150 writers, scholars sign letter to cancel cancel culture

Page 6 of 6 [ 90 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Drake
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,577

13 Jul 2020, 6:29 pm

Bradleigh wrote:
Drake wrote:
Bradleigh wrote:
And spreading ideas like saying that gender transitioning is a new kind of gay conversion therapy, certainly is worth people deciding that they don't want her to have the platform to spread it.

About this, I actually wanted to respond to you back when this came up in that other thread, but I didn't want to open up another conversation at the time.

I was like wot? the first time I read that part of it, I had to reread it to grasp what she was trying to say. Maybe you already understood, but I'm not sure. She's worried that young people who are gay, not trans, could be confused into thinking they're trans instead, and transitioning. So it effectively is a kind of gay conversion therapy if someone who's just gay ends up having a sex change, because now they'll be attracted to the opposite sex instead. But they're not trans, so will suffer irreversible consequences.

I don't think she's a transphobe. Maybe a good doctor might be able to reliably diagnose gender dysphoria at a young age, but it's such a huge risk at such a young age when people might not be able to properly understand what it is they are feeling, with such devastating consequences if you call it wrong.


This is why diagnosis does at a young age means only prescribing hormone blockers to prevent the wrong puberty so the child will be at a point they can more likely understand how they are feeling to make the choice, something that Rowling mischaracterizes to ignorantly bring the whole thing into question. Rowling is under some weird thought process that transgender people are more accepted than gays and lesbians, which makes no sense when you consider gay and lesbian trans people.

Rowling thinks that the acceptance of trans people, the separation of gender and sex, will erode the meaning of same sex attraction, that gay boys will be convinced to becoming girls, and lesbian girls will be convinced into becoming boys. The whole thing is ridiculous if you have heard from the trans people that went through the process and explain it as incredibly thorough and personal, and not at all about sexual attraction.

You're actually going even further back than I was thinking. If we're gonna block puberty before it even starts, that person won't know who they're attracted to. Puberty is necessary for the growth of the body as well. I don't actually know what the extent of the consequences of either not going through puberty at all or having a chemically induced puberty of the opposite sex to you would be. Surely it would be best for the health of the body you're going to be in for the rest of your life to let it grow to maturity naturally. Though I can see a male to female transperson might actually want to stunt their growth, to help with passing as female. But yet you're still placing this decision on the shoulders of someone who is still a child.

As for the idea that she thinks that transgender people are more accepted than gays and lesbians, I don't see what difference it makes whether she does or doesn't.

Rowling I have seen is concerned about something I too am concerned about, the movement that would seek to make the absolute statement that transwomen are women and transmen are men. No. No they're not. Transwomen are transwomen and transmen are transmen. In most incidences, nothing changes with either statement, but there are certain instances where there's a difference. Such as the encroachment of transwomen into women's sports (pet hate of mine), or the idea that anyone can just declare what gender they are and be treated as that gender opens the door to abuse, that a man can just walk into a women's changing room and anyone who opposes that is a bigot.



Drake
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,577

13 Jul 2020, 6:56 pm

Bradleigh wrote:
Drake wrote:
It's the ideology over everything else that would hurt gamers if adopted. By destroying the quality of games by putting that a distant second to a list of boxes that need to be checked. That ruins creativity as well.

I've not seen the end of that game, but no, that doesn't hurt gamers. It sounds like a fun meta-joke. But I've never seen the damsel trope as a bad thing. Or the girl as a prize to be won. Princess Jasmine in Aladdin scolded the other main characters with those very words in Aladdin, but unlike her, the game damsels had already had their hearts "won" by the characters you play as, and want to be rescued and to return to their lives with their lovers.

And I also agree it's good to have some more actual, nothing to do with race, diversity among female characters.


Anita never talked about some list of boxes that every game must tick, she just talked about how certain tropes are far more pervasive than they need to be, with that pervasive nature possibly influencing people in ways they don't understand, and a few games that challenge it could do some good.

While the Damsel in Distress trope seems relatively harmless, and there is nothing wrong with characters of any gender to be someone the player wants to save, it is that overuse of the trope commodifies the affection of the damsel as a prize to be won. It removes the agency of female characters in what they want, which could influence the males that consume the media to think that they deserve affection from just being nice, why one could explain there are so many of what people call "Nice Guys" within the gamer space. That we have had too many games where we have the female character needing to be saved, and the male hero gets a little something something for being a hero.

(starting at around 3:50)


Especially in terms of Nintendo games, I really like it when female characters have been getting their fair shot, like how the Hyrule Warriors game had a huge cast of characters including female ones that can be just as effective as Link. I liked playing Zelda in Cadence of Hyrule, and Zelda feel like a really fleshed out character in Breath of the Wild, really hoping that the sequel will have Zelda as more than someone who needs to be saved. I really think it is cool that the Splatoon games pretty much actually portray the female character as the default, with its other female characters as interesting and strong.

I think it is cool that a game series like Borderlands have multiple female player characters so you don't have one just being "the chick", and that the enemies are diverse in their gender so that you even have female Psychos without it feeling like it is pandering by saying that the most iconic enemy type can be women too. That goes a bit into the complaint that men are often made expendable by having the role of cannon fodder.

I like how the Crash Bandicoot remakes allowed me most of the time to play as female counterpart Coco. I like how the Crash Bandicoot racing game took Tawna and the "trophy girls" and had them as more than pretty faces with different hairstyles and they are playable characters too with their own personalities.
Image

These are the kind of things that Anita was actually talking about that should be put into games, and it is not destroying it by giving female characters more agency and some more equal position as male characters.

Anita is really preachy. She just sees good and bad. "Everything is racist, everything is sexist, everything is homophobic and you have to point it all out." Her videos spawned lots of wonderful takedown videos in response that show, in extreme detail, that her complaints are not even valid at all, producing multiple examples of the things she complains about not existing existing.

Now here's something I can just never get behind. The idea that because some people might interpret something wrong, we have to change it, even though the vast bulk of people will interpret it right. That's an impossible standard. Now there may well be some out there, but off the top of my head, the game damsels are known to the protagonist. And there are lots of people who get rescued in games, including females, who don't fall in love with the hero. Movies are more likely to have the girl not be already the hero's girl, and become so afterwards, but let's look at that ending. The girl chooses to do that, under no pressure from the hero we know would not object if she simply walked away. He saved her because it was the right thing to do, because he's the hero, not for a hook up. This is a popular ending because it's the happiest possible ending, our male and female leads fall in love and live happily ever after, and the audience love it having been on the journey with them, connected with them, and are happy that they are happy. So I really don't think the females lose agency, even if the hero is a stranger.

Watched the clip. I don't know why Bowser is trying to win her affection. But normally the girl gets rescued and lives happily ever after. She just gets kidnapped and rescued again in an endless cycle, so I'm not surprised she wants away from both of them.

I don't have any problem with the rest of what you said. Because you're not taking that hard stance against the opposite. Anita just tramples over much-loved games and gamers for her own political reasons. She doesn't care about games.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,394
Location: Melbourne, Australia

13 Jul 2020, 7:38 pm

Bradleigh wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
What is it about her beliefs, that so frightens (triggers?) you and so causes you to revert to a bigotted "attack the messenger" approach rather than putting forward a rational explanation of how she is "wrong" and allowing other people to make up their own minds as to which side they themselves consider to be "right"?

It might surprise you to know this, but people are ALLOWED to have a different opinion on topics. If you cannot convince people that YOUR opinion\belief is correct through evidence, or through countering what the other person has to say, and so need to rely on a bigot's tools such as "silencing"\"canceling" those who you do not agree with, it shows the public at large that, on the balance of probablitites, it is YOUR argument\belief which is flawed, not theirs.

Remember, the definition of a bigot is someone who attacks or punishes a person or group (thereby demonstrating intolerance) for their beliefs, not a person who attacks the beliefs that another person (or group) may have.

Quote:
bigot
/ˈbɪɡət/
noun
noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots
a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.



Because Rowling's facts are in fact wrong, mischaracterizations she has held onto after being presented with the facts, conspiracy theories about gay conversion therapy and arguments that the discussion is about whether sex is a real thing, which no one disputes. It is not a simple case that she has bad opinions, it is that she is spreading incorrect facts that people are going to agree for no reason other than she said them. And how she is being "canceled" is by having people agree to what the actual facts are rather than conspiracy theories.

She is free to have those opinions, but not spread them in a way that makes the lives of people harder. There is no epidemic of people being convinced that they are transgender, and you can talk to actual transgender people to see that the process is incredibly rigorous, but their voices are not getting out to the public over a famous author who thinks transgender women are not women.


So, the RATIONAL responce to someone holding "incorrect" views is to present a counter-arguement to the "audience" and provide them with alternative facts which support your belief, so as to allow them to determine on thier own which argument makes more sense\is more logical, and having the respect for others that allows them to come to their own determination regardless of whether it matches yours or not.

Instead, you are attacking a person for holding "incorrect" beliefs, claiming she has held onto these after being presented with facts, which does not prove that she is wrong, only that the "facts" which have been presented (or the method in which they were presented) have not been persuasive enough for her to alter her opinion. The fact that a bigoted mob react to this in the way they did indicates that:
1) They lack any other "facts"\"arguments" that are "more powerful" than those held\previously presented to the subject by people with different beliefs to the mob.
2) They lack respect for those who are capable of independent thought.
3) They lack intellectual honesty in that they cannot accept that there may be flaws in their beliefs.
4) They are bigotted in that they feel "justified" in making a person suffer if they do not agree with their own beliefs.
5) They are authoritarian, feeling all opposing views to their own need to be silenced.

Looking at what has been presented and the manner with which it has been done, I have infinitly more respect for her than I do for the mob trying to bully her (or their enablers).

I would also have much more respect for her opinions on the matter over theirs, for the simple reason that she appears to be able to present them coherently and does not rely on the use of "force" to make people agree with her, showing that she is open to having these beliefs challenged and would likely change them were adequate\suitable reasons be presented, whereas the "mob" have shown an unfortunate lack of respect both for their own belief and for those who may not agree with them through their need (desire?) to force this belief onto others.


_________________
Quote:
"When people express opinions that differ from yours, take it as a chance to grow. Seek to understand over being understood. Be curious, not defensive. The only way to disarm another human being is by listening." - Glennon Doyle Melton

Quote:
"Never forget that you have every right to question any individual, system, movement, or group that only tolerates you when you think and behave exactly like them" - Africa Brooke

Quote:
“There was a saying that a man's true character was revealed in defeat. I thought it was also revealed in victory.”
― Alison Goodman, Eon: Dragoneye Reborn


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,182
Location: Long Island, New York

13 Jul 2020, 7:59 pm

Jewish NFL players: Educate, don’t cancel DeSean Jackson for anti-Semitic posts

Quote:
Former professional football player Geoff Schwartz wasn’t surprised when he heard about Philadelphia Eagles wide receiver DeSean Jackson’s anti-Semitic Instagram posts.

“I just thought to myself it’s ignorance — someone who has no idea whatsoever what anti-Semitism is, why his quote could be hurtful to Jews, or really to a lot of people,” said Schwartz, an offensive lineman who played for five teams in his eight-year NFL career.

“I took that from my experience in the locker room. Guys not knowing about Judaism. Guys not knowing about our culture and our religion.”

Schwartz was one of nine current and retired Jewish NFLers who participated in a three-hour online event Sunday night about Jews and professional football in which many players said they had encountered few people within the league who understood their background.

The event, streamed live on Aish.tv, was the brainchild of Michael Neuman, an Orthodox Jewish psychologist who gained a measure of fame last year when he competed on, and won, the LeBron James-produced athletic competition series “Million Dollar Mile” while wearing a kippah.

Weeks ago, Neuman began planning a live discussion among current and former NFL players who are Jewish in keeping with his mission to highlight “strong and powerful Jews.” But after the news broke that Jackson had posted anti-Semitic quotes falsely attributed to Adolf Hitler, the event took on both a new urgency and tone.

“I had this idea for the Jews in the NFL Summit. I wanted a way to connect, whether it’s yeshiva kids, or anyone, to get inspired,” Neuman said of the original idea. “But, I mean, the timeliness of DeSean Jackson’s comments, and apology, and then Stephen Jackson, [was] obviously showing that there’s an ignorance.”

Jackson, a veteran NFL player, had posted a page from a book that quoted Hitler as stating that “because the white Jews knows [sic] that the Negroes are the real Children of Israel and to keep America’s secret the Jews will blackmail America” and “The [sic] will extort America, their plan for world domination won’t work if the Negroes know who they were.” The quote was not genuinely said by Hitler.

Jackson later apologized, and was admonished and fined — but not suspended or released — by the Eagles, a team whose owner (Jeffrey Lurie) and general manager (Howie Roseman) are both Jewish. The reaction of most leaders of the Jewish community, in Philadelphia and nationwide, has been to reach out to Jackson in order to educate him rather than pushing for his release or suspension from the NFL.

(Stephen Jackson, a former NBA player and now a leading Black Lives Matter activist, had defended DeSean Jackson, no relation, and later used an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. He later walked back the inflammatory comment.)

More than one rabbi has offered to meet with Jackson, and Julian Edelman of the New England Patriots, who is Jewish, said he spoke to Jackson and invited him to visit the US Holocaust Museum and Memorial in Washington, D.C. Jackson also had a conversation this weekend with a Holocaust survivor.

Schwartz said he agreed that it was better to go “the education route” than “the cancellation route” — and many of his colleagues said they shared his instincts.

“At the end of the day, if he was educated and he knew the history, he probably wouldn’t say those things,” Josh Miller, a 50-year-old retired punter, said of Jackson.

“We have to have these conversations about racism, and about anti-Semitism,” added Mike Rosenthal, who left the NFL in 2008 after nine seasons. “Let’s just talk about it. Society has to have those uncomfortable conversations.”

And Bob Stein, who in 1970 became the first Jewish player to play on a Super Bowl-winning team, called Jackson’s posts “a spectacularly ignorant set of comments.” Stein, who attended law school while playing in the NFL and later became the first president and CEO of the NBA’s Minnesota Timberwolves, said he hoped Jackson’s apology was sincere and “more than just ‘oops, I want to get out of the way of this problem.’”

Most of the players, who spoke during three separate panels, said many of their teammates had either never met a Jewish person before or knew practically nothing about Judaism. About 70% of NFL players are Black.

“There’s four or five Jews in the NFL,” said Schwartz, who with his brother Mitchell, a star of this year’s Super Bowl champion Kansas City Chiefs, wrote a book about being Jewish in the NFL. “You have teammates who are Black, and you see the pain they’re going through with the George Floyd death. They’re your friends, you buddies. It’s easy to see the pain they’re going through, and it’s easy to say ‘I’ve got you, I support you.”

But he said that the small numbers of Jewish players means their teammates were less likely to be attuned to the concerns of Jewish ones.

Bridge building can happen in the locker room, some of the players said. Greg Joseph, a placekicker who currently plays for the Tennessee Titans, said he’d had “great talks” with a Muslim college teammate, Azeez Al-Shaair, who now plays for the San Francisco 49ers.

Neuman, the organizer, said he had invited Jackson to participate. While that did not happen, Neuman said the event had achieved his goals of elevating the conversation around Jewish sports stars at a particularly timely moment.

“It was really impressive to see how all of our Jewish athlete heroes came together to share the ideas of living with tolerance and understanding each other regardless of race, religion or background,” Neuman told JTA after the event,


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,481
Location: Brisbane, Australia

13 Jul 2020, 11:01 pm

Drake wrote:
You're actually going even further back than I was thinking. If we're gonna block puberty before it even starts, that person won't know who they're attracted to. Puberty is necessary for the growth of the body as well. I don't actually know what the extent of the consequences of either not going through puberty at all or having a chemically induced puberty of the opposite sex to you would be. Surely it would be best for the health of the body you're going to be in for the rest of your life to let it grow to maturity naturally. Though I can see a male to female transperson might actually want to stunt their growth, to help with passing as female. But yet you're still placing this decision on the shoulders of someone who is still a child.


Why does who someone is attracted to matter? Sexual attraction is separate from gender. You are not going to be called male just because you are into girls, you are not a boy because you like girls, and you are not both for liking both. Although relevant as a non-binary person who recently became aware of bisexual attraction, I think the exact kind of cultural forced heteronormativity (being heterosexual treated as the norm) that took me many years to become aware of inclusive attraction to men also, long after puberty, that I had to face certain feelings forced onto me when I questioned my gender. I think that equating of gender and attraction is the sort of toxic attitude that caused quite a bit of repression inside of me. Will admit to there being irony in me saying that being attracted to both does not make you both, when I am saying that it took me recognizing myself as non-binary to realize that I liked both, but that is not the norm.

On your concerns of not knowing the consequences of going through puberty at the right time, going through the one opposite to their assigned sex, in the scheme of things that doesn't matter because there are plenty of doctors that think the risk or expense is worth it. All evidence points to long term side effects being minimal, that they catch up quickly to what they would be otherwise, and side effects of negligible drop in bone density, although unclear if this too is caught up over time anyway. The benefits of avoiding gender dysphoria with say waiting until they are something like 18, which they could choose at any point before then to just go through the natural puberty, greatly outweigh going through the wrong one.


Drake wrote:
As for the idea that she thinks that transgender people are more accepted than gays and lesbians, I don't see what difference it makes whether she does or doesn't.


It matters in how she is making her accusations that transitioning is being forced onto gays and lesbians. Because it is untrue. It is the basis of her claim that transitioning is being used as a form of gay conversion, when gender and attraction are not even really linked and ignores things like gay and lesbian trans people. What really ill-informed people would call "straight with extra steps".


Drake wrote:
Rowling I have seen is concerned about something I too am concerned about, the movement that would seek to make the absolute statement that transwomen are women and transmen are men. No. No they're not. Transwomen are transwomen and transmen are transmen. In most incidences, nothing changes with either statement, but there are certain instances where there's a difference. Such as the encroachment of transwomen into women's sports (pet hate of mine), or the idea that anyone can just declare what gender they are and be treated as that gender opens the door to abuse, that a man can just walk into a women's changing room and anyone who opposes that is a bigot.


Men and women are social constructs as gender, they have been used synonymously with adult versions of one's sexes, but the science and language has moved to validate trans people as their identified gender. Do you really have a problem with trans-women in women sports? That is fine, the answer has been to wait to let them join once they have transitioned to a point that evens things out. The evidence I have seen is a year or two into hormone therapy evens it out to if they were born that sex, and if there are still some lingering effects, all the more reason to protect them from the wrong puberty in the first place. If it is a pet peeve of yours, then why have you not looked up the science?
https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/vv95 ... ransitions

I acknowledge the danger of people using transgender as excuse made up on the spot to enter a space. I just think that the risk is miniscule in comparison to the good in helping those with gender dysphoria. I don't think you have any idea what gender dysphoria is, the only think you are aware of is perverts who want to sneak a look. You are always going to get perverts, even if it is all cis-women you might get one lesbian who creeps on the others, or a straight woman who might make others feel uncomfortable. But gender dysphoria can be something so bad that many who suffer it would not wish it upon their greatest enemies, who accuse them of things like autogynephilia. It destroys their mental health.

If we want to solve this problem that does not leave trans people out while also keeping the actual perverts out, lets do something. The first and most important step is that transgender people are a valid group to be in these gendered spaces, if you can't accept this first step, to evolve how you might think, then sorry people of the trans community can only think of you as a bigot. Next, lets set some clear and proper social standards that include things like not trying to look at what someone's bits are. No unwanted touching, no recording devices, and so on. Dress code is going to be difficult, because that could police what people of any gender should wear, and could keep a tomboy out of the space. Facial hair could be something, but before you know it we are telling older women with a few whiskers to use the men's room. In all honesty, I think that social pressure is going to be the most important part, both that people are not going to want to be treated or looked as like a pervert, and if they are going in anyway they must really think it is worth the point. Either the dysphoria of using the other space is too much, or they are so set on it that I don't know how much being socially allowed to tell them to use the other space is actually going to have an impact. I really think that second one is building up a strawman of a pervert rather than actual experience.


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,481
Location: Brisbane, Australia

13 Jul 2020, 11:41 pm

Brictoria wrote:
So, the RATIONAL responce to someone holding "incorrect" views is to present a counter-arguement to the "audience" and provide them with alternative facts which support your belief, so as to allow them to determine on thier own which argument makes more sense\is more logical, and having the respect for others that allows them to come to their own determination regardless of whether it matches yours or not.

Instead, you are attacking a person for holding "incorrect" beliefs, claiming she has held onto these after being presented with facts, which does not prove that she is wrong, only that the "facts" which have been presented (or the method in which they were presented) have not been persuasive enough for her to alter her opinion. The fact that a bigoted mob react to this in the way they did indicates that:
1) They lack any other "facts"\"arguments" that are "more powerful" than those held\previously presented to the subject by people with different beliefs to the mob.
2) They lack respect for those who are capable of independent thought.
3) They lack intellectual honesty in that they cannot accept that there may be flaws in their beliefs.
4) They are bigotted in that they feel "justified" in making a person suffer if they do not agree with their own beliefs.
5) They are authoritarian, feeling all opposing views to their own need to be silenced.

Looking at what has been presented and the manner with which it has been done, I have infinitly more respect for her than I do for the mob trying to bully her (or their enablers).

I would also have much more respect for her opinions on the matter over theirs, for the simple reason that she appears to be able to present them coherently and does not rely on the use of "force" to make people agree with her, showing that she is open to having these beliefs challenged and would likely change them were adequate\suitable reasons be presented, whereas the "mob" have shown an unfortunate lack of respect both for their own belief and for those who may not agree with them through their need (desire?) to force this belief onto others.


Look, if you find Rowling's fake facts more compelling and persuasive, then go ahead, it just proves that you never had any actual intellectual curiosity if you just bought into the first argument you heard from a platform large enough to put forward false facts that fit the narrative you wanted in the first place. Rather than taking the angry responses she has received for spreading fake information as evidence that you think the other side is unreasonable, you would have actually listened to what they had to say about the evidence that things like gender dysphoria is a real things, and the way to treat it is for me to be treated as the gender they identify as.

But at every single step you have refused to take any step other than thinking that Rowling's hateful comments are completely valid. I can't assume that you would read or accept any study I put forward, since you still seem to think that nothing useful has been presented so far. Your only defense is to say that people should be allowed to have free thought, up to and including that trans people should not be allowed into their identified gender's spaces, and you will attack anyone who thinks that opinion is unacceptable as being a bigot.

Do you actually have any intention of having your beliefs challenged? Rowling does not, her response to being challenged has been to say that she has been getting cancelled as she continues to defend TERF ideology. I have made it abundantly clear many times that I am willing to have my beliefs challenged and evolve my opinions, but I have not seen any disproving of facts that I have presented that say trans people are valid, and ignoring every time there is disproving Rowling's claims. I have been on the defensive the entire time with this subject, needing to prove my side without any opposing evidence that I cannot toss away as either complicated in what it actually says or from a bad source that makes it highly suspect (anti-trans by nature).

It feels like I have explained dozens of times how Rowling rhetoric makes the lives of people worse, by spreading transphobia (I don't care if it is literal fear of transgender people, a homophobe can still think they can beat up a gay person), and how that hurts actual transgender people. Rather than ignore my claim, show some evidence for once or poke holes in my evidence. Argue against the American Academy of Pediatrics, stop acting like there is no convincing evidence.
https://www.hrc.org/blog/new-study-reve ... -adolescen


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


Drake
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,577

16 Jul 2020, 11:35 am

Bradleigh wrote:
Drake wrote:
You're actually going even further back than I was thinking. If we're gonna block puberty before it even starts, that person won't know who they're attracted to. Puberty is necessary for the growth of the body as well. I don't actually know what the extent of the consequences of either not going through puberty at all or having a chemically induced puberty of the opposite sex to you would be. Surely it would be best for the health of the body you're going to be in for the rest of your life to let it grow to maturity naturally. Though I can see a male to female transperson might actually want to stunt their growth, to help with passing as female. But yet you're still placing this decision on the shoulders of someone who is still a child.


Why does who someone is attracted to matter? Sexual attraction is separate from gender. You are not going to be called male just because you are into girls, you are not a boy because you like girls, and you are not both for liking both. Although relevant as a non-binary person who recently became aware of bisexual attraction, I think the exact kind of cultural forced heteronormativity (being heterosexual treated as the norm) that took me many years to become aware of inclusive attraction to men also, long after puberty, that I had to face certain feelings forced onto me when I questioned my gender. I think that equating of gender and attraction is the sort of toxic attitude that caused quite a bit of repression inside of me. Will admit to there being irony in me saying that being attracted to both does not make you both, when I am saying that it took me recognizing myself as non-binary to realize that I liked both, but that is not the norm.

On your concerns of not knowing the consequences of going through puberty at the right time, going through the one opposite to their assigned sex, in the scheme of things that doesn't matter because there are plenty of doctors that think the risk or expense is worth it. All evidence points to long term side effects being minimal, that they catch up quickly to what they would be otherwise, and side effects of negligible drop in bone density, although unclear if this too is caught up over time anyway. The benefits of avoiding gender dysphoria with say waiting until they are something like 18, which they could choose at any point before then to just go through the natural puberty, greatly outweigh going through the wrong one.


Drake wrote:
As for the idea that she thinks that transgender people are more accepted than gays and lesbians, I don't see what difference it makes whether she does or doesn't.


It matters in how she is making her accusations that transitioning is being forced onto gays and lesbians. Because it is untrue. It is the basis of her claim that transitioning is being used as a form of gay conversion, when gender and attraction are not even really linked and ignores things like gay and lesbian trans people. What really ill-informed people would call "straight with extra steps".


Drake wrote:
Rowling I have seen is concerned about something I too am concerned about, the movement that would seek to make the absolute statement that transwomen are women and transmen are men. No. No they're not. Transwomen are transwomen and transmen are transmen. In most incidences, nothing changes with either statement, but there are certain instances where there's a difference. Such as the encroachment of transwomen into women's sports (pet hate of mine), or the idea that anyone can just declare what gender they are and be treated as that gender opens the door to abuse, that a man can just walk into a women's changing room and anyone who opposes that is a bigot.


Men and women are social constructs as gender, they have been used synonymously with adult versions of one's sexes, but the science and language has moved to validate trans people as their identified gender. Do you really have a problem with trans-women in women sports? That is fine, the answer has been to wait to let them join once they have transitioned to a point that evens things out. The evidence I have seen is a year or two into hormone therapy evens it out to if they were born that sex, and if there are still some lingering effects, all the more reason to protect them from the wrong puberty in the first place. If it is a pet peeve of yours, then why have you not looked up the science?
https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/vv95 ... ransitions

I acknowledge the danger of people using transgender as excuse made up on the spot to enter a space. I just think that the risk is miniscule in comparison to the good in helping those with gender dysphoria. I don't think you have any idea what gender dysphoria is, the only think you are aware of is perverts who want to sneak a look. You are always going to get perverts, even if it is all cis-women you might get one lesbian who creeps on the others, or a straight woman who might make others feel uncomfortable. But gender dysphoria can be something so bad that many who suffer it would not wish it upon their greatest enemies, who accuse them of things like autogynephilia. It destroys their mental health.

If we want to solve this problem that does not leave trans people out while also keeping the actual perverts out, lets do something. The first and most important step is that transgender people are a valid group to be in these gendered spaces, if you can't accept this first step, to evolve how you might think, then sorry people of the trans community can only think of you as a bigot. Next, lets set some clear and proper social standards that include things like not trying to look at what someone's bits are. No unwanted touching, no recording devices, and so on. Dress code is going to be difficult, because that could police what people of any gender should wear, and could keep a tomboy out of the space. Facial hair could be something, but before you know it we are telling older women with a few whiskers to use the men's room. In all honesty, I think that social pressure is going to be the most important part, both that people are not going to want to be treated or looked as like a pervert, and if they are going in anyway they must really think it is worth the point. Either the dysphoria of using the other space is too much, or they are so set on it that I don't know how much being socially allowed to tell them to use the other space is actually going to have an impact. I really think that second one is building up a strawman of a pervert rather than actual experience.

I'll admit I don't know what the process involves for getting a diagnosis at a young age. What you say I'm sure is true in the case of a successful diagnosis. But what about unsuccessful?

I know that there are horror stories when they get it wrong. If we're talking about my personal views on this, I would by and large trust the doctors. My main concern in this area is the pressure groups and leftists. People who would actually want the child to be trans for their own reasons. To add another individual to their power base. And not care about that individual in their power politics.

With Rowling, let's assume for a moment she's just wrong. But that doesn't make her a bigot or a transphobe, as she isn't trying to do harm and has no problem with transpeople.

I don't think she literally meant it's being used with intent as conversion therapy. I think she meant it as mistaking gay people as trans.

I have. Even your link states it only removes most of the strength advantage. That alone is enough to make a serious trans athlete be able to hit heights unreachable to a woman. (And your link also notes actual height is still there as well.) And it doesn't go into the male skeletal structure, which is just all around superior to that of a woman. Denser bones and the bone structure itself is just all around better suited to athletic competition.

This is where we differ. Right now it's limited where this is applied, but I see it as a huge risk if we roll out the idea you can just say what gender you are and enter that space. It gives the predator all the power. It will be exploited.

I do accept the idea that they should be able to enter if that's what they are. If they're able to pass, no one would ever know, and if they actually entered the bathroom of their biological sex, they'd freak out the people in there. I think they should look the part. I don't mean they have to pass, it would be enough to be able to tell the person was trans. If they're trans but haven't transitioned, they should go to the one of their biological sex. Perverts of course could dress up, but they could do that anyway, so we'd be right where we are now. More likely they won't go to such lengths, and they'll do something else instead.

We basically already have this stuff. Like it's a known unwritten rule not to look at another man while he's using the urinal. Unwanted touching and stuff are already social standards. I don't think we need a formal dress code, and a man in a dress still looks like a man in a dress. Transitioning changes your body. Use that to your advantage and make some basic amount of effort with your appearance. Basic consideration for the people in that space.



Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,481
Location: Brisbane, Australia

16 Jul 2020, 6:37 pm

Drake wrote:
I'll admit I don't know what the process involves for getting a diagnosis at a young age. What you say I'm sure is true in the case of a successful diagnosis. But what about unsuccessful?

I know that there are horror stories when they get it wrong. If we're talking about my personal views on this, I would by and large trust the doctors. My main concern in this area is the pressure groups and leftists. People who would actually want the child to be trans for their own reasons. To add another individual to their power base. And not care about that individual in their power politics.

With Rowling, let's assume for a moment she's just wrong. But that doesn't make her a bigot or a transphobe, as she isn't trying to do harm and has no problem with transpeople.

I don't think she literally meant it's being used with intent as conversion therapy. I think she meant it as mistaking gay people as trans.

I have. Even your link states it only removes most of the strength advantage. That alone is enough to make a serious trans athlete be able to hit heights unreachable to a woman. (And your link also notes actual height is still there as well.) And it doesn't go into the male skeletal structure, which is just all around superior to that of a woman. Denser bones and the bone structure itself is just all around better suited to athletic competition.

This is where we differ. Right now it's limited where this is applied, but I see it as a huge risk if we roll out the idea you can just say what gender you are and enter that space. It gives the predator all the power. It will be exploited.

I do accept the idea that they should be able to enter if that's what they are. If they're able to pass, no one would ever know, and if they actually entered the bathroom of their biological sex, they'd freak out the people in there. I think they should look the part. I don't mean they have to pass, it would be enough to be able to tell the person was trans. If they're trans but haven't transitioned, they should go to the one of their biological sex. Perverts of course could dress up, but they could do that anyway, so we'd be right where we are now. More likely they won't go to such lengths, and they'll do something else instead.

We basically already have this stuff. Like it's a known unwritten rule not to look at another man while he's using the urinal. Unwanted touching and stuff are already social standards. I don't think we need a formal dress code, and a man in a dress still looks like a man in a dress. Transitioning changes your body. Use that to your advantage and make some basic amount of effort with your appearance. Basic consideration for the people in that space.



My understanding is that they gotten better and better diagnosing transgenderism and gender dysphoria. There is a particular documentary you can watch on YouTube about de-transitioners, people who think their choice to transition was wrong, I think that the whole thing is actually disgusting in how it frames the issue as widespread, because that is not what most of the evidence says. But pretty much everyone in the documentary is on the older side, and mostly seems to have suffered from some mental problem that was not addressed by their transition, which modern methods check now. Pretty sure the numbers are like less than a few percent that regretted it also.

I would not recommend that documentary as informing one on the process, but rather understand it as heavily biased anti-trans propaganda that what it does not have in having such a small selection of people speaks more. Since it only about old science.

Rowling does not have to show malicious hatred for trans people to be a bigot on the subject of transgender people, just like how a white guy could say he has no problem with black people but still be a bigoted racist. I would go so far as to say that Rowling probably thinks that she is on the side of trans people, saying that the good ones or look the part should be accepted, and what she is as the fringe cases, like she thinks that she was, can accept their assigned sex like their womanhood or something. In her eyes she is completely accepting and reasonable.

That is fine for the world in Rowling's head, and I for one would take it into account that she is not actively hateful, but her assumptions don't entirely line up with reality. She has defended more hateful transphobic people, said things like "sex is real", which transgender people are not denying, but is used against them as a means to disregard their gender. And the one good experience she has talked about a transgender person was someone who was on the older side and had to go through an incredibly long process, which Rowling is holding up as some sort of golden standard, despite how awful that is to those people.

J.K. Rowling wrote:
Many, myself included, believe we are watching a new kind of conversion therapy for young gay people, who are being set on a lifelong path of medicalisation that may result in the loss of their fertility and/or full sexual function. 5/11


That is what she posted, in her long essay she also talked about gender identity removing the meaning of things like same sex attraction. The statement of just saying that many believe something does not seem so bad, but truth is that there is absolutely no evidence that this is a thing, and I honestly think might be saying more about what she thinks of gay and lesbian people, that they can be mistaken as trans people. Sure, some stereotypes of gay men may make them feminine, and some lesbians as masculine, but this does not mean that they would get mistaken as being transgender or having gender dysphoria. The whole thing is based on ideas they have built up in their head.

I know that the hormone therapy does make trans-women bones lose density, closer to that of cis women. And we can start going into things that can't be changed from going through male puberty, but then we get into weird territories where we might as well look at the natural traits of some cis women. Where perhaps a cis woman naturally has high levels of testosterone that would be unacceptable for a trans woman, or height or bone density. How many of the best female athletes could find themselves pushed up to competing against men, in general a lot of athletes can have natural advantages or disadvantages, that can exist outside of what their sex is, do we start separating athletes out by their natural biological elements outside of gender male and female? I have seen the argument that at some point we might, that sports be tiered by their natural ability, so it would more of come down to how well they trained, and arguably that would even lead to men and women competing against each other if their bodies were considered on the same level.

I don't have a lot of hard fast rules for saying can or cannot use what gendered spaces, just that it would probably be up to what level of feeling comfortable the person going in would feel, and what signs of being a creep someone may be in making others feel uncomfortable. We would have to rely on say women saying that someone is being too much of a creep, which is probably going to mean how much effort the AMAB person put into looking the part. I am sure that a lot of transgender women are all too familiar with the dirty looks they can get, and in general trans people understand the effort they need to put in to be accepted, I don't think that is going to change any time soon if it starts getting written on the books. I think that things like men in business suits are likely to be taken well.



Whatever is most comfortable for everyone involved will be easier.


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


Drake
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,577

24 Jul 2020, 4:04 pm

Bradleigh wrote:
Drake wrote:
I'll admit I don't know what the process involves for getting a diagnosis at a young age. What you say I'm sure is true in the case of a successful diagnosis. But what about unsuccessful?

I know that there are horror stories when they get it wrong. If we're talking about my personal views on this, I would by and large trust the doctors. My main concern in this area is the pressure groups and leftists. People who would actually want the child to be trans for their own reasons. To add another individual to their power base. And not care about that individual in their power politics.

With Rowling, let's assume for a moment she's just wrong. But that doesn't make her a bigot or a transphobe, as she isn't trying to do harm and has no problem with transpeople.

I don't think she literally meant it's being used with intent as conversion therapy. I think she meant it as mistaking gay people as trans.

I have. Even your link states it only removes most of the strength advantage. That alone is enough to make a serious trans athlete be able to hit heights unreachable to a woman. (And your link also notes actual height is still there as well.) And it doesn't go into the male skeletal structure, which is just all around superior to that of a woman. Denser bones and the bone structure itself is just all around better suited to athletic competition.

This is where we differ. Right now it's limited where this is applied, but I see it as a huge risk if we roll out the idea you can just say what gender you are and enter that space. It gives the predator all the power. It will be exploited.

I do accept the idea that they should be able to enter if that's what they are. If they're able to pass, no one would ever know, and if they actually entered the bathroom of their biological sex, they'd freak out the people in there. I think they should look the part. I don't mean they have to pass, it would be enough to be able to tell the person was trans. If they're trans but haven't transitioned, they should go to the one of their biological sex. Perverts of course could dress up, but they could do that anyway, so we'd be right where we are now. More likely they won't go to such lengths, and they'll do something else instead.

We basically already have this stuff. Like it's a known unwritten rule not to look at another man while he's using the urinal. Unwanted touching and stuff are already social standards. I don't think we need a formal dress code, and a man in a dress still looks like a man in a dress. Transitioning changes your body. Use that to your advantage and make some basic amount of effort with your appearance. Basic consideration for the people in that space.



My understanding is that they gotten better and better diagnosing transgenderism and gender dysphoria. There is a particular documentary you can watch on YouTube about de-transitioners, people who think their choice to transition was wrong, I think that the whole thing is actually disgusting in how it frames the issue as widespread, because that is not what most of the evidence says. But pretty much everyone in the documentary is on the older side, and mostly seems to have suffered from some mental problem that was not addressed by their transition, which modern methods check now. Pretty sure the numbers are like less than a few percent that regretted it also.

I would not recommend that documentary as informing one on the process, but rather understand it as heavily biased anti-trans propaganda that what it does not have in having such a small selection of people speaks more. Since it only about old science.

Rowling does not have to show malicious hatred for trans people to be a bigot on the subject of transgender people, just like how a white guy could say he has no problem with black people but still be a bigoted racist. I would go so far as to say that Rowling probably thinks that she is on the side of trans people, saying that the good ones or look the part should be accepted, and what she is as the fringe cases, like she thinks that she was, can accept their assigned sex like their womanhood or something. In her eyes she is completely accepting and reasonable.

That is fine for the world in Rowling's head, and I for one would take it into account that she is not actively hateful, but her assumptions don't entirely line up with reality. She has defended more hateful transphobic people, said things like "sex is real", which transgender people are not denying, but is used against them as a means to disregard their gender. And the one good experience she has talked about a transgender person was someone who was on the older side and had to go through an incredibly long process, which Rowling is holding up as some sort of golden standard, despite how awful that is to those people.

J.K. Rowling wrote:
Many, myself included, believe we are watching a new kind of conversion therapy for young gay people, who are being set on a lifelong path of medicalisation that may result in the loss of their fertility and/or full sexual function. 5/11


That is what she posted, in her long essay she also talked about gender identity removing the meaning of things like same sex attraction. The statement of just saying that many believe something does not seem so bad, but truth is that there is absolutely no evidence that this is a thing, and I honestly think might be saying more about what she thinks of gay and lesbian people, that they can be mistaken as trans people. Sure, some stereotypes of gay men may make them feminine, and some lesbians as masculine, but this does not mean that they would get mistaken as being transgender or having gender dysphoria. The whole thing is based on ideas they have built up in their head.

I know that the hormone therapy does make trans-women bones lose density, closer to that of cis women. And we can start going into things that can't be changed from going through male puberty, but then we get into weird territories where we might as well look at the natural traits of some cis women. Where perhaps a cis woman naturally has high levels of testosterone that would be unacceptable for a trans woman, or height or bone density. How many of the best female athletes could find themselves pushed up to competing against men, in general a lot of athletes can have natural advantages or disadvantages, that can exist outside of what their sex is, do we start separating athletes out by their natural biological elements outside of gender male and female? I have seen the argument that at some point we might, that sports be tiered by their natural ability, so it would more of come down to how well they trained, and arguably that would even lead to men and women competing against each other if their bodies were considered on the same level.

I don't have a lot of hard fast rules for saying can or cannot use what gendered spaces, just that it would probably be up to what level of feeling comfortable the person going in would feel, and what signs of being a creep someone may be in making others feel uncomfortable. We would have to rely on say women saying that someone is being too much of a creep, which is probably going to mean how much effort the AMAB person put into looking the part. I am sure that a lot of transgender women are all too familiar with the dirty looks they can get, and in general trans people understand the effort they need to put in to be accepted, I don't think that is going to change any time soon if it starts getting written on the books. I think that things like men in business suits are likely to be taken well.



Whatever is most comfortable for everyone involved will be easier.

I would like to get back to talking about cancel culture, if you don't mind.

I've gone back through the entire thread to try and get as much of a fix on your position as possible. So correct me if I'm wrong, principally, you seem to be against cancel culture in a lot of cases, but in the case of JK, you think she's objectively wrong, and doing harm, due to the reach she has, and that's why she should be cancelled, even though you acknowledge she isn't malicious, yes?

I suppose we all have our limits for what we tolerate to allow people to say. Me, I basically reject as concepts hate speech or violent speech, but I am still supportive of shutting down people trying to incite violence or other crime with words, spread slander or engage in harassment. Rowling does not meet this criteria. I also don't think you can be a bigot without intent and malice.

But what form do you think the cancelling of JK should take? What would you do with her, if it was up to you?



Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,481
Location: Brisbane, Australia

24 Jul 2020, 6:09 pm

Drake wrote:
I would like to get back to talking about cancel culture, if you don't mind.

I've gone back through the entire thread to try and get as much of a fix on your position as possible. So correct me if I'm wrong, principally, you seem to be against cancel culture in a lot of cases, but in the case of JK, you think she's objectively wrong, and doing harm, due to the reach she has, and that's why she should be cancelled, even though you acknowledge she isn't malicious, yes?

I suppose we all have our limits for what we tolerate to allow people to say. Me, I basically reject as concepts hate speech or violent speech, but I am still supportive of shutting down people trying to incite violence or other crime with words, spread slander or engage in harassment. Rowling does not meet this criteria. I also don't think you can be a bigot without intent and malice.

But what form do you think the cancelling of JK should take? What would you do with her, if it was up to you?


I don't know if the word is canceling, but I think that the platforms should acknowledge that what Rowling is saying is objectively incorrect, not based in actual logic. There be a caveat of if Rowling really wants to continue saying these things, that many people do not support her point of view.

On her intentions, I agree that in her head she thinks that she is doing the right thing without malice, just like a racist might think they are helping black people by forcing them to be lower class and under the control of wise white masters. In their mind they are being kind, but in practice it is the same thing as being hateful, maybe even more dangerous since it creates the image of being altruistic, the problem is still racist, or in Rowling's case transphobia, regardless of if a direct fear of that group. Might be out of fears of an imagined group like barbaric men from the likes of Birth of a Nation, or perverts that would use transgender people as a cover.

Finding intention can be helpful to convict someone of murder, such as out of malice, but I think you can still be convicted of murder if you should have been able to reasonably foreseen that your actions could likely lead to being killed. For that reason, a malicious intent is not the only thing to look to in seeing something as problematic, and even dangerous.


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall