Non-Binary?

[Cobby]

I have always and will always be against the PC brigade and it's "sheep" "follow me" culture ... likewise I have and always been one to show respect to others... I think you read my post incorrectly

Whilst not completely mutually exclusive, the two positions are far enough apart that they might as well be. It's certainly not a cohesive position.

Either people are entitled to basic human respect and the anti-PC brigade have to internalize their grudges and bigotry, or... people aren't entitled to respect, and the anti-PC brigade can continue using derogatory terms, pejoratives and generally perpetuating the culture that marginalizes targeted groups. I don't think you can logically agree with both ideologies at the same time, but perhaps I read your post incorrectly. :/

 

[SteveHa]

I'm confused, because the crux of your argument, despite what you are now claiming, is clearly *not* that everyone should have equal rights. You have specifically noted that you won't cede them to people you deem unworthy because you believe they want to take your own rights. In addition to not being a pie, Human Rights are not dished out on a value judgement. They are fundamental and should apply to all.

If you re-read my posts you'll see that at no point did I advocate individuals having different equal rights. In fact, I have said on more than one occasion quite the opposite. I have, at no point, even suggested that my own view of them is a factor in that. In fact, where we do agree is that equal rights are a fundamental value that should apply to all.

Please quote where I have said differently.

Anecdotes (such as "in my experience") are not evidence of system behaviour; if that's all the evidence you need for being against equal rights, well, that's up to you, but the state can and should require good evidence. Of which there is none to support your claim.

What is anecdotal to you is my personal experience. Why should I require further evidence to validate my experience?

Look at it like this: How would you feel if someone kept referring to you as she and her? That's basically how the people you are referring to feel.

As much as you are vehement in your view that those who do not wish to be identified by gender positive terms have the right not to be, I have an equal right to insist that I am identified by the correct gender positive term, or does your equal rights only apply to minorities?

(I know I'm presuming your gender here, but given your posts and your clear and solely provocative support of Trump, it's a fair presumption)

In my opinion, Trump is a complete and utter idiot who has no place on the pantomime stage, let alone the world stage. In my continued opinion, his views are not worthy of even cursory consideration.

 

[Root 66 Woodshop]

Whilst not completely mutually exclusive, the two positions are far enough apart that they might as well be. It's certainly not a cohesive position.

Either people are entitled to basic human respect and the anti-PC brigade have to internalize their grudges and bigotry, or... people aren't entitled to respect, and the anti-PC brigade can continue using derogatory terms, pejoratives and generally perpetuating the culture that marginalizes targeted groups. I don't think you can logically agree with both ideologies at the same time, but perhaps I read your post incorrectly. :/

At no point have I ever stated I agreed with either ideologies...

C'mon Cobby!! You should know me better than that!

I'm an argumentative, psoriatic stud muffin Paranormal Investigator Locksmith that doesn't believe in Religion... Remember?!

 

[DontAsk]

I agree, people declaring "Marriage is between a man and a woman" are putting themselves on a pedestal over those in same-sex relationships, refusing to agree they are entitled to the same rights under law as themselves.

So why do men and women have less rights than same sex couple when it comes to civil partnership, given same sex couples can now marry?

 

[Cobby]

So why do men and women have less rights than same sex couple when it comes to civil partnership, given same sex couples can now marry?

They have fewer rights in that regard because the bigotry inherent in our political/legal system (a holdover from religious leadership) ceded rights to same-sex couples as reluctantly and in the smallest steps as they could, which created an intermediate step with the civil partnerships.

It's the fault of the government's foot dragging that the disparity exists, not a result of systemic oppression of the majority (obviously). The key here is that there is no mainstream resistance to opposite-sex couples from having access to the whole spectrum - in fact a couple recently went to the high court for that right and were denied. Quite the testament to the rigidity of the law created to keep same-sex couples in their own category for as long as possible.

 

[SteveHa]

So you blame religion for a failure of government to allow same sex couples access to a religious ceremony celebrating the religion that you claim has oppressed them?

 

[Cobby]

What is anecdotal to you is my personal experience. Why should I require further evidence to validate my experience?

Your personal experience is objectively anecdotal. You don't require further evidence to validate your experience but you need it to validate your broad assertion that minority groups demand more rights at the expense of majority groups.

Your experience is your own and I have no comment on it because it is, like my own, irrelevant.

As much as you are vehement in your view that those who do not wish to be identified by gender positive terms have the right not to be, I have an equal right to insist that I am identified by the correct gender positive term, or does your equal rights only apply to minorities?

My apologies - I didn't make that point clear enough, obviously.
Those people are asking for basic human respect, much in the same way you do. If you would feel bad having everyone constantly refer to you as she/her, then you understand how they feel when you mis-gender them. It doesn't take away your rights in any way to afford someone basic human respect. You can still be he/him, nobody is trying to take that away from you.

In my opinion, Trump is a complete and utter idiot who has no place on the pantomime stage, let alone the world stage. In my continued opinion, his views are not worthy of even cursory consideration.

Cool, I agree, but I was quoting the other guy.

 

[Cobby]

So you blame religion for a failure of government to allow same sex couples access to a religious ceremony celebrating the religion that you claim has oppressed them?

Do you think religion has played no part in it?

edit: wrong end of stick

 

[SteveHa]

Actually, I could care less about religion (or about the institution of marriage, for that matter); as a disinterested atheist, neither hold any appeal for me.

I accept that religious pressure will have forced Gvt hands.

I'm more curious as to why someone that felt oppressed by a faction in society would be complaining that they don't have access to the rituals of that faction. If it were me I'd want nothing to do with their ceremonies.

 

[Cobby]

Actually, I could care less about religion (or about the institution of marriage, for that matter); as a disinterested atheist, neither hold any appeal for me.

I accept that religious pressure will have forced Gvt hands.

I'm more curious as to why someone that felt oppressed by a faction in society would be complaining that they don't have access to the rituals of that faction. If it were me I'd want nothing to do with their ceremonies.

When it comes to their respective religions, I've never found much logic in the action of religious people. Marriage is especially anachronistic given that its origin was about ownership (you could marry a horse or a cart or whatever) and has been adopted by religions (itself a structure for control). But let's not turn this into the religion thread...

My own concern (and those concerned with equal rights) is the status differences recognized by the state (including some tax advantages IIRC) that they apply inconsistently.

 

[SteveHa]

There are no tax advantages these days. The tax positions between marriage and civil partnerships has been aligned, except possibly with regards to transfer of assets for CGT purpose sand inheritance tax - I'd have to check on that. Certainly for day to day income tax purposes there is no difference (and in fact just about all perks of being married have been taken away. Equalisation has been at the bottom, not the top).

 

[lesliedocherty]

Actually, I could care less about religion (or about the institution of marriage, for that matter); as a disinterested atheist, neither hold any appeal for me.

I accept that religious pressure will have forced Gvt hands.

I'm more curious as to why someone that felt oppressed by a faction in society would be complaining that they don't have access to the rituals of that faction. If it were me I'd want nothing to do with their ceremonies.

I am catholic, with an IVF child, the church view IVF as morally reprehensible, so on that basis i'll never go to a catholic church again.
If an institution doesn't want you, why on earth would you want to associate with it, or take part in any of its ceremonies, don't get it.

 

[Cobby]

I am catholic, with an IVF child, the church view IVF as morally reprehensible, so on that basis i'll never go to a catholic church again.
If an institution doesn't want you, why on earth would you want to associate with it, or take part in any of its ceremonies, don't get it.

Logic has little bearing on religious folk. That's a whole other topic though.

 

[Clinton]

So why do men and women have less rights than same sex couple when it comes to civil partnership, given same sex couples can now marry?

It's not just in marriage / civil partnerships that LGBT couples have more rights.

Here's an interesting article from Canada which explains the real motives the state has with the "protections" it provides to certain special interest groups.

Under theCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,Canadian citizens were supposed to have been guaranteed: (1) freedom of conscience and religion; (2) freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (3) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (4) freedom of association. In reality, all of these freedoms have been curtailed with the legalization of same-sex marriage.

This is someone who was brought up by gay parents and explains how/why so many children brought up by gay parents have problems with their sexuality. But more importantly, she puts forward a good case for what the state's real intentions are - the curtailing of fundamental freedoms and the "ownership" of children.

 

[quikshop]

There was an article in the Telegraph a few days ago asking the question why the increasing number of gender reassignment reversal operations is not getting reported, and how much damage these operations are inflicting on those too young to understand the choices being made for or imposed on them by their virtual signalling peers?

 

[Cobby]

It's not just in marriage / civil partnerships that LGBT couples have more rights.

Here's an interesting article from Canada which explains the real motives the state has with the "protections" it provides to certain special interest groups.

It's not an interesting article unless you're a person that didn't know how much hatred and resentment is harboured by the right-wing and its institutions - such as the Witherspoon Institute; a right-wing "think tank" whose articles very rarely stray beyond hyperbolic homophobic propaganda. And this article is no exception.

It frequently starts its paragraphs with fallacies and lies, and then runs off a string of "it stands to reason!" logic that ends with very strong implications that "gays are bad" and "gay people can't be good parents". Even where it then dips into science, e.g. "neurological gender differences", "children need biological parents" - it's desperately wrong and only those who *want* to believe it will do so.

There's no sound argument or reasoning in this piece, just some disjointed anecdotes intersected with extremely conservative social positions, and it's finished off with some rambling hyperbolic claims of thought policing and restriction of freedoms (none of which are backed up with evidence due to the simple fact that they are untrue).

Worse than that though, is its propagandic nature; framing good anti-discrimination ideals as a bad thing for no reason more apparent than tradition-for-the-sake-of-tradition - 'not discriminating against these groups is progress we don't like!'

It's a pretty nasty piece by a pretty nasty and insidiuous organisation, and it's written for the kind of right-wing reader who doesn't like to hear criticism of their prejudices.

This is someone who was brought up by gay parents and explains how/why so many children brought up by gay parents have problems with their sexuality. But more importantly, she puts forward a good case for what the state's real intentions are - the curtailing of fundamental freedoms and the "ownership" of children.

It *may* be written by the child of a same-sex couple, it may not. Even if it was, that lends it no authority beyond that of an anecdote. None of the assertions she has put forward are supported with any science or evidence or, most of the time, reason - it's a really long opinion piece with a glaringly obvious political agenda (ironic, huh?). The paranoid tint to the piece, about state control, also doesn't help it's stab at authenticity in any way. :/

Hope this helps!

 

[Clinton]

I keep seeing notifications that an ignored member has posted.

That must be the Cobby I put on ignore some months back. I hope he is enjoying himself.

 

[Cobby]

There was an article in the Telegraph a few days ago asking the question why the increasing number of gender reassignment reversal operations is not getting reported, and how much damage these operations are inflicting on those too young to understand the choices being made for or imposed on them by their virtual signalling peers?

I'd be vaguely interested in reading it but that's a good number of quite spurious assumptions by the author:

• the children don't understand
• the decision is inflicted upon the child
• the operations are 'damaging'
• "all medical procedures that back up my personal prejudices must be reported upon <by someone> or they're being hidden for political reasons"
• choices are being made *for* or *imposed upon* the child
• the choices are made by their "peers" (????)
• the only motive of their "peers" (???) is "virtue signalling" and nothing else

Okay I kind of talked myself out of wanting to read the "article" lol

 

[Newchodge]

Interesting that gender and sex are two different things, although the words are used interchangeable.

From what I recall from O level biology every human cell has a sex chromosone, males have X - Y pair and female have Y - Y pair. This in essence by law of probabilities roughly ensures a 50 50 mix of sexes, required for the survival of the species.

From Oxford living dictionary
"sex tends to refer to biological differences, while gender more often refers to cultural and social differences and sometimes encompasses a broader range of identities than the binary of male and female"

Not sure it adds anything.

But some people have chromosomal abnormalities, so they are XYY or XXY.

While absolute gender is biological, the way we express gender is cultural. I have never uderstood why, for years, it has been acceptable for women to wear clothing that is seen as 'male' - trousers, suits, ties, but men wearing dresses is only acceptable as a joke.

Self-perception of gender is also on a continuum, with ultra masculine people at one extreme and ultra feminine at the other. And all things in between.

Why does it matter to anyone other than the individual concerned, if someone with XY chromosomes identifies themselves as a girl and someone with YY as a boy? Their business and no-one elses.

 

[Cobby]

It's always amusing to see folks from the right-wing media use the term "virtue signalling" as a put-down or dismissal - almost like it's incomprehensible that anyone would argue for equal rights or human kindness because, you know, there has to be a reason they're acting like a decent human being...

 

[quikshop]

Why does it matter to anyone other than the individual concerned, if someone with XY chromosomes identifies themselves as a girl and someone with YY as a boy? Their business and no-one elses.

That's not entirely true. How someone presents themselves to the World they interact with does impact them and those around them.

As a senior business bod who leads teams I actively discriminate all of the time; anyone who interviews and manages discriminates against lack of perceived ability, social skills, awareness, attitude (self and of others) and a whole host of other conscious and unconscious measures.

The challenge for my generation and definitely those older is to consciously accept variations on what we have always considered the norm; and gender fluid or an acceptance of gender dismorphia has not previously been a societal norm, and for the majority of society it still isn't.

Those who identify themselves as a gender contrary to their biological sex should be aware of the challenges previous generations face with their choices. Expecting compliance from generations brought up with more conservative expectations would be naive and should be their business.

 

[Cobby]

The challenge for my generation and definitely those older is to consciously accept variations on what we have always considered the norm; and gender fluid or an acceptance of gender dismorphia has not previously been a societal norm, and for the majority of society it still isn't.

Those who identify themselves as a gender contrary to their biological sex should be aware of the challenges previous generations face with their choices.

This is a very good start and self aware approach, but what you are still describing is prejudice.

I'd agree with you that these prejudices were stronger in the generation before you and are still present in the generation after you. However they are your (your generation that is) own to deal with and you shouldn't be trying to frame them in terms of the victims having to simply "accept" those prejudices. Those holding prejudices should be trying to deal with them instead. It doesn't take much to be a decent human being.

Some of your generation may struggle to accept non-binary or transgender people as "normal" but a good portion of your generation still don't accept non-caucasians as "normal", and if your problem is with someone transgender, consider substituting that for someone of a different race and reconsider if your prejudice is still valid. (hint: it isn't).

Expecting compliance from generations brought up with more conservative expectations would be naive and should be their business.

"You can't expect old bigots to not be bigots"
I assure you that I, and every other reasonable human being, absolutely can expect that.

 

[Newchodge]

The challenge for my generation and definitely those older is to consciously accept variations on what we have always considered the norm; and gender fluid or an acceptance of gender dismorphia has not previously been a societal norm, and for the majority of society it still isn't.

As a matter of interest, whay is your generation? I was born in the mid-50's.

 

[lesliedocherty]

i don't see gender fluid people as normal, far from normal, if that makes me a bigot in your eyes, oh well

 

[SteveHa]

It strikes me that Cobby's passive aggressive approach to accusing people of prejudice because they hold a different view to him/her is prejudicial against the views of any opposing point. (example of when this applies, when the opposing view is held by someone out of religious conviction. I don't include myself in this, but the concept is equally abhorrent).

Pots and kettles come to mind.

 

[lesliedocherty]

Its the same as ' i think we need to look at immigration', the reply is 'oi your a racist fascist'

 

[Cobby]

It strikes me that Cobby's passive aggressive approach to accusing people of prejudice because they hold a different view to him/her is prejudicial against the views of any opposing point. (example of when this applies, when the opposing view is held by someone out of religious conviction. I don't include myself in this, but the concept is equally abhorrent).

Pots and kettles come to mind.

I see this quite a lot in this type of discussion. It's usually "if you aren't tolerant of other's opinions, *you're* the bigot."

I think it's fair to draw the line for intolerance at the point where one is denying another person's right to simply exist. If you think a person's intolerance to someone existing is the same another's intolerance to that view, well, I don't really know what to tell you, but that perpetuates the problems of prejudice rather than helping address them.

At the risk of derailing the thread any further, do you consider religion a valid excuse for believing gay people don't deserve human rights?

 

[SteveHa]

I've already highlighted previously in this thread, I'm a dyed in the wool atheist. I personally don't believe religion is a valid reason for anything. Nevertheless, it is a legally protected attribute (in the same way that gender identity is), and so denying someone their right to hold beliefs in accordance with the teachings of their religion is as discriminatory as their beliefs themselves are.

 

[Cobby]

I've already highlighted previously in this thread, I'm a dyed in the wool atheist. I personally don't believe religion is a valid reason for anything. Nevertheless, it is a legally protected attribute (in the same way that gender identity is), and so denying someone their right to hold beliefs in accordance with the teachings of their religion is as discriminatory as their beliefs themselves are.

I'm not suggesting people don't have the right to hold a religion-driven prejudice or, for that matter, having or practising a belief system of their choice. There are (and should be) limits to people exercising their religion where such action infringes the rights of others.

Again, holding a prejudice (even through religion) is a choice and cannot override another person's intrinsic human rights.

 

[Newchodge]

For those who don't understand how someone can be #the wrong sex# this artcle may help. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41593914 although it only deals with one specific, primarily physical, issue.