Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Trans Threads in AH
Options
Comments
-
Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »Perhaps, but as has to be drill into you head Nodin, it's completely different when you're talking about things where there isn't choice involved.
emmm....according to you, it's completely different.0 -
philologos wrote: »I disagree. At all times there should be an attitude of respect in discussion. Its the job of the mods to ensure that.
Sexual identities and gender identity and so on shouldn't be regarded as any more important than any other identity. By all means criticise Islam, Christianity, the philosophies surrounding atheism and LGBT issues. There are philosophies behind these discussions and I don't believe any topics should be sacred cows on boards.ie.
It's not that sexual identities and gender identities are more important identities, it's that they're more permanent identities than political or religious identities. Like identifying as a man or a women, etc.., is really one of your core identities and much more deeper than religious and/or political identities.
You can't start criticising or mocking someone just because they're gay or transgender, as it's beyond their control. There's no philosophy behind being LGBT, you just are. There is a philosophy behind being religious or political because generally it's philosophy that leads people to those sort of convictions.
If you're talking about say marriage equality or introducing a gender neutral options in state legislation, for example, it does merit a discussion or a debate because you're talking about changing the constitution.
Also, you can only bring awareness of transgender issues through having these issues discussed openly in public. So scare crowing these issues doesn't help obviously and really I wasn't suggesting that.philologos wrote: »As soon as one makes bigoted comments about any grouping, claiming that as humans they are inferior or so on. Then lines need to be drawn.
Only ideas can be inferior and indeed everyone has an opinion on which ideas are more inferior to theirs. Ideas are subjective. You can infer someone's idea is inferior but not the people who posses the ideas.0 -
-
Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »It's not that sexual identities and gender identities are more important identities, it's that they're more permanent identities than political or religious identities. Like identifying as a man or a women, etc.., is really one of your core identities and much more deeper than religious and/or political identities.
........
Of course. Sure nobody ever died for their convictions or led lives dedicated to them. Changable as hats.0 -
Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »It's not that sexual identities and gender identities are more important identities, it's that they're more permanent identities than political or religious identities. Like identifying as a man or a women, etc.., is really one of your core identities and much more deeper than religious and/or political identities.
It depends. For other people it is their core identity. If you asked me which was more important, being a Christian or being a heterosexual I would hands down tell you being a Christian.
I disagree with you, because your claim is false at least in terms of my life I wouldn't say being a heterosexual is more important than being a Christian.Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »You can't start criticising or mocking someone just because they're gay or transgender, as it's beyond their control. There's no philosophy behind being LGBT, you just are. There is a philosophy behind being religious or political because generally it's philosophy that leads people to those sort of convictions.
You can debate LGBT issues, or whether or not sexuality is biologically determined. I think that is a fair discussion and one that should be encouraged. There's even a debate in science over these issues. Therefore why should we ban discussion on it on boards.ie?
There's a philosophy behind all of these debates including LGBT issues.Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »Also, you can only bring awareness of transgender issues through having these issues discussed openly in public. So scare crowing these issues doesn't help obviously and really I wasn't suggesting that.
It depends on what you mean by awareness. That seems to me to be advocating people from one perspective talking while stifling others. That's not a proper discussion is it?Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »Only ideas can be inferior and indeed everyone has an opinion on which ideas are more inferior to theirs. Ideas are subjective. You can infer someone's idea is inferior but not the people who posses the ideas.
I agree by the by. But as to which ideas are inferior is highly debatable. There are many ideas involved in discussion on LGBT issues, therefore they should be wide open for discussion.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
philologos wrote: »It depends. For other people it is their core identity. If you asked me which was more important, being a Christian or being a heterosexual I would hands down tell you being a Christian.
I disagree with you, because your claim is false at least in terms of my life I wouldn't say being a heterosexual is more important than being a Christian.
We're not talking about levels of importance. How about your gender identity. Let's say, for instance, you're male or identify as such. You'd say: "Hello, my name is philologos, I'm a <insert age> year old man". Your gender identity is one that can't be changed, therefore it is a core identity. It doesn't mean that it is or is not important to you. Similarly, your sexual identity cannot be changed. If you were to "reboot" (for use of a better word) and set everything back to factory default settings, your sexual identity and gender identity wouldn't change.philologos wrote: »You can debate LGBT issues, or whether or not sexuality is biologically determined. I think that is a fair discussion and one that should be encouraged. There's even a debate in science over these issues. Therefore why should we ban discussion on it on boards.ie?
There's a philosophy behind all of these debates including LGBT issues.
It shouldn't be banned, nobody implied that in this thread so far. It is an interesting discussion and indeed it's presently an avenue of investigation that's being pursued by science.
Whether sexuality it is genetically determined, harmonically determined or developed during a child's developmental stage doesn't remove from the fact that it isn't a choice.
You still can't argue that homosexuality, for instance, isn't a choice if it turns out that it isn't genetically or hormonal determined. It's still beyond their control. As it is beyond their control, it isn't determined via choice, thought or whatever philosophy one might be adhere to. It's like asking whether or not there was a choice or any thought processes behind someone being right/left handed, there just isn't.
The only instance where you could possible discuss the choice-factor being identifying as "gay", "bi" or "straight" is if it turned out that sexuality is more like a spectrum with an infinite number of variables in between, therefore rendering adhering to a select few words such as "gay", "bi" or "straight" as a choice in itself. Even then, that doesn't in any way suggest that one's own sexuality is in any way a choice.philologos wrote: »It depends on what you mean by awareness. That seems to me to be advocating people from one perspective talking while stifling others. That's not a proper discussion is it?
It depends on what views on this matter ought to be stifled. If you say that being transgender is a choice then that's a view that may be open to stifling. If it's a discussion about introducing a third gender or gender neutral option on a Census form then views that are opposed to such as proposal shouldn't necessarily be stifled as long as they aren't judgmental towards transgender people.philologos wrote: »I agree by the by. But as to which ideas are inferior is highly debatable. There are many ideas involved in discussion on LGBT issues, therefore they should be wide open for discussion.
Yes, which ideas are inferior/superior is very debatable and indeed that's something that should be discussed. Yes, there are many discussion on LGBT issues and indeed they should be discussed and every opinion consider but the only factor that isn't up for discussion is that sexuality and gender identities aren't choices therefore one ought to recognize and respect LGBT people for who they are by nature and not by choice.0 -
Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »We're not talking about levels of importance. How about your gender identity. Let's say, for instance, you're male or identify as such. You'd say: "Hello, my name is philologos, I'm a <insert age> year old man". Your gender identity is one that can't be changed, therefore it is a core identity. It doesn't mean that it is or is not important to you. Similarly, your sexual identity cannot be changed. If you were to "reboot" (for use of a better word) and set everything back to factory default settings, your sexual identity and gender identity wouldn't change.
My primary identity is that I'm a Christian. That's my core identity, and it generally shows. What I do, what I aspire towards, and what I live for are all influenced by that.
I think boards.ie should encourage rigorous debate about Christianity on boards.ie, just as much as I think it should encourage debate on any topic. Hateful comments against any grouping of people in society should be condemned irrespective of what their identity is. I recognise that in the case of all people.
All that is necessary for that is a clear distinction between what an ad-hominem is, and what legitimate discussion is. A lot of the time moderators in AH haven't been enforcing this distinction carefully enough, I feel on a whole range of issues.Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »You still can't argue that homosexuality, for instance, isn't a choice if it turns out that it isn't genetically or hormonal determined. It's still beyond their control. As it is beyond their control, it isn't determined via choice, thought or whatever philosophy one might be adhere to. It's like asking whether or not there was a choice or any thought processes behind someone being right/left handed, there just isn't.
The only instance where you could possible discuss the choice-factor being identifying as "gay", "bi" or "straight" is if it turned out that sexuality is more like a spectrum with an infinite number of variables in between, therefore rendering adhering to a select few words such as "gay", "bi" or "straight" as a choice in itself. Even then, that doesn't in any way suggest that one's own sexuality is in any way a choice.
I don't agree with the assumption that sexuality and gender are meaningfully different from other identity even if it is by choice, and I don't think they should be treated differently on boards.ie. I don't feel that LGBT issues are more important than freedom of conscience issues for example.Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »It depends on what views on this matter ought to be stifled. If you say that being transgender is a choice then that's a view that may be open to stifling. If it's a discussion about introducing a third gender or gender neutral option on a Census form then views that are opposed to such as proposal shouldn't necessarily be stifled as long as they aren't judgmental towards transgender people.
I don't think any view insofar as it isn't a hateful remark against individuals should be stifled. There should be a legitimate discussion on any issue insofar as it is respectful even if you disagree.Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »Yes, which ideas are inferior/superior is very debatable and indeed that's something that should be discussed. Yes, there are many discussion on LGBT issues and indeed they should be discussed and every opinion consider but the only factor that isn't up for discussion is that sexuality and gender identities aren't choices therefore one ought to recognize and respect LGBT people for who they are by nature and not by choice.
Your previous comment contradicts that. You support stifling legitimate discussion on boards.ie, and I don't think I can agree with that view.0 -
Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »The fact remains: sexual identity, gender identity and racial/ethnic identity are less changeable than religious and political identities because the latter is a choice.
So it's ok to slag off people who've dedicated their life to a cause, because it suits you, but its not ok to slag off your group of sacred cows because it doesn't, much as I stated earlier. You're being hypocritical.0 -
So it's ok to slag off people who've dedicated their life to a cause, because it suits you, but its not ok to slag off your group of sacred cows because it doesn't, much as I stated earlier. You're being hypocritical.
If this is about unions, you'll find I didn't slag off people who are embroiled in unions, rather the unions themselves, the organisations, the ideas. Not the people therein. My comment on AH was essentially to "Death to Unions" but I specific wrote a disclaimer at the end of that comment saying that I was not referring to people inside unions, but rather the organisations and used a guillotining video as a metaphoric reference for their inevitable decay - i.e., society reject their ideas and control inevitably, but not the people. I wrote in the disclaimer that the women being guillontined was supposed to refer to the the idea of trade unionism and its inevitable decay.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes, but you can at least accept the fact that your Christianity is a choice and that in 20 years time your religious beliefs may change beyond what expectations you have at this point in time.philologos wrote: »My primary identity is that I'm a Christian. That's my core identity, and it generally shows. What I do, what I aspire towards, and what I live for are all influenced by that.
I think the prime reason why sexual and gender identity are so important to LGBT people is because their's contravenes the norm. If you feel out of sync with society because of a certain issue to do with your identity, especially one that is inherent and irreversible, then dealing with that issue becomes a lot more inflated on your list of priorities because you have to put up with it every day. You've no choice in the matter, you can't change it. You have to battle feelings of inadequacy ever day. That's why sexual and gender identity are so important to LGBT people.
And surely that logic ought to apply to some hateful teachings in Christianity and other religions. Should others be allowed to condemn Christianity and Islam because of the hateful comments directed against homosexuals and "effeminate men" in the Bible and some Hadiths? Or should the teaching of such religious doctrine be exempt from that rule? Of course, what we're dealing with here are ideas, not people. What an organisation stands for, what a religion stands for or a political movement stands for are all mere ideas, nothing else. People, of course, should always be respected. There is also a distinct different between a person being offended because you mocked their ideas and a person being offended because you mocked them directly. The latter is a personal attack, the former is not.philologos wrote: »I think boards.ie should encourage rigorous debate about Christianity on boards.ie, just as much as I think it should encourage debate on any topic. Hateful comments against any grouping of people in society should be condemned irrespective of what their identity is. I recognise that in the case of all people.
It didn't really, I fail to see how they did contradict.philologos wrote: »I don't think any view insofar as it isn't a hateful remark against individuals should be stifled. There should be a legitimate discussion on any issue insofar as it is respectful even if you disagree.
Your previous comment contradicts that. You support stifling legitimate discussion on boards.ie, and I don't think I can agree with that view.0 -
Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »If this is about unions, you'll find I didn't slag off people who are embroiled in unions, rather the unions themselves, the organisations, the ideas. Not the people therein. ......
In answer to which, I refer you back to
'It's not up to you to say what a public service union member finds offensive or not offensive. Just because you don't find it offensive, doesn't mean no-one else will. Just because the comment was in reference to an organisation, doesn't mean the way it was framed was not offensive.'
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80727870&postcount=490 -
In short. You need to read my posts. I said that you can criticize Christianity, Islam all you like as long as you do so with respect to the poster.
The same us true for all topics. No group should receive better treatment than another.
To be honest with you it looks like you're saying this to cover up the inconsistent comments you made about trade unions. I agree with Nodin on this.
It really doesn't matter whether I decided to be a Christian or not. All groups should be treated equally on boards.ie and that means no special treatment for any one group.0 -
this has gone a fair bit off topic now and has wandered into a much much larger issue.
Should posters be allowed criticise any group or belief that they have issue with.
In an ideal world, yes. However, some forums on boards are not there for this type of debate, they are there for likeminded people to discuss their group or beliefs.
For example , one user may feel ina completely non-trollish way that there is somethign not right with homosexuality. That poster is welcome to that belief BUT he is not welcome to criticise homosexuality in the LGBT forum which is primarily for discussion of LGBT issues and not for members of that community to have to defend their right to an existence.
For other fourms, the almost exclusivity of the membership has come about , not through choice, but through reaction to the posting styles of some users who like to post contentious points of view to get a rise out of the community and provoke an argument , sometimes with the added benefit of getting someone else punished while the poster feigns innocent curiosity. Yes, I'm talking about Trolls and persistent timesinks.
To protect the communities, sometimes from their own members who can be so steadfast in their own beliefs and opinions that they will happily rise to the bait and do exactly what the troll wants, that we modify the tone of the forum to become a meeting point of likeminded individuals.
You're probably thinking I mean the Christianity or Islam forum. I dont. The example I would use are the TV subfora where we used to have momumental arguments when a poster would open an account, drop in and post "X show is utter tripe and I can't understand the morons that watch it" in a forum dedicated to that show..where the "morons that watch it" post regularly and build up a community and enjoy posting about their shared interest and, whether you can understand it or not, have strong emotional connections to the characters or subject matter in the show.
Now, we could just ban all criticism of any belief or group and that would solve all the problems. The mods/cmods and admins would be very busy but we'd eventually stamp out all trolling and all dissent. Boards would then be a very very boring place where no-one ever disagreed or learned somethgn they dont already know. Instead we ask that, if you are going to criticise you limit your comments to those that are within the realms of decency. You choose your forum wisely so that you get a response but dont piss off the natives. And in return, we ask those responding to limit their displeasure ot the content of the post and not their imagined image of the poster.
It is important to understand that those that point blankly refuse to discuss the possibility of someone else having a valid opinion that differs from their own are just as bad as those that post nonsense in an attempt to insult or demean. And we have seen both types of poster in all forums over the years.
Boards.ie is a discussion forum. The emphasis is on discussion. To do that you have to listen as well as question. ignorign a post because it doesnt fit your own perception of an issue is not discussion. Flip flopping your position because you want to see what the response is is not a discussion, its at best an annoying debate tactic utilised in the hope of "winning" an argument with a faceless entity on an internet site and at worst its blatant trolling.
Now, this thread was started to discuss whether a thread discussing the revelation of a transexual individual should be allowed in AH and whether or not it should be moved to the forum that houses the community that are or have interest in or support transexuality. If it was moved to the transexual forum the thread would have read:
"Warchowski brother is a transexual"
"thats nice"
"good for her"
whats to discuss? its a fact. (I dont mean to portray the regulars of the trans forum as vapid or vague, I'm sure there are very good discussions held over issues that are seen as controversial to that community but are not recognised with the same urgency by other forums on boards).
Posting it in after hours opens it up to discussion by a much more diverse audience. Yes some users posted comments that they thought were amusing but, unless a comment is abusive or degrading then, even if its not particularly funny, it adds to the discussion as it reveals a little more about what mindsets are out there. The exact same joke posted in the Trans forum would porbably deserve a warning/ban because thats not the place. Just like the dead baby jokes are not suitable for the pregnancy/infant care forums.
This is not to say that AH has a lower standard. It is to say that the AH forum has a more open posting policy and a wider range of opinions and viewpoints.
Should there be Trans threads in AH? yes. yes there should.
Should posters expect all responses or reactions to be positive? no. thats not the way the world works no matter how much we'd like it to be otherwise.
Should posters accept ridicule or abuse in AH then and take it as just an alternative opinion? absolutely not. its not acceptable in society and its not acceptable here. if you think you or a group is beign abused, then report the post and let the mods cast a uninvolved eye over it to get a second opinion that has been stripped of personal bias that could cloud the meaning of a post.
Now, if this thread is going to continue in a more generalised manner, thats ok. threads evolve. BUT. Lets stop the tennis posts and muck raking. Post an opinion and leave it at that. If you dont agree with that opinion, say so but restrict your disagreement to what has been posted here.
Otherwise, this thread will have run its course and we may as well let it float down the lsitings.0
Advertisement