“The person who pulled the trigger (on Charlie) is part of the demonic transgender ideology that warps the minds of our young children, that poisons them, that is antithetical to creation itself … God doesn’t make mistakes. Transgenderism is a lie from the pit of hell … and I’m sick of seeing transgender violence and murderers in my country … what a horrid and wretched ideology … it’s time to kick in doors, come on FBI, do some door-kicking, round them up.” — Questioner

That's scary.

In advancing their right to be their authentic selves, we might say the ideology that they do advance is one that respects and protects human rights.

By contrast, the word ideology better reflects the anti-transgender position. People opposed often have very rigid concepts of male and female, and often their opposition is tied to a resentment of having to recognize anything outside of their narrow paradigms. — Questioner

I think the issue is viewing everything from a point of view individual rights to begin with, that is an ideology in itself, and historically a pretty unusual one at that.

We have many norms that have little to do with individual rights, but are aimed at making society work collectively. And they can even be arbitrary (non-natural) to some extend, and still be important to be followed. It's important that everybody drives on the right or the left side of the road for instance to avoid a mess in traffic... it really doesn't matter what anyone's preferences are on the issue.

One could see the institution of hetero-sexual marriage and gender-roles in something of a similar way, in that is presumably beneficial for a stable society to have man an women committed to each other and to the families they raise.

People like their norms and get angry, like in traffic, if they get broken. I do think that is something that comes natural to humans. We get educated into following a certain set of norms, ideals and role-models and we then usually spread those in turn to the next generations etc and that ultimately produces a certain kind of society... we are mimetic beings is you will.

Contrary to what most seem to believe, Liberalism, individualism and the promoting LGBTQ+ rights is a certain way of viewing and organising the world. It does promote certain kinds of ways of living that are different from say those that Christianity promotes.... there's no 'ideology-free' society.

That's scary. — RogueAI

the current US government gave them an inch, and they took a mile.

I think the issue is viewing everything from a point of view individual rights to begin with, that is an ideology in itself, — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, I did say that. It's an ideology adhered to by a wide swath of different groups

nd historically a pretty unusual one at that. — ChatteringMonkey

is this meant to discredit it?

We have many norms that have little to do with individual rights, but are aimed at making society work collectively. And they can even be arbitrary (non-natural) to some extend, and still be important to be followed. It's important that everybody drives on the right or the left side of the road for instance to avoid a mess in traffic... it really doesn't matter what anyone's preferences are on the issue. — ChatteringMonkey

What side of the road a society drives on does not interfere with anyone's personal rights.

Active anti-transgenderism interferes with Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

One could see the institution of hetero-sexual marriage and gender-roles in something of a similar way, in that is presumably beneficial for a stable society to have man an women committed to each other and to the families they raise. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, stable families are good for society. But this particular "norm' does not work for everyone. Besides, it's an inaccurate presumption that anything outside the "norm" is bad for society.

The characteristics that make a society stable are trust, fairness, inclusion, safety, mutual support, respect, honesty, compassion and empathy - and there is no indication that transgender persons cannot contribute in these ways.

People like their norms and get angry, like in traffic, if they get broken. I do think that is something that comes natural to humans. We get educated into following a certain set of norms, ideals and role-models and we then usually spread those in turn to the next generations etc and that ultimately produces a certain kind of society... we are mimetic beings is you will. — ChatteringMonkey

Anyone who gets angry at transgender persons for living their lives according to their own (nonharmful) "norm" needs to check their judgement at the door.

Contrary to what most seem to believe, Liberalism, individualism and the promoting LGBTQ+ rights is a certain way of viewing and organising the world. It does promote certain kinds of ways of living that are different from say those that Christianity promotes.... there's no 'ideology-free' society. — ChatteringMonkey

if a society is to respect human rights, respecting the rights of transgender persons comes under that umbrella. it is not a category unto itself.

Who's "them"? Trans people???

Who's "them"? Trans people??? — RogueAI

I think you are referring to this:

the current US government gave them an inch, and they took a mile. — Questioner

if so, no, I meant the anti-transgender faction

is this meant to discredit it? — Questioner

No it's meant to imply that it is an experiment that hasn't been shown to work in the longer term, as opposed to other traditions.

What side of the road a society drives on does not interfere with anyone's personal rights.

Active anti-transgenderism interferes with Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. — Questioner

Yeah but pointing to Universal rights is a bit like pointing to the bible to argue in favour of some Christian teaching... it's only convincing to those that already believe in it.

Yes, stable families are good for society. But this particular "norm' does not work for everyone. Besides, it's an inaccurate presumption that anything outside the "norm" is bad for society. — Questioner

Allowing more and more exceptions does erode the norm, that's just how human psychology works.... The idea "Why should I adhere to the norm if other shouldn't?" creeps in.

Also there is a difference between tacitly allowing some people to deviate from the norm (like it was before say 2010) and actively promoting it like it is some kind of new norm (after 2010).

The characteristics that make a society stable are trust, fairness, inclusion, safety, mutual support, respect, honesty, compassion and empathy - and there is no indication that transgender persons cannot contribute in these ways.

Have you just made these up by theorising about it or is there actual evidence that these are indeed the characteristic that make a stable society? The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Anyone who gets angry at transgender persons for living their lives according to their own (nonharmful) "norm" needs to check their judgement at the door.

if a society is to respect human rights, respecting the rights of transgender persons comes under that umbrella. it is not a category unto itself. — Questioner

Again, this only follows if you already believe we should view these things solely from the point of view of individual rights. Not everybody does.

:100:

No it's meant to imply that it is an experiment that hasn't been shown to work in the longer term, as opposed to other traditions. — ChatteringMonkey

Oh, so you are arguing against individual human rights. Sorry, this just opens the door to all kinds of suppression and oppression done in the name of "tradition."

Yeah but pointing to Universal rights is a bit like pointing to the bible to argue in favour of some Christian teaching... it's only convincing to those that already believe in it. — ChatteringMonkey

I can't agree with this analogy. Universal human rights is a rational response to abuses of the past. Christian teaching from the Bible is based on ancient stories. But I will say I do believe that Jesus would be totally on board with universal human rights.

But if your argument is that you do not believe in basic human rights, you have lost me.

Allowing more and more exceptions does erode the norm, that's just how human psychology works.... The idea "Why should I adhere to the norm if other shouldn't?" creeps in. — ChatteringMonkey

What "more and more" - this seems a fear-based response.

Also there is a difference between tacitly allowing some people to deviate from the norm (like it was before say 2010) and actively promoting it like it is some kind of new norm (after 2010). — ChatteringMonkey

I'm not sure what you mean by "actively promoting"

Have you just made these up by theorising about it or is there actual evidence that these are indeed the characteristic that make a stable society? The proof of the pudding is in the eating. — ChatteringMonkey

I can retort to this by asking, what evidence do you have that any family outside the "father-mother-children" paradigm is less stable?

In any case, certainly you are not arguing against those characteristics contributing to a society's stability?

Again, this only follows if you already believe we should view these things solely from the point of view of individual rights. Not everybody does. — ChatteringMonkey

This opens the door to harm done to others.

Interesting opener.

My position has been that gender identity is something formed during fetal development, during the differentiation and organization of the brain during the third trimester of pregnancy. — Questioner

I reject this, so we're already at big odds.

But I mean being gender critical isn't an ideology either. Yet, you have people citing it to support clearly ideological nonsense, some of which is obviously dangerous. So to on the TRA side with the Zizians and plenty of small (and yes, mainly inconsequential) militias arming to the teeth and going after those they decide are wrong, or individuals like Jessica Yaniv waging legal wars against people due to her clear delusional world view.

I suggest we can bring up plenty of examples like your clip there to indicate an "ideology" behind trans activism, at least, and it does clearly seem to be a 'worldview'. So, to me, 'being trans' is clearly not an ideology, but the worldview it tends to embed within can be. There are plenty of trans people who entirely reject the worldview that tends to come along with trans identity - this is the biggest point to me in assessing the factions at play.

So "being trans" might or might not fit the bill, but I think more clearly both sides are talking about legitimately scary, dangerous factions. No problem admitting there's no parity when you have groups like the one you've posted the clip of supporting shit like that as compared to usually pretty isolated examples on the other side. The only comment I will make on the other side is that we're yet to see the psychological damage done by the trans ideologues (small as those groups might be) in convincing children they can change sex. A fair bit of the psychological distress seems to be borne from this lie.

I can retort to this by asking, what evidence do you have that any family outside the "father-mother-children" paradigm is less stable? — Questioner

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10313020/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Not conclusive, but it seems to be pretty replicable. Averages and all that as a pinch of salt. It wont work for everyone.

Oh, so you are arguing against individual human rights. Sorry, this just opens the door to all kinds of suppression and oppression done in the name of "tradition." — Questioner

A functioning society is prior to individual human rights, because without a functioning society there is no way to protect any kind of rights. Traditions are typically a key factor of how those societies are ordered and remain functional.

No society no matter what tradition will ever be perfectly free from oppression. If that means one needs to constantly fight said traditions until there is no more oppression, that essentially means you will end up dissolving the very foundation that enables one to even talk about rights.

I can't agree with this analogy. Universal human rights is a rational response to abuses of the past. Christian teaching from the Bible is based on ancient stories. But I will say I do believe that Jesus would be totally on board with universal human rights.

But if your argument is that you do not believe in basic human rights, you have lost me. — Questioner

There's nothing rationally 'necessary' about human rights. They came out a particular Western tradition, out of Christian and Greco-Roman notions of natural law, that diverged from how the rest of the world saw things. The Chinese tradition for instance never develloped this notion of individual rights, but allways kept viewing things from a more societal point of view.

It's really the historical event of the belief in Christ that shifted the Western tradition from viewing things in terms of tribal/group consciousness to the individual. That's not the result of reason, but a shift in basic values.

And I do think there are a lot of issues with the concept of human rights. To name a few, 1) the idea that we should attach rights to an abstract notion of the individual removed from cultural, familial and societal contexts is I think antithetical to how human beings naturally tend to behave. And 2) the idea that we, 'the west', should universally impose a notion that is alien to other civilisations is also rather problematic.

What "more and more" - this seems a fear-based response. — Questioner

I'm not sure what you mean by "actively promoting" — Questioner

From the occasional reporting about say a gay-pride event in mainstream media, at a certain point LGBTQ+ issues became front and center in a deliberate attempt to 'normalize' it to the general public. First in the US, and then with some delay in Europe, with interviews, seperate LGBTQ+ sections in newspapers, opinion pieces etc etc...

Edit: Also the whole pronoun debate. It doesn't get any more 'normative' than demanding everybody to change how to use language.

I can retort to this by asking, what evidence do you have that any family outside the "father-mother-children" paradigm is less stable? — Questioner

I don't know, it's an experiment like I said, and the jury is still out it seems to me, whereas we do have 'evidence' that heterosexual mariage as a norm worked reasonably well just by virtue of the fact that we are the descendants of a culture that had that norm.

This opens the door to harm done to others. — Questioner

Sure, but I don't think preventing harm is the only factor morals should be evaluated by, I'm not a utilitarian.

So to on the TRA side with the Zizians and plenty of small (and yes, mainly inconsequential) militias arming to the teeth and going after those they decide are wrong, or individuals like Jessica Yaniv waging legal wars against people due to her clear delusional world view. — AmadeusD

Yes, there are extremists in all groups. But the outliers should not decide the rule. We need to look to leadership to provide the greatest benefit for the greatest number of its citizens. For example, the policy coming out of the Trump administration has led to transgender persons fearing for their lives.

and it does clearly seem to be a 'worldview'. So, to me, 'being trans' is clearly not an ideology, but the worldview it tends to embed within can be. There are plenty of trans people who entirely reject the worldview that tends to come along with trans identity - this is the biggest point to me in assessing the factions at play. — AmadeusD

I like that you introduced the word "worldview" - good word. Although, I am not sure what you mean by the "trans identity worldview."

I can retort to this by asking, what evidence do you have that any family outside the "father-mother-children" paradigm is less stable?
— Questioner

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10313020/?utm_source=chatgpt.com — AmadeusD

No, sorry, that study does not apply, since it compares stable families with families that have dissolved. Not the same thing at all as comparing cisgender parents to transgender parents.

A functioning society is prior to individual human rights, because without a functioning society there is no way to protect any kind of rights. Traditions are typically a key factor of how those societies are ordered and remain functional. — ChatteringMonkey

What kind of traditions are you talking about?

If that means one needs to constantly fight said traditions until there is no more oppression, that essentially means you will end up dissolving the very foundation that enables one to even talk about rights. — ChatteringMonkey

I think the best foundation of a society is one that includes basic human rights.

Tradition is good, too, but tradition should not be elevated to something untouchable when said tradition interferes negatively in the lives of others. Slavery was once a tradition, too.

There's nothing rationally 'necessary' about human rights. They came out a particular Western tradition, out of Christian and Greco-Roman notions of natural law, that diverged from how the rest of the world saw things. — ChatteringMonkey

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights came out of the abuses of WW2.

1) the idea that we should attach rights to an abstract notion of the individual removed from cultural, familial and societal contexts is I think antithetical to how human beings naturally tend to behave. — ChatteringMonkey

How do the protection of human rights erode attachment to family, culture, or country?

From the occasional reporting about say a gay-pride event in mainstream media, at a certain point LGBTQ+ issues became front and center in a deliberate attempt to 'normalize' it to the general public. First in the US, and then with some delay in Europe, with interviews, seperate LGBTQ+ sections in newspapers, opinion pieces etc etc...

Edit: Also the whole pronoun debate. It doesn't get any more 'normative' than demanding everybody to change how to use language. — ChatteringMonkey

Eek, you're getting into nuisances here. Like, kinda like, whining.

What kind of traditions are you talking about? — Questioner

Any religious, cultural or civic traditions... like marriage is a Christian tradition.

I think the best foundation of a society is one that includes basic human rights. — Questioner

What is the justification for it? Or we're fine to just assume it as a dogma, whereas for everything else we demand reasons?

Tradition is good, too, but tradition should not be elevated to something untouchable when said tradition interferes negatively in the lives of others. Slavery was once a tradition, too.

The idea that we should emancipate people from and critique traditions continuously is itself part of a tradition, set in motion with the onset of the enlightenment.

How do the protection of human rights erode attachment to family, culture, or country? — Questioner

It's not the human rights themselves that erode those attachments. Human rights are the result or end-product of a constant process of questioning and critiqueing traditions. They became detached from any living tradition... bloodless and abstract.

Eek, you're getting into nuisances here. Like, kinda like, whining. — Questioner

Are you serious? You asked me what I meant with actively promoting (as opposed to tacitly allowing), and I gave you the answer.

Any religious, cultural or civic traditions... like marriage is a Christian tradition. — ChatteringMonkey

I think this is the crux of the matter for you? Well, Christian marriage is certainly available to those who desire it, It's not going away. But some chose alternative lifestyles. Why should they not be given that choice?

Or we're fine to just assume it as a dogma — ChatteringMonkey

I think framing human rights as dogma in a negative light, yet advocating for Christian marriage for all, is somewhat an inconsistent position.

Human rights are the result or end-product of a constant process of questioning and critiqueing traditions. They became detached from any living tradition... bloodless and abstract. — ChatteringMonkey

Some traditions should be questioned and critiqued.

Are you serious? You asked me what I meant with actively promoting (as opposed to tacitly allowing), and I gave you the answer. — ChatteringMonkey

You didn't cite active promotion, you cited nuisances. No-one is taking out ads in the newspapers, "Become transgender today!" No-one is coercing anyone to become transgender.

I'm not a Christian, I'm not necessarily promoting the Christian institution of marriage here... it was just an example of how one could view this issue from another perspective.

This is probably where we don't agree:

You didn't cite active promotion, you cited nuisances. No-one is taking out ads in the newspapers, "Become transgender today!" No-one is coercing anyone to become transgender. — Questioner

Earlier I said the following:

We get educated into following a certain set of norms, ideals and role-models and we then usually spread those in turn to the next generations etc and that ultimately produces a certain kind of society... we are mimetic beings is you will. — ChatteringMonkey

I don't think anyone needs to be coerced into being transgender for it to have an effect on people, because I think people tend to copy things they see. That's why advertising works. People will opt more readily for marriage and take it seriously if they feel that is the 'normal' thing to do, if they see other famous and succesfull people do the same.

Just by virtue of normalising a whole host of other kinds of relations and genderroles, you will influence some people following these other models. Now I'm not saying that is necessarily a bad thing, but I do think you effectively alter society in a way a Christian or Muslim might object to given the way he views the world and the kind of society he would prefer.

All of this to say that it's not ideology-neutral either way, which was part of your original claim.

But the outliers should not decide the rule — Questioner

Definitely with you this. I do my best not to - but then, I don't see someone like Kirk as an extremist where plenty will. I thikn that's unfounded and unfortunate - again, there may just be daylight we can't cut across if so. Not an accusation on you, just talking about the wider conversation more generally.

I like that you introduced the word "worldview" - good word. Although, I am not sure what you mean by the "trans identity worldview." — Questioner

Well, there seems to me to be a stark different between trans people who essentially just see the world as it is, and accept there's an unfortunate aspect to their nature on the one hand, and trans people who make it their entire identity and everything in their life hinges on ways in which that identity can be inculcated into all those other aspects. That seems ideological. Yaniv is probably a good, while comedic (from a detached perspective anyway), example there. The way people make that joke about how a Vegan will let you know they're vegan - even if trans people weren't, in 99% of cases easily identifiable physically, the group I'm talking about will make it plenty obvious before you have a chance to assess their height and find out their surname (quip, not claim).

No, sorry, that study does not apply, since it compares stable families with families that have dissolved. Not the same thing at all as comparing cisgender parents to transgender parents. — Questioner

That wasn't specifically a question I was answering (hence, not quoting it). In a "fully trans" family, it will be a nuclear family, albeit with the sexes switched for the gendered roles. I think the logic applies.

I also don't see how that difference changes the conclusions of the study - the point is that the dissolved families are more likely to draw outside the noted framework (fwiw, I don't care and wouldn't encourage or discourage any type of family unit that isn't abusive).