IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old Today, 06:29 AM   #241
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,853
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
It is grossly offensive to force women to carry an unwanted prefix that implies that there exists a subset of women who are not female.
Something is only offensive from a particular moral frame/view of the world. Transactivists have a different perspective from which your refusal to accept transwomen as women is grossly offensive. Claims of offense just come down to questions of power. Do you, and the people who agree with you, have the power to force your notions of offence on others, or do the transactivists.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 06:34 AM   #242
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 49,353
Well, hello, dept of the bleedin' obvious.

My point is that if everyone is so keen to adopt the transactivists preferred vocabulary to avoid giving offence, then maybe they need to consider that there are other groups who are equally offended by certain terms the transactivists favour. Goose and gander sauce.

Nobody ever succeded in a conflict by lying down in front of the demands of the other side and declaring, we don't have the power to promote our side of the debate.

You seemed not to know that many people find the term "cis" offensive, or why. I have explained this to you. Coming back and saying, well you don't have the power to make people pay any attention to the fact that you are offended, isn't really advancing the argument. We are offended, and I have explained why.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; Today at 06:36 AM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 06:58 AM   #243
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 49,353
The proverbial seems to be hitting the fan with Mermaids today. Seems they have (had) a trustee whose "academic subject" was the normalisation of sexual attraction to children. He is (was) an associate professor at the LSE. People (mainly women) have been waving red flags about him for years, to little effect. But somehow notice has finally been taken of this man and his predilections, Mermaids has ditched him as a trustee and the LSE has put him on gardening leave.

No doubt we'll be getting all the usual about how this has only come to light and we're shocked, shocked I tell you. Except it was all in plain sight. There has been a movement dedicated to decriminalising and normalising sexual attraction to (and activity with) children for many years. Peter Tatchell was pushing it for some time. This character (Breslow) had managed to get the subject normalised enough to be employed to research it as an academic.

But kiddie-fiddling is still evil, whether you're a priest or a scout leader or Jimmy Savile or an academic who describes these people (which include himself, quite obviously) as "minor attracted persons" and paint them as an oppressed minority.

I can't think what it is about a charity dedicated to keeping children in a pre-pubescent state, and transforming young boys into a facsimile of a young woman, that would attract someone like this. Can anyone else?
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:01 AM   #244
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,853
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
The proverbial seems to be hitting the fan with Mermaids today. Seems they have (had) a trustee whose "academic subject" was the normalisation of sexual attraction to children. He is (was) an associate professor at the LSE. People (mainly women) have been waving red flags about him for years, to little effect. But somehow notice has finally been taken of this man and his predilections, Mermaids has ditched him as a trustee and the LSE has put him on gardening leave.

No doubt we'll be getting all the usual about how this has only come to light and we're shocked, shocked I tell you. Except it was all in plain sight. There has been a movement dedicated to decriminalising and normalising sexual attraction to (and activity with) children for many years. Peter Tatchell was pushing it for some time. This character (Breslow) had managed to get the subject normalised enough to be employed to research it as an academic.

But kiddie-fiddling is still evil, whether you're a priest or a scout leader or Jimmy Savile or an academic who describes these people (which include himself, quite obviously) as "minor attracted persons" and paint them as an oppressed minority.

I can't think what it is about a charity dedicated to keeping children in a pre-pubescent state, and transforming young boys into a facsimile of a young woman, that would attract someone like this. Can anyone else?
I think a more interesting question is why academia keeps producing/finding people with such ideas, and funding them....
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:04 AM   #245
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 49,353
Indeed. More institutional capture I suspect. I mean look what happened when these two guys wrote the spoof papers and submitted them to academic journals.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:08 AM   #246
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 49,353
Mermaids and Gendered Intelligence influence is so pervasive. You come across people (even on this forum) declaring that they have a trans "son" or "daughter" and how dare you say anything that our family finds uncomfortable. And you know these people are utterly sincere and believe they're doing their best for the child they love, but there's a pretty good chance that behind this tale of glitter and rainbows and acceptance there's a deeply disturbed child having seriously bad things done to his or her body, seriously bad things that have become normalised and even celebrated.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:37 AM   #247
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,853
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Well, hello, dept of the bleedin' obvious.

My point is that if everyone is so keen to adopt the transactivists preferred vocabulary to avoid giving offence, then maybe they need to consider that there are other groups who are equally offended by certain terms the transactivists favour. Goose and gander sauce.
Sure, but if we are spelling out the obvious, it is obvious that not everybody's offence matters equally, or at all. When has this ever not been the case?

Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Nobody ever succeded in a conflict by lying down in front of the demands of the other side and declaring, we don't have the power to promote our side of the debate.
Complaining about offense is something that only works if you have power on your side. It's like crying. It is a demand for somebody powerful to come to your aid and give you what you want, or a justification to strike at your enemies. When you have two moral frameworks claiming offense, only the offense recognised by the side with power matters. For your offence to matter, people who matter have to recognise it and take it seriously.

If the people in power are more sympathetic to the offence of transactivists than they are to your offence, then you are playing a losing game. Claims of offence are a way of bypassing debate, or avoiding recognizing the perspective of the other side. It's a great card to play if you are in a position to play it. I don't think you are in that position.

Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
You seemed not to know that many people find the term "cis" offensive, or why. I have explained this to you. Coming back and saying, well you don't have the power to make people pay any attention to the fact that you are offended, isn't really advancing the argument. We are offended, and I have explained why.
Sure. Do you find that you being offended is a powerful and convincing argument? Maybe in front of audiences that agree with you it is, but certainly not on this forum, and I am doubtful that it is in places that matter. I'm sure Nicola Sturgeon knows that all this stuff is offensive to people like you, what good does that do you though when she has sided with the people who are offending you, and are offended by you? It would be like me telling some old school Dworkin style feminists that conservatives and reactionaries found their views and statements offensive. They'd probably be pleased.

To link back to your last sentence. Your offence isn't an argument. If at some times you have found it worked as if it were an argument, it has been because you were in the position the trans-activists currently enjoy in having the political winds at your back, in having the sympathy of the powerful.

I find many of the same things as you offensive, but what good does that do?
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:40 AM   #248
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,853
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Mermaids and Gendered Intelligence influence is so pervasive. You come across people (even on this forum) declaring that they have a trans "son" or "daughter" and how dare you say anything that our family finds uncomfortable. And you know these people are utterly sincere and believe they're doing their best for the child they love, but there's a pretty good chance that behind this tale of glitter and rainbows and acceptance there's a deeply disturbed child having seriously bad things done to his or her body, seriously bad things that have become normalised and even celebrated.
Sure, but that pretty much necessarily takes it outside the realm of what one can have a reasonable conversation about. It's like having a conversation on the morality of abortion with somebody who has just come home after having an abortion.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:40 AM   #249
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,270
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
I think a more interesting question is why academia keeps producing/finding people with such ideas, and funding them....
It's yet another form of oikophobia. My first real encounter with it was post-9/11, when a number of hard core leftists were trying to make excuses for radical Islam. Some people seem to take a certain sort of pleasure in "accepting" something that's generally condemned. It gives them a sense of superiority, because they can equate what they're doing to various movements of the past which are now looked upon favorably, like various civil rights movements. Academic administrators feel like they're accomplishing something by hiring these nut jobs. They don't have to live with the consequences, there's no risk to them. It's a form of cheap status signaling.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:45 AM   #250
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 49,353
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Sure, but if we are spelling out the obvious, it is obvious that not everybody's offence matters equally, or at all. When has this ever not been the case?


Complaining about offense is something that only works if you have power on your side. It's like crying. It is a demand for somebody powerful to come to your aid and give you what you want, or a justification to strike at your enemies. When you have two moral frameworks claiming offense, only the offense recognised by the side with power matters. For your offence to matter, people who matter have to recognise it and take it seriously.

If the people in power are more sympathetic to the offence of transactivists than they are to your offence, then you are playing a losing game. Claims of offence are a way of bypassing debate, or avoiding recognizing the perspective of the other side. It's a great card to play if you are in a position to play it. I don't think you are in that position.


Sure. Do you find that you being offended is a powerful and convincing argument? Maybe in front of audiences that agree with you it is, but certainly not on this forum, and I am doubtful that it is in places that matter. I'm sure Nicola Sturgeon knows that all this stuff is offensive to people like you, what good does that do you though when she has sided with the people who are offending you, and are offended by you? It would be like me telling some old school Dworkin style feminists that conservatives and reactionaries found their views and statements offensive. They'd probably be pleased.

To link back to your last sentence. Your offence isn't an argument. If at some times you have found it worked as if it were an argument, it has been because you were in the position the trans-activists currently enjoy in having the political winds at your back, in having the sympathy of the powerful.

I find many of the same things as you offensive, but what good does that do?

Goose and gander sauce. If authorities are bending over backwards to accommodate the trans lobby over things they claim are offensive, they need reminding that other people find things offensive too.

Two can play at that game. Being "offended" is currently a popular way of getting people to do what you want. Appealling for equal representation on that front is always worth a try.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:49 AM   #251
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,758
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
It is grossly offensive to force women to carry an unwanted prefix that implies that there exists a subset of women who are not female.
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Transactivists have a different perspective from which your refusal to accept transwomen as women is grossly offensive.
This little back and forth over "cis" or "cisgender" nicely illustrates why I reject the moral heuristic that we should modify our speech to mollify activists who take offense when nothing derogatory was intended.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:53 AM   #252
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 49,353
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Sure, but that pretty much necessarily takes it outside the realm of what one can have a reasonable conversation about. It's like having a conversation on the morality of abortion with somebody who has just come home after having an abortion.

Yes, that's a good parallel. Which is why I always find it difficult when someone appears in a thread like this talking about their trans "daughter" and what a lovely "girl" she is and how dare you point out that she's male.

Did I mention I live next door to someone whose grandmother was killed at Lockerbie? I mean, what were the bloody chances? (Her mother lives about 100 yards away too.) But it's that sort of situation. I understand why the entire topic causes Alys to burst into tears and why, emotionally, she can't even consider the possibility that the man convicted of the bombing didn't actually do it.

But we have an agreement that we simply don't mention it at all. I wouldn't try to give her a copy of my book or persuade her in any way. Her emotional investment is too great. If she were to wade into the Lockerbie threads we used to have here it would be a very difficult situation.

Having someone you think is quite likely to be conniving in the abuse of their child, unknowingly, enter these conversations is even more difficult. I feel desperately sorry for these families, but that doesn't sugar-coat what's going on.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:06 AM   #253
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,853
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Yes, that's a good parallel. Which is why I always find it difficult when someone appears in a thread like this talking about their trans "daughter" and what a lovely "girl" she is and how dare you point out that she's male.

Did I mention I live next door to someone whose grandmother was killed at Lockerbie? I mean, what were the bloody chances? (Her mother lives about 100 yards away too.) But it's that sort of situation. I understand why the entire topic causes Alys to burst into tears and why, emotionally, she can't even consider the possibility that the man convicted of the bombing didn't actually do it.

But we have an agreement that we simply don't mention it at all. I wouldn't try to give her a copy of my book or persuade her in any way. Her emotional investment is too great. If she were to wade into the Lockerbie threads we used to have here it would be a very difficult situation.

Having someone you think is quite likely to be conniving in the abuse of their child, unknowingly, enter these conversations is even more difficult. I feel desperately sorry for these families, but that doesn't sugar-coat what's going on.
I think this touches on a wider problem. It may not be as acute as the cases we have discussed, but I distinctly remember talking to some friends of my parents. Educated oxbridge Leftie types in their late 70s. They have been deeply shocked by Brexit, Trump, some of the issues discussed in this thread... but if one were actually going to have a conversation with them about these things, one is calling into question the moral foundations of their whole lives. So I am delicate and do not say hurtful things. There are many things my mother can't believe, because she says it would be too awful. At a certain point, it becomes very painful to question one's assumptions. The sunk costs are too great, particularly when your children are involved, and it is too late in the game to fix anything.

Last edited by shuttlt; Today at 09:08 AM.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:18 AM   #254
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,853
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Goose and gander sauce. If authorities are bending over backwards to accommodate the trans lobby over things they claim are offensive, they need reminding that other people find things offensive too.

Two can play at that game. Being "offended" is currently a popular way of getting people to do what you want. Appealling for equal representation on that front is always worth a try.
But this is just the point. Two can't necessarily play the game, the playing field isn't level and never has been. When has everybody's offence ever mattered equally? Hasn't the last 60 years of social change been based on the idea that some people's offence is on the wrong side of history and should be ignored, while other people's offence, even if numerically smaller, is of great importance? Why should your offence be respected any more than Alf Garnett/Archie Bunker's was? The social progress that I believe you are pleased about has been achieved in the teeth of offence. Your offence simply doesn't matter unless it aligns with the views and sympathies of the great and the good.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:25 AM   #255
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 49,353
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
But this is just the point. Two can't necessarily play the game, the playing field isn't level and never has been. When has everybody's offence ever mattered equally? Hasn't the last 60 years of social change been based on the idea that some people's offence is on the wrong side of history and should be ignored, while other people's offence, even if numerically smaller, is of great importance? Why should your offence be respected any more than Alf Garnett/Archie Bunker's was? The social progress that I believe you are pleased about has been achieved in the teeth of offence. Your offence simply doesn't matter unless it aligns with the views and sympathies of the great and the good.

The playing field is not level. That doesn't mean we don't play.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:34 AM   #256
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 49,353
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
I think this touches on a wider problem. It may not be as acute as the cases we have discussed, but I distinctly remember talking to some friends of my parents. Educated oxbridge Leftie types in their late 70s. They have been deeply shocked by Brexit, Trump, some of the issues discussed in this thread... but if one were actually going to have a conversation with them about these things, one is calling into question the moral foundations of their whole lives. So I am delicate and do not say hurtful things. There are many things my mother can't believe, because she says it would be too awful. At a certain point, it becomes very painful to question one's assumptions. The sunk costs are too great, particularly when your children are involved, and it is too late in the game to fix anything.

Sunk costs. That's a good way of putting it.

It's another reason why surveys about satisfation or regret after "gender reassigment" surgery can't necessarily be taken at face value. I read so many stories from people who say, I really believed when I went into this that transition would solve all my problems. And each step I took I still felt miserable but I convinced myself that the next step would do it. And here I am, the process is complete, there are no more steps to take, there is nothing between me and my problems.

Some admit they may have made a mistake, but they've made too many changes to their bodies to go back. Or they don't think detransition would make any difference anyway. Some are desperately grieving for what they've lost and are trying to go back. Some are coping OK but admit to wondering whether they'd have been OK in the bodies they were born with and it would have been healthier in the long term.

Some of the "this is great I'm so happy with it all" is probably genuine, but some of it has a real whiff of someone in complete denial.

I don't know how you'd ever get at the truth and find out what percentage of transitioners are really happy with their new bodies. But if you could, I wonder what the figures would be.

Of course everything is skewed at the moment because the movement is being run by men who haven't actually "transitioned" at all. Maybe some hormones but not enough to interfere with their sexual function, maybe pink hair, maybe makeup. But the people who have really gone for it, I wonder how many are happier than they would have been if they had tried to come to terms with the body they had? I have a strong suspicion that the huge numbers of girls coming forward for testosterone and mastectomy are going to include a distressing number who regret it.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:43 AM   #257
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,853
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
The playing field is not level. That doesn't mean we don't play.
Sure. But you need to adjust how you play accordingly. Arguing about offence is the same as losing if the other side is the one that society, or the people in society whose opinions matter, are sympathetic to your opponent and not you. Offence isn't an argument. It's either a justification for using power, or crying impotently about not having power. Your offence is no more of an argument to people who aren't on your side than Alf Garnett's offence would have been an argument to you.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:44 AM   #258
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 49,353
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Sure. But you need to adjust how you play accordingly. Arguing about offence is the same as losing if the other side is the one that society, or the people in society whose opinions matter, are sympathetic to your opponent and not you. Offence isn't an argument. It's either a justification for using power, or crying impotently about not having power. Your offence is no more of an argument to people who aren't on your side than Alf Garnett's offence would have been an argument to you.

We will simply have to differ about this. I think we have had the argument before. I don't believe in giving the opposition all the running.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:46 AM   #259
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 49,353
I follow the Iona Community on Twitter. This is an interdenominational religious community based on the island of Iona where St Columba had his mission. They are about as captured as the rest of the Church of Scotland (of which they are a part) as far as I can see. But today's tweet reported that they are concerned about the current media profile of Mermaids and will remove the collection box for the charity from the Abbey until the matter is cleared up.

Yes, some people are noticing this.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:51 AM   #260
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,853
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I follow the Iona Community on Twitter. This is an interdenominational religious community based on the island of Iona where St Columba had his mission. They are about as captured as the rest of the Church of Scotland (of which they are a part) as far as I can see. But today's tweet reported that they are concerned about the current media profile of Mermaids and will remove the collection box for the charity from the Abbey until the matter is cleared up.

Yes, some people are noticing this.
Are they rethinking any fundamental assumptions that led them to support Mermaid's in the first place though?
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 10:17 AM   #261
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 49,353
Give it time. Baby steps.

What is going on as regards child transition is unconscionable. In biblical terms millstones round necks and casting into the sea territory. Whether or not there are too many sunk costs in the Church of Scotland, time will tell.

I replied to the Community's tweet saying that supporting trans people was one thing, but promoting the sterilisation and sexual mutilation of children too young to consent to a tattoo was another. An activist then replied to me with a whole thread on how waiting lists were so long that no child ever had this treatment on the NHS. I blocked her/him, but from my mentions a lot of people I follow are providing a lesson.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 10:25 AM   #262
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 32,255
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Some people seem to take a certain sort of pleasure in "accepting" something that's generally condemned.
As was it ever thus.

It took me years to grasp what Twain was saying in Tom Sawyer when he talked about the women who wanted Injun Joe released.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 10:25 AM   #263
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 49,353
Actually, here is the tweet in question.

https://twitter.com/ionacommunity/st...37640235503619

Quote:
@ionacommunity welcomes all, believing that we are all created equal and in the image of God. However, we are concerned about the current media profile of @Mermaids_Gender. We have removed our collection box for the charity from Iona Abbey until matters are clarified.

I am struggling somewhat to figure out how supporting surgical "sex reassigmnent" is consistent with believing we are all created in the image of God. I'm also struggling with the concept that they seriously believe God makes a ton of mistakes and puts male souls into female bodies and vice versa.

Sometimes you can open your mind so far to be "accepting" that your brain falls out.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:41 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.