WandererintheWilderness
No bio...
User ID: 3496
WandererintheWilderness
1hr ago
Yes. I don't think it's as dickish as deadnaming a trans person unless he's actively stated hearing his legal name spoken is painful to him - and conceivably he might be enough of a menace that being dickish to him is a defensible strategy in any case - but all else being equal, it's clearly not a nice thing to do, and the people who do it know that it's not a nice thing to do. A lot of anti-Ratsphere leftists make it a point to call Scott Alexander "Scott Siskind" and I think that's dumb and rude of them, too.
WandererintheWilderness
20hr ago
More pointedly, I think the image of "trying Papa's things and Mama's things and then realizing that the Little One's things are just right" is supposed to lead children away from messing around with their parents' things when they're home alone. Which is less of a moral lesson and more of a practical, avoiding-accidents-in-the-home sort of lesson. The story doesn't actually illustrate that lesson, so much as wrap the image in a fun little story that'll stick in kids' minds.
Speaking as a very pro-trans person: I don't especially believe that "gender" "exists" in some objective sense separate from subjective preferences - nor that it needs to.
I think it might help you understand my perspective if we look at another marker of identity with huge emotional significance to individuals, but very little biological basis if any: names. If an individual whose legal name is William would prefer to be known as Bill or Tex or Archimedes, it's clearly the correct thing to do to call him by his chosen name. In some technical contexts it might be necessary to bear in mind that the name on his ID papers is "William", but it would be dickish and bizarre to chime in whenever he says "Hi, my name's Tex" and go "ackshually, your name is William; either you're lying or you're delusional". If one of Tex's coworkers keeps passive-aggressively calling Tex "William" no matter how many times he explains that he doesn't like hearing that stuffy-sounding name that doesn't feel like it reflects him as a person, that coworker would clearly be engaged in a kind of low-grade psychological harassment.
Social transition, to my way of thinking, works very much like this, except in addition to a "William" who would rather be an "Alice", it's a "Mr" who would prefer to be called a "Miss", a "he" who would prefer to be called a "she". It is clearly, I feel, the nice, the civil, the moral thing to do to respect that person's wishes; and it doesn't require anyone to be confused about what William/Alice has got in his/her pants. She can be a conversational "she" and a medical "he" in the same way that the first guy was a conversational "Bill" but a legal "William". It's just that, unless you're a doctor/an IRS employee, the underlying technicalities of Tex or Alice's identities are none of your business. If a guy tells you "I'm Tex" it's none of your fucking business whether it says "Tex" or "William" on his driving license, outside a few specific technical circumstances; likewise if someone tells you "I'm a woman" then it shouldn't be any concern of yours what she looks like naked, unless you happen to be a doctor, or a prospective date. To put it another way, under normal circumstances, the only relevance that the sex of a random person has to you, whatsoever, is by what titles and pronouns it would be polite to address that person; how you should refer to them if you don't want them to feel insulted or misrepresented. So if that person dislikes the pronouns and titles that their biological sex would normally entail, sex loses relevance altogether, trumped by self-identification.
And a similar analogy can be devised for medical transition. Let's say you like to shave your chin but keep a mustache. Is there some specific factor in your brain that makes you a Person Whose Inner Identity Is A Mustache Guy? Probably not. It's besides the point. It would still be dickish of someone to say "biology says the male Homo sapiens is meant to have hair all over his face, you're not allowed to shave your chin", or indeed "it's better for society if grooming norms are cohesive, shave that mustache as well or you're a hippie freak". How you want to style your facial hair-growths is your business; if it's emotionally important to you to present the face of a Mustache Guy to society, and you don't feel like yourself with a lumberjack beard or a full shave, then it would be dictatorial of society to force you to do otherwise; it would be rude and invasive of any private third party to tell you how they think you ought to be styling your body.
"Gender identity" is just a kludgy concept lumping together a lot of disparate preferences, positive and negative; and even when two trans people share a preference, they might have come to it for completely different reasons (much as you may like to shave your beard because you think a full beard makes you look like some kind of caveman, while I like to shave my beard because I don't like how sweaty and itchy it makes my neck). But all those preferences, individually, should be valid in any free, humane society.
WandererintheWilderness
2d ago
Even taking this as read, you might still expect male-to-female trans lesbians who like themselves a sexy video game protagonist, no? I had been reliably informed there were a lot of those in the gaming world.
WandererintheWilderness
4d ago
Are there no progressive sex-positives getting involved?
Well, at least you're acknowledging that a new religious movement is what trans is.
Not exactly, but I do concede that it's a belief system - and as a liberal atheist I believe belief systems should get the same kinds of legal protection whether or not they're grounded in supernatural beliefs, as historical belief systems tended to be. Persecuting Daoists or Buddhists for their beliefs continues to be wrong even if we're simply talking about their moral or philosophical beliefs rather than anything properly theological. I feel the same logic should apply to Transgenderism - and Vegetarianism, and Effective Altruism, etc.
(…) then in my eyes this strengthens rather than weakens the case for banning these interventions for children.
I wholeheartedly agree - about FGM, male circumcision, and medical transition for children. Physical alterations to children has always been the one point where I diverge from the progressive consensus re: trans issues, though it puts me into quite a lonely place politically - my belief is that in an ideal world, children should be allowed to socially transition, but barred from making permanent changes to their bodies just yet, and this is something both sides view as unacceptable from opposite directions.
(Now, mind, I do think that there's something of the isolated demand for rigor to the scrutiny applied to transitioning children. There are a lot of other alterations to children's bodies that are currently kosher, from getting a girl's ears pierced to so-called-"corrective" genital surgery on intersex infants. I tend not to find that much common ground with a lot of anti-child-transition campaigners due to them not caring about those things, never mind their views on adult transition, which are rarely congruent with mine. But I'm leaving this as a parenthetical here, insofar as given your stated position on circumcision I think you might actually be ideologically consistent on this kind of stuff.)
WandererintheWilderness
4d ago
There should really a better way to encapsulate the specific idea "people are trying to make there not be any Xs anymore" as distinct from just "people are systematically mistreating Xs"; many groups are persecuted without their enemies' aim being to extinguish the relevant identity altogether. Trivially, that UN definition you quote conceives of itself as applying to gender-based "persecution", and it would be… surprising for any government to set itself the goal of actually erasing women from the Earth (even in the non-murder-based sense of trying to forcibly transition all women into trans men), so they can't intend that "persecute" should be understood as implying an intent to destroy.
I dislike the "trans genocide" terminology, but I'm kind of stuck on a better word that doesn't minimize the concerns. Attempts to extinguish belief systems by any means necessary up to and including forced conversion and outlawing specific rites are a well-attested historical phenomenon which seems like it'd make a better analogy, but I don't believe that idea has a more specific name than the somewhat broader umbrella of "religious persecution".
WandererintheWilderness
4d ago
A good half of these do seem to be talking about "socially constructed" constraints, which does lead me back to wondering how much the possibility of transitioning has taken the wind out of the sails of any push to relax or change the gender-role expectations of women
It's a common complaint and one I take seriously, but at the risk of sounding like the "we need more Stalins" guy, that failure mode seems to be the province of moderate trans activists, of normie Blues who sort of support the general idea of transition and mouth the right slogans, but are probably a couple of decades behind on the philosophy. In online spaces that skew younger and leftier, your Tumblrs and Blueskies, people love nothing more than to validate trans women's right to be masculine or trans men's right to be feminine. Real trans activists love themselves a MTF butch lesbian who rounds back to using he/him pronouns with three nested layers of irony, and accordingly, would strongly oppose the idea that a girl not conforming with gender norms must mean that she's secretly a trans boy.
WandererintheWilderness
4d ago
He did not claim that there was no LGBT community that observed it; he claimed that he had never personally encountered a LGBT community that does. If I want to prove that leopards are not commonly kept as pets in America, that leopard-keeping is a fringe practice, I can say "I've never seen any American with a pet leopard". I'm sure if I Googled it I could find counterexamples, but that would be besides the point, which would be to use "have I organically encountered X in my day-to-day life" as a Bayesian proxy for "how common is X".
WandererintheWilderness
4d ago
What does it preach? The worship of wealth and **sensory pleasures The flaunting of jewelry and clothes, insufferable bragging, and **the pathetic ridicule of the weak.
"I hate sexual hedonism and violent alphas punching down on the weak. This is why I'm going to start an armed anti-feminist revolution to guarantee every man's right to fuck, and if the hoes don't like it, tough."
WandererintheWilderness
7d ago
I don't understand why you're now on round two of using any possible ambiguity in a statement to imagine a needlessly weaksauce implementation. The legislation could look like anything up to and including automatically granting American citizenship to any Israeli who asks for it, or indeed just granting all living Israelis American citizenship upfront. Is this likely to happen? No, but dr_analog was not trying to predict the future: the original post was simply "We should…".
WandererintheWilderness
8d ago
Personally, I have very little sympathy for the objective of keeping Iran away from nukes. "A Middle-Eastern country run by bloodthirsty, slightly genocidal religious nutjobs has nukes" is something we have survived before
Well, you can survive a decent number of rounds of Russian roulette, too. Which isn't to say I'm an Iran hawk, but "very little sympathy" seems extreme.
WandererintheWilderness
8d ago
If they would still be subject to U. S. immigration law
By "We should encourage" I assume dr_analog meant passing legislation that would explicitly make immigration from Israel easier, not just sending them postcards with a suggestion.
WandererintheWilderness
8d ago
nor is the situation in Lebanon a genocide
It isn't actually, but if we took "all of Lebanon must burn" at "face value", it plainly would be. It's concerning, and in the modern world, unusual, for war rhetoric to aspire to the literal obliteration of the enemy nation - I think it's fair to describe such claims as genocidal aspirations even if the actual war strategy is less insane. (And yes, Hezbollah and Hamas plainly harbor genocidal aspirations with regards to Israel.)
WandererintheWilderness
11d ago
The part where he insists on wearing a fucking fedora to every interview, however, is pure contrarianism. That's not the sort of thing rational!Draco or rational!Quirrell would do.
I suspect his gambit may be "I know my limitations: I am incapable of seeming cool and normal. Better to deliberately play an Eccentric Character of my own choosing, than try to impersonate a conventionally charismatic, professional normie, and fall into the uncanny valley". The sheer stubbornness in the face of ridicule is still baffling, but at a guess, I think that's the 5D chess he thinks he's doing, anyway.
The UK already had hard-won religious freedom; it just didn't have meaningful representation of a religion whose commandments conflicted with a weapons ban, so the issue hadn't come up. It might very well have come up even with zero immigration, if a lot of white Englishmen had started converting to Sikhism out of some trend, in the same way that so many British hippies got into Buddhism.
And I guess I just don't see that big of a conflict there… I think "virtue" is a weird way to describe the weapons ban. I don't believe Brits think it's deontologically wrong or taboo to carry knives; I think they've adopted weapons bans as a technocratic, utilitarian policy. Whether religious freedom is to be thought of as a deontological line-in-the-sand or consequentialist utilmaxxing is perhaps more debatable, but in either case, this makes it sensible to trade one against the other depending on circumstances. Something like: "I believe that in a vacuum, it is good to minimize the amount of citizens permitted to carry knives, as doing so will reduce violent crime and I do not believe that people have an innate right to bear arms. However, I also believe that the state should rarely if ever ban religious practices. Therefore, the best way to maximize utility while respecting the constraints of respecting religious freedom is a weapons for ban for everyone except people whose religion mandates that they carry a ritual knife on their person at all times" is in no way incoherent or self-contradictory.
(Again, it seems isomorphic to other kinds of religious exemptions, i.e. "I do not believe that parents should have the right to pull their kids out of school whenever they like; but I believe it's important for the state to respect religious practices; therefore parents are allowed to let their kids skip school on their faith's recognized holy days, but not for any other reason". I don't think there's a "virtue" of respecting religious freedom, and a "virtue" of mandatory education, that are in conflict here in any problematic way, it's a very common-sensical status quo to end up with.)
WandererintheWilderness
18d ago
If you give them a city and they make it rich it's still not your money to spend.
I mean, it is if you tax them and redistribute the money.
Apparently they have their own rituals we have to grant them religious exemptions for.
Although it doesn't actively proselytize as much as Christianity, Sikhism is not an ethnic religion; any person of any ethnicity can convert to it if they become convinced that its teachings hold the true answers about the Divine. Accordingly this is, as it says in the name, a religious, not ethnic, exemption. In other words, to not have it would infringe upon the religious freedom of Britons of any race by foreclosing the possibility for a white Englishman of converting to Sikhism if he wants to.
Now as an atheist, I'm not that big a fan of religious exemptions. But ultimately, they're a Chesterton's Fence whose origins are not very hard to dig up. Bad things happen if the government starts steamrolling over the faithful's objections with "there's not actually an angry sky man who will send you to Hell if you work on a Sunday/do indulgences/mix meat and dairies, get over it". Granted Sikhs are enough of a religious minority that pissing them off on their own wouldn't start a religious war, but it seems straightforwardly more principled for the state to say "we withhold judgment about the truth-value of any recognized religion" than "we withhold judgment about the truth-value of Christianity and Islam, but because there's so few of them we're going to functionally write it into law that you cannot simultaneously act in accordance with a belief in the divinely-inspired truth of the Guru Granth Sahib, and be a law-abiding citizen in our country".
WandererintheWilderness
24d ago
You are, again, skipping crucial steps. It's not inevitable that a demographic change will lead to physical violence against the old majority. If, say, Belgians or Koreans moved to my town en masse I would not expect them to start stabbing the locals, whatever the scale of the migration. To believe otherwise would be sheer, paranoid xenophobia. It may very well be the case that if you replace my Belgians and Koreans with Pakistanis or Sikhs, the murder rate will in fact go up, but this is a specific claim about the cultural (or, if you must, genetic) dispositions of Pakistanis and Sikhs, which requires evidence to back it up; it's not the null hypothesis about any generic group of foreigners.
WandererintheWilderness
24d ago
I don't actually think it especially changes the trolley problem if the single person is a suicide attempt.
WandererintheWilderness
24d ago
Oh, I agree. I'm just saying that "(partly) responsible for his death" is a much lower bar than "guilty of murder".
WandererintheWilderness
24d ago
And likewise if Digwa stabbed Nowak through the lung he's far more responsible for Nowak's death than the police officers who failed to get Nowak first aid, but responsibility still exists even if it isn't exclusive.
WandererintheWilderness
24d ago
And he explicitly voiced this specific concern in the speech itself:
Well, not exactly; this is concern that penalties for those guilty of out-and-out racial discrimination would get a lot harsher, which is not quite the same slippery slope as sanctions being extended to those only "guilty" of thoughtcrime. But as I said I do take the point.
WandererintheWilderness
24d ago
Well again I'm not actually convinced that he made that prediction. I still find it a more natural and coherent reading of the text that the strife he perceives in Britain's future is the political oppression of white racists by an electoral majority of brown anti-racists. I don't actually think there's any textual evidence that he was envisioning a plague of acts of personal brown-on-white violence like Digwa's. If that had been his point, I contend that his rhetoric would have been burying the lede to such outrageous degrees as to make the overall speech laughable, but I don't think it was his point.
(I think you actually have a much better case in the other sub-thread when linking his doomsaying, not to modern crime statistics, but to the rise of anti-free-speech legislation, which can legitimately be seen as a slippery slope from the concerns he voices. This doesn't wholly rehabilitate the speech in my eyes, because I still think that in fact a just society should not allow racial discrimination, and allowing it in the name of preventing a free-speech-destroying slippery slope is throwing the baby out with the bathwater; and also because he's still complaining about private responses to racist behavior i.e. the children chanting "racialist", not just institutional overreach, so his principled-libertarian cred is less than stellar; but it's a fair defense.)
Well, there was, of course, an implicit "all else being equal" in the sentence you quoted. In your thought experiments as stated, all else is not equal; but that doesn't impinge upon my point, which was that insisting on calling Tex "William" isn't necessarily the right thing just because it is, in a technical sense, "the truth". There can be other, context-specific reasons why it might be good to identify a person currently calling himself Tex as his legal name of "William" against his will - if he's a wanted murderer hiding under an alias, for example. Your Michael Jordan impersonator largely falls into that category. (And mind you, it could be the case that a tall black guy's legal name happens to be Michael Jordan (e.g.), and suddenly the ethical thing would be to only refer to him by a nickname where it might cause undue confusion! The underlying "truth" is besides the point!)
I don't think trans people are in this category in the vast majority of cases. The most crucial difference is that it is legitimate for a hotel to treat the real Michael Jordan differently than they would a random lookalike, whereas if people treat a random person differently depending on whether they believe that person to be a man or a woman, that's their problem for being sexist. Moreover, most trans people are not trying to pass themselves off as the real Michael Jordan. The typical trans woman puts a trans flag in her Bluesky bio and will start talking about her transition journey as light conversation - she will certainly mention it before a date gets to second base. The "trap" who passes perfectly and uses that to lead on a potential sex partner all the way to the bedroom is largely a creature of fantasy, and not behavior mainstream modern-day trans people would endorse (if only because it doesn't tend to go well for the trans woman herself).
Similarly, in your King Charles example, there is more at stake than politeness and self-identification. If Charles Johnson is suffering from a delusion that he is the King Charles then perhaps I shouldn't go along with that (unless medical professionals recommend going along with the delusion for the patient's wellbeing, which does happen with e.g. dementia patients, but that's another question). Nor would I go along with it if a trans woman started telling me about her uterus or a childhood memory of her first period. But normal trans people are not like this. They know they are biologically of the opposite sex; in fact they often advertise it. If my friend is an eccentric who knows perfectly well that he's not really a Windsor, but would like me to call him "your majesty" as a kind of 24/7 LARP (perhaps he's into micronations?), I'd happily roll with it - and if for some reason I refused, it would be absolutely fair of Charles to not want to be my friend anymore.
(This doesn't change if my friend has maverick philosophical opinions that lead him to defend the position that at the end of the day, the "king" of a micronation and the "king" of a real recognized countries are more alike than they are different, in the way that a trans woman might know perfectly well that she's not the kind of woman who has a uterus and a vagina, and simply defend the esoteric metaphysical point that she's still as entitled to the word "woman" as anybody else.)
More options
Context Copy link