Jump to content

Analytics

Contributor
  • Posts

    2,755
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Analytics

  1. You are changing the topic. My point is that it is rude not to call people "Elder" who prefer that title, and it is rude not to use the pronouns that people prefer. Whether or not Mormons tolerate rudeness better than people who prefer alternate pronouns is a different topic. Not only were these various examples off topic--they aren't examples of what you claim... Here is Scotland's on hate crimes. It gives the same protections of discrimination on the basis of gender identity that it does to race and religion. It has an explicit "Protection of Freedom of Expression" clause. It doesn't mandate the use of preferred pronouns. Your article said, "Norway’s parliament outlawed hate speech against transgender people on Tuesday..." Note that Norway already had a hate speech law against religious people, people of different races, etc. They just slightly expanded it to include trangender people, too. How come you've never complained about Norway having hate speech laws protecting religious people? Your link was about a change to the Ontario Human Rights Code. The code protects people on certain protected grounds, but only within protected areas. Specifically: Protected grounds are: Age Ancestry, colour, race Citizenship Ethnic origin Place of origin Creed Disability Family status Marital status (including single status) Gender identity, gender expression Receipt of public assistance (in housing only) Record of offences (in employment only) Sex (including pregnancy and breastfeeding) Sexual orientation. Protected social areas are: Accommodation (housing) Contracts Employment Goods, services and facilities Membership in unions, trade or professional associations It's unsurprising that you never complained about Canada protecting human rights based on religion, but now you complain about Canada protecting human rights based on gender identity. This is similar to Ontario. New York added gender identity to their Human Rights Law. It now protects people based on gender identity, just as it protects people based on race or religion. Why are you upset that transgender people get the same protection as religious people? Technically, Louden County Public Schools (LCPS). The school board decided that "Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS) is committed to providing an equitable, safe and inclusive learning environment for all students. All students shall be treated with dignity and respect, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, transgender status, or gender identity/expression." This means that: To me, this is an example of a two rights that conflict with each other. Which right is more important? The right of a school teacher to "persistently refuse to respect a student's gender identity," or the right of a student to be respected? In this case, I believe the right of the student to be respected is higher than the right of the teacher to scorn students because of their gender identity. Personally, I'm glad the students in Lauden are protected from people like you who would use their positions as teachers to disparage the gender identity of students. I am opposed to staff members at nursing homes using their position to be rude, insulting, and cruel to the people they are being paid to take care of. And I'm opposed to you misrepresenting the very limited context of the law. When judging the rights of a staff member of a nursing home to be abusive versus the rights of the fragile resident of the nursing home not to be abused, I would have stuck up for the residents.
  2. Not to quibble, but none of those definitions is equivalent to "a full-time male missionary of the Mormon Church." We aren't talking about the definition of "woman." We are talking about whether it is acceptable and polite to use the pronouns she/her when they prefer it, regardless of their biological sex. From Merriam Webster: She, pronoun, 1: that female one who is neither speaker nor hearer Female, adjective, 1b: having a gender identity that is the opposite of male Gender Identity, noun: a person's internal sense of being male, female, some combination of male and female, or neither male nor female That's what's in the dictionary. Whether or not you refer to an individual by "he" or "she" isn't a biology test on whether or not you are confident that the individual's biological sex is classified as being male or female. Rather, it is a shorthand way to refer to somebody or something without overusing other types of nouns. According to Merriam Webster, somebody with a female gender identity is in fact female, and thus can correctly be referred to by the pronoun she.
  3. You're just repeating yourself now. I get it. If somebody wants to be referred to as "Elder Johnson," the polite thing to do is call him Elder Johnson, even if he's an 18-year old kid who is anything but "elder." Likewise, if somebody wants to be referred to with the pronouns she/her, the polite thing to do is refer to her by she/her. In both cases, the question is do you want to be accurate according to your own beliefs about reality, or do you want to be polite to another human being.
  4. "Demands" and "insults" don't compel anyone to be polite to other human beings, so I'm not sure what you're talking about there. Furthermore, you are comparing generalized and assumed good-behavior of you and yours to cherry-picked bad behavior of your adversaries. That's meaningless. Regarding "the force of law," the example you provided earlier was to a very specific circumstance. A few years ago, California passed a "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Long-Term Care Facility Residents’ Bill of Rights," which said that if you are an employee of a nursing home, you are required to be polite to the residents, which means you can't, "willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns." I can understand the need for such a thing. If I'm rude to a Mormon missionary, he can (and will) walk away. But if somebody is physically confined to a nursing home, they can't walk away. They are stuck there, and the abusive worker has all the power. In the words of one of the justices that struck down the law, “To not call one by the name one prefers or the pronoun one prefers, is simply rude, insulting, and cruel. The impact of using inappropriate pronouns is even more offensive and hurtful when it occurs in an environment where one cannot choose the persons with whom one associates.” The California legislature attempted to protect frail people confined to nursing homes from behavior by their care providers that is recognizes as rude, insulting, and cruel. If you think that makes the legislature the bad guys and makes the people who want to be rude, insulting, and cruel to the frail people confined to nursing homes the good guys, then so be it. The good news is that you won the battle. Celebrate it! You are free to get a job at a California nursing home and be as rude, insulting, and cruel to the residents as you want. You won. Enjoy your freedom to be rude.
  5. I hear where you are coming from, and it gets back to my original point on this thread. Coming from a Latter-day Saint this attitude is ironic, and maybe a bit hypocritical. Refusing to call somebody she/her when she informs you those are the pronouns she prefers reminds me of people who refuse to use the title "Elder" when referring to a missionary. You can insist that you refer to her as he/him based upon standard dictionary definitions and so forth, and they can insist for similar reasons that the 18-year old kid isn't an "elder." To me, this is exactly the same attitude, which I find to be rude and petty.
  6. Where you confuse me, then, is when you speak so confidently about the fact of what sex somebody is, without clarifying if you are referring to their physical body or their spirit body. No. I disagree. When Lea Thompson says she is a woman, she is talking about who she is on the inside and is is not claiming she has two X chromosomes and a natural vagina. I’m sure you’re right. However, it’s remarkable how specific people get when they create God in their own image. Some believe God won’t answer a prayer about whether Mormonism is true because the question is too stupid for God to take seriously. Some people think God hates fags. And some people think that God wouldn’t ever accidentally allow a woman to be born into a man’s body, or vice versa, and think anybody who feels differently about their own sex is mentally ill. Everybody thinks God agrees with them in all of the particulars. Thinking you know the plan God has for the lives of others with such specific detail is hubris.
  7. You make a fair point. But to clarify where I'm coming from, I'm not granting a speaker the license to redefine words any way he wants and then expect the listener to mind read about some arbitrary "intended meaning." The point is that the speaker and listener need to both make a good-faith effort to communicate. Demanding the definition of "woman" when the word wasn't used in context isn't a good-faith effort to communicate. Some people believe that spirits have gender and that you can use spiritual means to learn spiritual truths. Do you believe spirits have gender? Do you believe you can learn truths about spiritual things by looking inward? Do you believe in personal revelation? I guess it depends on whether you believe we can learn truth about spiritual things. Yes, but a spirit that is female has an eternity of experience being a female spirit. Of course if you don't believe in spirits or don't believe that spirits have gender or don't believe we have access to spiritual truths, then this is all silly to you. But if you do believe in such things, why not acknowledge that somebody's personal revelation about themselves aren't really any of your business? Yes, there are people who think that believing in spirits, spiritual truths, God, etc., are symptoms of mental deficiencies. Do you really want to be allies with such people? According to standard dictionaries, "gender" and "sex" are two distinct things. Sex has to do with physical biology, and gender has to do with "social and cultural roles and behavior," and with "personal awareness or identity." Identity has to do with "sense of self." These distinctions, as supported by the dictionary, illustrate why the context of words matters. The word "female" can apply to a person's sex or to their gender. Whether somebody is a male or is a female depends on whether we are talking about their biological sex or their gender. If somebody grew up watching Mr. Roger's Neighborhood and thinks what's on the inside is most important, we shouldn't be surprised when asked if they are male or female (and hence are a man or a woman) they talk about who they are on the inside. When a transgender person claims to really be a woman, she is making a statement about who she is on the inside and not about what she looks like between her legs.
  8. Thanks, manol. This is a fascinating subject. On the one hand, fields such as evolutionary biology, neuroscience, and quantum field theory are converging on the idea that there simply isn't and can't be a "spirit" that is capable of seeing without physical eyes, hearing without ears, and thinking without a brain. I don't particularly like that conclusion. It's just that that is what the harder sciences are pointing to with a surprising degree of certainty. But on the other hand, the hard problem of consciousness persists, and people do have perceptions of having consciousness while being outside of the body. It seems to me that NDE enthusiasts need to either: 1- Come up with a plausible hypothesis of what "spirits" are and how they interface with physical bodies, or: 2- Present evidence for the literally-out-of-body interpretation of NDEs that is strong enough to dislodge our belief in the scientific theories (e.g. quantum field theory) that unambiguously state that such things are impossible.
  9. This illustrates my point. The style guide itself says, "the term “Mormon Church” has long been publicly applied to the Church as a nickname." That term clearly and accurately describes the Church. You say "Mormon Church," and people know exactly what you are talking about. In contrast, "The Church of Jesus Christ" is longer, ambiguous, and loaded. Going back to Smac's original rant, he said: Claiming that the Mormon Church should be referred to as "the Church of Jesus Christ" is as much as a Orwellian neologism as anything else he listed.
  10. Here is my ideology: 1- If somebody prefers to be referred to with certain pronouns, the polite thing to do is humor them and use those pronouns. 2- If a sports league wants to be inclusive and allow biological-males (i.e.-transgender-females) to participate in women's sports, that's their business and they can work out the details without me screeching about it. 3- If it would be most comfortable for all involved for a certain individual to use the men's (or women's) restroom, allow them to do so. We don't need laws that have the police checking people's private parts and telling them where they may and may not urinate. 4- If somebody really feels on the inside that they are a certain sex, that has just as much validity as feeling on the inside that you are a child of God, that you have intrinsic worth, or whatever else other people feel on the inside. Be respectful to people's feelings. 5- In general, medical interventions are dangerous and should be approached with caution. But ultimately, if a person, his-or-her parents (if a minor), and his-or-her medical team decide to take medical interventions, that is their business, not mine. So please tell me. How is this viewpoint ugly, dangerous, and reckless? Note that this is in the context of how healthcare workers speak to old, vulnerable seniors. While it is incredibly, inexcusably rude to for healthcare workers deliberately insist on using pronouns that people don't want to be referred to by, I don't support criminalizing such rudeness (although if I were their boss at the nursing home, I would fire such people). I don't even live in Canada. What does this have to do with me? I never advocated for such things. A child, his/her mother, and his/her healthcare provider all agreed on a certain medical treatment. The father disagreed and sued. The judge sided with the child, mother, and healthcare provider. It's a terrible situation. Personally I have no idea whether the specific medical interventions were in the best interest of the child, and in general I am wary about such things. However, I don't think the best way to determine how to treat various medical situations is by watching propaganda videos, and in general, I am inclined to allow the child, parents, and healthcare provider decide what's best in their particular circumstance. I guess that makes me a monster. I'm curious about what ideology you think I am advancing. You think it is destructive and ugly to insist that the definition of a word depends upon the context in which it is used?
  11. The irony of this is that despite the fact that Smac keeps interrogating me for definitions of the word "woman," I haven't been using that term in this conversation, and I don't think I ever have. I refer to Lea Thomas as a "biological male who self-identifies as a female, i.e. who feels on the inside that she is woman." He doesn't ask me about the definition of that word to understand how I use it. He asks me about it because he think he can use whatever I say or don't say as a weapon against me. So when you talk about using words "as I use them," what words and definitions are you talking about? I'm not endeavoring to change the English language. In any case, to the extent that language evolving is a mess, it's been that way for as long as language has existed, and always will be.
  12. The point isn't "who wins." The point is to communicate. If I'm speaking, I'll use the terms that most clearly gets the point across. If I think there is any ambiguity about a term, I'll use a different word that is less ambiguous, or will add context to clarify the point. That's why I posted a glossary of words I use, and, for example, on this thread I've said "biological sex" rather than just sex, in order to remove any ambiguity of what I'm talking about. Granted, sometimes people don't like certain connotations and try to use different words to change connotations, such as when the Mormon Church issued a style guide that said it should be referred to as "The Church of Jesus Christ" rather than the less ambiguous terms "LDS Church" or "Mormon Church." Maybe there is somebody on "my side" who is deliberately trying to change the language to manipulate people in that same way but if so, I never got the memo. That's how I see the world. Words are simply a vehicle to communicate. In contrast, Smac seems to think "woman" is more than just a word--it is a platonic ideal with exactly one definition which must be affirmed as an article of faith. If I used the word "woman" in a sentence and you asked in good faith what I meant by that, I'd gladly explain my point. In contrast, Smac repeatedly asks for definitions of words I never used as a litmus test for whether I'm a good guy with a white hat or a bad guy with a black hat.
  13. A recent news story says the next edition of the Oxford English Dictionary will feature over 600 definitions of the word "run." Words do have multiple meanings. This isn't a word game. It is the nature of language. We use the context of words to understand their meaning in context.
  14. [In response to me saying I understand that "identifying as a woman" is a statement about how she sees herself on the inside, and isn't a statement about the biological features of her body] This is the type of question that makes it impossible for me to believe you are the least bit informed on this issue and are talking in good faith. Lia Thomas being on the women's team has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the phrase "identifying as a woman" or with the definition of a woman. The rules that allow her to be on the team don't even use the word "woman" (which illustrates why your infatuation with the question "what is a woman?" is totally irrelevant and is a red herring). The NCAA made a good-faith effort to create rules that balance "fairness, inclusion, and safety for all who compete." In the NCAA's own words: The NCAA Board of Governors on Wednesday voted in support of a sport-by-sport approach to transgender participation that preserves opportunity for transgender student-athletes while balancing fairness, inclusion and safety for all who compete. The new policy, effective immediately, aligns transgender student-athlete participation for college sports with recent policy changes (PDF) from the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee and International Olympic Committee. Like the Olympics, the updated NCAA policy calls for transgender participation for each sport to be determined by the policy for the national governing body of that sport, subject to ongoing review and recommendation by the NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports to the Board of Governors. If there is no NGB policy for a sport, that sport's international federation policy would be followed. If there is no international federation policy, previously established IOC policy criteria would be followed. I'm having a really hard time believing that this line of questions is made in good faith. In the circumstances when biological males are allowed to participate in women's sports, everyone acknowledges that the individual is a biological man who sees herself as a woman on the inside. Typically, the rules to qualify to be on the team are different for these people than they are for biological females. In all cases, it has nothing to do with your insistence that people "on my side" somehow believe that "identifying as a woman" magically causes your biological features to turn into those of a woman, or whatever it is that you pretend to think I believe. Because you keep saying that over and over and over and over. If you want us to stop hearing it, stop saying it! As I've already explained, the question isn't being asked in good faith. First you get mad at us for thinking it is a biological question and a biologist should be consulted to give a precise legal answer. Then you get mad at us for refusing to answer. Then you get mad at us for giving an answer you don't like. This illustrates the question isn't being asked in good faith. If you want to know what a woman is, look it up in the dictionary. Trying to understand what somebody means by a word depending on its context isn't equivocation. It is communicating in good faith. I'm glad you agree with me on the definition of woman. If only you would acknowledge that I answered the question! Objection! Counsel is badgering the witness! The witness already provided two(!) definitions for the word! According to the court's transcript, he already said, "According to an outwardly definition, she is "really" a man. According to an inwardly definition, she is "really" a woman. Regardless, these are just words in a language that is continuing to evolve. The point is to understand the speaker, not to argue about whether somebody's usage of the language conforms to the One True Definition of this or that word." Seriously. Why do you keep asking this stupid question, keep ignoring me when I answer it, and keep insisting that I refuse to answer it? If you're trying to convince the reader that you aren't a bigot, this isn't how to go about doing it. This gets back to my original point. You pretend to believe: 1- Sprits have gender 2- You can learn spiritual truths by looking inward But when somebody looks inward and is convinced the gender of their spirit is different than the gender of their physical tabernacle, you go into a fit and refuse to humor the idea that being a man or a woman could, depending upon the context, refer to somebody's spirit rather than to their physical body. Just because I think that depending upon the context, the word "woman" could refer to the gender of the spirit rather than the gender of a physical body doesn't mean that I think any word could mean anything beyond all recognition. CFR that people on "my side" want to use the force of law for any such thing. I never said any such thing. Your straw men are getting dried and are withering away from such overuse. What is a child? Why do you refuse to answer that simple question? Why do you insist that child means something other than what it means? Why do you pretend that somebody is a child of somebody other than their biological parents? Why do you think child can mean anything you want it to mean? Likewise, you being a child of Elohim is an empirically testable statement. You are a child of the people on your birth certificate. That is an empirical fact that can be empirically proven with genetic testing. No it isn't. It is claiming that you are a child of somebody other than your biological parents. It is objectively false. No, I'm standing up to a bully. Calling a bigot a bigot is not bullying. What are you talking about? It was your side that recently passed state law about who can participate on sports teams. It is your side that has recently passed laws about which bathrooms people must use. I'm not ridiculing. I'm illustrating that just as the word "child" can have multiple meanings depending upon the context, the word "woman" can also have different meanings depending upon the context. That isn't ironic, but you are correct and I thank you for saying something about my beliefs that is actually true. It is refreshing. That is false. I've already answered this question. Multiple times. That is false. Just because a word has multiple definitions doesn't mean it could mean anything and everything.
  15. Are too. They are coming from people who agree with me that it's ironic for a Mormon to attack the belief that gender is something that exists on a spiritual level and that you can learn about this spiritual truth through spiritual means? I clicked on top link, which is an editorial at the ACLU of PA website. The point is that within the context of them fighting for women's rights, trans women are within that umbrella. They are simply taking a big-tent approach to women's rights. They are defining their terms, and then using those definitions in a coherent, consistent way. You are the one who is taking their definition, applying it in a context that you chose, for the expressed purpose of conflating it. You are the one conflating the term. Not me. Not people on my side of the debate. A link to a Daily Caller article where Dennis Prager says "Men can menstruate" doesn't support your claim that this is coming from "my" side of the debate. She isn't equivocating. She is clearly defining terms. You are the one who is equivocating by taking her words out of context. He provided a definition of woman in the context of a woman studies program at a university. The equivocation doesn't begin until you start taking what he said out of context. I don't answer the question because I think it is a stupid question that is being asked in a disingenuous way. The word "woman" means what the speaker of the word intends it to mean. Depending on the context, it might mean an adult human female. Or it might mean somebody who can safely and appropriately use a women's restroom. Or it might mean somebody who is welcomed as a member of the women's rights movement. If somebody defines the word the way they are using it and then uses it consistently, or if the definition is clear from the context, then they aren't equivocating. If you don't like their definition and take it out of context, then you are the one who is equivocating. Not them. @mfbukowski was exactly right when he said, "Are you guys really arguing about semantics? Buy a dictionary and get a life!" I sourced my definition. How could you say I didn't? They were authored by Laurel Wamsley of NPR, with guidance from GLAAD. It isn't a matter of whether you agree with the definitions or not. It's a matter of understanding the definitions people use when speaking. Yet if somebody were to say "some people don't have two legs" you would go ballistic and mock them for saying such self-contradictory thing. Using your classification system then, Emily Quinn isn't intersex; she is a woman. Yet she was born with testicles. Will you admit that? Will you say, "yes, some women are born with testicles"? Why do you mock people who say true things like that? I made good-faith answers to similar questions from you in my second post on page 4 of this thread.
  16. I'll offer three quotes that articulate my thoughts on near-death experiences. The neurophysiologist Cristof Koach said in Scientific American: "I accept the reality of these intensely felt experiences. They are as authentic as any other subjective feeling or perception. As a scientist, however, I operate under the hypothesis that all our thoughts, memories, percepts and experiences are an ineluctable consequence of the natural causal powers of our brain rather than of any supernatural ones. That premise has served science and its handmaiden, technology, extremely well over the past few centuries. Unless there is extraordinary, compelling, objective evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to abandon this assumption." The physicist and philosopher Sean Carroll takes it one step further. For him, the idea that all of our thoughts and feelings arise from the brain isn't a mere hypothesis--it is scientific fact on par with the theory of gravity. He claims: "The Core Theory of contemporary physics describes the atoms and forces that constitute our brains and bodies in exquisite detail, in terms of a rigid and unforgiving set of formal equations that leaves no wiggle room for intervention by nonmaterial influence, The way we talk about immaterial souls, meanwhile, has not risen to that level of sophistication. To imagine that the soul pushes around the electron and protons and neutrons in our bodies in a way that we haven’t yet detected is certainly conceivable, but it implies that modern physics is profoundly wrong in a way that has so far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed." Elsewhere he says: "If this package of claims – physicalism, EFT, Core Theory – is correct, it has a number of immediate implications. There is no life after death, as the information in a person’s mind is encoded in the physical configuration of atoms in their body, and there is no physical mechanism for that information to be carried away after death. The location of planets and stars on the day of your birth has no effect on who you become later in life, as there are no relevant forces that can extend over astrophysical distances. And the problems of consciousness, whether “easy” or “hard,” must ultimately be answered in terms of processes that are compatible with this underlying theory."
  17. Yes, you are. You are the one who keeps saying "Trans women are women." "Men can menstruate." "Women can have penises." "A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman." Over and over and over and over again. They aren't my words. They are your words. You are the one using them in a manner that is both an equivocation and a straw man. And you are the one doing the trading.
  18. Deal. I have a pretty thick skin, and prefer living in a heterogeneous society. You be you.
  19. That is exactly what you are doing! I have repeatedly provided a link that provides specific definitions of "sex", "gender", and "gender identity" so that these terms will not be conflated, and I've been careful to be consistent with how I use those terms. The reason that your favorite question (what is a woman?) is ambiguous and flawed is because it conflates these terms.
  20. This question isn't in the purview of "we as a society." The people who govern these sports leagues should make these decisions. In Olympic swimming, transgender women may not compete with women unless they completed their transition by the age of 12. In USA swimming, the rules depend on whether someone is competing at an elite level. If she is, then "to determine a transgender swimmer’s eligibility at the elite level, a three-person panel of independent medical experts will determine whether the swimmer’s prior physical development as a man gives the athlete a competitive advantage over her cisgender female competitors. The swimmer also must show the concentration of testosterone in her blood has been less than 5 nanomoles per liter continuously for at least 36 months." I'm exceedingly comfortable allowing these organizations to figure this stuff out, and don't see why it is something that "we as a society" should get worked up about. In general, sticking a transgender woman into a prison full of men, including many who are violent and/or sex offenders, seems extremely dangerous and misguided. This country incarcerates far too many people, and the entire system should be reformed. How transgender (and intersex) people should be incarcerated should be handled on on a case-by-case basis. Regarding laws dealing with sex and gender, we should recognize that not everybody neatly and accurately fits into the broad-brush categories of being biologically male or biologically female. Furthermore, laws should recognize that depending on the situation, somebody's gender identity might be more pertinent than their biological sex. Laws are in fact evolving to deal with these realities. Some people are objectively intersex--they aren't 100% male or 100% female. That complexity is biological fact. However, that type of complexity doesn't exist with whether you are a human, how old you are, etc. As long as he is being honest about his ancestry, yes. Lying about your ancestry would be fraud. That would depend on whether or not the billionaire put the child in his will. Reducing the complexities of gender identity to mere "subjective feelings" is ignoring the reality of the issue. Nobody is arguing that "subjective feelings" trump everything else. This is a straw man.
  21. Yes, of course. That's fine. For me, if a man identified as a woman and kindly requested that I use she/her pronouns, I would: 1- Understand that "identifying as a woman" is a statement about how she sees herself on the inside, and isn't a statement about the biological features of her body. 2- Out of common decency, I would endeavor to use her preferred pronouns when referring to her. 3- Would recognize that whether she is a woman depends on the definition of "woman" we are using. According to an outwardly definition, she is "really" a man. According to an inwardly definition, she is "really" a woman. Regardless, these are just words in a language that is continuing to evolve. The point is to understand the speaker, not to argue about whether somebody's usage of the language conforms to the One True Definition of this or that word, much less insist that she is using a definition different than the one she is clearly using. 4- I don't know if there is anything here to disagree about. As an example, if you said you were a child of God, I would try to understand what you meant by that, would try to be respectful about such a personal belief, and otherwise wouldn't give it much thought. But if somebody came along and said "I am a child of God" was: insidious Orwellian doublespeak intended to undermine civilization factually wrong given what "child" actually means something that must be resisted a phrase used by people who think "child" means anything and everything that anybody wants it to mean and is an existential threat to the English language something that must be mocked with a tedious set of memes about how stupid it is to think "child" means anything you want it to mean, then... I would point out that in all likelihood, this person hasn't really looked at the "I am a child of God" issue with empathy and nuance. The asinine response proves it. I totally agree.
  22. Could you elaborate? For example, the first definition I offered was this: Sex refers to a person's biological status and is typically assigned at birth, usually on the basis of external anatomy. Sex is typically categorized as male, female or intersex. How, specifically, does that sow confusion and falsehood? Do you disagree and think the word "sex" doesn't pertain to biological status, isn't assigned at birth, and isn't usually made on the bases of external anatomy? It seems to be really, really, important to you for "my side" to be unwilling to answer questions about this. What I see is that you are unwilling to listen to any answer that is given or to appreciate any nuance that may actually exist. Word often have multiple definitions, and people who are interested in communicating try to understand the ways the words are used. CFR. CFR. What term did I radically redefine? The glossary I offered you wasn't stuffed down your throat. There were no threats. No bullying. The purpose of the glossary, as published by a respected news organization, is "to help people communicate accurately and respectfully with one another." You come across as being adamantly opposed to respectful communication on this issue. All "me and mine" are suggesting is that we try to have empathy for each other and treat each other with respect. And that is what you are resisting. You sound just like the radical Christian who says, "a Mormon can pretend he is a Christian if he wants, but as soon as he insists that others go along with that falsehood, then we need to resist!" I'm certainly not seeing it in your memes. CFR. I presented you with a glossary of what these terms mean (for your convenience, here is a link). Where did "me and mine" say "woman means whatever you want it to mean."? Personally, I don't really care. Presuming Ms. Dolezal was honest about the way in which she is "black" (i.e. if she honestly disclosed that she was born in Montana to white parents of European descent, but self-identifies as black), then I don't care if she applies for the scholarship or not. CFR that I or anybody like me affirm anything of the sort. [In response to me saying, "When somebody says they "identify as a woman", they are saying their internal sense of being is that of a woman..." ] What makes you an authority on what they mean when they talk about gender identification? In my last post, I presented you with a well-thought out, internally consistent glossary that was prepared by NPR with help from GLAAD, the National Center for Transgender Equality, the Trans Journalists Association, NLGJA: The Association of LGBTQ Journalists, Human Rights Campaign, InterAct and the American Psychological Association. According to that resource: Gender identity is one's own internal sense of self and their gender, whether that is man, woman, neither or both. Unlike gender expression, gender identity is not outwardly visible to others. For most people, gender identity aligns with the sex assigned at birth, the American Psychological Association notes. For transgender people, gender identity differs in varying degrees from the sex assigned at birth. That's what "gender identity" means to people who use that term. I wasn't talking about "biological facts." I was talking about what the term "gender identity" means by the people who use that term. Again, why do you insist they mean something by "gender identity" other than the definition given by NPR? You are adamantly unwilling to look at these issues with empathy and nuance, and insist that the phrase "gender identity" must have precisely the same definition as "biological sex." You deliberately equivocate between these words and ideas, and use that equivocation as the basis for your "astute" memes. In reality, your "astute" memes are bigoted.
  23. In my example, the investigator was using a Catholic version of Ash's "four legs." Substitute Pope for Prophet, and you are at the same place. My point is to criticize the self-serving nature of the stool, where the legs were chosen to stack the deck against objectively evaluating the most fundamental and pertinent questions. Use Ash's stool to avoid questioning Mormonism. Use a Catholic version to avoid questioning Catholicism. Design whatever stool you want to rationalize the beliefs you want to rationalize. "Forcing" is a synonym for the "a lot of social pressure" you asserted. You are mocking people who uses gender identity terms in a modern way. You are mocking people who uses gender identity terms in a modern way. These are not examples of an attitude of or a brutal policy of draconian control by propaganda, surveillance, disinformation, denial of truth (doublethink). It has nothing to do with being Orwellian. If you think this is astute, it just illustrates an exceedingly superficial understanding of the issues. If you actually listened to the people you are mocking rather than caricatures of them from the right-wing media, you'd know that an actual glossary of relevant words would include the words sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, cisgender, transgender, nonbinary, agender, gender-expansive, gender transition, gender dysphoria, sexual orientation, and intersex. You would also know that the vocabulary list adds precision and insight into the issues. Please read a primer on the subject. Consider the following definitions: Sex refers to a person's biological status and is typically assigned at birth, usually on the basis of external anatomy. Sex is typically categorized as male, female or intersex. Gender is often defined as a social construct of norms, behaviors and roles that varies between societies and over time. Gender is often categorized as male, female or nonbinary. Gender identity is one's own internal sense of self and their gender, whether that is man, woman, neither or both. Unlike gender expression, gender identity is not outwardly visible to others. For most people, gender identity aligns with the sex assigned at birth, the American Psychological Association notes. For transgender people, gender identity differs in varying degrees from the sex assigned at birth. What is Orwellian about using several words in precise ways to describe different things? You are mocking transgender people and everyone who uses a modern vocabulary of gender identity. I totally agree. Yet it is the anti-transgender crowd such as Marsha Blackburn (R) who are asking it! The problem with that bad-faith question is that in the context of gender identity, it is an ambiguous question. Who said they can't "identify" as Black? When somebody says they "identify as a woman", they are saying their internal sense of being is that of a woman. They aren't making a comment about their biology--they are making a comment about how they feel on the inside. If you think it is wrong for Lia Thomas or Caitlynn Jenner to feel on the inside like they are women, and you think it is wrong for somebody else to feel on the inside like they are black, a six-year old girl, a "reptile/dragon," a wolf, or anything else, why isn't it wrong for you to feel like you are a child of God?
  24. How would you react if an investigator of the Church had this attitude? What if he said: A) I strongly feel the LDS Church is true B) But those feelings are subjective and can't be proven or disproven until the hereafter C) Scriptures and Church authority have plainly explained that the rock of the Church is Peter and all successive Popes D) Therefore despite my personal feelings to the contrary, I won't rationalize and adopt a conclusion that is at odds with scriptural and Catholic teachings The tension between personal feelings/personal revelation and the dogma of churches isn't a new phenomenon, and it reminds me of what Emerson said when he echoed Joseph Smith and said he'd follow the Spirit even if it contradicted dogma: So, you are against using social pressure in ways that could harm children? I certainly am, and can't help but think of Richard Dawkins thoughts on this topic: Those statistics don't have context and could be very misleading (e.g. was the 1,000% increase an increase of 1 to 10? How many should have been referred?). Further, they don't give any indication that you are right about widespread "social pressure" being out there that is inappropriately forcing people to be transgender. If a child, parent, or doctor makes a bad decision or gives bad advice then that's too bad. Of course. And if somebody really is subject to inappropriate social pressure, that's bad too. Of course. But that doesn't excuse throwing rocks from the living room of your glass house. Of course. But memes that mock people are disrespectful. For example, the following meme is disrespectful: Likewise, the various mocking memes you've posted lack taste and respect. e.g.
×
×
  • Create New...