The Hazards of Belief

One eyed Jack

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are you arguing that everything that's taught in schools is axiomatically true?

Good grief no, just pointing out that Michael appeared to be suggesting that Mr Arsuagas claim is incorrect or intended to be deceptive or ambiguous in some way -

Mr Arsuaga claimed the slogan on the bus stated only "a fact of biology that is studied in schools".

I don't think there's anything incorrect in that statement. It is taught and studied in schools as a fact of biology that men have a penis, and women have a vulva.

oscarBravo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Good grief no, just pointing out that Michael appeared to be suggesting that Mr Arsuagas claim is incorrect or intended to be deceptive or ambiguous in some way -

Mr Arsuaga claimed the slogan on the bus stated only "a fact of biology that is studied in schools".

I don't think there's anything incorrect in that statement.

There are two things incorrect in it. One is the idea that the slogan on the bus is a "fact", and the other is that it's "only" a statement of a fact.

You've accepted that not everything taught in schools is a fact, so we're agreed that that's one thing that's incorrect. As for it being "only" a statement of a fact, it's clearly much more: it's intended as an attack on transgender people, and the wide-eyed ingenuity act isn't fooling anyone.

It is taught and studied in schools as a fact of biology that men have a penis, and women have a vulva.

That doesn't make it true, and it doesn't make the reasons for putting it on a bus any less nefarious.

One eyed Jack

oscarBravo wrote: »

As for it being "only" a statement of a fact, it's clearly much more: it's intended as an attack on transgender people, and the wide-eyed ingenuity act isn't fooling anyone.

As wide-eyed ingenuity acts go that aren't fooling anyone, a statement like this, isn't fooling anyone either -

The bus is believed to be a response to posters put up in northern Spain by a transgender rights group, which read: "There are girls with penises and boys with vulvas. It's as simple as that."

That doesn't make it true, and it doesn't make the reasons for putting it on a bus any less nefarious.

What it is, as far as I can see, and I don't judge either statement as nefarious in it's intent, is a challenge to the first statement.I wouldn't encourage anyone to blindly accept as fact without question, that which they are simply told to accept is true.

That, to my mind at least, is motivated by nefarious intent, and people should absolutely have the freedom to challenge ideas and question them. If we blindly accept truths as fact, then are we actually any closer to gaining any greater understanding? I don't think we are, not if we seek to silence people whose ideology is worlds apart from our own. That creates an unquestioning echo chamber, which I for one at least, would want no part in.

oscarBravo

The statement by the transgender rights group is one of inclusivity. It has no negative impact on any cisgender people whatsoever; it doesn't try to dictate to anyone what their gender is.

You can't say the same of the retaliatory statement. It tells transgender people: this is what your gender is. Deal with it.

The statements are not equivalent.

silverharp

oscarBravo wrote: »

The statement by the transgender rights group is one of inclusivity. It has no negative impact on any cisgender people whatsoever; it doesn't try to dictate to anyone what their gender is.

You can't say the same of the retaliatory statement. It tells transgender people: this is what your gender is. Deal with it.

The statements are not equivalent.

In fairness I'd object if I saw those posters floating around where I lived

EDIT: Image here - http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/1839D/production/_94892299_transposter.jpg

robindch

^^^ Image removed and replaced with link to image to avoid frankly obvious problems.

silverharp

robindch wrote: »

^^^ Image removed and replaced with link to image to avoid frankly obvious problems.

No problem, at least you agree its problematic , its not exactly something I'd like seeing poster size in a public space.

Michael OBrien

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is it not a fact of biology that is taught in schools?

Is it? Then it is wrong. The issue is that it is not a fact of biology, and looking to the least credible sources for science in our educational systems is not an honest way of portraying what people think of as true.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I like how you like to play the innocent when it comes to a strike against Roman Catholics, particularly when most theologians would recognise it's not that clear cut.

I don't think you know what 'play the innocent' means.
I was raised catholic, and catholics are taught what I said, only with some flowerly words to make it more mystical (e.g. holy spirit instead of ghost). Theologians don't matter, you can get theologians to disagree on anything you want and will pronouce that the 'real' meaning of a passage is anything they want it to say. They don't reflect actual beliefs at all held by 99.99% of catholics.

seamus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is it not a fact of biology that is taught in schools?

Well, break it down there for a second.

Define "man", for a start.

You can be born with male DNA and with female genitalia. How does this pair up with the "if you were born a ____, then you are a ___" decree?

The biology that's taught in schools is heavily simplified. It's not incorrect, it just should never be assumed to be the full story from beginning to end. Particularly where it comes to genetics, there is far too much complexity to be adequately covered in a school curriculum. It's a doctorate all on its own.

And that's before you even consider the idea that "man" is in fact a philosophical concept and not one that is tied to genetics.

One eyed Jack

oscarBravo wrote: »

The statement by the transgender rights group is one of inclusivity. It has no negative impact on any cisgender people whatsoever; it doesn't try to dictate to anyone what their gender is.

It's intent is to exclude people who disagree with them, and if anyone dares make their disagreement public, they will be punished in public. That's not inclusive.

You can't say the same of the retaliatory statement. It tells transgender people: this is what your gender is. Deal with it.

The statements are not equivalent.

Isn't that what some people who are transgender will try and enforce upon everyone else? That they get to decide their gender, and the rest of society should "deal with it"? That's a political position on a social construct, it sure as hell ain't biology, and it certainly isn't in any way scientific. The statements are entirely equivalent but opposing perspectives on the issue of gender identity.

Michael OBrien

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As wide-eyed ingenuity acts go that aren't fooling anyone, a statement like this, isn't fooling anyone either -

Quote:
The bus is believed to be a response to posters put up in northern Spain by a transgender rights group, which read: "There are girls with penises and boys with vulvas. It's as simple as that."

This IS a fact. It is not generalizing or slurring anyone. What is your problem with this slogan? There is no comparison.

Michael OBrien

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's intent is to exclude people who disagree with them, and if anyone dares make their disagreement public, they will be punished in public. That's not inclusive.





Isn't that what some people who are transgender will try and enforce upon everyone else? That they get to decide their gender, and the rest of society should "deal with it"? That's a political position on a social construct, it sure as hell ain't biology, and it certainly isn't in any way scientific. The statements are entirely equivalent but opposing perspectives on the issue of gender identity.

There is a huge difference. The first is seeking personal rights to decide their gender. The second is to force gender on third parties.
Transgenders don't claim that there are no boys and girls. The guys under discussion are claiming there are no transgenders.

One eyed Jack

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Is it? Then it is wrong. The issue is that it is not a fact of biology, and looking to the least credible sources for science in our educational systems is not an honest way of portraying what people think of as true.

What 99.99% of people believe as true is that boys have a penis, and girls have a vulva. I know this is in Spain, but I feel it's worth noting that Germany recognises a third legal gender identity of intersex, so Germans at least will be taught to understand that things are a tad more nuanced when it comes to gender identity and sex determination at birth.

The least credible source for science would also include political beliefs, but science has been driven by politics since the big bang, which was a theory first put forward by a priest.

I don't think you know what 'play the innocent' means.
I was raised catholic, and catholics are taught what I said, only with some flowerly words to make it more mystical (e.g. holy spirit instead of ghost). Theologians don't matter, you can get theologians to disagree on anything you want and will pronouce that the 'real' meaning of a passage is anything they want it to say. They don't reflect actual beliefs at all held by 99.99% of catholics.

Then you'll understand that what people are taught, and what they actually believe, are often two separate and distinct positions. As it happens, I'm Roman Catholic, still am, and I struggle with many of the doctrines of the faith. That's why I suggested theologians, because like the experts in biology you mention, the same can be said of the theologians whi are considered experts in theology, that's why you can get an evolutionary biologist whose social commentary consists of "abort and try again" with regard to the issue of foetuses diagnosed with downs syndrome. He is pushing his own political ideology, because again - that sure as hell ain't science.

silverharp

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Transgenders don't claim that there are no boys and girls. .

Im sure most dont but there is always someone trying to muddy the water :pac:


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/2/university-historian-biological-sex-misconception/

University of Toronto historian: Biological sex a ‘very popular misconception’

A lecturer at the University of Toronto says the notion of “biological sex” — that humans are born either male or female — is a “very popular misconception.”
Nick Matte, an historian who teaches a class on transgender studies as a part of the university’s Sexual Diversity Studies program, said the science has long been settled on the matter, reported Red Alert Politics.

Michael OBrien

silverharp wrote: »

Im sure most dont but there is always someone trying to muddy the water :pac:


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/2/university-historian-biological-sex-misconception/

Just reading that quote does not cause any issue. I said that they don't disagree with there being boys and girls, not that there are ONLY boys and girls. Hence intersex being a third situation.
"that humans are born either male or female — is a “very popular misconception.”" is absolutely true. Hence the effort to inform people that it is a misconception. This does not mean there are no male and females, only that there are MORE than those two outcomes.

Michael OBrien

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The least credible source for science would also include political beliefs, but science has been driven by politics since the big bang, which was a theory first put forward by a priest.

He was also a physicist. That might have more to do with his findings than being ALSO a priest. He advised the pope not to tie their faith to it when the pope wanted to declare the big bang as true to his flock.
Also I said that least credible source IN OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM, not anywhere. Schools are given often outdated science as it takes at least a decade for new science to filter down to school books. They are also heavily simplified so that to give a ground floor understanding of the subject. They are in no way an authority on what is actually true and a good teacher would know that what they are teaching may be outofdate or overly edited.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Then you'll understand that what people are taught, and what they actually believe, are often two separate and distinct positions. As it happens, I'm Roman Catholic, still am, and I struggle with many of the doctrines of the faith. That's why I suggested theologians, because like the experts in biology you mention, the same can be said of the theologians whi are considered experts in theology, that's why you can get an evolutionary biologist whose social commentary consists of "abort and try again" with regard to the issue of foetuses diagnosed with downs syndrome. He is pushing his own political ideology, because again - that sure as hell ain't science.

There is no comparison with theologians and scientists. Scientists work towards disproving current models and testing and challenging models of reality. Peer review is a constant barrage on all new ideas and old ones forever.
Theologians do the opposite. They are not remotely comparible. While some are interesting to read up on, to see how they interpret texts and their insights into their interpretations of scriptures, they do not work from anything similar to the model of science. Hence why there are theologians that support every religious view out there.

silverharp

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Just reading that quote does not cause any issue. I said that they don't disagree with there being boys and girls, not that there are ONLY boys and girls. Hence intersex being a third situation.
"that humans are born either male or female — is a “very popular misconception.”" is absolutely true. Hence the effort to inform people that it is a misconception. This does not mean there are no male and females, only that there are MORE than those two outcomes.

the way I see it is that humans like all mammals are a 2 sex species , simple as, anything else is a genetic disorder. its like saying humans are a binocular species , anyone born with only 1 eye is still human

Michael OBrien

silverharp wrote: »

the way I see it is that humans like all mammals are a 2 sex species , simple as, anything else is a genetic disorder. its like saying humans are a binocular species , anyone born with only 1 eye is still human

The issue is that there are exceptions to how we develop and those people end up falling through a gap in our social sphere. The issue is they should have the RIGHT to decide how THEY wish to be classified as they are the exception.
You cannot derive rights of human beings by saying that because they don't match the norm or accepted view, they don't count and the majority gets to dictate their rights to them. they are natural, just not common. They are not making it up for attention. They deserve recognition and equal rights.

One eyed Jack

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Hence why there are theologians that support every religious view out there.

The comparison is valid insofar as biologists and theologians would be experts in their respective fields. Scientists disagree among themselves all the time, and you will easily find scientists who will support every political view out there. Remember the Ugandan scientist who was paid by the State to use magnets to explain homosexuality to the public?

I wouldn't entirely place my faith in science either, not when the peer review system itself is under review for the fact that it has been shown to be biased in a number of ways. I always encourage a healthy degree of scepticism and questioning rather than blind acceptance without question just because it suits us. That too would be a hazard of belief without question.

Michael OBrien

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The comparison is valid insofar as biologists and theologians would be experts in their respective fields. Scientists disagree among themselves all the time, and you will easily find scientists who will support every political view out there. Remember the Ugandan scientist who was paid by the State to use magnets to explain homosexuality to the public?

I wouldn't entirely place my faith in science either, not when the peer review system itself is under review for the fact that it has been shown to be biased in a number of ways. I always encourage a healthy degree of scepticism and questioning rather than blind acceptance without question just because it suits us. That too would be a hazard of belief without question.

Well the issue is that the fields under discussion are not comparible. Theologians study their holy texts, not god. They cannot go beyond that. At most theologians can find some copies that were older than the copies they previous had, which might spark renewed debate.
Scientists study reality, which expands with new discoveries all the time.
If god was actually around, and theologians could test their viewpoints directly from him, and therefore be falseifiable, you might have a case.
But otherwise you would need to compare theologians to scientists who spend their career trying to interpret Newtons 'Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica' and work towards proving it true no matter what without ever doing new research on reality at all.

As far as being sceptical of science, of course. Peer review is imperfect, it is however, to my knowledge, the BEST current way of doing science.
Outliers like that scientist using magnets to explain homosexuality gets his credibility utterly destroyed. No one will take him seriously within the scientific community if he cannot back it up with facts. Politics only goes so far. Reality is where its at. IF the science cannot predict things accurately then it fails. No politics can change that. Technology does not work on wishes, it works on facts.

One eyed Jack

Michael OBrien wrote: »

The issue is that there are exceptions to how we develop and those people end up falling through a gap in our social sphere. The issue is they should have the RIGHT to decide how THEY wish to be classified as they are the exception.
You cannot derive rights of human beings by saying that because they don't match the norm or accepted view, they don't count and the majority gets to dictate their rights to them. they are natural, just not common. They are not making it up for attention. They deserve recognition and equal rights.

They absolutely do, no disagreement from me there. However, in order for that recognition and their rights to be recognised and actually mean anything, they must be determined objectively, with regard to everyone in a society, and not just 0.03% of the members of that society who see it as their right to determine their rights subjectively and expect that other people should recognise their rights to determine their own identity. That's not how rights with any legal recognition work.

Without the right to freedom of expression for example, they would never have had the right to publish posters like that in public spaces.

One eyed Jack

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Technology does not work on wishes, it works on facts.

Ahh now, I was with you all the way up to the end there. Perhaps it would surely be more accurate to suggest that technology is driven and inspired by wishes, which often defy reality and facts, which is a good thing IMO for society, as Leonardo DaVinci and the Wright brothers will testify to. Good thing they didn't just shrug their shoulders when they were taught that humans cannot fly.

Michael OBrien

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They absolutely do, no disagreement from me there. However, in order for that recognition and their rights to be recognised and actually mean anything, they must be determined objectively, with regard to everyone in a society, and not just 0.03% of the members of that society who see it as their right to determine their rights subjectively and expect that other people should recognise their rights to determine their own identity. That's not how rights with any legal recognition work.

Without the right to freedom of expression for example, they would never have had the right to publish posters like that in public spaces.

I am not sure I understand. They are seeking rights, just like gays did/do, or women or poor. The other group does have to agree to that, for their rights to actually mean something, otherwise its hypothetical and rather pointless. However the groups seeking recognition are seeking equal rights that are ALREADY accepted by the majority, but the majority had excluded the group seeking the rights from. Transgender are seeking equal rights, not privilages. They want to be able to select the gender they are most compatible with, not one OTHER people declared THEY are most comfortable with. I am a male, I am happy with that. I would be shocked if a society demanded I be classed as female or intersex.
Here is a simple thought experiment. Imagine a world where intersex and female (or male if you are female) is the norm. Now you are biologically different to those, you may be rare, but you do not see yourself as female or intersex and wish to come up with a gender that matches your situation and others come forward with the same issue and then ask for 'male' to be recognised as a valid third option to include them. Now bring forward the argument you gave against that and see if it is fair.

silverharp

Michael OBrien wrote: »

The issue is that there are exceptions to how we develop and those people end up falling through a gap in our social sphere. The issue is they should have the RIGHT to decide how THEY wish to be classified as they are the exception.
You cannot derive rights of human beings by saying that because they don't match the norm or accepted view, they don't count and the majority gets to dictate their rights to them. they are natural, just not common. They are not making it up for attention. They deserve recognition and equal rights.

Im not saying they shouldn't be treated with respect or they are making it up although it has opened the door to the nonsense 57 Tumblr genders where they are making it up.
You can treat people with respect without turning language upside down but also the majority does have rights too. For adults Im not too fussed , but I wouldn't like the idea of introducing all this newly concocted gender stuff into schools for example, for whatever reason one might end up having false positives

Michael OBrien

silverharp wrote: »

Im not saying they shouldn't be treated with respect or they are making it up although it has opened the door to the nonsense 57 Tumblr genders where they are making it up.
You can treat people with respect without turning language upside down but also the majority does have rights too. For adults Im not too fussed , but I wouldn't like the idea of introducing all this newly concocted gender stuff into schools for example, for whatever reason one might end up having false positives

I don't support 57 genders. Look I seek tolerance and equality under many headings, secularism, atheism, humanism, etc. That does not mean I agree with every person's view on the topic, even if nominally they seem to be on 'my' side.
I doubt most trans are enamoured with tumblr crap. Don't fall for the slippery slope fallacy "if we accept one change then where will it end". The same stuff is used for EVERY social change put forward "change marriage and you will have people marrying telephones next" or "non belief in a god cannot be allowed or we will have mass murder and rape as society collapses due to no objective morality."

Michael OBrien

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ahh now, I was with you all the way up to the end there. Perhaps it would surely be more accurate to suggest that technology is driven and inspired by wishes, which often defy reality and facts, which is a good thing IMO for society, as Leonardo DaVinci and the Wright brothers will testify to. Good thing they didn't just shrug their shoulders when they were taught that humans cannot fly.

I assume this was just light banter and not actually a rebuttal.

DaVinci and the Wright brothers did not make flight possible because they wished to fly, they made it possible because they studied reality and found a way to MAKE it possible to fly. Motivation is one thing, but without facts it ends up with disaster.

One eyed Jack

Michael OBrien wrote: »

I am not sure I understand. They are seeking rights, just like gays did/do, or women or poor. The other group does have to agree to that, for their rights to actually mean something, otherwise its hypothetical and rather pointless. However the groups seeking recognition are seeking equal rights that are ALREADY accepted by the majority, but the majority had excluded the group seeking the rights from. Transgender are seeking equal rights, not privilages. They want to be able to select the gender they are most compatible with, not one OTHER people declared THEY are most comfortable with. I am a male, I am happy with that. I would be shocked if a society demanded I be classed as female or intersex.
Here is a simple thought experiment. Imagine a world where intersex and female (or male if you are female) is the norm. Now you are biologically different to those, you may be rare, but you do not see yourself as female or intersex and wish to come up with a gender that matches your situation and others come forward with the same issue and then ask for 'male' to be recognised as a valid third option to include them. Now bring forward the argument you gave against that and see if it is fair.

The way to do that though, IMO, in a way that has been shown to be effective, is through dialogue, and helping people to understand, rather than simply demand that people agree with their perspective by telling people "it's that simple". It really isn't, and there should be no punishment IMO for daring to question or challenge an ideology. They wouldn't like if it were done to them, so doing it to others when they get a sniff of power, will create a backlash effect that will serve society no good whatsoever. That's how they ended up with Trump in the States who reversed Obamas previous executive order that trampled all over other people's rights.

Michael OBrien

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The way to do that though, IMO, in a way that has been shown to be effective, is through dialogue, and helping people to understand, rather than simply demand that people agree with their perspective by telling people "it's that simple". It really isn't, and there should be no punishment IMO for daring to question or challenge an ideology. They wouldn't like if it were done to them, so doing it to others when they get a sniff of power, will create a backlash effect that will serve society no good whatsoever. That's how they ended up with Trump in the States who reversed Obamas previous executive order that trampled all over other people's rights.

I accept open dialogue, if dialogue can be fruitful. Do you think dialogue with certain groups of people that hate transgenders or gays or atheists, based on religious zealotry or patriotic conservatism will achieve much? Do you think this group is amenable to dialogue? Or are they simply looking to discredit transgenderist activism. (I refer to groups not individuals, people change their minds, such groups generally don't).
I dialogue with people in public on secularism and atheism every month. I meet preachers and priests (usually ok) as well as some hardline catholics (pretty bad). I am happy to discuss issues where genuine misunderstanding occurs, but there are some people that CANNOT be reasoned with because their 'reason' behind their objections are totally irrational, based on hatred and fear that comes from areas within their minds that have not seen the light of day for decades.
"...that trampled all over other people's rights". Mostly that had to do with not being allowed to discriminate against other people who sought equality under the law. Obama was fiercely blocked by republicans wherever possible and to advance equal rights he had to take such measures.
Trump is quite happy to pander to evangelical hatred and bigotry, as he does not see it hurting him. There are christian groups that salivate at the chance to hurt minorities legally again. But we are moving off topic.

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The way to do that though, IMO, in a way that has been shown to be effective, is through dialogue, and helping people to understand, rather than simply demand that people agree with their perspective by telling people "it's that simple". It really isn't, and there should be no punishment IMO for daring to question or challenge an ideology. They wouldn't like if it were done to them, so doing it to others when they get a sniff of power, will create a backlash effect that will serve society no good whatsoever. That's how they ended up with Trump in the States who reversed Obamas previous executive order that trampled all over other people's rights.

By giving me or someone else rights how exactly are your rights affected ?

silverharp

Michael OBrien wrote: »

I don't support 57 genders. Look I seek tolerance and equality under many headings, secularism, atheism, humanism, etc. That does not mean I agree with every person's view on the topic, even if nominally they seem to be on 'my' side.
I doubt most trans are enamoured with tumblr crap. Don't fall for the slippery slope fallacy "if we accept one change then where will it end". The same stuff is used for EVERY social change put forward "change marriage and you will have people marrying telephones next" or "non belief in a god cannot be allowed or we will have mass murder and rape as society collapses due to no objective morality."

Case by case. Tolerance or equality aren't enough to always make good decisions , there are going to be multiple parameters

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

By giving me or someone else rights how exactly are your rights affected ?

It depends upon what rights you're talking about. I'm all for giving everyone more rights, I'm all for giving those rights legal recognition, but rights must be balanced with responsibilities, rights must be balanced with the fact that other people have rights too. People have the right to disagree that other people's perceived rights deserve legal recognition.

Michael OBrien

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It depends upon what rights you're talking about. I'm all for giving everyone more rights, I'm all for giving those rights legal recognition, but rights must be balanced with responsibilities, rights must be balanced with the fact that other people have rights too. People have the right to disagree that other people's perceived rights deserve legal recognition.

There is a long list of people on the wrong side of history that fall into that category. They are able to air their views quite a lot.
Does the consequences matter in regard to the damage to actual people. On one side people are seeking to be recognised as a legal subcategory that can seek protection under the law and on the other side there are people that don't want that to happen because they enjoy the status quo.

See women's rights, abolitionists, gay rights, atheist rights, etc for examples of this.

One eyed Jack

Michael OBrien wrote: »

There is a long list of people on the wrong side of history that fall into that category. They are able to air their views quite a lot.
Does the consequences matter in regard to the damage to actual people. On one side people are seeking to be recognised as a legal subcategory that can seek protection under the law and on the other side there are people that don't want that to happen because they enjoy the status quo.

See women's rights, abolitionists, gay rights, atheist rights, etc for examples of this.

I've seen all the ideological positions (including religions, since we're here), and there are people who are on the wrong side of history who thought that they could demand that the majority acquiesce to their way of thinking, or be punished. Hazards of belief cut both ways.

Michael OBrien

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It depends upon what rights you're talking about. I'm all for giving everyone more rights, I'm all for giving those rights legal recognition, but rights must be balanced with responsibilities, rights must be balanced with the fact that other people have rights too. People have the right to disagree that other people's perceived rights deserve legal recognition.

I am curious, but how is the part in bold relevant to this issue. Transpeople are not seeking to infringe on other peoples rights. IF you mean the 'right' to discriminate against trans, that is a privilage not a right. My rights stop when they take your rights away.
So for example if a trans business refused to serve a catholic because the church was pretty transphobic, then they would be in the wrong because their business is to the public and discrimination is wrong. Same in reverse.
A right does not allow one to discriminate illegally against another person.
This is why trans and gays and atheists and minorities in general seek legal protection under the law, so they are not ruled by the majority. The law makes everyone equal as much as possible, in a fair society.

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It depends upon what rights you're talking about. I'm all for giving everyone more rights, I'm all for giving those rights legal recognition, but rights must be balanced with responsibilities, rights must be balanced with the fact that other people have rights too. People have the right to disagree that other people's perceived rights deserve legal recognition.

So if I you disagree with women having the vote - is that a valid position ?

Michael OBrien

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I've seen all the ideological positions (including religions, since we're here), and there are people who are on the wrong side of history who thought that they could demand that the majority acquiesce to their way of thinking, or be punished. Hazards of belief cut both ways.

So, what exactly are the rights you find being taken away by the transgendered? People are free to discuss it, the issue here is, are you free to spread misinformation about them, to see persecution against them, etc and claim it just 'free speech'. We recognise that hate speech is an issue that has knock on effects. It is not just theoretical.

While there are plenty of areas that need to be clarified on this topic, I cannot fathom why people think spreading misinformation is ok. This bus advert was a lie, in its intent. We know there are people with mixed genders. Hence saying they don't exist is a lie and that is the intent of that group.

oscarBravo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm all for giving everyone more rights, I'm all for giving those rights legal recognition...

Yay.

...but rights must be balanced with responsibilities...

OK. What responsibilities are required as a balance to the right not to have a gender imposed on you?

By way of example, can you explain what your responsibilities are, that balance your right not to be told "you're a woman, deal with it"?

(I'm fairly sure you're a man, but feel free to correct as appropriate.)

...rights must be balanced with the fact that other people have rights too.

OK. What rights do other people have that are infringed by allowing people's gender to be recognised? For example, whose rights do we have to balance against your right to be considered a man?

People have the right to disagree that other people's perceived rights deserve legal recognition.

They do? Do I have the right to disagree with women having the right to vote? Do I have the right to disagree with black people's right not to be slaves?

I mean, sure: I have the right to be an arsehole. The question is, does my right to be an arsehole supersede the rights I disagree with? And if not, why even bring it up?

One eyed Jack

Michael OBrien wrote: »

I am curious, but how is the part in bold relevant to this issue. Transpeople are not seeking to infringe on other peoples rights. IF you mean the 'right' to discriminate against trans, that is a privilage not a right. My rights stop when they take your rights away.

The transgender rights group in this case certainly sought to infringe on another groups freedom of expression, because they dared to have a difference of opinion.

So for example if a trans business refused to serve a catholic because the church was pretty transphobic, then they would be in the wrong because their business is to the public and discrimination is wrong. Same in reverse.

I've never agreed with private businesses being forced to do business with people they don't want to do business with in the first place. If a business didn't want to serve Catholics, I'd have no problem with it, I'd simply take my business elsewhere.

A right does not allow one to discriminate illegally against another person.
This is why trans and gays and atheists and minorities in general seek legal protection under the law, so they are not ruled by the majority. The law makes everyone equal as much as possible, in a fair society.

In a fair society, there's no such thing as everyone having equal rights under the law IMO. It's not that I would want minorities ruled by the majority, but I wouldn't want the reverse either.

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

So if I you disagree with women having the vote - is that a valid position ?

It's not a position that I personally would hold, but I would never deny anyone the right to disagree with women having the vote. Other people are just as entitled to disagree. A good example of this would be a women's rights march which excluded women who wanted to march for women's rights according to original feminist theory which objected to abortion.

One eyed Jack

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yay. OK. What responsibilities are required as a balance to the right not to have a gender imposed on you?

Recently there have been attempts by transgender rights groups to label people who are not transgender as 'cisgender', I outright reject this label, and I wouldn't stop anyone labelling themselves as they please. I'm under no legal obligation as a private citizen to agree with them though. This appears to be a right some transgender rights groups would want to take away from me.

By way of example, can you explain what your responsibilities are, that balance your right not to be told "you're a woman, deal with it"?

You have a responsibility not to resort to violence when told "you're a woman, deal with it!". Nobody is under any obligation to take them seriously.

What rights do other people have that are infringed by allowing people's gender to be recognised? For example, whose rights do we have to balance against your right to be considered a man?

Apparently, they lose the right to disagree -


Mr Escalonilla did not find the bus went as far as being a hate crime.
However, he said he believed the bus was an "act of contempt" meant to "injure" the dignity of people of a different sexual orientation, according to Spanish newspaper El Pais.

Do I have the right to disagree with women having the right to vote? Do I have the right to disagree with black people's right not to be slaves?

I mean, sure: I have the right to be an arsehole. The question is, does my right to be an arsehole supersede the rights I disagree with? And if not, why even bring it up?

You have the right to disagree with someone else. Now whether someone suggests you're an asshole for disagreeing with them or not, they're entitled to express that opinion freely too. It still couldn't be construed as a hate crime.

oscarBravo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Recently there have been attempts by transgender rights groups to label people who are not transgender as 'cisgender', I outright reject this label...

Why? What antonym of "transgender" do you accept as applying to you?

I'm under no legal obligation as a private citizen to agree with them though. This appears to be a right some transgender rights groups would want to take away from me.

You're claiming transgender rights groups want to take away your right to disagree with them? Do you have a source for that bizarre claim?

It's an extraordinary claim, mind you, so I'll be expecting extraordinary evidence. I'm looking for something like an actual quote from an actual trans rights group saying "we want to actively deny people the right to disagree with us".

You have a responsibility not to resort to violence when told "you're a woman, deal with it!". Nobody is under any obligation to take them seriously.

I notice you're not actually answering the question. You've come out with some highbrow-sounding nonsense about balancing rights and responsibilities, but you've shied away from specifics when probed.

So, again: what responsibilities are required to balance the right not to have a gender identity imposed on you?

Apparently, they lose the right to disagree -

No, they don't lose the right to disagree. You said it yourself:

You have the right to disagree with someone else.

You seem to have convinced yourself that disagreeing with someone confers an automatic right to tell the world that you disagree with them, up to and including dictating to them what gender they are.



The real problem here is illustrated beautifully by the example of me telling you you're a woman. The thing is: you can laugh at that. You can ignore it. You can get on with your life, and the fact that I insist that you're a woman has absolutely no impact whatsoever on you.

Based on that, you have cheerfully decided that telling a transgender man that he's a woman is something he can laugh at and ignore; that he can get on with his life without it having an impact. As far as you're concerned, it's the same thing.

Now, you can groan and roll your eyes at the word, but that's a near-flawless definition of privilege. It's not a problem for me, so you should just suck it up.

I quite honestly can't get my head around such a breathtaking lack of empathy.

One eyed Jack

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why? What antonym of "transgender" do you accept as applying to you?

If some people want to identify themselves as transgender, that's on them, but as far as I'm concerned, they then must respect my choice not to be referred to as 'cisgender'. The whole idea of respect is that it goes both ways.

You're claiming transgender rights groups want to take away your right to disagree with them? Do you have a source for that bizarre claim?

It's an extraordinary claim, mind you, so I'll be expecting extraordinary evidence. I'm looking for something like an actual quote from an actual trans rights group saying "we want to actively deny people the right to disagree with us".

It's not an extraordinary claim. The case in Spain is an example of it. I disagree that there are some boys born with vulvas, and some girls born with penises. It really isn't that simple, and because a group disagreed with them, the transgender rights group made a complaint to the authorities, effectively attempting to silence a group who disagreed with them.

I notice you're not actually answering the question. You've come out with some highbrow-sounding nonsense about balancing rights and responsibilities, but you've shied away from specifics when probed.

So, again: what responsibilities are required to balance the right not to have a gender identity imposed on you?

I don't understand your question as the right not to have a gender identity imposed upon you doesn't exist.

No, they don't lose the right to disagree. You said it yourself: You seem to have convinced yourself that disagreeing with someone confers an automatic right to tell the world that you disagree with them, up to and including dictating to them what gender they are.

It does? In the very same way as a transgender rights group has the freedom to suggest that there are some boys born with vulvas, and some girls born with penises, another group has the right to suggest otherwise. People can make up their own minds then who they choose to believe. I don't believe that silencing either group does society any good.

The real problem here is illustrated beautifully by the example of me telling you you're a woman. The thing is: you can laugh at that. You can ignore it. You can get on with your life, and the fact that I insist that you're a woman has absolutely no impact whatsoever on you.

Based on that, you have cheerfully decided that telling a transgender man that he's a woman is something he can laugh at and ignore; that he can get on with his life without it having an impact. As far as you're concerned, it's the same thing.

Now, you can groan and roll your eyes at the word, but that's a near-flawless definition of privilege. It's not a problem for me, so you should just suck it up.

Nah, real privilege is when a group can use agents of the State to promote their own agenda. You wouldn't accept religious groups doing it here, so why the double standards when another ideology suits your already held beliefs? I never said anyone should suck it up, they are perfectly entitled to explain their position rather than simply demand that people listen and believe, particularly when something makes absolutely no sense to them whatsoever.

I quite honestly can't get my head around such a breathtaking lack of empathy.

It's not a lack of empathy at all, in fact one of my favourite commentators on social issues (apart from Conchita Wurst), is Blair White. The fact that she is transgender is neither here nor there. It's her ideas I find interesting and thought provoking. She has never once demanded though that her audience simply blindly accept that some boys have vulvas and some girls have penises. In fact she's very much against the idea of diagnosing children as transgender.

Hotblack Desiato

Excellent series of posts, Michael OBrien. It's a pity I can only thank them once.

oscarBravo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If some people want to identify themselves as transgender, that's on them, but as far as I'm concerned, they then must respect my choice not to be referred to as 'cisgender'. The whole idea of respect is that it goes both ways.

You didn't answer the question.

It's not an extraordinary claim.

Yes, it is. You're claiming that someone wants to take away the right to disagree with them. Not the right to express that disagreement publicly, or the right to act on that disagreement: the right to disagree.

It's not merely an extraordinary claim, it's farcical.

It really isn't that simple, and because a group disagreed with them, the transgender rights group made a complaint to the authorities, effectively attempting to silence a group who disagreed with them.

It's widely accepted that black people are human. There are some people who disagree. Are you going to argue that they have the right to express that disagreement publicly, and that they're being unfairly silenced by laws against hate speech?

I don't understand your question as the right not to have a gender identity imposed upon you doesn't exist.

Well, isn't that convenient. I wonder how adamant you'd be about the non-existence of such a right if a gender identity was being imposed on you?

It does? In the very same way as a transgender rights group has the freedom to suggest that there are some boys born with vulvas, and some girls born with penises, another group has the right to suggest otherwise. People can make up their own minds then who they choose to believe. I don't believe that silencing either group does society any good.

Wow. You're advocating teaching the controversy on an atheist forum.

Nah, real privilege is...

I really ought to have put money on you mansplaining privilege to me.

It's not a lack of empathy at all, in fact one of my favourite commentators on social issues...

...is, shockingly, someone who agrees with you.

Telling transgender people that they don't have the right not to have a gender imposed on them shows a lack of empathy. You can tell yourself whatever you need to hear to convince yourself that it doesn't, but the bottom line is that you're telling them that since you don't have a problem, they don't have a problem.

One eyed Jack

oscarBravo wrote: »

Telling transgender people that they don't have the right not to have a gender imposed on them shows a lack of empathy. You can tell yourself whatever you need to hear to convince yourself that it doesn't, but the bottom line is that you're telling them that since you don't have a problem, they don't have a problem.

I think I've made my position clear, so I'm not going to quote your whole post, but the idea that some girls are born with a penis, and some boys are born with a vagina, has no basis in science whatsoever. That's not mansplaining anything to you or to anyone else. It's reality, no matter what forum we're in.

oscarBravo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think I've made my position clear...

...apart from the questions you refused to answer.

...so I'm not going to quote your whole post, but the idea that some girls are born with a penis, and some boys are born with a vagina, has no basis in science whatsoever. That's not mansplaining anything to you or to anyone else. It's reality, no matter what forum we're in.

So your belief is that having a penis makes you male, and that science backs you up. Fair enough.

One eyed Jack

oscarBravo wrote: »

...apart from the questions you refused to answer. So your belief is that having a penis makes you male, and that science backs you up. Fair enough.

There's no point in continuing the conversation when you're purposely twisting everything I say and trying to say things for me that I haven't said. I'll bow out now and let this thread get back on topic.

looksee

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There's no point in continuing the conversation when you're purposely twisting everything I say and trying to say things for me that I haven't said. I'll bow out now and let this thread get back on topic.

So what did you mean when you said

the idea that some girls are born with a penis, and some boys are born with a vagina, has no basis in science whatsoever.

Mark Hamill

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think I've made my position clear, so I'm not going to quote your whole post, but the idea that some girls are born with a penis, and some boys are born with a vagina, has no basis in science whatsoever. That's not mansplaining anything to you or to anyone else. It's reality, no matter what forum we're in.

If a boy has some sort of accident and loses his penis, is he no longer a boy? What does he become?

silverharp

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If a boy has some sort of accident and loses his penis, is he no longer a boy? What does he become?

were you running this twitter account over the weekend ? , seriously though I think that is a bit of a pedantic rebuttal. he did say "born with" so that would reasonably imply that no future accidents or "bits" not working would have any bearing on whether someone was born a boy or a girl or a son or daughter

https://twitter.com/NWCI/status/838329395773378561?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw