[__ Science __ ] Male Lawmaker Claims He Is “Every Bit as Biologically Female” As a Woman

[Tim Broom]

Some of the most self righteous gender crusaders are just doing it because it’s currently a hot button topic in some circles. I accidentally dead named an acquaintance and it was dreadful. The cold stares the sharp correction….

Yes, thank you for sharing this example. It perfectly compliments the concern I've been talking about.

There is a reaction, or, what many of us would call an over-reaction. I think most of us could understand the reaction. There really has been a lot of hate over the decades and it's pretty common in all humans to relish the power they gain over the people who had previously abused them.

But, it would be difficult to appreciate this when your standard for assessment is based on how you personally feel about the issue. It sets up a kind of emotional blackmail where a person threatens that you will be emotionally harming them if you don't give them what they want.

One of the more blatant examples of this is the people who shout out that refusing to use the special words amounts to a denial of that person's worthiness as a person and causes them to take their own life. Now, if I don't comply, then I could be responsible for that person's death! In elementary school I learned that this kind of thing is called peer pressure. It seems not much different than a teenager threatening suicide if they don't get their way.

No one would appreciate being manipulated like this.

 

[Tim Broom]

Do you suppose this is the problem? The opinion of themselves?

I think Jesus talked about this kind of thing quite often. Don't lord your authority over others. Don't rejoice that you can cast out demons. Don't do your charity, prayers, or fasting in front of others. Take the lower seat. The greatest will be the servant. Those who exalt themselves will be made low.

It's a problem for all people, but in this particular case, when we're talking specifically about the trans community, the problem manifests as a demand for others to validate that sense of self worth. A refusal to do so is interpreted as a denial of your identity as a person with thoughts and feelings. This has the appeal of sounding very noble, but ultimately it causes you to be the centre of some other person's attention, even if they'd rather you not be. In essence, "You will be a bad person if you do not cooperate with my ideals about myself."

A similar example could be a new movement where Christians want more recognition as Christians and ask to be called Saint Jeff or Saint Sarah or Saint Bob, instead of Mr or Sir, etc. So, in the work place, if an atheist wants to get my attention, they can't say "Mr. Smith?". They must say, "Saint Smith?"

Now, let's say that a large number of people aren't doing it, because, well, they just don't like the connotation behind calling people saints who may not actually be saintly at all. Well, that makes the Christians mad, because, it is offensive to suggest that they are not saints; it amounts to an attack on the core of their character, who they desire to be.

We end up in a situation where, if you don't call me Saint Broom, then you're a bad person and it might even make me feel so bad about myself that I might self harm as a result. You wouldn't want that, would you?

It's an unpleasant way to address the issue.

 

[Tim Broom]

You can't control how people lable you.

Sure, but the idea was for people to control how they label others. I'm not asking anyone to behave in a way they don't want to, but rather I am suggesting the way many behave could be more productive if they chose to change.

Sure, in this case the topic is the trans community in general, but the same argument can be applied to the people criticizing the trans community; there's A LOT of change they could be making to make things better.

 

[Tim Broom]

My rule is to call people what they want to be called; it costs me nothing and shows respect.

What about when people demand? Does your rule to do whatever they want you to do still apply?

 

[Tim Broom]

(because if someone were mean and rude to them, they'd certainly push back).

Maybe they would be mean in return, though the Christian approach is not to push back when others spitefully use us and say all manner of nasty things against us, but rather to forgive them.

My concern is that being mean and politely abstaining are essentially synonymous when it comes to criticizing non-compliance. In other words, there is an inherent assumption that someone who chooses not to participate is necessarily a mean person, not because of the reasons they give for abstaining but because "being mean" is built into the definition of choosing not to participate, i.e. "If you don't give me the special words, then you're being mean to me".

I do not think this makes for healthy relationships, even if you did get your way.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Sure, but the idea was for people to control how they label others. I'm not asking anyone to behave in a way they don't want to, but rather I am suggesting the way many behave could be more productive if they chose to change.

Sure, in this case the topic is the trans community in general, but the same argument can be applied to the people criticizing the trans community; there's A LOT of change they could be making to make things better.

No, not really. No one can choose how another person lables or feels about another person. You and I were talking about a Canadian law that doesn't apply in the US and no one has been charged with.

 

[Milk-Drops]

What about when people demand? Does your rule to do whatever they want you to do still apply?

what is even the scenario you are even afraid of. These arguments are so abstract.

 

[Barbarian]

What about when people demand? Does your rule to do whatever they want you to do still apply?

They don't have to demand. I was raised to call people what they want to be called. I think you're a little confused; calling people what they want to be called is not the same thing as having to do whatever they want you to do.

 

[Barbarian]

My concern is that being mean and politely abstaining are essentially synonymous when it comes to criticizing non-compliance. In other words, there is an inherent assumption that someone who chooses not to participate is necessarily a mean person, not because of the reasons they give for abstaining but because "being mean" is built into the definition of choosing not to participate, i.e. "If you don't give me the special words, then you're being mean to me".

That seems to be the thinking of people on the far right.

 

[Tim Broom]

No one can choose how another person lables or feels about another person.

Not normally, no. You have to disguise it, first, so that you can get what you want and still come across as reasonable.

That is the danger inherent in arguing that a person who chooses not to use the special words is, by definition, being offensive. The force, or compusion, in this case, is the leveraging of personal feelings a person may have about himself, which are then equated to what it means to be a human. Therefore, if you don't validate their feelings through the use of this special language, you then become guilty of denying this person a basic human right.

I don't believe the public should be compelled to participate in the personal views one has about himself, even if refusing to participate hurts his feelings. His feelings about himself should not get to dictate what I think is or isn't right to say, just like I do not owe it to any man to call him master just because he thinks he deserves the title.

 

[Barbarian]

That is the danger inherent in arguing that a person who chooses not to use the special words is, by definition, being offensive.

First Amendment gives us the right to be offensive. If you want to shout the F-word in public, you have a perfect right to do it. On the other hand, language that incites violence would be a different issue. You can denounce Donald Trump for being a sexual offender, (truth is an absolute defense against slander charges) but if you were to advocate violence against him, that would be an entirely different thing. That would be, even if he were a private citizen, criminal.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Not normally, no. You have to disguise it, first, so that you can get what you want and still come across as reasonable.

This is conspiracy thinking. You are automaticly assuming there is bad intent and showing us you are not having this discussion in good faith.

That is the danger inherent in arguing that a person who chooses not to use the special words is, by definition, being offensive.

No one has made that argument. You having been arguing that you should be able to offend them. That is the only way your argument works.

The force, or compusion, in this case, is the leveraging of personal feelings a person may have about himself, which are then equated to what it means to be a human. Therefore, if you don't validate their feelings through the use of this special language, you then become guilty of denying this person a basic human right.

You are arguing with an imaginary enemy. You said himself, but there are both male and female trans people. Ironically I know more people who are FTM ( female to male) trans. They just don't make good fodder for sjw cringe compilations from 8 years ago. Also many of us here in this thread have pointed out that that is not how the law you even cited works. The law is an expansion of protection against harassment.

I don't believe the public should be compelled to participate in the personal views one has about himself, even if refusing to participate hurts his feelings. His feelings about himself should not get to dictate what I think is or isn't right to say, just like I do not owe it to any man to call him master just because he thinks he deserves the title.

Good new, there are no laws like that, and we have pointed that out multiple times. You are afraid of something that doesn't exist. You are making the same mistake as Jordan Peterson and showing us you haven't read the law or understand that that law doesn't apply to you since you live in the US and not Canada via your profile.

 

[Tim Broom]

You having been arguing that you should be able to offend them. That is the only way your argument works.

See? You're stuck in this thinking that a refusal to participate automatically counts as offensive. It would be like me saying that you're being offensive if you don't call me master when you talk to me. Your argument is that reasoning, motivations, and demeanour would count for nothing; if you are not given the special word, then the person is automatically guilty because, well, that's what hurt feelings mean, obviously. If a person hurts your feelings, then that's all that matters; they are guilty simply for the way they made you feel.

Well, I'm not interested in participating in your personal feelings about yourself. I'm not gonna be rude to you, but I'm also not gonna jump through hoops just because your lower lip trembles and your eyes glisten.

 

[Tim Broom]

On the other hand, language that incites violence would be a different issue.

Right, this has been my point; you are indirectly linking the "incitement of violence" with refusing to use the special words the lgbtq community demands for themselves.

It's an argument made by many people in the lgbtq community; refusal to play along equates to violence against them, with some of them even suggesting the refusal to play along amounts to genocide.

For the most part, if a man was genuinely transitioning to a woman and doing everything he could to look and act like a woman, then most people would probably be fine using feminine pronouns for him.

But, many in the lgbtq community are not doing straightforward transitions. They shuffle from one look to another for male AND female, sometimes even switching pronouns from day to day depending on how they feel about themselves.

I should not be obligated to play along with that person's day to day feelings about himself, whether through penal codes OR social pressure. I'm not being rude to opt out of his feelings about himself. I can play along if I want, but I should not be obligated to do so. Do you see the difference?

 

[Barbarian]

Right, this has been my point; you are indirectly linking the "incitement of violence" with refusing to use the special words the lgbtq community demands for themselves.

No. That's how people who hate other people frame it; I'm sure if you thought about it, you'd not say this. I'm merely pointing out that people are free to spew hate as long as they don't harm others or incite violence.

It's an argument made by many people in the lgbtq community; refusal to play along equates to violence against them, with some of them even suggesting the refusal to play along amounts to genocide.

Sounds a bit hysterical to me. But no one I've seen among those actually have said that. I've heard a lot more of that that talk from bigots than from lgbtq people.

For the most part, if a man was genuinely transitioning to a woman and doing everything he could to look and act like a woman, then most people would probably be fine using feminine pronouns for him.

Most people. But most people aren't the problem. It's the few who hate them that are the problem.

But, many in the lgbtq community are not doing straightforward transitions. They shuffle from one look to another for male AND female, sometimes even switching pronouns from day to day depending on how they feel about themselves.

Why do you think that would harm me?

I should not be obligated to play along with that person's day to day feelings about himself, whether through penal codes OR social pressure.

You don't have to. I get that some people fear trans people, or are morbidly fascinated with them. You aren't obligated to join them.

I can play along if I want, but I should not be obligated to do so.

That's what I told you. Long as you don't incite violence or otherwise try to harm people, you can do as you wish.

 

[Tim Broom]

You aren't obligated to join them.

But, it's a black choice. I can choose not to join them, but I'll be accused of hating them for it.

 

[Barbarian]

But, it's a black choice. I can choose not to join them, but I'll be accused of hating them for it.

I never was. But then, no one ever got offended by my respectful disagreement. That's the part that people forget.

Of course, anyone is free to spew hatred, and anyone is free to be offended by it. That's how a free society works.

 

[Tim Broom]

But then, no one ever got offended by my respectful disagreement.

Well, that's what I'm talking about, too. Respectful disagreement. Did you see the video that made Jordan Peterson famous? They make all the same arguments I've been pointing out in this thread, and it wasn't respectful. Even supporters, like yourself, are embarrassed by reference to that video.

The part at 11:43, is quite telling. The guy asks Peterson if he'd be willing to use they/them pronouns for individuals who want them, and Peterson responds that it would depend on how the person asked. That's reasonable. If you're gonna be rude or demanding, then I'm not obligated to go along with what your preferences. It's okay for Peterson, or anyone, to set a boundary like that. If you're demanding about it, I won't go along. That is very reasonable.

However, note how the guy immediately declares that Peterson's caveat amounts to a refusal. He's declaring that even IF the pronouns are demanded in a rude way, If Peterson does not agree to play along, then it is he (Peterson) who is being rude. That is not good thinking.

In fact, Peterson did not refuse, but this kid had zero issue with re-writing reality to fit his feelings in the moment.

That has been my concern, here; there has been a consistent attempt to minimize fairly genuine concerns about the social pressure to conform to the use of special words to satisfy what really is a mental health condition (i.e. body dysphoria).

And, perhaps more concerning, is the assertion that people who choose not to conform are necessarily guilty of hate. That is the compulsion, that is the force; it is social pressure. Look at all the intolerance J.K. Rowling has been going through over the past few years simply because she chose not to participate in the belief that a biological man can become an actual woman.

People are calling for her arrest because her opinion on the issue amounts to emotional harm which could lead unstable people to take their own lives as a result of her disagreement with their ideals about themselves.

A few people in the aforementioned video make a similar point, accusing Peterson of being guilty of causing confused people to become depressed and self-harm. You can see an example starting at 8:14, where a guy talks about all the harm that comes to the trans people he cares about. Peterson says he disagrees with that kind of harmful treatment of the trans community, but then the woman filming interjects, implying that he contributes to that bad behaviour by not using the special words.

Using people's feelings about themselves, and possible mental health issues they may have, to coerce compliance from others isn't okay, yet that is pretty much all we see from the kids in the video, which is what makes it so difficult to watch.

While many people have criticized the kids in the video for being rude, those kind of arguments and manipulative tactics still prevail in the trans-community.

 

[Milk-Drops]

See? You're stuck in this thinking that a refusal to participate automatically counts as offensive. It would be like me saying that you're being offensive if you don't call me master when you talk to me. Your argument is that reasoning, motivations, and demeanour would count for nothing; if you are not given the special word, then the person is automatically guilty because, well, that's what hurt feelings mean, obviously. If a person hurts your feelings, then that's all that matters; they are guilty simply for the way they madeholidays.

I am not saying that at all. Its clear you want to argue against an irational person who is making specific demands of you. No one has made that argument to you. No one on this site has accused you of anything or made any specific claims against you. No one has said they are offended.

Well, I'm not interested in participating in your personal feelings about yourself. I'm not gonna be rude to you, but I'm also not gonna jump through hoops just because your lower lip trembles and your eyes glisten.

Can you point to anyone in this thread who said they are offended? So far the only one who has gotten worked up is you. It's not 2016 anymore, there is no rabbit mob of sjws comming to demand you call them special pronouns.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Well, that's what I'm talking about, too. Respectful disagreement. Did you see the video that made Jordan Peterson famous? They make all the same arguments I've been pointing out in this thread, and it wasn't respectful. Even supporters, like yourself, are embarrassed by reference to that video.

The part at 11:43, is quite telling. The guy asks Peterson if he'd be willing to use they/them pronouns for individuals who want them, and Peterson responds that it would depend on how the person asked. That's reasonable. If you're gonna be rude or demanding, then I'm not obligated to go along with what your preferences. It's okay for Peterson, or anyone, to set a boundary like that. If you're demanding about it, I won't go along. That is very reasonable.

However, note how the guy immediately declares that Peterson's caveat amounts to a refusal. He's declaring that even IF the pronouns are demanded in a rude way, If Peterson does not agree to play along, then it is he (Peterson) who is being rude. That is not good thinking.

In fact, Peterson did not refuse, but this kid had zero issue with re-writing reality to fit his feelings in the moment.

That has been my concern, here; there has been a consistent attempt to minimize fairly genuine concerns about the social pressure to conform to the use of special words to satisfy what really is a mental health condition (i.e. body dysphoria).

And, perhaps more concerning, is the assertion that people who choose not to conform are necessarily guilty of hate. That is the compulsion, that is the force; it is social pressure. Look at all the intolerance J.K. Rowling has been going through over the past few years simply because she chose not to participate in the belief that a biological man can become an actual woman.

People are calling for her arrest because her opinion on the issue amounts to emotional harm which could lead unstable people to take their own lives as a result of her disagreement with their ideals about themselves.

A few people in the aforementioned video make a similar point, accusing Peterson of being guilty of causing confused people to become depressed and self-harm. You can see an example starting at 8:14, where a guy talks about all the harm that comes to the trans people he cares about. Peterson says he disagrees with that kind of harmful treatment of the trans community, but then the woman filming interjects, implying that he contributes to that bad behaviour by not using the special words.

Using people's feelings about themselves, and possible mental health issues they may have, to coerce compliance from others isn't okay, yet that is pretty much all we see from the kids in the video, which is what makes it so difficult to watch.

While many people have criticized the kids in the video for being rude, those kind of arguments and manipulative tactics still prevail in the trans-community.

Dude, that video is 9 years old and you keep ignoring that no one has been prosecuted over the law Peterson was even arguing over. The "kids" in the video would be in their late 20s to early 30s now.