Transgender athletes (and related stuff)

[mercalia]

The main one seems to be that trans women are not women, the whole self identification idea. I am not sure science is at all relevent but commone language use.

You seem to want to use language with which you're comfortable as a means to define other people. Language is there to communicate with other people and to describe the world, not to force complex situations with which you aren't familiar into simplistic predefined boxes.

Jonathan

But language is a common possession not a minorities to do with as they want. Nothing to do with me. Thats how you get confusion and trouble. Maybe our language as it stands needs changing as it cant deal with the issues of transgender. Rather than muddy the water for the reasons given above re male and female animals, I would think get rid of sexed pronouns and personal names, it is strange that ones sex or whatever has to be signalled in the way it is in Language. ( out of curiosity any French people here are there any issues with nouns being female or male & trans?) In the modern world we should all just be people, anything else is of no public interest

[Jdsk]

The main one seems to be that trans women are not women, the whole self identification idea. I am not sure science is at all relevent but commone language use.

You seem to want to use language with which you're comfortable as a means to define other people. Language is there to communicate with other people and to describe the world, not to force complex situations with which you aren't familiar into simplistic predefined boxes.

But language is a common possession not a minorities to do with as they want. Nothing to do with me.

It's you that keeps posting the same fallacious argument that because you're not familiar with a new usage it's wrong in some way.

And the responses show that it isn't a common possession: in this very thread there are clear disagreements about usage.

Jonathan

[mercalia]

You seem to want to use language with which you're comfortable as a means to define other people. Language is there to communicate with other people and to describe the world, not to force complex situations with which you aren't familiar into simplistic predefined boxes.

But language is a common possession not a minorities to do with as they want. Nothing to do with me.

It's you that keeps posting the same fallacious argument that because you're not familiar with a new usage it's wrong in some way.

And the responses show that it isn't a common possession: in this very thread there are clear disagreements about usage.

Jonathan

a minority new useage thats all. and there is it seems a lot of kickback going on

[mercalia]

I don't think that argument depends on rationality... more on autonomy?

Jonathan

well its both. I am sure you have seen that Children under 16 with gender dysphoria are unlikely to be able to give informed consent to undergo treatment with puberty-blocking drugs, three High Court judges have ruled. To the supreme court now I suppose? I casts doubt on early beliefs about being in the wrong body, that such beliefs are not infallible that some trans activists and some here think they are. Infallibility is a central plank to the self indentification doctrine I think. Remove that and what is left? A choice rather than an imperative? Certainly nothing to rewrite basic notions we have had for centuries. of course trans people should be protected from persecution and descrimination but thats all, the rest of us dont have to agree with them, just tolerate ( NOT meaning putting up with) them ( as we do with religeon) - accepting their new usages would go too far. Thats why labeling eg the LBG Alliance as transphobe is possibly victimisation ( I dont know enough about them)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-55144148

[Vorpal]

In many cases (e.g. religion) tolerance does not require agreement. It is entirely possible to tolerate people of other faiths, and grant them the same rights, without agreeing with them.

There are beliefs, however, that do cause harm to other people, and if these beliefs are allowed to influence health care or policy, violate their rights.