Michael Knowles demands a retraction, and gets it.

[Bradskii]

But that wasn't the ask...

The clause specifier "from public life" the speaker used would mean that we're not going to structure society and institutions around a particular viewpoint. In this case, the viewpoint is "a male can become female and vice versa"

So you're going to prevent that happening? Or ignore it when it does? Simply pretend it doesn't happen? I have no idea what it can possibly mean. Can you spell out the practical results or the aims of 'eliminating transgenderism'?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So you're going to prevent that happening? Or ignore it when it does? Simply pretend it doesn't happen? I have no idea what it can possibly mean. Can you spell out the practical results or the aims of 'eliminating transgenderism'?

Sure.

People who identify as transgender can continue wearing what they want, calling themselves what they want, and self-identifying how they want. People who subscribe to the notion that one can change sexes can continue to support them and make inclusive policies at their own businesses and private establishments and acknowledging the idea if they so choose.

But they don't have the power to impose that upon anyone else who doesn't want to acknowledge it. (that means they can't force your business to allow biological males in the female bathroom, they can't force your local school district to allow biological males to compete on the female sports teams, and they can't force your private company to adopt policies that fire/punish employees for misgendering if they don't want to)

 

[Bradskii]

But they don't have the power to impose that upon anyone else who doesn't want to acknowledge it. (that means they can't force your business to allow biological males in the female bathroom, they can't force your local school district to allow biological males to compete on the female sports teams, and they can't force your private company to adopt policies that fire/punish employees for misgendering if they don't want to)

But that's just addressing the problems associated with transgenderism. That's not 'eliminating' it. I suggested right at the start of this thread (post 15) that if the guy had said that transgenderism is creating more problems these days and we need to address those problems then who could argue? I'd even give a vote of support.

But he didn't want to do that. He used car bumper sticker comments to appeal to his base. He was using the problems that people have with their sexuality to score cheap political points. The guy is despicable.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

But that's just addressing the problems associated with transgenderism.

Right, which is all that is being asked for. Which is why his full sentence was "transgenderism must be eradicated from public life", people seem to be conveniently omitting the last part of the sentence when discussing the comments.

There are several ideologies (both religious and non-religious) that would create a lot of problems if allowed to operate without guardrails, allowed to operate with the endorsement of government, and had the power to foist it on everyone else in public life.

"public life" and "private life" are two totally different things.

For instance, there's a difference between a person choosing to believe in Islamic principles in their private life, and all of being society forced to go along with Sharia law.

 

[Bradskii]

Right, which is all that is being asked for. Which is why his full sentence was "transgenderism must be eradicated from public life", people seem to be conveniently omitting the last part of the sentence when discussing the comments.

You can't eradicate it from public life. It's when a transgender person is in public that people perceive a problem. Obviously. In private there is nothing to complain about. They play sport in public. They need to use the bathroom, with other members of the public. They interact on a personal level with the public. So what's going to be eradicated? Transgenderism? Or the problems associated with transgenderism.

The idiot who made the comment was obviously referring to the first. Eradicate it from public life. Do what you want in private but...what exactly in public? What are the solutions he offers? Well, none whatsoever. Because he's not looking for any. He just wanted to fire up the crowd. The man is worse than useless. He is dangerous.

But if you have some solutions, let's hear them.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The idiot who made the comment was obviously referring to the first. Eradicate it from public life. Do what you want in private but...what exactly in public? What are the solutions he offers? Well, none whatsoever. Because he's not looking for any. He just wanted to fire up the crowd. The man is worse than useless. He is dangerous.

Michael Knowles is "dangerous"? Really?

He did elaborate and say "it means going back to the way things were before 2015".

Think of it this way, eradicating it from public life would mean the same thing as what we've done to eradicate theology-based "isms" from public life. Have we rounded up all the Christians, Jews, and Muslims and given them a "convert or else!" proposition? Or have we simply said "you can believe that if you want, but the rest of society doesn't have to accommodate it and we're not going to make everyone else jump through hoops just to protect your comfort"?

But if you have some solutions, let's hear them.

If it were up to me personally, my solution wouldn't be a simple "all or nothing"

How you identify: Do you what you want
Clothing: Do what you want
Pronouns: Call yourself whatever you want, but other people aren't forced to go along with it if they don't want to
Sports: Transmen can play in male leagues if they want, but Transwomen can't play in female leagues for sports where size strength and physicality are integral
Bathrooms: Use whichever one you want
Showering facilities: It's up to the comfort level of the business owner and other patrons, if you're in an area where the majority has a ideological viewpoint in line with your own and they don't care one way or the other? Go for it. If you're in an area where 99% percent of women are uncomfortable seeing a penis in the women's changing facility...sorry, you can't change in there.


It's not particularly surprising that Knowles took a more hardline approach given that past attempts at finding a "middle ground" and negotiating have ended with people getting hit with the same "transphobic" label as the furthest right, right-wing pundits. There have been people who've conceded 90% of the argument, but still get lumped in with Tucker Carlson because there's one or two things they won't go along with.

Joe Rogan made comments saying something along the lines of "if someone identifies as a woman, I'll call them she, I'll be as respectful as possible...I don't care what bathroom someone uses,, but when it comes to sports, this isn't fair and there are other things to consider"

The left-leaning media response?

Are you really surprised that when any good faith attempt at a nuanced conversation is met with accusations of "phobias", that eventually some people are going to take the "okay, the gloves come off, I'm just gonna be blunt" approach?

 

[Bradskii]

Michael Knowles is "dangerous"? Really?


If it were up to me personally, my solution wouldn't be a simple "all or nothing"

How you identify: Do you what you want
Clothing: Do what you want
Pronouns: Call yourself whatever you want, but other people aren't forced to go along with it if they don't want to
Sports: Transmen can play in male leagues if they want, but Transwomen can't play in female leagues for sports where size strength and physicality are integral
Bathrooms: Use whichever one you want
Showering facilities: It's up to the comfort level of the business owner and other patrons, if you're in an area where the majority has a ideological viewpoint in line with your own and they don't care one way or the other? Go for it. If you're in an area where 99% percent of women are uncomfortable seeing a penis in the women's changing facility...sorry, you can't change in there.

It's not particularly surprising that Knowles took a more hardline approach given that past attempts at finding a "middle ground" and negotiating have ended with people getting hit with the same "transphobic" label as the furthest right, right-wing pundits.

If some people want to take a hard line approach, is that justification for doing the same? If one side uses inflamatory rhetoric then does that allow anyone who opposes your view to use it? This isn't a sport. This isn't a points scoring exercise. Do you think your suggestions could justify a 'transphobic' label for you? I don't. They are quite reasonable asa basis for dis ussion. No doubt about it. And I haven't watched the Rogan episode so I don't know exactly what he said, but he seems a reasonable guy when it comes to these sort of matters, so transphobic isn't a label I'd associate with him either. A link to what he said or the reports of him saying it would have been handy.

The original comments weren't in any way helpful by any stretch of the imagination. Completely the opposite in fact. But what do you think if he proposed what you just proposed? I'd say he'd have been shouted down. And all he wanted to do was fire them up.

So let's look at the comments that are being made. Strip away the rhetoric and ask yourself one basic question 'Is this in any way helpful.' And then ask yourself a second one. Is the person making the comments willing to listen to views that conflict with their own and consider them.

The reported statements in the op fail both times.

 

[Bradskii]

That said, Rogan's comments below are a very long way from being helpful in any way. If he'd said the same thing about homsexuality, then he would be rightly classed as being homophobic. Joe Rogan Continues to Spew Anti-Trans Rhetoric on His Spotify Podcast


'On his January 25 episode, Rogan hosted Jordan Peterson, a retired Canadian psychology professor turned right-wing provocateur who posited that being trans is both a "sociological contagion" and similar to the now-debunked "satanic panic" of the 1980s.

When Rogan steered the discussion to the subject of transgender people, Peterson explained his opposition to Canadian federal Bill C-16, which amended the country's human rights protections to include gender identity. "I knew full well as a clinician that as soon as we messed with fundamental sex categories and changed the terminology, we would fatally confuse thousand of young girls. I knew that because I knew the literature on sociological contagion," Peterson said.

In response, Rogan said it was similar to the work of anti-trans author Abigail Shrier, who also claimed that trans people are a contagion, and who had previously appeared on his podcast. In her work, Shrier discusses the concept of "rapid-onset gender dysphoria," which comes from a since-corrected study by Brown University researcher Dr. Lisa Littman that initially suggested trans youth began identifying that way due to "social and peer contagion." The study was deeply flawed, however, as it was conducted by surveying the parents of the trans youth, who had visited anti-trans websites, rather than the trans youths themselves.

Later in his conversation with Peterson, Rogan suggested that the acceptance of trans people is a sign of society collapsing, citing the work of right-wing British author and political commentator Douglas Murray, who claims that trans acceptance will someday be seen as "a late-empire, a bad sign of things falling apart" -- an assertion Rogan has frequently repeated on his show. "[Murray] had an amazing point about civilizations collapsing, and that when they start collapsing they become obsessed with gender. And he was saying that you could trace it back to the ancient Romans, the Greeks," Rogan said on his January 25 episode.'

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The original comments weren't in any way helpful by any stretch of the imagination. Completely the opposite in fact. But what do you think if he proposed what you just proposed? I'd say he'd have been shouted down. And all he wanted to do was fire them up.

So let's look at the comments that are being made. Strip away the rhetoric and ask yourself one basic question 'Is this in any way helpful.' And then ask yourself a second one. Is the person making the comments willing to listen to views that conflict with their own and consider them.

If he had proposed what I just proposed, he likely wouldn't have gotten a great response from a CPAC crowd (which wouldn't be a huge shocker), but people have proposed what I've proposed, and been shot down by the left.

An example of that would be Bill Maher.

He's someone who has been something of a "moderate" on this issue, and he's received the same media treatment

(expressing similar sentiments with regards to the sports aspect as well as the aspect of "what's the appropriate age to begin such treatments?")

He committed the cardinal sin of daring to bring up the possibility that maybe the record number of people in Gen Z identifying as such may be attributable to the fact that in certain progressive social circles, there's a certain "coolness" about being "anything other than a boring old straight person".

This was in response to a joke he made on his show where he said "maybe we hold off on letting people make major life altering decisions until they old enough that you don't have to threaten to take their video games away to get them to eat vegetables"


If one side has already set the framework of "it's our way or the highway, no room for compromise on anything", then it would seem the response from some on the right has been a resentful "okay fine, we'll play your rules then".

And you don't even have to go as far as someone as harsh a Maher to see what the responses are to the notion of compromise.

Andrew Sullivan (British author, liberal-leaning pundit, gay man himself, and has not been coy about going after the religious right and conservatives in general on a variety of issues) wrote a piece called "A Truce Proposal". He was attacked by left-leaning outlets, not so much for the content of what he said, but simply because some of his critiques of his own side's position could be leveraged by conservatives, and implied that having a member of the LGBT community critiquing certain aspects of their own movement was tantamount to way Dinesh D'souza was used as a "non-white face of Obama criticism"

If a liberal gay guy who regularly bashes US republicans isn't allowed to make a few critiques about trans activism without picking up the label up the label of "problematic", then who is?

 

[Pommer]

If he had proposed what I just proposed, he likely wouldn't have gotten a great response from a CPAC crowd (which wouldn't be a huge shocker), but people have proposed what I've proposed, and been shot down by the left.

An example of that would be Bill Maher.

He's someone who has been something of a "moderate" on this issue, and he's received the same media treatment
View attachment 329076

(expressing similar sentiments with regards to the sports aspect as well as the aspect of "what's the appropriate age to begin such treatments?")

He committed the cardinal sin of daring to bring up the possibility that maybe the record number of people in Gen Z identifying as such may be attributable to the fact that in certain progressive social circles, there's a certain "coolness" about being "anything other than a boring old straight person".

View attachment 329077

This was in response to a joke he made on his show where he said "maybe we hold off on letting people make major life altering decisions until they old enough that you don't have to threaten to take their video games away to get them to eat vegetables"


If one side has already set the framework of "it's our way or the highway, no room for compromise on anything", then it would seem the response from some on the right has been a resentful "okay fine, we'll play your rules then".

And you don't even have to go as far as someone as harsh a Maher to see what the responses are to the notion of compromise.

Andrew Sullivan (British author, liberal-leaning pundit, gay man himself, and has not been coy about going after the religious right and conservatives in general on a variety of issues) wrote a piece called "A Truce Proposal". He was attacked by left-leaning outlets, not so much for the content of what he said, but simply because some of his critiques of his own side's position could be leveraged by conservatives, and implied that having a member of the LGBT community critiquing certain aspects of their own movement was tantamount to way Dinesh D'souza was used as a "non-white face of Obama criticism"

If a liberal gay guy who regularly bashes US republicans isn't allowed to make a few critiques about trans activism without picking up the label up the label of "problematic", then who is?

Andrew Sullivan is not a “liberal”.

 

[rjs330]

You can't eradicate it from public life. It's when a transgender person is in public that people perceive a problem. Obviously. In private there is nothing to complain about. They play sport in public. They need to use the bathroom, with other members of the public. They interact on a personal level with the public. So what's going to be eradicated? Transgenderism? Or the problems associated with transgenderism.

The idiot who made the comment was obviously referring to the first. Eradicate it from public life. Do what you want in private but...what exactly in public? What are the solutions he offers? Well, none whatsoever. Because he's not looking for any. He just wanted to fire up the crowd. The man is worse than useless. He is dangerous.

But if you have some solutions, let's hear them.

Seriously? I've already posted what an ism is. One of the things it is refers to a societal issue. How it operates in a society. Referring to laws, rules and regulations. It would include education as well. Eradicating it means exactly as Rob described it.

I think you know exactly what it means, but are so against doing any such thing thatbyou just have to oppose it and will use inflammatory language like he is dangerous to do it.

Yes you can eradicate it from public life. You can't eradicate transgender people from public life. And no one is claiming we should But you can eradicate all the things that go on that are affecting society at large.

 

[Bradskii]

If he had proposed what I just proposed, he likely wouldn't have gotten a great response from a CPAC crowd (which wouldn't be a huge shocker), but people have proposed what I've proposed, and been shot down by the left.

An example of that would be Bill Maher.

He's someone who has been something of a "moderate" on this issue, and he's received the same media treatment
View attachment 329076

(expressing similar sentiments with regards to the sports aspect as well as the aspect of "what's the appropriate age to begin such treatments?")

He committed the cardinal sin of daring to bring up the possibility that maybe the record number of people in Gen Z identifying as such may be attributable to the fact that in certain progressive social circles, there's a certain "coolness" about being "anything other than a boring old straight person".

View attachment 329077

This was in response to a joke he made on his show where he said "maybe we hold off on letting people make major life altering decisions until they old enough that you don't have to threaten to take their video games away to get them to eat vegetables"


If one side has already set the framework of "it's our way or the highway, no room for compromise on anything", then it would seem the response from some on the right has been a resentful "okay fine, we'll play your rules then".

And you don't even have to go as far as someone as harsh a Maher to see what the responses are to the notion of compromise.

Andrew Sullivan (British author, liberal-leaning pundit, gay man himself, and has not been coy about going after the religious right and conservatives in general on a variety of issues) wrote a piece called "A Truce Proposal". He was attacked by left-leaning outlets, not so much for the content of what he said, but simply because some of his critiques of his own side's position could be leveraged by conservatives, and implied that having a member of the LGBT community critiquing certain aspects of their own movement was tantamount to way Dinesh D'souza was used as a "non-white face of Obama criticism"

If a liberal gay guy who regularly bashes US republicans isn't allowed to make a few critiques about trans activism without picking up the label up the label of "problematic", then who is?

So if you get shot down for proposing sensible solutions by someone you consider an extremist, then you take an extremist position yourself and escalate the rhetoric? I doubt if you intend to mean that but your argument leads to it. That's not the way problems are solved. It's how they are caused. And you become part of the problem.

 

[Bradskii]

It would include education as well.

As regards transgenderism and gender itself? So any given person could understand the basis of the problem? Great idea.

 

[rjs330]

If he had proposed what I just proposed, he likely wouldn't have gotten a great response from a CPAC crowd (which wouldn't be a huge shocker), but people have proposed what I've proposed, and been shot down by the left.

My guess is you would be right because you missed a couple of major issues. One is the educational aspect. The second is the medical transitioning of children and the third is the removal of parental rights regarding the transitioning of children.

I know you are not a conservative. You are a very reasonable person and I enjoy your posts. But transgenderism has taken over our society.

Some may call Knowles ideas an all or nothing approach. And I get why some may think that way. But in our ideal transgender people may be transgender if they wish. I know I know how big of us right? But honestly we never used to care about this issue until it invaded every aspect of our, and our children's lives. Take that invasion away and we'll go back to not caring again.

I'd support allowing transgenders to use the locker rooms and bathrooms of their chosen sex as long as they look like the sex they want to be be for the bathrooms. And they also have all the necessary surgeries to transform themselves into the opposite sex for locker rooms.

I'd they look like a woman and have all the lady parts then why do I care? But if they still have man parts it's a hard no.

 

[rjs330]

As regards transgenderism and gender itself? So any given person could understand the basis of the problem? Great idea.

Yes transgenderism has invaded education as well. It needs to be eradicated from school curriculum.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes transgenderism has invaded education as well. It needs to be eradicated from school curriculum.

Perhaps you can give us an example so we can determine that.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

My guess is you would be right because you missed a couple of major issues. One is the educational aspect. The second is the medical transitioning of children and the third is the removal of parental rights regarding the transitioning of children.

Actually, the education aspect would be another instance of what I touched on before about how some on the far left have been unwilling to give an inch in terms of compromise.

If you were looking at it as a negotiating scenario with what happened in Florida.

Side A - "We don't want any of this stuff talked about in schools nor do we want gender affirming care practiced because we feel it contradicts logic and traditional norms"
Side B - "We it should be talked about in schools, and we want no restrictions on the practice of gender affirming care"

In a state that has a staunch conservative governor, and a 2:1 conservative super-majority in their legislature, the end result was
"Okay, you can talk about it, but you have to wait until their in 3rd grade...and you can go ahead and do the gender affirming care, but you have to wait until 18"

It would seem as if "Side B" is getting the much better end of that deal given dynamics at play as the needle is much closer to their ideal than their opponents' (despite their opponents having more institutional power). I can't imagine that there would be any concession to the other side at all if the party roles were reversed.

Yet they still falsely branded it as the "Don't say gay" bill, when a much more accurate catchphrase would've been "wait till 8"


It's be like if there was a town ran by a party (with a huge majority) that wanted to ban the sale of beer outright, and the opposing smaller party said "well, we think people should be allowed to buy 6 cases of beer per day", and the in-power party came back with "Okay, well, I guess you can still buy the beer, but we're going to cap it at 4 cases per day, and no sales on Sunday", and then the smaller party proceeded to act like the majority party were tyrants because they only got 80% of what they wanted instead of 100% and falsely labelled it the "Beer Ban Bill"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So if you get shot down for proposing sensible solutions by someone you consider an extremist, then you take an extremist position yourself and escalate the rhetoric? I doubt if you intend to mean that but your argument leads to it. That's not the way problems are solved. It's how they are caused. And you become part of the problem.

I'm not saying you should, but that's the natural end result.

When "meeting in the middle" shows to be a fruitless endeavor, that's when people tend to go with the approach of counterbalancing the other side (with the hopes that the end result lands somewhere near the middle)

A -2 and +2 average out to 0, so does a -10 and +10. The wider the range gets, the more hostile environment. That's not good for anybody. However, if one side is bringing their -10 strategy, it'd be a waste of time for the other side to try to fight it with their +2 strategy. (especially if the prize is "you get to dictate everyone else's behavior for the foreseeable future".

Look no further than the gun debate. Reasonable people can have a reasonable discussion about it. But that's not what we have. We have one side trying to sponsor bills that make the AR-15 "the official gun of America", and people like Beto on the side saying "Hell yes we want to take your guns away!"


Switch the topic and put yourself in the shoes of the person opposing a cultural effort. If there was a massive effort to create an Evangelical theocracy in your country (and almost all of the media institutions, entertainment, and academia were all backing it), would you take a soft tepid approach and concede 80% of your ground on it just to placate them and "take the high road" (even though you knew deep down the moment you let them win, they're coming for the other 20%)? Or would you take a harsher stance on it in hopes of counterbalancing them?

Or perhaps to frame it in the context of the number example I mentioned above.

If the other side is a -10 and you're a +2, do you want to concede 80% of your ground from there, or would you want to concede it from a +10?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Andrew Sullivan is not a “liberal”.

So the guy who Forbes magazine ranked No. 19 on a list of "The 25 Most Influential Liberals in the U.S. Media" isn't a "liberal"?

He may consider himself "conservative" by British standards...perhaps he's more libertarian. That's very different than the US context. He's was an Obama supporter and supported Biden in the last election. And is in favor of gay marriage rights, universal healthcare, addressing climate change, and gun control.

Used to write for the DailyBeast, and regularly makes twitter posts like these

So not sure what side he's on, but it's certainly not on the side of the modern US GOP for whatever it's worth.

 

[Bradskii]

If the other side is a -10 and you're a +2, do you want to concede 80% of your ground from there, or would you want to concede it from a +10?

You don't have to concede to anyone's position. Especially if it's an extreme one. And their extremism doesn't grant you any leeway to indulge in your own. It's guaranteed that you'll end up in a lose/lose situation. There are reasonable solutions to most problems. Search them out. Look for points of agreement. Point out any fallacies. Correct misinterpretations. Concede when you are wrong. Offer compromises. You doknow that this is how adults are meant to discuss things?

I've already said that this must not be considered a point scoring exercise. The comments in the op were just that. So how do you reply? By turning it into...a point scoring exercise.