You do realize that you’re in the second group, yeah? That’s wildly hateful. It’s the exact same discrimination-based position but on gender identity instead of race.
I'm either 100% on your side or I'm in the same group as the KKK? Do you not see the parallel here of forcing people into binary categories of being male or female? If gender can be non-binary why can't political correctness be as well?
The biases of binary thinking pervades even those that believe themselves to be beyond it.
To me it seems clear that GP wrote without hate. A charitable reading is that they just don't have the experience to understand transgender experience.
In the context of a discussion about the motivations for and arguments against political correctness it seems to me that we should try to create a safe space for folks (like deltasevennine) to express their perspectives evidently offered in good faith. (Even, and especially, if they seem wrong. You can't have a constructive discussion slinging mud.)
- - - -
> That to me is a profound question, and the core central question that's being asked by this culture war. We'd all be happier if everyone was politically correct. But of course we'd also be, in a way, lying to ourselves.
To me too this is a profound and fascinating question. It cuts to the epistemological root of the matter. "How do you know?"
I think a lot of what we're seeing as culture war actually boils down to an axis of Cosmopolitan vs. Provincial. With the advent of globalism and the Internet everyone has to confront everyone else in a giant distributed city. Things that seemed like bedrock (i.e. "There are only two genders") crash up against reality where that "rule" is just not applicable (i.e. there are human cultures with more than two genders, and biologically there are e.g. hermaphrodites, etc.)
>Things that seemed like bedrock (i.e. "There are only two genders") crash up against reality where that "rule" is just not applicable (i.e. there are human cultures with more than two genders, and biologically there are e.g. hermaphrodites, etc.)
Have you heard of BIID?
The term body integrity identity disorder (BIID) describes the extremely rare phenomenon of persons who desire the amputation of one or more healthy limbs or who desire a paralysis. Some of these persons mutilate themselves; others ask surgeons for an amputation or for the transection of their spinal cord. Psychologists and physicians explain this phenomenon in quite different ways; but a successful psychotherapeutic or pharmaceutical therapy is not known. Lobbies of persons suffering from BIID explain the desire for amputation in analogy to the desire of transsexuals for surgical sex reassignment. Medical ethicists discuss the controversy about elective amputations of healthy limbs: on the one hand the principle of autonomy is used to deduce the right for body modifications; on the other hand the autonomy of BIID patients is doubted. Neurological results suggest that BIID is a brain disorder producing a disruption of the body image, for which parallels for stroke patients are known. If BIID were a neuropsychological disturbance, which includes missing insight into the illness and a specific lack of autonomy, then amputations would be contraindicated and must be evaluated as bodily injuries of mentally disordered patients. Instead of only curing the symptom, a causal therapy should be developed to integrate the alien limb into the body image.
Transexual sex reassignment involves the usage of chemicals and surgery that twists the flesh of their genitals to look like the opposite sex. The parallel with BIID is uncanny. Yet one is considered truth and normal, while the other is considered to be a disease.
How do I know? I don't. But I get your point. Things that seem like a Bedrock truth can change. But did it change for the better? Is the new truth... the actual truth... or not? The existence of BIID and it's almost identical parallel to transexualism confuses me.
BIID feels wrong. That's about as far as I can get. But if someone truly desires to amputate a limb... who are we to stop him? What right do we have to call what they feel a disease?
I bring up BIID because I have a strong feeling that it's wrong... That what they feel is universally agreed to NOT be the objective truth. But I cannot grasp the logic behind it. If I examine BIID long enough I feel eventually the logic behind this controversy can be crystallized.
I don't have the answers either, but I can throw out some ideas and maybe there'll be something constructive in it, eh?
I was brought up with the general idea that what consenting adults get up to is pretty much their own business. E.g. if a guy wants to wear a dress or two women want to get married or Tilda Swinton is just over the whole gender thing or whatever, it ain't no skin off my nose, eh?
But in practice "there are limits", for me I get uncomfortable with autophagy and cannibalism. There have been a few cases of voluntary cannibalism!? That's where I draw the line personally. To each his own, but you can't eat each other, or yourself. BIID too for that matter falls into the "beyond the pale" category for me. (But even then, if the otherwise healthy limb is causing serious distress somehow? And we can't operate on the brain to fix the cause? Maybe you do remove the limb? What if you take it off and the problem remains!? Phantom BIID?)
Really, though, this is between the person and their doctor. It's none of our business. That should be emphasized IMO: if this is a medical condition we're talking about then it's just deeply inappropriate for other people to meddle, IMO.
Next, the thought occurs that there's at least one very obvious difference between BIID and gender change: having a limb off is generally bad, whereas being a woman (or man) is generally A-Ok.
It's fine to be a man, it's fine to be a woman, but changing from one to the other is not fine? "Where's the fun in that?" as John Cleese often says.
Also, people don't typically beat up or murder folks for having BIID. When we're discussing things like societal acceptance of transgender folks, you have to keep in mind the historical (and in many places still current) violence that they have had to put up with. It's not an armchair discussion for these folks. They are fighting for their lives. (E.g. talking in code: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polari )
I grew up reading sci-fi stories where e.g. a man might take a pill before bed and wake up a woman. To me the future would obviously and naturally have gender change as a normal thing (though perhaps uncommon) along with things like new synthetic genders, or body changes like fur or tails, or even becoming "transhuman" entirely though mutation or "uploading". What gender is a disembodied consciousness in a cybernetic matrix anyway, eh?
Last but not least, speaking as someone who has dedicated much of his life to logic, the world is trans-logical. You're talking about "grasping the logic" or crystallizing the logic, which is a good thing to do: logic is better than illogic. I'm pointing out that the real world is not fully covered by logic, in fact only a tiny minuscule portion of the real world is susceptible to logical comprehension. This doesn't mean a descent into irrationality, rather it leads to a new higher-order rationality that can take into account contradictory models and yet still function.
>When we're discussing things like societal acceptance of transgender folks.
This is a separate discussion and it often conflates with the the discussion of truth and fiction. Yes we should accept both people with BIID and transgender people into our society with respect and empathy. But the main question is how should we interpret their place in society? Do we interpret BIID as normal or a disorder? Do we interpret transgenderism as a disorder or totally and completely normal?
>Next, the thought occurs that there's at least one very obvious difference between BIID and gender change: having a limb off is generally bad, whereas being a woman (or man) is generally A-Ok.
It's debatable whether it's ok. The line is blurry here. A genital sex change does involve mutilation of genitals and re-sculpting of flesh in the genitalia area and breast area. It also involves experimental treatment with certain hormones that were previously used to chemically castrate male sex offenders. Some of these treatments are being recommended to kids before puberty and before 18. It is borderline similar to BIID as it is involves desires to physically carve into flesh and make irreversible modifications.
It's even arguable that BIID involves similar brain chemistry mechanisms as transgenderism as it is arguably an abnormal/ interpretation of "self", meaning that if BIID is classified as a disease it's not to far off to call transgenderism a disease as well. The big question here is, if cures for BIID existed in pill form, is it moral to offer them to BIID patients? If so if the same pills existed for transgenderism... is it moral to offer them too? Maybe given no cures for either the best path is to acknowledge both people with BIID or transgenderism as completely normal.
>BIID too for that matter falls into the "beyond the pale" category for me.
Me too. And for many... transgenderism also falls beyond the pale. It's understandable why. Both BIID and transgender people exist in nature. But for both they are statistical anomalies. Fewer then 1% of the population across occupy a gender category other then the traditional binary roles they were born with.
So what is beyond the pale? If personally, for yo,u Gender isn't beyond the pale But BIID is... why is your opinion more valid then someone else who thinks that Gender is beyond the pale?
> I'm pointing out that the real world is not fully covered by logic, in fact only a tiny minuscule portion of the real world is susceptible to logical comprehension.
I don't. Logic is the ___domain of mathematics. Interpretation of the world is based off of opinion, not logic.
However, such interpretations of the world should remain logically consistent. Meaning if you should believe racism is wrong but black people are all criminals then something is wrong with your belief system. Everyone agrees that things should remain consistent.
That is the problem here with transgenderism. There is an inconsistency within it. It fits every criteria of what we would classify as a psychological disorder no different then BIID. But what is more important here? The correct categorization of BIID or transgenderism? Or respecting peoples rights to cut off their own limbs/genitalia? Our biased emotions pull us in 3 directions here. Transgender people deserve respect, limbs/genitalia should not be cut off, truth and correct categorization of things should be followed. You cannot follow all 3 tenets at the same time even if you feel they are all right because they are contradictory.
>I grew up reading sci-fi stories where e.g. a man might take a pill before bed and wake up a woman. To me the future would obviously and naturally have gender change as a normal thing (though perhaps uncommon) along with things like new synthetic genders, or body changes like fur or tails, or even becoming "transhuman" entirely though mutation or "uploading". What gender is a disembodied consciousness in a cybernetic matrix anyway, eh?
I mean sure. What if the sci if story talked about a future where people can painlessly cut off their limbs and feed them to other people? We also have technology where people can eat a pill and instantly regrow the lost limb. So people regularly cut off their limbs and feed each other for fun? This might seem cool to someone with BIID. And logically there's nothing wrong with this future as well. But as you said logic doesn't fully cover the real world.
Why is it that you and I feel that my sci fi universe is strange, while your sci-description of the future is more normal? And what right do we have to enforce our belief that your sci-fi world is more normal then the one I describe? It's totally understandable that many will find the first story just as weird, especially if that person lived in a culture that hasn't been bombarded with media imagery that normalizes transgenderism.
> The language itself isn’t the core issue, it’s the overt repudiation of someone’s identity.
If gender is a social construct then it doesn't really exist except as a cultural artifact. If your identity is based on any kind of social construct, I don't see how it follows that anyone has to agree with or affirm that such claims ought to be a cultural norm.
Furthermore, disagreeing with such claims are cultural disagreements rather than moral disagreements. Cultural disagreements are not innately hateful. Therefore it doesn't seem to follow that affirming gender identity has any moral force, or that not affirming it is innately hateful.
That said, this obviously doesn't justify harassing trans people in any way, shape or form because of such disagreements.
Not OP, but I think we are not obligated to be respectful and nice, but why deliberately be an asshole? It's like someone preferring a nickname. If I know my friend Michael prefers to go by "Mike" and will get upset if I use "Michael", I'm not obligated to call him Mike, but I would be an asshole to deliberately call him Michael. Why be an asshole when you can do something very simple to not be an asshole?
I think I agree with you, up to the line of participation in beliefs I do not share. It would be awful to go out of my way to harass someone with religious dietary requirements, but lacking belief I would refuse to refrain from beef, or go along with fasting during Ramadan.
Calling someone by their preferred nickname or pronouns does not require you to participate in anything. Nobody's asking you to change your own name or fast during Ramadan if you don't want to.
Using another analogy, I have vegetarian friends and acquaintances, and when they come visit, I serve us all veg-friendly food because... I'm not an asshole! Doing this small act does not require me to adopt their religion or become vegetarian myself.
I don't disagree with you on any of this, I think that's a fairly non-controversial opinion. What about things like letting males into female only spaces? Do we have a moral obligation to affirm their identity? Several religions present a duty for women not to expose themselves to men so we have a conflict.
Sure I agree with all of that. However the culture war you see nowadays is the result of etiquette becoming part of compelled behavior enforced by rules and law. Not just that it is redefining our interpretation of reality and science.
It's not just about respect anymore; it's about truth.
Because we didn't want to her feelings Mia, a biological male with a female gender was allowed to compete in women sports. She's dominating that sport now; and it's starting to display a comical mismatch between the old reality and a new reality.
The argument is more complex then simply truth and etiquette. Because proponents of etiquette are literally redefining objective truth. So when you talk to both sides, they literally think they're side is the objective truth. Truth is as fluid as gender and it's literally hard to know which one is real.
There is as much validity to say most humans are male or female as there is to say that gender is a gradient, a small minority of people are neither male or female. These are just arbitrary categorizations that are being redefined.
Huh, TIL. There are two or three shows that I just stopped bothering with altogether on Hulu and have been torrenting for years because of those ads, while we used Hulu for shows that didn't have any ads at all. I wish their communication around this had been stronger, I wonder how long ago I would've stopped pirating them.
Thanks for pointing that out! (And I should dig into those details the next time I share links like that)
Honestly, I hated the people around me trying to learn the same. CS was my original major in university (around 2011), and every interaction I had with my classmates was bizarrely bro-y and negative. Made me afraid that that type of person would be who I’d be working with for the rest of my life, and the thought scared me enough to switch majors into a more businessy/managerial direction.
Interesting! I have degrees in CS and economics, and my experience was that the business school was dramatically more "bro-y" than the CS department. Not doubting you, just really surprised!
My school's CS classes were full of hot, cheerful girls with colorful hair. Reality was I ended up working with hot, cheerful dudes with colorful hair.
At the time I attended, the CS department at my school was still a subset of theoretical math. So my classmates nearly all were polite, if shy, math majors. If it was more oriented towards the brogrammer culture, I’m not sure I would’ve stuck with it either
Halfway —- I’m keeping my subs to indie or inexpensive things (Dropout, CuriosityStream/Nebula) or comped things (Disney Bundle via Amex Plat), and I just recently picked up a couple library cards for Kanopy, Hoopla, Freegal, and PressReader (as well as books). Got rid of Crunchyroll, Apple One, and YouTube Premium.
Officially: no, you need an Oculus account to even get a Quest set up to do streaming, and you need to separately make your account a developer account to unlock sideloading.
