When two worldviews collide.

[Bradskii]

Well now. Look who is impolite now. If I politely declined to use the desired pronoun then suddenly you and others turn into raging bullies deciding that I had to be removed from society over a word. A dishonest word at that. It's completely impolite to say I do not wish to use the pronoun. It's just as impolite to demand that someone who doesn't want to must do so. Demanding someone lie is bullying.

Sounds like you and all your friends are a bunch of bullies. You see we are not asking that someone be totally rejected out of society and business over this. You are. All over a he or she.

Not from society. No-one suggested that. You are free to hang out with anyone who holds your opinions. The rest of us will continue to treat you as we see fit.

 

[Bradskii]

That reminds me of an American TV show in the 70's, All in the Family. It featured an aging New Yorker couple, set in their ways, beginning the show singing about a time when "girls were girls and men were men". The chief protagonist, Archie Bunker, was a misanthropic and bigoted patriarch who is revealed to be merely a simple man trapped within a schema of highly rigid thinking and bad ideas.

Frankly, it's difficult to watch the show now days, as Archie Bunker is such a misanthropic, disagreeable, and verbally abusive character.

Archie Bunker - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I've seen snippets of it. It was based on a BBC sitcom called Till Death Do Us Part which was popular in the late 60's. It was written to illustrate the bigotry and racism that some people had at that time. Unfortunately, it also served to confirm the beliefs of some of those people. The satire was missed by so many. As it can be today...

 

[FireDragon76]

I've seen snippets of it. It was based on a BBC sitcom called Till Death Do Us Part which was popular in the late 60's. It was written to illustrate the bigotry and racism that some people had at that time. Unfortunately, it also served to confirm the beliefs of some of those people. The satire was missed by so many. As it can be today...

I looked that up because that is news to me. I never met anybody in the UK remotely like Archie Bunker when I lived there, but I've known alot of people like that in the US. Archie Bunker fits the stereotypical "angry white male" in the US, that film maker Michael Moore has spoken often about.

The thing about Archie Bunker's bad temper that hits home is that it's so believable. I've known too many "angry white males" that were a pressure cooker of anger and resentment. They would be otherwise decent people, if not for the fact that anger is their all-consuming vice.

 

[Paidiske]

Hhmm. I looked up Archie Bunker and found this description by the actor who played him:

"Archie's dilemma is coping with a world that is changing in front of him. He doesn't know what to do, except to lose his temper, mouth his poisons, look elsewhere to fix the blame for his own discomfort. He isn't a totally evil man. He's shrewd. But he won't get to the root of his problem, because the root of his problem is himself, and he doesn't know it."

I think I've encountered people like that...

 

[Bradskii]

I looked that up because that is news to me. I never met anybody in the UK remotely like Archie Bunker when I lived there, but I've known alot of people like that in the US. Archie Bunker fits the stereotypical "angry white male" in the US, that film maker Michael Moore has spoken often about.

The thing about Archie Bunker's bad temper that hits home is that it's so believable. I've known too many "angry white males" that were a pressure cooker of anger and resentment. They would be otherwise decent people, if not for the fact that anger is their all-consuming vice.

Alf Garnet was the BBC version. And he was angry as well. Because, when the series was written in the late 60's, society was changing. He wanted things to stay the same. He wanted the same sense of of patriotism and empire to hold. His anger was therefore generally race driven. If it was written today then what he'd be ranting and raving about would be...well, guess what. 'Woke' politics, transgenderism and gays. It would be sex that would set him off. Not race.

The original Alf died off. But the new Alf is here. The new Alf still wants things to be like they used to be. The new Alf hates change. But you can take it from me, just as the new generation in the old show showed up his racism and bigotry for what it was, so the new generation in this version will show up the new Alf's arguments for what they are.

Interesting fact: the woman who played Garnet's liberal daughter back then ended up playing Mrs. Hudson, the housekeeper to Benedict Cumberbatch's Sherlock Holmes in the BBC series.

 

[FireDragon76]

Hhmm. I looked up Archie Bunker and found this description by the actor who played him:

"Archie's dilemma is coping with a world that is changing in front of him. He doesn't know what to do, except to lose his temper, mouth his poisons, look elsewhere to fix the blame for his own discomfort. He isn't a totally evil man. He's shrewd. But he won't get to the root of his problem, because the root of his problem is himself, and he doesn't know it."

I think I've encountered people like that...

What is I notice in real life is that you can have people that are generally conservative without being ill-tempered. Ill-temper seems to be something that predisposes people to reactionary viewpoints.

 

[Bradskii]

What is I notice in real life is that you can have people that are generally conservative without being ill-tempered. Ill-temper seems to be something that predisposes people to reactionary viewpoints.

On both sides of politics. Show me someone without a sense of humour and I'll say that there we'll likely have a propensity to anger and extreme views. Not always. But often.

 

[stevevw]

Have you actually studied philosophy? You assume the self is a real thing at all, that it's just a given fact about reality, when philosophers are in no way in agreement on that point. There are plenty of philosophies and worldviews that aren't dependent on that notion.

Given that, I don't think it's unreasonable or dishonest to take the experience of transpeople seriously, as an act of charity and intellectual humility, if nothing else.

I think you have mistaken what I said. I agree that the 'self' is a contested reality as far as being something objective for which we can measure. But the self is a reality for the subject. How they feel is real and thats important to acknowledge. But there is a difference between how a person feels to what is going on outside themselves. It could be that when the subjective feelings and perspective aligns with the objective world then we can be fairly sure that this is in fact something actually happening.

There is also some debate within quantum physics relating to the observer effect such as QBism. So in some ways we cannot remove ourselves from what we sense, our minds and conscious experience of things. But I think this is different to perhaps identities created based on a psychological level where identity and worlds can be created as a coping mechanisms and distort reality.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think you have mistaken what I said. I agree that the 'self' is a contested reality as far as being something objective for which we can measure. But the self is a reality for the subject. How they feel is real and thats important to acknowledge. But there is a difference between how a person feels to what is going on outside themselves. It could be that when the subjective feelings and perspective aligns with the objective world then we can be fairly sure that this is in fact something actually happening.

There is also some debate within quantum physics relating to the observer effect such as QBism. So in some ways we cannot remove ourselves from what we sense, our minds and conscious experience of things. But I think this is different to perhaps identities created based on a psychological level where identity and worlds can be created as a coping mechanisms and distort reality.

We don't have access to "objective reality" apart from our experience of the world, so how can you talk about "distortions of reality" in that manner?

I know you want to perjoratively label transpeople as mentally ill, but it seems like you are not checking your underlying assumptions.

 

[rjs330]

No...we don't. I don't ask anyone to change the rules just for me. I suppose that's one thing women and trans women have in common.

I'm not sure how old you are, but this is a real thing anymore. Employees are constantly bringing ng their personal lives to work and asking the employer to change the rules for them. We've heard it said a LOT on how employers have had and still have all the power and how they treat employees crappy etc etc.

The mentality these days is "you pay me for average work and 40 hours. I'm not going to do a stich more than that." And that is seen as perfectly fine. Also the employer needs to meet the personal needs of the employee. The employer is asked to bend over backwards for the employee with remote work, time off whenever wanted, asking for people to split shifts between two part time people, working hours etc.

Now, as a supervisor and a 21st century leader who is a student of leadership.today, I have zero problems with helping employees meet their personal needs. If they are happier in their personal lives they will be happier at work and be more productive. At least that's the hope. However the needs of the employer must also be met in order to serve the customers properly. It's a fine balancing act.

And what I am finding is that there are employees who are very demanding in what they want from the employer. And if they don't get it, they are sour and negative. They are not willing to do anything above and beyond the average and yet they expect to be promoted, given more money etc. A very entitled position. They don't want to do it the way the employer wants or needs them to do. They want to do it their way or they are not satisfied. It's all about them. And often that collides with what OTHER EMPLOYEES are doing. Time theft is the biggest problem employers are dealing with. Employees steal from employees far more than employers steal from employees.

That's why I mentioned your age. Because for the younger generations your attitude is all but gone. No I don't believe in the employer should treat the employee like a slave and have the it's my way of the highway attitude. That is NOT leadership. Leadership is looking after the employee, taking care of them, helping them grow as an employee, giving the opportunities to learn and have a good experience as an employee. Coaching them and leading them. Helping them see the vision and buying into it. Showing them how what they are doing matters to those around them, the customers and themselves.
Okay I'm off my soapbox.

We have a female supervisor who has gotten pregnant twice now. She has difficult pregnancies, which is not her fault in the least. However the other supervisors suffer during the his time. Because she is restricted in her activities she is unable to work her normal shifts. So for almost 7 months she is off the normal schedule. Then she gets another 3-4 months off work completely. That's about a year off of the normal schedule. Now we can't bring in another supervisor during that time. So the supervisors are stuck working nights for an entire year when normally they wouldn't be.

That's a BENEFIT for her and a DETRIMENT for the others. So there is no way I am buying the whole women are discriminated against business because they get pregnant. No the company AND the employees bend over backwards for her. The men don't get any such thing.

And employees are continually asking for more to the detriment of the employer, the customer and their fellow employees.

 

[rjs330]

It doesn't matter whether she signed a contract, it's still discrimination against her because she's pregnant.

It can't be discrimination if you signed an agreement. You agreed to terms. She was under no obligation to sign the contract. She wasn't forced into it. Just like the guy who got signed a contract to work for a certain number of months until the other employee came back. It was his choice to do so. No one held a gun to her head. She did it willingly and freely. There is ZERO discrimination and you know it. You are just so buried in your world view you refuse to see it or acknowledge it. Because it involves women so it HAS to be discrimination. There is no other option for you. And it's funny cause you expect everyone else to be open to other ideas but refuse to do it yourself. You are acting closed minded and unwilling to accept freedom of thought and freedom of choice. It's obvious in the trans debate as well. You think you are open minded but only in one direction. That makes you closed minded.

 

[rjs330]

Not from society. No-one suggested that. You are free to hang out with anyone who holds your opinions. The rest of us will continue to treat you as we see fit.

Nah, from society. Asking people to leave, rejecting them in the work place, refusing to work with them. That's removing them from society. You are bullying them all over a lie they won't commit to. If you don't say a lie, then we will make sure you are not part of this work place. Yeah that is out and out bullying.

It is no different that telling a trans woman they must use the pronoun he when referring to themselves or a trans man must use the pronoun she when referring to themselves or we will reject them from as many social things as we can and also make them a pariah in the workplace. You would absolutely call that bullying. It's funny we are more open minded than you are.

We don't care at all what they want to call themselves. They can be whatever pronoun they want to be. If they want their pronoun on their signatures or whatever they are more than welcome to. But when it comes to making someone else lie for them? Yes you will bully people into it.

Your side are the bullies.

 

[rjs330]

Hhmm. I looked up Archie Bunker and found this description by the actor who played him:

"Archie's dilemma is coping with a world that is changing in front of him. He doesn't know what to do, except to lose his temper, mouth his poisons, look elsewhere to fix the blame for his own discomfort. He isn't a totally evil man. He's shrewd. But he won't get to the root of his problem, because the root of his problem is himself, and he doesn't know it."

I think I've encountered people like that...

Change is not always for the better. You see that's where the left has difficulties. They assume that change is always good and better for everyone. But it's not. For example, the world changed during the industrial age. There was good that was happening but all the change was not good. There was some very detrimental things that occurred during that time.

Same goes for now. Change is happening. And some of it is good and some of it is not. The challenge is determining what is good and what is not and doing something about it. Don't get wrapped up in the world is changing and we must change with it. That mentality can lead to some very bad outcomes. It takes a thoughtful person to look at the changes and determine what is good and what is bad about the changes. As we have seen in the trans d bate that is clear. For a while transing kids was really good and we needed to do it as soon as possible and as quickly as possible. That was a change from the past. Change was good right? Then us conservatives were saying hold on here, this isn't good. Damage is being done. But the left cried it's change and the world is changing and you must change with it. Trans the kids!

Then the rest of the world took another look at it and said hold on. This isn't good after all. We need to stop doing this. There may be other ways to look at the this and other methods for helping the kids. Another change. And it's now seeping into how we deal with trans adults as well. That there are other methods and treatments that actually do more to help the person than just giving them medical interventions. So when are you going to change?

Change is good right? The world is changing. As a Christian you ought to know that change is not always for the better. Because someday Christians will be targeted heavily for their beliefs and that will be a change. And not for the better. Accepting sin in the church is a change and that's not for the better as we are warned by the apostles over and over again not to do it. Yet more churches are doing it. Change. It's not always good all the time. Be wiser.

 

[Paidiske]

It can't be discrimination if you signed an agreement.

Of course it can. An agreement that's to your detriment for falling pregnant is still discriminatory. You might sign it if you have no better options, but that doesn't make it any less wrong.

Change is good right? The world is changing. As a Christian you ought to know that change is not always for the better. Because someday Christians will be targeted heavily for their beliefs and that will be a change. And not for the better. Accepting sin in the church is a change and that's not for the better as we are warned by the apostles over and over again not to do it. Yet more churches are doing it. Change. It's not always good all the time. Be wiser.

I agree with you that change is not always for the better. But what the quote you replied to highlighted was the ways we cope with what's changing. If we aren't able to respond to the change around us with grace, we end up being that person who can't get to the root of his problem, because the problem is himself.

Be wiser? How about this: not every change is a battle to be fought. Not even every change that I don't see as positive, is a battle I'm called to fight.

 

[Bradskii]

Nah, from society. Asking people to leave, rejecting them in the work place, refusing to work with them...Your side are the bullies.

Good grief, the absolute chutzpah of that remark. Unbelievable.

You have been given an example of you being politely asked to use a pronoun that a person is happy with. Let's say Mary from accounts would like everyone to use 'she' and 'her' when referring to her. She would be upset by someone referring to her as 'him'. Hey, no problem. We all know that she's been through a lot. Why would anyone want to intentionally upset her?

Except one person. He knows she'll be disturbed if he calls her 'him' but gee, he's got a belief that all this transgenderism business is all wrong. He was born a biological male so darn it, he is going to call Mary 'Him' whatever anyone else says and however upset she becomes.

And what do you think the response would be from all her friends and colleagues? 'Well, ol' Pete is just telling it as he sees it. No big deal. Mary will just have to get used to it.' What sort of planet do you live on where anyone who gets angry at someone's intransigence, who gets angry at their inability to treat someone with respect, who gets angry because they are causing distress to a colleague is the bad person?

If this was a social situation at someone's house for a barbie and he constantly refused to refer to Mary as she has asked and it was suggested that it would be better if he left because she is upset and not a few people are getting angry about it, then the guy who asks him to leave is the bully and he is the good guy being bullied because he is standing up for truth and justice and the American way?

And when he leaves we have this pathetic and plaintive complaint - 'Oh, poor me. I'm being bullied. Nobody has shown me the respect I deserve.'

Mate, he deserves no respect. He has been judged. He has been judged by Mary's friends. By Mary's colleagues. By Mary's family. By anyone who knows Mary. And you have the nerve to even suggest that he is the one being wronged?

What a farcical claim...

 

[Ana the Ist]

It doesn't matter whether she signed a contract, it's still discrimination against her because she's pregnant.

Then it doesn't matter if the replacement signed a contract. He's being fired because of maternity leave. It's a barrier.

It doesn't have to be.

Given that the social category of women and men remains undefinable...it seems like it does have to be.

Again, you beautifully illustrate the barriers women face.

I was highlighting how this is a barrier for employers....which is because of the benefits afforded to women.

Liable literally means legally responsible.

Right...making them actually responsible for hurt feelings is a ridiculous concept. That's why they can avoid legal responsibility by showing they've taken all necessary precautions against hurting someone's feelings.

Of course not. But how you express it, can be.

Ok....I haven't been able to respond to that idea though because you've failed to give me even a single example of how this difference of opinion can be hostile or harassing.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not from society. No-one suggested that. You are free to hang out with anyone who holds your opinions. The rest of us will continue to treat you as we see fit.

The threat of cancelation is relatively dead. The left cancels the left more often now because the tiny modicum of power they had on platforms like Twitter has essentially been stripped from the left (and boy did they cry over it) and now the only place to demand anyone's cancelation from is this political cult on the left.

The irony here is that the same group that couldn't resist abusing the power of mobbing businesses to cancel anyone who slightly offended them was the same group whining and complaining about the police abusing their power. Of course, the police had far more power and didn't wake up every day looking for targets to abuse with their power like the Twitter mob.

It's largely gone now though....and their targets are often unaffected by attempts at cancelation. It's just a sad pathetic group clinging to their brief moment of power and the empty threats they make against those who disagree.

 

[Paidiske]

Then it doesn't matter if the replacement signed a contract. He's being fired because of maternity leave. It's a barrier.

On the contrary; he got months of work he wouldn't have otherwise had, because of maternity leave. It's an opportunity, not a barrier.

Given that the social category of women and men remains undefinable...

In what way is it undefinable? It's defined in whatever way we choose to define it.

I was highlighting how this is a barrier for employers....

And using that as justification for discrimination against women, which is the barrier women face.

Of course it's awkward for employers that their employees are actual humans, with actual human limitations and needs. But that is no reason to refuse to treat them fairly.

Right...making them actually responsible for hurt feelings is a ridiculous concept.

Well, firstly, we're talking about more than "hurt feelings." And secondly, we're talking about conditions in the workplace which negatively impact someone's mental health; which certainly can include the way others are allowed to treat you. Which is why workplace policies requiring respectful and courteous conduct towards your colleagues are a thing.

Ok....I haven't been able to respond to that idea though because you've failed to give me even a single example of how this difference of opinion can be hostile or harassing.

Again, repeatedly communicating with or about someone in a way that you know they find distressing, is a form of harassment.

 

[Ana the Ist]

On the contrary; he got months of work he wouldn't have otherwise had, because of maternity leave. It's an opportunity, not a barrier.

That's one way of looking at it. Another way is if you didn't afford women these extravagant accommodations that they only get for being women, and she had to choose between a job and a baby....he might have a permanent job!

In what way is it undefinable? It's defined in whatever way we choose to define it.

That's not how definitions work. If everyone defined "woman" differently than no one could understand what in the world anyone meant by the word woman. That's why words are defined....so they can be used to communicate concepts.

Follow along. If you have a concept of woman that different than my concept of woman and different from everyone's concept of woman... than nobody understands what you mean by "woman."

It ceases to have meaning.

And using that as justification for discrimination against women, which is the barrier women face.

It's not a reason if women lose their 52 weeks of maternity leave....then that barrier magically disappears and like Hobby Lobby, you see more women employed.

Of course it's awkward for employers that their employees are actual humans, with actual human limitations and needs. But that is no reason to refuse to treat them fairly.

Limitations and needs because they're women?

Let's go back to my original point of women not being able to do a man's work.....because you apparently agree now and they need a bunch of accomodations and have all these limitations that are biological that transwomen don't have.

Well, firstly, we're talking about more than "hurt feelings."

No....we aren't.

And secondly, we're talking about conditions in the workplace which negatively impact someone's mental health; which certainly can include the way others are allowed to treat you.

If my boss gives a scathing review of my performance (let's assume I'm doing terribly at my job) and I get depressed because of that, can I sue my boss?

Which is why workplace policies requiring respectful and courteous conduct towards your colleagues are a thing.

It's respectful and courteous to be honest and not lie to someone's face. I'd tell them "women face certain choices like having a baby, that you'll never face because you're a man".

Something you apparently agree with.

Again, repeatedly communicating with or about someone in a way that you know they find distressing, is a form of harassment.

I find it distressing to not be referred to as the hardest working and most valuable member of my profession.

Should everyone indulge me and lie about me?

 

[Paidiske]

That's one way of looking at it. Another way is if you didn't afford women these extravagant accommodations that they only get for being women, and she had to choose between a job and a baby....he might have a permanent job!

And she would have no job. For no reason other than being a mother.

Thank goodness we don't live in those dark ages any more.

That's not how definitions work. If everyone defined "woman" differently than no one could understand what in the world anyone meant by the word woman. That's why words are defined....so they can be used to communicate concepts.


Follow along. If you have a concept of woman that different than my concept of woman and different from everyone's concept of woman... than nobody understands what you mean by "woman."

That's why I said "we." If we agree that feminine pronouns refer to natal women and transwomen, and masculine pronouns refer to natal men and transmen, then they do.

It's not a reason if women lose their 52 weeks of maternity leave....then that barrier magically disappears and like Hobby Lobby, you see more women employed.

Hobby lobby that fired a pregnant woman. There's still a barrier.

Let's go back to my original point of women not being able to do a man's work.....because you apparently agree now and they need a bunch of accomodations and have all these limitations that are biological that transwomen don't have.

It's temporary, though. The average western woman has two kids. Out of a working life of 40-something years, she might need accommodations during two of them. The rest of the time her sex is irrelevant in the workplace. That's no justification for massive barriers and lifetime penalties.

No....we aren't.

Serious mental health issues such as anxiety and depression are more than "hurt feelings."

If my boss gives a scathing review of my performance (let's assume I'm doing terribly at my job) and I get depressed because of that, can I sue my boss?

If he hasn't followed due process, perhaps.