Extremely unpopular to this day.
I’m being asked for the exact moment society as a whole decided that racism was self-evidently wrong. That’s obviously a stupid thing to ask for, and something that nobody could ever provide. All I know, and all anyone knows, is that, at a certain point, it became self-evidently true to society at large that the far right’s claims about black intelligence and criminality were bullshit. That was only able to happen because civil rights movements didn’t give up the fight until it was actually won.
That is very much NOT the question I asked in my previous post.
I note you haven’t addressed my first question, let alone attempted to answer it.
ETA
You were never asked when ‘society decided racism was self-evident’.
You said that. You did not say ‘views that society holds to be self-evidently terrible’. You just said “self-evidently terrible”
Richards was 43 when she competed in the 1977 US Open. The average age of the competitors was in the early 20s. The winner, Chris Evert, was 21. Martina Navritalova was also 21. Tracy Austin was 14. Billie Jean King, one of the oldest competitors and routed by Evert in the quarterfinals, was 33. Age matters in sports.
That’s because the quote you used was from my reply to Miller, not you. And Miller asked “At what point did anti-Black racism become “self-evidently” terrible?”
I’m afraid I’m going to have to leave you hanging for a couple of days as I’m away on a trip until Friday but I’ll address it when I’m able.
Apparently even more than “clear biological advantages”!
How about a ball park estimate? Was it after the Civil War? During the Civil Rights movement? The BLM protests?
Do… do you actually think that’s not already happening? Do you think nobody is out there making positive pro-trans rights arguments? Are you familiar with any of the major names in trans rights advocacy? Have you engaged with the trans rights movement in any way other than reading re-posted Tumblr comments on Reddit?
Do you think that fact that it took a hundred years from the end of slavery to the end of Jim Crow means that Black activists weren’t doing anything for a century? Or do you think they were fighting for their rights as hard as they could, against a massive, entrenched bigotry that took lifetimes to deconstruct? Do you understand that the fact that trans people haven’t already won full equal rights doesn’t automatically mean that the trans rights movement is fucking up, and that they’re fighting similar entrenched bigotry, which is going to be similarly difficult to crack?
Well, at least you’re being open about the victim blaming.
This is an absolutely correct assessment: it is a transparently stupid thing to ask for.
Now try applying it to your own position on trans rights, and see what happens!
Yes, agreed. Such laws are silly and impossible to police. I would prefer that most such situations be left up to common sense, but many people on both sides are determined to apply the straightjacket of the law.
Some guy is actually planning to do this:
Why? People who have looked at all the evidence and listened to each others’ arguments in good faith can still disagree. It happens regularly in hard sciences, let alone in social questions where there is no objectively right answer, and different people will weigh different factors as more or less important. Refusing to recognise good faith disagreement is one of my biggest beefs with progressives.
Even the top women players can’t really make it past age 35. Navritalova played but almost exclusively doubles.
The ONLY reason Richards was able to play at age 43 is because she was a trans woman.
Do you think there is any such thing as an anti-trans bigot, or is it all people with good faith disagreements?
If the former, how do you distinguish between bigotry and a good faith disagreement?
How well did ‘leaving it up to common sense’ work in other cases? Unless a truly overwhelming super majority of people support trans rights, we need laws.
As I said above, even after desegregation laws were passed it took people with guns to enforce them.
Yes. But much of the time people don’t even look at the evidence nor listen to each others arguments. And then it seems pointless to continue arguing. That’s why we also try to pass laws.
I’m curious how that ends up.
Yeah, I do think anti-trans bigots exist. Some people make it pretty damn clear that they have an animus against trans people specifically. Sometimes it’s hard to tell. But not all disagreement is bigotry. In my view bigotry is defined by the motive: having some kind of hatred or disgust for the group in question, and/or seeing them as lesser.
There’s a huge difference between giving up on arguing with someone and accusing them of bigotry or bad faith. It’s sensible to give up if you’re not getting anywhere. IME it’s very rare for someone to change their mind due to arguments anyway, and if they do it will be later, after they’ve had time to consider. Plus, arguments have two sides. Would they be justified in thinking similar things of you, since they also failed to change your mind? Presumably not.
Thinking I’m a bigot? That would be an odd reaction. They might think I don’t care about the needs of women, though. That sort of disagreement is, indeed, common.
I agree that it takes time for anyone to change their mind. But in my experience, people who are open to possibly saying, “you know, i may have been wrong there” are willing to listen and engage with people who have different perspectives.
I care less than you about motive, though. I don’t think it really matters whether you restricted your soda fountain to only serve white people because you disliked or distrusted black people, or whether you did it because you were afraid of scaring away white customers. The result was the same.
Nope, none that I know of, at least not in the transgender-rights conversations that I’m part of (although it goes without saying that as a cis woman, I’m by no means the most knowledgeable spokesperson on the subject, much less any kind of official arbiter).
“Trans” as a separate adjective AFAICT is simply a universally recognized abbreviation of “transgender”. I might be a little more careful to use “transgender woman/man” instead of “trans woman/man” in spoken conversation, to make it clear that I’m not using the portmanteau term “transwoman/man”. But in written form it’s entirely unambiguous, ISTM.
But that case has been made, clearly and convincingly, over and over again, in expository articles and scientific research and vlogs and documentaries and podcasts and so on. You can’t convince people who aren’t really willing to entertain the possibility that they’re wrong.
The problem with your position here, ISTM, is that you’re conflating the concept of “make a valid, rational, and evidence-supported case” with the concept of “make a valid, rational, and evidence-supported case that will change the minds of people already ideologically opposed to that position”.
And that’s not a fair ask. Competent adults tasked with living in a modern democratic society have the responsibility to seek out facts, to be alert for biases and fallacious reasoning, and to make rational choices. Not just to loll around on their asses whining “It’s your job to convince me and educate me on matters I’m ignorant and/or biased about. If I don’t understand or support rational and principled positions on a certain issue, it’s your fault for not successfully enlightening me.”
[hijack] IMHO, in fact, that laziness and irresponsibility on the part of conservatives has been the bedrock problem with US political discourse over the past couple of decades. Progressives have been too ready to buy into the assumption that it’s somehow up to us to “win people over”, to “change hearts and minds”, to “argue the case”. And then when our opponents just continue to loll around on their asses, uncritically consuming from right-wing media the usual barrage of transphobic lies and other anti-progressive conspiracy theories, they blame us for not having persuaded them.
It’s time to stop putting so much effort into coddling obstinate ignorance. Yes, we still have to go on producing and promoting responsible research and rational arguments, having discussions and making compromises with people of good faith, and so on. But those of us in the reality-based community, to coin a phrase, need to stop buying into this idea that it’s somehow our duty to rescue our opponents from their own voluntary embrace of stupidity. That energy should go instead into policy crafting and reaching out to people who can be reached. [/hijack]
Or simply completely disempowering the ignorant. The speed limit of a society should not be set for the comfort of its slowest, laziest, and most ignorant members.
There are trans women who look exactly like cis women. Do you believe the law should allow them to use the women’s toilets?
There are cis women who look rather like men; and therefore not “exactly” like many people’s idea of what women look like. What toilets do you believe the law should allow such people to use?
What about cis men who look rather like women? Such people do exist.
– I find it difficult to imagine that there are places where women are in serious danger using the john but are not also in similar danger when outside the john. Fix the danger, not the sign on the bathroom door.
As far as people who are shy of being naked around others: they come in all genders, and many of them are shy of all genders. Either we should all get used to being naked together (there are societies that work that way, and I have known social groups in the USA that worked that way) or else, which starting from where we are would be considerably easier, we should allow individual privacy in all changing rooms (as well as within bathroom stalls.) Much of the sex segregation had to do with the delusion that there were almost no women who were sexually attracted to other women and almost no men who were sexually attracted to other men. Anybody who still thinks that is not paying attention.
That case has been made in this thread, in detail, by @puzzlegal in post #175. It has been made by quite a lot of people, in various places, over quite a few years. Reciting it more times isn’t going to get people who aren’t listening to hear it. And many of them won’t even notice that the recitation is being made, because they won’t read or watch anything that doesn’t already agree with their misconceptions.
You seem to me to be blaming the immunosuppressed person who dies of a disease spread by people who didn’t want to get vaccinated.
Can’t agree with you there, sorry. At least not if what you’re referring to is some kind of official disenfranchisement of the ignorant.
It’s very natural to feel frustrated with the fact that in a democratic society an ignorant bigoted person has just as much of a vote as an informed rational person, but AFAICT any attempt to cut that corner on democratic civil liberties ends up causing more problems than it solves.