Sooooo .... I'm getting a lot of people reading this as a defense of trans identities. (It's definitely not.) And they're pissed about it. Like super pissed. Which is fine, but also not what I expected.
Agreed, and there is a conflict of rights in use of pronouns. The dispute:
A: I have the right to choose the pronouns that you will use in reference to me, and I can dictate that speech.
B: I have the right to speak freely and truthfully regarding reality. Your wide shoulders and deep voice show that you are biologically male, and I choose to use "she" and "her" to refer only to biological females, as is my right by freedom of speech. Also, part of the 1st Amendment protections determined by the Supreme Court is that "government cannot tell people what they must say," (Chief Justice John Roberts, 2006.)
I suppose a "they" compromise might work,
although that is also reality -denying: a pretense of plural where there is singular reality.
My compromise:
"This person" or "that person" for those whose demanded pronouns conflict with reality. Awkward but grudgingly satisfactory for all concerned.
In the end, the equation may zero out if, by affirming their existence, I deny my own. Of what overarching value is there in this? If my identity, my cosmology, is based upon all I understand to be human history and the natural world, of what purpose is there in tearing down [my] rationality?
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never harm me." How much does one's identity rely upon the perceptions and affirmations of others? Does one individual have the power to destroy another person's "reality," as in identity? How much responsibility do we have to affirm ourselves and protect ourselves from the "names."
I guess the comments you are referencing have been deleted? I really enjoyed this article. You succinctly and logically explain the feelings that have been floating in my head but I couldn't tether.
I was doing some research on tadalafil and stumbled upon a reddit where trans-women(penis equipped men who are larping) who still enjoy penetration were discussing the drug.... that's it that's the whole comment.....
On twitter, way before it became a place you got booted off of for supporting Trump and telling the truth about Mnra....there was a really funny. lovely woman, who did a quick video about "I want to be a bird...I can pretend my house is my nest and go out in my backyard and eat worms and its fine. But I don't have the right to leave my house and demand that you feed me worms because I am bird".
But she was much funnier and cleverer than I can remember here. Had me in tears laughing. So right.
I finally got around to reading this AJ. The currency analogy is easy to comprehend, as I've often thought that the further we push this mixing of gender identities, we're just watering down their meaning. What is a woman in the context of the trans-movement? Everything.. and nothing. Moving the target makes it really difficult to play.
Respectfully I believe you are conflating acknolwedgment/recognition of with suport/promotion of. One can recignize that someone suffers from belenmia without suporting that persons belief that they are over weight
What is so amazing is that it takes so many words to affirm what is commons sense. Common sense is no longer common. Alas, all this and so much more has largely been brought about by postmodernism & its war against standards and objective reality. While not entirely new it has gained momentum & a wider more accepting audience. The lure being that old mores can be thrown off and one now has the freedom to create one's own. How liberating! except history shows us this never ends well.
On a deeper level as you have stated AJ, they are not (totally) wrong. For if objective standards/reality/morality does not exist outside of our own (or societies own) creation then you or I have no basis on which to criticize their behavior. To what moral base can we appeal if an objective moral law does not exist? This is the elephant in the room that everyone dances around.
Sooooo .... I'm getting a lot of people reading this as a defense of trans identities. (It's definitely not.) And they're pissed about it. Like super pissed. Which is fine, but also not what I expected.
So talk to me, friends - what am I missing?
Well reasoned, I appreciate the insight into the trans mindset. Thanks!
Interesting article, thanks for your perspective!
Agreed, and there is a conflict of rights in use of pronouns. The dispute:
A: I have the right to choose the pronouns that you will use in reference to me, and I can dictate that speech.
B: I have the right to speak freely and truthfully regarding reality. Your wide shoulders and deep voice show that you are biologically male, and I choose to use "she" and "her" to refer only to biological females, as is my right by freedom of speech. Also, part of the 1st Amendment protections determined by the Supreme Court is that "government cannot tell people what they must say," (Chief Justice John Roberts, 2006.)
I suppose a "they" compromise might work,
although that is also reality -denying: a pretense of plural where there is singular reality.
My compromise:
"This person" or "that person" for those whose demanded pronouns conflict with reality. Awkward but grudgingly satisfactory for all concerned.
Very helpful piece! We all need to start saying "no!" to this crazy and destructive fad.
You might find my post on questions for people who identify as trans.
https://yourunclepedro.substack.com/p/a-few-questions-for-the-non-binarygender
In the end, the equation may zero out if, by affirming their existence, I deny my own. Of what overarching value is there in this? If my identity, my cosmology, is based upon all I understand to be human history and the natural world, of what purpose is there in tearing down [my] rationality?
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never harm me." How much does one's identity rely upon the perceptions and affirmations of others? Does one individual have the power to destroy another person's "reality," as in identity? How much responsibility do we have to affirm ourselves and protect ourselves from the "names."
I guess the comments you are referencing have been deleted? I really enjoyed this article. You succinctly and logically explain the feelings that have been floating in my head but I couldn't tether.
I was doing some research on tadalafil and stumbled upon a reddit where trans-women(penis equipped men who are larping) who still enjoy penetration were discussing the drug.... that's it that's the whole comment.....
On twitter, way before it became a place you got booted off of for supporting Trump and telling the truth about Mnra....there was a really funny. lovely woman, who did a quick video about "I want to be a bird...I can pretend my house is my nest and go out in my backyard and eat worms and its fine. But I don't have the right to leave my house and demand that you feed me worms because I am bird".
But she was much funnier and cleverer than I can remember here. Had me in tears laughing. So right.
I finally got around to reading this AJ. The currency analogy is easy to comprehend, as I've often thought that the further we push this mixing of gender identities, we're just watering down their meaning. What is a woman in the context of the trans-movement? Everything.. and nothing. Moving the target makes it really difficult to play.
Well written as always, AJ! Grateful for your perspective and the even-handed intelligence you bring to a divisive topic.
Respectfully I believe you are conflating acknolwedgment/recognition of with suport/promotion of. One can recignize that someone suffers from belenmia without suporting that persons belief that they are over weight
Failing to validate the preferred gender of trans-identifying people constitutes ignoring psychotics.
What is so amazing is that it takes so many words to affirm what is commons sense. Common sense is no longer common. Alas, all this and so much more has largely been brought about by postmodernism & its war against standards and objective reality. While not entirely new it has gained momentum & a wider more accepting audience. The lure being that old mores can be thrown off and one now has the freedom to create one's own. How liberating! except history shows us this never ends well.
On a deeper level as you have stated AJ, they are not (totally) wrong. For if objective standards/reality/morality does not exist outside of our own (or societies own) creation then you or I have no basis on which to criticize their behavior. To what moral base can we appeal if an objective moral law does not exist? This is the elephant in the room that everyone dances around.