Quizzes & Puzzles65 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.
//Or, even more recently, substitute it all for "gay". Some of the arguments are beat-for-beat identical.
My particular argument (as put above) is nowhere near identical. Gay people seeking to end discrimination against them did not seek to trash the rights of others. Many transgender people (particularly those who shout the loudest) most certainly do. It is that which I find objectionable.
//Why should transgender people be seen as having a "problem", any more than gay, or bi, people?//
It’s not they who have the problem. The people who have it are those around them – particularly women – who don’t want their single-sex spaces and facilities encroached upon by members of the opposite sex. The problem manifests itself by biological males/females simply announcing that they are no longer following the rules and traditions of their sex at birth but instead want to follow those of the opposite sex.
//I'm interested in how, within the framework you've established, bigotry would still exist against transgender people.//
The definition of bigotry is objective (as per the dictionary definition) but it includes a requirement (that the belief held is “unreasonable”) which is very subjective. You don’t find unreasonable what many other people do find most objectionable. Ergo, anybody who disagrees with you is necessarily a bigot.
//Putting the power to potentially discriminate against genuine trans boys and girls is a dangerous step in a free society.//
They are necessarily going to face “discrimination” (in inverted commas because it is nothing of the sort) for one very simple reason – many facilities and provisions are segregated on the basis of biological sex. The only way to avoid such discrimination is to accept that it is unnecessary to provide that segregation. If I wanted to use the ladies’ changing rooms at my local swimming pool I would, thankfully, be prevented from doing so. But according to the dogma that is being pursued, if I simply announce, when buying my ticket “I’m a woman now” it would be OK. Can you not see how ludicrous that would be?
My particular argument (as put above) is nowhere near identical. Gay people seeking to end discrimination against them did not seek to trash the rights of others. Many transgender people (particularly those who shout the loudest) most certainly do. It is that which I find objectionable.
//Why should transgender people be seen as having a "problem", any more than gay, or bi, people?//
It’s not they who have the problem. The people who have it are those around them – particularly women – who don’t want their single-sex spaces and facilities encroached upon by members of the opposite sex. The problem manifests itself by biological males/females simply announcing that they are no longer following the rules and traditions of their sex at birth but instead want to follow those of the opposite sex.
//I'm interested in how, within the framework you've established, bigotry would still exist against transgender people.//
The definition of bigotry is objective (as per the dictionary definition) but it includes a requirement (that the belief held is “unreasonable”) which is very subjective. You don’t find unreasonable what many other people do find most objectionable. Ergo, anybody who disagrees with you is necessarily a bigot.
//Putting the power to potentially discriminate against genuine trans boys and girls is a dangerous step in a free society.//
They are necessarily going to face “discrimination” (in inverted commas because it is nothing of the sort) for one very simple reason – many facilities and provisions are segregated on the basis of biological sex. The only way to avoid such discrimination is to accept that it is unnecessary to provide that segregation. If I wanted to use the ladies’ changing rooms at my local swimming pool I would, thankfully, be prevented from doing so. But according to the dogma that is being pursued, if I simply announce, when buying my ticket “I’m a woman now” it would be OK. Can you not see how ludicrous that would be?
//Naomi, you've dodged the question as to whether the rights apparently being conferred to schools may result in bigotry towards genuine Trans boys and girls,...//
No, it does not amount to bigotry. It amounts to schools being permitted to conduct their affairs along the lines that the vast majority of the pupils' parents want.
No, it does not amount to bigotry. It amounts to schools being permitted to conduct their affairs along the lines that the vast majority of the pupils' parents want.
'Gay people seeking to end discrimination against them did not seek to trash the rights of others'
I'm fairly sure (as it seems reasonable to assume) that genuine trans boys and girls (and adults for that matter) wouldn't want to trash anyones rights. It's the hangers on and the fashion trans people who are making things worse. What training have schools received to make the distinction between genuine trans people and these faux ones?
I'm fairly sure (as it seems reasonable to assume) that genuine trans boys and girls (and adults for that matter) wouldn't want to trash anyones rights. It's the hangers on and the fashion trans people who are making things worse. What training have schools received to make the distinction between genuine trans people and these faux ones?
“ Gay people seeking to end discrimination against them did not seek to trash the rights of others. Many transgender people (particularly those who shout the loudest) most certainly do.”
this is simply not true and you are once again framing transgender people as a hostile threatening force while insisting you have no “gripe” with them… it is extremely dishonest
opponents of gay rights at the time actually did accuse gay people of trying to take away majority rights and of attacking the “normal” family… there were likewise similar “concerns” (funny how that euphemism always comes up) that tolerating homosexuals would give the green light to pervs and predators wanting access to children…
people say exactly the same things now about trans people almost word for word and it’s the same thing now as it was then!
this is simply not true and you are once again framing transgender people as a hostile threatening force while insisting you have no “gripe” with them… it is extremely dishonest
opponents of gay rights at the time actually did accuse gay people of trying to take away majority rights and of attacking the “normal” family… there were likewise similar “concerns” (funny how that euphemism always comes up) that tolerating homosexuals would give the green light to pervs and predators wanting access to children…
people say exactly the same things now about trans people almost word for word and it’s the same thing now as it was then!
NJ: // The definition of bigotry is objective (as per the dictionary definition) but it includes a requirement (that the belief held is “unreasonable”) which is very subjective. You don’t find unreasonable what many other people do find most objectionable. Ergo, anybody who disagrees with you is necessarily a bigot. //
First of all, the last line isn't true at all: reasonable people can reasonably disagree. But secondly, this continues to make the same mistake. I'm not discussing *my* definition of bigotry, or how *I* would see it manifested towards transgender people. I'm asking about *yours*. I'm asking where *you* draw the line between a reasonable, as you see it, position, and an unreasonable one, when it comes to transgender people. It's the same question I'm asking Naomi.
There's no trap here. I'm not waiting for you to define it so that I can turn around and say, perhaps, "aha! Here's a post from you three years ago that arguably strays into bigotry as you define it!" It doesn't matter what I think. Where do *you* draw the line?
Allow me to help you a little. You would always call a person by their given or preferred name, and have actively stepped up here to protect their rights to be so called by removing comments that do not. This is a clear distinction to be drawn here. I don't think it's unreasonable to regard not even affording that most basic right, of a person to have their own name, as making out somebody who is bigoted.
But this can hardly be the only distinction. What else?
First of all, the last line isn't true at all: reasonable people can reasonably disagree. But secondly, this continues to make the same mistake. I'm not discussing *my* definition of bigotry, or how *I* would see it manifested towards transgender people. I'm asking about *yours*. I'm asking where *you* draw the line between a reasonable, as you see it, position, and an unreasonable one, when it comes to transgender people. It's the same question I'm asking Naomi.
There's no trap here. I'm not waiting for you to define it so that I can turn around and say, perhaps, "aha! Here's a post from you three years ago that arguably strays into bigotry as you define it!" It doesn't matter what I think. Where do *you* draw the line?
Allow me to help you a little. You would always call a person by their given or preferred name, and have actively stepped up here to protect their rights to be so called by removing comments that do not. This is a clear distinction to be drawn here. I don't think it's unreasonable to regard not even affording that most basic right, of a person to have their own name, as making out somebody who is bigoted.
But this can hardly be the only distinction. What else?
// “ Gay people seeking to end discrimination against them did not seek to trash the rights of others. Many transgender people (particularly those who shout the loudest) most certainly do.”
this is simply not true and you are once again framing transgender people as a hostile threatening force while insisting you have no “gripe” with them… it is extremely dishonest
opponents of gay rights at the time actually did accuse gay people of trying to take away majority rights and of attacking the “normal” family…//
Indeed, untitled -- there's a lot of historical revisionism going on here. Essentially, because gay rights "won" in the end, people tend to forget what a fierce battle it "was" -- and still is, for that matter.
this is simply not true and you are once again framing transgender people as a hostile threatening force while insisting you have no “gripe” with them… it is extremely dishonest
opponents of gay rights at the time actually did accuse gay people of trying to take away majority rights and of attacking the “normal” family…//
Indeed, untitled -- there's a lot of historical revisionism going on here. Essentially, because gay rights "won" in the end, people tend to forget what a fierce battle it "was" -- and still is, for that matter.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank103 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles104 mins ago
Horror As 'Man Doused In Bleach' In Busy...
News178 mins ago
Film, Media & TV192 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles235 mins ago
