ChatterBank14 mins ago
Finally Some Common Sense
239 Answers
Single-sex schools will be able to reject transgender pupils and teachers can refuse to call children by their preferred pronouns under new Government guidelines
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
new judge provides a dictionary definition of bigotry and then talks about himself... chiefly why he doesn't consider himself a bigot (and no bigot ever does)
what he doesn't say is what prejudice against transgender people would actually look like because it's indistinguishable from his own opinions
what he doesn't say is what prejudice against transgender people would actually look like because it's indistinguishable from his own opinions
There's no point in referring me to an answer that I've clearly already read, when I've also explained why it doesn't answer my question. Surely you can see that NJ's answer is primarily devoted to explaining why his opinions aren't an example of bigotry, rather than why some hypothetical other opinion would be.
Clearly bigotry exists in all areas of life. Also, clearly, in this specific context we'd define it very differently. Or, at least, I assume that we do, because you are refusing to define it or to provide an example, so that I can't compare.
Even if you want to refer to NJ's post, there's still a follow-up question: what counts, in your view, as an *unreasonable* belief (or an unreasonable attachment to a belief) towards, or about, transgender people?
Clearly bigotry exists in all areas of life. Also, clearly, in this specific context we'd define it very differently. Or, at least, I assume that we do, because you are refusing to define it or to provide an example, so that I can't compare.
Even if you want to refer to NJ's post, there's still a follow-up question: what counts, in your view, as an *unreasonable* belief (or an unreasonable attachment to a belief) towards, or about, transgender people?
// ... for the past year or so I've been in conversation with two young teenagers who assured me that 'Loads' of people in their school who identify as the opposite sex were very genuine and that they were actively supported both by the school and by the other children. ... Now they tell me that the vast majority of them are attention seekers.... This stuff is being force fed to our children - and that has to stop. It's not fair to any of them - including those who really do have a genuine problem. //
I lightly edited the comment above, but I hope you'll agree that it doesn't change the substance.
In any case, I think the revealing part of this is the final word: "problem". Why should transgender people be seen as having a "problem", any more than gay, or bi, people? It's that attitude that, I think, is causing the issue, far more than overenthusiastic support.
What's going on at schools could as well be categorised as a normal experimentation that many children grow up through. Harm is caused when you respond to that experimentation dismissively, or use rhetoric that implies that it's shameful. Inasmuch as we should be careful not to push experimentation "too far", to the point that a given child regrets it, then, sure, we should be careful, but I don't agree at all that this is what's happening, and to the extent that you see this it's because your starting point is so dismissive in the first place. "Attention seekers", "force fed", "a genuine problem"... this is the language that makes it taboo. And, perhaps a touch ironically, the more taboo something is made to seem, the more attractive it can become.
If you do wish to support genuine transgender people, a good way to start is to reframe your language to strip the negativity surrounding it.
I lightly edited the comment above, but I hope you'll agree that it doesn't change the substance.
In any case, I think the revealing part of this is the final word: "problem". Why should transgender people be seen as having a "problem", any more than gay, or bi, people? It's that attitude that, I think, is causing the issue, far more than overenthusiastic support.
What's going on at schools could as well be categorised as a normal experimentation that many children grow up through. Harm is caused when you respond to that experimentation dismissively, or use rhetoric that implies that it's shameful. Inasmuch as we should be careful not to push experimentation "too far", to the point that a given child regrets it, then, sure, we should be careful, but I don't agree at all that this is what's happening, and to the extent that you see this it's because your starting point is so dismissive in the first place. "Attention seekers", "force fed", "a genuine problem"... this is the language that makes it taboo. And, perhaps a touch ironically, the more taboo something is made to seem, the more attractive it can become.
If you do wish to support genuine transgender people, a good way to start is to reframe your language to strip the negativity surrounding it.
I can't speak for others as I don't know their attitudes. It's becoming increasingly apparent that anybody who disagrees on a particular issue is automatically labelled a bigot. I've tried to explain my attitude against the dictionary definition. I agree my view is obstinate. The question is whether it is unreasonable (and I suggest it needs to be both before it reaches the stage of bigotry). So, is it reasonable for a man to (a) claim he is a woman simply because he says he is (which doesn't bother me - or most I should imagine)? Then (b) because of that claim, demand he is treated as a woman and have access to women-only spaces and facilities (which certainly does bother me and I imagine many others). It's interesting that those on the opposite side of this argument to me never answer the above questions in a straightforward way.
If you find that both the above are reasonable, I don't. If that makes me a bigot then feel free. I've broad shoulders and I would sooner preserve the rights of the majority rather than trash them to accommodate a very small minority. I'm simply pleased that the government has come round to my way of thinking.
//Putting the power to discriminate (for whatever reason) in the hands of people in authority is NEVER a good thing.//
Segregation by biological sex in certain circumstances is not discriminatory, Zacs. The law provides for it. Unfortunately a number of institutions and organisations have seen fit to ignore that principle and put the rights of the vast majority at risk.
If you find that both the above are reasonable, I don't. If that makes me a bigot then feel free. I've broad shoulders and I would sooner preserve the rights of the majority rather than trash them to accommodate a very small minority. I'm simply pleased that the government has come round to my way of thinking.
//Putting the power to discriminate (for whatever reason) in the hands of people in authority is NEVER a good thing.//
Segregation by biological sex in certain circumstances is not discriminatory, Zacs. The law provides for it. Unfortunately a number of institutions and organisations have seen fit to ignore that principle and put the rights of the vast majority at risk.
// I can't speak for others as I don't know their attitudes. It's becoming increasingly apparent that anybody who disagrees on a particular issue is automatically labelled a bigot. I've tried to explain my attitude against the dictionary definition. ... If you find that both the above are reasonable, I don't. If that makes me a bigot then feel free. //
This completely misunderstands why I was asking. I'm not interested in establishing whether or not your opinions are bigoted. That's something we'll have to form a separate opinion on. You can justify your view however you wish. I'm interested in how, within the framework you've established, bigotry would still exist against transgender people.
This completely misunderstands why I was asking. I'm not interested in establishing whether or not your opinions are bigoted. That's something we'll have to form a separate opinion on. You can justify your view however you wish. I'm interested in how, within the framework you've established, bigotry would still exist against transgender people.
It may be that the reason you're so hesitant to answer is that you think I'm asking to "trap" you into "admitting" that you yourself are a bigot, or expressing bigoted opinions. But, in any case, this isn't why I'm asking.
A bigoted opinion can often seem superficially reasonable. It may start from a position that is unobjectionable. But, at some point, it crosses that line and strays into unreasonableness, inappropriate language and restrictions, attitudes that cause harm, and loses any touch with the starting point. It's a mistake to regard a bigoted opinion as necessarily unreasonable from the outset. Of course, sometimes it may well be wholly unreasonable, but, to the bigot, their opinion is completely logical and coherent according to their own internal world-view; the question becomes where that stops being true to an outside observer.
In short, for some bigots, you'd disagree entirely with what they say; for others, you might have some common ground, but hold that, at some point, they go too far.
It's obvious that someone who holds bigoted views against trans people would share some common ground with you. At what point would you hold that they go too far?
A bigoted opinion can often seem superficially reasonable. It may start from a position that is unobjectionable. But, at some point, it crosses that line and strays into unreasonableness, inappropriate language and restrictions, attitudes that cause harm, and loses any touch with the starting point. It's a mistake to regard a bigoted opinion as necessarily unreasonable from the outset. Of course, sometimes it may well be wholly unreasonable, but, to the bigot, their opinion is completely logical and coherent according to their own internal world-view; the question becomes where that stops being true to an outside observer.
In short, for some bigots, you'd disagree entirely with what they say; for others, you might have some common ground, but hold that, at some point, they go too far.
It's obvious that someone who holds bigoted views against trans people would share some common ground with you. At what point would you hold that they go too far?
