The dogmatic viewpoint that too many words ruin a good sentence?
What?
I think that’s the first time I’ve seen anyone accuse F-P of being too brief…
Sorry you need to clarify what you mean. Especially with that guy andros around - he’s liable to accuse you of not caring about making yourself understood.
I think you misunderstood him, and he was saying the exact opposite.
I don’t break out a winky smiley when I’m trying to be a dick.
Not at all, it’s very much appreciated. I just don’t think it clarifies anything vis-à-vis my question. (But I see that it was not specifically meant to.)
This would seem to contradict your stated desire to be understood.
Fair enough; I certainly don’t think you’re claiming positions you do not hold.
That seems like an entirely self-fulfilling prophecy. “I don’t need to make myself clear because the people I’m talking to will choose not to understand anyway.” It seems of a piece with a fair amount of well-poisoning and preemptive insult.
It may well have, but that is certainly not my intention. I’m simply trying to understand whether or not you consider transwomen to be women. If the answer is “not always, it’s complicated,” that’s just fine. I would then want to know why it’s complicated and under which circumstances they might or might not be considered such. I am not trying to trap you or draw you into a major expansion of any topic, just trying to grok where you’re coming from.
.
I’m asking what you meant, specifically, by “dogmatic viewpoint” and “carefully constructed paradigm”.
If I’m wedded to something I shouldn’t be, I’d like to know to see if I need to fix myself.
This is beautiful. It should be made into a sticky, so that new posters can— before deciding whether to engage you in debate— know that this is how you answer a “yes or no” question.
In addition, that post was directed to iiandyiii, who had (as noted) rephrased your question as being about how to refer to trans people, as opposed to how to consider them. The posts in that thread were more closely related to his issue.
Not at all. When I say something I want that something to be understood. I don’t think I need to make myself understood on anything else. I’m not running for office or anything.
Sorry, many things in life are like that. You make a good faith effort but it’s counterproductive to strive for unachievable perfection.
Just because you’ve decided that “where [I’m] coming from” in a discussion of a specific point about the trans bathroom issue is a broader issue of whether transwomen are considered men or women doesn’t mean I need to accept that and expand the discussion in that direction. Especially since I’ve not said anything to indicate that this is where I’m coming from (and if anything indicated the opposite in my first post to this thread).
I understood your question. I answered it. The reference was to a pro-trans vs anti-trans paradigm. What do you not understand about that?
That don’t confront me none.
The type of poster who thinks all complex issues can be broken down into simple “yes or no” questions is exactly the type of poster that I generally prefer to avoid anyway.
The problem with this is threefold:
- It’s a solution to the wrong problem. Our current situation rarely causes harm, and when it does, it almost exclusively causes harm to trans people. A solution that protects cis people isn’t solving a real problem.
- I don’t think this principle is generalizable. We don’t determine who can go in which bathroom based on comfort under other circumstances–for example, disability status. The fact that it might make a lot of people uncomfortable to share a bathroom with someone in a wheelchair doesn’t mean we can ban the disabled from using bathrooms.
- The problem that cis people face is generally self-correcting: people almost never want to cause a ruckus with their bathroom choice, and if folks mind their own business in the bathroom, we don’t have a problem.
A person who doesn’t believe transgender is a real thing at all could still oppose this bill, based on the idea that people should mind their own business and let other folks do what they need to do as long as they’re not perving on people.
I don’t understand what a “pro-trans vs anti-trans paradigm” is. If I have to guess, you might mean that you think we view everything on this issue as to whether it helps or harms trans people, but I don’t know if that’s what you mean.
What’s the “dogmatic viewpoint”? Or is that the same as the paradigm?
Fair enough. I was confused by your distinction between issues you had brought up yourself and those you had not. Obviously you need not preemtively state your positions on everything before they are even brought up for discussion.
Surely there is some middle ground there. If I say “I’m not sure what you mean,” I’m hardly demanding perfection.
:shrug: I asked a question. You chose not to answer, as is your right. I’m not asking you to accept any premises, or adhere to any assumptions you impute to me.
.
I don’t know that this is correct. Also, I’m not sure the bill was passed because of the current situation or to preempt changes to it.
Two things: 1) you’re hypothesizing discomfort with people in wheelchairs that may not exist (at anything approaching the same level). 2) You can’t ban people, whether in wheelchairs or trans people, from all bathrooms. The current bill gives trans people an option, albeit not the one they prefer. You’re comparing that to a hypothetical suggestion to ban people in wheelchairs from all bathrooms.
That’s an attitude I would encourage, but if people are bothered by something then they’re bothered by it.
If it makes a difference, the dogmatic viewpoint and paradigm are inter-related but not directly the same thing.
What you’re calling the paradigm was what I meant by dogma. It’s an acceptance of certain inviolate core beliefs and the acceptance of other arguments on the basis of how they conform. In this case, it’s a thought process in which any specific argument which tends to make things easier for trans people is automatically accepted, and the converse.
What I meant by paradigm was the resulting tendency to view any and all issues and arguments involving trans people as completely correlated with each other (in that they ultimately rest on the same core dogma), such that if someone takes a position on one issue that falls on one or the other side of the line, you can instantly ascribe to them all other positions that fall on the same side of the line even if they’re not otherwise logically connected.
In such an atmosphere it’s inevitable that people will misunderstand what you’re saying as either being, or at least implying that you believe, all sorts of things that you’ve not said and may or may not believe.
The context here is the focus by you and andros on whether I consider (or in your case, “refer to”) transwomen as women or not, despite no real connection to anything I’ve said here. What I did do here is offer up an argument that could be used to an extent to support a position opposed by the trans community. To mind of someone with the dogmatic viewpoint and paradigm, this means I’m in the “anti-trans” camp, and no doubt think transwomen are " men who are pretending to be women", not because of anything I’ve actually said but because that’s what “anti-trans” people are assumed to think.
So while it’s not correct to say I don’t care about being understood, I’ve been around long enough to know that things of this sort are inevitable, especially on hot-button issues of this type.
I’m sorry, but you yourself described your premise at some length in post #56. As you wrote there, your interest in the question you asked was premised on the notion that my position about transpeople in bathrooms was based on my position on whether transwomen are considered women or not. That’s the premise that I don’t accept.
Ah, I see. Allow me to clarify:
The part I bolded in your post above is incorrect. I made no assumptions about your positions, and I apologize for giving you the impression that I was doing so. My question was premised only on my experience and a desire to more fully understand what motivates individual perspectives. I have found that the two issues are often linked–but, as I said in that post, not always.
If I’m now understanding you correctly, you weren’t presuming my position in this thread was based on that mindset but thought it might be, based on your experience with other people. OK.
So now that I’ve said it’s unrelated, I don’t need to address that question in this thread, and all is good. 
That was part of my curiosity about that question as well – it might give some insight into whether you have, say, dogmatic (or paradigmatic, if that’s a word) distaste or distrust for transgender people.
And like magic, what your position is not only is never directly answered by you in this thread, but now you declare that POOF there is no longer a need for you to bother with the question ever again and all is good! Have you considered auditioning for Penn & Teller’s “Fool Us” show?
I didn’t say “ever again”. I said “in this thread”. Don’t know how you confused that.
If for some strange reason you’re seized with burning curiosity as to my position on that question, you can always follow my posts obsessively, because you just never know when I might decide that the time has come to address it. Or maybe I’ll start a newsletter and you can subscribe. I might even give you a reduced rate if you’re one of the first 50 people to call.
No need, troll.
NC’s legislature has for the past several years systematically stripped self-rule from cities and counties, especially when the city or county is majority-Democratic but gerrymandered into Republican-controlled legislative districts (my state rep was until recently Mark Meadows, who was pretty contemptuous of my city and introduced bill after bill to screw us over).
Charlotte perceived that their city would benefit from clear guidelines for trans people in bathrooms, namely, that people ought to be able to use the restroom of their gender identity. This freaked the fuck out of the state, and the bill was passed in reaction to Charlotte’s new ordinance during a special session called for no other reason.
There is a nonzero number of people who are uncomfortable with being in a restroom with someone in a wheelchair. Would it help to see commentary from people who are in wheelchairs and have gotten lots of hairy eyeballs in the restroom, or can you stipulate that for now? In any case, you can’t send people in wheelchairs only to the disabled restroom: they, by law, may not be discriminated against in this manner. The current bill, by giving trans people an option but not the one they prefer, is disanalogous to the situation with people in wheelchairs, which is my point: your idea about legislating according to most people’s discomfort is not generalizable.
I clearly can’t argue with that tautology. Look, if I’m in a bathroom and a drunk homeless guy comes into it, I admit I’m going to be a little bothered by it. But that’s my personal problem. If someone isn’t actually doing anything to bother me, it’s not my place to tell them what they should be doing. We should be encouraging people to mind their own damn business, and their own damn business includes being bothered by other people who are minding their own damned business.
I don’t know if it’s fair to call a law that was passed a month ago “the current situation”. Though FWIW, I would think this type of issue is better handled at the local level (assuming you need any laws about it altogether).
“non-zero” is not a valid comparison. There’s no way you can make everyone happy and you never, on any issue, use the fact that a non-zero number of people as the ultimate determinant. You have to weigh things against each other. I would guess the number of people who are uncomfortable with disabled people in bathrooms (at least to the point of not wanting them there) is much less than the number of disabled people, and in addition the need for some sort of bathroom is a bigger issue than the discomfort of a non-zero number of people. In the case of trans people, there are probably a lot more people uncomfortable than there are trans people, and there are other alternatives available.
I imagine you’re generally comfortable with the general notion of weighing competing interests in balance, as a general rule, and you’re not clarifying why you think that same dynamic doesn’t apply here.
OK, but that’s where lance strongarm’s point becomes relevant again. Because despite your exhortations we don’t do that as a society, in accepting gender-separate bathrooms. You need some basis for carving out trans people from the generally accepted principle that society accepts and applies, and you can’t argue for a position based on presumed acceptance of a concept that in reality you yourself support but which society rejects.