I don’t, but do you infringe on the rights of others in that bathroom if they do object? I guess you’d have to decide how much you care about being on the right side of history versus siding with the majority today. It’s easy to see why a politician would see having more bathrooms and trying to appease everyone as the way forward.
Transgender rights discussion
- Thread starter crappycraperson
- Start date
What rights, if you don't mind me asking? When I enter a bathroom in a shopping center, for example, the only thing I want is to take care of my business as quickly as possible without anyone bothering me. I assume most people are like this. If the man in the video did exactly that in a male bathroom, what rights of the other men there would be infringed?
Not sure, I don’t subscribe to their line of thinking so it’s hard to say. You’d imagine they feel like they’re having something infringed upon if they feel that strongly about it though.
Would a transman want to go to a women’s college though? Isn’t that the opposite of where they would like to go ?
no, they usually just tend to be transphobic.
trans people have been using the toilets of the gender they identify with since forever. No one cared until terfs started spouting their hatred in the last 5-10 years. No one cares because it doesn’t effect anyone, they’re a place to piss and shit.
Why nonbinary as well? I thought nonbinary was the person does not associate with either gender at any given time?
The article is quite confusing. Looks as though trans women have already been allowed in for years. So the change is to allow trans men and non binary. But looks as though cis men might not be allowed in. So their policy seems to imply that trans men are not men. Not sure that’s a message they want to be giving out.
I think in the efforts to be politically correct, institutions are just muddying the waters...but in their defence, part of the logic behind this self-identity politics is (maybe intentionally) muddied anyway.
In a completely unrelated observation to this trans brouhaha, 'powerful' and 'Insidious' must be top 5 of all time in a list of epithets used by bigots to demonise marginalised groups.
Holy shit, that's a astonishing lack of self-awareness.
Also, how the feck is the trans community powerful? They are anything but.
The cruelty is the whole point…
Wiener or vagiener. That simple, innit?
Yep. Read the tweet to which he replied wrong.
He's so dumb sometimes it's impressive.
I mean it is really. Yes there fringe outliers in terms of intersex conditions or sex chromosomal abnormalities but that doesn’t alter the basic concept of male and female biological sex.
This actually made me curious.
The discussion prompt is that some people/scientists want to "degender or neutralize language". Morgan says that they're doing this by pretending that bioligy doesn't exist, and while agreeing Dawkins says that there are two sexes. Who are they talking about? Who says that?
Dawkins then says that it is bullying, and that we've seen Kathleen Stock and J.K. Rowling get bullied. What does that have to do with chromosomes or gametes? Take Kathleen Stock: she is, or at least was, a trustee of the LGB Alliance and she opposes banning of conversion therapy because she wants it used on trans people. What does that have to do with sex?
He then says that sex is biological, and that he doesn't want to talk about gender. However, they go straight to his old tweet about Rachel Dolezal, and where he says that some men identify as women, some women identify as men, and compares that with Dolezal. Do these trans people identify as having different chromosomes than they have in reality? If not, what on earth is he talking about?
None of these are rhetorical questions, I'm hoping for an answer because you found what he said obvious while I didn't see the relevance at all.
These are the kinds of posts you make when you're easily taken in by propaganda.
It's a shame Dawkins is on with Piers Morgan tbh. I tend to completely ignore anything he says! The prompt I haven't seen the context, presumably there are some that have made some sort of statements in support of degendering language in some way. However small a minority, these groups do exist, and I really don't agree with their outlook on things.
The stuff Dawkins said that pointed out the obvious for me is the existence of two sexes - male and female. He then fairly points out you can talk about gender which is subjective. I thought that was pretty fair.
I think a lot of the hate Rowling has had is for tweets based around the idea that sex is binary - but whatever she's said in the past she really has been the victim of bullying, it's forever printed on twitter for all to see. I don't know anything about Kathleen Stock so can't comment on her.
With the tweet he's referring to gender presumably, which is stated was subjective.
The propaganda of biology?
It's fitting, given that Dawkins was probably the first case of privileged boomer brain meltdown, under the weight of social media. Glinner, Peterson, JayKay Rowling all lemminged themselves in his wake. If it can happen to someone as accomplished in his field as Dick, then no surprise the intellectual minnows were susceptible.
I'm sorry, I'm still confused. Is the obvious thing that you thought was nice of Dawkins to point out just that sex is a binary? Because degendering language has absolutely nothing to do with that, so why would it be nice to see? He could just as well have said that as a response to "how old are you?".
In my opinion de-gendering language does have a lot to do with it. The overwhelming majority of people see their gender as aligned with their biological sex. I don't agree with neutralising language surrounding the existence of man and women.
If I say 'parents' instead of 'mom and dad', you think that's because I think sex isn't real?
Of course not.
That anyone are seriously disagreeing that there are only two sexes, and that it is the dominant position of the nefarious woke TRAs.
Ok, which forms of degendering langauge does have to do with the denial of biological sex, then?
Denial is a strong way to put it - and Dawkins certainly didn't say that in the interview, although Piers probably alluded to it.
I feel degendered language devalues a persons identity in some situations. The 'birthing person' terminology for example would be one instance that has clearly upset many women. I don't think it's about the language being used to deny biological sex, rather it's being used in a misplaced attempt to appease a minority of people who are seeking to make neutralised language standard.
In this instance it's a very small group of scientists who has started an initiative about scientific language. They have 200 followers on Twitter, and on their website anyone can send in suggestions. They have a repository, and their goal is to start a conversation about if they can improve scientific writing in their own fields.
This is what has set Dawkins off for over a month, to the applause of you, Piers Morgan, the Daily Mail and and Telegraph. Just typing it out... I'm sorry, it's some through the looking glass shit.
Is it appeasement or just adapting to necessary changes? Imagine a law saying a woman has the right to x days of when they have a child. Does this mean a transgender men doesn't have that same right? How do you put this into rules or laws without a more encompassing expression?
I don't think it's necessary in all walks of life no. The maternity leave is based on pregnancy - so yes, a transgender man would potentially have the same right as he would be a biological women able to carry children. God that's a sentence I never thought I'd write
.Also rules and laws are a bit different, not involved in the law but gender neutral language is pretty standard I think.
Started the full episode. Poor Dawkins, Piers is so inferior intellectually it's almost painful to watch.
Tide comes in, tide goes out. You can't explain that!
At what point and for what reason did transgender discrimination and the subsequent debate over policy explode like this? For example this thread was created in 2020 and has 55 pages of discussion. However we all know transgender individuals existed long before.
Because it was next on the docket.
Of course we are not done with sexism, racism or homophobia but it makes sense to tackle trans issues next. These things should have been tackled long ago but you know... Humans and religion etc.
Random thought but what do we reckon is next on the docket after this?
