Ok, thanks for clarifying. :up:

Allowing them access to a seperate facility seems fine by me, but I don't think that equates to permitting them into the women's restroom. That is, we can protect their safety without subjecting them onto the unwilling woman population — Hanover

Yes, but there's not always a separate facility and maybe those who are unwilling are so due to misunderstandings concerning safety etc. The women in Thailand don't seem to be bothered and certainly not all women are bothered.

I would assume that if I walked into the women's gym locker and began disrobing, I would face hostility from the women, even those not in fear of assualt, but just pissed off that I invaded their space and exposed myself to them — Hanover

I'm talking primarily about MtF access to bathrooms here. I might move on to locker rooms later but the fact that in the latter case or in a case where a woman walks into a male bathroom, opposite genitalia may be exposed creates an issue of modesty and embarrassment that isn't relevant to just washing your hands next to someone in front of a mirror or having them in the next cubicle.

Don't try to do social engineering with your political views. That's just going to create tension that makes the topic harder to talk about. — frank

Whereas your accusations of "wokeness", dogmatic assertions, and strange talk of office chairs is designed to reduce tension? Honestly, I'm confident I have reason on my side here and I'll continue to debate the topic the way I have been doing in a nuanced and charitable manner.

Plus if you ride in like the Knight of Wokeness, you'll end up creating a problem that wouldn't have been there if you just stay in your office chair — frank

I don't work in an office and in light of the very nuanced view I gave, your characterization seems a little odd. It should be clear I don't believe in aggressively targeting people who are simply a bit ignorant. But maybe you don't mean me...

that's not transphobia. It's definitely in opposition to certain woke party lines, but it's not transphobia in and of itself. — frank

Recognizing gender identity has nothing to do with the dreaded "wokeness", it's just the ability to understand social reality. Anyhow, we can disagree, but I'm confident the overall trajectory is towards greater understanding and sensitivity to trans people, including recognizing them as women as social science, dictionaries, and the governments of most advanced democracies already do.

There's a judicial sound to this post, or did I read that in?

I mean, I respect your opinion on this, and your right to forcefully advocate for it. I don't see you as a judge on this issue, though. — frank

Not judicial, but judicious I hope. I gave more context on my opinion because I want to be nuanced. What exactly constitutes transphobia isn't clear cut.

I do not believe the genuine danger faced by boys and girls at the hands of other boys is a necessary (you know, biological) feature of our lives, but a result of fucked up parenting and fucked up ideas about what being a man is. — Srap Tasmaner

:100:

I think this is the crux of the matter. If I claim that transwomen aren't women, you'd think I'm transphobic? — frank

Firstly, to give some context, I think society in general is transphobic and many intelligent and genuine people will unknowingly reflect transphobic attitudes. For those whose positions are based on bad information, misunderstandings, and misguided fears, I don't think the label transphobic is always helpful or appropriate. Plus, there is complexity as @Hanover is pointing to. Taking all that into consideration, I'd personally want to approach individuals charitably re that claim. However, in a more generalised sense, I do think a blanket denial of trans womanhood that simply designates trans women as men who "like to wear dresses " or change their bodies to look like women is transphobic, though not necessarily ill-intentioned (this seems to be @NOS4A2's stance). Going beyond that then you have hatred, mockery, and disgust which is unambiguously transphobic and needs to be pushed back against firmly.

The comparison to African Americans would elevate the scrutiny under which a law is evaluated, but by making that turn, you now have to explain why you've elevated that class of people over others.

African Americans are afforded special status (as are others) due to specific laws and court decisions based upon historical discrimination. You must now explain how the transsexual experience is sufficiently similar to blacks should you want both to be subject to the same sorts of protection.

Those arguments have been made, with some positive and negative responses, some of the negative coming from the African American community, but it certainly was not a unified position. — Hanover

This seems like a non-sequitur. The purpose of the comparison was simply to make the point that both in a transphobic and racist society, false justifications relating to public health and safely will be used to maintain the status quo.

Women are not permitted in men's restrooms even should they feel safe being there. The regulation isn't entirely safety related. — Hanover

Let's take it step by step. We presumably agree that if there is no evidence trans women are more of a danger then cis women in bathrooms then excluding them on that basis is irrational. What is the next consideration for excluding them then and we can discuss that.

Just as part of the "rational basis" for keeping black women out of white women's bathrooms during Jim Crow was the false narrative that black women would spread diseases to white women. It wasn't sufficient then either, it was just racism.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/gwao.12545

If the rational basis for maintaining the historic distinction is comfort or perceived safety of the vast majority of users, that seems sufficient to me — Hanover

It's not a rational basis as has been explained. Without evidence to show trans women are more of a threat in bathrooms than cis women, it's simply transphobia.

The focus of this debate should be how to protect trans people from discrimination, bigotry, and violence concerning their use of bathrooms and definitely not on falsely stigmatising one of our most vulnerable minority groups as a "danger" or "threat".

https://gcn.ie/trans-dehydration-avoid-school-bathrooms/

''A mother to a transgender Leaving Cert student recently spoke with the Irish Independent on how her son fasted during the school day in fear of using the school’s bathrooms, a struggle relatable to many trans students throughout the country. The mother has remained anonymous in order to protect her son’s identity.

Her seventeen year-old son first registered to a secondary school in Dublin as a female student. At this stage, he avoids using the bathrooms at all costs, to the extent of not eating or drinking during the school day. The mother touched upon the impact of fasting on her son’s health and academic performance as she recollected noticing him looking ill when picking him up from school'

Thanks for this. The evidence suggests the whole "trans people are a danger" narrative is false and as I pointed out earlier turns reality on its head. Ultimately, a reflection of a transphobic culture. I had dozens of trans students in Thailand and the thought of what bathroom they were using never occurred to me nor do I remember it ever being mentioned by anyone else. No one cared because there was nothing to care about.

First, if your saying that it's ok to put more women in danger — T Clark

You haven't demonstrated any danger. I have no evidence to suggest trans women are a "danger" in women's bathrooms.

OK, but excluding men from women's bathrooms doesn't put them in a situation where a) they are misgendered and b) they are in disproportionate danger. If it turns out to be the case that forcing trans women into men's toilets results in more violence overall against the innocent (whoever they may be) then it would seem the most humane policy would be not to do that.

I'm all for unisex bathrooms as a solution btw but I'm going to keep pushing back against the threat narrative seeing as I'm confident trans women are more threatened than a threat and reality is being turned on its head in these debates.

Part of my issue here is the apparent circularity. Trans women are a threat in bathrooms because some women are uncomfortable around them. Why are they uncomfortable? ...Because they're a threat. At some point there has to be some justification to avoid the self-fulfilling phobia.

Evidence that trans women are a threat in women's bathrooms, please. If there is no evidence for that, fear of them being in these bathrooms is irrational, no? And do you really think it's reasonable to discriminate against groups of people simply because we are "uncomfortable" with them. Is that not the very basis of bigotry?

:up:

My concerns about bathrooms would primarily be a) Trans women being forced to use the men's bathroom and being harassed or assaulted there on being identified as trans. b) Bathroom talk lending to a false narrative that trans women are a "threat" in women's bathrooms, reinforcing societal transphobia.

I agree the topic can be debated in a reasonable way but the most neutral approach for me is not to give self-fulfilling credence to potentially irrational fears but to ask for real evidence to support the idea that trans women should be considered a disproportionate threat in women's bathrooms such that denying them access can be justified. It's the same principle as not allowing an irrational fear of e.g. black people to dictate social policy.

@NOS4A2 is correct that the establishment is out to get Trump. But he seems to have drawn from this the false inference that Trump hasn't done what he's been accused of. Most likely though he has. So rather than persecution we have one party who keeps banging their head against the concrete while the other just sits and waits for the brain damage to become terminal.

He has drawbacks: his scholarship is quite bad; he is prone to exaggeration — Manuel

That's true. I've wondered about some of his examples and found on checking he's misrepresented and / or misinterpreted something.

Would it be fair to say he is a divisive figure? — Tom Storm

The only fellow academic of major standing that I know of and respect highly who outright rejects him is Chomsky. Big names like Judith Butler, Alain Badiou, and Peter Sloterdijk seem to share a friendly, mutually respectful, rivalry.

Edit: Politically, he is somewhat divisive. A lot of that is based on media silliness though.

I'm never going to get into Lacan or Hegel - it's just not an interest of mine and I am too old - does he have a useful reading of these guys? — Tom Storm

Definitely demystified Lacan for me. Not so sure about the Hegel stuff. At least I wouldn't recommend him as a route into Hegel as he I think he potentially is into Lacan, judging by what I've read.

No one seems to discuss his ideas or contributions, — Mikie

Not true. E. g.

https://sites.cardiff.ac.uk/zizekcentre/
https://zizekstudies.org

Is Žižek a serious philosopher or a stand up comedian? Or both? — Tom Storm

He's a serious philosopher who made the "mistake" of having a sense of humour, being entertaining, and relating his work to everyday life.

I don’t see much of interest, in what I’ve read. Seems like a lot of fluff. — Mikie

I think it would be very difficult on reading and understanding one of his books to come to that conclusion. I've fully read "Violence", "Enjoy your Symptom", and "How to Read Lacan" so far, as well as much of "the Parallax View" and "the Sublime Object of ldeology". You'd really have to dismiss a lot of modern philosophy, not just German Idealism and Lacan, not to find substance there.

Anyhow, no one has to like him. I know e.g. (our distinguished upcoming guest speaker) Chomsky doesn't. But he's not just taking the Mick.

Maybe we have our own form of netiquette here. At least, I think it looks bad too if done regularly. You might be misunderstood as being intemperate and there's nothing lost by switching to bold or italics.

:up:

This is a cool idea. I loved adventure games as a kid and the philosophical twist brings that grown-up element. I can imagine combining this with an actual adventure world you have to explore etc. Anyhow, I found simple requests to "critically assess" my answers can mitigate the agreeability bias.

I think if you're going to talk about Deleuze, you'll need a more accessible avenue then this. You can PM me some ideas if you like and I'll see if we can find anything that could work. I'm not against discussing 'out there' stuff but there has to be some grounding in realistic expectations of what is comprehensible without expert knowledge (assuming there is something of value to be understood).

Interesting, but doesn't move the needle much for me given all the plausible ways it could be false. I expect a debunking by the end of the week.

I moved this to the Lounge because it's more personal than general. Some good advice above. I hope it helps.

ATHOL FUGARD: Blood Knot — Baden

This is an excellent play. Reads like a dramatization of Frantz Fanon's work.

Those people primarily need to be helped. Incels, on the other hand, as proponents of rape culture primarily need to be stopped because rape culture is a threat in a way that socially isolated Japanese hermits aren't. If helping them is the best way of stopping them, then sure, but I still don't know what that would look like.

If you're coming at this thread as if it's a wholesale attack on atheism / defence of religion and therefore you have to take a side, you're demonstrating a problem rather than addressing one.

I am necessarily oversimplifying so I take your points. But another way of saying this is that the progress of human social life has involved the gradual outsourcing of meaning and connection that tended to characterize smaller and more isolated cultures largely because ideologies were more easy to control and more crucial to immediate survival (not to say that we can find an obvious reason for every ritual or superstition but that they tended to have crucial functions in allowing for coherent joint understanding to maintain social cohesion and/or direct practical consequence). The downsides were plenty, of course, and their rigidity ossified the negatives along with the positives.

I think what the OP is pointing to is not a romanticization of historical alternatives but a recognition that progress along one axis: technological / scientific / logical = "rational" thinking can leave behind and obscure other human values and part of the reaction to that may be phenomena such as modern religious fundamentalism. If you look at it that way, the dogmatic atheist and the religious fundamentalist can be seen as dual symptoms of an imbalanced/asymmetric form of progress.

Nice. :up: I can't see it either btw even as an admin.

Maybe a "Join and subscribe" amalgamation? E. g. "Joining/subscribing to TPF". Both are fairly short reads as stands and quite related.

:up:

I might wave vaguely at Maurice Nicoll, and J Krishnamurti, along with the usual philosophical suspects – there's nothing very original in what I'm saying. — unenlightened

+ Kierkegaard, e. g. The Sickness into Death. Currently reading. Very apropos, it seems to me.

Edit:

From there, I will say that the worst thing to put at the centre of your life is Self, and the best is Love. — unenlightened

Christian existentialism, as I understand it, solves this by dissolving the distinctions between Self / love/ freedom.

I agree difficulties with the self are leveraged by Cartesianism and the subsequent history of instrumental reasoning. The modus operandi of homo economicus is manipulate–for–advantage rather than engage–with. It's to look to ends / goals for satisfaction rather than processes. It's a mindset that fuels boredom, frustration, and emptiness especially as it spills into social relations.

Psychologically, the problem with belief is that even this becomes a tool for manipulation and exchange--commodified. So that we believe what we ought because we know what we ought believe and whether or not what we believe is worth, in a more holistic sense, believing in, the formula seems to work, and what works becomes the yardstick for belief. E.g. Atheism in its most unsophisticated form works. Snakes do not talk, as you said, and there is no old man with a beard in the sky. "Everyone" knows that.

And such that we have a self left in that morass of oughts, we're positioned more and more to believe against it so that even when we do do the right thing we often do it for the wrong reason and lose the value in doing it, the good-in-itself of it. This is the peculiar modern perversion as I see it. We rattle around without reason because at least we know how one rattles around. What we seem to have lost is the sense of how not to rattle around. How to do the "wrong" thing for the right reason.

It's a Moloch-type situation applied to self-relationship. There are material advantages to compromising the self and so it becomes a social necessity. But so is a belief in freedom. We believe against ourselves because we must believe in a "freedom" that negates the self, but the self really is freedom. This dynamic serves to make us feel responsible insofar as we are "free" for the increasing unfreedom that it itself fosters. And as "free" individuals we perceive ourselves as ill and the solution a means / end one. And we are ill because we neither understand freedom nor the solution to unfreedom because we "ought" not. Our oughts are a closed system that's obscured from itself. So, yes we are responsible but not in the way presented to us, as if we must repair our social wrong of not being happy; on the contrary, we must repair our happiness at being socially wrong.