Donate SIGN UP

Finally Some Common Sense

Avatar Image
youngmafbog | 08:51 Tue 18th Apr 2023 | News
239 Answers
Single-sex schools will be able to reject transgender pupils and teachers can refuse to call children by their preferred pronouns under new Government guidelines

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11983441/Single-sex-schools-able-reject-transgender-pupils-new-Government-guidelines.html
Gravatar

Answers

61 to 80 of 239rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The vast majority of men I know would have found it extremely difficult to not say yes and keep a straight face.
tomus, no, that wouldn't have been the sensible thing to do. There's a principle here and a very important one.

ClareTG0ld, bigots exist in all areas of life - but you know that.
how would you define bigotry against transgender people?
See NJ's post at 23.02.
new judge provides a dictionary definition of bigotry and then talks about himself... chiefly why he doesn't consider himself a bigot (and no bigot ever does)

what he doesn't say is what prejudice against transgender people would actually look like because it's indistinguishable from his own opinions
Like squeezing blood from a stone, isn't it?
There's no point in referring me to an answer that I've clearly already read, when I've also explained why it doesn't answer my question. Surely you can see that NJ's answer is primarily devoted to explaining why his opinions aren't an example of bigotry, rather than why some hypothetical other opinion would be.

Clearly bigotry exists in all areas of life. Also, clearly, in this specific context we'd define it very differently. Or, at least, I assume that we do, because you are refusing to define it or to provide an example, so that I can't compare.

Even if you want to refer to NJ's post, there's still a follow-up question: what counts, in your view, as an *unreasonable* belief (or an unreasonable attachment to a belief) towards, or about, transgender people?
If you substitute the word trans or transexual for Jew or Jewish throughout this thread and wind back to 1930s Germany, dangerously bigoted opinions abound.
Putting the power to discriminate (for whatever reason) in the hands of people in authority is NEVER a good thing.
// ... for the past year or so I've been in conversation with two young teenagers who assured me that 'Loads' of people in their school who identify as the opposite sex were very genuine and that they were actively supported both by the school and by the other children. ... Now they tell me that the vast majority of them are attention seekers.... This stuff is being force fed to our children - and that has to stop. It's not fair to any of them - including those who really do have a genuine problem. //

I lightly edited the comment above, but I hope you'll agree that it doesn't change the substance.

In any case, I think the revealing part of this is the final word: "problem". Why should transgender people be seen as having a "problem", any more than gay, or bi, people? It's that attitude that, I think, is causing the issue, far more than overenthusiastic support.

What's going on at schools could as well be categorised as a normal experimentation that many children grow up through. Harm is caused when you respond to that experimentation dismissively, or use rhetoric that implies that it's shameful. Inasmuch as we should be careful not to push experimentation "too far", to the point that a given child regrets it, then, sure, we should be careful, but I don't agree at all that this is what's happening, and to the extent that you see this it's because your starting point is so dismissive in the first place. "Attention seekers", "force fed", "a genuine problem"... this is the language that makes it taboo. And, perhaps a touch ironically, the more taboo something is made to seem, the more attractive it can become.

If you do wish to support genuine transgender people, a good way to start is to reframe your language to strip the negativity surrounding it.
// If you substitute the word trans or transexual for Jew or Jewish throughout this thread and wind back to 1930s Germany, dangerously bigoted opinions abound.//

Or, even more recently, substitute it all for "gay". Some of the arguments are beat-for-beat identical.
I can't speak for others as I don't know their attitudes. It's becoming increasingly apparent that anybody who disagrees on a particular issue is automatically labelled a bigot. I've tried to explain my attitude against the dictionary definition. I agree my view is obstinate. The question is whether it is unreasonable (and I suggest it needs to be both before it reaches the stage of bigotry). So, is it reasonable for a man to (a) claim he is a woman simply because he says he is (which doesn't bother me - or most I should imagine)? Then (b) because of that claim, demand he is treated as a woman and have access to women-only spaces and facilities (which certainly does bother me and I imagine many others). It's interesting that those on the opposite side of this argument to me never answer the above questions in a straightforward way.

If you find that both the above are reasonable, I don't. If that makes me a bigot then feel free. I've broad shoulders and I would sooner preserve the rights of the majority rather than trash them to accommodate a very small minority. I'm simply pleased that the government has come round to my way of thinking.

//Putting the power to discriminate (for whatever reason) in the hands of people in authority is NEVER a good thing.//

Segregation by biological sex in certain circumstances is not discriminatory, Zacs. The law provides for it. Unfortunately a number of institutions and organisations have seen fit to ignore that principle and put the rights of the vast majority at risk.
'Segregation by biological sex in certain circumstances is not discriminatory, Zacs'
I never said it was.
Putting the power to potentially discriminate against genuine trans boys and girls is a dangerous step in a free society.
// I can't speak for others as I don't know their attitudes. It's becoming increasingly apparent that anybody who disagrees on a particular issue is automatically labelled a bigot. I've tried to explain my attitude against the dictionary definition. ... If you find that both the above are reasonable, I don't. If that makes me a bigot then feel free. //

This completely misunderstands why I was asking. I'm not interested in establishing whether or not your opinions are bigoted. That's something we'll have to form a separate opinion on. You can justify your view however you wish. I'm interested in how, within the framework you've established, bigotry would still exist against transgender people.
ClareTG0ld, //Like squeezing blood from a stone, isn't it?//

I take exception to that. I don't know what goes on in a bigot's head and you gnawing the bone continuously in the hope of having another go at getting an answer that suits you won't change that.
It may be that the reason you're so hesitant to answer is that you think I'm asking to "trap" you into "admitting" that you yourself are a bigot, or expressing bigoted opinions. But, in any case, this isn't why I'm asking.

A bigoted opinion can often seem superficially reasonable. It may start from a position that is unobjectionable. But, at some point, it crosses that line and strays into unreasonableness, inappropriate language and restrictions, attitudes that cause harm, and loses any touch with the starting point. It's a mistake to regard a bigoted opinion as necessarily unreasonable from the outset. Of course, sometimes it may well be wholly unreasonable, but, to the bigot, their opinion is completely logical and coherent according to their own internal world-view; the question becomes where that stops being true to an outside observer.

In short, for some bigots, you'd disagree entirely with what they say; for others, you might have some common ground, but hold that, at some point, they go too far.

It's obvious that someone who holds bigoted views against trans people would share some common ground with you. At what point would you hold that they go too far?
ClareTG0ld, stop digging. I've given my opinion on this subject and I've no intention of revisiting your everlasting around the houses arguments.
Standard Naomi 'i know you've backed me into a corner but I just can't admit it' answer.
No lurking in corners here, zacs. I make no secret of my opinion on this subject.
Indeed. Hence the accusation of bigotry which you've failed to defend.
I haven't failed because I haven't tried. There's nothing to defend.

61 to 80 of 239rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Finally Some Common Sense

Answer Question >>