Society/Culture Woke. Can you tell real from parody?

[Gethelred]

The erosion of traditional gender identity is fine, so long as you don't take it any further than that. Have 2 genders, have 100 genders, have an individual gender for every person - whatever, just don't expect language to be rewritten and biology to be redefined because of it.

I don't disagree with that. You can be biologically a female and gendered male and any combination whatsoever. At some point, medicine might be able to make biology reflect gender, but we can't do that yet.

The main reason Jordan Peterson rose to fame is his public criticism of bill C-16 in Canada which he considers compelled speech.

... why in particular is this a needful assertion at this time?

 

[Scotland]

It's an extension of 'woke' ideology. You want to identify as XYZ, have at it. You want to be called 'they/them' or some other made up term, have at it.

But that's not the same as enacting laws that tell people what they have to say. I's an unrealistic moving target.

 

[Gethelred]

It's an extension of 'woke' ideology. You want to identify as XYZ, have at it. You want to be called 'they/them' or some other made up term, have at it.

But that's not the same as enacting laws that tell people what they have to say. I's an unrealistic moving target.

I'm not an expert in 16-C, nor am I unconcerned by governmental overreach in the direction of freedom of speech. However, there are people who are experts both in Canadian law and 16-C who state that Peterson's interpretation was incorrect.

There's also the fact that his position there was taken and seized by any number of people who viewed that situation for something it wasn't: an opportunity to be both pro free speech and anti-trans/progressive.

 

[Seeds]

Cabinet minister accused of rape over night, but apparently this is THE big story.

Its these sorts of stories that are driving some people to vote for authoitarian dicators like trump who will end democracy on this planet. It is the bigger story.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Just because gender is a social construct does not mean that people are inherently unhappy with their traditional gender identity.

Gender is not solely a "social construct", it's predominately determined by biology.

At what expense is the traditional female gender identity being eroded in order to appease a very small minority?

This is the crux of the matter. One set of dictators (pre-1950's male culture), has been substituted for another (contemporary feminist activists)

The whole idea of the feminist movement was to give women freedom of choice, and it was a spectacular success.

Is that just collateral damage of the culture wars that they should just accept?

There will be an inevitable backlash,

 

[Snake_Baker]

Digital blackface is nonsense. Totally misses the point of why blackface was offensive.

Indeed, and is it actually offensive across the board?

I see how it could be utilised by non blacks and not be offensive.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I don't disagree with that. You can be biologically a female and gendered male and any combination whatsoever. At some point, medicine might be able to make biology reflect gender, but we can't do that yet.

Ahhhh..........no.

 

[Scotland]

Indeed, and is it actually offensive across the board?

I see how it could be utilised by non blacks and not be offensive.

Actual blackface is offensive. The whole 'dandified coon' thing dates back to 19th century racial stereotypes.

Kids dressing up as NicNat because he's their favourite player is offensive to people who go looking for things to be offended about. Wearing a wig and face paint in that context is no different to drawing fake tatts and pretending you are Dusty or putting on a fake beard and pretending you are Max Gawn. There is zero intent to create a caricature based on racial stereotypes.

Digital blackface is just ridiculous. Using a gif of a black guy is not racist. Sure if you can find a gif of a white guy doing blackface then that's probably racist but just sharing a clip or a meme of Dave Chappelle or Chris Rock isn't racist because they might have a different skin colour to you.

 

[Snake_Baker]

That's pretty much how I look at it.

It's all about context.

 

[Gethelred]

Ahhhh..........no.

Two hundred years ago, measles and polio and leprosy were death sentences. Not so now.

You fast forward 200 years into our future (provided we don't kill each other) who the **** knows where we're going or what we'll be able to do?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Two hundred years ago, measles and polio and leprosy were death sentences. Not so now.

You fast forward 200 years into our future (provided we don't kill each other) who the fu** knows where we're going or what we'll be able to do?

I reckon switching around XX & XY chromosomes might be a bridge too far.

 

[Gethelred]

I reckon switching around XX & XY chromosomes might be a bridge too far.

I'm saying that, where there's a will and an awful lot of money, there's a set of doctors who're more than willing to try and see. And while I can't foresee a biologically male human ever giving birth, who the **** knows?

I mean, how many obnoxiously wealthy people donate their bodies and their fortunes towards cryogenics despite absolutely no evidence it'll ever get off the ground?

 

[Snake_Baker]

I'm saying that, where there's a will and an awful lot of money, there's a set of doctors who're more than willing to try and see. And while I can't foresee a biologically male human ever giving birth, who the fu** knows?

Transferring a female/male brain in to a cloned female/male body would probably be easier to achieve.

Once you alter the existing sex chromosomes, you alter the person completely. They won't even know that they were a man/woman trapped in a man/woman's body any longer. It's just not feasible. Hell, they could end up being conflicted with their newly acquired sex (gender).

 

[Gethelred]

Transferring a female/male brain in to a cloned female/male body would probably be easier to achieve.

Once you alter the existing sex chromosomes, you alter the person completely. It's just not feasible.

Or figuring out a way to genetically splice human DNA to allow humans to replicate the effects of creatures that can change their gender over the course of their lives.

Pie in the sky sci-fi stuff, anyway.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Or figuring out a way to genetically splice human DNA to allow humans to replicate the effects of creatures that can change their gender over the course of their lives.

Pie in the sky sci-fi stuff, anyway.

Such a thing would no longer be a human being.

Human physiology is restricted at a certain level.

 

[Gethelred]

Such a thing would no longer be a human being.

Human physiology is restricted at a certain level.

Yep. Demi-human/trans human/post-human.

As with the trans issue altogether, I really don't see the issue provided people reach the age of consent prior to anything being done to them that is irreversible.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Yep. Demi-human/trans human/post-human.

As with the trans issue altogether, I really don't see the issue provided people reach the age of consent prior to anything being done to them that is irreversible.

The idea of changing the entire world because of some individuals largely obscure "feelings" is ridiculous.

I have compassion for the majority of these folks, but ultimately nature doesn't give a flying toss, and they are limited with their options.

8 year old kids also acquire & die from cancer. There's nothing "fair" about that either, but "fair" is just a human construct that acts within our limitations.

 

[Taylor]

Transferring a female/male brain in to a cloned female/male body would probably be easier to achieve.

Once you alter the existing sex chromosomes, you alter the person completely. They won't even know that they were a man/woman trapped in a man/woman's body any longer. It's just not feasible. Hell, they could end up being conflicted with their newly acquired sex (gender).

You don't need to transfer any brain.

If you can replicate the brain patterns into a reasonable analogue of the person then you can put that pattern into the computer and destroy the original organic. That person can then live out eternity in their own world as they are, able to interact with the real world and those here will not be able to tell the difference.

After all, if I can copy your memories and mannerisms, your thought processes and your motivations then how would anyone who cares about you ever tell the difference between my facsimile and the real thing?

If the process of copying your brain map to the digital system causes irreparable damage to the biological then that's even better. It will avoid the immediate question of whether the copy is you or a copy.

And since this would be done as a way of showing compassion to the people involved, I don't think anyone would ask any more questions.

Then it can be expanded to anyone with opinions or thoughts that don't work within society. Or those who have suffered systematic trauma, they can be ported into their own digital world where they live as billionaires.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Of course, I was discussing biological scenarios.

 

[Gethelred]

The idea of changing the entire world because of some individuals largely obscure "feelings" is ridiculous.

I have compassion for the majority of these folks, but ultimately nature doesn't give a flying toss, and they are limited with their options.

8 year old kids also acquire & die from cancer. There's nothing "fair" about that either, but "fair" is just a human construct that acts within our limitations.

The invention of the wheel and the wagon and the plough came about because someone at some point 'felt' like they didn't want to do those tasks by hand, because the increased efficiency meant the same work done faster or more work gets done. In short, because they were lazy.

How many recipies can you trace back minute regional differences between themes - chicken with rice? Pork with rice? Lamb and garlic? Beef and garlic? Deer? - because someone at some point 'felt' one version tasted better?

The world has featured minute changes due to 'feelings' whenever something new has been developed or invented. What's preposterous is the notion that the idea of someone else changing their gender is any of my or your business, and or that it 'changes the world' for anyone but them.

 

[Snake_Baker]

The invention of the wheel and the wagon and the plough came about because someone at some point 'felt' like they didn't want to do those tasks by hand, because the increased efficiency meant the same work done faster or more work gets done. In short, because they were lazy.

I dare say that the wheel was a serendipitous thought emergence like most other inventions, and feelings play little part in such matters.

Viagra started out as a heart research drug and teflon was first identified by scientists investigating a blocked cylinder.

In fact, feelings get in the way of scientific/technological observation. It takes critical observation to see the potential in things.

There's a reason why folks on the spectrum do very well at this stuff.

 

[Maddhew]

Not talking about your use of the word pretending, I'm talking about the original post I quoted.

Is the erosion of the traditional gender identity from necessity a bad thing? Who does it harm, in the short, medium and long term?

Given that trans people represent such a small minority, how does their assumption of a different gender identity affect those whose gender matches their biology? Is there an affect at all?

How does them undergoing gender reassignment affect traditionally gendered people in any way whatsoever?

Before I just assume that there is 'collateral damage of the culture wars', I would appreciate some basis for how the people objecting to it are damaged by it. I also don't understand how people who nominally consider themselves libertarian aren't all for the freedom to allow their bodies to reflect their minds outside of government or social control, but that's just me.

I did edit my post and add the below:

(I have no issue with Trans people using whichever language they want to, also happy to address them and use language that makes them as an individual feel comfortable. Just don't attempt to change it for others)

I have no issue with transpeople advocating for language which makes them as individuals feel included. There are assholes out there that refuse to refer to transpeople by their preferred pronoun, particularly where it is bloody evident which gender they identify with. Non-binary people probably have to accept that people will get it wrong initially, again if that is a person you know the decent thing to do is to make an effort to address them according to their preference.

Just don't attempt to change the established language for non-trans people to cater for others. Don't ask people to display their pronouns etc...

In regards to what the collateral damage is, you would need to ask Women. Or Google it, JK Rowling is a good starting point. She is obviously a brilliant woman people tried to "cancel" as a result of having thoughtful, considered and well balanced opinion on the matter. I don't think she is Frank the Tank streaking through the quad on this matter.

Political views of J. K. Rowling - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[parsons nose]

Its these sorts of stories that are driving some people to vote for authoitarian dicators like trump who will end democracy on this planet. It is the bigger story.

If you’re using this thread as your metric, you’d be right. It’s worth pointing out in the midst of the hysteria, that the decision to drop the honorific was made solely by the organisation that makes the toy. And as a private organisation they have every right to do this. And you as a consumer can make your purchasing decisions accordingly. These are the organising principles of a free society. Or would you prefer some government intervention here?

 

[Gethelred]

I did edit my post and add the below:

(I have no issue with Trans people using whichever language they want to, also happy to address them and use language that makes them as an individual feel comfortable. Just don't attempt to change it for others)

I have no issue with transpeople advocating for language which makes them as individuals feel included. There are assholes out there that refuse to refer to transpeople by their preferred pronoun, particularly where it is bloody evident which gender they identify with. Non-binary people probably have to accept that people will get it wrong initially, again if that is a person you know the decent thing to do is to make an effort to address them according to their preference.

Just don't attempt to change the established language for non-trans people to cater for others. Don't ask people to display their pronouns etc...

In regards to what the collateral damage is, you would need to ask Women. Or Google it, JK Rowling is a good starting point. She is obviously a brilliant woman people tried to "cancel" as a result of having thoughtful, considered and well balanced opinion on the matter. I don't think she is Frank the Tank streaking through the quad on this matter.

Political views of J. K. Rowling - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think that you're reducing the argument somewhat by asserting that I would need to ask women what they think about this stuff. Can I not hold an opinion concerning biologically female people who are men? Am I injured by their dressing as men, taking testosterone pills etc? How is my life impacted by their decision?

I also think that Rowling being cancelled has more to do with internet culture as a whole than it does trans issues. The only thing she states that could be considered to be something by which women are threatened by trans is the rather overplayed shared toilets thing.

In fact, feelings get in the way of scientific/technological observation. It takes critical observation to see the potential in things.

Feelings can, but it can also drive the pursuit of such endeavours. Does a thirst for knowledge not count as a feeling in your eyes? Do you think that the idea of discovery didn't drive people to first look up and to use their brains to discover the world was round, or that the earth circled the sun?

Feelings drive our attention, beyond what is required by externalities. You are not who you are without what you enjoy. Can they get in the way, obscure the truth? Absolutely they can.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Feelings can, but it can also drive the pursuit of such endeavours. Does a thirst for knowledge not count as a feeling in your eyes?

Not really.

Do you think that the idea of discovery didn't drive people to first look up and to use their brains to discover the world was round, or that the earth circled the sun?

Most fundamental knowledge has been chanced upon by people with open minds who were trained to push their "feelings" in to the background.

Curiosity tends to be the significant driver, so if you want to classify that under "feelings" then go ahead and do it. I'm on a different page with that.

Feelings drive our attention, beyond what is required by externalities. You are not who you are without what you enjoy. Can they get in the way, obscure the truth? Absolutely they can.

Rational thought drives human advancement, and I think we're starting to cross boundaries from where we set out.