Our stance is truly “zero tolerance”
More calls to fire and shun people who don’t believe men are women:
AN SNP politician has retweeted a message calling for Joanna Cherry to be expelled from the party.
Kirsty Blackman, the MP for Aberdeen North, appeared to endorse the post amid an ongoing row over trans rights.
Or trans “rights.” The issue gets wildly confused because of the chronic failure to specify which “rights” we’re talking about. Just saying “trans rights” makes it sound as if the issue is basic human rights, when in fact what is contentious is the claim that men who identify as trans have a “right” to invade women’s spaces and take women’s prizes and jobs with no questions asked. It’s not a basic human right to be “validated” as whatever you say you are. If it were we could all identify as the Queen and sleep in her bed.
Ms Blackman retweeted a message from another user which read: “If my party truly stands for trans rights and equality, if our stance is truly ‘zero tolerance’, then it has to start from within. Joanna C must be expelled from the SNP.
“Show the people of Scotland and the rest of the UK that ‘zero tolerance’ means exactly that.”
Yeah, show the world that the SNP has zero tolerance, that sounds like a great idea!
Zero tolerance of what, dumbfuck?
Zero tolerance of ignoring the rage of dumbfucks on Twitter?
The Edinburgh South West MP [Joanna Cherry] was sacked from the SNP’s Westminster front bench in February amid deepening divisions in the party.
This morning, she tweeted: “As a lesbian & a feminist I’ve spent a lifetime campaigning for equality & to be clear I support trans rights.”
What I don’t support is the right of any man to self-ID as a woman & access the single sex spaces which the #EqualityAct protects for women & girls.”
What I’m saying. I too support trans rights, meaning the same human rights everyone has. I don’t consider it even slightly a “right” to self-ID as a woman and proceed to grab everything that belongs to women – it’s the opposite of a right, an anti-right, a force that steals other people’s rights.
Zero Tolerance for weapons in school sounds great until your kid is suspended for carrying nail clippers or a plastic sword .
Books can be weapons. Notebooks can be weapons.
In other words, that sort of ‘right’ is the ‘right’ of theives to their loot, and in violation of about the most ancient right of all; that of personal property, as embodied in the Eighth Commandment: “Thou shalt not steal.’ That one in turn runs right down through the Animal Kingdom and includes such behaviours as territoriality, and a dog’s defence of its bone.
Tolerate trans-men claiming a ‘right’ to invade womens’ spaces, and anything goes thereafter. It even leaves Hitler’s claim to Czechoslovakia seeming perfectly right and just.
A. If trans people correctly know that their true sex through their subjective experiences, then they have a right to openly declare their true sex, and others have a duty to believe them.
B. If Christians correctly know the True God through their subjective experience, then they have a right to openly declare the truth of God, and others have a duty to believe them.
I have spent a lot of time pointing out flaws in B. It comes in handy for doing the same with A.
It basically comes down to not having the right to assume that bit about being “correct.”
Don’t tell my students.
Sastra: I got called an anti-semite last week for making the same comparison but using Jewish identification as the chosen people of God. They really only have one rhetorical tactic.
#4 Sastra
Would you be disappointed to learn that Matt Dillahunty (The Atheist Experience) thinks that that comparison is invalid? According to him, the vital difference is that a trans person is only making a personal claim, while the christian is making a claim about the entire universe. Therefore, apparently, they get to make the claim and no one gets to question it.
In that case:
I don’t find any substantive difference between a man saying “I am female” versus “I am reptile”. They are both claims about the person, both contrary to testable reality.
Except it’s not just a personal claim, is it. The whole case for including TIMs in all the spaces previously reserved for biological females ultimately rests on the claim that – on some level – they are the same (in a way that “men” are not). There is no way to defend such a view without also making a claim about biological females. If I am what you are, then you are what I am. As I have previously put it, I think TWAW basically boils down to: “Women are whatever they have to be to make me one of them, and they don’t get a say in the matter”
^ That’s such a clarifying way to put it.
That is a difference, but I don’t think it’s all that vital. A personal claim isn’t necessarily minor, especially, as Bjarte notes, if it actually has implications for everyone else’s personal claims.
And it seems to rest on the assumption that personal claims are reliable, which…come on. People can be wrong, they can lie, they can be confused, they can be socially influenced, they can have powerful fantasies.
Both A and B can be formulated as personal claims, and/ or as statements about the universe.
“I KNOW my own self, and to the very foundation of my being I recognize myself as (a woman) (as a child of God.)”
In the first case there must be a preexisting Gender Identity in the human species as a whole, and in the second case there must be a preexisting God. And in both cases it’s “I don’t need to prove myself to you!” when you question those premises.
But it’s the duty as the flip side of the right which is particularly worrisome. “If I’m right, then I have a right to be believed, and you have a duty to believe me.” But even if the claimant IS right about human Gender Identity or a cosmic God, they would have no warrant to be certain they’re right. Subjective truths don’t become knowable with objective certainty just because they’re your own subjective truths.
Hell, half the time we’re wrong about believing we’re really, really in love.
@Holms #7
Dillahunty might notice that one vital similarity is that both trans people and Christians cannot define their respective terms clearly, coherently, or consistently. That’s also the hallmark of pseudoscience.
How can gender identity be “scientific” if the word “gender” in the phrase “gender identity” cannot be defined unless by other terms (“man””woman”) which can’t be defined either? It’s apparently not supposed to matter, even though it’s being used to change the law and our understanding of biology. Dillahunty ought to know better.
It is sad how UN-skeptical our self-defined skeptics can be when it comes to certain beliefs among The Woke. It is just assumed to be true, like small town Southerners assume everyone worthwhile is a Christian.
Seriously.
It’s more like “…and I’m going to make you obey me.”
Yes, it’s hardly a personal claim with no outside consequence if it implicitly redefines what women and men are. But he didn’t care about that.
Well, the pen is mightier than the sword, so that stands to reason. Wait till they hear about cafeteria trays…
It’s not possible, even in principle, to make an objective claim that is exclusively personal. That is a metaphysical hill on which I’m willing to metaphorically die, because it is entailed by the definition of objective. As long as being of the male or female gender is an objective matter, a personal claim regarding it necessarily has entailments regarding others, because it and they supervene on the same concept. A claim regarding gender for one affects the concept for all. The only way it wouldn’t would be if each of us had truly personal language, such that, like Humpty Dumpty, we could use words to mean just what we wanted them to mean. And somehow still be able to understand each other. The notion of personal language is troublesome on its own without even touching on intelligibility.
Now, I think I understand the argument to which Matt alludes. Claims of little consequence can be believed without skepticism, because, well, they’re of little consequence. First-personal claims are the least consequential to others. Therefore, first-personal claims can be believed without skepticism. For example, we generally believe people when they tell us their names without launching in-depth background checks.
This makes me sad, because this argument is bad. Like really bad.