Do we really need three discussions on gender right now? — Sapientia

No.

I say delete the most recent addition by Blue Lux. — Sapientia

Sensible idea. Done.

@Blue Lux Please stick to one of the two we have.

At least if you guys had let him/her have a third thread s/he would have had an outlet for his/her manic posting and I would still be able to follow the discussion happening in the original thread. Now we've got Blue Lux posting nine times (!) in a row.

Nine posts in a row is the philosophical equivalent of someone jabbing a finger at your chest screaming "And another thing!", "Oh, and another thing!"

I think overall we may need some clarification on the rules of multiple postings and multiple threads. My intuition is that there ought not be any hard and fast rule but it's more common sense. Five threads on the same topic are fine in theory if they're covering distinct aspects of the question in a manner that makes sense. Multiple posts in a row are fine if they're responding to distinct points within the thread which you might want to separate out for some reason. But neither are okay if you're just goofing around, insulting people, or throwing up random quotes.

Now we've got Blue Lux posting nine times (!) in a row. — John Doe

Deleted most of those.

My intuition is that there ought not be any hard and fast rule but it's more common sense. Five threads on the same topic are fine in theory if they're covering distinct aspects of the question in a manner that makes sense. Multiple posts in a row are fine if they're responding to distinct points within the thread which you might want to separate out for some reason. But neither are okay if you're just goofing around, insulting people, or throwing up random quotes. — John Doe

Agreed.

Random quotes? Oh really? Jabbing a finger? Oh now I am the bad guy? Not the Virgin who makes a contention that transgendered people are fundamentally inauthentic and at base are delusional. Oh yes, the opposition to this is going to be very kind, caring and concerned of the other, and is going to be absolutely respectful!
And what is philosophy if it is without polemic?

You might get away with that in the Lounge, but you don't get to do it in the philosophical discussions.

and people get to baselessly claim others are delusional for being transgendered? And this is justified? Wouldn't this be akin to religious fundamentalism?

I don't know what you're referring to. You can report posts you think don't comply with the guidelines.

mhmmm

Random quotes? Oh really? Jabbing a finger? Oh now I am the bad guy? Not the Virgin who makes a contention that transgendered people are fundamentally inauthentic and at base are delusional. Oh yes, the opposition to this is going to be very kind, caring and concerned of the other, and is going to be absolutely respectful!
And what is philosophy if it is without polemic? — Blue Lux

I've been reading that thread pretty carefully because I'm deeply pro-LGBTQ rights but also concerned that the moral legitimacy of the rights and claims made on these grounds are being used in some cases to justify some noxious behavior, including the legitimization of certain forms of bullying, and the current political climate seems geared towards forcing one to choose between one concern and the other. I refuse to choose because I accept that multiple legitimate moral concerns can exist simultaneously without competition and instead demand a need for analytical judiciousness and moral discretion.

In my view, it's not okay to shout people down with ten posts in a row no matter how morally bankrupt you might feel their world views to be. It's unacceptable to feel morally entitled to be rude to people whom you take yourself to be morally or intellectually superior to, which is the definition of mansplaining.

Lol Sapientia hates me, even though I really am not pro the death penalty! Hehehehe

I was merely taking that position!

no no no I would never consider myself to be intellectually superior! That is certainly not my intention. That is rather abject actually...

Some people may need a firm kick... Maybe... Like some philosophers did to me when I was dogmatic and certain.

But I agree, perhaps I was out of line. Actually, I know I was. But I am very sensitive when it comes to ideas about LGBT

But I agree, perhaps I was out of line. Actually, I know I was. But I am very sensitive when it comes to ideas about LGBT — Blue Lux

These are very sensitive topics which is why it's important -- though difficult! -- to maintain certain standards of discourse. I suspect with empathy and an open mind that you might get a sense of where some people are coming from and discover that some posts which you perceive as prejudiced against LGBTQ are rather other peoples' expressions of their own sensitivities. Hopefully, this might help you better understand their viewpoints and vice versa, while strengthening both of you in the struggle against all the very real forms of bigotry and prejudice that exist in the world.

One of the most irritating forms of bigotry, in my opinion, is that which is the impetus (latent or manifest) in fatalistic, either nihilistic or faithful, scientism.

Aka. Ben Shapiro

The debate around transgenderism, in the thread being referred to, is simply around the view that a person's feeling that they would be happier appearing (and being treated as) something society widely agrees as indicating the opposite sex, should be mandatorily (or at least with severe peer pressure) supported by all other members of their community.

That's all.

Some consider that matter too insufficiently conclusive to warrant the mandating of societal support, others think the potential loss of well-being of any other action for the transgender community sufficient to outweigh this uncertainty.

No one's being bigoted and your insertion of these accusations into the debate is not helping.

Not that we should turn we should turn this thread to discussion of the topic, but it is deep-seated bigotry. Bigotry which goes all the way down to our concept of meaning and how people belong, to suggest trans people are some sort of combination of non-existent, a violation of all that's proper and an unreality which cannot be true, even when we are using it right infant of our eyes. Right at it's core, it's supposition is trans people aren't real and are not worth respect.

It's not simply about being polite to spare the feelings of others. The recognition, value and belonging of trans people are at stake. Discrimination against and rejection of trans people at the deepest conceptual level is the bigotry in question.

This bigotry is a huge part of the point. Two the question of supporting and respecting trans people, the bigoted impacts at this conceptual level are a huge part of the concerns.

To avoid sending this thread further into it, please responses in one of the sex and gender threads.