the most complicated areas. Federberg gave me shit for bringing up Castor Semenya, but I do believe that is one of the places where it does get complicated and ugly. I also said I'm not qualified to make a distinction, only what I'm willing to live with, which is what you asked me. Don't be a dick. I answer your questions, and you lay the weight of the world on me?

 

[mrzz]

This is not always the case. Please note that the link is from the UN's WHO.

Good that you brought attention to that, because it adds some depth to the discussion. This goes beyond someone just deciding that he(she) is a woman (man). Or unicorn (so Federberg does not feel excluded ).

Thing is that in this article it is also stated that those situations occur a few times in one thousand cases. Another source I found has one case at each 448 births. And not necessarily all those cases are transgender (there are the "super-males", for example).

The reason I bring this up is obvious, we cannot forget we are not talking about the general rule. So, on one hand, I am happy that society and the state recognizes the issue, on the other we cannot simply pretend that is not the case. To begin with, this explains why some people never met a (genuine) trans-person, which by its turn explains the "oddness" and the lack of familiarity with their issues, their looks or whatever. It is not that all these people are transphobic. Human beings struggle to deal with what they are not used too.

And, obviously, once you are aware of that stat, you begin to wonder if everyone declaring him/herself as trans out there is being honest, or simply know what they are talking about. Obviously someone with lack of information can confuse it with homosexuality. And, and that I guess is the point @britbox is trying to make, if you are not being honest about that, well... it is not exactly a good start. And, of course, there is always the retarded parent saying that his/her/their three year kid decided that she is a boy (girl). Or baby unicorn.

Since we are in a sports forum, I will come back to a sports example. In the paralympic sports, it happens that athletes find a way to make their conditions worse so they can change category (and face an easier field). Give humans a breach and some will explore it. So my point is that when people call attention to all those issues they are not being bigots or transphobic, they are just being real. The moment some groups stop labeling everyone that disagrees with some "progressive" views as xxxxxphobic is the moment the discussion gets a bit more rational.

 

[Moxie]

Good that you brought attention to that, because it adds some depth to the discussion. This goes beyond someone just deciding that he(she) is a woman (man). Or unicorn (so Federberg does not feel excluded ).

Thing is that in this article it is also stated that those situations occur a few times in one thousand cases. Another source I found has one case at each 448 births. And not necessarily all those cases are transgender (there are the "super-males", for example).

The reason I bring this up is obvious, we cannot forget we are not talking about the general rule. So, on one hand, I am happy that society and the state recognizes the issue, on the other we cannot simply pretend that is not the case. To begin with, this explains why some people never met a (genuine) trans-person, which by its turn explains the "oddness" and the lack of familiarity with their issues, their looks or whatever. It is not that all these people are transphobic. Human beings struggle to deal with what they are not used too.

And, obviously, once you are aware of that stat, you begin to wonder if everyone declaring him/herself as trans out there is being honest, or simply know what they are talking about. Obviously someone with lack of information can confuse it with homosexuality. And, and that I guess is the point @britbox is trying to make, if you are not being honest about that, well... it is not exactly a good start. And, of course, there is always the retarded parent saying that his/her/their three year kid decided that she is a boy (girl). Or baby unicorn.

There is so much that I agree with in your above, @mrzz, that I cut off the last bit, so as not to confuse myself, or the argument. Yes, I think real transgenderism is rare, which is why we all find it complicated and hard to discuss. I don't think anyone is mistaking it with homosexuality, to be clear. Now, as to young people identifying as transgender, and how we feel about that, I'm going to tell you a story, so that you guys don't think that I'm so much of a snowflake that I buy everyone's self-identity. I recently went to a festival to meet friends that are sort of colleagues, sort of friends, but people that I only see every some years, though having known them for 20. I was introduced to their "son," who the mother, my friend and colleague, reminded me that I had once known him as their "daughter." Last time I saw her she was 2. Now s/he is 18. They were in the full throws of "him" declaring as trans and having a new name. Both of the parents were messing up the pronouns all the time. They told me that they'd gone through lesbianism, with their child, and now transgenderism. That the "politics" of the pronouns could change weekly, and, as my friend said to me: "18 is still 18." Two points I wanted to make here: 1) I'm not completely convinced that that young person knows what he or she is all about. "She" is very young, and transgenderism seems to be as much a fashion as anything else, these days. Is s/he really transgender, or just a very butch lesbian? And 2.) when the parents realized that this child had gone to the restroom, i.e., the men's room, the mother sent the father off in a panic. Because, in their minds, their little trans child was in much more danger in the men's room, and I agree with that.

I do really believe that there is a non-binary spectrum on the sexuality scale, but I also think that it has to be taken with a grain of salt with young kids trying to decide how they identify.

 

[mrzz]

I don't think anyone is mistaking it with homosexuality, to be clear.

Here, surely no. But even in your story it could well be that your friends/colleagues had it not perfectly clear. And, specially, young people may confuse it. Gender, sexuality, biological sex... a lot of things to be confused about. As you said somewhere else, this is complicated. Add internet to this and people learning from youtube and facebook, add people with internal conflicts... and I can bet my heterosexual white male ass that there is a lot of confusion out there.

 

[Moxie]

Here, surely no. But even in your story it could well be that your friends/colleagues had it not perfectly clear. And, specially, young people may confuse it. Gender, sexuality, biological sex... a lot of things to be confused about. As you said somewhere else, this is complicated. Add internet to this and people learning from youtube and facebook, add people with internal conflicts... and I can bet my heterosexual white male ass that there is a lot of confusion out there.

All I have ever said as this is complicated and confusing.

 

[Moxie]

Oh, and just to make sure you don't think I'm the only one that can be bullied into answering a question, what about your position on abortion, Mrzz? I'm beginning to have my own opinion as to what you think, but if you prefer to clarify for yourself, this is your chance.

 

[mrzz]

Oh, and just to make sure you don't think I'm the only one that can be bullied into answering a question, what about your position on abortion, Mrzz? I'm beginning to have my own opinion as to what you think, but if you prefer to clarify for yourself, this is your chance.

Oh, it is complicated, but to put it short I like the approach that the US Supreme Court used back in the seventies. At some point during the gestational period it ceases to be a personal matter and becomes a public/social issue. Here the moral/ethical and political/juridical sides agree -- once there is an individual, there is a citizen that is protected by law. Were is the best guess for a cutoff is a scientific matter (I guess the norm is 12 weeks still, but it could be less given modern day findings).

I agree on abortion on extreme cases like anencephaly and others, and also were there is high risk for mother and child lives. On rape cases, before the threshold mentioned above is a no brainer, after that, I sincerely have doubts.

I understand the personal matter side to it, but I can't help but feel that the "pro-choice" side (you know my position about this apparent dichotomy) fails to grasp the educational/social aspect of it all. I really don't like the idea of a society where abortion is trivialized. I know that this is not necessarily the case, but you got my point.

 

[Moxie]

Oh, it is complicated, but to put it short I like the approach that the US Supreme Court used back in the seventies. At some point during the gestational period it ceases to be a personal matter and becomes a public/social issue. Here the moral/ethical and political/juridical sides agree -- once there is an individual, there is a citizen that is protected by law. Were is the best guess for a cutoff is a scientific matter (I guess the norm is 12 weeks still, but it could be less given modern day findings).

I agree on abortion on extreme cases like anencephaly and others, and also were there is high risk for mother and child lives. On rape cases, before the threshold mentioned above is a no brainer, after that, I sincerely have doubts.

I understand the personal matter side to it, but I can't help but feel that the "pro-choice" side (you know my position about this apparent dichotomy) fails to grasp the educational/social aspect of it all. I really don't like the idea of a society where abortion is trivialized. I know that this is not necessarily the case, but you got my point.

I think you are wrong as to how much I understand or don't about your position. You have made no effort to clarify your position before, and this above is a lot of ambling around and not really being clear. I don't agree with you that there is any society in which abortion is trivialized. If you believe that, you are working in the theoretical, and not the reality of women's lives. We seem to agree that the basic 12 weeks is a good place to call non-controversial abortion. After that we have to get into the fine points, but it's funny that you are the one that thinks there are a lot more incidents of this (post 3 months) in your neck of the woods than mine, so why demure? Remember, you did bring it up.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

@Moxie , since we are all asking questions and everything, may I ask one? I mean, I know your position on abortion pretty much but my question is, what is the main reason for a woman to have an abortion? Be careful, it is a trick question

 

[Moxie]

@Moxie , since we are all asking questions and everything, may I ask one? I mean, I know your position on abortion pretty much but my question is, what is the main reason for a woman to have an abortion? Be careful, it is a trick question

Not answering any more trick questions on this thread, without that an answer comes first from the questioner. What do you think is the main reason for a woman having an abortion? Be careful, this is a trick question, because there is a lot more than one answer.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Not answering any more trick questions on this thread, without that an answer comes first from the questioner. What do you think is the main reason for a woman having an abortion? Be careful, this is a trick question, because there are a lot more than one answer.

Ladies first (if that is still a thing..)

 

[Moxie]

Ladies first (if that is still a thing..)

Nope. You proposed the question. You expose your hand first.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Nope. You proposed the question. You expose your hand first.

How is that a thing??? I asked first!

 

[Moxie]

How is that a thing??? I asked first!

Do I have to say this again? In debate, when asking a controversial question, I believe it is good form to expose one's position first. If you don't agree, then you can wait for my response until hell freezes over. Fair enough? Just because you asked first doesn't give you the right to hear from me before I hear from you. That's just a kindergarten response. Man up and answer your own question.