"The activist trans community has moved so incredibly far away from professionally diagnosed...."
No, I go to great pains to differentiate the trans community from the activist community when I'm talking about the crazy demands and reality denying nonsense, because I understand clearly that there's a difference.
"The activist trans community has moved so incredibly far away from professionally diagnosed...."
No, I go to great pains to differentiate the trans community from the activist community when I'm talking about the crazy demands and reality denying nonsense, because I understand clearly that there's a difference.
But the trans community in general is now composed of the transvestites and fetishists and people who are malicious and perverted because no serious attempt has been made to distinguish between them. And whenever somebody asks for that clarification, they get called a "transphobe" (as in somebody who has a problem with the whole trans community) or swamped with abuse.
To use the analogy to black people again, imagine if any meaningful number of black people had argued that "trans-racial people, a la Rachel Dolezal, were part of the black community. And argued that people like her should be called black and that anybody who refused was racist.
Well, if this went on for long enough, it would be totally reasonable to comply with that request and think of trans racial people as part of the black community. And it would be up to the black community to sort out the confusion.
Ah yes, "trans community in general is now composed of the transvestites and fetishists and people who are malicious and perverted" bring us back to discussions you and I have had before.
The trans-community does not include people who are malicious and perverted. You only state that because you believe some of what they do is malicious and perverted. That gets into a discussion of what is malicious and perverted. That of course is based on many things and most commonly the current societal view. What is considered malicious and perverted in Wheaton IL (the center of Evangelicalism) is very different than what is consider malicious and perverted in the Castro or Folsom in San Francisco and largely San Francisco in general. Lets take the drag queen story hour as an example. Wheaton IL would never allow it. San Francisco has no issues with it. Who is right?
i.e. But what is truth? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths. Are mine the same as yours?
You seem to have a problem with me narrowing it to the phrase "malicious men who are posing as woman". The reason I narrow it to that phrase because it focuses on the issue that the trans-activists as championed by JK Rowling have not directly addressed. How does their goals of defining a trans-woman as a woman incorporate the issues of cis-woman who don't want a genetic man in their spaces or activities.
From my perspective, that is the heart of the issue that the debate is about. Its not about the trans-community (i.e. not including malicious men posing as woman) being malicious or perverted. In my mind, this gets settle by a trans-activist making peace with JK Rowling. That's how I define success.
"The trans-community does not include people who are malicious and perverted."
What a bizarre thing to say. First of all, every community includes people who are malicious and perverted. Where does this idea come from that trans people are all angels?
But second, and more importantly, if there are no boundaries to a community other than, "whoever says they're trans us trans," and a swath of perverts and rapists say, "we're trans," and the rest of the trans community never clarifies and says, "no, they're not, because they fail to meet X or Y criteria," then how are we supposed to differentiate between them?
Again, this is the entire point. The "X and Y" criteria that denote that you're trans have never been meaningfully defined. This is necessary before we can even begin to have a sane, compassionate conversation about trans inclusion.
Yes, I have. But apparently you get your deepest insights from Jesus Christ Superstar, so that's neither here nor there, is it?
I understand perfectly well the difference between subjective experience and objective reality. I also understand the objections to the notion of objective reality. But those objections are theoretical navel gazing. Just as, for example, conversations about free will are.
There's a very strong argument that we don't have free will. It's an argument I'm convinced if, in fact. But as narrow, imperfect humans who want a workable society, we have no option but to live and act as if free will exists. Same with objective truth.
"The activist trans community has moved so incredibly far away from professionally diagnosed...."
No, I go to great pains to differentiate the trans community from the activist community when I'm talking about the crazy demands and reality denying nonsense, because I understand clearly that there's a difference.
But the trans community in general is now composed of the transvestites and fetishists and people who are malicious and perverted because no serious attempt has been made to distinguish between them. And whenever somebody asks for that clarification, they get called a "transphobe" (as in somebody who has a problem with the whole trans community) or swamped with abuse.
To use the analogy to black people again, imagine if any meaningful number of black people had argued that "trans-racial people, a la Rachel Dolezal, were part of the black community. And argued that people like her should be called black and that anybody who refused was racist.
Well, if this went on for long enough, it would be totally reasonable to comply with that request and think of trans racial people as part of the black community. And it would be up to the black community to sort out the confusion.
Ah yes, "trans community in general is now composed of the transvestites and fetishists and people who are malicious and perverted" bring us back to discussions you and I have had before.
The trans-community does not include people who are malicious and perverted. You only state that because you believe some of what they do is malicious and perverted. That gets into a discussion of what is malicious and perverted. That of course is based on many things and most commonly the current societal view. What is considered malicious and perverted in Wheaton IL (the center of Evangelicalism) is very different than what is consider malicious and perverted in the Castro or Folsom in San Francisco and largely San Francisco in general. Lets take the drag queen story hour as an example. Wheaton IL would never allow it. San Francisco has no issues with it. Who is right?
i.e. But what is truth? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths. Are mine the same as yours?
You seem to have a problem with me narrowing it to the phrase "malicious men who are posing as woman". The reason I narrow it to that phrase because it focuses on the issue that the trans-activists as championed by JK Rowling have not directly addressed. How does their goals of defining a trans-woman as a woman incorporate the issues of cis-woman who don't want a genetic man in their spaces or activities.
From my perspective, that is the heart of the issue that the debate is about. Its not about the trans-community (i.e. not including malicious men posing as woman) being malicious or perverted. In my mind, this gets settle by a trans-activist making peace with JK Rowling. That's how I define success.
"The trans-community does not include people who are malicious and perverted."
What a bizarre thing to say. First of all, every community includes people who are malicious and perverted. Where does this idea come from that trans people are all angels?
But second, and more importantly, if there are no boundaries to a community other than, "whoever says they're trans us trans," and a swath of perverts and rapists say, "we're trans," and the rest of the trans community never clarifies and says, "no, they're not, because they fail to meet X or Y criteria," then how are we supposed to differentiate between them?
Again, this is the entire point. The "X and Y" criteria that denote that you're trans have never been meaningfully defined. This is necessary before we can even begin to have a sane, compassionate conversation about trans inclusion.
You never studied philosophy have you?
Yes, I have. But apparently you get your deepest insights from Jesus Christ Superstar, so that's neither here nor there, is it?
I understand perfectly well the difference between subjective experience and objective reality. I also understand the objections to the notion of objective reality. But those objections are theoretical navel gazing. Just as, for example, conversations about free will are.
There's a very strong argument that we don't have free will. It's an argument I'm convinced if, in fact. But as narrow, imperfect humans who want a workable society, we have no option but to live and act as if free will exists. Same with objective truth.