When two worldviews collide.

[Ana the Ist]

Supporting a child isn't the issue (you can do that while working). But gestating and birthing one is.

Well as we've discussed.....women aren't out there bricklaying. I see no reason why they can't save up their regular leave (which all employees get) and use it around the time they're due.

Without some accommodations around pregnancy, it would make it much more difficult for women to participate in the workforce.

Biologically women are less fit for work than men?

That's talking about paid leave, not unpaid leave.

If you read the article, it doesn't seem like they have any leave for maternity at all.

It's a barrier for women when this completely hypothetical scenario is used to justify not hiring us in the first place.

Fun fact, Hobby Lobby has a majority of female employees despite no maternity leave at all...paid or otherwise. It's as if the benefits are the problem, not discrimination against women. I imagine if men got 52 weeks off that women didn't get....perhaps employers would be less inclined to hire them.

I can conceive of how consistently misgendering someone could be one aspect of harassment and bullying, for sure.

Ok....explain how that works. Give a practical example.

Deliberately referring to someone in a way they find distressing is not that hard to imagine.

If a coworker and I were discussing "Sharon" in HR and I say something like "He never returns my emails." How would Sharon even find out this was said and how would it constitute harassment?

Bullying in the workplace isn't a non-problem.

It seems like a non-problem.

It's rife and it's deeply harmful. I'm quite happy to see a strong stand taken against it.

A problem you can't even demonstrate exists.

 

[Paidiske]

I understand that there are core morals we are born with and are not taught.

I disagreed with that the last time you said it, too.

And I provided evidence and you didn't.

You didn't provide evidence that substantiated your claim.

No we already knew them.

Evidence, please. Because this doesn't seem correct to me.

But doesn't Christ tell us He is the Truth. .. Like there is a truth to be found within your heart, your conscience and there is also denying that truth and nothing inbetween.

I don't see how the second sentence here follows from the first.

Inalienable and universal socially constructed HR and truths is self refuting and a contradiction in terms and any right minded person would not advocate for something so obviously wrong..

I see. So you make outlandish claims about the basis for human rights, and then decry others as not "right minded" when they don't agree with you?

Yes you just named the objective moral of why we agree, not because its something preferred or felt but because it transcends these things.

This doesn't make any sense to me. I argue that on the basis of the experience of human horrors, we have agreed to limit the destructive ways we might treat each other, and then you say it's not something preferred or felt? I'd say it's both preferred and felt.

I am just pointing out what the Trans point of view is.

It's not "the" trans point of view. It's an argument put forward by some people, and hotly contested.

I notice you pick and choose what to answer which you feel more comfortable with.

It's not a matter of what I feel comfortable with. A lot of what you post comes across to me as fairly confused. I answer the parts of your post that I can make enough sense of to make a constructive response.

I have asked you twice now about the thought experiments and you have ignored them.

What thought experiments?

How do you mean not the same.

Using someone's preferred pronouns is not, in any way, analogous to having sex with them.

My first thought in regards to your response - dating and friendships are (I'll throw in the caveat of in all but exceptional cases) 1 on 1, at most no third party is involved, and at least it's culturally regarded as none of a third party's business. I could see at work how refusing to work with someone could impact third party's (other employees and the operation as a whole), but I think it would be quite a stretch to say refusing a customer at a business you own substantially or directly impacts a third party. That's the only idea that really springs to mind though, is there a diagnostic principle you have in mind that could help me better understand your thinking?

For me, I think the principle is more like, not impairing someone else's ability to participate in normal public and social life. Being able to buy products, acquire services, and so on, is part of normal public and social life. Dating or friendship with a specific person is not.

Well as we've discussed.....women aren't out there bricklaying. I see no reason why they can't save up their regular leave (which all employees get) and use it around the time they're due.

The usual recommendation is that you stop work four weeks before your due date, and don't return until six weeks after giving birth. Unless you're going to have unquestioned access to ten or twelve weeks' leave (given that babies don't always come on their due date), your proposal could be quite difficult.

Biologically women are less fit for work than men?

In the weeks immediately surrounding giving birth, which for the average woman might amount to about six months out of her entire lifetime, yes. For the entire rest of her lifespan, no.

If you read the article, it doesn't seem like they have any leave for maternity at all.

From what I can see, in America, if you have above 50 employees you're legally obliged to allow 12 weeks unpaid leave. Which would seem to apply to that company.

Fun fact, Hobby Lobby has a majority of female employees despite no maternity leave at all...paid or otherwise.

That doesn't seem to accord with what I can find about federal requirements in America.

Ok....explain how that works. Give a practical example. If a coworker and I were discussing "Sharon" in HR and I say something like "He never returns my emails." How would Sharon even find out this was said and how would it constitute harassment?

You never know someone to be referred to in their presence? Or copied on an email? Or the like? That seems unlikely to me.

It seems like a non-problem.

Really? It's a "non-problem" that costs American businesses about $300 billion annually. Costs of Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace | Update 2023 Which might explain why they're keen to prevent those costs.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The usual recommendation is that you stop work four weeks before your due date, and don't return until six weeks after giving birth. Unless you're going to have unquestioned access to ten or twelve weeks' leave (given that babies don't always come on their due date), your proposal could be quite difficult.

I don't see that it is....extensions can be given sure...but how many 10 month pregnancies are there?

In the weeks immediately surrounding giving birth, which for the average woman might amount to about six months out of her entire lifetime, yes. For the entire rest of her lifespan, no.

Then you don't need those 52 weeks of benefits. Get rid of those benefits and I suspect that the "barriers" you associate with them disappear as well.

From what I can see, in America, if you have above 50 employees you're legally obliged to allow 12 weeks unpaid leave. Which would seem to apply to that company.

I'm sure you'll understand why I'm going to defer to the CEO of Hobby Lobby and other employees referenced in the article on this one. Perhaps because it's a franchised retail store, and they've probably got to have 50 or more employees at the store. Regardless, CEO and employees all seem to agree

You never know someone to be referred to in their presence?

Not by their pronouns.

Or copied on an email?

Even if I'm referring to someone by email....I can't use their pronouns. I'm going to have to use their name or else how would you know who I'm talking about?

And then what happens? The email recipient forwards it to the trans person to point out I didn't use the "preferred" pronouns? Wouldn't that be an act of harassment on their part by bringing something to their attention to deliberately make them upset?

That seems unlikely to me.

The fact that I asked you for a practical example....and gave you a practical example of just how difficult it would be to use pronouns in a "harassing manner"....and instead of just giving me a practical example like the one I gave you, you're asking for me to come up with one for you doesn't exactly bolster your claim that this is a real problem that you can easily conceive of happening in a realistic scenario.

Again the example I gave was myself and another employee talking about Sharon in HR and I said "he never replies to my emails".

An example like that is what I'm asking for.

Because 95% of the time (at least) you're using pronouns to refer to someone not in the conversation.

Really? It's a "non-problem" that costs American businesses about $300 billion annually. Costs of Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace | Update 2023 Which might explain why they're keen to prevent those costs.

Unless there's some specific stats on "preferred pronoun harassment" I'm not going to bother reading the link. Am I going to find that in there?

 

[stevevw]

I disagreed with that the last time you said it, too.

But I didn't just say it. I provided evidence from studies done on babies. You can disagree but you would need some counter evidence to do so.

You didn't provide evidence that substantiated your claim.

Yes I did here they are again.

The Moral Life of Babies
Morality, then, is a synthesis of the biological and the cultural, of the unlearned, the discovered and the invented. Babies possess certain moral foundations — the capacity and willingness to judge the actions of others, some sense of justice, gut responses to altruism and nastiness. Regardless of how smart we are, if we didn’t start with this basic apparatus, we would be nothing more than amoral agents, ruthlessly driven to pursue our self-interest.
The Moral Life of Babies
“certain moral foundations are not acquired through learning. They do not come from the mother’s knee … ” It turns out instead that the right theory of our moral lives has two parts. It starts with what we are born with, and this is surprisingly rich: babies are moral animals.
https://fs.blog/the-origins-of-good-and-evil/
Do Babies Have A Sense Of Morality?
This study proved that babies have a rudimentary sense of morality. The scientific evidence presented here only means that the basic foundation for a well-developed sense of morality already exists in infancy.
Do Babies Have A Sense Of Morality?

Evidence, please. Because this doesn't seem correct to me.

Well we know Christ stood for Human Rights and this was way before the UN codified them. We know we already knew these Rights at the time of the Magna Carta guarenteeing freedoms, equality and Rights of commoners and the US Declaration which was used as the basis for ending slavery for example.

But this Truth about all humans being made in Gods image being equal and worthy can be traced back to the Old testament with the creation of humans being made in Gods image. The 2nd greatest commandment encapulates Human Rights and this forms the basis for morality in how we should live together. This commandment the Golden Rule is like a law of nature that in inherent in us being endowed with Gods image which is Christ Himself.

The philosophers of Greek and Roman antiquity “lacked the concept of human dignity,” As Christianity became more widespread, leaders of the church developed more influence, and some rulers even became Christians. This “created the grounds for the development of human rights.”

You can find sources for universal human dignity in the Hebrew Bible as well. These advocates of late antiquity were drawing off of principles from both the Old and New Testaments. Based on Christian convictions, they sometimes made first-in-world-history arguments against these practices. They did not need to wait for Jefferson or Immanuel Kant to enlighten them.

“Equality by creation” is the most powerful concept to emerge from the American Revolution. But really, it is a concept with deeper roots in the Judaeo-Christian tradition.

The Christian Roots of Human Rights

Did the "Enlightenment" give us the concept of human dignity and equality? One historian suggests that those ideas have much deeper Christian roots.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

I don't see how the second sentence here follows from the first.

It seems when Christ spoke about truth it was something we could know not create. Christ represented that truth in His Words, His teachings. I think Christs interactions with the Pharisees and High priest best shows this. Christ was pointing out how they did not know the truth because they did not know Christ. As a result they were in darkness so to speak, living a lie.

John 8:31-32 Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

Also it seems that truth is something we can live by as an important principle even greater than our words. To be able to love by truth we would have to know what that truth is. Christ and all great people and movements throughout history have lived by this truth which is the Golden Rule.

1 John 3:18 Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.

I see. So you make outlandish claims about the basis for human rights, and then decry others as not "right minded" when they don't agree with you?

Whats the outlandish claim, that Human Rights should be based on something that should not be subject to fallible human ideologies and politics. I think it makes perfect sense that we seperate these Rights from social constructions that make no destinction between oppressive and harmful constructions and good and noble ones. Simply agreeing doesn't make something good and Right.

There needs to be some unmovable and transcendent basis (beyond human construction, conventions, beliefs, ideologies) for it to even work and make sense. Otherwise its self defeating. We have seen through our history how humans believed they were doing good when they were actually causing harm as far as Human Rights are concerned. I don't trust a bunch of power hungry polititians and ideologues in charge of the show.

This doesn't make any sense to me. I argue that on the basis of the experience of human horrors, we have agreed to limit the destructive ways we might treat each other, and then you say it's not something preferred or felt? I'd say it's both preferred and felt.

Yes that is part of it but its not the basis for Human Rights. Thats because each nation or culture will have a different set of preferred and felt Rights. The basis has to come from something greater than culture. That is why learning these Truths the hard way are so effective in bringing out the Truth of human behaviour and how not to behave probably more than how to behave is a realistic basis.

More or less its just doing the opposite of what we did when we behaved so badly. But as well as our bad nature we are made in Gods image so we have this good nature that is reflected in us. We are moral beings and simply being with others naturally brings out this conflict of good and evil nature and we know it. Therefore we know what it takes to live together which is basically the Golden Rule.

It's not "the" trans point of view. It's an argument put forward by some people, and hotly contested.

Yes its not the general view of Trans people but its a logical result of Trans ideology. It would make sense to a Trans person that if they are to have a happy life including a sex life like everyone else then a big part of that is acceptance, affirmation that they are the real identity their align with.

So principly what some Trans advocates are protesting about when they complain that they keep get rejected in the dating world comes from the same belief that being authentic is vital to their existence and survival. Like I said the truth is when Lesbians and heterosexual strait people reject Transpeople because they don't think they are authentic all Trans people feel the same just in different degrees and some just keep quiet.

It's not a matter of what I feel comfortable with. A lot of what you post comes across to me as fairly confused. I answer the parts of your post that I can make enough sense of to make a constructive response.

The thing is its a complex issue. Most people don't really understand the thinking, the history of the ideology and most important the logical implications if followed through which we are seeing today with the conflicts we are having in real life situations. I think its important to get education on this issue because it helps reduce the confusion.

What thought experiments?

I was mainly referring to the practical examples I used to help explain how the ideology pans out in real life situations. I think this cuts to the chase as it brings reality into focus. That is why I think people don't like to address these as they get straight to the point.

I created a couple of thought experiments/scenarios in trying to help you understand how rejecting transpeople is not just about personal preferences but also about rejecting an entire gender identity. Like if a contestant on a dating show and whether its transphobic for a lesbian partner or any partner to breakup with a transperson if they did not tell them they were trans.

Using someone's preferred pronouns is not, in any way, analogous to having sex with them.

Its exactly the same ie you said regarding a sex workers choice to say no in relation to sex being made a commercial tramnsaction and consent for sex. I am saying the same thing for gendered pronouns and free speech in that so long as your arguements for a persons rights to prefered pronouns doesn't as you said diminishes the importance of consent to sex, or (freedom of speech).

 

[Bradskii]

I didn't quote you out context. You literally said:

'We don't have the Right to delete an entire identity group from society.'

You were talking about lesbian relationships with transwomen. If you wanted to say that they don't have the right to delete an entire identity group from society, then you would have said that. That they don't have that right. But you didn't. You said that we don't have that right.

And good grief, I just spent part of a post upstream explaining that I'm not a fan of these little chats because you will say one thing - you will literally say one thing, and then complain that it's not what you meant, or it was taken out of context. What you said cannot be taken any other way. 'We' means you and me and everyone else. 'We' doesn't mean 'some lesbians' or 'all lesbians' or 'any lesbian who doesn't fancy transwomen'.

So you have some explaining to do. As in explain why you say something quite specific but then deny it's what you meant.

And remember the questions that you always ignore? I asked where you got the idea from that the majority of people in Australia have a problem with pronouns. I say pronouns because you specifically linked to an ABC poll that only talked about pronouns. So could you tell me so I can examine if your info is correct? It's an important point.

C'mon, @stevevw. You need to address both points I raised. How about a response? As I said, I'm not a fan of dealing with umpteen points per post. Let's just get these 2 sorted.

 

[Paidiske]

I don't see that it is....extensions can be given sure...but how many 10 month pregnancies are there?

40 weeks is the average. But that's not really the point I'm making. Usually, you get four weeks' annual leave per year of employment. So that means that if you need twelve weeks up your sleeve before giving birth, you have to work somewhere for three years to save that up. So under your proposal, if you fall pregnant before accruing that much leave, then what?

Then you don't need those 52 weeks of benefits. Get rid of those benefits and I suspect that the "barriers" you associate with them disappear as well.

I've already acknowledged that 52 weeks is an arbitrary figure. But you need some time off around giving birth. But given that those barriers exist across the board, including in countries without such generous provisions, I don't think your argument holds up here.

I'm sure you'll understand why I'm going to defer to the CEO of Hobby Lobby and other employees referenced in the article on this one.

I can find reference online to their employees having unpaid maternity leave. It seems in America in particular, people talk of "maternity leave" and tend to mean "paid maternity leave."

Not by their pronouns.

I find it a pretty common thing in the speech I observe in the workplace.

Even if I'm referring to someone by email....I can't use their pronouns. I'm going to have to use their name or else how would you know who I'm talking about?

Extracts from a recent emails I was copied into, where the person referred to was also receiving the email: "Here is A's number; should you need to contact her..." "Please contact P if she doesn't already have your name on her list..." "Don't forget to tell her if you can't go..." "K will transport her mum..."

We use gendered pronouns to refer to people who hear or read that communication all the time. It's a normal part of speech.

But I didn't just say it. I provided evidence from studies done on babies.

Your evidence didn't establish what you said it did.

The Moral Life of Babies...

At best, you've provided some evidence for some basic traits like empathy. That's not morality.

Well we know Christ stood for Human Rights and this was way before the UN codified them.

Christ stood for human rights? I don't think so. Christ proclaimed the Kingdom of God, and that relativised human power relations, but that's a far cry from "human rights" as we might understand them.

We know we already knew these Rights at the time of the Magna Carta guarenteeing freedoms, equality and Rights of commoners and the US Declaration which was used as the basis for ending slavery for example.

The Magna Carta was mostly about protecting the church and the barons from overreach of the crown. It was enacted at a time when (as previously noted) serfdom was still a way of life in England. It was very far from an expression of human rights as we would think of them today.

But this Truth about all humans being made in Gods image being equal and worthy can be traced back to the Old testament with the creation of humans being made in Gods image. The 2nd greatest commandment encapulates Human Rights and this forms the basis for morality in how we should live together. This commandment the Golden Rule is like a law of nature that in inherent in us being endowed with Gods image which is Christ Himself.

There's so much tangled up together here that it's hard to know where to start in unpicking it. I'd suggest a look at a good reception history of Genesis would show you that how we've understood and applied your key text here has not been consistent over time.

"Love your neighbour as you love yourself," is not really about human rights, which in many ways are about the powers governments may (or may not) exercise over their citizens.

It seems when Christ spoke about truth it was something we could know not create.

Christ also spoke about himself as the living embodiment of truth, which makes sense given that he is God. But that doesn't make conscience a perfect indicator of truth.

Whats the outlandish claim,

That human rights are not a social construction. As if we can't trace the historical processes through which we have constructed them!

that Human Rights should be based on something that should not be subject to fallible human ideologies and politics... There needs to be some unmovable and transcendent basis (beyond human construction, conventions, beliefs, ideologies) for it to even work and make sense.

There is no such basis in human life.

Like I said the truth is when Lesbians and heterosexual strait people reject Transpeople because they don't think they are authentic all Trans people feel the same just in different degrees and some just keep quiet.

All trans people feel the same? That's a pretty sweeping claim. It also doesn't match what I hear from actual trans people.

I created a couple of thought experiments/scenarios in trying to help you understand how rejecting transpeople is not just about personal preferences but also about rejecting an entire gender identity.

Oh, I probably didn't reply to those because - once again - I understand your point perfectly well. I just don't agree that the way forward is the same in all situations.

Its exactly the same ie you said regarding a sex workers choice to say no in relation to sex being made a commercial tramnsaction and consent for sex. I am saying the same thing for gendered pronouns and free speech in that so long as your arguements for a persons rights to prefered pronouns doesn't as you said diminishes the importance of consent to sex, or (freedom of speech).

No, sorry. Using someone's name or preferred pronouns is not, in any way, "exactly the same" as having sex with them.

 

[stevevw]

C'mon, @stevevw. You need to address both points I raised. How about a response? As I said, I'm not a fan of dealing with umpteen points per post. Let's just get these 2 sorted.

Well lets deal with the one you have just mentioned. As I said if you followed the discussion between Paidiske and myself I had clarified several times I was speaking hypothetically according to Trans ideology. Here are some of those times

Post #1,718 Yes if all things were equal and they treated transwomen like real women and preferred not to date that particular women then they have the right. But that is not what they are doing. They are rejecting transwomen as real women and therefore out of the category women before they have a chance to even be considered. Thats descrimination according to Trans ideology.

Post #1,695 They are not complaining that someone doesn't want to date the individual they are complaining that women are deleting an entire identity because they don't recognise them as real women. Not that I agree with them but this is what being Woke claims. Theres no consistency.

So I have clearly stated that the idea that Transwomen are real women and therefore a protecte dender identity comes from Trans ideology and Wokist. Thats not counting the dozens of times I've said I believe transwomen are not real women.

Yes there were times when I never clarified this. But thats because I already had with Paidiske and did not have to keep repeating myself. She knew where I was coming from because we have engaged on this from the beginning.

Now I am either widely contradicting myself if as you say I really was supporting Trans ideology which at the very least weakens your arguement because now cannot be 100% sure in that I contradicted the quote your using. But the evdience I think shows that I was using examples that Trans advocates have used to protest against Transpeople being erased in the dating scene and generally in society.

But heres the thing Bradskii I can't be bothered finding the quote but I also said if it turned out that there was evidence that a person can become the real opposite sex then I would support this. But qualified that I don't support the idea and think it is actually more harmful in the end as the evience is now showing.

I can't remember what the other one was you will have to remind me.

 

[Bradskii]

Well lets deal with the one you have just mentioned.

Steve, that was word salad. Here's what you said:

'We don't have the Right to delete an entire identity group from society.'

You weren't quoting anyone. You weren't talking about other people. You said 'We don't have the right...'. We means us. You and me. All of us. We don't have the right to delete an entire identity group from society. I agree with that statement. Your statement. The one that you made.

If you want to retract it, then say so. Then we'll know that what you said wasn't what you meant. Are we clear?

I can't remember what the other one was you will have to remind me.[/COLOR]

What do you mean you don't remember the second point? I just quoted my entire post which included it. You said a majority of Australians had problems with pronouns. You linked to the ABC web site which had a poll on it. It said nothing of the sort. You need to explain where you are getting your information from.

 

[stevevw]

Your evidence didn't establish what you said it did.

Ok I said that humans are born with the core morals. Here is what the evdience I supplied said directly in relation to this.
It turns out instead that the right theory of our moral lives has two parts. It starts with what we are born with, and this is surprisingly rich: babies are moral animals.
https://fs.blog/the-origins-of-good-and-evil/

We do understand morality at a very young age, indicating that at some level, it is innate to us.

Do Babies Have A Sense Of Morality?

Studies in Developmental Psychology show that babies have a basic sense of morality. Even infants who haven’t started talking, are able to distinguish good actions from bad and this judgment affects how they treat others.

www.scienceabc.com

Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with.

Babies already show signs of a rudimentary moral compass. The spontaneity of these behaviours has led scientists to believe that a sense of right and wrong is not entirely learned, but rather indicative of an evolved predisposition towards moral goodness.
Are babies born with a sense of right and wrong?

At best, you've provided some evidence for some basic traits like empathy. That's not morality.

You obviously didn't reead the articles very well. Much more than empath such as fairness, justice, compassion and altruism. But nevertheless empathy the basis for more defined morals as we get older. The point is we are born with these basic moral qualities because we are made for this. Its not like we are some blank slate with no moral basis. To be tuned to being moral there has to be that seed of morality there in the first place. You can't teach morals in the sense that they are embodied.

The studies showed that babies were not just repeating behaviour they had learnt by conditioning. It shows babies had this spontaneity towards things like fairness and justice. They were not just passive players but invested and wanting justice to be done by rooting for the victim and rejecting the antagonist. This is happening out 3 months well before any such sophisticated and embedded moral inclination can be comditioned. Especially considering cognitively they are not at that level.

Christ stood for human rights? I don't think so. Christ proclaimed the Kingdom of God, and that relativised human power relations, but that's a far cry from "human rights" as we might understand them.

Christs 2nd greatest commandment was to love your neighbour as yourself. This contains all the HRs as we intuitively know by the core morals we are born with like empathy, justice and fairness that we want that for ourselves and therefore all should have these Rights.

When Christianity replaced the inhuman treatments of people in the Greco-Roman world and made people more equal and elevated human value beyond a commodity this applied Gods Truth to the world. These are the basis of Human Rights. Here is what the Bible says about HRs.

• Right to Equality (Galatians 3:28, James 2:1-5, Leviticus 19:15)
• Right to Liberty (Galatians 5:1, 2 Corinthians 3:17, 2 Peter 2:19)
• Right to Justice (Isaiah 1:17, Proverbs 20:10)
• Right to Life (Psalm 139:13-16, Isaiah 44:24)

The Magna Carta was mostly about protecting the church and the barons from overreach of the crown. It was enacted at a time when (as previously noted) serfdom was still a way of life in England. It was very far from an expression of human rights as we would think of them today.

It is well recognised even by the United Nations the authors of HRs that the Magna Carta was a forrunner for which HRs are based on.

Magna Carta has had an enduring legacy that has shaped the human rights and freedoms that all Australians enjoy today.

Magna Carta: The Story of Our Freedom

To mark the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, the Australian Human Rights Commission has created a series of online educational resources which explore the evolution of human rights since 1215 and the impact that Magna Carta has had on our human rights and freedoms in Australia. The digital...

humanrights.gov.au

Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948
The UNDHR is a treaty that preserves peoples’ peace and freedom and is considered the Magna Carta of our age. It was the first declaration that recognised the fundamental rights and values of all people, everywhere. Drafted by Eleanor Roosevelt, Chair of the UN Commission on Human Rights, the UNDHR recognises its origins: ‘The international Magna Carta is for all men everywhere.’

Magna Carta and Human Rights | Rule of Law Education Centre

www.ruleoflaw.org.au

There's so much tangled up together here that it's hard to know where to start in unpicking it. I'd suggest a look at a good reception history of Genesis would show you that how we've understood and applied your key text here has not been consistent over time.

Its not complicateed. I have highlighted two principles for human rights. One being 'We are made in Gods image' thus endowed with certain natural Rights which is mentioned in Gensis and the US declaration. The other is the 2nd greatest commandment which is also known as the Golden Rule. Also used time and time again throughout our history as the basis for treating humans justly, equally and with dignity.

It doesn't matter if we havn't applied these Truths consistenly as we are fallible beings and fall short of Gods standards. But its the Truth principle that we have always known and applied that doesn't change. The truth that humans have greater worth than any human idea can create and that we treat others how we want to be treated as the basis for how we live with others. If you read Human Rights these general truths form the basis for all Rights.

"Love your neighbour as you love yourself," is not really about human rights, which in many ways are about the powers governments may (or may not) exercise over their citizens.

No its not just about governments. Its about any individual, organisation, religion, political belief or State denying these Rights that have already been established. This is simply pointing out that no one from a single person to even a culture or the State cannot change or deny these Rights. This relates to the Magna Carta in that it made commers on equal status to Kings as far as their Rights were concerned through the Law which itself upheld the human right to not be arbitrarily denied freedoms by Kings or States.

Christ also spoke about himself as the living embodiment of truth, which makes sense given that he is God. But that doesn't make conscience a perfect indicator of truth.

But as we are made in Gods image we do have access to this truth or are able to know this truth, connect with it. This is found in the US Declaration when it says
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

Not having a perfect conscience doesn't negate that we can know these truths. Yes our conscience isn't perfect but it is an indicator of right and wrong when we listen to it.

That human rights are not a social construction. As if we can't trace the historical processes through which we have constructed them!

The same basic human rights were around way before the UN Human Rights. I just gave you evidence for this. If not exact the same principles applied. The fact that they were around well before HRs and yet we ignored them shows that we already knew them and then either forgot them or denied them in many situations even the Church who should have known better.

Otherwise all the human Rights violations committed before we finally constructed HRs in 1948 were not human Rights violations and no one suffered or knew that they were committing HRs violations which just flies in the face of the reality of our lived history. Like I said we see glimpses of HR principles in the Magna Carta, the US Declaration, Wilberforces anti slave movement, Dr Kings Civil Rights movement, even before the time of Christ and even outside the Bible.

The origins of Human Rights are ideally pinpointed to the year 539 BC. When the troops of Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon. Cyrus freed the slaves, declared that all people had the right to choose their own religion, and established racial equality. These and other principles were recorded on a baked-clay cylinder known as the Cyrus Cylinder, whose provisions served as inspiration for the first four Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Another cornerstone in Human Rights History is represented by the promulgation of the Magna Charta in 1215 which introduced a raw concept of “Rule of Law” and the basic idea of defined rights and liberties to all persons, which offers protection from arbitrary prosecution and incarceration.

An evolution of the concepts expressed by the Magna Carta is represented by the English Bill of Rights. It was an act signed into law in 1689 by William III and Mary II, who became co-rulers in England after the overthrow of King James II.

https://www.coespu.org/articles/human-rights-evolution-brief-history

King Hammurabi of Babylon around 1750 BC, laws have been written (or cut in stone) that include principles of justice, fairness and protection. 3rd century BC: Equality. The idea that equality of rights applies to all people is found in the Greek philosophy of the Stoics.

A brief history of human rights - Amnesty International

The history of human rights is actually a combination of various histories. ● Human rights in philosophy: the ideas on human dignity and the rights that belong to everyone everywhere. ● Human rights in law: the norms and sanctions that over the centuries have been laid down in (international)...

www.amnesty.nl

There is no such basis in human life.

So being made in Gods image is not such a basis. This puts the human worth and natural Rights in God Word not humans. Think about it logically. Why would anyone put the truth and status of HRs in the hands of fallible humans who are known to stuff things up and decieve themselves. You don't think there are non material Truths or laws that exist in the world like Truth itselfor morals. Some things we just know are true and real. We don't need a test tube or tape measure. We intrinsically know them.

Even the UN recognises this when they say

Human rights are inalienable and indivisible. We must absolutely resist relativism. We cannot plead cultural differences to deny them. We have to remain faithful to the principle of universality – it is fundamental.

Human rights are inalienable and indivisible

Stéphane Hessel, French-German diplomat and writer, participated in the great adventure that was the drafting of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

en.unesco.org

All trans people feel the same? That's a pretty sweeping claim. It also doesn't match what I hear from actual trans people.

Ok so not exactly the same. But they all feel a conflict between their birth sex and their gender identity. Thats a fact because thats what Trans is. Some would say its rooted in Gender Dysphoria an unease with their body. But regaredless it follows that all Trans people will feel a degree of incongruence and therefore have conflicts with feeling their true self.

Thus there is a need to be affirmed in the sex their identify with and denying that in any form would make them feel worse not better. Thats according to Trans ideology which claims the trans self is a real representation of reality even trumping biological sex.

Oh, I probably didn't reply to those because - once again - I understand your point perfectly well. I just don't agree that the way forward is the same in all situations.

Ok fair enough. But I think its at the coal face where these conflicting situations happen that need to be addressed because they are obviously where the two sets of Rights are clashing and ignoring this doesn't help anyone. Even if people think its not a problem. If some identity group is crying out and its happening more and more then one way of another theres a problem that needs acknowledging and addressing.

No, sorry. Using someone's name or preferred pronouns is not, in any way, "exactly the same" as having sex with them.

Fair enough. You've convinced me.

 

[Paidiske]

Ok I said that humans are born with the core morals. Here is what the evdience I supplied said directly in relation to this.
...Much more than empath such as fairness, justice, compassion and altruism.

I think some of the claims are overstated given the evidence. That said, this is not being born with morality.

The point is we are born with these basic moral qualities because we are made for this.

We are social creatures and we have some social instincts, sure. But it's a far cry from this to saying that our morality is inborn.

You can't teach morals

Of course you can. In fact, we must.

This is happening out 3 months well before any such sophisticated and embedded moral inclination can be comditioned.

Why could it not be conditioned at that point? We know that infants are very highly attuned to the emotional states of their caregivers; why could they not be mirroring what they observe?

Christs 2nd greatest commandment was to love your neighbour as yourself. This contains all the HRs as we intuitively know by the core morals we are born with like empathy, justice and fairness that we want that for ourselves and therefore all should have these Rights.

Oh dear Lord, no. You are taking a very modern concept and projecting it backward anachronistically in a way that Christ never meant.

When Christianity replaced the inhuman treatments of people in the Greco-Roman world and made people more equal and elevated human value beyond a commodity this applied Gods Truth to the world.

Really? Like the Inquisition or the Crusades? Nothing inhuman about them? Treated everyone as equal?

These are the basis of Human Rights. Here is what the Bible says about HRs.

• Right to Equality (Galatians 3:28, James 2:1-5, Leviticus 19:15)
• Right to Liberty (Galatians 5:1, 2 Corinthians 3:17, 2 Peter 2:19)
• Right to Justice (Isaiah 1:17, Proverbs 20:10)
• Right to Life (Psalm 139:13-16, Isaiah 44:24)

Again, you are reading modern concepts back into ancient texts very anachronistically. The authors of Psalms and Isaiah lived in a society which upheld the death penalty, for example; they would not acknowledge a right to life as we understand it.

It is well recognised even by the United Nations the authors of HRs that the Magna Carta was a forrunner for which HRs are based on.

A forerunner, yes, in the sense that the power of the crown was somewhat limited and not absolute. But you can't point to the Magna Carta as evidence of some notion of "human rights" which has been self-evident throughout history.

It doesn't matter if we havn't applied these Truths consistenly as we are fallible beings and fall short of Gods standards.

It does matter, because it undermines your claim that "human rights" have been self-evident throughout history. Christians of even a few centuries ago would find these ideas quite foreign.

No its not just about governments.

Not just about governments, no. But when we realise that it is, in large part, about limiting the power of governments, we realise that "love your neighbour as yourself" isn't an adequate understanding.

But as we are made in Gods image we do have access to this truth or are able to know this truth, connect with it.

I'm not saying we never have any apprehension of truth, I am challenging your claim that conscience is a perfect or infallible measure of what is ethical and moral.

Yes our conscience isn't perfect but it is an indicator of right and wrong when we listen to it.

But it can also be mistaken, or misguided. Or poorly formed, as the moral theologians would say.

The same basic human rights were around way before the UN Human Rights.

No, again, that's a very inaccurate reading of history.

So being made in Gods image is not such a basis.

Being made in God's image is an idea which arises out of a particular religious ideology. It is an idea which is interpreted in different ways by people with different ideologies (for example, as I have pointed out to you, repeatedly I think, there are many Christians who deny that women are made in God's image). It is not transcendent of fallible human ideologies but gets very much bound up in them.

Think about it logically. Why would anyone put the truth and status of HRs in the hands of fallible humans who are known to stuff things up and decieve themselves.

We don't have anywhere else to put it.

You don't think there are non material Truths or laws that exist in the world like Truth itselfor morals.

I don't think that "human rights" in the contemporary sense have been a kind of reified guiding principle throughout human history. I would want to unpack what you mean a bit more here to answer in more detail, but at first blush I am sceptical of the kind of claim being made here.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Usually, you get four weeks' annual leave per year of employment. So that means that if you need twelve weeks up your sleeve before giving birth, you have to work somewhere for three years to save that up.

Right.

So under your proposal, if you fall pregnant before accruing that much leave, then what?

Nobody "falls pregnant".

I've already acknowledged that 52 weeks is an arbitrary figure. But you need some time off around giving birth.

Ok.

But given that those barriers exist across the board, including in countries without such generous provisions, I don't think your argument holds up here.

Nah. Nobody has to worry about getting fired over leave, nobody has to worry about getting demoted for taking leave.

It's the same leave everyone gets so you can use it however you want. Sure, nobody is going to tell you when new opportunities arise but that one was pretty ridiculous. Nobody is calling Mike up about a promotion during the 2 weeks he took off to go to Hawaii so it's just not a realistic expectation.

I can find reference online to their employees having unpaid maternity leave.

Ok...post it. The article indicates otherwise.

I find it a pretty common thing in the speech I observe in the workplace.

I don't think it is. I don't know how many trans people you work with but given the degree of hostility you claim to experience from being a woman, I'd guess the number is 0.

Extracts from a recent emails I was copied into, where the person referred to was also receiving the email: "Here is A's number; should you need to contact her..."

That doesn't make any sense lol I'm sorry. If someone else is in the email....why wouldn't you be asking that person for their number yourself?

That's the equivalent of me walking up to Mike and Dan and saying "Hey Mike, what's Dan's number?"

"Please contact P if she doesn't already have your name on her list..." "Don't forget to tell her if you can't go..." "K will transport her mum..."

In each of these scenarios the simple solution is to just email the person you're talking about....

We use gendered pronouns to refer to people who hear or read that communication all the time. It's a normal part of speech.

Not in front of the person you're talking about.

And you still haven't explained how any of this is harassing or hostile.

 

[Paidiske]

Nobody "falls pregnant".

If you're asserting that every pregnancy is planned to the exact date, then I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken.

Nonetheless, my question stands; are you suggesting a woman should only be able to have the appropriate leave after three years in a workplace? What, in your view, should happen in any other situation?

Nah. Nobody has to worry about getting fired over leave, nobody has to worry about getting demoted for taking leave.

Not true.

Pregnancy Discrimination Is Rampant Inside America’s Biggest Companies (Published 2018)

Many pregnant women have been systematically sidelined in the workplace. They’re passed over for promotions and raises. They’re fired when they complain.

www.nytimes.com

Ok...post it. The article indicates otherwise.

For eg. here and here. Employees refer to having unpaid leave (after a qualifying period) but no paid leave.

That doesn't make any sense lol I'm sorry. If someone else is in the email....why wouldn't you be asking that person for their number yourself?

It was a group communication.

In each of these scenarios the simple solution is to just email the person you're talking about....

All I'm doing is pointing out that use of gendered pronouns to refer to someone, in communication to which they are privy, is not really that out of the ordinary. I didn't have to look hard to find multiple examples.

Not in front of the person you're talking about.

It's not strange to me. Things like, "M's looking after that, can you follow up with her?" are pretty normal in meetings and the like, surely?

And you still haven't explained how any of this is harassing or hostile.

Deliberately and repeatedly referring to someone in a way that they find distressing, is of course harassing and hostile.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you're asserting that every pregnancy is planned to the exact date, then I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken.

That's a rather blatant mischaracterization....but let's imagine the opposite, that every woman accidentally gets pregnant because they don't know how babies are made or how contraceptives work. A quick check shows abortion is legal in Australia....

So yes, 100% of pregnancies are a choice.

Nonetheless, my question stands; are you suggesting a woman should only be able to have the appropriate leave after three years in a workplace?

I'm suggesting that women shouldn't get special benefits for being women if they're supposedly equal in the workplace. I don't care if they do it on 1 year's leave or 5.

What, in your view, should happen in any other situation?

I'm not sure what you mean by this? Can you rephrase the question?

Not true.

Pregnancy Discrimination Is Rampant Inside America’s Biggest Companies (Published 2018)

Many pregnant women have been systematically sidelined in the workplace. They’re passed over for promotions and raises. They’re fired when they complain.

www.nytimes.com

NYT is paywalled.

For eg. here and here.

While your first link seems to support your claim, it's a little vague. The second link actually makes it clear...employees sign away any guarantee to unpaid leave as well.

Now, you may find that unfair....but I'll refer you to your own comments when I pointed out that it's unfair that a replacement worker in Australia gets fired once a woman returns from maternity leave....

"They signed a contract, and they knew the conditions of the contract when they were hired."

It was a group communication.

And that's exactly it. If you're in a group communication with the trans person, why wouldn't they supply their phone number themselves or why wouldn't you ask them directly instead of by some proxy?

It doesn't make any sense.

I'll also point out that all your examples are in email and it's unclear how this is going to convey a tone of hostility in text. Surely you're aware that tone is often lost in text form.

All I'm doing is pointing out that use of gendered pronouns to refer to someone, in communication to which they are privy, is not really that out of the ordinary. I didn't have to look hard to find multiple examples.

I don't think it's either common nor likely but regardless, let's say it happens once in a while...

Where's the hostility?

It's not strange to me. Things like, "M's looking after that, can you follow up with her?"

If she's in the group email....this person is literally asking you to repeat whatever your request is to M. If it's a group email, it would be incredibly strange to say anything other than "M will handle any of your questions and reports".

The way you're writing it makes it sound like M isn't in the group email.

And again....Where's the hostility that makes this harassment?

Deliberately and repeatedly referring to someone in a way that they find distressing, is of course harassing and hostile.

It's the truth though and entirely a matter of perception. We aren't talking about someone needlessly referring to an overweight employee as "fat julia" or an attractive employee as "sexy Rachel"....these could be harassing or complimentary but they're needless and unprofessional. It's not as if my coworkers require me to validate their Christian faith and they don't require me to lie about my lack of faith if it ever comes up. I was once asked to go along with 3 other new agents and mandated represent our agency for some 9/11 memorial at a large Christian church in a big city with a lot of other local and federal agencies. The moment I was given the assignment I informed my supervisor that as an atheist, I wouldn't be comfortable attending the service or memorial or whatever it was.....because it took place in a church and I wasn't sure if any prayer would be happening or not. He gave me about a half second of a look, and then told me that I didn't have to attend and he would find someone else....no problem.


It didn't require anyone lying or altering their worldview for all of us to work together. Amazing, right? People With wildly different views of everything all getting along. Yet somehow, the trans person needs everyone to lie to them to be comfortable at work and it's because everyone else is the problem?

I don't think so.

 

[stevevw]

Steve, that was word salad. Here's what you said:

'We don't have the Right to delete an entire identity group from society.'

You weren't quoting anyone. You weren't talking about other people. You said 'We don't have the right...'. We means us. You and me. All of us. We don't have the right to delete an entire identity group from society. I agree with that statement. Your statement. The one that you made.

If you want to retract it, then say so. Then we'll know that what you said wasn't what you meant. Are we clear?

Yes I agree with that statement as well. The point is your using that to claim that I must apply this to transwomen. As you said I wasn't talking about anyone just making a general statement. Your creating a straw man because I have clearly said that when it comes to trans identity its not a real identity and therefore that statement does not apply. I even said if trans identity was found to be a real identity then I would support trans peoples rights in this regard.

What do you mean you don't remember the second point? I just quoted my entire post which included it. You said a majority of Australians had problems with pronouns. You linked to the ABC web site which had a poll on it. It said nothing of the sort. You need to explain where you are getting your information from.

Sorry, I realised that I did not click the drop down button to see the rest of the post. I will go back and reply.

 

[Paidiske]

That's a rather blatant mischaracterization....but let's imagine the opposite, that every woman accidentally gets pregnant because they don't know how babies are made or how contraceptives work.

It's not that simple, either. Even wanted babies don't always arrive on one's preferred schedule.

I'm not sure what you mean by this? Can you rephrase the question?

Suppose I've been in my job a year, I have four weeks' annual leave, and I'm due to have a baby. Four weeks isn't really enough time off around birth. Should I have to choose between losing my job and aborting my baby? Really? And then you're going to have the gall to tell me women don't face barriers?

NYT is paywalled.

Hmm. Try this one: https://www.umass.edu/employmentequity/pregnancy-discrimination-workplace-1

While your first link seems to support your claim, it's a little vague. The second link actually makes it clear...employees sign away any guarantee to unpaid leave as well.

Now, you may find that unfair....but I'll refer you to your own comments when I pointed out that it's unfair that a replacement worker in Australia gets fired once a woman returns from maternity leave....

"They signed a contract, and they knew the conditions of the contract when they were hired."

A contract can't legally deprive someone of their basic workplace rights, though. I can't see how that's legal in America, when federal law is supposed to guarantee twelve weeks' unpaid leave.

And that's exactly it. If you're in a group communication with the trans person, why wouldn't they supply their phone number themselves or why wouldn't you ask them directly instead of by some proxy?

It doesn't make any sense.

Really? Instead of acknowledging this as an example of pronoun use, you're going to get hung up on why someone sent a group an email and gave them someone else's phone number?

It's the truth though and entirely a matter of perception.

No, I'm sorry, I'm not buying that. If you've been told what someone's name and/or pronouns are, and you deliberately refuse to use them, to insist that your "truth" about them is more important than their being accepted and supported in the workplace, that's not a matter of perception. That absolutely is harassment.

 

[stevevw]

C'mon, @stevevw. You need to address both points I raised. How about a response? As I said, I'm not a fan of dealing with umpteen points per post. Let's just get these 2 sorted.

I didn't quote you out context. You literally said:

'We don't have the Right to delete an entire identity group from society.'

You were talking about lesbian relationships with transwomen. If you wanted to say that they don't have the right to delete an entire identity group from society, then you would have said that. That they don't have that right. But you didn't. You said that we don't have that right.
And good grief, I just spent part of a post upstream explaining that I'm not a fan of these little chats because you will say one thing - you will literally say one thing, and then complain that it's not what you meant, or it was taken out of context. What you said cannot be taken any other way. 'We' means you and me and everyone else. 'We' doesn't mean 'some lesbians' or 'all lesbians' or 'any lesbian who doesn't fancy transwomen'.

So you have some explaining to do. As in explain why you say something quite specific but then deny it's what you meant.

Yes to be specific that statement was a general statement. You will now have to show how I intended for that statement to apply to Transwomen. Thats was your protest that I should apply this statement to transwomen right. So what makes you think that. How have you jumped from that general statement to apply specifically to transwomen.

And remember the questions that you always ignore? I asked where you got the idea from that the majority of people in Australia have a problem with pronouns. I say pronouns because you specifically linked to an ABC poll that only talked about pronouns. So could you tell me so I can examine if your info is correct? It's an important point.

Ok so the other issue regarding the majority supporting pronouns.

I rarely read your posts, Steve. I find it much easier to read @Paidiske's dismantling of each of your points. But this one caught my eye. Perhaps because it's wrong. Australia Talks - Find out where you fit, and how you compare to other Australians in 2021

'Overall, women and younger people are happier to use the pronouns someone identifies with, but the majority of men and Australians in all age groups also agree with this sentiment. About 1 in 5 Australians think we should be using pronouns that match the sex we are assigned at birth.'

When does 20% become a majority view? But now we know who is in that small minority. It's you, Steve. You. And seeing as it's a lot less for those under 30, guess which way the trend is going...

Plus this one:

'Half of Aussie men, including you, say men and women don't share a level playing field​

That compares to 4 in 5 Australian women who hold the same view.

Since 2019, there's been a big shift in how the youngest and oldest Australians answer this question, with both groups now much more likely to say men and women are not treated equally.'

Can you point out the statement where I said the majority of people disagee with forced pronouns. Once again your conflating a statement I have made and attributing it to something I didn't. I specifically said
Forced pronouns comes from the same ideology as identity politics, political correctness and cancel culture. I think you will find the majority are sick of these things and disagree.

So I was referring to the ideology and not specifically pronouns. I know the majority of people agree with using preferred pronouns. Thats because its seems a nobel thing to do on the surface. Its a moral position. No one wants to be seen as being nasty and immoral. But thats how the ideology works. It smuggles in a nobel cause on top of a political agenda.

But inevitably when reality hits home when ideas like Affirmative action, Trans Care model, the cancellation of long held common sense realities like women and even most of Western History people begin to notice the incoherence and harm the ideology does.

Its just more recognised with PC and Cancel culture at the moment. But the thinking behind preferred pronouns comes from the same thinking as Wokism, CC, PC and identity politics. So I was referring more to these ideas which people have become sick of.

So I am not going to disagree with you that the survey showed most people agreed with using gendered pronouns but so what I can also play your game.

From memory you said I was in the minority and kept emphasizing this to make your arguement like because I am in the minority I must be wrong and therefore immoral and nasty. Even though I have said depending on the situation I would use preferre pronouns such as with friends or in a therapy situation.

But I could turn the logic of your arguement around regarding the whole ideology which you seem to support. Most people disagree with cancel culture, PC, trans ideology and political correctness. So your in the minority. You also have not destinguished whether people who agree with pronouns do so to be polite but still disagree with the ideology of using pronouns.

So whats that duece lol.

 

[Kale100]

For me, I think the principle is more like, not impairing someone else's ability to participate in normal public and social life. Being able to buy products, acquire services, and so on, is part of normal public and social life. Dating or friendship with a specific person is not.

Thank you for addressing my line of questioning, it's very hard nowadays to find people willing (or able?) to articulate the principles that underline their specific 'policy' ideas. I want to promote and encourage people to understand each other's positions, and that means articulating philosophical principles. The purpose of debate is supposed to be to find solutions that are acceptable to the parties involved, and like with any building, you have to start with the foundation.

 

[Bradskii]

...I have clearly said that when it comes to trans identity its not a real identity and therefore that statement does not apply. I even said if trans identity was found to be a real identity then I would support trans peoples rights in this regard.

What on earth are you talking about? There are trans people. Transmen. Transwomen. My niece is a transman (so that should now be nephew). What on earth do mean 'it's not a real identity'? These are real people for heavens sake. She is a real person. You would never know if you met him that he was born a woman. So as you said: 'We don't have the Right to delete an entire identity group from society.' And that 'we' means all of us. Including you. So if you use a pronoun to refer to my relative then you will kindly use 'he'. As you should for anyone who asks you.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes to be specific that statement was a general statement. You will now have to show how I intended for that statement to apply to Transwomen. Thats was your protest that I should apply this statement to transwomen right. So what makes you think that. How have you jumped from that general statement to apply specifically to transwomen.

Post 1740. Where you said:

'Its the principle of rejecting an entire idenity thats the problem. We don't have the Right to delete an entire identity group from society.
Lesbians reject trans women because they are males and not females. In other words they are saying they don't believe transwomen are real women.'

That couldn't be clearer. There is no doubt that it was specifically and unequivocally stated in regard to transwomen and people (lesbians in this case) rejecting that 'entire identity'. You literally said that we don't have that right. And, in passing, even if it was a general comment, it stands on its own and would include everyone. Including those that identify as being trans.

Can you point out the statement where I said the majority of people disagee with forced pronouns.

Post 1709. I think I've already quoted it a couple of times. Let's go for the hattrick:

'Forced pronouns comes from the same ideology as identity politics, political correctness and cancel culture. I think you will find the majority are sick of these things and disagree.

This disapproval of political correctness is a majority view across all age groups, according to the nationally-representative Australia Talks National Survey.'

So you're discussing 'forced pronouns', you say that the majority disagree with them and then you link to a poll that references exactly that matter. But that poll says that the majority have no problem with pronouns. So the very link you used to illustrate your claim showed exactly the opposite. I'd like you to acknowledge that and correct what you said.

 

[Bradskii]

From memory you said I was in the minority and kept emphasizing this to make your arguement like because I am in the minority I must be wrong and therefore immoral and nasty.

No, it means nothing of the sort. That's a logical fallacy, as you insinuated. I pointed out that you are in the minority because you fallaciously claimed that you were in the majority. You were simply wrong.

And perhaps you ought to contemplate that if it's a logical fallacy in claiming that if someone is in a minority they must be wrong, you should consider why you thought to claim you were in the majority. It can't have been to prove you are right...surely?