What love isn't

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

Both definitions are legitimate, depending on what a person is talking about.  

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

If I say "I identify as a wolf,

I think I (and others) have bumped up against something like this "arguing from the margins" thing with you before. Are you aware of a substantial portion of the population that is wanting to identify as (insert animal of choice here)? I don't hear of many wondering about identifying as animals or what parts of identifying as an animal are pathological. I DO hear of a substantial portion (even if it is only on the order of 1 or 2%) of the population that is trying to understand the disconnects between their biological sex and their gender and trying to figure out what is truly pathological and what is not. Drawing parallels between transgender and these other extremes does not seem to me to help understand the pathology (or lack of pathology) around gender identity and gender dysphoria.

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Yes.  Still petty and unnecessary, IMO.

Would you insist they salute the flag in a flag ceremony if they attended for some reason?  I am sincerely asking as I don’t understand your position, not trying to say you are wrong. 
 

If 

[ttribe]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Would you insist they salute the flag in a flag ceremony if they attended for some reason?  I am sincerely asking as I don’t understand your position, not trying to say you are wrong. 
 

If 

No. It was an interpersonal interaction with someone outside their faith. Their strident adherence to their doctrine as applied to other people who don't share their beliefs was off-putting, unnecessary, and (as I stated) petty.  If they don't want to use such titles for themselves, so be it.  But, being part of a society where interpersonal interactions are necessary conditions to understanding and co-existence requires a certain amount of give-and-take.  There would have been no harm to them to acknowledge our titles and be respectful to us. I hardly think God would judge them for being polite as long as they, themselves, adopted no such titles.

Do you see the parallel?

Edited January 5, 2022 by ttribe

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

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?”

Good examples.

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

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).

It's "validating," though.  Right?

And this seems to be precisely what many folks want.  No caveat.  No hedging.  "Trans men are men" yields 4.75 million hits on Google (3.9 millions hits for "trans women are women").

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

The middle shuts off interaction before it occurs.  

I don't think so.  If a biological male says "I believe I am a woman," to X, then X's response of "I don't believe you are a woman" seems to be a corollary statement.

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

I think all three options are workable.  But in the end, they will all lead somewhere.  If a biological male announces to others "I am a woman," then there is clearly an expectation being presented, namely, that he expected to be treated as a "she."  Pronouns.  Bathrooms.  Preferential hiring opportunities.  Participation in women's sports.  And so on.

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Whether or not it is appropriate to try and influence a change of identity then will depend on the relationship.

Oh, I agree with you there.

My concern has more to do with the real-world ramifications of going along with that "change of identity."  Going back to the Lia Thomas article:

Quote

In an op-ed published on Sunday, editor-in-chief John Lohn slammed the NCAA’s decision to allow Thomas to compete in women’s events — arguing the current requirements aren’t “nearly stringent enough to create a level playing field” between her and her competitors.

Thomas is eligible — as per the rules set out by the NCAA — to compete in women’s collegiate events after undergoing the required one year of testosterone suppressant use.

The 22-year-old, who competed with the Penn’s men’s swim team for three years prior to coming out as transgender in 2019, has already broken several Penn records so far this season.

“Despite the hormone suppressants she has taken, in accordance with NCAA guidelines, Thomas’ male-puberty advantage has not been rolled back an adequate amount,” Lohn wrote.

“The fact is, for nearly 20 years, she built muscle and benefited from the testosterone naturally produced by her body. That strength does not disappear overnight, nor with a year’s worth of suppressants.”

The editor-in-chief argued that the NCAA needs to change its rules — and that Thomas needs to acknowledge she has an advantage over her competitors.

“The suppressants she has taken account for an approximate 2 percent to 3 percent change. The time difference between male and female swimming records is roughly 11 percent,” he said.

Lohn argued that Thomas “enjoys similar advantages” to athletes in the past who have used drugs to enhance their performances.

If I were one of the competitors, or the family members of one of the competitors, I would take exception to a biological male competing against biological females.

Quote

He likened the situation to the “rampant doping” seen in the ’70s and ’80s when German swimmers Kornelia Ender and Kristin Otto, who have long been suspected of doping, were winning Olympic gold medals and titles.

“Although positive tests were not typically returned, it didn’t take a genius to recognize that doping was at play. Administrators and referees swallowed their words, afraid of being branded for taking an accusatory stance,” Lohn said.

"Afraid of bring branded..."  Everyone values their reputations and good names.  Nobody wants to be accused of being a bigot.  But that seems to be the threat looming over "administrators and referees" (and the rest of us, for that matter).

Quote

“What we are stating is this: The effects of being born a biological male, as they relate to the sport of swimming, offer Thomas a clear-cut edge over the biological females against whom she is competing. She is stronger. It is that simple. And this strength is beneficial to her stroke, on turns and to her endurance. Doping has the same effect,” Lohn said.

It comes after a group of 10 Penn parents sent a letter to the NCAA earlier this month calling for changes to the rules.

An anonymous teammate also previously criticized Thomas’ eligibility to compete on the women’s team to the website OutKick, arguing she has an unfair advantage.

“Pretty much everyone individually has spoken to our coaches about not liking this,” the female swimmer told the site. “Our coach just really likes winning. He’s like most coaches. I think secretly everyone just knows it’s the wrong thing to do.”

"An anonymous teammate..."

"Secretly everyone..."

We ought to be able to have open and honest discussions about these issues.  But that's not happening, because anyone who dares voice a criticism of letting biological males competing in women sports are, it seems, risking their reputation and maybe even their livelihood.  This is an unhealthy state of affairs.

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

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?  

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this question.  "Support them" in what?  

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

If not, do you really have the right to demand they change what is working for them (assuming it is)?  

Again, I don't understand.  I haven't suggested a "right to demand" anything. 

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

If not, do you have a rig'ht to potentially harm*** them when you aren’t going to be around to help them heal?

Again, I don't understand.  What am I doing that causes "potential harm"?

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

***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 being a scientist 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. 

I think we should treat everyone with kindness, decency and respect.

That said, I question whether going along with a falsehood is a necessary component of that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

If I say "I identify as a wolf,

I think I (and others) have bumped up against something like this "arguing from the margins" thing with you before.

It's not an argument from the margins.  It's an argument by analogy.

24 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Are you aware of a substantial portion of the population that is wanting to identify as (insert animal of choice here)?

No.

24 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I don't hear of many wondering about identifying as animals or what parts of identifying as an animal are pathological. I DO hear of a substantial portion (even if it is only on the order of 1 or 2%) of the population that is trying to understand the disconnects between their biological sex and their gender and trying to figure out what is truly pathological and what is not.

Is a "disconnect" between biological sex and "gender identity" materially distinguishable from a "disconnect" between biological status as a homo sapiens and "species identity"?

If I "identify" as a wolf, but am not a wolf, should I nevertheless be treated as a wolf?

If I "identify" as a female homo sapiens, but am not a female homo sapiens, should I nevertheless be treated as a female homo sapiens?

24 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Drawing parallels between transgender and these other extremes does not seem to me to help understand the pathology (or lack of pathology) around gender identity and gender dysphoria.

I'm not really exploring pathologies.  Not qualified.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 hour 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

 

So they don't even let their children call them mom and dad, since they are all actually brothers and sisters?

[pogi]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

How you identify (MLK, Jr's son, a monkey, male, female) doesn't define your biological taxonomy, etc.  Those things are not malleable by psychology and social constructs.  You gender cannot alter what is unalterable.  Because gender is a social construct, it very well may affect socially malleable things, like sports, etc.     

Social constructs like sports, bathrooms, etc. very well may change.   They are just as fluid as gender.   If these social constructs were once "designated" by sex, there is no biological, legal, or absolute eternal law that suggests that they must always be designated by sex, rather than gender.  You seem to be treating the rules of sports and bathrooms like absolute and unmalleable eternal truths.  They are just social constructs like gender, and unlike sex, species, and age etc.  See the difference? 

I get that socially, some people may not like the social changes that are coming in the wind and perceive them as unfair.  Maybe they are.  But life is unfair and sports rules are not as important as eternal laws.  How society deals with these things is up to society, but we should stop pretending like absolute truths are being violated because a biological male can swim on a female sports team because that is how she identifies.  

Edited January 5, 2022 by pogi

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Good examples.

It's "validating," though.  Right?

And this seems to be precisely what many folks want.  No caveat.  No hedging.  "Trans men are men" yields 4.75 million hits on Google (3.9 millions hits for "trans women are women").

I don't think so.  If a biological male says "I believe I am a woman," to X, then X's response of "I don't believe you are a woman" seems to be a corollary statement.

 

It is a corollary statement, but it also does stop the discussion in its tracks. 

If your only desire was to let the person know that you disagree with them, then stopping communication after that point might serve your purpose.  If your goal is to be able to discuss your views in a way that the other person is willing to listen to, then the corollary statement is going to produce a result you don't want, and probably isn't the most logical choice.  

[Vanguard]

45 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It is a corollary statement, but it also does stop the discussion in its tracks. 

If your only desire was to let the person know that you disagree with them, then stopping communication after that point might serve your purpose.  If your goal is to be able to discuss your views in a way that the other person is willing to listen to, then the corollary statement is going to produce a result you don't want, and probably isn't the most logical choice.  

It doesn't necessarily stop it in its tracks. Obviously, it depends on the context. If I am dealing with my son I indeed will exercise empathy in part to stay connected with him (and because I care about him immensely) as we discuss very sensitive issues. If I am responding to an entity on an anonymous debate board, the energy to express empathy and/or validation is not first and foremost but rather secondary to the all-important task of clarifying each position and where the disagreements are. That's why this is a debate forum. Though I may express empathy and/or validation for the other (and I have done so many times), it should not be couched as a requirement in order to have an exchange.

Edited to add: Desires to have one's feelings about an issue validated and/or empathized with I think should be placed in the Social Hall and not the General Discussions forum. 

Edited January 6, 2022 by Vanguard

[The Nehor]

7 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

https://publicsquaremag.org/dialogue/tolerance/what-love-isnt/

The assumption that someone would only lay claim to an identity to stroke their narcissistic ego says more about Jordan Peterson than anything else.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

It doesn't necessarily stop it in its tracks. Obviously, it depends on the context. If I am dealing with my son I indeed will exercise empathy in part to stay connected with him (and because I care about him immensely) as we discuss very sensitive issues. If I am responding to an entity on an anonymous debate board, the energy to express empathy and/or validation is not first and foremost but rather secondary to the all-important task of clarifying each position and where the disagreements are. That's why this is a debate forum.

As I said to Smac, if someone's purpose is to debate (to present an argue and attempt to "win", etc.), then validating another's belief isn't likely to be necessary.  

Quote

Edited to add: Desires to have one's feelings about an issue validated and/or empathized with I think should be placed in the Social Hall and not the General Discussions forum. 

I disagree. I think whether or not validation is useful or important depends a great deal on the topic and on the desired outcome of the discussion.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I think I (and others) have bumped up against something like this "arguing from the margins" thing with you before. Are you aware of a substantial portion of the population that is wanting to identify as (insert animal of choice here)? I don't hear of many wondering about identifying as animals or what parts of identifying as an animal are pathological. I DO hear of a substantial portion (even if it is only on the order of 1 or 2%) of the population that is trying to understand the disconnects between their biological sex and their gender and trying to figure out what is truly pathological and what is not. Drawing parallels between transgender and these other extremes does not seem to me to help understand the pathology (or lack of pathology) around gender identity and gender dysphoria.

The trans-animal movement is small. It is also usually not called that to avoid confusion with biological animals that transition between biological sexes.

Sometimes it is called trans species. Another variation is the otherkin movement though they overlap a lot. It is more common as a fetish. The pup play fetish has been taking off in recent years amongst young gay men in particular but it has occurred across all sexualities. It is also important to distinguish what they are claiming with what others assume. Very few think they are biologically a dragon or whatever.

When I am tempted to think the whole thing is absurd I remember that I identify as a child of an alien (i.e not from this Earth) God who took my spirit and put it into a fallen human body and one day I will return to that God’s presence and receive a different superior body. This flesh does not define me and my current state is not my eternal destiny. Change a few nouns and it sounds pretty similar to the more spiritual trans-species explanations. Is someone saying they think their spirit is part-dragon really that oddball by comparison?

[Vanguard]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

As I said to Smac, if someone's purpose is to debate (to present an argue and attempt to "win", etc.), then validating another's belief isn't likely to be necessary.  

I disagree. I think whether or not validation is useful or important depends a great deal on the topic and on the desired outcome of the discussion.

Fair enough and to repeat, I am naturally empathetic  though every virtue can become a vice at some point. To the extent the desire for validation derails the debate exchange, I think said desire is misplaced. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

Do you see the parallel?

Of course.
 

 I have just casually known a few Jehovah Witnesses and such behaviour to the ones I knew would be like telling a vegan they needed to eat whatever the host served them as they were a guest because it is polite.  That makes sense from one perspective, which is they are guests and it is civil, but it doesn’t take into account the level of their commitment to not eating meat or in this case as explained to me not elevating oneself and others in prideful (to them) ways.

Now there was a kid whose mom refused to bring birthday treats for his birthday each year in my daughter’s elementary class for several years because they were Witnesses, but the kid ate the treats all the other parents brought.  That bugged the aide big time and I agreed with her because there was the option that if the mother didn’t want to enforce their faith’s standard on her kid by telling him not to eat treats, she could bring them for the class on a non holiday as just a general thank you to the class, but she never did nor helped out in any other way, so I am not saying that I agree with any interpretation for action a Witness gives to their beliefs.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Fair enough and to repeat, I am naturally empathetic  though every virtue can become a vice at some point. To the extent the desire for validation derails the debate exchange, I think said desire is misplaced. 

I don’t think debates are that helpful in any case. Both formal debates and informal conversational ones. It is a general rule of thumb for me that anyone who desires to debate people verbally generally are looking to utilize a skillset to “win” and are not in it to inform. People who do written exchanges and rebuttals with plenty of time to organize evidence and facts generally do a better job of teaching or swaying me to their point of view. People who can talk fast and talk over other people just annoy me.

It is ironic that I talk fast and talk over other people when I start talking. Stupid ADHD. It did lead me to study conversational dynamics though. I (with permission) recorded my friends and I just talking and it was strange to see the dynamics when I took the time to transcribe it. Who was able to interrupt who, who people deferred to, and who ‘competed’ with each other to talk. My best friend and I were the ones competing the most and if you read the transcript we were very adversarial in trying to control the conversation even though we had no such feelings.

Human interaction is weird.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

So they don't even let their children call them mom and dad, since they are all actually brothers and sisters?

That is not an honorary title in their view as far as I know.  I know the younger kids called their parents mom and dad, I don’t if adult children did, if they did only in their home or if they call their parents Brother or Sister in church….if that was actually what you were asking.  I never attended a meeting and it didn’t occur to me to ask.  Can’t even remember how I picked up my knowledge about titles (I was a kid when I knew the ones I am thinking of for the titles).  I get that many in our church would see “elder” as just the label of their role, but the connotations for “elder” are different for others.

Edited January 6, 2022 by Calm

[ttribe]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

That is not an honorary title in their view as far as I know.  I know the younger kids called their parents mom and dad, I don’t if adult children did, if they did only in their home or if they call their parents Brother or Sister in church….if that was actually what you were asking.  I never attended a meeting and it didn’t occur to me to ask.  Can’t even remember how I picked up my knowledge about titles (I was a kid when I knew the ones I am thinking of for the titles).  I get that many in our church would see “elder” as just the label of their role, but the connotations for “elder” are different for others.

Interestingly enough, they had no problems calling us "Mister," which is also a title the etymology of which comes from the title of honor "Master." So, really, they were just trading one title for another.

[Vanguard]

40 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t think debates are that helpful in any case. Both formal debates and informal conversational ones. It is a general rule of thumb for me that anyone who desires to debate people verbally generally are looking to utilize a skillset to “win” and are not in it to inform. People who do written exchanges and rebuttals with plenty of time to organize evidence and facts generally do a better job of teaching or swaying me to their point of view. People who can talk fast and talk over other people just annoy me.

It is ironic that I talk fast and talk over other people when I start talking. Stupid ADHD. It did lead me to study conversational dynamics though. I (with permission) recorded my friends and I just talking and it was strange to see the dynamics when I took the time to transcribe it. Who was able to interrupt who, who people deferred to, and who ‘competed’ with each other to talk. My best friend and I were the ones competing the most and if you read the transcript we were very adversarial in trying to control the conversation even though we had no such feelings.

Human interaction is weird.

I like that. I have worried my entire life that I overwhelm others when socially engaged. Watching/Listening to a tape of my conversations with others would probably be uncomfortably illuminating. ; ) I also agree that debates don't accomplish much by way of swaying others. How many times have you heard a poster say "Gee, I hadn't considered that. I stand corrected. Thank you." Almost never. I will say, however, that over time I think my stances have shifted/softened/nuanced/developed/matured a bit as a result of having to listen to others who I am diametrically opposed to. Kuddos to the opposition. : )

[Rain]

19 hours ago, Vanguard said:

It doesn't necessarily stop it in its tracks. Obviously, it depends on the context. If I am dealing with my son I indeed will exercise empathy in part to stay connected with him (and because I care about him immensely) as we discuss very sensitive issues. If I am responding to an entity on an anonymous debate board, the energy to express empathy and/or validation is not first and foremost but rather secondary to the all-important task of clarifying each position and where the disagreements are. That's why this is a debate forum.

This is not a "debate forum".

"THE PURPOSE OF MORMON DIALOGUE AND DISCUSSION: People of all faiths are welcome to engage in substantive and civil discussion about topics related to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Mormonism in general"

-----

It says nothing about either being for debate or not for debate. It is for "substantive and civil discussion."

Now I know some people use it to debate, but others, like I, want to use it to understand both doctrine and other people where it involves the gospel and church. I, personally, want more unity out of the board.

19 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Though I may express empathy and/or validation for the other (and I have done so many times), it should not be couched as a requirement in order to have an exchange.

I agree.  What I do find though is we are less likely to have a substantive conversation without some understanding from both sides for the other side.  

Validation isn't the be all end all.  It's a tool (not quite the word I want) when one or both sides can't see enough of the equation to find the best answer together.

19 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Edited to add: Desires to have one's feelings about an issue validated and/or empathized with I think should be placed in the Social Hall and not the General Discussions forum. 

 

Edited January 6, 2022 by Rain

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

 Because gender is a social construct

Unless one does not view gender simply as a social construct but also inseparably linked to biological sex.  

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Interestingly enough, they had no problems calling us "Mister," which is also a title the etymology of which comes from the title of honor "Master." So, really, they were just trading one title for another.

But Mister is not an honorary title now, but generic. As explained in the article, they don’t want to use titles that promote class distinctions. 

Edited January 6, 2022 by Calm

[ttribe]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

But Mister is not an honorary title now, but generic. As explained in the article, they don’t want to use titles that promote class distinctions. 

Right, so they can bow to societal norms, but only so far.

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Right, so they can bow to societal norms, but only so far.

Yep.  But not seeing how they can really do otherwise and still intermix with others.  For example, while they refuse to swear allegiance to governments, they typically accept the right of governments to have laws…they don’t run red lights and they use the same transportation and other infrastructures everyone else does, they pay taxes to help support such, they use the schools, etc.  But there are the too far lines of voting, serving in the military, swearing allegiances, and birthday cupcakes 😛.  They draw lines.  We all do.  I don’t see too much of a problem with lines usually as long as someone is willing to accept the consequences without whining about it…as in if the rest of the class refused to share cupcakes because it was the kid who went around saying birthdays are bad, if he had whined then about not getting any, I would have pointed out he can’t say something bad about others’ actions and expect people not to react when they were hurt (thankfully the kid never said anything I was aware and the other kids didn’t even notice…just the aide who shared her annoyance with the mom with me, always hanging around room mother).

Edited January 6, 2022 by Calm

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t think debates are that helpful in any case. Both formal debates and informal conversational ones. It is a general rule of thumb for me that anyone who desires to debate people verbally generally are looking to utilize a skillset to “win” and are not in it to inform. People who do written exchanges and rebuttals with plenty of time to organize evidence and facts generally do a better job of teaching or swaying me to their point of view. People who can talk fast and talk over other people just annoy me.

It is ironic that I talk fast and talk over other people when I start talking. Stupid ADHD. It did lead me to study conversational dynamics though. I (with permission) recorded my friends and I just talking and it was strange to see the dynamics when I took the time to transcribe it. Who was able to interrupt who, who people deferred to, and who ‘competed’ with each other to talk. My best friend and I were the ones competing the most and if you read the transcript we were very adversarial in trying to control the conversation even though we had no such feelings.

Human interaction is weird.

Thanks for sharing this. Stupid ADHD is a predominant partner in my household.