When two worldviews collide.

[Ana the Ist]

I'm not sure how old you are, but this is a real thing anymore. Employees are constantly bringing ng their personal lives to work and asking the employer to change the rules for them. We've heard it said a LOT on how employers have had and still have all the power and how they treat employees crappy etc etc.

The mentality these days is "you pay me for average work and 40 hours. I'm not going to do a stich more than that." And that is seen as perfectly fine.

Since you're talking about a couple different things here...I'll split this point from the rest, and say I agree this is perfectly fine. This is an old concept called "work-to-rule" in which employees follow exactly the letter of their employment and nothing more.

Work-to-rule - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This is typical of workplaces where employees are underpaid or overworked. It's a completely normal reaction to capitalist free markets.

Also the employer needs to meet the personal needs of the employee. The employer is asked to bend over backwards for the employee with remote work, time off whenever wanted, asking for people to split shifts between two part time people, working hours etc.

Now, as a supervisor and a 21st century leader who is a student of leadership.today, I have zero problems with helping employees meet their personal needs. If they are happier in their personal lives they will be happier at work and be more productive. At least that's the hope. However the needs of the employer must also be met in order to serve the customers properly. It's a fine balancing act.

And what I am finding is that there are employees who are very demanding in what they want from the employer. And if they don't get it, they are sour and negative. They are not willing to do anything above and beyond the average and yet they expect to be promoted, given more money etc. A very entitled position. They don't want to do it the way the employer wants or needs them to do. They want to do it their way or they are not satisfied. It's all about them. And often that collides with what OTHER EMPLOYEES are doing. Time theft is the biggest problem employers are dealing with. Employees steal from employees far more than employers steal from employees.

Again, I think you might be conflating different issues. If employees don't care about going above and beyond what the bare minimum is....they also shouldn't care about not getting opportunities for advancement when those opportunities arise. If you literally have no employees going above and beyond and every employee either working to rule or trying to game the system its likely that...

1. Pay is insufficient and nobody sees this job as worth keeping.
2. Pay is insufficient due to outside economic issues like inflation or recession.

Either way....I'm not certain what is the case at your workplace. I feel like it's somewhat separate from the trend of people stirring up trouble by demanding that the company engage in some sort of social change or activist involvement.

That's why I mentioned your age. Because for the younger generations your attitude is all but gone. No I don't believe in the employer should treat the employee like a slave and have the it's my way of the highway attitude. That is NOT leadership. Leadership is looking after the employee, taking care of them, helping them grow as an employee, giving the opportunities to learn and have a good experience as an employee. Coaching them and leading them. Helping them see the vision and buying into it. Showing them how what they are doing matters to those around them, the customers and themselves.
Okay I'm off my soapbox.

We have a female supervisor who has gotten pregnant twice now. She has difficult pregnancies, which is not her fault in the least. However the other supervisors suffer during the his time. Because she is restricted in her activities she is unable to work her normal shifts. So for almost 7 months she is off the normal schedule. Then she gets another 3-4 months off work completely. That's about a year off of the normal schedule. Now we can't bring in another supervisor during that time. So the supervisors are stuck working nights for an entire year when normally they wouldn't be.

That's a BENEFIT for her and a DETRIMENT for the others. So there is no way I am buying the whole women are discriminated against business because they get pregnant. No the company AND the employees bend over backwards for her. The men don't get any such thing.

And employees are continually asking for more to the detriment of the employer, the customer and their fellow employees.

Here's an interesting finding....and it's in line with what I've heard about pronoun nonsense in general. Granted, this isn't a scientific study...but the responses are very telling.

Resumes including 'they/them' pronouns more likely to be overlooked

A report claiming job applicants who use 'they/them' pronouns in resumes are less likely to be called back, caught the attention of Elon Musk, who called it 'interesting.'

www.google.com

One 57-year-old prospective employer in the agricultural industry said while the resume featured a person who 'seems like a decent fit on paper,' they were 'not interested in the drama that a person who thinks they are a 'they/them' brings with them.'
Another prospective employer who happens to be a woman, 59, in the manufacturing industry said: 'Take off the pronouns; I would trash the resume for that reason alone.'
A hiring manager, 50, in the hotel and food service industry said he would recommend applicants take off the 'they/them' pronouns.
'I find that personal pronouns are quite silly in a job situation. This is better reserved for social settings and not in a job setting.'

As I pointed out in my conversation with @Paidiske , these pronouns are a personal problem....not a work issue... and shouldn't be brought to work. No one wants to deal with the choice of some whiny employee complaining about someone not referring to them as "they/them" and risk having to fire a good productive employee for one everyone has to walk around on eggshells for is removing them from the workplace naturally. If they want to eat, they'll need to understand it's a big world out there, and lots of different opinions exist, and if you want people to respect yours....you'll need to respect theirs.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And she would have no job.

No she had a job in our hypothetical....then chose to get pregnant. She made a choice. It has consequences.

That's why I said "we." If we agree that feminine pronouns refer to natal women and transwomen, and masculine pronouns refer to natal men and transmen, then they do.

"We" don't agree. You don't have any "social definition of women" because it's a biological category.

Nice try though.

Hobby lobby that fired a pregnant woman. There's still a barrier.

I'm sure they've got pregnant women they've kept. It's all a matter of your value as an employee.

It's temporary, though. The average western woman has two kids. Out of a working life of 40-something years, she might need accommodations during two of them. The rest of the time her sex is irrelevant in the workplace. That's no justification for massive barriers and lifetime penalties.

We aren't talking about banning mothers from the workplace...there's no reason she would be unable to apply for a job when ready.

Consider that you have rules that protect women from pregnancy related illness....yet a sick man can be fired after three months. Yet, the iniquity of this doesn't ever cross your mind.

Serious mental health issues such as anxiety and depression are more than "hurt feelings."

And a man suffering from depression can be fired after 3 months.

If he hasn't followed due process, perhaps.

He only needs to shift liability to the employee with a policy and a demonstration of attempting to correct the actions of the employee to be in line with policy.

These trans people are really just bullying coworkers and making a hostile environment for them by disrespecting their beliefs.

 

[Paidiske]

No she had a job in our hypothetical....then chose to get pregnant. She made a choice. It has consequences.

This is an unjust consequence.

We aren't talking about banning mothers from the workplace...there's no reason she would be unable to apply for a job when ready.

But with a disrupted employment history, less experience, and so on. This all contributes to the systemic disadvantage women face.

Consider that you have rules that protect women from pregnancy related illness....yet a sick man can be fired after three months. Yet, the iniquity of this doesn't ever cross your mind.

She can be fired after three months of unpaid leave for any other illness. Facing a penalty for being pregnant systemically disadvantages women.

I don't know that this conversation has any further to go. We have identified the barriers women face due to pregnancy discrimination. You just think they're fair and reasonable (and should be even worse than they are). I'm grateful your worldview isn't actually the one influencing policy on this right now.

And a man suffering from depression can be fired after 3 months.

Which has nothing to do with his employer's obligation to provide a safe workplace.

 

[stevevw]

We don't have access to "objective reality" apart from our experience of the world, so how can you talk about "distortions of reality" in that manner?

Yes but we can measure objective reality. Have independent measures. For example if believed theres a ghost under their bed we can look at see if thats the case.

I know you want to perjoratively label transpeople as mentally ill, but it seems like you are not checking your underlying assumptions.

The problem with self percieved identity people can believe they are are certain identity for psychological reasons which don't actually reflect reality in the sense that the object evdience shows they are not who they think they are. For example people with anorexia nervosa believe they are overweight when reality shows they are unheathily underweight.

There have been cases of where especially young females can identify as Trans or GNC without any history and truely believe they are Trans but later grow out of this with puberty and therapy. If we consideer that theres a rapidly growing trend of young people identifying GNC and chances are many are not actually trans or even GNC. So if there is any assumption we need to be cautious of its assuming that any gender non conforming behaviour means someone is Trans.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes but we can measure objective reality. Have independent measures. For example if believed theres a ghost under their bed we can look at see if thats the case.

Part of the nature of being a ghost is said to be, being immaterial. How do you measure something that isn't physical? How can you measure gender identity, likewise something immaterial?

Besides, do you really want to hang your criteria for truth with such scientism? It seems a very weak foundation. What is, and isn't "objective reality" is always changing in accordance with changes in the scientific paradigm.

The problem with self percieved identity people can believe they are are certain identity for psychological reasons which don't actually reflect reality in the sense that the object evdience shows they are not who they think they are. For example people with anorexia nervosa believe they are overweight when reality shows they are unheathily underweight.

And your degree in psychiatry is from where...?

 

[stevevw]

What you believe and why you believe it doesn't interest me. When you are with like minded people, you can berate people, denigrate people, call them mentally ill - who really cares. How you think of others is your own business. That's between you and your God. But in a social situation, if someone politely asks you to use a particular pronoun when referring to them, I expect you to do so. I expect you to treat the person with respect.

I don't know what the situation would be like where you come from, but where I come from, if you refused - you would be the one that would find he was rejected. You would be excluded from the social setting. It's quite possible, in fact probable, that you would be asked to physically remove yourself.

Why go on a rant about how immoral someone is when that person just agreed with you. You could have said "ok I am glad you think that way". Attacking the person you are trying to engage with is not very polite and is more or less doing the same thing you say is hateful.

Anyway as I said I would use peoples pronouns in social situations because its polite and curteous. Like you said it is too confrontational and only puts people on the defensive and causes fights. I am an easy going person socially and enjoy peoples company. I would probably crack a beer and get my guitar out and have a singalong.

But don't confuse or use my beliefs and position on these issues as being something personal. Its not. I realize these issues are contenious between people and the fact that people get upset on both sides shows this. It shows it matters to people and dismissing people only makes it worse.

If it was a business situation then, personally speaking, I would refuse to work with you. And knowing most of the people I worked with, that would be a common response.

I am not sure about that. Like I said non social situations can be different because they are to deo with the law, workers Rights, customer Rights and Individual Rights within public institutions where Rights often clash. This is more associated with policy and laws rather than social situations.

For example the High court in the US has determined that teachers cannot be forced to use peoples pronouns due to the First Amenment Rights such as Freedom of speech, conscience and belief.

Federal appeals court rules in favor of Ohio professor who refused to use transgender student’s pronouns
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/29/us/ohio-professor-transgender-appeals-trnd/index.html

I have seen a few cases where there has been confrontations between customers and employees around pronouns which get quite heated so its still an unresolved issue and still developing as it does and we will have to see how it pans out. But I think any system that forces language is bound to fail as it intuitively seems like its denying the freeedom of people so they will resist.

Now, you have one more question left unanswered: Where did you get the information that the majority of Australians had problems with pronouns. It wasn't in the link you provided (it showed the exact opposite), so where did it come from?

As I said I was not specifically referring to pronouns but said pronouns are (like) cancel culture, political correctness and identity politics for which most people are sick of. I already knew that most people agree with using pronouns because its the polite thing to do in social situations as we have already agreed.

The problem is most people don't understand what using pronouns represent or may even say they will use pronouns in surveys to be polite. But if explained. So results can be misleading. Thats why I emphasized CC, PC and IP because we understand these better as they have been around for a while and have infiltrated enough into the public square to see their effects.

So if pronouns come from the same ideology as CC, PC and IP and most people disagree with their and are sick of them then its logical that once they understand what pronouns actually represent in the bigger picture of human nature and how we should structure society I think you will find most people will agree to use pronouns socially but disagree that they should be enforced institutionally and legally.

When it comes to opinion I think the High courts opinion is more important as it takes into considering all Rights relating the the Constitution and not personal; opinion.

Politically Correct Transgender Pronoun Mandates Violate First Amendment
Politically Correct Transgender Pronoun Mandates Violate First Amendment - Competitive Enterprise Institute

 

[FireDragon76]

Your still missing the point. I will try and be more straight forward. The issue Transwomen complain about is that lesbians don't see them as real people, real women. That heterosexual biological males don't see transwomen as a real entity in society and the world.

Where do you get this garbage from? I know actual lesbians. I have known trans women and men. The lesbians I have known have been friends with transwomen. They don't reject them as women. Likewise there are plenty of straight men that would date or have dated trans women. Gay men are not attracted to trans women.

Maybe instead of follwing internet clickbait, spend some time to get to know actual LGBT persons.

 

[Bradskii]

As I said I was not specifically referring to pronouns...

Yes you were. Yet again:

'Forced pronouns comes from the same ideology as identity politics, political correctness and cancel culture. I think you will find the majority are sick of these things and disagree.

This disapproval of political correctness is a majority view across all age groups, according to the nationally-representative Australia Talks National Survey.'

It was the very first think you noted and the link you immediately gave to illustrate it only mentioned pronouns. Nothing else. So where did you get the information from that the majority of Australians (you linked to an Australian poll) have problems with them?

This is one of the problems I said that you have many posts ago. You will say something, make an offhand comment to support what you say and you probably think it might get lost in the dozen or so points you make each post. So what if it's not true. Hey, throw a link in there as well and no-one will have the time to dig around and prove you wrong. It's another winning point for Steve.

Not this time. You either admit that you were wrong or you show me where you got your information from.

 

[stevevw]

Part of the nature of being a ghost is said to be, being immaterial. How do you measure something that isn't physical? How can you measure gender identity, likewise something immaterial?

But thats the issue don't you think, "that we cannot measure the immaterial or gender identity". How do you tell what is real or what is an unhealthy delusion. I think that is where the science can help with diagnostic tools that have been proven to work. For gender identity its psychology and psychiatry and other evdience coming from over 70 years in studies and research.

The logic of trans ideology is that a person can become the opposite sex by simply identifying. So in that case what is stopping people from identifying as another race, ethnicity, age, or any identity they feel. There are no checks and balances and we know that this can lead to unreal things happening especially where humans are capable of deluding themselves.

The Nazis believed they were a superior identity and needed to delete certain impure identities out of existence. I mean look at religion. people believe they can hack little kids to death based on their belief that the opposing religion, sect, tribe whatever is evil and needs exterminating.

Besides, do you really want to hang your criteria for truth with such scientism? It seems a very weak foundation. What is, and isn't "objective reality" is always changing in accordance with changes in the scientific paradigm.

Lol you know I have argued for the non material part of us like our consciousness as being something real in the world even beyond the material. Quantum physics has some interesting interpretations of the observation sort fo creating reality. I don't subscribe to scientism but wanting to use science as a qualifier in certain situations is important but knowing the limits of science is also important.

But I think making the immaterial everything and then uwsing it to defy the science is just as extreme as scientism but the opposite. That is why I think we can add support for immaterial or transcedent by using all measures so that they converge and add weight which includes objective measures but also our experiences, spiritual and theological and psychological.

And your degree in psychiatry is from where...?

My degree is covereed psychology, sociology and biology. But you don't have to be a professional to know when a ghrossly thin person thinks their overweight that there is a mismatch between whats in their head and the objective reality that they are not overweight.

 

[Bradskii]

Anyway as I said I would use peoples pronouns in social situations because its polite and curteous.

I am not sure about that. Like I said non social situations can be different because they are to deo with the law, workers Rights, customer Rights and Individual Rights within public institutions where Rights often clash. This is more associated with policy and laws rather than social situations.

So you meet the aforementioned Mary from accounts in a social setting where you are told she is starting work with you next week. So you pleasantly and respectfully refer to Mary as 'she' and 'her'.

And then what happens on Monday? Hey, it's not really a social setting now, so what do you do? Well, as you say, you're not sure about that. Really? Well, I'd like to know. And don't start moving goalposts or redirecting or making umpteen different points in the hope it gets forgotten about. I'd like an answer. What would you do?

 

[stevevw]

Yes you were. Yet again:

'Forced pronouns comes from the same ideology as identity politics, political correctness and cancel culture. I think you will find the majority are sick of these things and disagree.

This disapproval of political correctness is a majority view across all age groups, according to the nationally-representative Australia Talks National Survey.'

It was the very first think you noted and the link you gave to illustrate it only mentioned pronouns. Nothing else. So where did you get the information from that the majority of Australians (you linked to an Australian poll) have problems with them?

This is one of the problems I said that you have many posts ago. You will say something, make an offhand comment to support what you say and you probably think it might get lost in the dozen or so points you make each post. So what if it's not true. Hey, throw a link in there as well and no-one will have the time to dig around and prove you wrong. It's another winning point for Steve.

Not this time. You either admit that you were wrong or you show me where you got your information from.

But notice how I said "comes from the same ideology as identity politics, political correctness and cancel culture. I was referring to these ideological ideas not pronouns. In otherwords I turned pronouns into IP, CC and PC to make my point.

 

[stevevw]

So you meet the aforementioned Mary from accounts in a social setting where you are told she is starting work with you next week. So you pleasantly and respectfully refer to Mary as 'she' and 'her'.

And then what happens on Monday? Hey, it's not really a social setting now, so what do you do? Well, as you say, you're not sure about that. Really? Well, I'd like to know. And don't start moving goalposts or redirecting or making umpteen different points in the hope it gets forgotten about. I'd like an answer. What would you do?

The point is no one is sure. I would probably use pronouns against my better judgement and belief. But how far do we take this. Why did the High court side with peoples Right to not be forced to use pronouns. What if someone in the work situation doesn't use pronouns. What happens then. They get sacked on the basis of not using the right words. That seems rediculous. Like words have become weapons.

We already know that the High court has sided with peoples Right to not be forced to use pronouns. So it seems we have created an antagonistic situation where people will either be forced to conform, go along even though they disagree or offend people based on their self percieved and subject sense of themselves.

Lets use another scenario. If someone identified as Christ should we then affirm them and use their pronouns such as My Lord or Almighty God at work. If a white person identifies as black should they be entitled to benefits for blacks. This is the logical or should I say illogical conclusion this ideological thinking.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes you were. Yet again:

'Forced pronouns comes from the same ideology as identity politics, political correctness and cancel culture. I think you will find the majority are sick of these things and disagree.

This disapproval of political correctness is a majority view across all age groups, according to the nationally-representative Australia Talks National Survey.'

It was the very first think you noted and the link you gave to illustrate it only mentioned pronouns. Nothing else. So where did you get the information from that the majority of Australians (you linked to an Australian poll) have problems with them?

This is one of the problems I said that you have many posts ago. You will say something, make an offhand comment to support what you say and you probably think it might get lost in the dozen or so points you make each post. So what if it's not true. Hey, throw a link in there as well and no-one will have the time to dig around and prove you wrong. It's another winning point for Steve.

Not this time. You either admit that you were wrong or you show me where you got your information from.

It's called a "Gish Gallup", BTW. Throw a bunch of stuff and hope something sticks, I guess.

The point is no one is sure. I would probably use pronouns against my better judgement and belief. But how far do we take this. Why did the High court side with peoples Right to not be forced to use pronouns. What if someone in the work situation doesn't use pronouns. What happens then. They get sacked on the basis of not using the right words. That seems rediculous. Like words have become weapons.

We already know that the High court has sided with peoples Right to not be forced to use pronouns. So it seems we have created an antagonistic situation where people will either be forced to conform, go along even though they disagree or offend people based on their self percieved and subject sense of themselves.

Lets use another scenario. If someone identified as Christ should we then affirm them and use their pronouns such as My Lord or Almighty God at work. If a white person identifies as black should they be entitled to benefits for blacks. This is the logical or should I say illogical conclusion this ideological thinking.

You're not taking the subject all that seriously. You're trying to equate a matter that affects actual people every day, often in serious and harmful ways, with farcical hypotheticals.

 

[rjs330]

course it can. An agreement that's to your detriment for falling pregnant is still discriminatory. You might sign it if you have no better options, but that doesn't make it any less wrong.

It's not discriminatory if you agreed. You are simply agreeing to a condition of employment. It's not discriminatory to agree to a condition of employment.

we aren't able to respond to the change around us with grace, we end up being that person who can't get to the root of his problem, because the problem is himself.

Be wiser? How about this: not every change is a battle to be fought. Not even every change that I don't see as positive, is a battle I'm called to fight.

If the change is bad, then we don't jav baby obligation to respond with grace. If the change means my kid gets tossed into the gas chamber I don't need to respond with grace. If my teacher is filling my son head full of nonsense like he might be a girl, I have no obligation to have grace at the change.

If the change is bad then the root of the problem is certainly not the person who won't accept it with grace. The root of the problem is those demanding bad change. Just like the root of the problem Paul mentioned is false teachers who were teaching change.

In this case of transgenderism today the root of the problem is those activists who are demanding change to the detriment of others, including women and children.

No not every battle concerning change should be fought against. Being wiser is about knowing what battles should be fought and which ones shouldn't be. When change is a detriment to society as a whole and a detriment to certain people, damages people's harms children then that's a battle worth fighting. Called to fight? Who's calling you not to stand against the chemical castration and physical mutilation of kids? Who's calling you not to fight against psychological damage that is propagated into kids? Someone is calling you to either stay silent on the issues or support them. I'm this case someone has called.you to support these things. Are you sure it's not just yourself?

Sometimes when a person refuses stand against detrimental change and instead supports it the person can't get to the root of the problem because the problem is themselves.

 

[Bradskii]

But notice how I said "comes from the same ideology as identity politics, political correctness and cancel culture. I was referring to these ideological ideas not pronouns. In otherwords I turned pronouns into IP, CC and PC to make my point.

That's bulldust. You immediately linked to a site that only addressed pronouns. Why do that?

'This disapproval of political correctness is a majority view across all age groups, according to the nationally-representative Australia Talks National Survey.'

It did not. It said nothing about political correctness. It only addressed pronouns.

'I think you will find the majority are sick of these things and disagree.'

And you were discussing Australian views as you linked to an Australian site. The poll on that site said nothing of the sort. You also said that 'This disapproval of political correctness is a majority view across all age groups...' Again, it said nothing like that.

You are making claims which are wrong and linking to sites that do not say what you claim. Either retract the claims or tell me where you are getting your information.

 

[Bradskii]

It's called a "Gish Gallup", BTW. Throw a bunch of stuff and hope something sticks, I guess.

If we didn't already have the term, then we'd certainly need to consider making one up in this case.

 

[Paidiske]

It's not discriminatory if you agreed.

Of course it is. You might agree to discriminatory terms, but that doesn't make them not discriminatory.

If the change is bad, then we don't jav baby obligation to respond with grace.

I'd suggest that as Christians, we do.

If the change is bad then the root of the problem is certainly not the person who won't accept it with grace.

But if a person is spewing fruitless anger, then they're going to need some internal growth to respond more constructively.

Who's calling you not to stand against the chemical castration and physical mutilation of kids? Who's calling you not to fight against psychological damage that is propagated into kids? Someone is calling you to either stay silent on the issues or support them. I'm this case someone has called.you to support these things. Are you sure it's not just yourself?

I don't accept the terms in which you're describing the situation.

 

[Bradskii]

The point is no one is sure. I would probably use pronouns against my better judgement and belief.

So you'd use the pronouns in a social setting and again in the office. You'll do it in the restaurant across the road because you want to be polite and courteous. But when you walk over to where you work you only 'probably' would use them. But hey, if you did then it's against your better judgement and beliefs, not because you want to be polite and courteous.

Do you actually think these things through before you post them?

Lets use another scenario. If someone identified as Christ should we then affirm them and use their pronouns such as My Lord or Almighty God at work. If a white person identifies as black should they be entitled to benefits for blacks. This is the logical or should I say illogical conclusion this ideological thinking.

Let's not. You are only weakening any claims you have to being correct on any number of points using nonsensical scenarios such as this (and yes, I know the example of the white girl, so please don't even think of using that as an argument). Just concentrate on finding out where you got that bogus info on pronouns.

 

[stevevw]

Where do you get this garbage from? I know actual lesbians. I have known trans women and men. The lesbians I have known have been friends with transwomen. They don't reject them as women. Likewise there are plenty of straight men that would date or have dated trans women. Gay men are not attracted to trans women.

Maybe instead of follwing internet clickbait, spend some time to get to know actual LGBT persons.

Thats good for your friends but unfortunately there has been a growing number of lesbians being silenced or attacked for what some transpeople claim is not recognising them as real women. I think the term Transpeople use is TERFS. Though I think this is an overreaction because most are just sticking up for the ideas that women as a sex are a unique category that has Rights.

There has also been a move by the LGB part of the LGBTIQ+ community to seperate themselves as they say their beliefs and Rights conflict. There has also been a rise in sexist and abusive behaviour by Trans activists against women in general but especoally lesbians which seems ironic considering women have fought so hard for their rights and now they seem to be regressing.

Part of the mantra of Trans ideology is that transpeople are the real sex they identify with. The logic follows that transwomen for example should be treated as women, like cis women when it comes to recognition and protection. So everything that a biological women can be and do a transwomen can be the same including being regarded as a women for dating purposes, sports, health and legal status.

Thus the removal of the word 'Women' as its too cisnormative. Women can now have male apendages and men females. There is such a thing as genital phobia where someone is said to be fixated on the genitals as the measure of male and female when it comes to sex and dating. Which aligns with Trans ideology in that sex organs as well as gender are said to be on a spectrum and socially constructed.

But that causes a conflict for those who only desire to be with someone of the opposite sex when trans ideology implies we should be willing to treat trans as real opposite sex when they are not 'in reality'. In other words the subjective sense of self is clashing with reality, the reality of biological sex. This happens across all situations where biological reality comes up such as in sports, change rooms, health diagnosis, mental illness ect.

So should heterosexuals be willing to really treat transpeople as the real identity for which transpeople demand is something yet to be determined. But its certainly the logical conclusion of the ideology and a real situation we have to confront. For example "do you think a transwomen for example should divulge that they are trans when dating a biological and heterosexual male and is it right for a person in finding out their partner is trans is it wrong for them to end the realtionship?"

Lesbians are being erased by transgender activists

Lesbians are being erased by transgender activists

When did ‘lesbian’ become a dirty word again? Perhaps it is since the trans-Taliban decided that we were a group of bigots and fascists, motivated by hatred of transgender people, existing solely to remove the rights of non-binary, sapiosexual, polyamorous blue fringed narcissists. When I came...

www.spectator.co.uk

Lesbianism is under attack, though not by the usual suspects

Lesbianism is under attack, though not by the usual suspects

Pressuring lesbians into dating people with penises is all too similar to the practice of corrective rape, wherein it is believed lesbian sexuality can be "cured."

www.feministcurrent.com

Will Straight Men and Women Date a Trans Person?

Will Straight Men and Women Date a Trans Person?

Gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, and nonbinary individuals are more willing than straight people to date a trans person—with surprising caveats.

www.psychologytoday.com

Is the word 'women' being erased from the abortion rights movement?

As more groups adopt gender-inclusive language, some claim the word 'woman' is being erased

Major organizations and some politicians leading the abortions rights movement have shifted their messaging to be more inclusive of LGBTQ people.

www.nbcnews.com

The Far Right and Far Left Agree on One Thing: Women Don’t Count
“the word ‘women’ has become verboten” liberal institutions are denying women their humanity, reducing them to a mix of body parts and gender stereotypes.”

Opinion | The Far Right and Far Left Agree on One Thing: Women Don’t Count (Published 2022)

Tolerance for one group doesn’t need to mean intolerance for another.

www.nytimes.com

 

[stevevw]

So you'd use the pronouns in a social setting and again in the office. You'll do it in the restaurant across the road because you want to be polite and courteous. But when you walk over to where you work you only 'probably' would use them. But hey, if you did then it's against your better judgement and beliefs, not because you want to be polite and courteous.

No its the other way around. I am willing to put aside my beliefs and views to be polite in certain situations. I am sacrificing self for others good. So I am actually treating people with the same if not more respect and dignity than others who already agree. My personal beliefs and views has no reflection on my respect and worth of individual people as human beings.

This is where I think the ideological thinking goes too far because not only do they want people to go along they also want them to give up their beliefs and believe the same way ideologues do to be Woke enough to pass the test. They don't consider that there are many with opposing views that have every right to those views and its not being hateful. That is probably worse than any percieved hate they think opposing positions might have.

I think the work situation is a grey area and yet to be tested. For example we may flirt with a coworker on a social occassion but doing the same at work can cause problems. So social situations don't always translate into work or politics or health ect situations.

Do you actually think these things through before you post them?

That would be a question I would be asking yourself. have you really thought through the logical consequences of the ideology in real life situations. How Rights conflict. You seem to be only thinking from one side of the situation which is people must comply with your assumptions and beliefs. But there are a lot of people who disagree and want to talk this through but it seems you are dismissing them as just wrong, bigots, hateful when they have a legitimate concerns.

Let's not. You are only weakening any claims you have to being correct on any number of points using nonsensical scenarios such as this (and yes, I know the example of the white girl, so please don't even think of using that as an argument). Just concentrate on finding out where you got that bogus info on pronouns.

See this is the exact example of dismissing opposing views. What all those who disagree are just wrong and should shut up and go along. Isn't that a form of enforcement and coersion and not respecting others view just like you say others are not respecting trans views.

It doesn't matter whether you think the scenarios are silly or not. Though anorexia and other body dysmorphias have strong parelles to trans and GNC and have been proven to be psychological disorders where psychological trauma drives the dysmorphia.

The point is do you agree or not that identity is subjectively determiened and therefore we cannot always determine between a person having some delusion or not. The fact that we already have evdience that many trans people were misdiagnosed as trans when they were either gay, lesbian or suffering mental health issues, autism or rapid onset gender dyphoria supports this. So how do we know that we are being made to follow a genuine case of identity or just some game or fasle beliefs about self identity.

The fact is if there was a way to determine identity as being something real in the world, in society, in workplaces then I think most people would probably go along. But we don't have that assurance at present, only the persons say so and thats not enough for many people considering how fast this whole ideology is changing on a weekly basis.

Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases

Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases - PubMed

During the past decade there has been a dramatic increase in adolescents and young adults (AYA) complaining of gender dysphoria. One influential if controversial explanation is that the increase reflects a socially contagious syndrome: Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD). We report results from...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov