Nofear Posted January 5, 2022 Posted January 5, 2022 (edited) While not always the most articulately written, the general sentiment is nonetheless one I agree with. Even the vile, transphobic, mysogynistic, hate-spewing Jordan Peterson's comment: “If I am forced into a position where I have to validate your identity … What if your identity is wrong? What if it’s pathological? What if it doesn’t serve you well? … and if I start validating you, do you think I am your friend? I am not your friend at all, I am a mirror for your narcissism.” ~Jordan Peterson https://publicsquaremag.org/dialogue/tolerance/what-love-isnt/ Edited January 5, 2022 by Nofear
Popular Post ksfisher Posted January 5, 2022 Popular Post Posted January 5, 2022 5 minutes ago, Nofear said: Even the vile, transphobic, mysogynistic, hate-spewing Jordan Peterson's comment: Why the name calling? It's hard to get past that and understand your point. 7
Popular Post bluebell Posted January 5, 2022 Popular Post Posted January 5, 2022 Just now, Nofear said: While not always the most articulately written, the general sentiment is nonetheless one I agree with. Even the vile, transphobic, mysogynistic, hate-spewing Jordan Peterson's comment: “If I am forced into a position where I have to validate your identity … What if your identity is wrong? What if it’s pathological? What if it doesn’t serve you well? … and if I start validating you, do you think I am your friend? I am not your friend at all, I am a mirror for your narcissism.” ~Jordan Peterson https://publicsquaremag.org/dialogue/tolerance/what-love-isnt/ What if we can acknowledge that validation isn't the same thing as agreeing? And, what if we can recognize that often (not always), validating someone's perspective can be a necessary step in getting them to move beyond it? Often an important part of challenging someone's perspective includes validating it first. People rarely find any argument that disagrees with their opinions persuasive if it's presented by someone who they don't believe understands exactly what their opinion is and why they find it compelling. 9
carbon dioxide Posted January 5, 2022 Posted January 5, 2022 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Nofear said: While not always the most articulately written, the general sentiment is nonetheless one I agree with. Even the vile, transphobic, mysogynistic, hate-spewing Jordan Peterson I have watched a number I’d YouTube clips of Jordan Peterson and while I would not agree with everything he presents, your characterization of him is not accurate in my opinion Edited January 5, 2022 by carbon dioxide 3
Vanguard Posted January 5, 2022 Posted January 5, 2022 11 minutes ago, Nofear said: While not always the most articulately written, the general sentiment is nonetheless one I agree with. Even the vile, transphobic, mysogynistic, hate-spewing Jordan Peterson's comment: “If I am forced into a position where I have to validate your identity … What if your identity is wrong? What if it’s pathological? What if it doesn’t serve you well? … and if I start validating you, do you think I am your friend? I am not your friend at all, I am a mirror for your narcissism.” ~Jordan Peterson https://publicsquaremag.org/dialogue/tolerance/what-love-isnt/ Great article (I read about half of it just now)! It reminds of Lewis' analogy in Mere Christianity to a fleet of ships sailing across the ocean. In this analogy there are three considerations - 1) how well does each ship remain in good working order, 2) how well does the fleet keep from colliding with one another, and 2) is the fleet indeed sailing toward its intended destination. His own verbiage is much better - There are two ways in which the human machine goes wrong. One is when human individuals drift apart from one another, or else collide with one another and do one another damage, by cheating or bullying. The other is when things go wrong inside the individual – when the different parts of him (his different faculties and desires and so on) either drift apart or interfere with one another. You can get the idea plain if you think of us as a fleet of ships sailing in formation. The voyage will be a success only, in the first place, if the ships do not collide and get in one another's way; and, secondly, if each ship is seaworthy and has her engines in good order. As a matter of fact, you cannot have either of these two things without the other. If the ships keep on having collisions they will not remain seaworthy very long. On the other hand, if their steering gears are out of order they will not be able to avoid collisions. Or, if you like, think of humanity as a band playing a tune. To get a good result, you need two things. Each player's individual instrument must be in tune and also each must come in at the right moment so as to combine with all the others. But there is one thing we have not yet taken into account. We have not asked where the fleet is trying to get to, or what piece of music the band is trying to play. The instruments might be all in tune and might all come in at the right moment, but even so the performance would not be a success if they had been engaged to provide dance music and actually played nothing but Dead Marches. And however well the fleet sailed, its voyage would be a failure if it were meant to reach New York and actually arrived at Calcutta. Morality, then, seems to be concerned with three things. Firstly, with fair play and harmony between individuals. Secondly, with what might be called tidying up or harmonising the things inside each individual. Thirdly, with the general purpose of human life as a whole: what man was made for: what course the whole fleet ought to be on: what tune the conductor of the band wants it to play.2 In the final paragraph of the chapter this excerpt is taken from, Lewis states, “It seems, then, that if we are to think about morality, we must think of all three departments: relations between man and man: things inside each man: and relations between man and the power that made him. We can all co-operate in the first one. Disagreements begin with the second and become serious with the third. It is in dealing with the third that the main differences between Christian and non-Christian morality come out.” Easy enough to avoid hitting into each other's ship, harder to keep our own ship in good working order, and what seems infinitely harder to gain consensus about where we are actually all headed for. 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted January 5, 2022 Posted January 5, 2022 19 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Why the name calling? It's hard to get past that and understand your point. It’s tongue in cheek from another thread
SeekingUnderstanding Posted January 5, 2022 Posted January 5, 2022 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
ksfisher Posted January 5, 2022 Posted January 5, 2022 18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: It’s tongue in cheek from another thread Didn't understand that with no context given.
Nofear Posted January 5, 2022 Author Posted January 5, 2022 38 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: I have watched a number I’d YouTube clips of Jordan Peterson and while I would not agree with everything he presents, your characterization of him is not accurate in my opinion Agree with everything you say.
Popular Post smac97 Posted January 5, 2022 Popular Post Posted January 5, 2022 1 minute ago, bluebell said: What if we can acknowledge that validation isn't the same thing as agreeing? That's an interesting question. Could you elaborate? How would a person "validate" something without "agreeing" with it? Consider the synonyms for "validate": Quote approve certify confirm corroborate endorse justify legalize legitimize ratify substantiate verify authenticate authorize constitute okay sanction John Hancock bear out give stamp of approval give the go-ahead give the green light give the nod make binding make legal make stick rubber-stamp set seal on sign off on And the synonyms for "agree": Quote acknowledge admit allow comply concede concur grant recognize set settle sign accede acquiesce check consent engage okay permit subscribe be of the same mind bury the hatchet buy into clinch the deal come to terms cut a deal give blessing give carte blanche give green light give the go-ahead go along with make a deal pass on play ball see eye to eye shake on side with take one up on yes I guess I'd like to better understand how I could "validate" a statement (that is, to "make {it} valid," to "substantiate" and "confirm" it) without "agreeing" with it (that is, "to have the same views, emotions, etc.; harmonize in opinion or feeling (often followed by with)"). If someone comes to me and says: "I am the reincarnated Jesus Christ," am I obligated to "validate" that statement? If so, why? And how would I "validate" it while simultaneously not "agreeing" with it? If a 5'9" tall caucasian male comes to me and says "I am a 6'5" seven-year-old Chinese girl," am I obligated to validate that? If a biological male in his mid fifties comes to me and says "I am a six-year-old girl named Stefonknee," am I obligated to validate that? Am I obligated to "validate" Elizabeth Warren's claim about being a Native American? Amd I obligated to "validate" people who feel they are "trans-species"? I think "validating" such things would be tantamount to ratifying falsehoods. Moreover, elevating feelings over reality creates some real-world problems pretty quickly. 1 minute ago, bluebell said: And, what if we can recognize that often (not always), validating someone's perspective can be a necessary step in getting them to move beyond it? If you were to say what we can/out to respect someone's perspective (as in "to show regard or consideration for"), that is a more workable approach for me than "validating" it. 1 minute ago, bluebell said: Often an important part of challenging someone's perspective includes validating it first. People rarely find any argument that disagrees with their opinions persuasive if it's presented by someone who they don't believe understands exactly what their opinion is and why they find it compelling. Are you equating understanding a perspective with validating it? I see quite a bit of sunlight between those two. An example: Last year I had a friend approach me and excitedly tell me that he had participated in the January 6 protest/riot in Washington D.C. He thought it was a wonderful event. It was pretty clear to me that he was expecting me to both "validate" and "agree" with him. We talked for a bit, and while I made it clear that I understood his position on this, I also made it clear that I did not "validate" or "agree" with it. I said that I fundamentally disagree with violence as an expression of political disagreement or dissent, that many parts of the protest were unlawful, and that it would be hypocritical to justify such behavior where I had previously opposed other instances of violent protests/riots. We are still friends, but our relationship has never been quite the same. He was not looking for understanding. Instead, I think he was looking for ratification. Endorsement. Validation. Agreement. Celebration. High fives. And when those things were not forthcoming from me, he took that as a affront to his dignity and a disparagement of him as a person. So it is, I think, with many in the "gender identity" arena. Many such folks are not looking for mere acknowledgement or understanding of their perspective. They are looking for something quite a bit more than that (ratification, endorsement, validation, agreement, celebration, and so on). The difficulty I have with this is that if these things are not forthcoming from an individual, then that individual is branded as a bigot, a hater, a transphobe, etc. It's a form of coercion. Bullying. Thanks, -Smac 6
Popular Post Fether Posted January 5, 2022 Popular Post Posted January 5, 2022 Ben Shapiro had an interview (with Joe Rogan I think, I can’t find it now) a while back where is shared an experience where he was speaking at a university. During the Q&A portion, a trans girl came up and was asking questions and arguing. He was doing his Ben Shapiro thing and at one point the girl started crying and ran off. After the event, he had that portion of the video deleted before posting. He found out who the girl was, reached out, and scheduled a dinner with her. At the dinner he respected her pronouns and had a pleasant conversation with her. Ben went on to make the point that when we are in a position of debate or discussing social issues, we need to be honest and critical about it all. But that is not how we ought to act in our day to day. We don’t need to be on the offensive / defensive all the time. When I am with my two LGBTQ siblings and my sister who left the church, I don’t need to demand we talk about these topics. If they bring it up, then we can spend time on it and I will tell them what I believe. Talking down on the LGBTQ community is likely the worst thing we can do. I see many Latter-day Saint confusing their faith with their favorite political commentator and it is very frustrating 10
Popular Post pogi Posted January 5, 2022 Popular Post Posted January 5, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: That's an interesting question. Could you elaborate? How would a person "validate" something without "agreeing" with it? Consider the synonyms for "validate": And the synonyms for "agree": I guess I'd like to better understand how I could "validate" a statement (that is, to "make {it} valid," to "substantiate" and "confirm" it) without "agreeing" with it (that is, "to have the same views, emotions, etc.; harmonize in opinion or feeling (often followed by with)"). If someone comes to me and says: "I am the reincarnated Jesus Christ," am I obligated to "validate" that statement? If so, why? And how would I "validate" it while simultaneously not "agreeing" with it? If a 5'9" tall caucasian male comes to me and says "I am a 6'5" seven-year-old Chinese girl," am I obligated to validate that? If a biological male in his mid fifties comes to me and says "I am a six-year-old girl named Stefonknee," am I obligated to validate that? Am I obligated to "validate" Elizabeth Warren's claim about being a Native American? Amd I obligated to "validate" people who feel they are "trans-species"? I think "validating" such things would be tantamount to ratifying falsehoods. Moreover, elevating feelings over reality creates some real-world problems pretty quickly. If you were to say what we can/out to respect someone's perspective (as in "to show regard or consideration for"), that is a more workable approach for me than "validating" it. Are you equating understanding a perspective with validating it? I see quite a bit of sunlight between those two. An example: Last year I had a friend approach me and excitedly tell me that he had participated in the January 6 protest/riot in Washington D.C. He thought it was a wonderful event. It was pretty clear to me that he was expecting me to both "validate" and "agree" with him. We talked for a bit, and while I made it clear that I understood his position on this, I also made it clear that I did not "validate" or "agree" with it. I said that I fundamentally disagree with violence as an expression of political disagreement or dissent, that many parts of the protest were unlawful, and that it would be hypocritical to justify such behavior where I had previously opposed other instances of violent protests/riots. We are still friends, but our relationship has never been quite the same. He was not looking for understanding. Instead, I think he was looking for ratification. Endorsement. Validation. Agreement. Celebration. High fives. And when those things were not forthcoming from me, he took that as a affront to his dignity and a disparagement of him as a person. So it is, I think, with many in the "gender identity" arena. Many such folks are not looking for mere acknowledgement or understanding of their perspective. They are looking for something quite a bit more than that (ratification, endorsement, validation, agreement, celebration, and so on). The difficulty I have with this is that if these things are not forthcoming from an individual, then that individual is branded as a bigot, a hater, a transphobe, etc. It's a form of coercion. Bullying. Thanks, -Smac The problem here is in how we define gender. You seem to be defining it as "biological sex" which is a trait and fact, much like height, age, etc. Gender, on the other hand, is being used to describe how one identifies. There is no problem with validating how one feels, and how they identify. That is NOT the same as "validating falsehoods". Edited January 5, 2022 by pogi 5
Popular Post bluebell Posted January 5, 2022 Popular Post Posted January 5, 2022 44 minutes ago, smac97 said: That's an interesting question. Could you elaborate? How would a person "validate" something without "agreeing" with it? Here are some good links that give ways and ideas on how to validate when you disagree: https://michaelssorensen.com/how-to-validate-someone-when-you-dont-agree-with-them/ https://www.commcoterie.com/blog/why-validation-works https://www.onsolidgroundcounseling.com/post/2015/08/31/creating-closeness-in-disagreement-the-power-of-validation https://thegetrealproject.com/2016/09/really-listen-disagree/ https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-emotional-validation-425336 https://www.gottman.com/blog/what-to-do-when-you-disagree/ With validation, I think it's important to remember that it is really the beginning of the conversation or discussion, not the end of it. In a lot of ways it's just being able and willing to walk a couple of miles in someone else's shoes with the goal of seeing the experience through their eyes. You don't have to agree with someone to be able to do that. And the discussion isn't over after those couple of miles. As validation happens, that opens the door for further discussion and mutual understanding and respect. You might both still completely disagree with each other when it's all over but hopefully you both feel valued (not your opinions, but as a person) and open to different points of view. Because if a person is hoping to change someone's mind about a belief, then them being open to different points of view, especially that person's point of view, is necessary. If they just want to argue about who is right or win a debate (which I think can have its place), then validation isn't important. It really depends on the end goal. 6
carbon dioxide Posted January 5, 2022 Posted January 5, 2022 3 minutes ago, pogi said: The problem here is in how we define gender. You seem to be defining it as "biological sex" which is a trait and fact, much like height, age, etc. Gender, on the other hand, is being used to describe how one identifies. There is no problem with validating how one feels, and how they identify. That is NOT the same as "validating falsehoods". I think most use gender and biological sex interchangeably. How one feels is fine for them but others don’t feel or identify the same way. If a man comes to my house and feels they are a dog, it does me no good to validate their feelings and they then proceed to take a poop on my lawn. The problem is some people are going far beyond just simple validation but they are demanding accommodation and submission. They are going to come into a locker room and demand everyone else accept it whether they like it or not.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted January 5, 2022 Posted January 5, 2022 (edited) 36 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: They are going to come into a locker room Clearly this person belongs in the woman’s locker room: https://www.boredpanda.com/transgender-man-before-and-after-jamie-wilson/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic Edited January 5, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding 1
smac97 Posted January 5, 2022 Posted January 5, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, pogi said: The problem here is in how we define gender. And also how gender is being re-defined. "Sex," it has been only recently argued, is "biological" (in the chromosomes, the genitalia, the secondary sex characteristics, etc.), whereas "gender" is "psychological" and/or a "social construct." But even this differentiation is falling apart, as we are now being told that sex is something that is "assigned." If I had been "assigned" as a female, that would have been . . . biologically incorrect. My biological sex was not "assigned" or chosen by the doctor who delivered me in a tiny hospital in Kahuku, Hawaii. Instead, my biological sex was, and is, and always will be, built into every cell of my body. I have great sympathy and compassion for people facing difficulties like gender dysphoria. These issues have become hugely politicized, and there is a lot of bullying and menacing about them. Very unfortunate. 2 hours ago, pogi said: You seem to be defining it as "biological sex" which is a trait and fact, much like height, age, etc. Gender, on the other hand, is being used to describe how one identifies. Okay. Work with me on this, as I would like to understand your position, which seems to utterly sever "gender" from "biology." Consider the following: If I say "I identify as a wolf," then in my view that does alter anything as to my status as a human. If I say "I identify as a ten-year old," then in my view that does not alter anything as to my actual age. If I say "I identify as the biological son of Martin Luther King, Jr.," then in my view that does not alter my parentage. Do you agree or disagree with these propositions? Now, it may happen that I can, in furtherance of my "identifying" as a wolf, mimic and adopt behaviors that are generally attributed to wolves: quadrupedal movement, living in the wild, howling, etc. But what does that mean? Am I a wolf because I "identify" as one, or am I a human? Also, what if I, identifying myself as a wolf, bite someone? Can I be euthanized as a dangerous animal? If not, why not? Also, let's say that I, identifying myself as a wolf, am killed in a tragic propane explosion. If a medical pathologist thereafter examined my remains (my bones, my remaining flesh, my teeth, my DNA, etc.), would his report list the remains as being those of a human being, or a wolf? 2 hours ago, pogi said: There is no problem with validating how one feels, and how they identify. That is NOT the same as "validating falsehoods". Again, I'd like to better understand this. If I, a human being (homo sapiens) named Spencer Macdonald, "identify" as a wolf (canis lupus), and you "validate" that identity, what would you say is my species? Homo sapiens or canis lupus? In my view, you "validating" my "identity" as a wolf (canis lupus) would be "validating" a falsehood. Is it? Thanks, -Smac Edited January 5, 2022 by smac97 2
Robert F. Smith Posted January 5, 2022 Posted January 5, 2022 3 hours ago, Nofear said: While not always the most articulately written, the general sentiment is nonetheless one I agree with. Even the vile, transphobic, mysogynistic, hate-spewing Jordan Peterson's comment: “If I am forced into a position where I have to validate your identity … What if your identity is wrong? What if it’s pathological? What if it doesn’t serve you well? … and if I start validating you, do you think I am your friend? I am not your friend at all, I am a mirror for your narcissism.” ~Jordan Peterson ...................... Yup. That's what love isn't, at least from your end.
Popular Post Fether Posted January 5, 2022 Popular Post Posted January 5, 2022 7 minutes ago, smac97 said: Again, I'd like to better understand this. If I, a human being (homo sapiens) named Spencer Macdonald, "identify" as a wolf (canis lupus), and you "validate" that identity, what would you say is my species? Homo sapiens or canis lupus? In my view, you "validating" my "identity" as a wolf (canis lupus) would be "validating" a falsehood. Is it? Perhaps it’s more along the lines of validating that you understand them. In sales, when I am talking to someone and they are sharing their feelings, whether their feelings make sense or not, I try to understand and validate that I recognize that I know what they are feeling. I ask further questions on it. Doing so helps them feel more comfortable talking to me. 5
pogi Posted January 5, 2022 Posted January 5, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: If I say "I identify as a wolf," then in my view that does alter anything as to my status as a human. A wolf is a biological entity. Sex, like a wolf, is a biological description. It is not a "psychological" and/or a "social construct", like gender is. You may identify as a wolf, but you are still a human. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: If I say "I identify as a ten-year old," then in my view that does not alter anything as to my actual age. I agree, just like identifying as a female, does not alter a persons sex, regardless of what their actual sex is. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: If I say "I identify as the biological son of Martin Luther King, Jr.," then in my view that does not alter my parentage. I agree. Once again you are conflating biological facts with "psychological and/or social constructs". No one is arguing that a biological male identifying as a female alters his chromosomes. Edited January 5, 2022 by pogi 4
smac97 Posted January 5, 2022 Posted January 5, 2022 50 minutes ago, bluebell said: Quote Quote What if we can acknowledge that validation isn't the same thing as agreeing? That's an interesting question. Could you elaborate? How would a person "validate" something without "agreeing" with it? Here are some good links that give ways and ideas on how to validate when you disagree: https://michaelssorensen.com/how-to-validate-someone-when-you-dont-agree-with-them/ https://www.commcoterie.com/blog/why-validation-works https://www.onsolidgroundcounseling.com/post/2015/08/31/creating-closeness-in-disagreement-the-power-of-validation https://thegetrealproject.com/2016/09/really-listen-disagree/ https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-emotional-validation-425336 https://www.gottman.com/blog/what-to-do-when-you-disagree/ I am glad we are talking about this, as we seem to be talking past each other a bit. In a sense, you seem to be speaking of validating people (as evidenced by your links) whereas I was referring to validing concepts / ideas / opinions. From your second link: Quote Validation means that you recognize another person’s thoughts, feelings, or behaviors as understandable and valid. ... If the person you’re talking to (or the person who is talking at you) feels like they’re not understood or you’re not listening, they might keep doubling down and repeating themselves. What they want is a reaction from you, because we all want to be validated. ... Maybe your friend, partner, family member, or coworker says or does things that you would never, ever do. Why would you validate their words and actions? Disagreement is often the reason that we don’t validate someone, but the good news is, you don’t need to agree with someone to validate their feelings! All you’re doing is accepting their individual experience and saying that their emotions are understandable. See, I don't quite accept that. I think this is an ideosyncratic application of the word "validate," both because it is ambiguous (are you "validating" the individual as having worth and merit, or are you "validating" their opinion on a given issue?) and because that ambiguity is part of the problem. I think we as a society are beginning to conflate our innate worth as individuals with "validation" of our opinions/perspectives on a given topic. I will always "validate" the former, but "validating" the latter would, in my mind, transcent "accepting their individual experience and saying that their emotions are understandable" and extend into ratification and endorsement of that experience and those emotions. 50 minutes ago, bluebell said: With validation, I think it's important to remember that it is really the beginning of the conversation or discussion, not the end of it. In a lot of ways it's just being able and willing to walk a couple of miles in someone else's shoes with the goal of seeing the experience through their eyes. You don't have to agree with someone to be able to do that. And the discussion isn't over after those couple of miles. Okay. I think we have differeing perspectives on what "validate" means. 50 minutes ago, bluebell said: As validation happens, that opens the door for further discussion and mutual understanding and respect. You might both still completely disagree with each other when it's all over but hopefully you both feel valued (not your opinions, but as a person) and open to different points of view. I think I'm understanding things more. For you "validation" is functionally equivalent to signaling an awareness and understanding of, and respect for, the other person's perspective, whereas for me "validation" means "to show that something is real or correct." Thanks, -Smac 1
ttribe Posted January 5, 2022 Posted January 5, 2022 While serving my mission in TN, and assigned to the town of Dayton, TN, my companion and I were tracting a neighborhood and realized a pair of Jehovah's Witnesses were coming down the same street as us from the other direction. We actually met them in the middle of the road (kind of wild west style...cue western gun fight music). We exchanged pleasantries and we introduced ourselves as "Elder Tribe and Elder So-and-So." They refused to call us Elder, even after I pointed it out to them a second time. It struck me as petty and unnecessary. Your mileage may vary, of course. 4
Calm Posted January 5, 2022 Posted January 5, 2022 12 minutes ago, ttribe said: They refused to call us Elder, even after I pointed it out to them a second time. It struck me as petty and unnecessary. Your mileage may vary, of course. Are you aware they refuse to use honorary titles with anyone? https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1955321 Quote The prestige produced by titles such as “bishop,” “deacon,” “Reverend Doctor” and “Father” gratifies a desire for honor and praise of men. Titles also make one feel different, separate from others. Yet Christ said: “All you are brothers.” This should prompt us to search the Bible to find out whether honorary titles befit true Christians.—Matt. 23:8, NW. 2
smac97 Posted January 5, 2022 Posted January 5, 2022 11 minutes ago, pogi said: A wolf is a biological entity. So is a male homo sapiens. So me "identifying" as something other than a male homo sapiens doesn't alter my status as that "biological entity." 11 minutes ago, pogi said: Sex, like a wolf, is a biological description. It is not a "psychological" and/or a "social construct", like gender is. You may identify as a wolf, but you are still a human. I agree, just like identifying as a female, does not alter a persons sex, regardless of what their actual sex is. But much of the literature would seem to disallow a corollary statement like "You, a male homo sapiens, may 'identify' as a female homo sapiens, but you are still a male." This is why we are seeing phrases like "people who menstruate" (because trans men are biological women who "identify" as men). This is why biological males are now participating in women's sports (because they "identify" as female). And so on. 11 minutes ago, pogi said: Quote If I say "I identify as the biological son of Martin Luther King, Jr.," then in my view that does not alter my parentage. I agree. Once again you are conflating biological facts with "psychological and/or social constructs". No one is arguing that a biological male identifying as a female alters his chromosomes. I think there is a difference between "conflating" and "not completely differentiating." Quite a bit, actually. If "gender" is something that someone can "identify" under, then my point remains. I can't "identify" my way into becoming the son of Martin Luther King, Jr., either genetically, or legally, or sociologically. As much as I may want to "identify" as his son, I'm . . . not. But Lia Thomas, a male homo sapiens, "identifies" as a female homo sapiens , and is participating in sports designated for female homo sapiens. UPenn seems to be "conflating" sex and gender. Naia Ōkami "identifies" as a wolf. Says he: "On all levels except physical, I am a wolf…*ruff*.“ In my view, designating and treating Lia Thomas as a female homo sapiens because he "identifies" himself as such is logically equivalent to allowing a park ranger to tranq Naia and ship him off to Yellowstone because he "identifies" as a wolf. Now, it appears that nobody is doing much to go along with Naia's "identity." Nobody is calling the police about a "wolf" on the loose. No court of law would authorize law enforcement to euthanize Naia if he bit someone (euthanasia being allowed for dangerous animals). There is no clear-cut delineation between "sex" and "gender." They are substantially intertwined with each other. And society is essentially conflating them, such that someone who "identifies" as a member of a "gender" category is treated as a member of the corresponding "sex" category. Thanks, -Smac 3
Popular Post Calm Posted January 5, 2022 Popular Post Posted January 5, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: In my view, you "validating" my "identity" as a wolf (canis lupus) would be "validating" a falsehood. Is it? “I understand you are a wolf” vs “You want me to think of you as a wolf and I can’t as that isn’t true” vs “I understand you identify as a wolf, what does that mean to you and how does that appear in your life?” The first is going to feel like humoring to both individuals is my guess without any previous discussion (it is a response one might give to a child play acting). The middle shuts off interaction before it occurs. The last is likely going to lead to a positive interaction as both discuss the experience of the individual rather than focusing first on whether they are right or wrong. Whether or not it is appropriate to try and influence a change of identity then will depend on the relationship. First being, are you in at least a minor caregiving relationship (such as being a supportive friend or teacher) with them and are you willing to invest the sacrifices needed to be there to support them as they need it whenever they need it? If not, do you really have the right to demand they change what is working for them (assuming it is)? If not, do you have a right to potentially harm*** them when you aren’t going to be around to help them heal? ***harm to identity doesn’t require the identity to be a disorder though it can be, as a personal example in my youth quite a few people made passing remarks disparaging my abilities and perception of my future because I was a girl, but none of them attempted to help me overcome what they saw as my weaknesses…which if they had been concerned about me as an individual and that was why they insisted my female identity didn’t include having a scientist identity for example, they should have stuck around and helped me explore how my curiosity and desire to learn about science could be satisfied in other ways if they believed they had a right to dismiss that part of my identity and push me to disassociate myself from that. Edited January 5, 2022 by Calm 7
ttribe Posted January 5, 2022 Posted January 5, 2022 40 minutes ago, Calm said: Are you aware they refuse to use honorary titles with anyone? https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1955321 Yes. Still petty and unnecessary, IMO. 1
Recommended Posts