Serious PC thread

[Murat Baslamisli]

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.

OK

 

[Moxie]

OK

I'll be standing by for your answer, then.

 

[britbox]

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?

There were no trick questions Moxie. I was asking because of the practicalities.

The practicality of your own threshold (if adopted mainstream) would destroy women's sport. I won't even go there on all the other stuff like entry to women-only facilities on the pretext of "identifying as one" - That kind of system would be open to rampant abuse and the victims would be women. These issues are more to do with predatory men abusing the system than anything to do with trans... and trust me... they will.

This isn't actually anything to do with "empathy". It's about the can of worms you'll open if you replace common sense on the pretext of empathy.

As for answering my own question - I don't think a man ever really becomes a woman... but that doesn't mean that you can't treat them with respect and decency. Neither does it mean you have to change every construct in society to fit them... because that will come at a greater price (i.e. the examples I gave above).

 

[britbox]

@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

They don't want the baby?

 

[Moxie]

There were no trick questions Moxie. I was asking because of the practicalities.

The practicality of your own threshold (if adopted mainstream) would destroy women's sport. I won't even go there on all the other stuff like entry to women-only facilities on the pretext of "identifying as one" - That kind of system would be open to rampant abuse and the victims would be women. These issues are more to do with predatory men abusing the system than anything to do with trans... and trust me... they will.

This isn't actually anything to do with "empathy". It's about the can of worms you'll open if you replace common sense on the pretext of empathy.

As for answering my own question - I don't think a man ever really becomes a woman... but that doesn't mean that you can't treat them with respect and decency. Neither does it mean you have to change every construct in society to fit them... because that will come at a greater price (i.e. the examples I gave above).

It was deceptive, as I said, because the real question was hidden, only to be revealed later. I appreciate that you think trans women/people deserve all respect, that's cool. Still, as to your answering the question, and your fears, or my "threshold," your examples still come down to two things: sports and bathrooms. As to sports, the impact would have to be minimal, since most people in this world don't play professional or Olympic sports, let alone trans people. As to the bathrooms, I believe I've said more than enough to make my point. You do still think that predators are hiding in the shadows of "trans," based on what you said. I think that's a red herring.

 

[britbox]

It was deceptive, as I said, because the real question was hidden, only to be revealed later. I appreciate that you think trans women/people deserve all respect, that's cool. Still, as to your answering the question, and your fears, or my "threshold," your examples still come down to two things: sports and bathrooms. As to sports, the impact would have to be minimal, since most people in this world don't play professional or Olympic sports, let alone trans people. As to the bathrooms, I believe I've said more than enough to make my point.

No, the question was about your threshold. It didn't change. Anyway, you've answered now.

It doesn't come down to only two things... it impacts far more. Women's refuge centres, Women's prisons, Women's accommodation, single-sex schools... the list is long.

Lady seeks refuge in a DV centre... Rapist wanders in and says he identifies as a woman... What happens next?

Man in a prison decides to identify as a female... Gets moved to a women's prison. We know what happens next? Sexual Assault? Actually, with this one, it already did. Federberg provided an example. Maybe you could cook the victim one of those red herrings you mentioned to cheer her up.

Are you happy to own all that shit?

By the way, there are trans people already competing in professional sports. if you lower the threshold to include anyone who purely announces they've changed sex, then it will open the floodgates to opportunists. Who will suffer? Women.

There are genuine practical reasons why this poses a risk. I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here anyway. You seem totally unable to grasp the consequences or even consider them.

Anyway, the next few years will be interesting, as we're now seeing the clash of the minorities building up all over. Over in the UK, you have the Islamic Community v LGBT at Birmingham hurling abuse at each other over sex education... the poor Labour Party don't know which way to spin. They'll either get labelled racist or homophobic by one faction of their own supporters.

 

[britbox]

On another note, I was smiling at the irony that a Trans Woman (previously male) currently takes meds to reduce testosterone in order to qualify... presumably, they'd fail a doping test if they didn't take drugs.

 

[Federberg]

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.

each gender is treated differently Moxie, for better or worse the difference is what I refer to as privilege. This has nothing to do with sexual politics so please don't go there. Going into the women's toilet is a privilege available only to women. Going into the men's changing room is a privilege available only to men. I hope those examples clarify the context in which that word was used? Feel free to re-read what I wrote now that you have the proper context. Re: your link to the WHO. No we're not going to go there. You can't on the one hand complain about the use of extreme examples and then deploy the same tactic yourself. I think you know we're speaking in general terms here.

 

[Federberg]

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?

we are so far apart on this it's almost comical. You have pretty much stated that whatever gender someone self identifies as is acceptable to you. I have already stated that I'll go with science not feelings or political correctness. It is inevitable we see things differently.

As for my seeing a problem where my partner doesn't? Because I have a much more sophisticated threat matrix than she does. She is the first to admit that her feelings or even her politics often clouds her ability to see potentially dodgy situations. I will say though that in this case with trans-genderism she's on my side (not usually the case! )

 

[mrzz]

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.

How am I not being clear? I am being as objective as it is possible.

The general rule I think is correct is: Before the 12 weeks threshold (or any other value decided upon technically, which stands for where life starts) is legal, after it is illegal. It is legal for anencephaly and any other case where the fetus have zero chance of survival. It is legal at anytime when pregnancy poses a considerable threat to the mother's life.

The only case for which I exposed my honest doubt is rape. In this case I think the state should do everything it can to ensure that you can terminate it before the 12 weeks threshold. Gun to my head, if I had to chose between terminating or not such a pregnancy, say, in the fifth month, I would say it should not be terminated. So, yes, my ultimate value in this case is human life. My two ultimate values in general are human life and freedom, but in this case you have one party deciding the fate of another -- so this is not about freedom. By the way, there is zero religion in my position as I am an atheist.

About trivialization of abortion, we disagree. I think this already happens at least to a limited extent in some specific regions. And, again, even if it is not the case, if legislation opens the door, my whole point is that it can become trivialized.

I really did not understand the last part of your post. I brought it up as I was giving a list of topics which are obviously important for women and thus should be priorities to any good faith feminists. I do not have an agenda, if that was your point. Neither am I interested in "winning" the debate. I am not being an hypocritical when I say that we are all winning here as long as we are reading what each other writes with attention.

You know that I don't like or use to go personal, but it is curious that in your line of thought you always seem to assume that people are inherently good and honest (I am simplifying, but you got my point) -- while your approach to debate is very often focused on your interlocutor's ultimate (sometimes hidden) agenda, or motives to say the least. I am not saying that it is impossible to have both things somehow being coherent with each other, but it takes a complex world view to make it work. I say that as lighthearted as I can, as I can sense how much those topics mean to you.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Gun to my head, if I had to chose between terminating or not such a pregnancy, say, in the fifth month, I would say it should not be terminated. So, yes, my ultimate value in this case is human life.

Problem is, what kind of life is an unwanted baby that's a product of rape going to have?

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Problem is, what kind of life is an unwanted baby that's a product of rape going to have?

We waited 20 years to have a baby. Never worked out before. We were looking at adoption as an option. We were told it would be 6 years before we could have a newborn. I would have taken that baby you mention in a heartbeat. Many other would have too that we met. That baby does not know his history. It is just a baby, like any other baby.

 

[mrzz]

Problem is, what kind of life is an unwanted baby that's a product of rape going to have?

I recognize that this is not a clear cut situation. However, read carefully what you wrote... are we really in a (moral/ethical/whatever) position to terminate a life because we expect someone's life to be unbearable? Aren't out there countless examples of happy and/or dignified lives in face of all possible adversities? And, more importantly, you surely realize the huge can of worms this opens, specially for people that might not share with us some core values. The what kind of life question can be asked in a lot situations. You know exactly which historical example crossed my mind...

I know this is a lot to ask for a woman -- that is why I made the previous remarks before I wrote my opinion, and we should make all possible efforts to avoid such cases (by preventing rape to being with). But I really hope people realize how radical the position of terminating such pregnancies is. Sometimes I feel people simply ignore the giant ethical question here (not saying this is your case).

 

[DarthFed]

It was deceptive, as I said, because the real question was hidden, only to be revealed later. I appreciate that you think trans women/people deserve all respect, that's cool. Still, as to your answering the question, and your fears, or my "threshold," your examples still come down to two things: sports and bathrooms. As to sports, the impact would have to be minimal, since most people in this world don't play professional or Olympic sports, let alone trans people. As to the bathrooms, I believe I've said more than enough to make my point. You do still think that predators are hiding in the shadows of "trans," based on what you said. I think that's a red herring.

I've been reading your back and forth with the others on here for a bit. It is a very relevant subject and I find it humorous just how hard you are avoiding the elephant (wearing a dress) in the room.

Your above response is especially alarming. Just because most of the women in the world aren't professional athletes makes it ok for a man to "become a woman" and take advantage of the system which obviously hurts the ummm "more natural" women? Just having ONE example of this is too many since we are talking about a totally avoidable situation. Try to tell the talented female athletes that it's fine that they have money and glory taken off of them through this and see what they say.

And an even bigger issue is the locker rooms. I see the bathroom being a bit of an issue too but clearly a changing room/locker room is a far bigger issue here. I can imagine the response if I walked into the Women's locker room at my gym and just sat there and watched naked girls walk around. You think they'd be alright with it after I tell them "I am a woman"? You think this isn't a possible issue especially since there would also be underage girls in there? And keep in mind I am not a predator, but I am a red blooded man that wouldn't mind taking advantage of the "system" and seeing a bunch of hot naked women at the gym. I won't touch them or anything and I will tell them I am a woman. Still fine with this very realistic modern day scenario?

These issues are clearly a case where the extreme left free spirits are making a mess.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I recognize that this is not a clear cut situation. However, read carefully what you wrote... are we really in a (moral/ethical/whatever) position to terminate a life because we expect someone's life to be unbearable? Aren't out there countless examples of happy and/or dignified lives in face of all possible adversities? And, more importantly, you surely realize the huge can of worms this opens, specially for people that might not share with us some core values. The what kind of life question can be asked in a lot situations. You know exactly which historical example crossed my mind...

I know this is a lot to ask for a woman -- that is why I made the previous remarks before I wrote my opinion, and we should make all possible efforts to avoid such cases (by preventing rape to being with). But I really hope people realize how radical the position of terminating such pregnancies is. Sometimes I feel people simply ignore the giant ethical question here (not saying this is your case).

Yes, I think a woman should be free to "terminate a life" (i don't agree with the way you're framing this by the way) before it actually comes to life. There should be a cut off, of course.

 

[brokenshoelace]

We waited 20 years to have a baby. Never worked out before. We were looking at adoption as an option. We were told it would be 6 years before we could have a newborn. I would have taken that baby you mention in a heartbeat. Many other would have too that we met. That baby does not know his history. It is just a baby, like any other baby.

OK, guarantee me that all these unwanted babies are finding perfect loving adopters and then by all means.

Are you honestly telling me this is how these babies are ending up for the most part?

 

[mrzz]

Yes, I think a woman should be free to "terminate a life" (i don't agree with the way you're framing this by the way) before it actually comes to life. There should be a cut off, of course.

Well, the cut off is exactly that, when life begins, so this is not a matter of framing, this is not only a fact, but exactly the underlying issue here. Honestly, I don't mind to frame it in any other way... as long as we do not pretend that we are not talking about a real life (after the cut off).

But, since you wrote "before it actually comes to life" we may well be in agreement.

Actually, now that I have debated it, I see that I have no doubt after all. The doubt I had vanished as soon as I gave a practical glance at the question. Apart from Hollywood actresses and people who live on Facebook, people can tell when they have been raped, so those unwanted pregnancies can be tracked down from the start, and terminated before the cut off. This is only an issue if one is completely against abortion (from day 0), which is not my case.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

OK, guarantee me that all these unwanted babies are finding perfect loving adopters and then by all means.

Are you honestly telling me this is how these babies are ending up for the most part?

I cannot guarantee you that . I wish I could. All I know is my experience and some other people that went through the same process as us. There is a huge waiting list for a newborn baby when you want to adopt. It is a painful process.
BUT let me say this. It is a huge ask to tell a woman to carry a baby to term when rape is involved. I have no right to do that. But I am also not fooling myself with euphemisms like "Right to choose" "Women's health issues" or "Reproductive Freedom" etc. A potential life is being terminated. I am aware of that.

 

[Federberg]

I have to ask... was this guy mis-treated as he decided to self identify as a woman for the day? I'm joking!

 

[Moxie]

each gender is treated differently Moxie, for better or worse the difference is what I refer to as privilege. This has nothing to do with sexual politics so please don't go there. Going into the women's toilet is a privilege available only to women. Going into the men's changing room is a privilege available only to men. I hope those examples clarify the context in which that word was used? Feel free to re-read what I wrote now that you have the proper context. Re: your link to the WHO. No we're not going to go there. You can't on the one hand complain about the use of extreme examples and then deploy the same tactic yourself. I think you know we're speaking in general terms here.

The WHO link was an example of anything extreme, or it wasn't meant to be. You were talking about XX/XY as the binary definition of female/male, and I was simply offering to the conversation that there really are people that don't fit those exact chromosomal molds. You, on the other hand, posted an example of a criminal trying to escape in a disguise, which has nothing to do with transgenderism.

@DarthFed, I just have to say that I can't believe you decided to jump in and be yet another who is freaked out about the notion that trans women would go into a women's bathroom. I am sick to death of explaning this, but, news flash, they already do, and according to an article from Time that I posted a while back, without incident. Anyway, I can't really talk about the bathrooms any more. Worry about it, if you must.