When two worldviews collide.

[rjs330]

Indeed, trans people should learn to respect others beliefs or quit the workplace. It's not that difficult to respect others and not demand they conform to your beliefs.








We're talking about...and you can quote me here...280 people who "attempted suicide". How many succeeded?

And is there any attempt to verify the self-reported survey this is based on? Did they find records of 280 trans people who went to the hospital? Did they find 580 actual examples of discrimination that were against trans people for being trans?

We're talking about a community that has a bad history of flat out lying to get whatever they want.

Not to mention a bad history of thinking that if you don't agree with everything and anything that want or believe you are harassing them.

 

[rjs330]

Indeed, trans people should learn to respect others beliefs or quit the workplace. It's not that difficult to respect others and not demand they conform to your beliefs.








We're talking about...and you can quote me here...280 people who "attempted suicide". How many succeeded?

And is there any attempt to verify the self-reported survey this is based on? Did they find records of 280 trans people who went to the hospital? Did they find 580 actual examples of discrimination that were against trans people for being trans?

We're talking about a community that has a bad history of flat out lying to get whatever they want.

It's pretty hard to talk about a survey you can't see. I don't know what the questions were. I dont know what the answers were. All we know is a biased transgender organization out it together. Sounds like a bad idea. Do you have a link to the actual survey and answers?

And the whole suicidal stuff has been debunked pretty thoroughly now. The trans community is deep in mental health issues. And even after transitioning. In fact the new methodology of treatment is to focus on the mental health issues rather than. Usher them into medical transitioning. We are finding freaking with the underlying mental health problems are more effective.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not to mention a bad history of thinking that if you don't agree with everything and anything that want or believe you are harassing them.

Lie #1. "The trans community is being murdered at alarming rates!"
Evidence? 0.
Lie #2. "The trans community is committing suicide at alarming rates!"
Evidence? None.
Lie #3. "The trans children are committing suicide at alarming rates!"
Evidence? Even assuming there are trans children (that is, they exist) there's no evidence of alarming suicide rates.
Lie# 4. "Trans people are being denied rights!"
Evidence? None. Trans people are given the same rights as every other biological man or woman.

Then there's the piles of garbage "research" that the scientific community describes as "extremely low quality". The constant focus on children, a slew of trans books that are extremely graphic, and the lie that many, many people on this very forum believed they were 100% ok for children and not sexually graphic at all.

You know you're arguing with a cult when you're telling them you've seen the evidence....they're telling you, they haven't seen the evidence....but you must be wrong somehow.

It's almost childish. I remember, literally a year before DeSantis had his televised display of what was in the books, checking to see if there was anything to the story. I looked up the 3 most common books being banned and thought "what sick mind thinks this is good for children"?

It's not as if this information isn't available for anyone who actually cares. Just take a look, take a peek. The people pretending to be moral don't actually care about the evidence.

Woke is about appearing to be moral...not actually being moral. It's about whatever moral standpoint is trendy at the moment.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's pretty hard to talk about a survey you can't see. I don't know what the questions were. I dont know what the answers were. All we know is a biased transgender organization out it together. Sounds like a bad idea. Do you have a link to the actual survey and answers?

And the whole suicidal stuff has been debunked pretty thoroughly now. The trans community is deep in mental health issues. And even after transitioning. In fact the new methodology of treatment is to focus on the mental health issues rather than. Usher them into medical transitioning. We are finding freaking with the underlying mental health problems are more effective.

No link to the survey....but since it paints a rather unlikely picture (did it survey people asking if they discriminated against trans people?) I'm going to guess it's a rather bogus self reporting survey.

You gotta keep in mind, the same poster that linked that survey (suggesting they consider it good evidence) got linked a survey that explained the entire methodology, provided real evidence of discrimination, and they denied it was even a bad thing. The reply suggested that perhaps discrimination is a good thing sometimes.

Which is, of course, a contradiction. You can't say you're for this group being discriminated against but hey....we need to stop discrimination against this other group. The double standards are rife throughout her posts....calling it a barrier if pregnant women who get ill are fired....but if a guy falls ill, well it's totally fine to fire him after 3 months. We can't expect employers to accomodate men after all.


I don't understand the mental gymnastics involved...but I do know they lack any real principles or values. Jellyfish....utterly spineless....just drifting wherever the current takes them.

 

[stevevw]

I believe we all have a spark of god within us.

I think we work together with it (if we want) to create a life and reach higher than our evolution ever could get us.

I think the 2nd greatest commandment to love others as we love ourself sums up all moral just like it sums sum all Gods laws. Thats because morality basically relates to our relationships with others, how we treat them. As we are moral beings just living together brings up morality so we cannot avoid it.

 

[stevevw]

That's not in any way relevant to my post. Which noted that you said that the majority of Australians have a problem with transgender people. Nothing you have linked to says anything of the sort. And what I linked to said precisely the opposite.

Ah so its what you linked now and not what I linked and now its about 'problems with transpeople and not pronouns. Me suspect your changing the goal posts. Can you show me where I said the majority of Australians agree with using pronouns. When you've done that can you show me where the quote I posted from the linked I attached is in the article you are using.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

I think the 2nd greatest commandment to love others as we love ourself sums up all moral just like it sums sum all Gods laws. Thats because morality basically relates to our relationships with others, how we treat them. As we are moral beings just living together brings up morality so we cannot avoid it.

I also think loving your neighbour increases your own experience of the "presence of god". Well - to say i think it is premature.

I'm seeing if it's true for me in my experience.

 

[stevevw]

We don't come up with the same morals "regardless of culture". That's a blatantly false statement.

There's immoral behavior seen as absolutely morally acceptable in various cultures throughout history that frankly, you would be appalled by. It's acceptable, right now, in certain cultures in Afghanistan to buy a boy as a sex slave. Those same cultures find it unnatural to have sex with their wives unless for the purpose of having children. Ancient Roman men were legally allowed to kill their wives and children. Spartans left any child, small or weak or disfigured to die of exposure. Slavery is still a problem in Africa today and not seen immoral by those doing the buying or enslaving. The Maori sea tribe had no qualms about genocide and cannibalism of anyone they deemed inferior.

These are extreme examples of course but girls in Japan have long been fondled and groped on crowded trains and it's been normalized, morally, to an extent....though I think that one has died off some in recent years. Suicide however, is still commonly seen as an honorable way to accept failure of some duty.

I honestly don't know how many times Christians make the bizarre statement of "we all basically have the same morals" but the exact opposite is exactly what the facts are. We don't. Moral predisposition vary wildly.

I don't think its that bizarre when we weight up all the evidence rather than look at the differences and assume because there are differences there must not be any moral truths. I think much of the difference is not about the morals themselves but the facts around the morals application.

For example they use to burn witches but the reason was they believed these women had evil spirits in them and they could cast spells that killed people. So this is not really that different to how some western nations execute bad and evil people. We both believe life is precious that it should not be taken unjustly. People came to know the fact that women were not witches and were not responsible for casting spells that killed people.

The same with slavery. People use to think some humans were inferior like animals and could be treated less humane. But later people realized the fact that all people were the same regardless of race which led to ending slavery or at least the misconception that some humans were like animals an can be treated like animals.

I would imagine even the Marfia or any culture would have the same moral values of justice, fairness, kindness and empathy towards some people within their group so we could say they know these morals but don't apply them evenly due to certain factors like dispensing their own kind of justice or deny this universially because they are motivated by self interest, money, unreal beliefs and all that.

During the Nuremberg trials against the Nazi's the court determined that the Nazi officers were guilty of war crimes regardless of their cultural beliefs. This was saying that there was a greater moral truth that was beyond cultural relative morality that held enough status to trump cultural differences about what is morally right and wrong.

Based on Rule of Law this means that wrong doers can be held accountable because they could have acted differently. In other words we believed that despite their cultural beliefs and claims they had the ability to know they were wrong to be held accountable. They knew the truth of morals like fairness, justice and kinedness but denied it to certain people. Otherwise we could not have held them accountable and would have to say they honestly did not know which seems unreal.

Evidence shows that we are born with a moral sense of justice, fairness, kindness and empathy regardless of culture. This is also supported by studies which show many cultures contain more or less the same moral sense and core morals.

To an important extent, all people have the same morality; the differences that we see—however important they are to our everyday lives—are variations on a theme. It suggests that if we look hard enough, we can find common ground with any other neurologically normal human. But I think the strongest evidence that morality has a genetic component has little to do with human differences, and everything to do with human universals. Every normal person has a sense of right and wrong, some appreciation of justice and fairness, some gut feelings that are triggered by kindness and cruelty. I like how Thomas Jefferson put it—the moral sense is “as much a part of man as his leg or arm.”

The Moral Life of Babies

Yale Psychology Professor Paul Bloom finds the origins of morality in infants

www.scientificamerican.com

Anthropologists at the University of Oxford have discovered what they believe to be seven universal moral rules being obligations to family, group loyalty, reciprocity, bravery, respect, fairness, and property rights.
Seven moral rules found all around the world | University of Oxford

These results support the hypothesis that people in different nations can differ in the behaviors that are seen as typical as instantiations of values, while holding similar ideas about the abstract meaning of the values and their importance.
Cross-Cultural Differences and Similarities in Human Value Instantiation

 

[stevevw]

The research you've provided simply doesn't stack up to the claims you're making for it.

Morality involves complex cognitive functions which have not developed yet in infants. For example, see here: The neuroscience of morality and social decision-making.

"Decades of research across multiple disciplines, including behavioral economics, developmental psychology, and social neuroscience, indicate that moral reasoning arises from complex social decision-making and involves both unconscious and deliberate processes which rely on several partially distinct dimensions, including intention understanding, harm aversion, reward and value coding, executive functioning, and rule learning."

Your still missing the point of the research. There would be no moral reasoning if we did not have a moral sense to make morality matter that we should reason about it. People who are not that intelliegnt to reason complex morality still know or sense when something is morallity worng.

Toddlers have a sense of justice and want just outcomes for others. That some situations require more complex reasoning doesn't change the fact that our basic moral sense which has to already be there causes us to seek that more complex justice. Without it there would be no justic and no morality.

It's an influencing factor. It's not "the basis" for morality, which is much more complex.

No complex moral situations have nothing to do with why morality matters in the first place. Basis means the moral sense. Its the reason why we are moral in the first place. Teens lack complex moral reasoning, some adults lack complex moral reasoning and some people such as with autism lack complex moral reasoning. But they still sense when somethings wrong. Complex reasoning and rationalisation may lead to deny morality. So rationality is not morality but rather an attempt to determine the facts around a moral.

It is hard to conceive of a moral system that didn’t have, as a starting point, these empathetic capacities. As David Hume argued, mere rationality can’t be the foundation of morality, since our most basic desires are neither rational nor irrational. To have a genuinely moral system, in other words, some things first have to matter, and what we see in babies is the development of mattering.
The Moral Life of Babies (Published 2010)

The same moral 'Mattering' is found in adults.
The babies’ experiences might be cognitively empty but emotionally intense, replete with strong feelings and strong desires. But this shouldn’t strike you as an altogether alien experience: while we adults possess the additional critical capacity of being able to consciously reason about morality, we’re not otherwise that different from babies — our moral feelings are often instinctive.
The Moral Life of Babies (Published 2010)

This is worth a read: Friends or foes: Is empathy necessary for moral behavior?.

Yes empathy can even lead to acting immoral because its an emotion. But empathy as an emotion can also lead to being moral when it is tethered with justice, fairness, kindness, compassion and alturism which are not emotions but moral principles for which we make judgements over.

A list of basic morals would include: An understanding that helping is morally good, and that harming, hindering, or otherwise thwarting the goals of another person is morally bad. A rudimentary sense of justice—an understanding that good guys should be rewarded and bad guys should be punished. An initial sense of fairness—in particular, that there should be an equal division of resources. And alongside these principles are moral emotions, including empathy, compassion, guilt, shame, and righteous anger.
The Moral Life of Babies

Again, see the sources I've just linked for you. This paragraph is worth highlighting:

"In reality, empathy is not always a direct avenue to moral behavior. Indeed, at times empathy can interfere with moral decision-making by introducing partiality, for instance by favoring kin and in-group members. But empathy also provides the emotional fire and a push toward seeing a victims’ suffering end, irrespective of its group membership and social hierarchies. Empathy can prevent rationalization of moral violations. Studies in social psychology have indeed clearly shown that morality and empathy are two independent motives, each with its own unique goal. In resource-allocation situations in which these two motives conflict, empathy can become a source of immoral behavior."

Yes as mentioned above empathy is not the moral but the sense of someone elses pain. That is what makes morality matter and causes us to want justice and kindness for others. But justice for example is a moral principle for which we can make judgements about. That emotions that come with morality can trick us doesn't negate that it doesn't trick us when it comes to qualifying those emotions with moral principles.

If we are angry at someone and are unjust towards them as a result this goes against the moral principle that everyone deserves justice. That is why feelings alone cannot determine morality.

Interestingly, brain circuits that are involved in discerning another’s pain overlap brain circuits involved with moral reasoning, emotions, and decision making.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01863/full

Scientists know that certain compassionate feelings and impulses emerge early and apparently universally in human development. These are not moral concepts, exactly, but they seem closely related. One example is feeling pain at the pain of others.
The Moral Life of Babies (Published 2010)

You have to remember as I keep pointing out for babies, toddlers and even adults our moral sense has nothing to do with rationality as far as reasoning out the facts or truth. Its just there, a sense or gut feelings some call intuition. Otherwise those without a mental capacity to work out complex situations could never know morality. The sense comes first and that gives us reason to reason about moral situations.

I notice that you didn't answer my question about, if we're all born with an innate sense of God, how you explain atheists.

Sorry I was waiting for your reply before I bothered. Anyway ehere we go

Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke
Cognitive scientists are becoming increasingly aware that a metaphysical outlook may be so deeply ingrained in human thought processes that it cannot be expunged.

Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke

Metaphysical thought processes are more deeply wired than hitherto suspected

www.science20.com

In his account of atheism, Barrett argues that not believing in God presents people with a number of challenges to the natural cognitive capacities of our minds that must be deliberately overcome. The capacities that are challenged by atheistic belief are a system he calls ‘‘hypersensitive agent detection device’’ (HADD), theory of mind, moral realism, dealing with death and overcoming native creationism. These are claimed to be intuitive cognitive systems or mechanisms which theism has no problems with but which atheism must deal with. Furthermore, atheists must stage their struggle on the basis of articulated, reflective beliefs which are much less direct and automatic than the unreflective beliefs generated by the intuitive cognitive systems (Barrett, 2004, pp. 109–112).
http://www-tandfonline-com.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1016/j.religion.2009.11.003?needAccess=true

Oh nonsense. The day toddlers at playgroup don't need parents to mediate toy-sharing disputes (for example) because of their innate sense of justice and empathy, is the day pigs will fly.

Isn't that similar to why we have law and order because adults cannot always sort out their disputes despite being adults with a more mature disposition. Just because toddlers need help with most things doesn't mean they don't have a sense of morality. Your making logical fallacies.

The fact is toddlers can make moral judgements aned then intervene such as ensuring subjects in the tests are equally treated, that justice is served and even more interesting that the bad guy is punished. This may be quite rudimentary in their behaviours such as helping the helper share things, giving the helper a clap or big smile which ignoring and being upset when the bad guy gets away with it. But these same judgements and rudimemntary acts are what become the adult moral behaviour but just more sophisticated and agile.

 

[stevevw]

I also think loving your neighbour increases your own experience of the "presence of god". Well - to say i think it is premature.

I'm seeing if it's true for me in my experience.

I think it stands to reason. If we keep the two greatest commandments which cover all the laws then we are living a good life and will become more Christlike therefore becoming closer to God. Christ and His presence will be within you.

 

[Paidiske]

Your still missing the point of the research.

Please stop accusing me of "missing the point" when I disagree with you. I'm not missing the point; I'm disputing it.

There would be no moral reasoning if we did not have a moral sense to make morality matter that we should reason about it.

What, in your view, is the difference between a moral sense and moral reasoning? Is it thinking versus feeling? Because I think they're basically different aspects of the same phenomenon.

No complex moral situations have nothing to do with why morality matters in the first place.

But morality is more than traits like empathy and altruism.

Basis means the moral sense. Its the reason why we are moral in the first place. Teens lack complex moral reasoning, some adults lack complex moral reasoning and some people such as with autism lack complex moral reasoning. But they still sense when somethings wrong.

Sensing when something is wrong is a function of moral reasoning. Even having the categories "right" and "wrong" is a function of moral reasoning.

That emotions that come with morality can trick us doesn't negate that it doesn't trick us when it comes to qualifying those emotions with moral principles.

I wouldn't be so sure about that... As I think I mentioned earlier in the thread, neurotic guilt (or guilt felt when one is not actually morally culpable) is a significant issue for many people.

You have to remember as I keep pointing out for babies, toddlers and even adults our moral sense has nothing to do with rationality as far as reasoning out the facts or truth.

Again, we can't have a moral sense, a sense of right and wrong, without rationality. That's a higher cognitive function.

Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke

Which sort of falls over when we observe the actual existence of atheists, and even engage in conversation with them.

Isn't that similar to why we have law and order because adults cannot always sort out their disputes despite being adults with a more mature disposition. Just because toddlers need help with most things doesn't mean they don't have a sense of morality.

If we need law and order to tell us how to behave, what is good and right, it doesn't say much for an innate sense of morality, does it? It's almost as if we have to learn morality...

 

[Bradskii]

Ah so its what you linked now and not what I linked and now its about 'problems with transpeople and not pronouns. Me suspect your changing the goal posts. Can you show me where I said the majority of Australians agree with using pronouns. When you've done that can you show me where the quote I posted from the linked I attached is in the article you are using.

It's pronouns and transgender. The link you gave to the ABC said he opposite of what you claimed and pronouns weren't a problem. And the link I gave said transgenderism wasn't a problem for the vast majority as well.

I'm up to the back teeth with repeating myself, quoting you, re quoting myself, pasting the same links time after time, explaining it each time I do - you seem completely incapable of understanding what is being said. I really don't know if your confusion is genuine or it's some kind of game you play to avoid addressing anything that counters your opinions.

Please, just deal with this. I've posted the link before at least twice and you ignore it. So forget about anything except what I wrote in regard to the link given:

"So how do we, as Australians, think about what we are discussing? Glad you asked. Because we have that info here: New research shows overwhelming support among Australians on trans equality - Equality Australia

New research shows overwhelming support among Australians on trans equality - Equality Australia

Equality Australia has released groundbreaking research showing overwhelming support among Australians for transgender Australians, including access to supportive schools and gender affirming healthcare.

equalityaustralia.org.au

'78% of Australians agree that trans people deserve the same rights and protections as other Australians...Only 7% of Australians actively disagree with this sentiment.' "

Now that is about as plain as it could possibly be. Almost 4 in 5 Australians want transgender people treated like everyone else. To have the same rights and protections as everyone else. There's no need to comment. No need to discuss PC matters. No need to mention pronouns. I just wanted you to see that and accept what it says.

 

[Bradskii]

Yup to it all. You see my best friend and I have a great relationship. He doesn't demand that people bow down to others and violate their values. He knows we can all get along just fine without doing that. He's told David that the clothes David was going to wear were too queer. He also calls DAV d his son and tries to support him. But he doesn't run around and demand everyone else violate their values or face punishment.

Just as it should be. He's not a self centered authoritarian bully.

I seriously would not have thought that any reasonable person would go to those extremes. If I'd have suggested it to anyone then they would have rejected the idea as being absurd. But at least we now have an example of the lengths that you and possibly others like you will go to refuse to accept the problems that some people go through.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't think its that bizarre when we weight up all the evidence rather than look at the differences and assume because there are differences there must not be any moral truths. I think much of the difference is not about the morals themselves but the facts around the morals application.

For example they use to burn witches but the reason was they believed these women had evil spirits in them and they could cast spells that killed people. So this is not really that different to how some western nations execute bad and evil people. We both believe life is precious that it should not be taken unjustly. People came to know the fact that women were not witches and were not responsible for casting spells that killed people.

The same with slavery. People use to think some humans were inferior like animals and could be treated less humane. But later people realized the fact that all people were the same regardless of race which led to ending slavery or at least the misconception that some humans were like animals an can be treated like animals.

I would imagine even the Marfia or any culture would have the same moral values of justice, fairness, kindness and empathy towards some people within their group so we could say they know these morals but don't apply them evenly due to certain factors like dispensing their own kind of justice or deny this universially because they are motivated by self interest, money, unreal beliefs and all that.

I'm not exactly sure which point you're making here....

1. It doesn't matter if we disagree on the morality of certain behaviors because we all agree good is good and bad is bad, despite those meaning potentially wildly different outcomes in behaviors?

Or...

2. It's ok if people don't agree with "us" now, because they will over time?

Or something else entirely?

During the Nuremberg trials against the Nazi's the court determined that the Nazi officers were guilty of war crimes regardless of their cultural beliefs. This was saying that there was a greater moral truth that was beyond cultural relative morality that held enough status to trump cultural differences about what is morally right and wrong.

I would suggest you don't look into the logical underpinnings of the Nuremberg Trials. "You should know when to disobey the law" is a tough argument to make or sell.

Based on Rule of Law this means that wrong doers can be held accountable because they could have acted differently.

You must be thinking about a different rule of law than me.

Evidence shows that we are born with a moral sense of justice, fairness, kindness and empathy regardless of culture. This is also supported by studies which show many cultures contain more or less the same moral sense and core morals.

To an important extent, all people have the same morality; the differences that we see—however important they are to our everyday lives—are variations on a theme. It suggests that if we look hard enough, we can find common ground with any other neurologically normal human. But I think the strongest evidence that morality has a genetic component has little to do with human differences, and everything to do with human universals. Every normal person has a sense of right and wrong, some appreciation of justice and fairness, some gut feelings that are triggered by kindness and cruelty. I like how Thomas Jefferson put it—the moral sense is “as much a part of man as his leg or arm.”

The Moral Life of Babies

Yale Psychology Professor Paul Bloom finds the origins of morality in infants

www.scientificamerican.com

Anthropologists at the University of Oxford have discovered what they believe to be seven universal moral rules being obligations to family, group loyalty, reciprocity, bravery, respect, fairness, and property rights.
Seven moral rules found all around the world | University of Oxford

These results support the hypothesis that people in different nations can differ in the behaviors that are seen as typical as instantiations of values, while holding similar ideas about the abstract meaning of the values and their importance.
Cross-Cultural Differences and Similarities in Human Value Instantiation

Ok...kindness....is an abstraction.

When we keep the conversation generalized and unspecified....sure, it's easy to agree kindness is usually good.

When we describe what kindness is in reality though, as a specific sort of behavior...we will end up differing greatly.

 

[rjs330]

I seriously would not have thought that any reasonable person would go to those extremes. If I'd have suggested it to anyone then they would have rejected the idea as being absurd. But at least we now have an example of the lengths that you and possibly others like you will go to refuse to accept the problems that some people go through.

We accept the problems just as much as you do. Even more actually because most of you won't admit the real problems. The mental health issues.

And so we also disagree on the solutions to those problems. And the solutions certainly don't involve denying reality. If you want to be my guest. But dont force everyone else to as well. It's called bullying when you do.

 

[Bradskii]

We accept the problems just as much as you do. Even more actually because most of you won't admit the real problems. The mental health issues.

And so we also disagree on the solutions to those problems. And the solutions certainly don't involve denying reality. If you want to be my guest. But dont force everyone else to as well. It's called bullying when you do.

So there's this person called Dave. Which is a guy's name. He dresses like a man. You refer to him as a man. His father and you both refer to him as your friend's son. No doubt his father uses 'he' and 'him' in referring to him in the third person. But you refuse to do that.

I'll have a think for a few minutes to see if there's anything more nonsensical I've read in the forum this week. And gee, we get a lot of nonsense posted so it may take me a while.

 

[stevevw]

It's pronouns and transgender. The link you gave to the ABC said he opposite of what you claimed and pronouns weren't a problem. And the link I gave said transgenderism wasn't a problem for the vast majority as well.

I'm up to the back teeth with repeating myself, quoting you, re quoting myself, pasting the same links time after time, explaining it each time I do - you seem completely incapable of understanding what is being said. I really don't know if your confusion is genuine or it's some kind of game you play to avoid addressing anything that counters your opinions.

Please, just deal with this. I've posted the link before at least twice and you ignore it. So forget about anything except what I wrote in regard to the link given:

"So how do we, as Australians, think about what we are discussing? Glad you asked. Because we have that info here: New research shows overwhelming support among Australians on trans equality - Equality Australia

New research shows overwhelming support among Australians on trans equality - Equality Australia

Equality Australia has released groundbreaking research showing overwhelming support among Australians for transgender Australians, including access to supportive schools and gender affirming healthcare.

equalityaustralia.org.au

'78% of Australians agree that trans people deserve the same rights and protections as other Australians...Only 7% of Australians actively disagree with this sentiment.' "

Now that is about as plain as it could possibly be. Almost 4 in 5 Australians want transgender people treated like everyone else. To have the same rights and protections as everyone else. There's no need to comment. No need to discuss PC matters. No need to mention pronouns. I just wanted you to see that and accept what it says.

Before we go any further we need to ensure you have the right link, the one I posted with the quote out of that link. So is this the article you are talking about.

Has 'PC gone mad'? Australians have made a call

When it comes to questions of political correctness and freedom of speech, it seems our nation is having a bet each way, writes Annabel Crabb.

www.abc.net.au

If not can you link the one you are talking about that you say I linked. No sense going on if you have the wrong link.

 

[Bradskii]

Before we go any further...

Nope. You have to deal with the following (posted for the 4th time I think). I'm not playing forum hide and seek anymore or Guess-Which-Link-I'm-Quoting-This-Time for the umpteenth time.

New research shows overwhelming support among Australians on trans equality - Equality Australia​

'78% of Australians agree that trans people deserve the same rights and protections as other Australians...Only 7% of Australians actively disagree with this sentiment.' "

 

[stevevw]

Nope. You have to deal with the following (posted for the 4th time I think). I'm not playing forum hide and seek anymore or Guess-Which-Link-I'm-Quoting-This-Time for the umpteenth time.

New research shows overwhelming support among Australians on trans equality - Equality Australia​

'78% of Australians agree that trans people deserve the same rights and protections as other Australians...Only 7% of Australians actively disagree with this sentiment.' "

But your creating a strawman by attributing to me a claim I did not make. Show me the claim I said "most Australians disagree with pronouns". Otherwise your asking me to defend something I did not say which is silly. I suspect you don't want to answer these questions because you know you messed up.

 

[Bradskii]

But your creating a strawman by attributing to me a claim I did not make. Show me the claim I said "most Australians disagree with pronouns". Otherwise your asking me to defend something I did not say which is silly. I suspect you don't want to answer these questions because you know you messed up.

The vast majority of Australians have no problem with transgender people. Just accept that as per the link I gave you. And the ABC link you gave said they have no problem with pronouns either. Whether you think you said it, didn't mean to say, were misinterpreted saying it or it's all just a fever dream imaginarium, those are the facts of the matter.