People made the exact same arguments in the 50s
questioning the validity of the civil rights movement in the USA, and justifying the attempted ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population of Australia.
The exact same arguments.
(
brb Learn Ukrainian and prepare for a referendum, Sat 14 Aug 2021, 15:26,
Reply)
Eh? I'm don't believe I follow.
Were you replying to someone else?
What arguments? As far as I'm aware I've not put forward any position or arguments to support it, I'm requesting clarification about the parameters of the discussion.
(, Sat 14 Aug 2021, 15:58, Reply)
I know, you're "Just Asking Questions." JAQin' it, JAQin' it, JAQin' it JAQ.
What do you mean by civil rights? I saw a pretty whacky newsreel with a coloured person attempting to argue that white people have no right to not find them attractive, because "black is beautiful." That's a pretty extreme position which I would assume most people wouldn't agree with, but in a discussion with that person that would be included in civil rights. So I just think it's best to nail it down precisely first.
(
brb Learn Ukrainian and prepare for a referendum, Sat 14 Aug 2021, 16:57,
Reply)
Hang on...
do white people have any right to not find black people attractive in your opinion? Genuinely interested in your response.
Without asking questions, how are you supposed to know what you're even talking about? I'm not interested in talking about a slogan, divorced from any kind of meaningful reality... I want to talk about concrete examples of policies that exist but which infringe upon people's rights... or I want to talk about policies that do not yet exist but which would be good for supporting people's rights.
Am I in favour of people not being discriminated against in the workplace? Absolutely yes. If that's the sort of thing that trans rights is, I'm all aboard.
Am I in favour of every little tweet made by every transgender person in the name of trans rights, becoming the basis of policy unquestioningly? No, because some people have a very bad idea of what rights are.
The details matter.
(, Sat 14 Aug 2021, 17:01, Reply)
If skin colour has any influence on your sexual preferences then you're a horrible racist.
Obviously.
(, Sat 14 Aug 2021, 17:28, Reply)
If you don't see through this fish soaked straw man, you're either taken in by it or arguing in bad faith.
(
brb Learn Ukrainian and prepare for a referendum, Sat 14 Aug 2021, 17:38,
Reply)
Straw man?
I asked you for your opinion, since I wasn't entirely sure what point you were getting at by repeating what I said but replacing gender identity with race. I've not even argued against anything you've said?
Trans rights means different things to different people. I want people to be clear in what people mean when talking about things. I don't want to use some definition from the internet if the person I'm talking to has something else in mind. So I'm asking, what exactly are we talking about.
This isn't even remotely arguing in bad faith, it's respectfully engaging in a discussion. I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth. I'm not intentionally misrepresenting someone else's argument.
(, Sat 14 Aug 2021, 17:52, Reply)
From your response I'm not sure you understand what it is you are doing. Good trolling!
But this rejection of an imaginary demand (to be perceived as beautiful by the people who hate you), it's just not very convincing, sorry. All it says is that you'd like your particular dislike for the unlike to be validated and preserved.
Your stubborn refusal to type "define trans rights" into a search engine is not a rhetorical winner, nor is it particularly endearing. You're signalling ignorance as a virtue.
Your last paragraph can be paraphrased: "it's political correctness gone mad." Another similarly convincing argument.
(
brb Learn Ukrainian and prepare for a referendum, Sat 14 Aug 2021, 17:36,
Reply)
Your paraphrasing
is literally a straw man, and you claim that I'm arguing in bad faith?
I'm pointing out there's lots of takes on what trans rights means, some of which are reasonable, some of which are not, and I want to know what is actually under discussion before discussing it.
If I google trans rights, the first article that comes up is from wikipedia. Would you like me to take the first paragraph or so of that as the working definition of this discussion?
(, Sat 14 Aug 2021, 18:57, Reply)
Do you think that would be a duscussion worth having?
Do you think humanity will benefit from us publishing a discussion where one of the participants chooses to be more ignorant than they need to be?
My paraphrasing of your argument is a straw man by the nature of the source material. I hoped to illustrate how the exact same argument you are making (an argument in the form of JAQing off to muddy the waters) was made 70 years ago by bigots who opposed civil rights for black people.
As if forcing other people to find someone attractive is codified in any form of legislature, declaration of rights, or constitution anywhere in the world.
Nobody is this asinine. Stop it.
Lol duscussion. I'm a subject line typo machine today.
(
brb Learn Ukrainian and prepare for a referendum, Sat 14 Aug 2021, 19:23,
Reply)
Why are you automatically so combative,
as though I'm somehow your enemy?
I'm not opposing anyone's rights, and I don't know why you're so convinced that I am. I don't know what I've said here that would lead you to that conclusion.
If we're looking at the definition of transgender rights which is loosely described in that wikipedia article (which I would essentially interpret as the same rights as everyone else), then I'm all in favour of it. I don't want to live in a world where trans people, who number among my friends, are oppressed and discriminated against simply for how they feel. If we're looking at legislation, I think gender identity should be a protected category alongside race, religion, sex, sexual orientation etc, if it isn't already. No argument from me there.
But if we're taking the definition of transgender rights as described by certain hardline activists and influencers, some of whom have been pretty vocal with their dodgy takes on the matter, then I'm not in favour of what they're saying. I'd just like to know what the definition is in the context of the discussion.
Hence the need for discussion and debate, so we can sort out the reasonable takes from the unreasonable takes. I'm not trying to muddy any waters, I'm trying to reach a consensus on what constitutes the mud, so that we have filtered waters.
There's a pretty wide spectrum of thought on this multifaceted issue, and I picked an extreme far-out opinion as an example that I reckoned we could all agree was mud that could be discarded. I'm not attributing that opinion to anyone here or ascribing to it any importance to the trans rights movement.
(, Sat 14 Aug 2021, 19:38, Reply)
If I take up a contrary position to yours, that puts our ideas in a kind of conflict. I disagree with you, and I enjoy telling you about it.
Hurrah for you:
Not opposing anyone's rights
Interpreting trans rights as 'the same as everyone else's' (Correct!)
Opposing oppression
Supporting trans people as a protected category against hate crimes etc.
Boo for you:
Defending your right to be upset against a pretend threat from, and JAQ over, 'certain hardline activists and influencers'
Doubling down on your daftness by claiming you're trying to 'filter' (or perhaps 'cleanse') out the extreme views on one side by normalising your own
Are you sure you're not deliberately misunderstanding a message of 'trans is beautiful'? Is your right to call trans people ugly actually under threat?
(
brb Learn Ukrainian and prepare for a referendum, Sat 14 Aug 2021, 22:06,
Reply)
You clearly just want to have a fight about something.
Someone had the audacity to ask a few questions for clarification, and from that you appear to have extrapolated some edifice of hatred that has no basis in reality.
You've all but accused me of supporting ethnic cleansing, based on literally fuck all. Come on son.
I pointed out my position, not for some kind of brownie points or congratulations, but because you were completely fabricating some viewpoint and attributing it to me.
Saying "hurray for you", as though I wasn't clearly correcting your unfounded assumptions, is just churlish to be honest.
If someone called you a pedo dog botherer, and then you were to point out that you'd never bothered children or dogs,
what kind of cunt would they have to be to then sarcastically congratulate you like you were saying it to impress and not as a direct refutation.
I don't want to call anyone ugly. But yeah, freedom of expression is constantly under threat, and it's something I believe in strongly.
I think that the idea that debate itself is a problem is a dangerous way of thinking, and I don't think that is a particularly unreasonable view to hold.
The point of that extreme example, which we all here agree is absurd I think, is that in an environment where debate is stifled and discussion silenced,
terrible absurdities have tendency to become reality. Without the ability to debate, how can anyone come to a working consensus on sensible
approaches to safeguard rights, without everything getting derailed by the extremists? And that goes for extremists on all sides.
You need open debate for a society to be capable of agreeing to ignore all the nutters.
(, Sat 14 Aug 2021, 23:12, Reply)
While you clearly want to avoid confronting your prejudices even while you look for them to be validated.
Your 'extreme example' is either a misunderstanding or a lie. Either you're a bit thick, or trolling. Which is it?
Why am I not allowed to congratulate you for reducing your ignorance without being called churlish? Is it because of your paranoia?
Why do I say you're paranoid? You claim your freedom of expression is under constant threat from imaginary liberal bigots, so you have to defend your right to call trans people ugly even if you don't want to. Seems perfectly rational, right?
You are acting as an extremist nutter who you should ignore.
(
brb Learn Ukrainian and prepare for a referendum, Sun 15 Aug 2021, 14:39,
Reply)
My word you're awful.
Freedom of expression is always under threat. The fact that this original video is literally someone objecting to the existence of debate is just one example of this. It's a textbook example of a threat to freedom of expression.
If you want to find the exact extreme video in question it was titled "Your dating preferences are discriminatory" by Riley J. Dennis. She appears to have taken down the original. If you can find it, watch it and decide for yourself whether I misunderstood it or am lying.
You're the only person who has even mentioned trans people and ugliness in the same sentence. You've done it twice now. And the irony of mentioning paranoia when you're desperately seeking hatred where there is none. Someone once told me that discussing anything with a trans activist is impossible, as it's more like dealing with a cult member, and I didn't particularly believe him but I guess he must have met you.
(, Mon 16 Aug 2021, 1:24, Reply)
I have seen SockCooker use the same rhetoric
(replacing the out-group in question with black, Jew, gay, etc, in order to illustrate the bigotry of the situation), but I do it better, and I won't hound you and accuse you of being a paedophile if you make me upset.
(
brb Learn Ukrainian and prepare for a referendum, Sat 14 Aug 2021, 18:46,
Reply)