Transgender

[Gralin]

Discussion continuing in Part 2 found here

Transgender - Part 2

Please be aware that the tolerance of anti-trans language on BF is at an all-time low. Jokes and insults that are trans-related, as well as anti-trans and bigoted rhetoric will be met with infractions, threadbans etc as required. It's a sensitive (and important) topic, so behave like...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Chief]

The answer is never.

He cuts through the bullshit in a couple of sentences every time.

He is a master.

All hail the mighty Gough!

 

[checkraiseulite]

can he shed any light on whether race is a social construct and whether someone should be able to identify as a particular race notwithstanding a different genetic makeup?

and why terms like appropriation are applied to people identifying as a different race when not applied to transsexuals?

that would really serve to cut through the bullshit

feel free to shed some light on the above questions yourself if you're willing to re-engage in the debate.

 

[igon value]

He cuts through the bullshit in a couple of sentences every time.

He is a master.

All hail the mighty Gough!

No, he doesn't. He treats the opposing argument like a Mexican hat, and then dances around it.

 

[deltablues]

all it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing etc etc

it was cowardly and weak and not so thinly cloaked in blatant self interest.

but don't you dare condemn her, you misogynists.

Sure, misogyny trumps misandry.

As the Kinks said -

"It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world..."

 

[CM86]

Some people have limits to what they currently understand and tolerate. Even leftists. Even liberals. As identity becomes more an issue set by the individual and less by the surrounding society we are going to see all manner of tolerance limits being reached and then breached by different people.

Because tolerance currently is set by the individual, and ongoing attempts to shape it at the societal level are opposed. Some of us hold dear to ourselves the ability to set our own tolerances as individuals while demanding identity is set at the societal level. Others the complete reverse.

Sooner or later things are gonna get that fluid that viewpoints will meld and merge. Gender. Race. With the passage of time it's all going to matter a lot less than we think it does.

A pity that this post is ignored, in the push for a 'discussion'...

 

[deltablues]

Some people have limits to what they currently understand and tolerate. Even leftists. Even liberals. As identity becomes more an issue set by the individual and less by the surrounding society we are going to see all manner of tolerance limits being reached and then breached by different people.

Because tolerance currently is set by the individual, and ongoing attempts to shape it at the societal level are opposed. Some of us hold dear to ourselves the ability to set our own tolerances as individuals while demanding identity is set at the societal level. Others the complete reverse.

Sooner or later things are gonna get that fluid that viewpoints will meld and merge. Gender. Race. With the passage of time it's all going to matter a lot less than we think it does.

You are wrong. Tolerance is currently and always set by the community of which the individual is a part.

But when community values are refuted by individuals who are encouraged to reject those community values, alienation results, with a consequential degradation of community per se.

Which results in multicultural Balkanization.

 

[Gough]

Yes, if we're more tolerant towards transgender people we will end up with a post Tito type Yugoslavia, that's totally going to happen. You can't believe the shit you write surely?

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

No, he doesn't. He treats the opposing argument like a Mexican hat, and then dances around it.

And throws in some banal remark usually starting 'hurr durr, the righties...'

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

herculez09

One Google search.

On issuing CNI's to people who want to enter into a same sex marriage overseas:

https://www.crikey.com.au/2011/06/14/the-gillard-government’s-anti-gay-marriage-policy-goes-global/
Because of these problems the Netherlands gives Australians an exemption from its CNI requirement (along with Zimbabweans). Meanwhile, the Norwegians are so angry that the Gillard government is pushing its prejudices down their throats, they attacked Australia’s same-s-x marriage ban at a recent UN human rights review.

The article calls it a "ridiculous, harmful, discriminatory policy".

Penny Wong criticised:

http://www.samesame.com.au/news/5671/Wong-hypocrite-on-gay-marriage
Australian Marriage Equality spokesperson Alex Greenwich says Senator Wong’s rationale for opposing marriage equality is “deeply hypocritical.”

Gillard's stance "dated and draconian":

https://www.pedestrian.tv/arts-and-...efends-anti-gay-marriage-stance-in-/58031.htm

Gillard slammed for gay rights stance
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/gillard-slammed-for-gay-rights-stance-20120512-1yj9n.html
US President Barack Obama’s public support for gay marriage highlights how ‘‘backwards’’ Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s views are, a gay rights campaigner says.

Hundreds of pro-gay marriage supporters packed Queen’s Park in Brisbane’s CBD yesterday to urge the federal government to give gays and lesbians the right to marry.

Simultaneous rallies were also held in Melbourne, Sydney, Perth, Canberra, Adelaide and Hobart to celebrate the Marriage Equality National Day of Action.



And so on. You have to go past the first page because the latest articles are about her back-flip on gay marriage.

Okay, I had time to read the articles. I feel for Penny Wong. Imagine your leader announcing that she disagrees with your right to get married to who you love.

 

[deltablues]

Yes, if we're more tolerant towards transgender people we will end up with a post Tito type Yugoslavia, that's totally going to happen. You can't believe the shit you write surely?

Not sure if you are responding to me, but if you are, and if I understand your somewhat impenetrable logic, you are indulging in a fallacious syllogism.

But I guess barnyard language does it for you.

 

[Gough]

Thirty years ago homos were considered degenerate, forty years ago criminal, community values change with time, and will forever evolve. You might think all this end of PC crap is going to be the new norm, but I can assure it won't. History is progressive, and the push back against the current climate will come.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

Thirty years ago homos were considered degenerate, forty years ago criminal, community values change with time, and will forever evolve. You might think all this end of PC crap is going to be the new norm, but I can assure it won't. History is progressive, and the push back against the current climate will come.

They haven't always been perceived to be degenerates. Without knowing the history of homosexuality well enough, could you mount a case that Abrahamic religions made the plight of the homosexual much worse?

 

[Gough]

They haven't always been perceived to be degenerates. Without knowing the history of homosexuality well enough, could you mount a case that Abrahamic religions made the plight of the homosexual much worse?

If you haven't read much history then there's not a lot of point. But I can tell you that in my lifetime bashings, and murders of gay men all around the world have frequently happened, often with the blessing of, or aided by local police, and will continue to happen while homosexuality is viewed in these backward parts of the world where this still happens in the same way that you guys seem to view transgender people. That they're ill, that they're a danger to others, that they're degenerate. And the ones that don't cop a hiding aren't able to live freely because it isn't safe.
Now we are thankfully a step, or two beyond all that in this country but some times that feels like it's in spite of rather than because of societal changes when you read threads like this.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

If you haven't read much history then there's not a lot of point. But I can tell you that in my lifetime bashings, and murders of gay men all around the world have frequently happened, often with the blessing of, or aided by local police, and will continue to happen while homosexuality is viewed in these backward parts of the world where this still happens in the same way that you guys seem to view transgender people. That they're ill, that they're a danger to others, that they're degenerate. And the ones that don't cop a hiding aren't able to live freely because it isn't safe.
Now we are thankfully a step, or two beyond all that in this country but some times that feels like it's in spite of rather than because of societal changes when you read threads like this.

I have read a lot of history and have a degree in archaeology. I just haven't read a lot on the history of homosexuality.

I just wondered if you had any idea on whether homophobia became more pronounced following the rise of Christianity and Islam, but you danced around my question again.

 

[Gough]

The fundy Christian objection to ****s in America happened to arise when the Commos were slain because they needed a new enemy. But until the seventies/eighties/nineties in the West it was legislated against by the state, so the church's opinion didn't really matter. Most Islamic republics it's punishable death still, also it's pretty nasty in some central Africa place were the American missions are preaching the word of God.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

The fundy Christian objection to ****s in America happened to arise when the Commos were slain because they needed a new enemy. But until the seventies/eighties/nineties in the West it was legislated against by the state, so the church's opinion didn't really matter. Most Islamic republics it's punishable death still, also it's pretty nasty in some central Africa place were the American missions are preaching the word of God.

Still not quite what I was asking, but I can just do my own research later.

 

[deltablues]

Thirty years ago homos were considered degenerate, forty years ago criminal, community values change with time, and will forever evolve. You might think all this end of PC crap is going to be the new norm, but I can assure it won't. History is progressive, and the push back against the current climate will come.

Re the bold, I agree. Of course. But re the push back, what is the "current climate" of which you speak?

As an aside, talking about evolving, I guess I agree but have learned that it is a case of being careful what you wish for.

I was a child of the '60's (started and ended my teens in the '60's) when my generation's pushback against the stifling conformist '50's created the modern SJW Marxist weltanschauung (world view). Pardon the German, but in political philosophy, German kills English.

The 1960's bred the SJW French-derived deconstructionists of Derrida and his activists such as Dany le Rouge (Daniel Cohn-Bendit) whose acolytes, after the 1968 "revolution" in France, subverted the education system (as planned) and after 2 generations produced the current triggered safe-space snow-flakes indoctrinated by the left -wing cultural Marxist academics.

My point is that in those days there was a homogeneous community which had the common shared cultural weight and tradition to cope with the proposed new zeitgeist.

But not so much now.

 

[ABSOLUTE MADMAN]

Do you believe race is a social construct Gough?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The methodology follows Derrida's belief that if one breaks apart the so-called hidden hierarchies in language terms, one can open up a "lacuna" in understanding and free the mind of the reader/critic, baby. Problem is that there are no lacunae - it is in fact a device to re-write or leverage history to fit contemporary agendas.

Weren't Civil Rights once a 'contemporary agenda'? Didn't Emily Pankhurst in seeking womens' suffrage (the vote) seek to re-write and leverage history to suit her at-that-time contemporary agenda?

Throughout human history there are always agents of change, and there are those that resist because the new order of things makes them uncertain or fearful or anxious or it's just not how they were brought up.

Oh no, that woman used to be a man!

Oh no, there's a black man in my neighbourhood!

Oh no, an Asian bought the fish and chip shop down the street!

Oh no, white people are fashioning their hair into cornrows and singing rap!

Oh no, there were two homosexuals in my workplace!

Oh no, people don't believe in God no more!

Oh no, women can vote!

Oh no!

Change will always bring out the 'oh nos'. Thing is, I know that many of the 'oh nos' aren't evil people per se, they just can't wrap their heads around an ever-changing world with the snap of a finger like that. They struggle against what they don't understand, and not being understood themselves makes them frustrated and eventually hostile and angry.

It's a shite state of affairs.

 

[igon value]

Thirty years ago homos were considered degenerate, forty years ago criminal, community values change with time, and will forever evolve. You might think all this end of PC crap is going to be the new norm, but I can assure it won't. History is progressive, and the push back against the current climate will come.

I dance, I dance, I dance, around the Mexican hat.

So long as the rich keep getting richer and the poor see their mortality increase, the modern day noblesse oblige by the smug upper middle class will continue to be rebelled against.

 

[igon value]

Weren't Civil Rights once a 'contemporary agenda'? Didn't Emily Pankhurst in seeking womens' suffrage (the vote) seek to re-write and leverage history to suit her at-that-time contemporary agenda?

Throughout human history there are always agents of change, and there are those that resist because the new order of things makes them uncertain or fearful or anxious or it's just not how they were brought up.

Oh no, that woman used to be a man!

Oh no, there's a black man in my neighbourhood!

Oh no, an Asian bought the fish and chip shop down the street!

Oh no, white people are fashioning their hair into cornrows and singing rap!

Oh no, there were two homosexuals in my workplace!

Oh no, people don't believe in God no more!

Oh no, women can vote!

Oh no!

Change will always bring out the 'oh nos'. Thing is, I know that many of the 'oh nos' aren't evil people per se, they just can't wrap their heads around an ever-changing world with the snap of a finger like that. They struggle against what they don't understand, and not being understood themselves makes them frustrated and eventually hostile and angry.

It's a shite state of affairs.

Some progressive movements are wrong. The American suffragettes of the late 19th century and early 20th century were also staunch prohibitionists. They succeeded in banning alcohol and drugs. You and Gough would likely have agreed with their stance then, so unthinking is your politics.

Many 20th century progressives were avid eugenicists, in fact it was the backward god bothering types who most opposed it.

You'd have done anything to win a culture war hey?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Some progressive movements are wrong. The American suffragettes of the late 19th century and early 20th century were also staunch prohibitionists. They succeeded in banning alcohol and drugs. You and Gough would likely have agreed with their stance then, so unthinking is your politics.

Many 20th century progressives were avid eugenicists, in fact it was the backward god bothering types who most opposed it.

You'd have done anything to win a culture war hey?

"You would likely have (done something negative)..." This seems to be a common theme in your replies, igon. The two issues of womens' suffrage and prohibition of alcohol and other drugs have little or nothing at allto do with each other and you know it. You raise good counters and food for thought (like suffragettes also being abolitionists and the whole eugenics phenomenae) so why sully them with personal suppositions about the people you're arguing with?

Just play the ball, not the man.

 

[igon value]

"You would likely have (done something negative)..." This seems to be a common theme in your replies, igon. The two issues of womens' suffrage and prohibition of alcohol and other drugs have little or nothing at allto do with each other and you know it. You raise good counters and food for thought (like suffragettes also being abolitionists and the whole eugenics phenomenae, which I find an offense to inclusion) so why sully them with personal suppositions about the people you're arguing with?

Just play the ball, not the man.

You have the benefit of hindsight to pick and choose the progressive movements that succeeded and eschew the ones that were mistakes. Now you try to adopt the successful ones as proof of the righteousness of the current progressive movements.

You might find certain things offensive now but there's no guarantee that you would have at the time such arguments were made.

And don't whinge about ad hominem to me. Once you adopt personal moral virtue as a reason for why your argument is sound, you open yourself up for attacks. Ad hominem as a fallacy only applies to dispassionate, reasoned critiques, not those making smug supercilious arguments.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

And don't whinge about ad hominem to me. Once you adopt personal moral virtue as a reason for why your argument is sound, you open yourself up for attacks. Ad hominem as a fallacy only applies to dispassionate, reasoned critiques, not those making smug supercilious arguments.

Attack my points with points of your own. I try to never play the man, and if I ever do you're right to pull me up on it. I think you have every right to disagree with what I'm saying, I just would like to know where you're coming from with it.

 

[igon value]

Attack my points with points of your own. I try to never play the man, and if I ever do you're right to pull me up on it. I think you have every right to disagree with what I'm saying, I just would like to know where you're coming from with it.

As I said, once you bring personal morality into it, you open yourself up to ad hominem. Nothing of what I said is personal outside the topic of the subject of discussion. Just quit with your self-righteousness.