When two worldviews collide.

[Bradskii]

What if she wants it because believes it's the right thing to do?

If you want to stretch the grotesque example and ask a monstrously ridiculous question then...yes. With parental agreement and with medical advice and supervision. And the same applies to the male equivalent.

 

[stevevw]

Reasonable arguments. Let's say Mary wants to be known as 'she' and 'he' even though she was born a male. Can there possibly be an argument that says 'I will be harmed if I do that'.

Yes when Mary as a biological male enters the private space of biological wwomen. Or when Mary competes against biological women and denies them or harms them physically.

Under most circumstances the reasonable arguement would be that Marys subjective sense of gender does not trump biology in these cases. Under the usual determination subjective feelings and beliefs don't trump objective reality which tells us that its dangerous to make the subjective the measure over the objective as its proven that this is unreliable and leads to problems.

 

[stevevw]

Mary from accounts was used as an example of transgenderism and use of pronouns.

Oh sorry. Under normal circumstances there is no problem. So long as Mart doesn't expect everyone else to go along the accountant can be whatever they want to be so long as they are the best candidate for the job.

They would also have to fit into the culture of the organisation I think. No sense employing a radical progressive within a politically conservative organisation that is promoting traditional and conservative values. I mean would their heart really be in it. Would they be a good representative of the organisation.

 

[stevevw]

If you think that holding down a young girl and excising part of her genitalia against her will is in any way comparable to a decision make by transgender people to undergo surgery then we have a huge problem.

Thats a different issue to cutting off or mutilating genitals. Perhaps your just forcing Western morality onto other cultures. Doesn't secular moral relativism claim that each culture has a different set of moral truths and that we should not judge other cultures because we don't live in that culture or understand their relative position.

The West only thinks its immoral because its different to Western morals but not because its ultimately immoral because there is no absolute morals. So theres no way to tell whats classed as harm or not morally in any objective way.

Also an arguement could be made that proper consent has not be sought from Trans youth because they are not fully informed because the information is not available, informed by false infortmation, not given adequate alternatives and are too young to fully understand whats involved and the long term consequences. When you are young you don't think in long term. You don't really care about being infertile while 16. But you do when your 30.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes when Mary as a biological male enters the private space of biological wwomen. Or when Mary competes against biological women and denies them or harms them physically.

There's a unisex toilet. And she has been selected as the new accounts person because she was the best person for the job. There is no harm. And what I said was being claimed as harm was one person in the office saying that calling her 'she' was harmful to that person. That is plainly absurd.

 

[Bradskii]

Oh sorry. Under normal circumstances there is no problem.

Precisely.

 

[Bradskii]

The West only thinks its immoral because its different to Western morals but not because its ultimately immoral because there is no absolute morals.

It's wrong because harm is being done.

 

[stevevw]

There's a unisex toilet. And she has been selected as the new accounts person because she was the best person for the job. There is no harm.

In that situation maybe. But what if its not that situation. What if there are seperate toilets and change room like we have seen in sports. It gets more complicated when we have to take this idea that a male can be a female into the wider community. Its usually at this level that we determine whats best for society as a whole.

And what I said was being claimed as harm was one person in the office saying that calling her 'she' was harmful to that person. That is plainly absurd.

So what if its the persons belief that its harmful. Does there belief count for anything. Should not the person have the right to express their belief. What if some believe that calling a biological male a female causes harm in that applying that idea generally and especially to children is harmful to their psychological development.

You can't seperate calling someone a 'she' when they are a biological male from that person wanting to live their belief that they are a women. That means going along with calling them a she is also going along with allowing them live as a women and enter womens spaces. So its not just a simple case of a word 'she' but also represents an entire ideology that comes with behaviours that effect others.

It also represents asking people to deny objective reality and free speech in favour of other peoples subjective feelings. Denying objective reality in one situation can lead to denying objective reality in others. Denying free speech in small ways 'words' can lead to denying fundemental freedoms.

 

[stevevw]

It's wrong because harm is being done.

Harm being wrong by whose measure. The culture that practices the percieved harm from a Western relative position thinks its not doing anything wrong. They truely believe it. In fact they believe it saves the soul of the women. Not just saves her mortal life but her eternal soul which they regard as a much greater value as far as harm is concerned.

The West saying that a cultures practice is wrong only makes sense if there is some objective basis for what is morally right and wrong thats outside the West, outside all cultures. As far as I know that objective measure is not the West because they are not God. So how can you claim that another culture is wrong when you don't even have a basis for measuring whats right or wrong.

 

[Bradskii]

In that situation maybe.

Then it wasn't difficult to determine harm.

So what if its the persons belief that its harmful. Does there belief count for anything.

No, it doesn't. They need to show that harm has been done. In this case actual harm to the person who refuses to use the pronouns as requested. You may not agree with it, but there's no way that you could convince anyone that you've been harmed.

 

[Bradskii]

Harm being wrong by whose measure.

If you can't see that holding down a young child, slicing away parts of her genitalia with a razor and then sewing her up to allow just enough room for urine or menstruation, then this discussion can end. Just tell me that in your considered opinion that it is not harmful and we will end it here.

 

[dwb001]

Then it wasn't difficult to determine harm.

No, it doesn't. They need to show that harm has been done. In this case actual harm to the person who refuses to use the pronouns as requested. You may not agree with it, but there's no way that you could convince anyone that you've been harmed.

I feel pain when I am feeling forced to use incorrect pronouns.

I have been harmed.

Now will others say... 'well that isn't real harm'... is that not my call.

If you can choose your gender then I can choose my harm.

 

[Bradskii]

I feel pain when I am feeling forced to use incorrect pronouns.

Then you'd have a problem. To be honest, I would suggest that if that's true then you should seek help.

 

[dwb001]

Then you'd have a problem. To be honest, I would suggest that if that's true then you should seek help.

Or maybe just respect my lifestyle choices and respect my use of pronouns.

 

[stevevw]

Then it wasn't difficult to determine harm.

No, it doesn't. They need to show that harm has been done. In this case actual harm to the person who refuses to use the pronouns as requested. You may not agree with it, but there's no way that you could convince anyone that you've been harmed.

So heres an arguement why using pronouns may be harmful to society. This can be determined by some questions. After all if we are to determine whether harm is being caused then we need to as you say investigate this and not just take it at face value.

Why does someone want others to use their pronouns?
What do the pronouns represent.
Are they just words that have no meaning beyond the individual.
Or do they represent some greater idea beyond the individual for society, the world and reality?

 

[Bradskii]

Or maybe just respect my lifestyle choices and respect my use of pronouns.

You'll be judged on it.

 

[dwb001]

You'll be judged on it.

You already have.

 

[Bradskii]

So heres an arguement why using pronouns may be harmful to society. This can be determined by some questions. After all if we are to determine whether harm is being caused then we need to as you say investigate this and not just take it at face value.

Why does someone want others to use their pronouns?

Don't be silly. Third person pronouns are there for a reason. You either use them or you don't. Refusing to do so on the basis that it somehow harms you is a nonsensical position.

 

[o_mlly]

... a showdown brewing between Christain and traditionalist and the Secularist and the Left and I think the Left is winning.

Imagine an atheist and a Christian are in a sinking lifeboat built for one and the sharks are circling. Which one has a moral compass that is more likely to permit tossing the other overboard? Is that really "winning"?

 

[stevevw]

If you can't see that holding down a young child, slicing away parts of her genitalia with a razor and then sewing her up to allow just enough room for urine or menstruation, then this discussion can end. Just tell me that in your considered opinion that it is not harmful and we will end it here.

No I agree, I think its wrong. But the point is the culture doing it doesn't think its wrong from their relative position. Who are you to say they are wrong if morals are relative. You have no way of telling they are objectively wrong. You only have your relative position and though you really believe you are right and they are wrong so do they in thinking you are wrong and they are right.

Its no sense that you appeal to someone like me who lives in the same culture who will agree. Agreement doesn't make it right. Other cultures would say that this is an example of the West imposing their culture on others as with Imperialism or like how the Church imposed its morals on natives.

In fact if you are claiming that your morality should apply to the other culture then you are claiming to know moral truth which should apply to everyone. I agree but at least as with Christians we have a moral lawgiver and His natural order and believe there are moral objectives accordingly. What basis does a relativist have that supports objective morality which should apply to cultures beyond its own.