TERFs crash London Pride

kellyb said:
I think the gender critical/anti-transgender argument is that regardless of if it's biological to feel like or want to be the other sex, that alone doesn't obligate everyone else pretend that it's true that the other person is the other sex.
Click to expand...
As Luchog says, that’s more just the But Facts Say purist position. You run into it a lot but it’s a general heel-digging position and usually doesn’t come with as much anti-trans sentiment as just anti-politically-correct sentiment; they see it as being told not to correct facts and they haaate that.
 
Lithrael said:
they see it as being told not to correct facts and they haaate that.
Click to expand...

Oh no, it's a lot more than that, isn't it? Suppose I believe the Earth is flat, then it's one thing to demand that you not correct it to me, but it's quite another to demand that you must publicly proclaim to everyone else that you too believe that the Earth is flat even when I'm not around.

(as per your post in the other thread where you stated that this "politeness" thing - which you for some inscrutable reason seem to value so much - demands that I must use "he" or "she" - ie state that I believe individual X is male/female - as well, to everyone else, even when individual X is not around)
 
caveman1917 said:
Oh no, it's a lot more than that, isn't it? Suppose I believe the Earth is flat, then it's one thing to demand that you not correct it to me, but it's quite another to demand that you must publicly proclaim to everyone else that you too believe that the Earth is flat even when I'm not around.

(as per your post in the other thread where you stated that this "politeness" thing - which you for some inscrutable reason seem to value so much - demands that I must use "he" or "she" - ie state that I believe individual X is male/female - as well, to everyone else, even when individual X is not around)
Click to expand...

Oh no, it's a lot less than that, isn't it? This "politeness" thing demands that you must use "he" or "she" - ie state that you understand individual X considers themselves to be male/female - as well, to everyone else, even when individual X is not around, because to do otherwise will inevitably get back to them, and so is not any better than simply not doing it to their face.

A person is required to supply a gender for social interaction. As long as people don't have a choice in that matter, I don't see the analogy to all these other 'what if they really believe x, do I have to pretend it's true' arguments. People can believe any number of ridiculous things and practically never be faced with the choice of telling you what they believe or lying about what they believe in order to tell you what they know you want to hear.
 
Still no evidence that the York Civic Trust was caving to the demands of radical trans activists, or was planning to erase Lister's sexual orientation from history...
But good on those women to have petitioned for a change in the wording if they thought it was important to mention she was a lesbian, I guess.
 
caveman1917 said:
Oh no, it's a lot more than that, isn't it? Suppose I believe the Earth is flat, then it's one thing to demand that you not correct it to me, but it's quite another to demand that you must publicly proclaim to everyone else that you too believe that the Earth is flat even when I'm not around.

(as per your post in the other thread where you stated that this "politeness" thing - which you for some inscrutable reason seem to value so much - demands that I must use "he" or "she" - ie state that I believe individual X is male/female - as well, to everyone else, even when individual X is not around)
Click to expand...

White people should be allowed to use the N-word too. Otherwise it's just racism.
 
Rolfe said:
Really interesting Twitter thread here by Tracy King.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1026889702543122433.html

What she says about anti-feminists is partcularly striking in the light of this conversation.
Click to expand...

She doesn't say much at all, except to say that some men in skeptic circles are anti-feminists. Not a great surprise, some men in most groupings probably are.

tkingdoll said:
Turned out the male-dominated movement had a bunch of sexists in it. There was an early Me Too type thing, bunch of the biggest names turned out to be sex pests, others turned out to be racists, anti feminists or other types of wankers.
Click to expand...

Saying that it "had a bunch of sexists" is not the same as saying they were all a bunch of sexists.

tkingdoll said:
WAIT come back I’m not actually done. Need to acknowledge that skeptics also fell afoul of ‘beliefs as identity’, lots of ‘I’m a Skeptic therefore always right’ nonsense which is best illustrated by the horrorshow that was the Atheism+ movement.

Again, not a coincidence that ‘new atheism’ was populated by aggressive, often anti-feminist men. Identity politics has a critical thinking problem and critical thinking has an identity politics problem. All movements do. Not all are about intellectual superiority though.
Click to expand...

Again, it appears she is talking about a subset of a subset. I'm not denying there are sexists and anti-feminists in skepticism; I disagree that they are typical of men in skepticism.
 
zooterkin said:
Again, it appears she is talking about a subset of a subset. I'm not denying there are sexists and anti-feminists in skepticism; I disagree that they are typical of men in skepticism.
Click to expand...

I can agree with this; it’s just the other side of the coin of some sexists and some misandrists in feminism. I might go as far as to compare radfems to atheism+ for higher percentages of people I wouldn’t want to talk to. But I try not to let either extreme ruin my good time.
 
Rolfe said:
Really interesting Twitter thread here by Tracy King.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1026889702543122433.html

What she says about anti-feminists is partcularly striking in the light of this conversation.
Click to expand...

zooterkin said:
Again, it appears she is talking about a subset of a subset. I'm not denying there are sexists and anti-feminists in skepticism; I disagree that they are typical of men in skepticism.
Click to expand...


Also failing to see what relevance that particular rant has to the OP.
 
At least she didn't necessarily group "anti-feminist" and "sexist" as one entity.

There are also femininsts in the movement and have been forever. Some of the most prominent members are. I don't really see what the point is that is being made. Not everyone agrees with you in a movement? (GOOD, imo)
 
Lithrael said:
Oh no, it's a lot less than that, isn't it? This "politeness" thing demands that you must use "he" or "she" - ie state that you understand individual X considers themselves to be male/female - as well, to everyone else, even when individual X is not around, because to do otherwise will inevitably get back to them, and so is not any better than simply not doing it to their face.
Click to expand...

It does open a question though: how much deference must one give to someone else's self-identification?
 
As much or as little as you want to give, I'd say.

If someone self-identifies as a jaguar, or a unicorn, do we have to understand that we must always refer to them in that way, as if it was really physically true, even when they're not around, just in case it gets back to them and they get all hurt about it?
 
Belz... said:
It does open a question though: how much deference must one give to someone else's self-identification?
Click to expand...


That depends on how much or how little of a dick you want to be to them. Personally, I'm leaning toward "don't be a dick"; especially since the science is increasingly supporting gender identity as being a separate quality from physical sex, and grounded in neurology rather than reproductive organs.

Rolfe said:
As much or as little as you want to give, I'd say.

If someone self-identifies as a jaguar, or a unicorn, do we have to understand that we must always refer to them in that way, as if it was really physically true, even when they're not around, just in case it gets back to them and they get all hurt about it?
Click to expand...


There are just not enough eyeroll emoticons for this tired old false-equivalency canard. Gender identity, gay marriage, sexual preference, interracial marriage, is there nothing this particular brand of fallacy cannot be used to denigrate and dismiss?

But being that you're someone who happily believes in the most ridiculous conspiracy theories surrounding the issue, I'm not at all surprised that you'd resort to false equivalencies as well. Got any other tired old woo tactics to trot out?
 
Last edited:
luchog said:
That depends on how much or how little of a dick you want to be to them. Personally, I'm leaning toward "don't be a dick"; especially since the science is increasingly supporting gender identity as being a separate quality from physical sex, and grounded in neurology rather than reproductive organs.




There are just not enough eyeroll emoticons for this tired old false-equivalency canard. Gender identity, gay marriage, sexual preference, interracial marriage, is there nothing this particular brand of fallacy cannot be used to denigrate and dismiss?

But being that you're someone who happily believes in the most ridiculous conspiracy theories surrounding the issue, I'm not at all surprised that you'd resort to false equivalencies as well. Got any other tired old woo tactics to trot out?
Click to expand...

Personally know a guy who is convinced since age 20 or so he is part dragon. Otherwise normal guy, but he believes with 100 per cent conviction somewhere in his lineage there is a dragon. There are more like him to varying extents, these are real, otherwise sane people.

Why is the line drawn right before them? Doesn't it seem a bit strange that the threshold for "well that is just silly" starts exactly when you think things are silly? Isn't this exactly what the other side is doing?

Maybe we need to take a serious look at what one can be reasonably expected to agree to instead of just drawing arbitrary lines exactly where our personal "that is silly " lines are. Seems a way to actually move this conversation forward to me.
 
sadhatter said:
Personally know a guy who is convinced since age 20 or so he is part dragon. Otherwise normal guy, but he believes with 100 per cent conviction somewhere in his lineage there is a dragon. There are more like him to varying extents, these are real, otherwise sane people.

Why is the line drawn right before them? Doesn't it seem a bit strange that the threshold for "well that is just silly" starts exactly when you think things are silly? Isn't this exactly what the other side is doing?

Maybe we need to take a serious look at what one can be reasonably expected to agree to instead of just drawing arbitrary lines exactly where our personal "that is silly " lines are. Seems a way to actually move this conversation forward to me.
Click to expand...


What does the trusted peer-reviewed literature say about your dragon friend's identity?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom