When two worldviews collide.

[stevevw]

You say those three as if they are separate identities. They all form one homogenous group that uses 'woke', as I say, as a derogatory catch-all for anything they don't like. Drag anything and everything into the 'Woke' sack and it's easy to hand out the cudgels, often with a religious quote or two branded into them, to anyone who feels disenfranchised and let them go for it. Hey, look! It's the Woke Sack! Beat it!

I think thats a pesimistic way to look at it. Yeah both sides go overboard and play tit for tat. Both sides use Woke as a political football to bolster their position. But I wouldn't say its all that way but mostly commonsense which most people support regardless of which side your on. Many in the LGBTI disagree with Trans ideology especially the LGB part of the community. Many Feminists disagree based on their sex and many Indigenous and black people don't subscribe to the idea that whits are inherently racist.

When something is counter intuitive and goes against objective reality or at the very least too restrictive a view you don't need to be on either side to know the deifference and to know that shoul;d not apply to everyone.

How many times have you seen any given thread on any given matter have incorporated into it a plethora of other complaints that have nothing to do with the op. It's a whinge fest. Crie de cours every other post. And obviously here all are Christians. But that's the case wherever there are screams of 'Woke!' It's invariably religously based. And all have a tendency to a fundamentalism religion. Fire and brimstone. Thou shalt NOT!

Yes I think it gets that way in the ened, everyone is opposed to each others views and beliefs. Thats why I say its fundemental like can we ever sort this out as humans and find peace and stability. From the bloodiest century in history you would think we would have learned by now. But I think its got worse even from mid century. It use to be about race and sex of the civil rights of the 60s. Now its a 101 divisions of difference that everyone is fighting over.

This thinking in identity politics doesn't unite society it divides it be highlighting the deifferences. The eever increasing Queer genders is an example with their special lists of deos and don'ts so their identity is recognised. People trip up over themselves trying to keep up and inevitably get it wrong and boy do they get in trouble.

This just creates differences and stereotypes and edivides society along race, sex aned gender lines. Thats why people are standing up for science to determine reality and our objective experience in the world. But even this is deemed as being hateful and a bigot. So we are constantly caught in a stalemate between tow different views of reality.

The problem is that the religious right is a shrinking minority. And the smaller they become the louder they get. The more extreme the calls. Reasonable arguments become thin on the ground. Often non existent.

As far as I can see its the other way around. Most disagreeing with Woke and its cousins PC and CC are not extremist. They usually point to facts. But those facts are now seen as hateful and thats the fundemental change in thinking with these ideologies, they reconstruct reality itself and how it can be measured.

I reckon most examples that can be given are based on rational arguements about Woke from how it was captured by the progressive thinking of the 90s to how its been made into an almost religious like phenomena. Its not just Woke, Woke is just the symptom of an underlying ideology.

Like no rational person would cancel the word women in the name of equality, diversity and inclusion for example. It doesn't work in reality because there is such a thing as the unique sex of a women who is real in the world and the word women represents that. Change that and you change reality. You don't have to be a Christian to know that.

And WOKE! is the call to arms. That is what the guy was trying to tell you in the article. You completely missed his point.

I didn't miss the point. I just posteed that to show that Woke is an issue in modern society when someone said it wasn't and was made up. Whether either side misrepresents what woke is it doesn't matter in the overall scheme of things because the word, the meaning has become a monster by society as a whole. But that monster was birthed by activists aned ideologues pushing an agenda going back to the 90s if not even the 60s and we can show evdience of this.

As many on both sides say this is not about Rights but about ideology, about socially reconstructing society through academia into institutions and society as a whole. What we see today is just the latest version of its manifestation.

 

[stevevw]

A point of consideration...

What feels like years ago now I started a thread about the inherent problem of activist movements. Whether we're talking about the black civil rights movement, the feminist equal rights/suffrage movement, or the gay civil rights/non-discrimination movement.....you had legitimate causes constructed around the idea of universal rights and equality under the law. They all had legitimate issues and identifiable solutions. End the separate but equal doctrine of segregation. Give women the right to vote and the same opportunities as men. Consider gay people as being born with no more control over their sexual orientation than heterosexual people....and extend them the same right to marry and seek employment without discrimination.

All causes I consider legitimate because I genuinely despise bigotry rooted in the circumstances of one's birth. Things which are beyond the control of everyone. I agree that equality under the law while representing an ideal which can never be perfectly realized, was a worthy organizing principle of justice.

The problem with these is they rob the activist of a real skill set of value once the goal is achieved. Once achieved....the movement should dissolve. Instead, they found homes teaching non-subjects to students who lacked meaning and direction or ability.....in our colleges and universities. They're just opinions forming poorly considered ideologies and students pursue degrees in them cuz it's easy to repeat a set of opinions. The true believers sounbpd insane....and prior to social media, these people would be laughed at and ignored.

That's with good reason. The idea that all cops or white people are inherently racist against black people is stupid....the idea that all sex is rape and women would never lie about a sexual assaults or rape is stupid. The idea that women have penises and men can get pregnant and feelings determine who is man or woman is pretty darn stupid. These are entirely appropriate reactions to the increasing extremist views these activist groups held over increasingly illegitimate problems that frequently had no solutions at all. Mockery, avoidance, disregard....all rational responses.

Then social media did for these people something very similar to what it did for atheists a decade before. They formed online communities....they formed online groups. Unfortunately, the atheists had only one goal....legitimize their views through debate and discourse. These activists couldn't do the same....so they sought to legitimize their views by silencing opposition and accusations of bigotry and moral authority from claimed victiimhood. These online activist groups are authoritarian, oppose civil rights, and based on political support garnered from a left wing that was in disarray after Trump won office. Unarmed black men killed by police was an extremely rare occurrence that's far outweighed by the good police did in black communities. A miniscule problem without any solution....the hyperfocus on it in the media has damaged the police the black community as a result. Women being raped or sexually assaulted in the workplace never justified the assumption of guilt over decades old accusations and has severely damaged men's willingness to work with women in any close professional capacity. The trans activists faced no real discrimination (Bruce Jenner transitioned to the applause of the nation) and tales of bathroom violence and child suicide that doesn't exist has damaged the public education system and put real women at risk.

These groups are the core of the woke cult that has filled the gap of a political left that's chased off intellectuals, is largely racist, sexist, bigoted, and unsurprisingly.....unable to form any meaningful goals or legitimate paths to achieving them.

They don't debate because they're ideas are fundamentally flawed and contrary to the ideas of liberalism and universalism. They are identity politics.....based on improving their own selfish desires by means of an undeserved power grab.

Together, they form the strongest argument against democracy itself.

We can trace this back to after the 60s and 70s revolutions of Black minorities and Feminism. From this in the following years came CRT and Queer Theory. Gradually this narrative has infiltrated academia and into our Insitutions. Academics are mostly Left and now the majority females who by research are more sympothetic to these ideas. Those acaemics infiltrated into society dominating positions of influence on law and policy especially in legal studies. These theories have only hardened in a Postmodernist society where Truth and reality is self referential.

In some ways for many its a paradigm shift almost turning what was considered reality for millenia on its head and thats why people are reacting. But i think its also dangerous as it divides, creates resentment, envy and pride in self rather than any genuine nobel outcome for everyone.

I think social media has played as massive part as its changed the way we see the world from outside to inside. The focus is on self and not something outside of self. Social media has become a vehicle for venting persoanl views and along with this the growing shaming and codemning peoples behaviour as its easier to do behind closeed doors. But its effective and can influence society in many ways.

 

[Bradskii]

But that tells us that its a fundemental difference in beliefs aned assumptions about people and their nature and society as a whole.

Gosh, you think so?

But sarcasm aside (and apologies for that), you are on the losing side. The side that is losing support. There is absolutely no denying that. And so, as I said, you start squeezing something smaller and smaller and the heat increases. Which is exactly what we see. And there is no reasonable discussion to be had. Well, to be honest, it can still be there, but it's an endangered species.

You are struggling to keep it ticking over. And failing, I'm afraid.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

In some ways for many its a paradigm shift almost turning what was considered reality for millenia on its head and thats why people are reacting. But i think its also dangerous as it divides, creates resentment, envy and pride in self rather than any genuine nobel outcome for everyone.

I think social media has played as massive part as its changed the way we see the world from outside to inside. The focus is on self and not something outside of self.

In the first part is sounds like Jesus saying he has come with a sword. "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send [or bring] peace, but a sword." And you are right, a paradigm shift and in my view one that is needed.

But "focus on self"? That is pervasive and the basis of capitalism. It is the antithesis of Jesus's message and touched everything.

 

[rjs330]

understand "trans women are women" to mean, "trans women belong in the social category of women without question."

understand "trans women are women" to mean, "trans women belong in the social category of women without question."

I don't know where you get that understanding. They don't mean that at all because they are using biological language. Don't confuse it. They say women have penises and men can give birth. Those are two biological aspects that are restricted to biological men and women. They demand to participate in women's sports. Which was created for biological women. They demand to be in women's locker rooms and bathrooms which were created for biological women. "Transwomen are women" is the chant. They have NEVER said they know they are not biological women and in fact if you said they they would be angry at you. Have you not seen the videos of people being punched, yelled at and tables overturned over the suggestion they are not real biological women?

Here is what a trans woman says about it.

"Supporting trans women means seeing them as equal to all other women. When you do this, then Caitlyn Jenner's self-expression is as valid as any other woman's. It means every trans woman's body is a woman's body and any definition of woman inherently includes trans women. If this is what Burkett means when she writes the trans movement is “demanding that women reconceptualize ourselves,” then I suppose she's correct. It will be nice when people no longer see it as a “demand,” though, and when people no longer ask, “What makes a woman?” and assuming the answer excludes transgender women."

Did you catch that? Every transwomans body (a biological assertion) IS a woman's body (another biological assertion).

The fact they are putting hormones into their bodies to reflect a biological woman, they are undergoing medical procedures to change their biological bodies to reflect a biological position is the clear indication they believe they are biological women. If it were only a sociological category they wouldn't need to do that. They would not feel the need to alter their physical biological bodies to become biological women in their hormones, which is a biological function, or alter their bodies, which is also a biological function if it were only a category.

This is the whole problem with gender ideology. They claim it is completely separated from biology. If that is true they why are they altering their bodies to fit the biological sex of their feelings?

Transwomen are wanting to be in sororities which has been historically restricted to biologic women. A male could not request to be in a sorority because he was not female biologically. But transwomen believe they are "real women" and should be allowed. What is a real woman? Is woman only a feeling? Is it only a social category? Or is it a function of biology? Transwomen demand to be part of all of those things not just one of them. If they didn't they wouldn't be getting their penises removed and having vaginoplasties. That's a biological function.

 

[th1bill]

In discussing some of the moral issues facing society such as gender, sex, race, Rights, identity politics ect relating to how we as a society should structure ourselves I have found that a polarisation is happening between two broad worldviews. On the one side the Left which I think is more likely to be athiest or more pluralistic about belief and on the other is the Right which are more conservative and traditional and more likely to be Christain. Though I think there is degrees of variance where some will also be open to opposing views to some degree.

But it seems things have become more polarised is recent times deue to society moving away from a Christain worldview to a secular one. In the past there was more middle ground and basically people I think were more traditional had belief and progressives were seen as out of step. I think today the Left has gained a lot of ground mainly due to a reaction to percieved past injustices by traditionalist or Christains and being more open to alternative ideas.

In the past Western societies were based on Christain values but in the last few decades God and Christainity has been rejected and in its place the State has become the arbitor of societal morals and infringed more on peoples private lives. Of course a lot has happened in that time with social media which I think has had a profound impact on thinking undermining truth and has given individuals and groups much power to push their views and influence governments and society.

But the result of all this is that there is a growing division between the Christian Worldview and the Secular Worldview to the point that they clash even violently like people want to destroy Christains aned opposing views and it seems the State is actively siding with the a secular position with the help of certain lobbyist. They have been actively dismantaling Christainity and taking God completely out of the picture in our institutions and public life generally, I should say its not always just Christains but also traditionalist and others who believe in the Truths that the West was built upon such as Enlightement and Democracy. Many on the Left also seem to support some sort of Marxism so this polarisation seems to be political and religious.

I guess our present situation is also the result of Postmodernism the idea of tearing down the old truths and archetypes of the West and society has become more individualistic and relative. Its a complex combination of factors but the thing that stands out for me is that there seems to be a showdown brewing between Christain and traditionalist and the Secularist and the Left and I think the Left is winning at the moment. I can see this continuing where Christainity is pushed to the fringes.

So we are at a point for the first time in a long time in our history where societies efforts to rid themselves of God and Christainity will see secularist and non believers outnumbering Christains and completely rejecting God from society.

But is this new World completely devoid of belief or is society replacing God and Christainity with some new religion, a secular religion which has been able to grow disguised as something else like some new utopia that promises to do away with injustice and inequality and bring people true happiness. I think so as it seems that peoples reaction to Christainity and God today isn't just about a new way but is tied to their identity and debates are often full of feelings even to the point of wanting to destroy others who disagree,

So I think this is a fight for Truth and there can only be one Truth. But today truth has lost all meaning and personal truth has become the only truth. But I think the Truth as in the one Truth we all know is real will shine through in the end, but its going to be a fight in the meantime where many false ideas will seem to win out and may fool many.

I see the root of all this hate and discontent as being driven by the Modernizing Movement and the Errant Socialization Movement driven by Internet Communication. I learned in the Army that saying or/and hearing a New Fact seven or more times makes it true by perception. I find this to be particularly true on these boards on the internet.

 

[rjs330]

You THINK you have? I don't think you have at all. But as you think so we'll assume so.

So we can state, based on your agreement, that transitioning from one sex to another is perfectly acceptable for an 18 year if they consider that their gender doesn't align with their sex.

Look, we've had these discussions many many times. I don't expect you to remember every detail. But since you obviously don't you should acknowledge that and stop.makig assertions about what people.saud when you don't really remember what they said.

Let me help you and I hope you can remember this for next time. Try will you?

If your 18 and older you are an adult legally. Therefore you are allowed to make adult decisions and deal with the adult consequences. If you want to alter your physical body then pay the money and do it. And then deal with the consequences of that adult decisions.

Along with that dealing with the consequences means you should not demand that everyone else go along with your decision and affirm you. That's part of being an adult. You want to take hormones? Fine, but don't demand society change everything for you. That was YOUR ADULT DECISION. No you don't get to shower with women just cause you made an adult decision to get breast implants. That a consequence of your decision. You don't get to participate in women's sports. That is a consequence of your decision. That's what being an adult is all about. Making decisions and living with the fallout of those decisions.

 

[rjs330]

I'm not so sure. Take this piece, for example. Granted I read it fairly quickly, but if I understood it properly, this author is not arguing that a trans person becomes a person of the opposite sex, biologically; but that the meaning of the terms defining the categories "man" and "woman" shift to allow people to transition between them.

That is precisely one of the problems with this entire debate. They want to change the language. Re-define meanings to fit an ideology that rally has no meaning. Men and women become meaningless. Allowing people to shift between men and women makes men and women a meaningless term. It has no definition. It means whatever you want it to mean. That by definition is meaningless. You as a woman ought to be very concerned about that. Because when woman has no real meaning then your feminism and women's rights are worthless. There is no patriarchy without a meaning of man and woman. YOU cannot face discrimination as a woman because woman is not a defined word. It's what you it I want it to mean. If I as a man can say I am a woman then I cannot discriminate against you. Because woman is how I define it. I cannot discriminate against something that has no definition.

 

[rjs330]

Gosh, you think so?

But sarcasm aside (and apologies for that), you are on the losing side. The side that is losing support. There is absolutely no denying that. And so, as I said, you start squeezing something smaller and smaller and the heat increases. Which is exactly what we see. And there is no reasonable discussion to be had. Well, to be honest, it can still be there, but it's an endangered species.

You are struggling to keep it ticking over. And failing, I'm afraid.

Sorry but we are gaining support in some of these areas. Things are changing precisely because of this woke ideology is being foisted on us in spades. And what people used to think was just a "let's be nice to each other" concept has turned into a "you must do this or that it be called a bigot or phone of some kind". And people are waking up to that. That's why laws are being passed now against some of this stuff.

The supreme court just ruled in favor of a woman who didn't want to be forced to use her creative talents to create homosexual wedding sites. States have voted in representatives to specifically push back on the woke agenda. They are passing laws against transing kids, removing CRT from classrooms not allowing sexually explicit shows in front of kids. It's moving our way not yours. More people are against trans women using women's bathrooms and participating in women's sports than used to.
Your woke people have pushed too far.

 

[rjs330]

In the first part is sounds like Jesus saying he has come with a sword. "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send [or bring] peace, but a sword." And you are right, a paradigm shift and in my view one that is needed.

But "focus on self"? That is pervasive and the basis of capitalism. It is the antithesis of Jesus's message and touched everything.

Focus on self is definitely an antithesis of what Jesus taught. But he also NEVER taught against capitalism. What he taught was the INDIVIDUAL should be giving. He never said we should all be equal in income or status. He said we should treat each other well and if you as an INDIVIDUAL, see someone and need you should help them and not walk by them.

Yes capitalism is based upon keeping what you earned by your own labor. There is nothing wrong with that. The fact some people are greedy and never satisfied and always want more riches, well that's been the human heart since Satan showed Eve the fruit and said she could be like God.

Jesus teachings were all about caring for one another and as Christians we should be doing that. Giving, loving, sharing out of the gratefulness for what Christ did for us. But Jesus never commanded that we demand everyone else do the same. It was a message for YOU and ME. It's not for me to go to my neighbor and start pulling money out of his pocket. It was for me to pull money out of mine.

 

[timothyu]

Your woke people have pushed too far.

Isn't that always the way? Remember when a peace and love generation turned into revolution and bombings which ended up giving us disco? Who knew? It wil be interesting to see the end metamorphisms of this current movement.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I’m not sure it belongs on this thread.

But search “ Eucharistic miracle sokolka , buenos airies, tixtla or legnica for example, ( lanciano is older) and see the science , pathology and forensic testing. Better still read a cardiologists explanation in Serafinis book. ( or others like tesoriero) Red patches appeared on Eucharistic wafers , in independent locations/ continents , examined by independent pathology teams .
They were determined as human heart tissue, living at the point of sampling , despite long periods before test and .so intimately intermingled with bread at the edge they could never be faked.
Both nuclear and single cell MtDNA have been examined , and the correspondence to sacred cloths and even a bleeding statue Considered.
The consequences are profound , as potential 1/ evidence of created tissue 2/ that potentially disproves Darwin by his own criterion 3/ could potentially show they are the same victim.

But some universites refused to do tests when told the origin , eg stuttgart, because of a priori beliefs ( which is the point I made here.) other universities that did tests tried to supress results when they knew them. . Eg Bialystock . Sad. AcadeMia loses objectivity around potentially religious phenomena.

Again, DNA testing can be done relatively cheaply these days. Just go ahead and give me any 23 and Me results of the wine and crackers you send in that say they traced the DNA back to the son of God. There's also ancestry.com if you want to use a slightly cheaper option I think (I can't remember which one is cheaper).

Just upload a picture of the results onto here and I'll gladly look into it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

In the first part is sounds like Jesus saying he has come with a sword. "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send [or bring] peace, but a sword." And you are right, a paradigm shift and in my view one that is needed.

But "focus on self"? That is pervasive and the basis of capitalism. It is the antithesis of Jesus's message and touched everything.

Affirmative care model is a focus on self. It's very likely driven by a fraudulent biomedical industry that's entirely driven by capitalist interests.

However, since it involves experimenting on children with drugs and surgery I think you're focusing on the wrong teachings of Jesus....and I'm saying that as an atheist, and someone not at all given to quoting scripture. I'm pretty sure on this issue Jesus was rather clear....

And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me.6 But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.7

 

[Paidiske]

I don't know where you get that understanding.

I'll take this as having been responded to adequately in the post you commented on after this.

That is precisely one of the problems with this entire debate. They want to change the language.

It's certainly one of the ideas being contested. But yes, this is my point to @Ana the Ist; the claim is not that a trans person becomes biologically a member of the opposite sex, but that the boundaries of the social categories should be flexible enough to accommodate them.

To which my response would be, that needs to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis.

Allowing people to shift between men and women makes men and women a meaningless term. It has no definition. It means whatever you want it to mean.

Well, firstly, something meaning whatever you want, is not the same as something being meaningless. Meanings can shift and as long as the shift in meaning is agreed by the people engaged in conversation, that's not particularly an issue. Part of the reason this is difficult is that we're still in the process of discussing whether and how a shift in meaning can be agreed in our society.

You as a woman ought to be very concerned about that. Because when woman has no real meaning then your feminism and women's rights are worthless.

I've seen this claim thrown around, but I don't particularly buy it. Allowing a very small proportion of the population to be accepted as members of the group aligned with their gender identity doesn't erode my rights.

If I as a man can say I am a woman then I cannot discriminate against you. ...I cannot discriminate against something that has no definition.

It'd be nice if that were true, but I'm not so sure it is.

 

[Bradskii]

Look, we've had these discussions many many times. I don't expect you to remember every detail. But since you obviously don't you should acknowledge that and stop.makig assertions about what people.saud when you don't really remember what they said.

Let me help you and I hope you can remember this for next time. Try will you?

If your 18 and older you are an adult legally. Therefore you are allowed to make adult decisions and deal with the adult consequences. If you want to alter your physical body then pay the money and do it. And then deal with the consequences of that adult decisions.

Along with that dealing with the consequences means you should not demand that everyone else go along with your decision and affirm you. That's part of being an adult. You want to take hormones? Fine, but don't demand society change everything for you. That was YOUR ADULT DECISION. No you don't get to shower with women just cause you made an adult decision to get breast implants. That a consequence of your decision. You don't get to participate in women's sports. That is a consequence of your decision. That's what being an adult is all about. Making decisions and living with the fallout of those decisions.

Nobody is talking sport or toilets. We are just confirming that you are happy with an 18 year old transitioning if he or she and all medical personnel and family think it's the best thing to do. Nothing more. Nothing less. You seem to have some difficulty in agreeing with that. You imply you already have. You kinda suggest you've done it in some way. But a direct answer to a straightforward question seems totally beyond you.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The point being that just because something is outside a scientific discipline, doesn't mean it's automatically untrue.

I'm not saying it is....what I'm saying is that if someone, like myself, disagrees with someone like Judith Butler, on any issue of fact....how would you prove her true?

If your answer is..."Well I can't prove her theories on the patriarchy/gender/feminism true" then there's a really strong chance that you aren't dealing with a subject related to objective reality.

If you think "well obviously Judith Butler is the expert here....she's published many papers and books etc on the topic." I would simply reply that it's true that she's offered a lot of opinions related to these topics, but since she cannot prove any of her opinions, she isn't actually an expert on anything.

So before you consider throwing the opinions of non-experts my way I just want it clear they don't carry any weight with me even if they do with you. I've got no problem conceding that science isn't the only source of truth if you can understand that if you cannot prove an assertion or at least offer up a pile of evidence for it....it's just an opinion.

I know that's what you're saying, but I don't agree with you. While something like simple arithmetic might carry relatively little freight, even that is not without it.

Ok....give me an example of a socio-cultural meaning attached to the concept of the number 1.

Some are. Some aren't.

All the ones I listed are.

Women's social networks, dancing groups, associations, girl guides, support groups and the like (just to pick a handful of things that exist near me) don't exist for biological reasons. They exist for social reasons.

The Country Women's Association (for example) doesn't exist because of biological differences!

Ok....a quick glance at the web page shows this is an advocacy group for women, and it's not sex segregated. I can tell by just glancing at one of the pictures of their meeting....there's guys in it. You may also note that the trans activists aren't demanding to be allowed into the advocacy group.

I fail to see how this example is relevant to the discussion at all.

I'm not so sure. Take this piece, for example. Granted I read it fairly quickly, but if I understood it properly, this author is not arguing that a trans person becomes a person of the opposite sex, biologically; but that the meaning of the terms defining the categories "man" and "woman" shift to allow people to transition between them.

Which would seem to support my understanding that the argument is about admittance to the social category.

Ok....I couldn't have asked you for a better citation. When I tell someone who isn't versed in this stuff that I think the goal of the trans activists is to obliterate any meaningful distinction between gender/biological sex and by proxy sexual orientation.....I get the impression that they think I've lost my mind or perhaps I'm some Alex Jones level conspiracy theorist. Reread the whole thing slowly and carefully....

Notice anything odd about the description of the "Wrong Body Model"? It doesn't refer to gender at all. It describes this as someone of a particular sex trapped in the body of the opposite sex. The inner feeling of one's male or female sex being more important than the physical sex of the body. Remarkable, isn't it? A full description of the problem most people think they're helping with... and the word gender wasn't even necessary.


This short paper really highlights everything odious about this group.....from the narcissistic self serving viewpoint and blatantly dishonest nature that rationalizes lying to everyone including themselves....to the callous disregard for the harm they're doing to others whether it's society as a whole or children.

If you want, I can screenshot the individual pages and break down what the author is saying in more detail for you...

Essentially, they're using typical postmodernist wordplay tactics to try and break down the meanings of man and woman entirely and replace them with a secondary or alternative definition entirely....which they ultimately fail to do. That's because despite trying very to sound intellectual....this person isn't very bright. I suspect that if asked about the purpose of words...I'd get some pseudo Marxist/postmodernist explanation about how they create hierarchical self perpetuating power structures. Words convey meaning for the purpose of understanding through communication. If you destroy the clarity of a definition you destroy the ability to understand the word. If you remove any significant distinction between words then you destroy any attempt at understanding in communication.

That's why the author can't finish what they are attempting. Man and woman have to have distinct and separate meanings or they fail to meaningfully describe anything at all.

No, I'm not.

No, they're not the same concept, and no, I haven't confused them.

Are you sure? Do you know what conceptual overlap is? Think of it as the degree to which two different concepts describe the same thing. I'm not simply talking about synonyms like little and tiny. Think of the words "perspective" and "worldview". They have a fair amount of conceptual overlap because one informs the other to a large degree. They are separate and distinct concepts though.

The conceptual overlap for gender and biological sex is almost 100%. They try to hide this, dishonestly, by including multiple but different concepts in the definition of gender....but those are different concepts. Let's look at the extra concepts added onto the definition unnecessarily....

Gender roles. This is the idea that men and women have different behavioral expectations in relationships. Mother father homemaker breadwinner nurturer provider, and so on.

Gender norms. This is the concept that men and women have different social expectations in relationship to the larger society. Women are to be submissive, caring, emotionally sensitive, passive, loyal. Men are to be competent, hardworking, decisive, confrontational, brave, etc.

These definitions don't matter....they aren't the issue....and have largely been removed from the issue because it's considered wrong or sexist to constrain men or women to these gendered roles or norms....and legally speaking, they aren't in any way constrained to these roles or norms.

What we are left with is a rather dubious idea that....

There's a "feeling" we can refer to as "feeling like a man" or "feeling like a woman" and this mysterious feeling...is somehow not related to biology, despite the fact that all feelings are directly related to biology and no one seems capable of describing this feeling apart from a biological context. Despite the name "transgender"....trans people aren't trying to change this feeling of gender....that would be too easy. Instead they would rather try to do 1 of 2 impossible things....

1. Change their biological sex. Taken as far as medically possible, this is extremely dangerous and almost always life shortening.

2. Change the entire society's perception of their biological sex. This requires a very authoritarian sort of ideological imposition upon people (demanding affirmation of their feelings) typically through the use of certain words and the undefining of words like man or woman. There's apparently a significant number of people willing to indulge this and lie to these people and accept their demands in a superficial way....as long as they aren't personally affected. Once a sex criminal strolls through the women's locker room at the spa....suddenly playing pretend loses its appeal for a lot of people.

Is this your concept of gender as it relates to the topic? If not, explain what I missed. If so....explain why there's so much conceptual overlap. As I showed earlier in this thread.....I can just replace gender with biological sex most of the time without any loss of clarity or meaning. You literally cited a paper explaining the transgender model is around 20 years old.....despite your insistence that you aren't just repeating whatever the trans activists tell you to.

No. I'm arguing that trans activists are arguing for a shift in social categories, not a denial of biology.

How about this then....

Give me an example of this shift in social categories. Nothing related to words since your citation also shows a deliberate attempt to remove biological categories inherent in the definitions. Give me an example of a demand they are making regarding social categories.

i can't think of one.

Lol. I've been called names and disliked for all sorts of things since I arrived here as an immigrant kid with a weird accent and foreign culinary habits. I have no problem being the outsider; I'm so used to it I wouldn't know what to do if I weren't.

Ok. Lots of people here swear the same thing...but will lie immediately about knowing a lot of people who are part of some activist group the moment they are accused of bigotry towards them.

I'm sorry, but refusing medical treatment on ideological grounds looks like a form of abuse to me. Neglect at the very least.

What are we medically treating? I don't think a 12yo girl should get breast implants either....even if she's throwing a tantrum. She's too young to consent, the procedure is elective and unnecessary, and puberty may solve the problem on its own. You can call this abuse, neglect, or whatever. I call it wisdom.

Actually, they're both biological and social. I think a big part of this discussion is about how much the social and the biological can be disentangled.

I don't think that's part of the discussion really at all. Just as your citation is trying to come up with a novel approach to understanding the issue.....I've got my own understanding of the issue which I obviously think provides a much better explanation for basically every aspect of the trans activist movement.

Yep. I'm telling you that biological sex doesn't matter for most things.

I agree for the most part. You seem to be arguing though that society has decided otherwise yet you lack any examples. We aren't forcing women to stay barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen so idk what sort of social norms you think trans activists are fighting. I can think of plenty of biological facts they're disputing though.

As far as I can see, you were the first to mention it in this thread.... (post #101, for the record).

That's a really complex grab-bag of random strands you've thrown together, there. I think if you want to paint them collectively as some kind of social horror, you ought to engage in a more careful and robust critique than just throwing them all into the lazy category "woke" and expecting everyone to respond to the call to arms.

In fairness, those engaged in any of the above tend to be engaged in all of the above by default. The woke cult doesn't allow for a wide range of views or beliefs.

Because as it stands now, I read the list and think, some of those had good aspects, some are messy, some are probably less helpful, but you're not giving me much with which to engage constructively. Which really makes me think there's not much point to the discussion, if it's just going to devolve to that kind of sloppy rhetoric.

I feel like I tied it all together somewhat in post #880.

Hardly ideas foreign to Christianity, I might point out. Luke 1:52-53 comes to mind:
"He has brought down the powerful from their thrones,
and lifted up the lowly;
he has filled the hungry with good things,
and sent the rich away empty."

Marxism never lifted anyone except the tyrants who succeeded in Marxist revolution. Instead, it created a level playing field for everyone by robbing them of everything including their dignity, humanity, and even their own thoughts.

 

[Paidiske]

I'm not saying it is....what I'm saying is that if someone, like myself, disagrees with someone like Judith Butler, on any issue of fact....how would you prove her true?

I think you'd have to deal with specific examples here, since different disciplines would require different approaches. I'm not sure it's really necessary for this thread, since this particular part of the conversation only came up because you suggested my approach would get me labelled a TERF (as if whether or not someone thought me a TERF was relevant).

So before you consider throwing the opinions of non-experts my way I just want it clear they don't carry any weight with me even if they do with you.

The relevance of Butler's work to this thread is that it's helpful background for understanding some of the ideas being discussed. They might be right or wrong in any particular instance, but it's part of the broader cultural context for the collision of worldviews the OP wanted to consider.

Ok....give me an example of a socio-cultural meaning attached to the concept of the number 1.

When it's "on" in a binary system.

Or, more relevantly, perhaps, here's an example of a situation where 1+1 doesn't equal 2. I don't pretend to understand that level of maths, but if you do, have fun with it.

Ok....a quick glance at the web page shows this is an advocacy group for women, and it's not sex segregated. I can tell by just glancing at one of the pictures of their meeting....there's guys in it. You may also note that the trans activists aren't demanding to be allowed into the advocacy group.

I fail to see how this example is relevant to the discussion at all.

Never having been involved with the CWA myself, I don't know whether they allow men to be guests, but their membership is only open to women.

That said, it's relevant precisely because it's an example of a sex-segregated organisation that isn't segregated for any biological reason. There's no reason related to our bodies that blokes can't bake scones and fundraise for good causes. (The CWA is famous for its baking).

Essentially, they're using typical postmodernist wordplay tactics to try and break down the meanings of man and woman entirely and replace them with a secondary or alternative definition entirely....

You can't have it both ways, though, Ana. You were trying to argue that when someone claims "transwomen are women," that they were claiming to be, literally, biologically and reproductively female. I demonstrated that (in at least the case of this author) that is not what is being said, and here you concede that it's "wordplay," (or as I described it, an attempt to shift the boundaries of a social category).

What we are left with is a rather dubious idea that....

There's a "feeling" we can refer to as "feeling like a man" or "feeling like a woman" and this mysterious feeling...is somehow not related to biology, despite the fact that all feelings are directly related to biology and no one seems capable of describing this feeling apart from a biological context.

This is what I have been describing as sexed brain development incongruent with the reproductive development of the body. So very much related to biology.

How about this then....

Give me an example of this shift in social categories. Nothing related to words since your citation also shows a deliberate attempt to remove biological categories inherent in the definitions. Give me an example of a demand they are making regarding social categories.

i can't think of one.

Isn't this obvious? Isn't things like, allowing transwomen to join (for example) the ladies' fellowship, or transmen to join the Men's Shed, an example of shifting the social category (of "people eligible to join our group") away from being totally based on reproductive biology, to having a little more flexibility and nuance?

What are we medically treating?

Dysphoria.

I don't think that's part of the discussion really at all.

You don't think that's behind any of the cultural discourse which gave rise to the OP?

We aren't forcing women to stay barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen so idk what sort of social norms you think trans activists are fighting.

You don't find everyday life gendered in all sorts of ways? From what range of dress is considered appropriate (or is even readily available to buy that fits your body), to what is considered "professional" self-presentation, to expectations and norms in the workplace (just for starters)?

I feel like I tied it all together somewhat in post #880.

I found that post to be more of a rhetorical flourish than a helpful contribution to the discussion, but I was hoping to encourage a bit more constructive engagement with @stevevw.

Marxism never lifted anyone except the tyrants who succeeded in Marxist revolution. Instead, it created a level playing field for everyone by robbing them of everything including their dignity, humanity, and even their own thoughts.

Perhaps, but the problem there wasn't about "deconstructing existing powers;" as I was pointing out to @stevevw, the reign of God is very much about deconstructing existing powers. Where we locate ourselves in existing power structures might well colour how we receive the Kingdom.

 

[stevevw]

I see the root of all this hate and discontent as being driven by the Modernizing Movement and the Errant Socialization Movement driven by Internet Communication. I learned in the Army that saying or/and hearing a New Fact seven or more times makes it true by perception. I find this to be particularly true on these boards on the internet.

I agree I think the birth of the Net, then social media followed by Covid which forced everyone to live face to face virtually has had an effect on people and society. It detached us from each other where its harder to read people and people. Our focus went from out there in the world, looking beyond us to constant digital interactions. In some ways we all became actors in our own lives. I think its created an alternative universe so to speak where narrative has become the dominant influence in what is real or not even trumping objective reality.

I think we were headed that way before Covid and social media. The seeds had been planted pre 2000 with academia and Critical theories that deconstructed fact, truth and reality and Postmodernism which denied objective reality in favour of sefl-referential relative truths.

I remeber the K2 bug everyone was worried about. That I think signified what was to come. The internet was a technological advance primarily in communication which gave everyone access to worlds of information which was great. But then social media came from that as a result of where we were at as a society perhaps already disenfrnachised.

It quickly became the vehicle to promote self, I think off the back of the rise of reality TV. Life immitating art in some ways. Sort of real but still detached from reality. People were on their phones rather than interacting face to face. I think I read somewhere that people and society can become dehumanised by a lack of face to face interaction.

Then came all the Pod casts and YouTube channels and Opinion shows and Fake News. Its created the perfect storm where 'up' can become 'down' and a truth becomes a lie and no one really can tell the difference. But I think through all that what this has allowed is for individuals and groups to gain more influence through narratives and story telling which is something we use to do before modern tech.

Bedroom pop stars, opinion pieces, conspiracy theorists and now Influencers dominate. This has great power in determining how people and society think and believe because narratives experiences are powerful and if your good enough maybe not, if you loud enough or colourful enough or find some way to catch peoples attention and theres millions out there then you can have great influence on people. Its become the go to media for polititians and corporations and activists. Like you said, say it enough and people begin to believe it.

When there are no checks and balances like we had in the past by actually being out there in the real world interacting with each other and testing things and where objective reality was still respected lol then because the reality has been smothered with alternative views aits easy to get caught up and sucked into some alternative universe lol espcially for young people who are impresonable but also many who are unsure whats going on in the world.

Now I think we have two worlds, a sort of virtual reality TV world and the objective world. It seems the virtual reality TV world is quickly moving from the Net and into the real world and is becoming the dominant unreality. God help us when ChatGPT is up and fully running.

 

[stevevw]

As far as I can see, you were the first to mention it in this thread.... (post #101, for the record).

Yes because Woke is very much related to this thread. You were saying how Christians enforcing their belief on society and how social media played a part for extreme ideas. Part of the OP was that the Christian belief and morality was being replaced by a secular version of belief and morality that is now finding Christianity but also Conservative and traditionalists views conflicting and hateful.


Woke becomes very relevant because that seems to be the best way to encapulate secular beliefs and ideas about morality and reality. That conflict with Christian views. I used the example of how those who push ideas like PC, identity politics or cancel culture come uneder Woke and they push it like religion has done in the past.

That's a really complex grab-bag of random strands you've thrown together, there. I think if you want to paint them collectively as some kind of social horror, you ought to engage in a more careful and robust critique than just throwing them all into the lazy category "woke" and expecting everyone to respond to the call to arms.

I think I have already been doing this though the list seems to be getting longer all the time and its hared to keep up. I would have thought you were all ready familiar with ideas like CRT, Queer theory especially being a Feminist. You don't think Feminism has had an influence to todays thinking. Certainly most ideas today have been influenced by Postmodern thinking as its an overarching intellectual period just like saying theories during Enlightenment were not influenced by Enlightened thinking.

Because as it stands now, I read the list and think, some of those had good aspects, some are messy, some are probably less helpful, but you're not giving me much with which to engage constructively. Which really makes me think there's not much point to the discussion, if it's just going to devolve to that kind of sloppy rhetoric.

I think I have made some points like the influence of Critical theories on todays thinking. No one has given their view on this but rather just dismissed it. We know this is the case because we can look at University and Education Policies Curriculum and see these Theories underpinning much of whats been taught. For example We know that PC one of the cousins of Woke is happening because the majority of people are sick of it.

We see the many silly things in society being cancelled in the name of DEI. We find that DEI underpins just about everything. We see the Woke ads and how people reject them. You just have to stop and look. Its hard to know where to start. I tried to keep it simple to begin with above. So maybe thats a good start. In the meantime I tried to find an article that can cover most things I've mentioned. You may need further investigation though as it can become a rabbit hole.

One way to break it down is to see how Woke is really the new Identity Politics and IP go back a few years. IP is easier to trace back to the rise of Critical Theories like CRT, Queer theory and Constructuralist Theory. Also the rise of Cancel Culture and PC. PC is related to Woke because its about correct behaviour and thinking, raising the consciousness of correct thinking through language and reconstructing insituations. So whenever you see PC, Identity politics especially and cancel Culture they are all related to Wokeand we can better trace these back in time. Lets start with Identity politics but this also links IP to the Critical Theories of the 90s where it was birthed.

Identity Politics
Identity Politics
heres one on Critical theories and how they have infiltrated academia from around the 70s but especially the 90s and how this thinking has taken over the Humanities especially but creeping into even the Hard sciences.
A new front in the culture wars, Cynical Theories takes unfair aim at the humanities

Friday essay: a new front in the culture wars, Cynical Theories takes unfair aim at the humanities

A new book by participants in the controversial ‘Grievance Studies’ hoax critiques the rise of an ideology they call Social Justice Theory. But the authors overstate their case.

theconversation.com

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/padr.1239

Hardly ideas foreign to Christianity, I might point out. Luke 1:52-53 comes to mind:
"He has brought down the powerful from their thrones,
and lifted up the lowly;
he has filled the hungry with good things,
and sent the rich away empty."

Thats a stretch to link that verse with Marxism. Unfortunately its the right moral outcome but the wrong assumption about how society and the world is and therefore the wrong method in achieving it equality. Life is not all about identity groups and power relations being the cause of all our problems. To even think that divides people so is very anti Christian.

But it shows the state of affairs we have reached where many want to return to an idea that basically denies peoples Rights and Individuality and led to millions being killed as a good solutuion to our problems.

I think I have explained why I think basing equality on Christ. The Fathers of the US Declaration declared we were all made in Gods image and we have God given inalienable Rights that no human can change or take away by reinventing ot constructing a society based on identity politics or the idea that some humans more than others are inheently evil and racist or heteronormative Transphobes. Thats not a very Christian way to see things.

We are all equal under Christ regardless of identity, race, sex, gender. That takes the human factor out which is fallible, biased and self seeking. People lose their individuality under identity politics by surrendering their mind body and soul to the group identity. But under God and in Christ we are individuals right down to every hair on our heads.

 

[Bradskii]

We are all equal under Christ...

But not to Christians.