Not necessarily transphobic. Maybe ignorant or clueless or out of touch with recent developments. You could have a strong progressive background and still step on a landmine in this issue. I know I have.
So, that is also one reason I would like this subject to have some sort of limited ban. We have people fully “woke” on this issue who will get their feelings hurt. We will have closet bigots who are transphobic who are trying to hurt peoples feelings, and the well meaning but out of touch posters who get their feelings hurt when called transphobic.
It’s not an “agree to disagree” thing, not when you’ve based your entire first “paradox” on that premise.
Not all differences in treatment are discriminatory (and I’m using “discriminatory” here meaning “making or showing an unfair or prejudicial distinction between different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.” My highlights). That’s just a fact.
No, I’m not here for a Gallop with you. We resolve the first “paradox” or there’s no point continuing.
Yes, it is. I “agree” (offer) to drop the first part because I don’t need it. I make no concessions about what is or is not gender discrimination. Anybody reading this topic who agrees with me will see a paradox, anybody who agrees with you will not.
I made two arguments and presented both of them in the first post. You countered one of my arguments and I decided to let it go rather than derail the conversation.
Yes, you are correct. Dropping arguments as they are shown to be bullshit rather than defending them, and hitting people with multiple arguments at a time, areboth features of the Gallop.
Nope, that wouldn’t address my concerns at all. I think that people should be free to ask questions, however outrageous or insensitive they may seem to people who know the answers, and that the questions should be answered the same way we do for any other questions posed naïvely and in good faith: with reasoned explanations, and giving the posters opportunities to raise objections and post follow-up questions. If it becomes clear that anyone is acting in bad faith, or if they engage in impolite or hateful behaviour (such as deliberately misgendering people) even after it’s explained to them why this is wrong, then let the mods enforce the “don’t be a dick rule” as heavily as they see fit.
There is another set of people who believe that trans people are people and are entitled to all the same rights and privileges as everybody else. However, there are edge cases with respect to certain circumstances in which exceptions can and should be made. This is not to misgender or discriminate but to ensure safety for those who may be vulnerable. It’s important to keep talking about this rather than shut down of conversations, research and public policy on matters which are not settled by “woke” fiat or declarative statements as if it’s all been settled and those who disagree need to get with the program or be considered transphobic.
Attributed to Robert J. Oppenheimer, “To the confusion of our enemies!”, is a common sardonic refrain that is sometimes used as a toast. In this context, the non-binary gender declaration by Page may be seen to serve as a source of confusion to those who do not want to understand or support non-traditional gender roles. e.g.: Somewhere around here is a poster who decided Page’s announcement is logically inconsistent according to rules of algebra.
The non-binary gender declaration was just a non-binary gender declaration. Not intending to confuse. Are you trying to make a joke? This subject is confusing enough for people, I’m not sure you are helping here.
There is some honest confusion to someone using both masculine and gender-neutral pronouns. The strong assumption is that someone saying they prefer he/him also identifies as a man. That may not be the case, but the reality is that most people will assume he=man and it has nothing to do with transphobia. It would be much clearer if he=man, she=woman, they=gender-neutral.