A simple fix for the Transgender issue.

[stevevw]

Gyms and salons? How do you mean?

Women only gyms and salons are designed to be women only for a reason. Because they allow women to feel more comfortable sharing the space in intimate situations. But if a women who still has male features (genitals) is allowed to come in that changes things. This is already happening with a transgender women taking businesses to the anti-discrimination tribunal because they refused to allow them to patronize their businesses.

Because transgender ideology does not recognize that the physical sex features are an important part of being a women and that it is all in the mind this overlooks the implications in practical situations where women need to be discrete or work in close proximity and intimacy. Under normal circumstances women only premises is designed not because of what is in a persons mind but because male and female bodies are different and women will want privacy from the opposite sex. But because the legislation states that a male can be a female by just identifying as one even without changing their physical sex this is putting some businesses in a difficult situation including breaking the law.

 

[Moral Orel]

Women only gyms and salons are designed to be women only for a reason. Because they allow women to feel more comfortable sharing the space in intimate situations. But if a women who still has male features (genitals) is allowed to come in that changes things. This is already happening with a transgender women taking businesses to the anti-discrimination tribunal because they refused to allow them to patronize their businesses. Because transgender ideology does not recognize that the physical sex features are an important part of being a women and it is all in the mind this overlooks the implications in practical situations where women need to be discrete or work in close proximity and intimacy. Under normal circumstances women only premises is designed not because of what is in a persons mind but because male and female bodies are different and women will want privacy from the opposite sex.

Are you talking about Jessica Yanniv? That's another story entirely. That case involves a sexual predator of young girls going to businesses that are owned by ethnic minorities for the purpose of causing a lawsuit that will settle for a cash payout in mediation. The motivation is greed and racism, not advancing trans rights.

That said, why do you keep expanding the topic to other areas with other concerns? A gym only allowing in women is very different than an esthetician. My point in initially responding is that different things require different judgements. Sometimes the differences between males and females matter, and sometimes they don't. Each issue should be judged individually. Biology does not matter when deciding which pronoun to use. Biology is paramount in segregating sports based on sex. Biology matters when waxing vaginas or penises. Biology doesn't matter in fully clothed areas of a business.

When transgender activists claim that biology never matters to any issue, I consider that an overreach. When anti-transgender activists claim that biology always matters to every issue, I consider that to be lazy thinking. A claim of the sort, "We should only use 'he' and 'she' to refer to biological sex because competitive sports should be segregated based on biological sex" is a non-sequitur. Pick one issue, not the monolithic "Transgenderism", and discuss that.

Compare it to racism. There may be something to claims of racial profiling in the criminal justice system. We shouldn't automatically discount that because some folks advocate for racial quotas in businesses and universities. They may be related through the monolithic "Racism" but that doesn't mean they're connected in a relevant way to compare them.

 

[Kylie]

Because it's in your head? Perhaps if your sex organs were male, you had less estrogen and a lot more testosterone in your body and you were raised in an environment and culture of being a man, that what is in your head would be different?


And how is that different than intersex/Hermaphrodite?
Intersex - Wikipedia



That's now what I asked. Again; does having a strong sense of femininity make you a woman?


That's not what I asked. Again; how would your feelings be different if feeling like a woman did not feel right? In other words; what do you mean when you say "feel like a woman"? Does such a feeling really exist? Or is it a matter of you feeling like yourself, and because of your biology, you've concluded you are a woman and feeling like you equals feeling like a woman.


Perhaps there is no such a feeling that only women feel that men do not, and visa versa; and that is why you can't describe what it means to feel like a woman. Ya think?

I don't see any value in having this discussion with you, at least, not until you understand that your opinion is not the only one.

 

[Ken-1122]

I don't see any value in having this discussion with you, at least, not until you understand that your opinion is not the only one.

Really? So you respond by attacking me now? If I had the attitude that my opinion is the only opinion, why would I spend so much time asking for your opinion and the opinions of others who disagree with me? If you don’t have an answer just say so, because when you attack me instead of my argument that says more about you then anything I could ever say.

Good day

 

[stevevw]

Are you talking about Jessica Yanniv? That's another story entirely. That case involves a sexual predator of young girls going to businesses that are owned by ethnic minorities for the purpose of causing a lawsuit that will settle for a cash payout in mediation. The motivation is greed and racism, not advancing trans rights.

That said, why do you keep expanding the topic to other areas with other concerns? A gym only allowing in women is very different than an esthetician. My point in initially responding is that different things require different judgements. Sometimes the differences between males and females matter, and sometimes they don't. Each issue should be judged individually. Biology does not matter when deciding which pronoun to use. Biology is paramount in segregating sports based on sex. Biology matters when waxing vaginas or penises. Biology doesn't matter in fully clothed areas of a business.

When transgender activists claim that biology never matters to any issue, I consider that an overreach. When anti-transgender activists claim that biology always matters to every issue, I consider that to be lazy thinking. A claim of the sort, "We should only use 'he' and 'she' to refer to biological sex because competitive sports should be segregated based on biological sex" is a non-sequitur. Pick one issue, not the monolithic "Transgenderism", and discuss that.

Compare it to racism. There may be something to claims of racial profiling in the criminal justice system. We shouldn't automatically discount that because some folks advocate for racial quotas in businesses and universities. They may be related through the monolithic "Racism" but that doesn't mean they're connected in a relevant way to compare them.

I am expanding the topic because pronouns are related to the basic topic about people self identifying their gender which includes transgender people. It is all part of the same ideology that there are no male and females and gender is only determined by subjective feelings. This is partly responsible for the conflicts and confusing we are seeing.

I am not referring to the Jessica Yanniv case in particular but in reading about it it does show that people can and will take advantage of the situation. But more telling it seems that despite this transgender being vexatious the courts seem to be empathizing with transgender rights in these situations. This has implications of forcing women into doing things they don't want to do because of anti-discrimination laws which have gone overboard. IMO it is still an example of the consequences of redefining women which will inevitably bring up situations like this. This example is just one of many similar genuine ones. For example
Local transgender student with penis sues school district to be allowed to change clothes openly in woman’s locker room

Anyway I don't really want to get into naming individual situations as examples of how males and females are different and rather talk about the overall implication of what redefining a women will have for women and men for that matter. The differences extend across a number of areas such as mentally, emotionally and socially. Biology is more than the physical features. Every cell in our body is either male or female so it affects people in many ways. Women's spaces, their privacy, every right, safety issue and any other advancement we have gained for women is at threat by redefining who a women is.

By accepting that a person can self-identify as a woman we are saying that there is no category for cis women socially, biologically and politically and this has consequences. For all the rights, aims and protections that society has stood up for and continues to recognize these will be diminished and in many cases completely eradicated if biological males can be women. There will be no special consideration of women because everything that a man can be and do will also be what a woman is.

It would cut all ways for women in that existing cis women would lose many rights and recognition's like for equal opportunity in work and promotion. If a biological male can be classed as a woman, then any ability they have as a male that out competes a woman will no longer be seen in terms of gender inequality but a fair and equal part of who a women is. This will be applied to all areas of women’s endeavor such as sports, journalism, business, finance, adventure, recreation and so on. Anywhere a male is shown to be more dominant and successful because they are a male when applied to women’s opportunities will be diminished and taken.

Any women’s space where a woman wants their privacy will also be diminished and taken such as toilets, change rooms, gyms, women’s groups, medical programs, support groups, women’s hostels, etc. Cis women will no longer be a category and have the same rights.But what I find telling is that it seems to be predominately men becoming women and women being affected and that people are very quiet when these situations are applied to women becoming men. What about when a women has to use an all male toilet, change room, hostel or jail. What happens when a young girl has to use an all male change room or toilet. Would people be as accepting of this situation as it exposes more clearly how men and women are different.

As an article in the conversation mentions

Why self-identification shouldn’t be the only thing that defines our gender
If you don’t think that women should be provided with these legal protections – women only spaces, or resources put aside just for women – then that is one thing. But if you do, then the category of “woman” as a matter of self-definition is self-defeating.

The logical conclusion of shifting our definitions of gender from objective characteristics to inherently subjective and personal ones is that the categories of “man” and “woman” effectively become meaningless. This is not a satisfactory outcome, especially for those who strongly feel that they identify as one particular gender. It is natural and understandable to feel empathy and concern for those who feel pain and distress at their socially recognized gender, and who wish to transition to live in the opposite role. But shifting our definition of what it means to be a woman so that it no longer has any grounding in the material or social reality of what it means to be a woman helps no one.

Why self-identification shouldn't be the only thing that defines our gender

 

[Moral Orel]

Anyway I don't really want to get into naming individual situations as examples of how males and females are different and rather talk about the overall implication of what redefining a women will have for women and men for that matter.

I reject your premise that there is an overall implication. Some situations require rules based on biological sex and some do not. Redefining gender doesn't have to affect those situations.

 

[stevevw]

Really? So you respond by attacking me now? If I had the attitude that my opinion is the only opinion, why would I spend so much time asking for your opinion and the opinions of others who disagree with me? If you don’t have an answer just say so, because when you attack me instead of my argument that says more about you then anything I could ever say.

Good day

What I am finding concerning is that any opinion that is contrary to gender ideology is seen as trans-phobic. People are being sacked or demoted and called discriminatory because they have disagreed with gender ideology. People who believe they are speaking the truth are being accused of hate speech. That is not freedom of speech and opinion that is political correctness. A good example is Dr Petersen who refuses to use gender pronouns because he says this is feeding an ideology that has no scientific basis. New legislation in Canada forces people to use certain language which amounts to a dictatorship.

 

[stevevw]

I reject your premise that there is an overall implication. Some situations require rules based on biological sex and some do not. Redefining gender doesn't have to affect those situations.

Actually I said that the overall implication will be for any situation where a women needs to be separately defined as a women which would stand to reason as these situations will mostly be affected by the influences of a males physical and mental/emotional abilities.

Do you agree that at least for situations that require biological sex as a determining factor that there will be implications for women. I think logic tells us that all situations involving biological sex will be affected on average. Don't you think even if one or two areas are affected we have a problem that needs to be addressed.

 

[Kylie]

Really? So you respond by attacking me now? If I had the attitude that my opinion is the only opinion, why would I spend so much time asking for your opinion and the opinions of others who disagree with me? If you don’t have an answer just say so, because when you attack me instead of my argument that says more about you then anything I could ever say.

Good day

Like I said, it's like trying to describe colour to a blind man. And you seem a lot like the blind man who says that since no one can describe colour to him, that colour can't be real.

Remember - the issue here is not your understanding of gender identity. You don't need to understand how it works, you just need to accept that some people - most people, actually - have a thing inside them that tells them that they are a man, a woman, or whatever they happen to be. Your insistence that we pause that discussion so you can be educated about it is just derailing the discussion.

 

[Kylie]

What I am finding concerning is that any opinion that is contrary to gender ideology is seen as trans-phobic. People are being sacked or demoted and called discriminatory because they have disagreed with gender ideology. People who believe they are speaking the truth are being accused of hate speech. That is not freedom of speech and opinion that is political correctness. A good example is Dr Petersen who refuses to use gender pronouns because he says this is feeding an ideology that has no scientific basis. New legislation in Canada forces people to use certain language which amounts to a dictatorship.

"One of the policies was that if you didn't use the preferred pronouns of a given group, you could be charged with a hate crime."

Yeah, what monsters, they want people to be address in the way that the people desire.

If someone decided to refer to me as a man, should they have the right to? Should I be denied the opportunity to get upset by it (I wanted to use stronger language, but then I remembered the censor here)?

I should have every right to say, "I am a woman, and you will address me as such." And yet when this logic is applied to groups like trans people, all of a sudden they think it's unreasonable? It's just looking for an excuse to be allowed to be jerks to trans people and other groups.

 

[stevevw]

"One of the policies was that if you didn't use the preferred pronouns of a given group, you could be charged with a hate crime."

Yeah, what monsters, they want people to be address in the way that the people desire.

If someone decided to refer to me as a man, should they have the right to? Should I be denied the opportunity to get upset by it (I wanted to use stronger language, but then I remembered the censor here)?

I should have every right to say, "I am a woman, and you will address me as such." And yet when this logic is applied to groups like trans people, all of a sudden they think it's unreasonable? It's just looking for an excuse to be allowed to be jerks to trans people and other groups.

But people are not forced to call you a women by law in a democratic and free speaking society. There are many situations where people do not use the preferred language of others. When you hear people say others are rude or disrespectful because they speak in a certain way. or when you hear cultural and societal norms that have been used that may not apply to everyone but people accept it as its part of that society. That is how a free society has been operating for many years. That is part of the price for freedom of speech because by having the freedom of speech.

Most language evolves and becomes part of a culture naturally. Part of why people like Petersen disagree if you listened to what he said was because the basis for people insisting on a certain language was subjective. In other words one person is trying to force another to live by their subjective reality. As we have seen from some of this debate on gender ideology it is subjective and may not be scientific fact. So are we to now say that we should be forced to go along with everyone's subjective ideologies.

No where in the general public realm have governments forced people to use certain language and made it a crime. That is what Petersen and others were objecting to. The only time governments have controlled language is usually in a regime such as in communist countries. As Petersen says it is one thing to stop people from using certain words like on this forum but it is another to force people to speak a certain way. That goes beyond freedom of speech and it has never been used for any other area in at least free speaking countries.

As Petersen stated he would usually use the language transgender people prefer but being a psychologists he also know how people can play games and can use these situations to control others. He supports the more common pronouns like they and them but would be more scrutinizing with others like zee and zer. Is the use of these new names part of an ideological game or does the individual have a genuine need for these words.

I tend to agree because gender ideology is based on subjective views. As with the link I posted in a previously we have seen a massive increase in young people trending towards gender fluidity beyond any scientific basis which is more likely to be associated with a new trend that young people are buying into. So there would be a risk of people being forced to go along with a persons socially created ideology which would be wrong. A free society allows us to be in a position where we can question these things and make up our own minds.

this video seems to sum up things well

 

[Moral Orel]

Actually I said that the overall implication will be for any situation where a women needs to be separately defined as a women which would stand to reason as these situations will mostly be affected by the influences of a males physical and mental/emotional abilities.

Do you agree that at least for situations that require biological sex as a determining factor that there will be implications for women. I think logic tells us that all situations involving biological sex will be affected on average.

I think there are less situations that require biological sex as a determining factor than you think.

Don't you think even if one or two areas are affected we have a problem that needs to be addressed.

No. All that means is that we have one or two areas that need to be addressed.

---------------------------------------------------​

I've been reading your other posts too, and I wanted to point out that you don't seem to understand Jordan's position.

A good example is Dr Petersen who refuses to use gender pronouns because he says this is feeding an ideology that has no scientific basis.

He said that he's fine with addressing a person by the "persona" that they're trying to achieve. The issue he takes is with the government mandating it. He did also say that the "new" non-binary pronouns people are inventing are likely a product of narcissism. But if a biological male is wearing a dress, jewelry, makeup, and long hair, he's going to say "she" and "her".

New legislation in Canada forces people to use certain language which amounts to a dictatorship.

Not exactly. I don't like it either, but technically, you don't have to use pronouns, so you aren't required to say words you don't want to say. Here in the US we have sexual harassment laws that cover the same sorts of things. I consider that an overreach too.

 

[stevevw]

I think there are less situations that require biological sex as a determining factor than you think.

So are you saying because there are not many situations that these can be overlooked. Would not all situations that involve biological sex as the measure be potential problem areas considering biologically on average males are different to females. Remember that the issue is not whether a situation has arisen but that it can arise and cause potential problems. The idea is to avoid these situations by adjusting the laws. So therefore every situation that can be measured as leading to a problem where a own is subject to unfair advantage, unsafe environments, and diminishes their rights would be up for disputes. I can name several obvious situations that most would agree will have potential issues.

No. All that means is that we have one or two areas that need to be addressed.

But that one or two areas could have big implications for society. For example if there is an issue for women with transgender women with male physical features wanting to share women's private spaces in a change room will this not also affect all other situations where women need their own space such as gyms, rest rooms, prisons, anywhere women do not want men included because of a private and intimate nature. By the way this issue is not a small one and can affect all schools, sports clubs and public facilities.

But logic also tells us that any situation where males have greater ability than females such as sports will also be potentially a problem. Another overlooked consequence is that women specific campaigns and rights are being lost which is having a negative impact on women. Gender ideology wants there to be no male and female, men and women. By taking women out of society no one is allowed to mention women as a unique category and everything has to be gender neutral. But many services and campaigns such as for abuse and specific women's health issues cannot be associated publicly with women anymore. Trans rights should not come at the cost of women’s fragile gains
Trans rights should not come at the cost of women’s fragile gains

---------------------------------------------------​

I've been reading your other posts too, and I wanted to point out that you don't seem to understand Jordan's position.

He said that he's fine with addressing a person by the "persona" that they're trying to achieve. The issue he takes is with the government mandating it. He did also say that the "new" non-binary pronouns people are inventing are likely a product of narcissism. But if a biological male is wearing a dress, jewelry, makeup, and long hair, he's going to say "she" and "her".

He did not say that he would address a person in the persona they are trying to achieve. He said he would address them according to the persona they are portraying which is different as he is not asking them but making the assessment himself according to what is being presented. He stated he would use pronouns like he and she and they and them but stopped at the new language being created like Ze and Zer as he was more skeptical about it being a part of some ideology that has been created as part of the transgender movement.

Not exactly. I don't like it either, but technically, you don't have to use pronouns, so you aren't required to say words you don't want to say. Here in the US we have sexual harassment laws that cover the same sorts of things. I consider that an overreach too.

Not according to Petersen and what Bill 16 states. Petersen investigated this and found the Bill was underpinned by the policies of the Ontario human rights commission. The Canadian federal government also stated on their website that Bill 16 would be interpreted by the policies of the Ontario human rights commission. One of their policies says if you do not use the preferred pronouns of a given group you can be charged with a hate crime. As Petersen mentions the Canadian government has introduced compelled speech legislation into the private sphere which has never happened in the history of English common law.

 

[Moral Orel]

So are you saying because there are not many situations that these can be overlooked.

Not at all. Look at all the situations, determine which ones have biology as an actual determining factor, and address those.

But that one or two areas could have big implications for society.

Sure, and addressing those areas is important.

Pick one situation, and I'll gladly discuss it with you. Just don't broaden the discussion to any other area just because trans people might be involved in that other area as well.

He did not say that he would address a person in the persona they are trying to achieve. He said he would address them according to the persona they are portraying which is different as he is not asking them but making the assessment himself according to what is being presented.

I'll grant you that it is more accurate to say "portray" as it is his judgement call. My point still stands that he didn't take an issue with a lack of "scientific basis" though.

He stated he would use pronouns like he and she and they and them but stopped at the new language being created like Ze and Zer as he was more skeptical about it being a part of some ideology that has been created as part of the transgender movement.

That's not accurate either. He's open to using "new" pronouns if he can determine that it isn't based on "narcissism".

Not according to Petersen and what Bill 16 states. Petersen investigated this and found the Bill was underpinned by the policies of the Ontario human rights commission. The Canadian federal government also stated on their website that Bill 16 would be interpreted by the policies of the Ontario human rights commission. One of their policies says if you do not use the preferred pronouns of a given group you can be charged with a hate crime. As Petersen mentions the Canadian government has introduced compelled speech legislation into the private sphere which has never happened in the history of English common law.

Nope. You and Peterson are wrong. You won't get in trouble if you don't use pronouns. The law does not compel people to use pronouns at all, it only restricts them from using the wrong pronoun. Here's an example.

Let's say Sally is a trans woman and I want to say this sentence:

"Sally went to the store to buy herself a pint of ice cream to eat with her steak."

It's perfectly legal to instead say:

"Sally went to the store to buy Sally a pint of ice cream to eat with Sally's steak."

It would be illegal to say:

"Sally went to the store to buy himself a pint of ice cream to eat with his steak."

Which again, I consider an overreach, but calling it compelled speech isn't accurate. You can omit all pronouns from your speech.

 

[Ken-1122]

Like I said, it's like trying to describe colour to a blind man. And you seem a lot like the blind man who says that since no one can describe colour to him, that colour can't be real.

Remember - the issue here is not your understanding of gender identity. You don't need to understand how it works, you just need to accept that some people - most people, actually - have a thing inside them that tells them that they are a man, a woman, or whatever they happen to be. Your insistence that we pause that discussion so you can be educated about it is just derailing the discussion.

I’m not asking anybody to pause a discussion, this is a part of the discussion and I’m just explaining why I have no respect for the way Gender is being used anymore which is why I refuse to comply with transgender demands, and I insist on using biological sex instead.

And it kinda goes both ways too; it seems many in the trans community want to pretend that biological sex no longer exists that all there is is what’s in your head (gender); which results in them claiming men get pregnant just like women.

 

[Ken-1122]

I think she makes some excellent points about the Census. many in the trans community wants to make it clear that women aren’t the only ones who get pregnant or have periods, that men have/do these things also. How can the Census be considered reliable concerning statistical information concerning men and women when Gender is used this way? If we went with biological sex instead of Gender, it seems this would no longer be a problem.

 

[Kylie]

I’m not asking anybody to pause a discussion, this is a part of the discussion and I’m just explaining why I have no respect for the way Gender is being used anymore which is why I refuse to comply with transgender demands, and I insist on using biological sex instead.

And it kinda goes both ways too; it seems many in the trans community want to pretend that biological sex no longer exists that all there is is what’s in your head (gender); which results in them claiming men get pregnant just like women.

And yet when they tell you that your opinion doesn't actually reflect what is going on with the people you are talking about, you don't think that maybe they are better qualified to make that determination than you? No, instead, you ignore what they say because you'da rather hold onto your ideas than entertain the notion that you could just be mistaken.

 

[Ken-1122]

And yet when they tell you that your opinion doesn't actually reflect what is going on with the people you are talking about, you don't think that maybe they are better qualified to make that determination than you? .

Opinion? Sexual biology is not based on opinion, it’s based on facts. What you are talking about is based on opinion

 

[Kylie]

Opinion? Sexual biology is not based on opinion, it’s based on facts. What you are talking about is based on opinion

You are assuming that a person's gender identity and sexual biology are the same thing. I have already said more times than I care to count that they are not the same thing.

 

[stevevw]

Not at all. Look at all the situations, determine which ones have biology as an actual determining factor, and address those.

I agree.

I'll grant you that it is more accurate to say "portray" as it is his judgement call. My point still stands that he didn't take an issue with a lack of "scientific basis" though.

Petersen is strong on there being no scientific basis for people claiming that a person can be a women just because they say so. He says that there is a strong link between biological sex and gender. So I think you will find he will go along with certain pronouns not because he agrees with the ideology but because he is sees that it is important to the individual.

That's not accurate either. He's open to using "new" pronouns if he can determine that it isn't based on "narcissism".

Yes but he believes a lot of gender ideology is based on "narcissism"

Nope. You and Peterson are wrong. You won't get in trouble if you don't use pronouns. The law does not compel people to use pronouns at all, it only restricts them from using the wrong pronoun. Here's an example.

Let's say Sally is a trans woman and I want to say this sentence:

"Sally went to the store to buy herself a pint of ice cream to eat with her steak."

It's perfectly legal to instead say:

"Sally went to the store to buy Sally a pint of ice cream to eat with Sally's steak."

It would be illegal to say:

"Sally went to the store to buy himself a pint of ice cream to eat with his steak."

Which again, I consider an overreach, but calling it compelled speech isn't accurate. You can omit all pronouns from your speech.

It is not mine or Petersen's policy. The policy says that you have to use the preferred pronouns of those who request it.

As with gender ideology overall being a subjective and evolving area often what is claimed and what happens on the ground are two different things. We are beginning to see a number of cases where people are being fined and brought before human rights commissions for simply expressing their views and what I believe is truth when it comes to gender. It is a control over free speech and the suppression of the truth and the forcing of a minority ideology onto mainstream society.

The chilling evidence that Jordan Peterson was right: transgender ideology is ‘totalitarian’


[/QUOTE]