If a person can be transgendered, shouldn't that mean people can also be "transracial" or "transage"?

[mishkin]

I admit my part of the blame for changing the subject, but it was not me who started speaking about elites cornering free thinkers and the omnipotent and omnipresent woke culture. Honestly, I have nothing more to say than asking for respect for transsexual people (I consider the issue of gender less important). It has been proven that the problem is real and that the solution, in a non-aggressive family and social environment, is purely medical (hormones/surgery).

Edit: Nah, I can not. When hundreds of thousands of people are suffering because they do not have access to treatment, said treatment is very slow (and I guess usually very expensive) and the society that surrounds them is formed basically by ignorant retrogrades, saying that four idiots with an academic degree talking nonsense or a lady harassed on Twitter are the victims of "All this" (the woke conspiracy) seems laughable to me. And mentioning Elon Musk as a defender of freedom of expression/defender of the oppressed... Seriously, wtf.

[Muizer]

@Paleologos,

I think I agree with Chriscase that listing a handful of incidents can't really be considered as a predictor of where norms concerning gender are realistically headed. Whether your post serves to express or generate disproportionate levels of fear is difficult to tell. Perhaps we can find out.

It would be enlightening to focus on the more likely scenarios that accommodating transgenders and non-binary people etc might present you with. For instance, would you consider it a form of tyranny if the norm for good behaviour in the workplace became to honor transgender and non-binary people's wishes regarding names or pronouns? If the answer to that is "No", we can move on to more ..... intrusive examples. If it is "yes", though, then we don't actually even need those and conclude that they were just a bit of strategic scaremongering.

[paleologos]

I admit my part of the blame for changing the subject, but it was not me who started speaking about elites cornering free thinkers and the omnipotent and omnipresent woke culture. Honestly, I have nothing more to say than asking for respect for transsexual people (I consider the issue of gender less important). It has been proven that the problem is real and that the solution, in a non-aggressive family and social environment, is purely medical (hormones/surgery).

Edit: Nah, I can not. When hundreds of thousands of people are suffering because they do not have access to treatment, said treatment is very slow (and I guess usually very expensive) and the society that surrounds them is formed basically by ignorant retrogrades, saying that four idiots with an academic degree talking nonsense or a lady harassed on Twitter are the victims of "All this" (the woke conspiracy) seems laughable to me. And mentioning Elon Musk as a defender of freedom of expression/defender of the oppressed... Seriously, wtf.

Your empathy would be laudable if it was just that.
But it seems you silently but surely (and therefore cowardly and sinisterly) approve the proven extrajudicial punishment by sacking, debanking, deplatforming, demonetization, removal from SM, registration as perpetrators of "non crime hate incidents" and other ways of people who do not pay lip service to your idea of "compassion" and "respect".

When compassion and respect become so starkly selective you are flirting with genocide.
That's why my compassion and respect is the same for everyone.

If you spout BS as a cis normative whatever I will call BS just the same as I would if you spouted the same BS as a trans whatever.
And I would still defend you against being incarcerated for spouting that BS.

I invite you to join me in
Diversifying the pool of recipients of your empathy. I invite you to join me in
Including in your considerations the people who got imprisoned for exercising the right to free speech. Finally, I invite you to join me in being
Equitable in our efforts to end the bullying of people who think differently.

Together we can bring social justice in this world or we can die trying.

@Paleologos,

I think I agree with Chriscase that listing a handful of incidents can't really be considered as a predictor of where norms concerning gender are realistically headed. Whether your post serves to express or generate disproportionate levels of fear is difficult to tell. Perhaps we can find out.

I so much wish that you exercised your ability to take that post in the context of the posts above it.
I wasn't trying to generate fear.
I was addressing mishkin's request to post proof that people were actually being both judicially and extra judicially penalized for non subscribing to a very narrowly defined idea of compassion and selective compassion at that.

If I were trying to generate fear I would post something like this:

First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist


Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist


Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist


Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew


Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

It would be enlightening to focus on the more likely scenarios that accommodating transgenders and non-binary people etc might present you with. For instance, would you consider it a form of tyranny if the norm for good behaviour in the workplace became to honor transgender and non-binary people's wishes regarding names or pronouns? If the answer to that is "No", we can move on to more ..... intrusive examples. If it is "yes", though, then we don't actually even need those and conclude that they were just a bit of strategic scaremongering.

We have had this debate before.
It ended like this:
Presume that I am 100% "hurtful".
Presume that I am 100% recalcitrant.
Presume that I am 100% wrong.
(It shouldn't be difficult for mishkin)

Now the question:
What's my punishment for posting in social media my beliefs?

Well, the last time we had this debate none of the resident so called compassionate liberals would explicitly recommend any punishment.
But I have proven in this thread that people are getting punished for posts in social media and all of the resident so called compassionate liberals are callously silent about it.
Ergo compassion for some, cruelty for others.
And none of you stop to consider that if it wasn't for free speech all homosexuals and all trans people would be either closeted or imprisoned.

[mishkin]

okay, I'm a heartless fascist, let me know when the numbers of "people with different ideas regarding transsexuality" having problems finding work, expelled from the family home, physically attacked and murdered resemble the same numbers of the trans community.

By the way, you mention me a lot in your replies. My personal opinion/position can not be that important.

[paleologos]

First of all:
"Trans community"?
Really?
Take us to your leader then.

Secondly:
How many trans people had problems "finding work, expelled from the family home, physically attacked and murdered" in Europe or the Anglo-sphere last week, last month, last year, in the last ten years?
Your mind seems to be stuck in the past because in the past your pet victims were still victims - and what a virtue this must have been!
I am talking about the erosion of democracy today.

Thirdly, you are right, your opinion on trans people is not that important because being trans is not persecuted, not today, not in Europe or the Anglo-sphere.
However, your opinion on whether people who do not supply palliative gaslighting to the gender aggrieved should be punished for that, is important because it is a component of the ecosystem of intolerance.
And if your read the chain of posts more carefully you will find that I only mention you in the context of elaborating that my posts were structured as answers to your posts.


And by the way,
Presume that I am 100% "hurtful".
Presume that I am 100% recalcitrant.
Presume that I am 100% wrong.

What punishment do you recommend for me posting my beliefs in social media?

[Muizer]

@paleologos

Invoking the slippery slope argument in combination with extreme incidents does not amount to an argument for zero tolerance. Freedom of speech is not absolute. That is why it is a fair question to ask where you draw its limits.

[paleologos]

Slippery slope?
Many countries have already fallen over the edge and some people are hanging from their fingernails.
The incidents that I mention are neither extreme nor isolated.

I did not say "zero" tolerance, I said "intolerance", are we having strawmanship here?

Freedom of speech should be absolute except when harm is explicitly threatened or any harm is immediately imminent.
The reason is that any person who want to be the arbiter of how much freedom you should have are by default disqualified from that position.

You failed to answer the question:
"How many trans people had problems "finding work, expelled from the family home, physically attacked and murdered" in Europe or the Anglo-sphere last week, last month, last year, in the last ten years?"

And you failed to answer the question:
"What punishment do you recommend for me posting my beliefs in social media?"

And you dare ask me where I draw the line?
You are so far away from the line across the "bad" side you don't even see it.

But I will elaborate:
No penalization of any kind, judicial or extrajudicial, for saying that trans people are just gender confused.
No penalization of any kind, judicial or extrajudicial, for saying that we have always known what men are and what women are and we should not be changing the definitions just so that we pander to the narcissism of a few.
Exceptions are cases of direct incitement to violence, direct incitement to self harm, direct incitement to persecuting others in any way and libel of the kind that aims at the destruction of capital, including social capital.

And now I dare you to answer the questions I asked:

"How many trans people had problems "finding work, expelled from the family home, physically attacked and murdered" in Europe or the Anglo-sphere last week, last month, last year, in the last ten years?"

"What punishment do you recommend for me posting my beliefs in social media?"

Both you and mishkin have shied from these questions in the past, my expectations are low, surprise me.

[Muizer]

Slippery slope?
Many countries have already fallen over the edge and some people are hanging from their fingernails.
The incidents that I mention are neither extreme nor isolated.

Well, my experience is different.

[QUOTE=paleologos;16158724]I did not say "zero" tolerance, I said "intolerance", are we having strawmanship here?[QUOTE=paleologos;16158724]

Fair enough. I admit the words "zero tolerance" were poorly chosen. I meant the common implication of the 'slippery slope' argument that even a small step in a given direction should be avoided because it will inevitably lead to large strides.

Freedom of speech should be absolute except when harm is explicitly threatened or any harm is immediately imminent.
The reason is that any person who want to be the arbiter of how much freedom you should have are by default disqualified from that position.

No penalization of any kind, judicial or extrajudicial, for saying that trans people are just gender confused.
No penalization of any kind, judicial or extrajudicial, for saying that we have always known what men are and what women are and we should not be changing the definitions just so that we pander to the narcissism of a few.
Exceptions are cases of direct incitement to violence, direct incitement to self harm, direct incitement to persecuting others in any way and libel of the kind that aims at the destruction of capital, including social capital.

Do you think your employer should have the right to fire you if you make coworkers miserable with the way you talk to and about them? Perhaps if you're shouting at them all the time, or doing funny voices when you quote them?

"How many trans people had problems "finding work, expelled from the family home, physically attacked and murdered" in Europe or the Anglo-sphere last week, last month, last year, in the last ten years?"

I never looked that up. How is that relevant?

"What punishment do you recommend for me posting my beliefs in social media?"

I don't think you should be punished for voicing those opinions per se. But as I said before, that does not mean there can be no consequences. Opinions espoused publicly, even if not strictly illegal, could still lead to expulsion from organizations if they are radically at odds with their values. This is the issue with free-speech I alluded to before. The fact that an opinion is legal to express does not mean it is always, and everywhere, free of consequences. What would you think would happen if I went to mass every sunday wearing a T-shirt with the text "Jesus was a pedophile", even though I'd been repeatedly asked not to do that? At some point it becomes harassment in that context and I would get kicked out with no recourse to the law.

[mishkin]

Understanding the Transgender Community

The trans community is incredibly diverse. Some trans people identify as trans men or trans women, while others may describe themselves as non-binary, genderqueer, gender non-conforming, agender, bigender or other identities that reflect their personal experience. Some of us take hormones or have surgery as part of our transition, while others may change our pronouns or appearance. Roughly three-quarters of trans youth that responded to an HRC Foundation and University of Connecticut survey identified with terms other than strictly “boy” or “girl.” This suggests that a larger portion of this generation’s youth are identifying somewhere on the broad trans spectrum.
What challenges do trans people face?

While trans people are increasingly visible in both popular culture and in daily life, we still face severe discrimination, stigma and systemic inequality. Some of the specific issues facing the trans community are:

Lack of legal protection– Trans people face a legal system that often does not protect us from discrimination based on our gender identity. Despite a recent U.S. Supreme Court Decision that makes it clear that trans people are legally protected from discrimination in the workplace, there is still no comprehensive federal non-discrimination law that includes gender identity - which means trans people may still lack recourse if we face discrimination when we’re seeking housing or dining in a restaurant. Moreover, state legislatures across the country are debating – and in some cases passing – legislation specifically designed to prohibit trans people from accessing public bathrooms that correspond with our gender identity, or creating exemptions based on religious beliefs that would allow discrimination against LGBTQ people.
Poverty– Trans people live in poverty at elevated rates, and for trans people of color, these rates are even higher. Around 29% of trans adults live in poverty, as well 39% of Black trans adults, 48% of Latinx trans adults and 35% of Alaska Native, Asian, Native Americans and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander trans adults.
Stigma, Harassment and Discrimination – About half a decade ago, only one-quarter of people in the United States supported trans rights, and support increased to 62% by the year 2019. Despite this progress, the trans community still faces considerable stigma due to more than a century of being characterized as mentally ill, socially deviant and sexually predatory. While these intolerant views have faded in recent years for lesbians and gay men, trans people are often still ridiculed by a society that does not understand us. This stigma plays out in a variety of contexts – from lawmakers who leverage anti-trans stigma to score cheap political points; to family, friends or coworkers who reject trans people upon learning about our trans identities; and to people who harass, bully and commit serious violence against trans people. This includes stigma that prevents them from accessing necessary services for their survival and well-being. Only 30% of women’s shelters are willing to house trans women. While recent legal progress has been made, 27% of trans people have been fired, not hired or denied a promotion due to their trans identity. Too often, harassment has led trans people to avoid exercising their most basic rights to vote. HRC Foundation’s research shows that 49% of trans adults, and 55% of trans adults of color said they were unable to vote in at least one election in their life because of fear of or experiencing discrimination at the polls.
Violence Against Trans People– Trans people experience violence at rates far greater than the average person. Over a majority (54%) of trans people have experienced some form of intimate partner violence, 47% have been sexually assaulted in their lifetime and nearly one in ten were physically assaulted in between 2014 and 2015. This type of violence can be fatal. At least 27 trans and gender non-conforming people have been violently killed in 2020 thus far, the same number of fatalities observed in 2019.

Human Rights Campaign has identified at least 335 transgender and gender-nonconforming people killed in the past decade. The past four years have been especially fatal for the community, with 171 recorded deaths. In 2021, the number of deaths recorded by the rights group in a single year peaked at 59.

Tell me how the last infant terrible is suffering by spouting nonsense against the trans community. I give exactly zero fs.

[paleologos]

I meant the common implication of the 'slippery slope' argument that even a small step in a given direction should be avoided because it will inevitably lead to large strides.

I did not invoke the slippery slope argument.
I invoked the "many Western European societies and most of the Anglo-sphere have already slipped and are sliding at an accelerating speed" argument.
I even supported that argument with links but it is entirely up to you to decide how much gravitas is due to each such event.
It is also entirely up to you to decide whether all such events counted together are painting a larger picture that should worry you.
You have chosen not to worry, perhaps your version of the "everything is fine" meme.

Do you think your employer should have the right to fire you if you make coworkers miserable with the way you talk to and about them? Perhaps if you're shouting at them all the time, or doing funny voices when you quote them?

Another piece of strawmanship?
Go through the links I posted and count how many of them link to instances such as the one you described and how many of them link to instances of people posting something on their own corner of social media, not on someone else's message wall.
People are being arrested and sacked for airing their opinions outside of workspace.
For crying out loud, you should be able to tell the difference.

I never looked that up. How is that relevant?

You really don't bother reading mishkin's posts, do you?
Well I was addressing something he said.
And what he said was more or less that trans people are somehow being brutalized in the countries that punish everybody but the trans people.

I don't think you should be punished for voicing those opinions per se. But as I said before, that does not mean there can be no consequences. Opinions espoused publicly, even if not strictly illegal, could still lead to expulsion from organizations if they are radically at odds with their values. This is the issue with free-speech I alluded to before. The fact that an opinion is legal to express does not mean it is always, and everywhere, free of consequences. What would you think would happen if I went to mass every sunday wearing a T-shirt with the text "Jesus was a pedophile", even though I'd been repeatedly asked not to do that? At some point it becomes harassment in that context and I would get kicked out with no recourse to the law.

Another piece of strawmanship.
What if you go to the mountain wearing that same T-shirt and there you take some selfies that you post on your Instagram account that one must check out -mind you, without being obliged to do so- in order to be offended and because of that you are de-banked, or fired?
Would that be fine?
What exactly are the "values" of the bank? Organizations have a mission statement. What is the mission statement of the bank? Social justice?
Are we supposed to believe that a bank that raises people's credit card interest rates for being late on one payment and kicks people out of their homes is "socially just" for de-banking you because you were photographed with an off-taste T-shirt or a MAGA hat?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Understanding the Transgender Community

The "wall" you posted starts with "The trans community is incredibly diverse."
My point, really, is that the statement above is a contradiction in terms:
People who are not cis normative are too diverse in their aberrations (to which they are of course entitled) to be able to make up any kind of group that is cohesive enough to be a community.
And by saying "community" the author actually means "an interest group".
They are not a community and most certainly they are not an interest group.
Even if you isolate, for example, homosexual men, of the same ethnic group, who identify as men, they would still be too diverse to be able to make up a union of any kind.
Any individual is too complex to be characterized merely by race, gender, sexual identification, or sexual preference.

Human Rights Campaign has identified at least 335 transgender and gender-nonconforming people killed in the past decade. The past four years have been especially fatal for the community, with 171 recorded deaths. In 2021, the number of deaths recorded by the rights group in a single year peaked at 59.

And that is a proof of not just your dishonesty but the dishonesty of all those who are pushing the same narrative.
Show me proof said transgender victims were killed because they were transgender.
Show me that transphobia was the motive.
Show me how all the non trans people that were murdered in the same period were not murdered for not being queer enough.

Is that really your case that persecuting Posie Parker who never committed an act of violence is decreasing the murders of trans people?

Are you really so blind as to not be able to see that the people who authored that piece are professional activists?
Apparently I need to educate you that the business model of activism-for-money is summed up in the words: "there is evil in the world, give me money and I will make it go away".
And that's the people you get your education from?

But most importantly that article does not speak of transgender people getting murdered.
The word "murder" is not mentioned.
Not in the title anyway.
Instead they use such words as "killed"(how?) and "deaths" (the causes?).

Really man, take a step back and consider how you make yourself look.

I give exactly zero fs.

That was my initial allegation against you, really, when I used the words "selective empathy" to describe your behavior.
And you are handing us over a confession now.

Maybe I am wrong about this, and I really do hope I am wrong, but I think what you mean is

I am resentful for not being born in the body that conforms with my feelings so...

...I give exactly zero fs...

...for anyone who I feel was luckier than me in this life.

With this last post you have harmed your "brand" more than I ever could and certainly more than I ever would imagine was possible.
There is one half of a silver lining for you in this:
I finally understand your state of mind.
And though I empathize, the tactics that you and your cohort approve and callously deploy preclude that I would sympathize.


P.S.:
Professional activists are not your friends.
If what you are paying for their service is peanuts compare to what others are paying for the same service, then you are not being serviced.
Instead you are the product of said activism.

[mishkin]

You really don't bother reading mishkin's posts, do you?

I recommend that you do the same, because in your answers you are falling into an abyss of ###.

I will just continue reading your posts to see if you say anything harmful against the trans community or against the rules of this site. By the way, don't put words that I haven't said in my mouth as quotes ("..for anyone who I feel was luckier than me in this life"). Please fix that.

[paleologos]

I recommend that you do the same, because in your answers you are falling into an abyss of ###.

I call this a deflection.

I will just continue reading your posts to see if you say anything harmful against the trans community or against the rules of this site.

That's all you've been left with isn't it?
Keeping your fingers crossed, waiting for the moment you can use the TOS and the site's authorities as a weapon to silence me.
(If only the TOS were as strict as the British College of Policing...)
You really have no idea how this looks.

By the way, don't put words that I haven't said in my mouth as quotes ("..for anyone who I feel was luckier than me in this life"). Please fix that.

I did say:

Maybe I am wrong about this, and I really do hope I am wrong, but I think what you mean is...

Didn't I?


Anyhow, you seem a lot more personally invested in this than me, so I'll let you claim "victory" by not posting anything else after this.
And that with a whole lot of guilt as I am doing you almost the same disservice as everyone and anyone who believe that palliative gaslighting is a good idea.

[Muizer]

@paleologos

No strawmen. I just want to know where you draw the line. Otherwise I don't really know which position I am arguing with, or even whether I agree or disagree. The reason I am wary of the 'slippery slope' argument is that it is commonly used to turn a grayscale in to black and white. Once done, one can resort to citing outliers and forget about the tricky gray cases. But that's not an actual argument, but a rhetorical device. I'm not interested in rhetoric. I want to know which level of gray you would personally draw the line at.

I can give an example for myself regarding pronouns. If someone expressly states they want to be talked about as "they" I will. What I won't do is ask people whose preference I don't know for their preferred pronoun before mentioning them. I'll just use 'him' or 'her' according to what my instincts tell me based on looks and expect tolerance when I get it wrong.

[mishkin]

I can give an example for myself regarding pronouns. If someone expressly states they want to be talked about as "they" I will. What I won't do is ask people whose preference I don't know for their preferred pronoun before mentioning them. I'll just use 'him' or 'her' according to what my instincts tell me based on looks and expect tolerance when I get it wrong.

I don't think anyone is going to ask you for more (no one except some extreme cases that you can obviously find in this vast world)

[Muizer]

I don't think anyone is going to ask you for more (no one except some extreme cases that you can obviously find in this vast world)

What can I say. I've heard it being suggested, can't recall by whom and in what context, but it did not get any traction.

I've attended the occasional D&I presentation and they were all about countering repeated and gratuitous upsetting behaviour. They were not advocating that one time slip-ups should lead to the most dire of consequences.

So, as an analogy, we're not talking about someone who says "I'm a Muslim" to a Christian coworker. We're talking about someone who habitually and gratuitously refers to that coworker as 'the infidel'. That is not 'freedom of expression'. It's harassment.

[paleologos]

@Muizer:
In post #70 I give an adequately illuminating answer to where I draw the line.
But I shouldn't have to.

The right question to ask is:
"Who can be trusted to draw the line?"

Because the person or persons who are vested with such power will not just "draw" the line.
They will also gerrymander the line.
This is too much power for a small minority of elites.

I have answered your questions now answer just one of mine:
Do you think that Posie Parker's rights were infringed upon by her being arrested?

[Muizer]

Do you think that Posie Parker's rights were infringed upon by her being arrested?

Had to dig up the declassified police email correspondence to get an account of what happened. I must be mad for digging that deep to form an opinion on something so obscure. Anyway, from what I gather, if there was an infringement, it was that the police may have cited the wrong bit of the Covid regulation concerning public gatherings at the time they handed out fines. The arrest itself was for failing to provide the necessary personal details to the police. I'm no lawyer. I don't know if this amounts to an infringement of rights.

[paleologos]

...
I'm no lawyer. I don't know if this amounts to an infringement of rights.

How convenient.
It reminds me of another answer:

I'm no climate scientist but it's cold out there...

Also:

I'm no biologist so I can't tell what a woman is...

If all the links that I posted in post #54 are not enough to convince you that there's a problem then nothing will.

[Muizer]

How convenient.

Lol, no. This concerns a legal technicality. I believe in the US at least, suspects need to be read their rights when they're arrested? If they're not, that could scupper a case against them. Maybe the same applies to quoting the wrong reason for a fine (even though the fine itself was justified). I don't know. Ask a UK legal expert.

Either way, the link to 'repression of a point of view' is extremely tenuous, relying on the assumption that the police had an ulterior motive related to that.

[paleologos]

This is only a 2 min, 4 sec video and I also have links to more of the same, but this is related to only one of the many links that I posted in post #54.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Here are some links to more elaborative videos on the same incident.

So, once more, I have not invoked the "slippery slope" argument.
My argument is: "we have slipped, we have fallen and we are sliding towards the precipice at an accelerating speed".

But according to some:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: