A simple fix for the Transgender issue.

Ken-1122 said:

Me stubborn and arrogant? How dare they demand I use gender pronouns; I decide how I speak, and which pronouns I use.

Click to expand...

Sure, you have freedom of speech. You can choose to be nasty or stubborn with your words if you want. That is your call. You represent yourself how you want to be represented as. You might also be seen as a representative of the groups that you belong to. You are a representative of your family, you are a representative of your town, your religion, your church.
People with limited experience of these groups of yours will likely generalise and assume these groups behave the same way as you do.

Referring to a person in a way other than what that person politely asks you to refer to them as, in my opinion is arrogant, is confrontational, is disrespectful. If I were to generalise then I might label your family as arrogant, confrontational and disrespectful, I might label people from your country like this, or I might label Christians like this.

I do find it revealing though that when I highlight that there is a large suicide rate amongst these people, that you appear to have no interest in thinking "what can I do to help"

Instead your response is stoically stubborn.

Ken-1122 said:

Are you suggesting I feel sorry for these people? NO I treat them just as I do anyone else.

Click to expand...

Myself, when I hear that a certain people are having major issues such as tendency towards "suicide", my initial thoughts are "What can I do to help?". In a very minor way, I treat these people with respect, refer to them as they want to be referred to, don't pass judgement, be supportive. I think that is the very least a decent human being can do.

stevevw said:

In saying that discrimination should be understood in a broader context because there are good and bad reasons for firing/demoting/hiring/promoting someone you are actually showing why it is important to understand context. Because there are individual circumstances as to whether a person is discriminated against we need to therefore understand each category such as women, race, religion etc and individual circumstance. If you begin to neutralize the language of each individual circumstance for each category that is discriminated against you run the risk of neutralizing the category as well.

Click to expand...

Nope. Individual context doesn't matter. We only need to consider the good reasons to fire or not hire, we don't need to address the multitude of bad reasons. Did they perform their job well? Are you eliminating that position due to down sizing? If the answer to these is "Yes" and "No", respectively, then you don't get to fire the person. Understanding discrimination in broad terms like this let's us understand why it's bad to discriminate. Thinking in terms of individual context forces us to think there are special groups that deserve special rights. That's the wrong reason to not discriminate.

stevevw said:

I agree that as a general principle it is wrong to discriminate period but then we need to understand how that applies to context to be sure we get it right and that peoples rights are upheld in different situations because an argument may be possible to justify discrimination. For example a general principle would be that it is wrong to discriminate against fat people but in some situation it is OK such as for health reasons and certain jobs. Some airlines charge extra for obese people because they take more than one seat. This could not apply to race or religion. It is the same for gender in that some circumstances for women such as the gender pay gap only applies to women. So we need discrimination acts and rights. You will find that race, religion and Indigenous people have separate laws and rights as well.

Click to expand...

Fat people on an airplane aren't being discriminated against simply for being fat, they're using two seats and being charged for two seats. Buffet style restaurants typically have cheaper prices for children and senior citizens, not because they're discriminating against all the other ages, but because those groups consume less food generally. I know that rights are listed out based on specific groups, I'm saying that's the wrong way to think about it. Humans are going to constantly fine new ways to discriminate, and we're going to have to keep adding to that list of protected classes instead of simply thinking about who deserves to keep their job.

stevevw said:

The harms would be what I have been talking about the hard fought for rights such as the right to privacy and safe spaces.

Click to expand...

Nope. Changing the language in that law you posted will have zero effect on privacy and safe spaces. This is the point I'm trying to get across. Acknowledging some areas that we can think about in terms of subjective genders does not require us to then think about all contexts in terms of subjective genders. There is biological sex and there is gender. Sometimes, rarely, biological sex matters. When it doesn't, it doesn't matter if we go with subjective genders. Changing the semantics in the example of pregnancy you've provided does not require us to do anything differently.

stevevw said:

When you refer to the "rare instances where biological sex matters" being excluded from transgender inclusion this will not go down well for the transgender movement.

Click to expand...

I don't care.

stevevw said:

The problem is for transgender ideology based on subjective feelings biological sex does not matter when it comes to determining gender and they are not willing to include biological sex. Whereas most including myself accept that in some cases gender can be socially constructed and therefore we should not have a hard and fixed criteria.

So we should primarily uphold the traditional and factual definitions that incorporate biology as the main basis for gender and allow subjective ideas in some situations, But transgender ideology want it the other way around by making subjective definitions the main basis and factual definitions as non-existent or minimal.

Click to expand...

Nope, not necessary. We can consider biological sex in some areas and gender in others. We can use reason and logic and data and statistics to determine which areas require us to consider biological sex.

Your pregnancy example doesn't hold up. It's nothing but semantics. In order to further your argument you have to keep pointing to other areas that there might be a problem, which means you don't have any reasoning to support the idea that anyone should really care if we say "someone who is pregnant" instead of "woman who is pregnant". You seem to think that if we give in to some areas, that means we have to give in to all areas, and that's wrong. And thinking like that forces you to take things that are reasonable and argue that they are unreasonable.

Moral Orel said:

Nope. Individual context doesn't matter. We only need to consider the good reasons to fire or not hire, we don't need to address the multitude of bad reasons. Did they perform their job well? Are you eliminating that position due to down sizing? If the answer to these is "Yes" and "No", respectively, then you don't get to fire the person. Understanding discrimination in broad terms like this let's us understand why it's bad to discriminate. Thinking in terms of individual context forces us to think there are special groups that deserve special rights. That's the wrong reason to not discriminate.

Click to expand...

This logic does not consider the differences for each group that is discriminated against. You must ask is there differing reasons why women are sacked or experience disadvantage to men. Will knowing these different reasons help us change things and implement better mechanisms to stop the discrimination. We have to know how and why discrimination happens to change things. Because language influences thinking and actions gender neutral language in these circumstances will dictate and lead to overlooking these differences.

It is not just about getting fired, we are talking about an entire ideology and the language we use contributes to creating that ideology. You may focus on one situation like getting sacked but there are many situations that women face that men do not. How do you use neutral language for the gender pay gap where women have been earning less than men for the same job. This is a gender issue that does not apply to everyone and only women based on perceived sex differences that women are not as good as men.Any campaign supporting this issue use women specific language and not neutral language.

If discrimination is such a broad issue, then why do workplaces have specific laws and rights that only apply to women. Why do they have specific laws for sex, race, disability and religion.

Here is the US the Department of Health and Human Services. They represent all the government departments in the US and use women specific language
As long as a pregnant woman is able to perform the major functions of her job, not hiring or firing her because she is pregnant is against the law.
Know your pregnancy rights | womenshealth.gov

Fat people on an airplane aren't being discriminated against simply for being fat, they're using two seats and being charged for two seats. Buffet style restaurants typically have cheaper prices for children and senior citizens, not because they're discriminating against all the other ages, but because those groups consume less food generally. I know that rights are listed out based on specific groups, I'm saying that's the wrong way to think about it. Humans are going to constantly fine new ways to discriminate, and we're going to have to keep adding to that list of protected classes instead of simply thinking about who deserves to keep their job.

Click to expand...

So therefore this gives more reason for us to list out those differences just as they do with the separate discrimination acts like sex, race, women, and disability discrimination Acts. The question needs to be asked are those difference important in understanding and upholding the rights of each of these different groups. Would knowing the context make a difference in how we can change things. For me it does make a difference and discrimination against a women for example in not getting a promotion just because she is a women needs to be differentiated because that sort of discrimination does not happen to men.

Besides employment law backs up what I am saying as they specify this by having a separate discrimination act and right for women including pregnancy.

Nope. Changing the language in that law you posted will have zero effect on privacy and safe spaces. This is the point I'm trying to get across. Acknowledging some areas that we can think about in terms of subjective genders does not require us to then think about all contexts in terms of subjective genders. There is biological sex and there is gender. Sometimes, rarely, biological sex matters. When it doesn't, it doesn't matter if we go with subjective genders. Changing the semantics in the example of pregnancy you've provided does not require us to do anything differently.

Click to expand...

The example I gave with the Canadian Human Rights Act stated that Pregnancy-related discrimination is a form of sex discrimination, because only women can become pregnant. Sex discrimination refers to the sex’s (male and female), so it’s discrimination against males or females. If we were to apply gender neutral language to this, then we would lose the specific meaning of pregnancy being a form of sex discrimination against females and the impact of sticking up for women specifically in these matters by changing it to persons.

I don't care.

Click to expand...

The point is transgender people care and that is why they have been protesting and winning the battle to get their version of transgender ideology which eliminates biological sex from the equation altogether.

Nope, not necessary. We can consider biological sex in some areas and gender in others. We can use reason and logic and data and statistics to determine which areas require us to consider biological sex.

Click to expand...

I agree this may be a solution but as mentioned above that will not happen because the transgender movement don’t want it and have so far successfully stopped it all situations that involve biological from considering the impact of the physical differences i.e. sports, toilets and change rooms so far and as time goes by this will continue across the board. Some countries like UK and some states in the US have implemented self ID laws. So now transgender women are declaring themselves fully fledged women including biologically. That means they have the right by law to enter all women’s spaces.

Your pregnancy example doesn't hold up. It's nothing but semantics. In order to further your argument you have to keep pointing to other areas that there might be a problem, which means you don't have any reasoning to support the idea that anyone should really care if we say "someone who is pregnant" instead of "woman who is pregnant". You seem to think that if we give in to some areas, that means we have to give in to all areas, and that's wrong. And thinking like that forces you to take things that are reasonable and argue that they are unreasonable.

Click to expand...

Then as mentioned above why do pregnancy discrimination laws state it is a women specific discrimination. I don’t think you understand what the self-ID laws mean. It means a male can self-identify as a female and then has the right to enter all women’s areas by law. So, no one can say this area is exempt or that area is exempt. They are declared women by law so have the right to all women’s areas by law regardless of how we determine gender.

Don't get me wrong I am not disagreeing that there is a place in society for gender neutral language and we are already using this in many situations. The problem I see just as Petersen has stated it is the forcing of one set of ideology through language on others at the exclusion of the existing situation especially when biological sex is concerned. I am happy to use gender neutral language when ever I can if appropriate.

Alien Lotus said:

Trans people make it an issue by self identifying as other. "Trans-female", etc...
If they wish to be seen as the gender they have in their mind they wouldn't label themselves as former transitioned to other.
They would also be upfront from the start that they still possess their God given genitalia when they do so, when they meet with someone they see as a possible romantic interest. But they don't always do that either.
It isn't anyone's responsibility , that deception, but the one deceiving someone whom the Trans imagines as a possible romantic interest. In fact it starts any possible relationship off on the platform of deception which means not just the shame of facing truth on the part of the Trans person, but it also bodes ill for the relationship chance itself when it starts off with deception concerning the most important factor in any future sensual relationship; sexual anatomy.

Click to expand...

Thank goodness they have you to tell them that they're doing it wrong...

Ken-1122 said:

I suspect anything outside of 100% compliance would be seen as disrespect in your book. You are not being tolerant if you only tolerate the views you already agree with; that is intolerance.

Click to expand...

Someone tells you, "This is how I'd prefer for you to refer to me," and you are telling them no, since you think you can make that decision better than them.

How is that not disrespectful?

Kylie said:

Thank goodness they have you to tell them that they're doing it wrong...

Click to expand...

Interesting how you judge others as disrespectful and think nothing of displaying that yourself.

Ken-1122 said:

Oh so now all of a sudden I’m being nasty and stubborn because I insist on being truthful?

Click to expand...

Noone is lying. By you addressing this person as her or she, you aren't telling them that they were born female. You are just using an address that they have politely asked you to use.

Ken-1122 said:

Your opinion is wrong. If a man asks me to call him a woman, I take it as him asking me to believe/pretend he is a woman;

Click to expand...

But they are not asking you to pretend or to believe anything, They are simply asking you to use a specific pronoun.

Ken-1122 said:

Too many in our culture have accepted two huge lies. The first is if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle or what they do, you must fear or hate them. The second is to love someone means you must accept everything they believe, say, or do. Both are nonsense; you don’t have to compromise your convictions to be compassionate.

Click to expand...

Correct, you don't have to compromise your convictions. Using the word "she" does not compromise you, it doesn't change your beliefs.

Ken-1122 said:

Do you really think transgender people are looking for your pity? I doubt it.

Click to expand...

I've never said that they are looking for pity. I think they are looking for respect.
Do you run around judging people, pointing at them, telling them they are wrong?
I hope not.
Just be polite with people. Be nice. It isn't hard is it?

Ken-1122 said:

This would be like a Christian asking you an atheist to accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, and if you refuse you are being arrogant and disrespectful against him and his religion

Click to expand...

No, not at all.

It's more like a Christian politely asking me not to use "God" or "Jesus" as if they are swear words.
I used to do that, and I had a Christian friend that asked me not to. So I changed my behaviour and stopped doing that. It was me choosing to be respectful to my friend.

I think I'm satisfied with concluding our discussion on this note. Remember how I characterized your argument:

Moral Orel said:

In order to further your argument you have to keep pointing to other areas that there might be a problem, which means you don't have any reasoning to support the idea that anyone should really care if we say "someone who is pregnant" instead of "woman who is pregnant". You seem to think that if we give in to some areas, that means we have to give in to all areas, and that's wrong. And thinking like that forces you to take things that are reasonable and argue that they are unreasonable.

Click to expand...

And you responded exactly as I described with this:

stevevw said:

I don’t think you understand what the self-ID laws mean. It means a male can self-identify as a female and then has the right to enter all women’s areas by law. So, no one can say this area is exempt or that area is exempt. They are declared women by law so have the right to all women’s areas by law regardless of how we determine gender.

Click to expand...

I'm explaining that some areas are reasonable to consider gender, and using gender-neutral language when discussing pregnancy isn't important (although I agree it sounds silly sometimes). And you have to resort to talking about self-ID laws and women's spaces. Self-ID laws don't follow from using gender-neutral language. The only real motivation for your argument is a fear of transgender ideology taking over completely, but that isn't a sound reason to oppose some of the things that are being advanced. Don't get me wrong, I'd bet that the idea that biological sex never matters is going to win the debate with society at large because it has emotion on its side. But you've got to pick your battles. If you oppose the areas that are reasonable, then the rest of your argument is weakened because you lose credibility. You're arguing that reasonable things are unreasonable.

Also, I hope you give some serious thought to my notion of a broader sense of discrimination issues. I gave solid reasons for thinking of discrimination in a different light, but your only reason to refute it is that it isn't the way we've been doing it. This:

stevevw said:

If discrimination is such a broad issue, then why do workplaces have specific laws and rights that only apply to women. Why do they have specific laws for sex, race, disability and religion.

Click to expand...

Isn't a reason to keep doing the same thing.

A simple fix for the Transgender issue.

Click to expand...

Prayer

Ken-1122 said:

Swear/Cuss words are considered offensive to many people. I am not advocating the use of such language, I'm advocating the use of scientific biology when referring to people. Do you find biology offensive?

Click to expand...

That's a misrepresentation of my stance and you know it.

What is offensive (and dangerous) is you not respecting a person enough to refer to them as they ask to be referred as.
I am not suggesting to you at all to change your understanding of scientific biology.

Alien Lotus said:

Interesting how you judge others as disrespectful and think nothing of displaying that yourself.

Click to expand...

All I've been saying is that it's respectful to address others the way they wish to be addressed and said to do otherwise is disrespectful.

Ken-1122 said:

I am not judging his ability to make a decision, I’m not asking anything of him, I’m not criticizing, judging, or insulting anything he is doing, saying, or believing; I am not asking he change his behavior in any way.
He is asking me, to change how I speak, and think, even to the point of realigning my worldview so it is in line with his by asking me to refer to his gender, and if I refuse this is somehow arrogant and disrespectful.

Click to expand...

Except you are forcing your worldview upon them by not respecting their wishes of which pronouns to use.

This would be like a Christian asking you an atheist to accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, and if you refuse you are being arrogant and disrespectful against him and his religion

Click to expand...

No. It would be like a Christian asking me to accept Jesus and me saying that I won't and that he also has to refer to Jesus as a myth just because I think Jesus is a myth.

I’ve been clear; I don’t use gender, I use biology. If he cannot respect that; then perhaps he is being arrogant and disrespectful to my wishes.

Click to expand...

Ah, so if they don't respect your wishes, they are being arrogant, but when you do it it's perfectly justified.

Be careful, your double standard is showing.