Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

Just head over to twitter. You'll see all the same points being made in exactly the same order, there's just a slight delay over here. Gives one time to prepare a counterargument I suppose.

Thanks.

There are absolutists on both sides. I don't agree with either side. Consequently if I engage with one side, then I must equally engage with the other side. Given that appeals to reason are futile, I'll be shouted down by both sides. I'd rather ride my bike.

Come to think of it 'I'd rather more be willing for a dentist to be drilling that to ever let an absolutist in my life'. I'm sure you'll recognise the lyric.

 

[winjim]

Thanks.

There are absolutists on both sides. I don't agree with either side. Consequently if I engage with one side, then I must equally engage with the other side. Given that appeals to reason are futile, I'll be shouted down by both sides. I'd rather ride my bike.

Come to think of it 'I'd rather more be willing for a dentist to be drilling that to ever let an absolutist in my life'. I'm sure you'll recognise the lyric.

Indeed. I don't even like thinking of the subject as a 'debate' with 'sides'. The OP was an interesting piece and rather than agree or disagree with it, I read it and let it be a catalyst for my own thinking. I thought it was interesting and hoped we could avoid slipping into cliche and extremism.

Of course it didn't take too long for the thread to descend into a list of every single regurgitated talking point from tHe TrAnS dEbAtE and now we're at the stage of simply amplifying and repeating every awful person mentioned on twitter. It's lost what meaning it had in the beginning. TBF the OP did title the thread with an apology as this wasn't exactly an unexpected turn of events.

 

[monkers]

Indeed. I don't even like thinking of the subject as a 'debate' with 'sides'. The OP was an interesting piece and rather than agree or disagree with it, I read it and let it be a catalyst for my own thinking. I thought it was interesting and hoped we could avoid slipping into cliche and extremism.

Of course it didn't take too long for the thread to descend into a list of every single regurgitated talking point from tHe TrAnS dEbAtE and now we're at the stage of simply amplifying and repeating every awful person mentioned on twitter. It's lost what meaning it had in the beginning. TBF the OP did title the thread with an apology as this wasn't exactly an unexpected turn of events.

It's no longer a debate; it's a war with belligerents on both sides. How we can war about a minority group in a civilised and sophisticated country is beyond me.

I have a response to all this in my head, but now is not the right time to publish.

 

[winjim]

It's no longer a debate; it's a war with belligerents on both sides. How we can war about a minority group in a civilised and sophisticated country is beyond me.

I have a response to all this in my head, but now is not the right time to publish.

A general discussion about gender would include, but not be limited to that minority group anyway. It's a very broad and interesting topic, and involves all of us.

 

[monkers]

A general discussion about gender would include, but not be limited to that minority group anyway. It's a very broad and interesting topic, and involves all of us.

You would hope. We are not kids here after all, but it gets like Lord of the Flies on stilts and steroids some days.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

You seem to following the line of our Dutch friend about science. I have asked where him where I just ignore any science that I don't like as his claim. I politely asked for one example because I'm not aware that is true. It seems the cat now has his tongue - we'll see.

Along with Calimero-ing yourself you seem to be awfull with you memory only a few pages back. So let me remind you, i responded to a discussion you had with @AuroraSaab in which after pages of turning ignoring, writing a lot of letters with very little content(the old ''if you can't win with arguments, dazzle them with BS'') you admitted not to have an peer reviewed researched about the topic at hand. and you came up with an claim that any report/research can ben swang either way. in which i responded by showing a few facts like for example that the earth is not flat that has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, despite people still questioning it.
That is something completely different from what you claim

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

''The permanent damage is a good reason to question transitioning being something good.''

I gently say then you have missed much of my point completely. N was not encouraged, recruited, or groomed by trans people to be one of them. I witnessed the exact opposite. N is not a child though as I made very clear, so I accept that limitation to my piece.

The allegation that trans people are 'child groomers' is a particularly disturbing one. If it is true, then can we see the evidence - or is this evidence of my science denial?

Don't known about the particular case of N However not so long ago the Travistock clinic, got convicted for a failure for duty of care in a similar case. (someone who wanted to de-transition)
and if you follow just the newarticles about it in the judgement it quite clearly says her desire to transition wasn't challenged enough. So whatever you want to call that, there is a court ruling saying it's not up to standards. Especially with children, saying ''no'' is part of upbringing sometimes. I agree with @Unkraut that these procedures for transitioning with children are very damaging. Damage that can't be undone

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Just head over to twitter. You'll see all the same points being made in exactly the same order, there's just a slight delay over here. Gives one time to prepare a counterargument I suppose.

My burner twitter accounts inbox suggest otherwise, doesn't really matter which side your support although attacking leftish policy's gives you significantly more vile inboxes and reports to twitter. And right wing seems to be whatever you say you can always find someone who is a bit more extreme.

 

[monkers]

Along with Calimero-ing yourself you seem to be awfull with you memory only a few pages back. So let me remind you, i responded to a discussion you had with @AuroraSaab in which after pages of turning ignoring, writing a lot of letters with very little content(the old ''if you can't win with arguments, dazzle them with BS'') you admitted not to have an peer reviewed researched about the topic at hand. and you came up with an claim that any report/research can ben swang either way. in which i responded by showing a few facts like for example that the earth is not flat that has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, despite people still questioning it.
That is something completely different from what you claim

I'll have whatever you're smoking. Yes most reports tend to be 'swung' though I will say rejected on certain grounds - this is the modern 'debating' style. Personal attacks rather than critical analysis.

As @Unkraut alluded to with his reference to climate change. My observation is that people like Greta say 'listen to the scientists'. She does not claim to be a scientist, but she speaks to so many.

There are a great many specialist climate scientists investigating climate science. Yet we see a movement that has developed that attempt to balance the views of a TV personality biologist with the findings of the collective voice of modern climate scientists in order to reject their findings. That isn't balance.

I linked one person to a recent review of peer reviewed studies within a date range into the issues of trans people in sport. I gave no commentary on it other than 'it may be helpful' - no doctrine, no dogma, no opinion, no claim that only this is correct.

You even managed to rant against me after I recused myself on the basis of lack of knowledge.

If you want to carefully consider what the review has to say and be critical of it be my guest. My guess is that you imagined that I would only post a document if it supported points I had made. You got that wrong.

Only it doesn't fit with your imagination and bias against me, and you've made a bit of a chump of yourself.

 

[classic33]

Along with Calimero-ing yourself you seem to be awfull with you memory only a few pages back. So let me remind you, i responded to a discussion you had with @AuroraSaab in which after pages of turning ignoring, writing a lot of letters with very little content(the old ''if you can't win with arguments, dazzle them with BS'') you admitted not to have an peer reviewed researched about the topic at hand. and you came up with an claim that any report/research can ben swang either way. in which i responded by showing a few facts like for example that the earth is not flat that has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, despite people still questioning it.
That is something completely different from what you claim

It was me that questioned that "fact", introduced here by yourself. As proof, I point you towards the map of the flat earth and the UN flag.

The second "scientific point" raised by yourself was that water is wet. Science has shown that to be untrue. However, when pointed out to you, you chose to ignore what science has said.

 

[Unkraut]

I did not intend insult with my 'too long in the tooth' comment, but you had made a remark related to age. My comment reflects that, also I'm getting on myself and self-aware enough of what that means for me too. If you found that hurtful, then I apologise, but any hurt was without intent.

Well I appreciate your apology but it really wasn't necessary, I wasn't offended. In fact I would be a bit of a hypocrite to be offended, as one of my complaints is that 'being offended' can be used to stifle much needed vigorous debate.

We do not share all views and opinions, but the moment where we say that one set of views are immutably incorrect, or that our moral code or religious belief holds preponderance over the other, ...

It depends if the religious belief giving rise to a moral code is true. Truth is by definition external to us and fixed and universally applicable. My truth as opposed to yours is a meaningless statement. Truth and opinion get mixed up.

N was not encouraged, recruited, or groomed by trans people to be one of them.

My main point was N was an adult and could weigh up the pros and cons of transitioning and make an informed decision, even if as it turned out a wrong one. A bit like whether to have a vaccine or not. Children don't have the maturity to make such decisions, and in view of the potential cost adults shouldn't, in this instance, make if for them.

I can guarantee if the discussion were about church schools and teaching Chistianity I would be told don't indoctrinate children because they are too young!

The allegation that trans people are 'child groomers' is a particularly disturbing one.

I don't think trans who simply get on with their humdrum working and shopping lives unnoticed are the problem. It's activists with a political agenda to spread. Who want to make children wards of the State.

When my eldest finally starts a family (I'm working on being that old but haven't got there yet!) they are already looking at where to live, and despite being poles apart from the Catholic Church are likely to seek a place where there is a Catholic Kindergarten that will not be pushing what is to their mind gender confusion. Children shouldn't be sexualised. They don't needs any of this stuff.

It is a common perception amongst American evangelicals amongst others that having drag queens reading stories in libraries is a form of grooming, preparing the way for gender fluid indoctrination for want of a better term later.

 

[classic33]

Don't known about the particular case of N However not so long ago the Travistock clinic, got convicted for a failure for duty of care in a similar case. (someone who wanted to de-transition)
and if you follow just the newarticles about it in the judgement it quite clearly says her desire to transition wasn't challenged enough. So whatever you want to call that, there is a court ruling saying it's not up to standards. Especially with children, saying ''no'' is part of upbringing sometimes. I agree with @Unkraut that these procedures for transitioning with children are very damaging. Damage that can't be undone

Do you by chance mean the Tavistock Clinic?
I can understand that you claim English is a second language, but to get an institutions name wrong requires more than that. It can also lead to the wrong party being blamed.

 

[winjim]

My burner twitter accounts inbox suggest otherwise, doesn't really matter which side your support although attacking leftish policy's gives you significantly more vile inboxes and reports to twitter. And right wing seems to be whatever you say you can always find someone who is a bit more extreme.

The fact you have a burner account attracting DMs and reports suggests to me that you're stirring sh*t up. I didn't mention left or right or sides.

I only really recognise left and right in terms of economic policy. It doesn't mean much to me otherwise.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Why are you bringing up Beth Douglas? What has she got to do with this?

Because it doesn't matter how often you post your videos of K J Keen I don't feel the need to either defend or endorse either her or any other individual campaigner. She is one voice amongst many. I have said previously that she has said stuff I don't agree with.

For some reason you seem to feel that I need to address every utterance KJK makes, whilst ignoring the fact that the person you chose to platform moaning about her is a Green Party favourite who posts threatening pictures with hatchets. Anybody can see the irony in that.

 

[monkers]

We do not share all views and opinions, but the moment where we say that one set of views are immutably incorrect, or that our moral code or religious belief holds preponderance over the other, ...

It depends if the religious belief giving rise to a moral code is true. Truth is by definition external to us and fixed and universally applicable. My truth as opposed to yours is a meaningless statement. Truth and opinion get mixed up.

You've raised a point where our views collide without opportunity for resolution since I am agnostic.

We ought still be able listen to each other and respect each others views. You have stated your position, I have stated my mine.

The dispute about curriculum can be more or less solved by allowing people to choose faith schools or those with a specialist bent. However I think children develop in a more rounded way if they have at least some exposure to alternatives. Schools in the UK have some available opt outs so that a parent can withdraw their child from certain lessons.

There is no harm in children understanding for example how England moved from Catholicism to Church of England, to wherever it is now. I think children should all have an understanding of what Darwin and others have had to say. I place high value on raising children with the ability to think critically. You may or may not think otherwise. But we are adults and can accommodate that without the aggression shown elsewhere.

I'm not persuaded that religious belief is truth, the clue is in the term belief. What is a truth changes over time. Science largely relies on modelling.

What is accepted in religious belief changes over time. For example, the religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam had shared views on usury systems - now they have departed from that shared view and are critical of each other. Disputes arise even between bishops of the same faith.

Sometimes they find the limits of the model and need to rethink, they come up with a new model, but seldom does it lasts for ever. We kind of place faith in the best intended evidence as we can - it doesn't follow that it must be right, neither that we should just ignore it. Some might say that my approach is lazy, I place faith in the specialists to be as right as they can be - I consult a doctor when necessary, because usually I can respect that their medical knowledge is much greater than mine.