Zone1 Focusing the LGBTQ debate

[Natural Citizen]

.

But to accurately identify exactly who has the problem ... And whose responsibility it is to address that problem ...
That wouldn't require the Government at all.

.​

This I agree with completely.

But I think you're going much deeper than OP anticipated.

Respectfully speaking, since I see I'm in zone 1 here, I think OP's entire worldview would have to be undone in order to even begin to grasp where you're actually going with that.

 

[BlackSand]

Yeah, but that's how they're gonna do it. The last administration was proof positive of that.

.

As long as 'they' is not the individual with the problem ...
In my humble opinion ... You will never appropriately address the problem.

That's Establishment Thinking ... And with my own anti-social behavior ... And Rugged Individualism ...
I am not really into chasing that windmill ... It hasn't proven to be successful.

By design and the desires of those involved ... That introduces more conflict ...
Further away from the individual with the problem ... And the Responsibility they are going to have to take.

.​

Ask OP where he or she thinks rights come from and see what they tell you...

.

I asked the OP if they wanted to redirect their question(s) ...
And I will be willing to engage them if they choose to start expressing Rights ... In my direction.
Other than that ... I already expressed where their debate was lacking.

Until then ... I am going to talk to them about their Freedom ...
And what it is going to cost them in Responsibility.

.​

 

[forkup]

What is "humanism?"



What are bathroom rights?

Where do they come from?

Definition of Humanism - American Humanist Association

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism or other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good. – American Humanist Association Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by...

americanhumanist.org

As for bathroom rights. In this context it means the ability of society to limit access to bathrooms of people who are trans. And society is context specific.

The idea is that (some) girls don't like the idea of sharing a bathroom with a trans person. And as such access should be prohibited.

My assertion is that even if it is true. Hell even if all girls wouldn't like the idea. Those objections would not justify the proposed solution because I contend the harm to the trans person because of the marginalization is much more severe than the harm of girls being uncomfortable.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Nobody is asking to define the term "human", I'm asking you to define the terms male and female, care to do so?

XX and XY. We are back to trusting science to answer that question.
The days of elevating who you sleep with to insisting on a national declaration of approval, is over.
We don't give a shit about pronouns or sleeping arrangements.
We are shutting down your access to our children, though.

 

[forkup]

Really? Someone with Swyer syndrome has the XY chromosome including a working uterus. So you think men can be pregnant?

Someone with De La Chapelle syndrome has all the characteristics of a male minus being able to produce sperm. Yet they have the XX Chromosomes.

There are also people who have xyy chromosomes. How do we call those?

So any other characteristics. Since this seems inadequate?

Science

 

[HeyNorm]

Yes I do.

Really? Someone with Swyer syndrome has the XY chromosome including a working uterus. So you think men can be pregnant?

Someone with De La Chapelle syndrome has all the characteristics of a male minus being able to produce sperm. Yet they have the XX Chromosomes.

There are also people who have xyy chromosomes. How do we call those?

So any other characteristics. Since this seems inadequate?

If biologically it's hard determine male from female. Letting a person define it for themselves seems as good a way as any and way better than letting a government do so.


Defining yourself is not a mental illness. The problem seems to be that you don't agree with their definition. This is fine, if you are able to clearly deliniate male from female. Otherwise you are just using an arbitrary standard that fits your viewpoint that you then use to infringe on the rights of others.

So only those with the stated syndromes are identifying themselves as the opposite sex?

Of course they aren’t, but you feel comfortable using those inflicted with those syndromes as your scapegoats

 

[HeyNorm]

XX and XY. We are back to trusting science to answer that question.
The days of elevating who you sleep with to insisting on a national declaration of approval, is over.
We don't give a shit about pronouns or sleeping arrangements.
We are shutting down your access to our children, though.

Beautifully stated

 

[Zincwarrior]

.
Can you explain how they are "self-correcting" I'm not a doctor or a biologist but as I understand it someone who has Swyer Syndrome doesn't all of a sudden loses the uterus this despite having the xy chromosomes.

To clarify, over time nature sorts those out, or they become competitive advantages and nature sorts them in for everyone.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Definition of Humanism - American Humanist Association

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism or other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good. – American Humanist Association Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by...

americanhumanist.org

As for bathroom rights. In this context it means the ability of society to limit access to bathrooms of people who are trans. And society is context specific.

The idea is that (some) girls don't like the idea of sharing a bathroom with a trans person. And as such access should be prohibited.

My assertion is that even if it is true. Hell even if all girls wouldn't like the idea. Those objections would not justify the proposed solution because I contend the harm to the trans person because of the marginalization is much more severe than the harm of girls being uncomfortable.

This is where its cultural. There is no genetic requirement for separate facilities. Indeed thats a recent phenomenon in the West.

 

[HeyNorm]

This is where its cultural. There is no genetic requirement for separate facilities. Indeed thats a recent phenomenon in the West.

A recent advancement in the west.

Corrected your error

 

[Zincwarrior]

A recent advancement in the west.

Corrected your error

Not an error. Its a factual statement of history.
Given the reason, to protect women and children from harassment in a time of rough tenements, I agree with the separation.

Strangely, we never had to make laws about it...

 

[HeyNorm]

Not an error. Its a factual statement of history.
Given the reason, to protect women and children from harassment in a time of rough tenements, I agree with the separation.

Strangely, we never had to make laws about it...

You just described an advancement. You know that, right?

 

[forkup]

So only those with the stated syndromes are identifying themselves as the opposite sex?

Of course they aren’t, but you feel comfortable using those inflicted with those syndromes as your scapegoats

No, I'm using these examples to establish that gender identity has arbitrary conditions biologically. And if those conditions are arbitrary to begin with, there is no reason why society can't extent those conditions to psychological conditions. Except that is, the marginalization of an entire group in the populace.

 

[forkup]

This is where its cultural. There is no genetic requirement for separate facilities. Indeed thats a recent phenomenon in the West.

Of course it's cultural. I think we both stated as such. Cultural norms can, and in this case do, cause real world harm.

 

[forkup]

To clarify, over time nature sorts those out, or they become competitive advantages and nature sorts them in for everyone.

That doesn't really answer anything of the issue. The timescale of human evolution and the timescale of changing cultural norms are vastly different.

 

[BackAgain]

Gender dysphoria is akin to an anorexic thinking they are too fat, no matter how skinny they become.

So, they continue to starve themselves until they die.

But medicine is basically clueless on how to treat peoples mental disorders. They would much rather cut and medicate you for something, even if it is detrimental to you

Case in point is the practice of lobotomies. It used to be cutting edge treatment for people who were not easily controlled with mental problems. Thankfully, however, today it is viewed as barbaric and not practiced. It shows you exactly how sick and twisted and wrong the accepted general medical community can become and should give us pause as to what is happening with gender dysphoria today.

I have more issues with the medical community, such as their treatment of obesity. They go in and surgically make the stomach smaller, so you will eat less. Well guess what, there is nothing wrong with their stomach, it is all in their brain. To me surgically altering anatomy that is not dysfunctional is an issue, but again, they are clueless to do anything else.

It is no skin off my nose to address a man, who imagines that he is a woman, as “ma’am.”

However, it is akin to agreeing with an anorexic woman (such as the late Karen Carpenter) that “yes, you do look kinda stocky.” One usually doesn’t indulge the mentally ill with false agreement about their delusions.

 

[Seymour Flops]

There is such a thing as left-handed and right-handed people, I would hope you agree?

I deliberately avoided doing any research on handedness, how soon it manifest, what percentage of people are left or right handed etc. Because that’s not relevant. The point is we know there is such a thing as right handed and left-handed people.

They’re also a percentage of ambidextrous people. That fact does not change the fact that there are right- handed people and left-hande people.

Some right handed people may deliberately act as left-handed people, and vice versa, such as baseball players or boxers. But they did not change their dominant hand. They increased their use of the other hand.

forkup

Do you disagree with any of that?

 

[alang1216]

Thank you. In my view that's the correct answer, and I agree. But that shifts the argument to competing rights.

As I see it we have on the one hand the rights of those that feel harmed by another person being trans. On the other those of the trans person. Only one of those 2 parties is asking to limit the other person's rights to do something (compete in sports, use of a bathroom.)

While that doesn't mean society hasn't the right to do so. I would argue that doing so without showing irreparable harm is something society shouldn't do.

Trans people want to exercise THEIR rights, their opponents want to limit the rights of OTHER people. The onus is on the opponents to concretely demonstrate what harm will be prevented. Their 'feelings' are irrelevant.

 

[HeyNorm]

No, I'm using these examples to establish that gender identity has arbitrary conditions biologically. And if those conditions are arbitrary to begin with, there is no reason why society can't extent those conditions to psychological conditions. Except that is, the marginalization of an entire group in the populace.

You are pointing out that some are born with birth defects. That’s far different than your assertion.

 

[HeyNorm]

Trans people want to exercise THEIR rights, their opponents want to limit the rights of OTHER people. The onus is on the opponents to concretely demonstrate what harm will be prevented. Their 'feelings' are irrelevant.

Oh, we have many times. Having trans women in woman’s only sports harms many more women then it does trans for one example. One trans woman in the locker room can adversely effect every woman in that locker room.

Want more? Like trans women in prison raping and impregnating real women?

Concrete enough chum?