Politics Anarchism as a Social and Political Philosphy

[RobbieK]

There is no medical consensus on this issue. The state imposes its views based on current ideology, and not only bars dissenting medical experts from practising but also gives the state the power to remove children from parents who do not conform.

There is a medical consensus, you just don't like it. Simple as that. That consensus has come about due to the evidence about works and what doesn't work, it has come about because of scientific work over a number of decades which has worked out what helps people and what does people harm. The results are clear. If you want to continue to ignore that, fine, but don't pretend you aren't knowingly doing harm when you misgender a trans person.

The state imposes it because that is what the state tends to do when the medical community reaches a public health consensus like this. For an analagous argument, there is a medical consensus that vaccination is a necessary health safe guard to protect the community. This has come about after extensive scientific research into the effects of vaccination or the lack of it, about what helps people and about what harms people. The state then imposes that consensus in a variety of ways. This isn't done for ideological reasons, it is does for public health reasons.

The only ideology here is evidence-based medicine. Do you have a problem with that?

Where does this baloney end?

Should I be compelled to recognise a person of Asian decent as negroid based upon nothing more than their wishes, despite the obvious scientific data to the contrary? How about legal rights to identify as 6 year in order to to return to primary school?

This is a completely unworkable scenario.

Seriously, you are going to go for a slippery slope?

It is really pretty simple - if you misgender a trans person you are doing them harm. That is clear. The research is in, the evidence is there. I think an anarchist community that was built upon the kinds of foundations you have put forward - maximising individual freedom, limited only be ensuring doing so does not harm or unreasonbly impose upon the freedom of others - could quite reasonably decide that this is an act which they would not tolerate. Not all communities would decide that. It is up to the community to decide for itself. Personally, I'd want to live in a community which respected trans people in accordance with what the medical community has determined to be the best practice, you disagree, that's fine. There is no one way to do anarchism, the foundational principles place emphasis on the needs for individual anarchists and communities of anarchists to work out how they chose to follow them. We should probably live in different anarchist communities. I think we can leave this here.

 

[Malifice]

Didn't particularly end well though. It lead to the The Terror (as it was known) and then the dictatorial reign of Napoleon, which ultimately resulted in the reestablishment of the monarchy (although constitutional).

Same can be said about pre Franco Spain, Wiemar Germany, The Galactic Repbulic and plenty of other liberal democracies that have fallen to tyranny.

Its why 'liberals' are the first ones screaming out at rulers who ignore the rule of law, or who are populist right wingers, or attempt to centralise power via ignorance of the seperation of powers, overstepping their constitutional powers or whathave you.

In other words why leaders like Trump, and orgainisations like Nazis and other fascist or nationalist movements are opposed by liberals (the left).

We put a lot of checks and balances into the liberal State as we could (Rule of Law, Seperation of the Powers, Democtratic elections and public accountability, Term limits, Constitutional limits of power, apolitical Military, independent Judiciary etc) but even then (as has been demonstrated numerous times) the right wing/ ultra nationalist nutters still seem to find a way.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Seriously, you are going to go for a slippery slope?

It is really pretty simple - if you misgender a trans person you are doing them harm. That is clear. The research is in, the evidence is there. I think an anarchist community that was built upon the kinds of foundations you have put forward - maximising individual freedom, limited only be ensuring doing so does not harm or unreasonbly impose upon the freedom of others - could quite reasonably decide that this is an act which they would not tolerate. Not all communities would decide that. It is up to the community to decide for itself. Personally, I'd want to live in a community which respected trans people in accordance with what the medical community has determined to be the best practice, you disagree, that's fine. There is no one way to do anarchism, the foundational principles place emphasis on the needs for individual anarchists and communities of anarchists to work out how they chose to follow them. We should probably live in different anarchist communities. I think we can leave this here.

I'll ask again.

Where is the link to this research?

 

[RobbieK]

I'll ask again.

Where is the link to this research?

Here is the American Psychological Association guidelines for working with trans people, full of references: http://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/transgender.pdf

 

[King Brown]

There is a medical consensus, you just don't like it. Simple as that. That consensus has come about due to the evidence about works and what doesn't work, it has come about because of scientific work over a number of decades which has worked out what helps people and what does people harm. The results are clear. If you want to continue to ignore that, fine, but don't pretend you aren't knowingly doing harm when you misgender a trans person.

Nonsense.

 

[King Brown]

Here is the American Psychological Association guidelines for working with trans people, full of references: http://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/transgender.pdf

Those are guidelines from a medical association on dealing with gender dysphoric people in a clinical setting. You have confused them for assertions around political speech. Try not to confuse the two again.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Here is the American Psychological Association guidelines for working with trans people, full of references: http://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/transgender.pdf

These are guidelines for psychologists working with trans people in a professional environment.

I had a strong hunch that you were gilding the lilly.

 

[RobbieK]

Nonsense.

What a contribution!

What is nonsense about what I wrote?

There is a medical consensus, you just don't like it. Simple as that.

Yes, there is a consensus. When peak psychological and medical bodies are issuing the guidelines that I just posted it is because they have come to a consensus about the best possible treatment.

That consensus has come about due to the evidence about works and what doesn't work, it has come about because of scientific work over a number of decades which has worked out what helps people and what does people harm. The results are clear.

It did. I just posted a set of guidelines outlining all of the relevant research that has led to these conclusions.

If you want to continue to ignore that, fine, but don't pretend you aren't knowingly doing harm when you misgender a trans person.

So yeah, I'm going to stick with this one. You don't like the results of all that research, that's fine You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not, however, entitled to your own facts. The fact is people with a much better idea about this than you have done a lot of work and come up with the conclusion that you a wrong. Deal with it.

 

[RobbieK]

These are guidelines for psychologists working with trans people in a professional environment.

I had a strong hunch that you were gilding the lilly.

Did you read the document? King Brown clearly didn't, he posted only two minutes after I posted it to dismiss it. Read it and you will find that each of the guidlines references the applicable research that has been done on transgender people. You asked for evidence, it is all there listed for you, neatly organised. What more would you like me to do, tuck you in to bed tonight and read it all out to you?

This is the epitome of willful ignorance.

 

[King Brown]

Did you read the document? King Brown clearly didn't, he posted only two minutes after I posted it to dismiss it.

Nope. I've read it well before you even suggested it and posted about it earlier today:

I think peak medical bodies have decided the best way to minimise the risk of trans people demedicalising is to use their preferred pronoun. They say nothing about whether misgendering should be compelled speech otherwise.

It’s a guideline for doctors and nurses. It says nothing about whether a man with a penis who asserts himself as a woman is actually a woman.

Also I’m bemused by the separate categorisation of harm and offence. How are words harmful if they do not offend? Harm and offence should be considered synonymous when it comes to words. We should then consider whether offence, that is 'harming someone using words', is that big of a deal.

As for medical consensus - there is no medical consensus. There is a peak body issuing guidelines for care in a clinical setting for those who are transitioning. There is a lot of disagreement among medical practitioners about those who aren't transitioning - for example, people who don't have true gender dysphoria, children who are too young to go on puberty blockers or surgically transitions etc. There is no consensus.

Last, but not least, read the ******* thing yourself:

Distinction Between Standards and Guidelines

When using these Guidelines, psychologists should be aware that APA has made an important distinction between standards and guidelines (Reed, McLaughlin, & Newman, 2002). Standards are mandates to which all psychologists must adhere (e.g., the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct; APA, 2010), whereas guidelines are aspirational. Psychologists are encouraged to use these Guidelines in tandem with the Ethical Principles of Psy- chologists and Code of Conduct, and should be aware that state and federal laws may override these Guidelines (APA, 2010).

In addition, these Guidelines refer to psychological practice (e.g., clinical work, consultation, education, re- search, and training) rather than treatment. Practice guide- lines are practitioner-focused and provide guidance for professionals regarding “conduct and the issues to be con- sidered in particular areas of clinical practice” (Reed et al., 2002, p. 1044).
​

 

[Snake_Baker]

Did you read the document? King Brown clearly didn't, he posted only two minutes after I posted it to dismiss it. Read it and you will find that each of the guidlines references the applicable research that has been done on transgender people. You asked for evidence, it is all there listed for you, neatly organised. What more would you like me to do, tuck you in to bed tonight and read it all out to you?

This is the epitome of willful ignorance.

I ask you for data and you throw up a psychology "how to" paper, and then expect me to dig through hundreds of links to find out which vagaries support your political views.

I highly doubt you have read the links yourself, otherwise you would have lead me to a direct source/s.

In light of this, I can only assume that you have embellished medical guidelines for your own political purposes.

 

[ChampRevesby]

Same can be said about pre Franco Spain, Wiemar Germany, The Galactic Repbulic and plenty of other liberal democracies that have fallen to tyranny.

Its why 'liberals' are the first ones screaming out at rulers who ignore the rule of law, or who are populist right wingers, or attempt to centralise power via ignorance of the seperation of powers, overstepping their constitutional powers or whathave you.

In other words why leaders like Trump, and orgainisations like Nazis and other fascist or nationalist movements are opposed by liberals (the left).

We put a lot of checks and balances into the liberal State as we could (Rule of Law, Seperation of the Powers, Democtratic elections and public accountability, Term limits, Constitutional limits of power, apolitical Military, independent Judiciary etc) but even then (as has been demonstrated numerous times) the right wing/ ultra nationalist nutters still seem to find a way.

The check and balances are there to prevent tyranny from both the left and right wing extremists.

 

[Malifice]

The check and balances are there to prevent tyranny from both the left and right wing extremists.

The left wing are the liberals. That's why the names are synonymous in most parts of the world.

To the extreme left you have communists and socialists but they aren't worth pissing on generally and haven't ruined nearly as many democracies as right wingers have.

They do do it though. Cuba springs to mind.

Right wing populism is a thing. Left wing populism really isn't.

But I otherwise agree. As a liberal it's my duty to defend liberalism from tyranny.

I'l have liberalism over its competitors in communism, nationalism, fascism, anarchism, fundamentalism, and totalitarianism any day of the week.

 

[TimmeT]

The left wing are the liberals. That's why the names are synonymous in most parts of the world.

To the extreme left you have communists and socialists but they aren't worth pissing on generally and haven't ruined nearly as many democracies as right wingers have.

They do do it though. Cuba springs to mind.

Right wing populism is a thing. Left wing populism really isn't.

But I otherwise agree. As a liberal it's my duty to defend liberalism from tyranny.

I'l have liberalism over its competitors in communism, nationalism, fascism, anarchism, fundamentalism, and totalitarianism any day of the week.

pretty silly saying that the left wing extremists haven't ruined many democracies, when left wing extremism is synonymous with removing all form of democracy.

 

[Malifice]

pretty silly saying that the left wing extremists haven't ruined many democracies, when left wing extremism is synonymous with removing all form of democracy.

Can you read?

I agreed that far left wing s**t (communism and extreme socialism) has ruined democracies. I even cited Cuba as one example.

My point was that extreme right wing s**t (Fascism, Nazism, Nationalism, Fundamentalism) has ruined many more.

I'm agreeing with you re extreme leftism; I'm just positing that right wing crap is equally bad if not far worse.

My other point is that liberal is synonymous with left wing.

A point that hasn't been challenged yet.

 

[Procrastinator35]

My other point is that liberal is synonymous with left wing.....A point that hasn't been challenged yet.

Except in Australia, where paradoxically the Liberal Party is of the right-wing conservative persuasion.....Something, something, land down under.

 

[ChampRevesby]

My other point is that liberal is synonymous with left wing.

A point that hasn't been challenged yet.

Liberalism in its classical sense is based on Locke’s maxim which states that no one has a right over someone else’s life, liberty, or property. It states that all people are born equal in rights and enjoy the same freedoms and liberties. This was and still is viewed in Europe as a moderate centre right-wing view, because, at its core, it does not incorporate any economic equality.

Social liberalism attempts to undo this economic unfairness by sacrificing personal liberty for social equality (social welfare etc). This is achieved by redistributive measures enforced by government fiat. When you morph this aspect into the classical liberal framework this idea can exist anywhere from a centre to a centre left ideology.

Again we come back to the tussle between Equality and Liberty, one comes at the scarifice of the other.

Except in Australia, where paradoxically the Liberal Party is of the right-wing conservative persuasion.....Something, something, land down under.

The Liberal Party took their name from one of their political predecessors, the Commonwealth Liberal Party. At the time of the formation of the Liberal Party during the mid 1940s, the party positioned itself as supporting a classical liberal democracy and a free market economy, while the Labor party was characterised by the Liberals as a party that espoused authoritarian socialism.

Then again, Labor has shifted significantly from their party position when they were formed - Labor was arguably quite socially conservative at the time of federation, and favoured protectionist economic policies and pursuing democratic socialism. Nowadays, Labor is fairly socially progressive (social conservatives remain) and has moved well away from socialism and protectionism towards very centrist economic policy.

 

[TimmeT]

Can you read?

I agreed that far left wing s**t (communism and extreme socialism) has ruined democracies. I even cited Cuba as one example.

My point was that extreme right wing s**t (Fascism, Nazism, Nationalism, Fundamentalism) has ruined many more.

I'm agreeing with you re extreme leftism; I'm just positing that right wing crap is equally bad if not far worse.

My other point is that liberal is synonymous with left wing.

A point that hasn't been challenged yet.

Yes I can read and I have responded to what you have written. Democracy under left wing rule has been worse and destroyed nations badly. Especially when you still see long term examples like Norf Korea, Cuba, Venezuela etc etc.

Pretty sure left wing populism is a thing also.

 

[Seeds]

what the hell is an anarchist community. The whole point of anarchism is to tear down community. There is no such thing as community without government.

 

[Snake_Baker]

what the hell is an anarchist community. The whole point of anarchism is to tear down community. There is no such thing as community without government.

A cornerstone of anarchism is to tear down forced community.

You need a master.

I don't.

 

[Frank Bunn]

There is a medical consensus, you just don't like it. Simple as that. That consensus has come about due to the evidence about works and what doesn't work, it has come about because of scientific work over a number of decades which has worked out what helps people and what does people harm. The results are clear. If you want to continue to ignore that, fine, but don't pretend you aren't knowingly doing harm when you misgender a trans person.

For decades, Dr. Kenneth Zucker led the Child Youth and Family Gender Identity Clinic (GIC), in Toronto, one of the most well-known clinics in the world for children and adolescents with gender dysphoria. He was one of the most frequently cited names in the research literature on gender dysphoria and gender-identity development, and the editor of the prestigious journal Archives of Sexual Behavior. He took a leading role helping devise diagnostic and treatment guidelines for gender dysphoric and transgender individuals. He headed the group which developed the DSM-5’s criteria for its “gender dysphoria” entry and helped write the most recent “standards of care” guidelines for the World Professional Association for Transgender Health — one of the bibles for clinicians who treat transgender and gender-dysphoric patients.

Zucker's 'crime' was to not conform to the trending ideological gender-affirmative approach, instead taking a view that gender is quite malleable at a young age and gender dysphoria will often resolve itself with time. As a result, he and his practise was smeared with false allegations by activists and it was shut down.

The results are not clear. Don't pretend you care about the harm of people when you are arguing from an ideological point of view.

The state imposes it because that is what the state tends to do when the medical community reaches a public health consensus like this. For an analagous argument, there is a medical consensus that vaccination is a necessary health safe guard to protect the community. This has come about after extensive scientific research into the effects of vaccination or the lack of it, about what helps people and about what harms people. The state then imposes that consensus in a variety of ways. This isn't done for ideological reasons, it is does for public health reasons.

Your analogy with vaccines is bogus. Firstly, there have been plenty of medical consensus that have proved to be wrong. Eg the stress theory of stomach ulcers, use of thalidomide to treat morning sickness, the widespread prescription of statins for major cardiovascular events.

Then you are comparing objective physical evidence against subjective psychological evidence. 'Public health consensus' on social and psychological issues is not necessarily 'medical' ie based on scientific data. But it is inevitably political and skewed by current ideology. The state can and does impose its ideological view regardless of the evidence.

 

[Run n Spread]

A cornerstone of anarchism is to tear down forced community.

You need a master.

I don't.

Fair point. But what's your view on Tax? Who pays and administers roads, schools, "sensible" law and order hospitals etc.

Having been in countries with no tax and no social safety net the results are disastrous.

Fine don't have a master but how do you prevent the strong dominating the weak? (And yes I realise this happens already to a certain degree).

 

[Snake_Baker]

A debit tax seems like a reasonable idea.

 

[ferball]

Contemporary democracy is mob rule.

Otherwise, why all the cops, prisons, judges and lawyers?

Democracy, as we know it, is a power that resides above society.

Modern democracy gave individuals more access to power and more limits on state power than any other political system since agriculture.

I'm not saying your point is incorrect but power is a thing and people exercise it all the time. States exist and have for millenia - they accumulate power and use it to further their own interests whatever the people they govern think about it.

The only remotely anarchist communities I can think of in the last 300 years that worked for a while were various groups of pirates and they only lasted a short time once the power of the state was brought against them.

Contemporary modern democracy isn't even mob rule tho. Our contemporary modern democracies are ruled by the same aristocratic power concentrations that have existed for centuries. Mostly those cops, prisons and the rest of it ultimately exist to protect the ruling class and the economy from the rest of us. Thats why the fair work commission "ruled" that transport workers striking in NSW the other day was "illegal".

But they also protect many of us from the arbitrary use of power by aristo campaigners. To a point. When it happens...




OK one thing the state is good for (here in OZ) is organising a system that keeps people alive when they really should be dead, especially from massive trauma and serious conditions like status epilepsy.

 

[ferball]

what the hell is an anarchist community. The whole point of anarchism is to tear down community. There is no such thing as community without government.

I live in the hills behind Nimbin. The community here exists in spite of the government not because of it.

Community is not government. Society is not community and government is not "the people".