When two worldviews collide.

[stevevw]

You said yourself upstream that you're losing count of all the subjects you can cram into that woke sack.

From memory I was talking about the issues coming up in this thread related to the differences in beliefs and thinking between LEFT/Progressive/Liberals and Right/Traditional?Conservatives and Christians.

It wasn't just Woke though this is a big part. It was also about a number of issues like Trans, CRT, Biology, Western History, the Reformation, Enlightenment, Free speech, Christian persecution ect which are not necessarily about Woke. Thats because we are trying to determine the differences in beliefs and thinking today and how they evolved which as it turns out is a massive topic.

Again, it's simply everything you don't like. That's the only commonality. It's a bumper sticker. It's a banner. It's click bait. It's a call to arms for those who like to capitalise truth, fact and reality. It's the bogey man under the rightwing bed. It's an excuse to avoid sensible discussion. It's a reason not to engage in thoughtful debate. It's a lazy substitution for considered opinion.

And you seem to use it quite a lot.

Like I said I am willing to back up things and discuss them. As I have done, I haven't just used the word Woke or identity politics or others words but given some background to why those words are prominent in society today. Something you seem to ignore.

 

[Paidiske]

But the old self dying and someone being reborn is a transformation within the same structure

You don't think there's any structural change involved in the Kingdom (or reign) of God? Because that seems to me a very shallow take on what the Scriptures show us.

and besides if there is any reconstructing it is by God and not some ideologue based on human ideas about how society should be deconstructed and reconstructed.

And what room is there for the work of the Holy Spirit in that?

Thats why I say any effort to socially engineer society should be viewed with suspicion as it is more about an agenda.

Which is okay if it's God's agenda, or even just closer to God's agenda than what we have now.

Are you saying the Ideologues who push social deconstruction and reconstruction are doing Gods work.

Sometimes, yes, absolutely.

People still have to find that the poor guy is wrong in some way...

Hold up. Privilege doesn't mean that someone is "wrong." It just means they have a social advantage relative to someone else.

Its the fact that this view of the world has to be applied as the fundemental way we should see all differences in society and ignores the many other contributing factors like personality, effort, merit, environment.

Why can't we take all of those factors into account?

It could be that the the white women comes from a rich family and gets a to education or a coloured person recieved a scholar and on their way to a good job

Congratulations, you've discovered intersectionality.

and still the poor white guy is viewed as being priviledged, toxic and unconsciously racist.

Privileged, relative to some others, perhaps. Toxic, see my comments above. Racist? Can't tell that without actually assessing his attitudes and behaviours.

Yes men behave badly but its the word Toxic that is offensive like men are poisonous or something.

But that's not what the phrase is about. Remember, "toxic masculinity" was a phrase coined by men, working with men, to describe attitudes which harm men.

Do you honestly think ideologues that support these ideas are representing God.

A better way to put it might be, that I think that God is at work in and through movements for social justice, even when they're flawed.

That is why I said that the fact you are unfamiliar with these theories and ideas about the world doesn't help because then I have to educate you before we can even have a coherent discussion.

It's not so much that I'm entirely unfamiliar with them, as that I think you're often misrepresenting them. So I ask questions to try to better understand what you mean, even when I don't agree with your take.

Its not rocket science to see what is meant by Woke today.

Seems it means something a little different to every person who uses it. So if you want to discuss it, you probably need to be crystal clear about what you mean by it.

 

[rjs330]

Nobody is talking sport or toilets. We are just confirming that you are happy with an 18 year old transitioning if he or she and all medical personnel and family think it's the best thing to do. Nothing more. Nothing less. You seem to have some difficulty in agreeing with that. You imply you already have. You kinda suggest you've done it in some way. But a direct answer to a straightforward question seems totally beyond you.

Oh good grief I think you are deliberately trying not to understand. I've said yes of your over 18 and I've said if you do choose that then you also choose the consequences that go along with it. Period.

 

[stevevw]

You don't think there's any structural change involved in the Kingdom (or reign) of God? Because that seems to me a very shallow take on what the Scriptures show us.

Can you elaborate on what you mean as I am not sure. Are you talking about establishing Gods Kingdom on earth now. If so thats more a theocracy which you claim should not happen. People have trie before thinking they knew what Gods Kingdom represented in worldly terms and got it horribly wrong.

And what room is there for the work of the Holy Spirit in that?

The big destinction is that change is individual one person at a time rather than systems that need changing. A person is transformed by the renewing of their mind through the Spirit of God. We are born again not of the flesh but of the spirit.

Which is okay if it's God's agenda, or even just closer to God's agenda than what we have now.

So then these ideas and beliefs in secular society about how we shouled order society are not Gods agenda. That is made clear by the fact that God is rejected out of the equation with secular and worldly ideas which are limited to human thinking. This relates back to the OP about understanding the differences in beliefs and assumptions with these opposing positions. Which represents Gods Truth, nature and reality itself.

Sometimes, yes, absolutely.

But they are based on unscientific theories and ideologies. Should not Gods Will be in line with reality. How else could we determine what is right. We know that humans have a tendency to believe all sorts of ideas that are harmful in the end. How do we sort this out. The fact that these ideologies believe that everything is a social construction is the problem, thats the human made false belief that humans themselves and not God create what is moral, natural and real.

Hold up. Privilege doesn't mean that someone is "wrong." It just means they have a social advantage relative to someone else.

Well it comes across as hateful and divisive. The view that someone has priviledge over someone else is relative so just saying whites are priviledged perse as they do is an assumption that tars everyone. Minorities can be priviledged in todays society. It doesn't mean we don't recognise priviledge when its real but we should not just assume its real for everyone and that is the problem with this ideological thinking in that its all consuming and the only lens that differences are seens aas being caused.

Why can't we take all of those factors into account?

Why, well we should but ideologues don't. I just pointed out how a white person can be less priviledged than a minority. For example males are now less educated than females across all levels. Even Asians as it turns out. Where is the priviledge there. But still white males are priviledged. That is not a balanced view and if it was then these factors would be taken into consideration and people should not say whites are priviledgeed perse. The reason its not a balanced view is that these ideas about power imbalabes is a belief aned assumption about human nature and not fact.

Congratulations, you've discovered intersectionality.

Thats not intersectionality, thats hard work and merit regardless of identity group. Intersectionality is part of the idea that all differences are caused by power relations depending on what identity group you belong to and the more identity groups a person identifies with the higher on the victimhood hierarchy they are.

Privileged, relative to some others, perhaps. Toxic, see my comments above. Racist? Can't tell that without actually assessing his attitudes and behaviours.

Just being labelled toxic is horrible like I said. The difference with determining if someone is racist is like you said assessing things. But according to secular ideology on race which is underpinned by CRT we don't even neede an assessment because the poor white guy is already guilt of implicit racism by the color of his skin. That seems racist in itself and hypocritical.

Its the same mentality as men, especially white men are toxic by the fact they are males. The thing is the ideology claims that if you are a minority say black your not racist because your a minority and its just not in you. They are given special status as being pure identities. Its an ideological belief and not reality.

But that's not what the phrase is about. Remember, "toxic masculinity" was a phrase coined by men, working with men, to describe attitudes which harm men.

And boy didn't the radical Feminist run with that one. Now it symbolishes men in general. I am sure it was originally meant to describe specific bad behaviour ande not a general label for males. But as with Woke it has been politicized and radicalized ande now used as a general term for males especially white males.

But even the original idea of being toxic is wrong when applied to mascullinity which is a natural trait in men. It implies male mascullinity is toxic when in its natural state its not something that is toxic. Its the behaviour which anyone including females can engage in that is toxic.

A better way to put it might be, that I think that God is at work in and through movements for social justice, even when they're flawed.

All I can say is Christ also said many come in my name claiming they represent me but they don't. The current form of Critical Social Justice is not of God but of humans. It rejects God and promotes human beliefs ande ideas on these matters. Just because something is called social justice doesn't mean its actually about genuine nobel causes.

Like I said much of these ideologies use nobel values as a trojan horse for forcing their ideology onto society. You only have to expose the underlying thinking to see this. Like with equity being the basis for equaility. That is not equality as Christ would have it.

It's not so much that I'm entirely unfamiliar with them, as that I think you're often misrepresenting them. So I ask questions to try to better understand what you mean, even when I don't agree with your take.

I'm not misrepresenting them but taking the core principles its based on which is fact. Like with the example of equity as opposed to equality. They have clear different meanings and repercussions for society. Like the difference the fundemental basis in care approache between Trans care and evidenced based care or the difference in assumptions about racial inequlaity being based on CRT and evidence. We can research these and expose these differences rational inquiry. So its not a matter of my representation but what the facts show.

Seems it means something a little different to every person who uses it. So if you want to discuss it, you probably need to be crystal clear about what you mean by it.

What I mean by not being rocket science is that we can investigate what Woke represents in society by doing some research on it, looking at data in how the word is used, in what context. How this is linked to other ideas like Identity Politics, Cancel Culture and Political Correctness which most people understand. Then investigate where these ideas stem from.

All or most of the informations there. You just have to be willing to look. Most of the time people don't bother so have a misrepresentation of whats happening, usually a simplistic view. But when you dig down a bit you can begin to understand better, bit of education like anything.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Honestly, I don't know that I understand Butler's conception of gender well enough to be able to mount a fair and robust argument either way.

I didn't say I agreed with Butler about everything (or anything, in particular). Just that hers was a voice to be reckoned with in this discussion.

OK, well your citation (the 11 page attempt around sexual dimorphism) mentioned that the "Transgender Model" that eventually replaced the "Wrong Body Model" in trans activism was about 20 years old....and since you don't appear to be on the vanguard of the activist movement....I think we can reasonably assume that you adopted these current beliefs in the past 10 years or so and I have to go into how "trans women are women" is a faith based belief....not an evidence based fact.

My point exactly. Even something apparently simple and straightforward can carry multiplicity of meaning.

That's not a multiplicity of meaning. That's not the number 1. It's a symbol for "on". We don't have to use that symbol. We could use this symbol instead....."<". If we did....binary language would look like "<<000<00<<<0<0<00<"....and it would mean the exact same thing.

What I'm asking you for is a socio-cultural meaning attached to the concept of the number 1.

Instead of giving me that....you provided an example of a language where the symbol for the number 1 means and entirely different concept that is completely unrelated to the number 1.

If you can explain it well enough to refute the claim that it's an instance where apparently simple arithmetic doesn't hold, go for it.

You don't seem to understand what we're disagreeing on. I'll go over it from the start....

I said that just because you project a socio-cultural meaning onto the concept of man or woman doesn't mean that I do or anyone else has to. I explained that I can base those concepts on nothing more than biological fact. You acted like this wasn't something that could be done and everything had a socio-cultural meaning attached to it. Then I gave you an example of concepts without any attached socio-cultural meaning.

1+1=2

These are symbols that refer to concepts.

1 is a numerical concept.
+ and = are concepts describing a relationship between numbers.
2 is another numerical concept.

The symbols can change, and have, across cultures and time. What doesn't change is the meaning...and that's because they don't have any attached cultural meaning.

Your example of the symbol 1 in a binary language holding a different meaning wasn't an example of the numerical concept 1 holding a socio-cultural meaning. Why?

Because it doesn't refer to the numerical concept of 1.

In fact, the numerical concept of 1 can also be written as "one". That's a completely different symbol....but it's the exact same concept.

If you can understand that.....then you can understand that I don't have to attach any socio-cultural meaning to the concepts of man or woman. Now, are you telling me that in your second attempt at finding a socio-cultural meaning to the number one.....it still refers to the factual concept of the number 1 and some other meaning?

Or is this just a mathematical problem and the number 1 refers to the number 1 the entire time?
Because to prove your point, you need to provide an example where the numerical concept of 1 carries some socio-cultural meaning that it cannot be separated from. I sure can't think of any...that's why I

I can find the part of the website that says "membership is open to all women."

Ok....and it appears that they don't exclude men either. If they do, perhaps men aren't excluded from supporting.

Here's a real life example, albeit a relatively frivolous one. The local churches around here host a monthly men's breakfast. When I arrived to take on this parish, I was informed that as the priest, I was welcome at the men's breakfast despite being a woman; I would be considered an "honorary man." That is an example of a social definition; this group is open to men, and select "honorary men" whom the group wants involved for particular purposes.

That nifty.....but we have this whole separation of church and state thing that keeps the government from poking its nose into the affairs of churches and how they are run. Besides that, we're really looking for demands that are made by the trans community.

Or more to the point, downplaying biological reality as the only determinant of social involvement.

Sigh.

I have literally found sources demonstrating that this is not the argument. That someone doesn't become biologically a person of the opposite sex, but that "womanhood" (or "manhood") shouldn't rest on biological sex.

Well cite one.. because that's not at all what the source you're citing says.

Demands might be too strong a word, but certainly requests.

Some are enforced by policy (eg. in schools and workplaces). But more are underpinned by significant social pressure.

And I appreciate that you are making, at least, informed and intelligent contributions to the thread. But I didn't find much of substance in that post that I could even frame a response to.

I'd prefer specifics that can be examined, rather than broad-brush-stroke claims like saying none of these causes any longer have any worthwhile goals.

Well consider that two of the feminist movement concerns prior to 2016 were....

1. Biological differences between men and women have scientifically shown that women experience temperature slightly different from men so a temperature that men might experience as comfortable can be slightly cold to women, and therefore equality in the workplace meant women should have equal time to control the office thermostat.

2. Crash test dummies were based upon the average physical proportions of men (again, as if we all understand the biological differences between the sexes) and therefore the safety and comfort of men was being prioritized in the making of automobiles.

The word "injustice" or "oppression" may have been used in describing these things but they seem rather superfluous 1st world problems.

As if there's no harm done in the world any more by racism, or sexism, or homophobia, when this is demonstrably false.

I never said any of this....this is yet another problem with the woke cult. I didn't say racism didn't exist. I said that there were legitimate problems identified.....and legitimate solutions proposed.

Is the existence of racism a legitimate problem? Not exactly. It's a common problem that everyone faces but since it's fundamentally the result of an idea or belief....I don't see any possible solutions beyond making it socially unacceptable to be racist. That's not something a political group can achieve or even should necessarily try. It's something we should try to do as individuals. Unfortunately, the woke feel differently. They're pro-racism. They feel it's important to assume things about people based on race....and to distribute certain resources to certain racial groups while depriving others. They've adopted the same mindset as those of the Jim Crow era who believed that a white man deserved certain opportunities or jobs because he is white. The difference is only in which racial groups they believe deserve opportunities and resources because of their race.

This is proven fact. The very last vestige of institutional racism we had was known as Affirmative Action, which was recently struck down to the dismay of the woke.

It just seeks to belittle whole areas of worthwhile endeavour and sweep them away (rhetorically) as irrelevant.

Feminism was started as the pursuit of equal rights under the law. This has been achieved. What other legitimate pursuits are being sought?

And the underlying question is, what is properly Caesar's, and what is God's?

Caesar's domain is rather clearly set out by Caesar himself.

It's not a new dogma. After all, they didn't crucify Christ because he was nice to people. They crucified him because he was a threat to the powers that be.

Of the half dozen or so claimants to being the messiah history recorded from 200BC to 0AD that I can remember, more than one actually had so many followers that they led Jewish armies in open rebellion against the Romans.

Regardless if you believe that Jesus wants you to destroy society for some petty vindictiveness....then you're literally no better than the Christians you condemn.

So; unjust powers are challenged.

What's unjust about them?

Through a particular lens, I guess that could be seen as "inherently destructive," but I think the question is, what are we seeking to put in place, and is that any better?

1. You and the rest of the woke don't have any plans whatsoever for putting something into place. Marxism has never had a plan for the utopia it dreams of. Likewise, woke policy has done nothing but damage things wherever they've been instituted. Defund the police has unilaterally damaged recruiting efforts of the police, lowered standards for applicants, and demoralized police to the point where they avoid intervention whenever possible. The community most hurt by this and other justice system initiatives like bail reform have hurt the very black communities they tried to help the most.

To some degree, yes. That is, after all, part of the Christian message. That in the end all that is evil and unjust will be destroyed, and the reign of God will be complete. As in 1 Corinthians 15:24: "Then comes the end, when [Christ] hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power."

Then you really have no valid or non-hypocritical way to oppose the Christians who stand in your way.

 

[stevevw]

Nobody is talking sport or toilets. We are just confirming that you are happy with an 18 year old transitioning if he or she and all medical personnel and family think it's the best thing to do. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Its not just about everyone agreeing as we have seen in the past everyone agreeing even meedical professionals on unscientific treatments like Eugenics, Labotomies and shock treatment. We need to base treatment on the evedience and the evdeience shows that Affirmation and Transition Model lacks scientific evidence and that is why it is now being dropped as the go to treatment approach.

I think the ideas that everyone agrees so those disagreeing are wrong and being harmful is actually harmful as it uses agreement alone as the reason. Even claiming that the Trans youth agrees is wrong as they could not possibly understand the long term risks and harms as adolescents don't really mature rationally until around mid 20's.

It seems more a case of misinformed and uninformed consent. Even parents don't understand and put their trust in GID specialists who are themselves gender non comforming most of the time and biased as has been found with GIDS Travistock in England where people were fast tracked into treatment with little therapy.

PS But if the science showed that Trans Care Model was Ok then I think that is fair enough. But I don't think we have that at the moment and may never know for years. I think we should pause and be cautious and see how the new approach with Psychotherapy goes andd if there are any new discoveries.

It may be that we could find some treatment or intervention that prevents this happening in the first place for many who are psychologically damaged. Or through prenatal treatment that helps normal development aned avoids the incongruence in the brain in the first place.

Afterall the best possible outcome would be to help people align their nate physical sex with their gender identity in the brain without having to artifically remodel their bodey which seems to contribute to edysmorphia not fix it in that something will always seem artifical and out of line naturally no matter how good the treatment is.

 

[Paidiske]

Can you elaborate on what you mean as I am not sure. Are you talking about establishing Gods Kingdom on earth now. If so thats more a theocracy which you claim should not happen. People have trie before thinking they knew what Gods Kingdom represented in worldly terms and got it horribly wrong.

No, I'm not talking about theocracy (a system in which those who claim to speak for God rule directly). I'm talking about the fact that the reign of God, as it comes to be expressed in human life, will of necessity change systems as well as individuals.

The big destinction is that change is individual one person at a time rather than systems that need changing.

It's both. People don't exist independently of the systems we structure and inhabit.

That is made clear by the fact that God is rejected out of the equation with secular and worldly ideas which are limited to human thinking.

If God could use Cyrus, then why can't God use contemporary thinkers and leaders, despite their unbelief?

But they are based on unscientific theories and ideologies.

Every single one, about every single issue? I don't believe that. There are many real and pressing issues being addressed, and this is good.

Well it comes across as hateful and divisive.

Only if it's really badly misunderstood.

The view that someone has priviledge over someone else is relative so just saying whites are priviledged perse as they do is an assumption that tars everyone.

But it doesn't tar anyone. Again, having privilege isn't some kind of wrong or accusation. I am privileged in a variety of ways; by being white, by having reasonably good health, by speaking the majority language of the country I live in, by being educated, by being employed, by having social capital, and so on. None of this is an accusation; it's a description of the ways in which I don't face the same disadvantages as someone else.

that is the problem with this ideological thinking in that its all consuming and the only lens that differences are seens aas being caused.

I don't find that to be an accurate description of the discourse.

Thats not intersectionality,

Recognising that privilege (or disadvantage) might occur across multiple axes is exactly what intersectionality is.

thats hard work and merit regardless of identity group.

Really? Coming from a rich family is a matter of hard work and merit? I don't think so!

Intersectionality is part of the idea that all differences are caused by power relations depending on what identity group you belong to and the more identity groups a person identifies with the higher on the victimhood hierarchy they are.

Yeah, no.

Just being labelled toxic is horrible like I said.

But it's the attitude and ideology being labelled as "toxic," not people. I don't know why this very basic point seems to keep being lost.

But according to secular ideology on race which is underpinned by CRT we don't even neede an assessment because the poor white guy is already guilt of implicit racism by the color of his skin. That seems racist in itself and hypocritical...

The thing is the ideology claims that if you are a minority say black your not racist because your a minority and its just not in you. They are given special status as being pure identities.

Again, that's misrepresenting the discourse.

Now it symbolishes men in general.

No. No, it doesn't. That's just flat-out wrong.

But even the original idea of being toxic is wrong when applied to mascullinity which is a natural trait in men. It implies male mascullinity is toxic when in its natural state its not something that is toxic.

No, again this is a misunderstanding. It's not talking about normal or healthy masculinity; it's talking about distorted ideologies of masculinity which are harmful for men, and harmful to society.

It's ironic that you're talking about the need for a "bit of education" when you're making completely and obviously false statements about something as basic as the concept of toxic masculinity.

 

[Paidiske]

That's not a multiplicity of meaning. That's not the number 1. It's a symbol for "on". We don't have to use that symbol. We could use this symbol instead....."<". If we did....binary language would look like "<<000<00<<<0<0<00<"....and it would mean the exact same thing.

Sure. But we do use 1. And so "1" can mean more than one thing.

Instead of giving me that....you provided an example of a language where the symbol for the number 1 means and entirely different concept that is completely unrelated to the number 1.

How is language not a socio-cultural example? What is language if not socio-cultural?

I said that just because you project a socio-cultural meaning onto the concept of man or woman doesn't mean that I do or anyone else has to.

And I said that I'm pretty skeptical that pretty much anyone manages to have a concept of "man" or "woman" which isn't culturally freighted in any way. I still am.

Ok....and it appears that they don't exclude men either.

Well, men can't be members, by definition.

That nifty.....but we have this whole separation of church and state thing that keeps the government from poking its nose into the affairs of churches and how they are run.

But society is so much more than what's controlled by government.

Besides that, we're really looking for demands that are made by the trans community.

Are we? I thought we were looking for ways in which social definitions of men and women applied.

Well cite one.. because that's not at all what the source you're citing says.

Yes, it is. And a few posts back you conceded it was (with your comments about wordplay).

Well consider that two of the feminist movement concerns prior to 2016 were....

1. Biological differences between men and women have scientifically shown that women experience temperature slightly different from men so a temperature that men might experience as comfortable can be slightly cold to women, and therefore equality in the workplace meant women should have equal time to control the office thermostat.

2. Crash test dummies were based upon the average physical proportions of men (again, as if we all understand the biological differences between the sexes) and therefore the safety and comfort of men was being prioritized in the making of automobiles.

The word "injustice" or "oppression" may have been used in describing these things but they seem rather superfluous 1st world problems.

The first seems fairly frivolous to me, the second not superfluous at all. If we're going to design cars for safety, surely we ought to make sure they're safe for people who aren't the size, shape and weight of the average bloke?

Is the existence of racism a legitimate problem? Not exactly. It's a common problem that everyone faces but since it's fundamentally the result of an idea or belief....I don't see any possible solutions beyond making it socially unacceptable to be racist.

I can certainly see possible solutions beyond that. Like actually nurturing attitudes of valuing and celebrating diversity.

Feminism was started as the pursuit of equal rights under the law. This has been achieved.

Well, it hasn't.

What other legitimate pursuits are being sought?

Things like closing the global lliteracy gap, providing basic perinatal care to all, and working to overcome the worst of the world's poverty (which disproportionately impacts women) are right up there.

Caesar's domain is rather clearly set out by Caesar himself.

Lol. In a Christian worldview, Caesar is always subordinate to God.

Regardless if you believe that Jesus wants you to destroy society for some petty vindictiveness....then you're literally no better than the Christians you condemn.

Destroy society? No. Improve society, which might involve some deconstruction along the way? For sure. After all, if (for example) we actually managed to successfully challenge the worlds military-industrial complex and its cavalier destruction on a large scale, the people being made rich by that structure might well feel that we're (to quote a local radio shock-jock) "destroying the joint." I'd rather have that than thousands more dead innocents, though.

What's unjust about them?

Any power structure that impedes human flourishing is inherently unjust.

Marxism has never had a plan for the utopia it dreams of.

Don't mistake me for a Marxist.

Then you really have no valid or non-hypocritical way to oppose the Christians who stand in your way.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Christians can disagree about what we think God's will is.

 

[rjs330]

There's some burning irony. Men taking jobs that a woman might have had, because they are men, is a far more endemic problem than anything to do with transgendered people. Get back to me when you're concerned about women's access to workforce participation across the board, and not just when there's a transwoman in the picture.

There's no burning irony here at all. You made a claim and I refuted it with an example. An example that made you run off the deep end. I said it to prove a point. And it appears the point is taken.

 

[Paidiske]

And it appears the point is taken.

I find the point laughable. Transwomen are not an obstacle to women's workforce participation. But stoking animosity between transwomen and natal women is a great way to keep us distracted from the real problems facing women.

 

[rjs330]

A word means whatever the people using it agree that it means. The issue at the moment is that the meaning of some words is being contested. I expect that'll work itself out over time.

The word gender as used by the left today is meaningless. Words mean things. The people using gender can't define it either. The issue at the moment is the meaning of gender makes a claim that there are many genders which is a violation of what used to be saying gender is different than sex. Yet no definition can be found for it outside of sex. I've already shown you how it's not a spectrum at all.

Right now the people using it don't agree on what it means because it doesn't have a meaning outside biological sex. Why even the dictionary has difficulty in defining it. It takes a stab at it, but can't do it with our a VC very long explanation trying to explain the inexplicable and undefinable morphology of the word.

 

[rjs330]

I find the point laughable. Transwomen are not an obstacle to women's workforce participation. But stoking animosity between transwomen and natal women is a great way to keep us distracted from the real problems facing women.

Sure they are. They are an obstacle in women's sports.

I would say trans violence against women in women's.prisons ought to be a concern. No one asking you to have animosity. We are just asking you to recognize reality.

 

[Paidiske]

Sure they are. They are an obstacle in women's sports. I would say trans violence against women in women's.prisons ought to be a concern.

Sport is not exactly a normal workplace. From what I can see, though, elite sports organisations are working through those issues. And sure, safety in prisons is a concern, but it's hardly isolated to trans people.

No one asking you to have animosity. We are just asking you to recognize reality.

It's very convenient, though, to keep feminists focussed on trans issues rather than patriarchy.

 

[trophy33]

It's very convenient, though, to keep feminists focussed on trans issues rather than patriarchy.

Patriarchy sounds sexist. Why do you use such word?

 

[Paidiske]

Patriarchy sounds sexist. Why do you use such word?

Because it describes the social imbalance in our society, where power, wealth, opportunity, and so on, are disproportionately unavailable to women.

 

[trophy33]

Because it describes the social imbalance in our society, where power, wealth, opportunity, and so on, are disproportionately unavailable to women.

Again, this is a sexist view.

Some people have power, wealth etc, some do not. Why to divide it into gender constructions?

 

[Paidiske]

Some people have power, wealth etc, some do not. Why to divide it into gender constructions?

It's not sexist to note, for example, that girls are not taught to read, at a much higher rate than boys. That's just a fact. And addressing that issue - addressing the reasons why girls in particular are not given education, and (one would hope), working towards a world in which everyone who can, is taught to read - means acknowledging the gender-related reasons why that happens.

 

[trophy33]

It's not sexist to note, for example, that girls are not taught to read, at a much higher rate than boys. That's just a fact. And addressing that issue - addressing the reasons why girls in particular are not given education, and (one would hope), working towards a world in which everyone who can, is taught to read - means acknowledging the gender-related reasons why that happens.

Can you define boys and girls?

 

[Bradskii]

I am sure there are Christians there who would say that. The bible names the sins that will lead to people being judged and seperated from God. But just expressing that belief is not hateful anymore than someone saying that anyone stealing a car or descriminating against someone will be judged and punished by secular law.

How many times have I said that it's not what you say. But how it is said. Say that you are concerned for someone's eternal soul and I'll be impressed with your compassion. Tell a mother that her son deserves to die and he's an abomination because hey, you are just quoting the bible...and I will be suitably unimpressed.

So please cut out the nonsense about what is actually said and feeble comparisons to secular law.

 

[Bradskii]

...Christ preached forgiveness so no human could exploit the moral laws to put another human to death...

Lucky us, eh? We don't have to do it. But lots of people seem keen to let gay people know that they deserve it. I dunno, maybe the distinction is too subtle for me.