Oh, you just made a major mistake: it's not about identification; it's about objective facts. It's an objective fact that I'm not a left-winger or a right-winger. The point being that people on both sides of the issue can't even consider any sort of disagreement on it, so much so that anyone who disagrees must be on the other side, entirely. It's a failure to think rationally.
Being 'left wing' or 'right wing' is not an objective fact. You're right wing for European standards. You're center or center/left for US standards.
Oh there are plenty of failures to think rationally, including by you here. The reverse of what you're saying is more true. Identify a stance as bigoted or wrong suddenly becomes making the person whose statements are being criticized attacks on that person as 'an enemy' or 'evil bigot' or something. After all,
you couldn't be making bigoted statements because only bigots do that, and
you're not a bigot. That other person must be calling you a bigot if they are calling your statement bigoted! Pure identity politics.
Of course it doesn't really work that way. Moreover, the failure to even consider that yes, it is possible you're a bigot and are unaware of it poisons the analysis. Starting with the premise, consciously or not, that 'I can't be the bad guy', can derail reasoning. And does. A lot.
As for "pain", you made that up, once again, because you're clearly not looking for a reasoned discussion. You're looking for a "gotcha" that'll earn you virtue points. "Oh, look! He's on our side!"
I didn't make it up; I observed it. It's cognitive dissidence that comes out when comparisons are made to forms of bigotry you recognize (against homosexuals, against black people) do actually connect to the reasoning you are using against trans gender people.
Who exactly do you think I'm earning 'virtue points' from
here? You're making famous Bernie supporter TBD style arguments. Most of the posters in this thread don't even accept the understanding of the medical community. Those who do aren't looking to give out any virtue points.
Hey, pay attention: just like your self-idenfitication can be wrong, so can your labeling of other people. And it's not "outing" someone when you're lying or are mistaken about that person. This reflexive tendency to label people bigots at the first sign of disagreement is counter-productive and malicous. Remember when right-wingers accuse liberals or wanting to take all guns away or murder babies or turn the US into a marxist state? That's exactly what you're doing.
You're losing the plot. If someone gets fired because some guy from New York calls their employer and identifies the employee as a bigot, that is a weird employer. You normally have to show what bigoted thing they did or said was. If the employer agrees, well, that person should really consider that maybe they are being bigoted.
And you'll note that I haven't actually called you a bigot. You're doing the straw man thing, but you obviously do believe your straw man. I'm sure someone calls you a bigot, but it isn't at first disagreement.
That comparison would work if I was somehow arguing that I had all the defining characteristics of a bigot but just wanted to not be one because I didn't identify as it.
Ah, but you do have all the definint characteristics of a bigot, see? You disagree with some members here about who should be considered a woman. That's all that's needed, apparently
Exactly! Joe, you have made this exact rant before. You know how upset you get when people think something can't be racism, just because the person doing or saying that something isn't a self-identified racist?
You don't have to be a capital b bigot to say bigoted things or use bigoted reasoning. You don't have to be a villain. Also, and I think you know this one but I'll add it anyway, being called a bigot, or racist, or sexist even wrongfully doesn't make you
right in the statements that led to the inaccurate label.
The entire 'hierarchy of victims' is actually how some (many?) people appear to model these sorts of interactions, but it is FAR from the only model or explanation for various stances. It would be for people who think not giving a subset of cis women's beliefs privilege over all others is 'throwing women under the bus'. It would be for people who don't think they could be 'the villain' because they're a 'real woman' and that means 'victim', never perp. But I'll tell you right now for me who I 'side' with go with the merits of the case. I'll 'side' with men when college rape accusations don't leave them with proper protections or due process, and then turn around and 'side' against them when college systems too easily brush rape/sexual assault (to not confuse the UK population) under the rug. When a subset of cis women are doing wrong by trans women, I'll side with the trans women. When trans women do wrong by cis women, I'll 'side' with the cis women (and there is a police report with my name as a complainant to prove that, although another trans woman is too, so is that being against trans women?). It's not about 'allegiance' but the merits of the case.
Just a general suggestion for this discussion (or any discussion):
I think it will be more productive if we all try to use the principle of charity and not assume the worst motives or the worst interpretation of other's posts, where possible.
https://theness.com/neurologicablog...error-straw-men-and-the-principle-of-charity/
I have gone back and forth on the issue myself. I don't want to be a bigot or unkind to anyone, but the skeptic in me wonders what is the underlying truth.
The motives generally don't matter regardless next to the merits of the argument. But people do get hung up on their own personal identity as 'a feminist' or 'not-bigoted' or 'skeptic' and it constrains their reasoning. 'I wouldn't fall for that because I'm a skeptic'. 'I wouldn't say something bigoted because I'm not a bigot.'
If the motivations get in the way of advancement, then it might be worth exploring. In such cases, it's better to try to go for the abstract. Doesn't work when people instantly personalize criticisms of their statements.
To be fair, I'm not taking this thread as seriously anymore because generally speaking those being trans 'critical' reject the best evidence that science (and the medical community) has. I'm not reading as closely because it's all circles again. As long as people won't incorporate the best understanding of the medical community, there isn't much of a point in discussing with them.
