Michael Knowles demands a retraction, and gets it.

[KCfromNC]

No what we are disturbed about are false accusations of racism.

Relevance to the thread?
I mean, if there is a feeling that calling out racist elements of a group is an attack on the whole group, I guess it kinda goes to my point.
It's kinda like the the people who see calls for "transgenderism" being eliminated as an attack on transgender groups and individuals ... with the big difference being that racism is actually a thing that exists, while "transgenderism" is looking more and more like a euphamism for "transgender people" that lets the speaker weasel out of the criticism of such a stance.

 

[rjs330]

Relevance to the thread?
I mean, if there is a feeling that calling out racist elements of a group is an attack on the whole group, I guess it kinda goes to my point.
It's kinda like the the people who see calls for "transgenderism" being eliminated as an attack on transgender groups and individuals ... with the big difference being that racism is actually a thing that exists, while "transgenderism" is looking more and more like a euphamism for "transgender people" that lets the speaker weasel out of the criticism of such a stance.

Why do so many people have a struggle with the English language?

Do you believe racism should be eradicated?

Is it deliberate ignorance or do they really know and are just being dishonest?

By the way I was responding to a post that brought it up. Just curious why you elected to ask me the question and not the original poster?

 

[durangodawood]

....Which makes transgender a mental health issue and not a biological fact.....

My sense is that some people, including teens, are really helped by gender affirming treatments. My worry tho is that so many young people these days are caught up in a swirl of identity issues which include wondering about their own gender. And so I can absolutely see some kids, were it entirely up them, making terrible choices in this regard.

But for those who biological gender is genuinely the wrong fit, Im not at all sure its mental illness. In fact I think thats dismissive and unhelpful. We should recall that being gay, until not so long ago, was an "official" DSM mental illness. And the suffering caused by that designation was pretty massive. All in all I think we should let people be who they think they are so long as its not destructive to others.

 

[Pommer]

No what we are disturbed about are false accusations of racism. Which there are a lot of. But you know this.

What about the true accusations of racism that the Right won’t address?

 

[rjs330]

TransferISM isn't an ideology period. It is a condition, just like dwarfism and gigantism are a conditions.

No it's not. You describing a genetic condition of the body. Being transgender is not a genetic condition. It's a feeling. Not even remotely the same.

Transgenderism IS an ideology that is not based in reality and yet seeks to force everyone else to behave as if it is a reality. It seeks to indoctrinate children to believe in it and question their own reality.

 

[Pommer]

No it's not. You describing a genetic condition of the body. Being transgender is not a genetic condition. It's a feeling. Not even remotely the same.

Transgenderism IS an ideology that is not based in reality and yet seeks to force everyone else to behave as if it is a reality. It seeks to indoctrinate children to believe in it and question their own reality.

If the brain is malfunctioning in transgendered individuals and we cannot currently “fix the brain” why is it wrong to “fix the body”?

 

[rjs330]

My sense is that some people, including teens, are really helped by gender affirming treatments. My worry tho is that so many young people these days are caught up in a swirl of identity issues which include wondering about their own gender. And so I can absolutely see some kids, were it entirely up them, making terrible choices in this regard.

But for those who biological gender is genuinely the wrong fit, Im not at all sure its mental illness. In fact I think thats dismissive and unhelpful. We should recall that being gay, until not so long ago, was an "official" DSM mental illness. And the suffering caused by that designation was pretty massive. All in all I think we should let people be who they think they are so long as its not destructive to others.

You were headed down the right track and then took a bit of a detour.

Being male or female is not a fit. It's a biological reality. Feeling you are the opposite sex is a severing from what is factual and real. You may feel whatever you like, but that does not make it reality. When you look at the definition of mental illness transgender fits it perfectly. People do NOT want to believe that what they feel is not based in reality. Yet they will do all kinds of things to their bodies to try and force an alternate reality upon themselves.

These poor souls are struggling with reality. And that is an illness.

 

[rjs330]

What about the true accusations of racism that the Right won’t address?

Lets move on from that. As we have been reminded, different topic.

 

[rjs330]

If the brain is malfunctioning in transgendered individuals and we cannot currently “fix the brain” why is it wrong to “fix the body”?

If people are hearing things do we remove their ears and inner ear? If people are seeing things do we remove their eyes? If people felt their leg should be an arm should we chop off their leg and sew on a fake arm?

 

[Pommer]

Lets move on from that. As we have been reminded, different topic.

You’re absolutely correct.
I’ll start a thread for that discussion tomorrow, (later on today?)

 

[Pommer]

If people are hearing things do we remove their ears and inner ear? If people are seeing things do we remove their eyes? If people felt their leg should be an arm should we chop off their leg and sew on a fake arm?

This is a rare but fairly well-known condition “apotemnophilia”. People have a brain abnormality and cannot recognize this own body as a part of themselves.
Yes, the ethics of allowing obviously “impaired” individuals to make surgery choices is complicated, and not done (so far as I know), treating it with medication and therapy, like some would like to do with all transgender people so that they’ll go away and we can back to being “normal” again!

 

[ThatRobGuy]

My point was that this attempt to split hairs to weasel out of what this conservative group is calling for falls flat when compared to past messaging by similar groups which intentionally ignored a much more clear distinction in an attempt to make it seem like specific criticisms of very specific right wing ideologies was instead an attack on every GOP voter.
I mean, either we have to be very very specific about exactly what ideas are being discussed, or any criticism of anyone who votes the same was becomes an attack on every single voter in the party. But this flip flopping makes it very hard to believe this defense should be taken seriously.

The speaker in question did clarify what it is they're looking for and what they meant by the statement when asked about it:

"...eradicating Transgenderism would...mean behaving as American society did before, say, 2015. Before around 2015 we did not have any acceptance of Transgenderism in public life."

I suspect he specified 2015 as that was right around the time that the national bathroom debate started popping up.

I actually see some similarities between this and the gun debate, and many of the same rhetorical devices could be implemented for both.

In that sense, it wouldn't be unlike a gun control advocate saying "we need to eradicate the gun culture in this country" and providing the post hoc clarification that it means simply returning to how things were before the mid-70's (when even the main gun advocate groups like the NRA's advocacy still "colored withing the lines" of supporting limiting principles like universal background checks and waiting periods for purchasing)


I can't remember if it was in this thread or another one, but I mentioned how the backlash effect is created when the advocacy side doesn't have a limiting principle (or at least one they're willing to stick to for more than 5 minutes before pushing the envelope a little further), as it ends up being a case where the advocacy pattern ends up looking like the other side's slippery slope argument coming to fruition.


And as a side note (and this is just my take), I don't think the trans rights activists are doing their cause any favors by pretending that their efforts are "Fight for Gay rights 2.0". While there were a few similarities, there are also some key differences, and many of the things trans rights activists are advocating for go well beyond what gay rights advocates were asking for.

 

[rjs330]

This is a rare but fairly well-known condition “apotemnophilia”. People have a brain abnormality and cannot recognize this own body as a part of themselves.
Yes, the ethics of allowing obviously “impaired” individuals to make surgery choices is complicated, and not done (so far as I know), treating it with medication and therapy, like some would like to do with all transgender people so that they’ll go away and we can back to being “normal” again!

Recognizing that feeling you are a man when you are a woman or vice versa is a mental health issue and treating it with therapy is a very good start. As far as I know there haven't been any medications that have been discovered to help with that. But serious therapy is a very good start. Because it's my understanding that most transgenders have other comorbidities that they suffer from and most likely are part of their mental health issues. They need help. They don't need affirmation.

And they don't need all of society to bend over backward for them so they can feel affirmed. We have a member in this board who suffers terribly from a condition where he can't function around noise. But he is not demanding that all society stop being noisy for him.

We have people who suffer from delusions but no one is demanding that we all change our way of life to accommodate the delusions.

They need mental health help.

 

[Pommer]

Recognizing that feeling you are a man when you are a woman or vice versa is a mental health issue and treating it with therapy is a very good start. As far as I know there haven't been any medications that have been discovered to help with that. But serious therapy is a very good start. Because it's my understanding that most transgenders have other comorbidities that they suffer from and most likely are part of their mental health issues. They need help. They don't need affirmation.

And they don't need all of society to bend over backward for them so they can feel affirmed. We have a member in this board who suffers terribly from a condition where he can't function around noise. But he is not demanding that all society stop being noisy for him.

We have people who suffer from delusions but no one is demanding that we all change our way of life to accommodate the delusions.

They need mental health help.

If the transgendered individuals have sought this mental health care that you seem to think “exists” out in the wild where these people are counseled according to what their body looks like (rather than how they tell the therapist or doctors) so that they can better conform to what the rest of the world sees and after that STILL strongly desire to have body altering surgeries done, what would your modality say to them?

 

[Bradskii]

Recognizing that feeling you are a man when you are a woman or vice versa is a mental health issue and treating it with therapy is a very good start. As far as I know there haven't been any medications that have been discovered to help with that. But serious therapy is a very good start. Because it's my understanding that most transgenders have other comorbidities that they suffer from and most likely are part of their mental health issues. They need help. They don't need affirmation.

And they don't need all of society to bend over backward for them so they can feel affirmed. We have a member in this board who suffers terribly from a condition where he can't function around noise. But he is not demanding that all society stop being noisy for him.

We have people who suffer from delusions but no one is demanding that we all change our way of life to accommodate the delusions.

They need mental health help.

If two people need to find a suitable solution to a problem then there has to be some give and take. There has to be some way of finding a position that might not entirely satisfy either, but which goes someway to solving the problem. The very first step is agreeing what the problem is in the first place. To reach agreement on the basic facts and then move on.

The basic fact of the matter is this. That some people's concept of their gender is different to their biological sex.

That is a sentence to which you won't agree, because you don't accept that gender exists. There is then nowhere to go as far as you are concerned. The very fact that you deny what gender is excludes you from being part of any reasonable discussion as to how to solve problems which are directly associated with it.

And nobody is interested in who you think popularised the term or what you think of his sexuality. It's like saying the square on the hypotenuse doesn't equal the sum of the squares on the other two sides because Pythagoras was known to have sex with minors. It's totally irrelevant and an excuse for you to reject what everyone else accepts as normal.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

If two people need to find a suitable solution to a problem then there has to be some give and take. There has to be some way of finding a position that might not entirely satisfy either, but which goes someway to solving the problem. The very first step is agreeing what the problem is in the first place. To reach agreement on the basic facts and then move on.

The basic fact of the matter is this. That some people's concept of their gender is different to their biological sex.

I've floated the idea before that this needs to be treated (societally) the same way we treat religious ideas that we don't acknowledge as being valid.

Society has managed to find a balance there. Not sure why the same can't be achieved here.

Just to name a few examples (and I'll spread them out over various religious ideologies to make it clear that I'm not "picking on" any particular religious ideology, just merely using it as an example)

Certain denominations of Christianity, Hinduism, and Judaism have restrictions on what can and can't be consumed. And have viewpoints that contrast with what we know, scientifically, about biology.

They're all allowed to practice their ideologies on an individual level, but we don't demand that every restaurant abstain from serving beef or pork, and we don't demand that doctors and biologists acknowledge the possibility of virgins getting pregnant and giving birth, and we don't demand that mortuary schools teach their students that a person who's dead for 3 days can come back to life.

People who subscribe to those ideologies can still gel with society due to a little thing we call tolerance. Tolerance is a great concept. It means I can keep my views, you can keep yours, and as long as neither of us infringe on the other or disrupt each other's lives in any significant way, we're golden.

When "requesting tolerance" morphs into "imposition", that's when problems arise. For instance, nobody has a problem with Jewish people and Muslims opting not to eat pork, and it's understood that most of our society doesn't agree with their view on that, so if they wish to adhere to that, the onus is on them to seek our restaurants that will accommodate that request. However, if there were a movement to impose the restriction on every restaurant in the country not to serve ham or bacon because doing so would make potential Jewish/Muslim customers uncomfortable (at the expense of everyone else), or to make everyone else modify their speech and proclaim "bacon is bad" (even if they didn't really feel that way) then people would have a problem with it.

 

[Bradskii]

Tolerance is a great concept. It means I can keep my views, you can keep yours, and as long as neither of us infringe on the other or disrupt each other's lives in any significant way, we're golden.

No argument with that. But if people want to talk about minors or toilets or sport then they have to get an agreement on the very basis for the problem. Which is gender. If they deny gender even exists, you have no basis on which to start looking for solutions.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

No argument with that. But if people want to talk about minors or toilets or sport then they have to get an agreement on the very basis for the problem. Which is gender. If they deny gender even exists, you have no basis on which to start looking for solutions.

If someone denies gender exists, then that would just strengthen the argument to separate certain things by sex. (like sports and changing rooms)

In that regard, it would seem as if some modern activists have taken something of a flawed "ready, fire, aim" approach to their activism.


But, if one side is claiming that "gender isn't even a thing" and the other side claims the opposite, then that would create something of an impasse that would lead to some pretty heated and harsh conflict. On that we'll agree.

In that instance, I'm inclined to side with whichever side can at least provide a somewhat cogent and consistent argument for their position...because at least in that scenario, you know what you have to fight for or against.

For instance, if someone makes the statement "trans women are women", but can't provide a succinct definitive answer to the question "what is a woman?", I'm inclined to side with the other team in an epistemological sense, even if I disagree with their approaches and other various stances on it.


Example: If a side says "people shouldn't drive drunk" and the other side says "people should be able to drive drunk", but the former can't define what constitutes what "drunk" is when asked and answers with vague circular reasoning, and the other side can define it, I'm more inclined to try to work with and find common ground with the latter as at least I know what I'm debating for/against.


Abbreviated: I'd rather sit down at the strategizing table with a person I disagree with who at least has a fixed target, vs a person (who I may agree with on a number of things) who sets up a moving target and can't clearly define their terms.

 

[Bradskii]

But, if one side is claiming that "gender isn't even a thing" and the other side claims the opposite...

No-one needs to claim that gender 'is a thing'. There isn't any definition that anyone could find (except maybe in a religious blog or forum post) that says that gender and biological sex are the same thing. There isn't a medical paper or article that would say that. To deny it is like sticking your fingers in your ears and singing lah lah lah. Even people who argue against problems they believe transgender people cause readily accept the difference between sex and gender.

 

[rjs330]

If the transgendered individuals have sought this mental health care that you seem to think “exists” out in the wild where these people are counseled according to what their body looks like (rather than how they tell the therapist or doctors) so that they can better conform to what the rest of the world sees and after that STILL strongly desire to have body altering surgeries done, what would your modality say to them?

It's an impossible question to answer. Because we don't have any idea what kind of counseling or treatment they received. As you implied by calling it in the wild.

And one thing for sure is we haven't actually done that.

Since it is a mental health issue we certainly ought to be doing more than we are.