Transgender athletes wins CT state champs for school

Wise Old Man wrote:

GD wrote:

The theories underlying trans ideology and intersectional oppression argue that language structures, rather than describes, reality. That's why proponents are so intent on introducing new language and policing conformity. I agree that language is important, but I don't belive that all aspects of human social life bend to the will of our language and conceptual categories. Instead, language can be used to manipulate our sense of reality by people who are seeking power.

However, my post is not about language. It's about conceptual clarity and assumptions about human nature and society. It matters a lot whether one begins with the assumption that all human beings have equal moral worth and develops a society based on that and whether one begins with the assumption that some people have inherited moral sins by virtue of their immutable characteristics and creates a society based on that premise. The former, liberalism, has led to the freedoms we enjoy today. The latter describes the ideology of intersectional oppression (Critcial Theory + Postmodernism) andn is a path to tyranny.

Ok, I agree that all human beings have equal moral worth and nobody inherits moral sins. The moral sin occurs later when people fail to recognize that all human beings are NOT actually treated as if they have equal moral worth in our society, often based on immutable characteristics, and even if they do recognize this inequality, they ignore the difference for their own benefit. So maybe in the end we do agree. If intersectionalism means assuming people are born sinful or irredeemable because of their characteristics, then I reject that ideology, but I’ve not actually encountered anybody with such an extreme view in my work or personal life. I guess you think I’ve been lucky in that regard. I’m not sure where you live or work, but it sounds like your experience has been different.

As for the issue of trans rights specifically, my stance is as articulated previously.

GD wrote:

Wise Old Man wrote:

I am not getting it. To me it just seems you are arguing about language. You do agree that people experience discrimination due to race or other immutable characteristics, so from their perspective those who do not experience this discrimination are privileged not to face these barriers. Maybe you prefer to say that White women are not privileged as compared to Black women is US society, but instead Black women are under privileged? If that description is more to your liking, ok, but in the end the dynamic is the same. There is an imbalance of access, benefits, etc. Recognizing this difference does not negate other issues that need to be confronted like wealth inequality that is not race based. The sneering, which I abhor by the way, comes when the oppressed seem to take on the values and beliefs of their oppressors rather than join in solidarity with others who are similarly oppressed. As it pertains to the cis/trans dichotomy, yes women have been systematically oppressed over the course of history, but so have people who have non conforming genders regardless of their sex at birth. I wold think that a solidarity across all oppressed genders would be the way to go rather than antagonism. This does not mean that in every instance trans women and cis women need to be treated the same and that every place and space need to be made available to trans women, but the general attitude is one of solidarity rather than antagonism. If you think that trans women are simply males trying to oppress women, then of course, none of this makes sense, but if you see trans women as neither female nor the same as men, then it does make sense. Then the issue comes up that being trans is voluntary and that it is not fair to claim discrimination when you volunteered for it so to speak. This is a fundamental tension that I do understand. In the end, I do not believe being trans is voluntary for most people, rather it is more an immutable characteristic than an assumed identity taken on like changing clothes.

The theories underlying trans ideology and intersectional oppression argue that language structures, rather than describes, reality. That's why proponents are so intent on introducing new language and policing conformity. I agree that language is important, but I don't belive that all aspects of human social life bend to the will of our language and conceptual categories. Instead, language can be used to manipulate our sense of reality by people who are seeking power.

However, my post is not about language. It's about conceptual clarity and assumptions about human nature and society. It matters a lot whether one begins with the assumption that all human beings have equal moral worth and develops a society based on that and whether one begins with the assumption that some people have inherited moral sins by virtue of their immutable characteristics and creates a society based on that premise. The former, liberalism, has led to the freedoms we enjoy today. The latter describes the ideology of intersectional oppression (Critcial Theory + Postmodernism) andn is a path to tyranny.

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

Wise Old Man wrote:

Ok, I agree that all human beings have equal moral worth and nobody inherits moral sins. The moral sin occurs later when people fail to recognize that all human beings are NOT actually treated as if they have equal moral worth in our society, often based on immutable characteristics, and even if they do recognize this inequality, they ignore the difference for their own benefit. So maybe in the end we do agree. If intersectionalism means assuming people are born sinful or irredeemable because of their characteristics, then I reject that ideology, but I’ve not actually encountered anybody with such an extreme view in my work or personal life. I guess you think I’ve been lucky in that regard. I’m not sure where you live or work, but it sounds like your experience has been different.

As for the issue of trans rights specifically, my stance is as articulated previously.

My sense is that GD works in a very "woke" environment and lives in a very leftist community. (I would not even call it "progressive.") And somehow she believes the entire country is like her own surroundings.

Maybe she should just get out and see the bigger world.