Current Affairs Free Speech

Status
Not open for further replies.
It didn't happen to anywhere near the same degree as we see now since the advent of social media.

You didn't see Bill Clinton win an election result in millions of insane cultists forming the Bush version of QAnon. People no longer accept being wrong at all, or even on the defeated side; it's a different animal.
You didn't see it to the same degree in the past because you weren't exposed to the same degree of coverage of it. Doesn't mean it wasn't as widespread. You don't see anything in a dark room until you switch the lights on.

You can have the same argument about football - Compare when there was one game a week on the TV and to now and it's total media saturation. Even this season it feels like there is more football than recent years but it's not more games being played, just more coverage.
 
You didn't see it to the same degree in the past because you weren't exposed to the same degree of coverage of it. Doesn't mean it wasn't as widespread. You don't see anything in a dark room until you switch the lights on.

You can have the same argument about football - Compare when there was one game a week on the TV and to now and it's total media saturation. Even this season it feels like there is more football than recent years but it's not more games being played, just more coverage.

That's exactly my point. People are networked more easily and therefore set up camps more easily and therefore more capable of refusing to accept a reality because loads of people are in the same boat.

That didn't happen before. There may have been the same number of people in the past capable of it, but it never really manifested into practice.
 
A woman is an adult female human being. Females are distinguished by the production of gametes. They are the definitions.

What you are describing, however, is a trans woman. A letter from the NHS for a smear test to 'women' does not need to change its' vocabulary because the identifier 'trans woman' already exists.

Indeed, your suggestion would actually be pretending transgender people as well as biological sex doesn't exist. It's the same as saying I should say 'across the world' instead of 'around the world' to accommodate the delusions of a flat earther.

So yes, I actually think you're quite barmy for that position, and you validated my whole point by posting it.
No.

A trans-woman is someone who was assigned male at birth and may transition to female.
A trans-man is someone who was assigned female at birth and may transition to male.

Therefore a trans-man can have a cervix.

Understand the basics before taking a stance and throwing derogatory terms at people. It's not a great look.
 
No.

A trans-woman is someone who was assigned male at birth and may transition to female.
A trans-man is someone who was assigned female at birth and may transition to male.

Therefore a trans-man can have a cervix.

Understand the basics before taking a stance and throwing derogatory terms at people. It's not a great look.

Yes, a trans man can have a cervix. So medically they are a woman.

They are both a trans man and a woman. Because biological reality doesn't magically disappear when you transition.

EDIT: I wasn't addressing the scenario in your post; I was talking about your first post.
 
That's exactly my point. People are networked more easily and therefore set up camps more easily and therefore more capable of refusing to accept a reality because loads of people are in the same boat.

That didn't happen before. There may have been the same number of people in the past capable of it, but it never really manifested into practice.
So being able to find like-minded people and being able to establish that a shared belief is a bad thing?

In many societies there was once a reality that non-white people were inferior to white people.
In many societies there was once a reality that homosexuality was an abhorrent and unnatural form of perversion.

And in many societies there are still such realities. But you think people who fall outside such realities shouldn't be capable of finding others who have issues with those realities.

OK.
 
Yes, a trans man can have a cervix. So medically they are a woman.

They are both a trans man and a woman. Because biological reality doesn't magically disappear when you transition.

EDIT: I wasn't addressing the scenario in your post; I was talking about your first post.

I can understand the medical argument but if we're going off medical realities then do you agree with the very widespread acceptance of Gender Dysphoria?

The NHS does and understands that the separation of gender identity and biological or medical sex is so potentially distressing that it can lead to suicide in extreme circumstances. Given that it is a medically recognised condition wouldn't you agree that a slight and uncomplicated change in language use around Trans people is the empathetic and understanding thing to do?

Arguably it's the "medically correct" thing to do given that many fully trained, medically qualified experts with vast experience subscribe to the view that someones gender identity and therefore whether they are a man or woman can be different to their biological sex.
 
So being able to find like-minded people and being able to establish that a shared belief is a bad thing?

In many societies there was once a reality that non-white people were inferior to white people.
In many societies there was once a reality that homosexuality was an abhorrent and unnatural form of perversion.

And in many societies there are still such realities. But you think people who fall outside such realities shouldn't be capable of finding others who have issues with those realities.

OK.

It's a bad thing in that it is unfettered and results in powerful extremes. Every small issue is exacerbated further fuels fears. The trade off isn't worth the harm, as people are unable to distinguish between fact and fiction and are increasingly unable to challenge and evolve their own views. So people become entrenched against 'the other'.
 
I can understand the medical argument but if we're going off medical realities then do you agree with the very widespread acceptance of Gender Dysphoria?

The NHS does and understands that the separation of gender identity and biological or medical sex is so potentially distressing that it can lead to suicide in extreme circumstances. Given that it is a medically recognised condition wouldn't you agree that a slight and uncomplicated change in language use around Trans people is the empathetic and understanding thing to do?

Arguably it's the "medically correct" thing to do given that many fully trained, medically qualified experts with vast experience subscribe to the view that someones gender identity and therefore whether they are a man or woman can be different to their biological sex.

I absolutely agree gender dysphoria is real. I absolutely disagree that denying biological reality to make them feel better is the answer to it.

Instead, trans men and women should be celebrated as trans men and women, not men and women. Claiming a trans woman is literally a woman is as harmful as as gay conversion therapy claiming you can be cured of being gay - you can't. You can't 'cure' biological sex.
 
It's a bad thing in that it is unfettered and results in powerful extremes. Every small issue is exacerbated further fuels fears. The trade off isn't worth the harm, as people are unable to distinguish between fact and fiction and are increasingly unable to challenge and evolve their own views. So people become entrenched against 'the other'.

Surely your last line makes you think that maybe this isn't something that is causing more issues now?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top