Free Speech language Laws Legal Racism Society

Society, Rights, and Self-Identification

Spread the love

Does a man have the right to identify himself as a woman and enter their locker rooms and bathrooms, demanding equal rights for their self-identification?  Does a person have the right to identify herself as a native American and, when filling out forms for employment or college, indicate her ethnicity as such, even though she is not?   Should the force of law support such self-identifications which contradict the physical facts and insist that society accommodate any such self-identifications?

Where is the line between socially protected self-identification in conflict with physical facts and delusion?  Can physically unrelated people identify themselves as family and represent themselves as such on legal forms?  Can an adult self-identify as a child and thus obligate his parents to take care of him his entire life?

There are physical realities that exist which are not transformed by how one chooses to conceptualize themselves or others and which are not changed by altering clothes or body parts. Men are not women, and women are not men, no matter how much anyone believes that one can become the other.  Even if the whole world calls a woman a man, it is not so.  That’s just the physical reality.  No amount of self or public identification as such makes Elizabeth Warren a Native American or Shaun King black or Bruce Jenner a woman.

A person can dress up, obtain surgeries and call themselves whatever they like; that does not obligate the rest of society to indulge their particular conceptualization of themselves.  I don’t have a problem with people doing any of that to themselves and for their own personal reasons, but surely the rest of us should not be forced by law or even compelled by PC obligation to indulge their self-conceptualization.

Do people have the right to self-identify in contradiction to the physical facts and expect the force of law to make society accept and conform to their concept of themselves?  If I refuse to indulge your particular conceptualization of yourself, or as a business refuse to indulge, am I being a “hater”? Am I being “intolerant”?  Is it my job to protect the feelings and promote a sense of “equality” and “enfranchisement” for those that self-identify in conflict with physical reality?

Further, won’t the social and legal demand to ignore physical realities in favor of protecting the feelings of such groups, and in fact make it a crime to state those physical realities or act in accordance with them, most certainly cause problematic, even dire unintended consequences in the future? A population trained to ignore reality in favor of sentimental, feel-good, virtue signalling memes can be manipulated to do virtually anything given the right narrative-messaging.

104 Replies to “Society, Rights, and Self-Identification

  1. 1
    Zachriel says:

    William J Murray: Men are not women, and women are not men

    About one in a thousand human births involve ambiguous genitalia. Parents are often offered the option of surgery, but those results do not necessarily resolve all ambiguity. And this number doesn’t include all the variations in sexual behavior and attitudes in humans. For centuries, a common social response was to beat up sissies and other misfits, so there is a long history of discrimination against those who do not fit your notions of a perfect dichotomy.

  2. 2
    kairosfocus says:

    WJM

    You are asking sobering questions. And you are pointing to a real as opposed to the stereotypical strawman slippery slope. (Cf my comments on the earlier thread. Note the added illustration of how a watershed point can have in it two mutually opposed slippery slopes; pointing to the possibility of divide and dominate as the polarised slide down to mutual ruin.)

    I would suggest we need to look a bit at the rights question and put back up the following, which targetted an earlier theme but apply also to the wider agenda we are seeing:

    7 –> In this context, a core basic right is a binding moral expectation to be respected in regards to key aspects of our nature. That is, it is the mirror image and dual of mutually binding obligations imposed by our nature and its inherent dignity. That is rights are inherently matters of moral law connected to our nature.

    8 –> As a consequence, a rights claim is a claim to be in the right and to be owed duties of care by others of like morally freighted nature.

    9 –> You cannot have a right to the wrong, you cannot demand that others enable and support you in the wrong, such is to poison other souls with the taint of compulsion to do and to support the wrong. Such is monstrous and wicked.

    10 –> Likewise, there are no rights to twist key institutions crucial to human thriving as individuals, families and communities. For the blessings of the civil peace of justice and liberty under legitimate law are key requisites of human thriving.

    11 –> This holds for demanding that marriage be perverted through lawfare and agit prop, and the linked demand that sexual perversion be acknowledged on equal terms with the manifest order of nature stamped into our genes, organs, biology of reproduction and social- psychological- relational requisites of sound child nurture.

    In short, there are principled bases for objection to currently fashionable agendas imposed through agit prop and lawfare, but the spiral of silencing is well underway backed up by the attempt to induce massive “thought reform” in interests of a march of folly.

    In this, a key issue is the question of our having a definite nature and linked intrinsic value or worth which can be in part evident through our intelligent awareness of one another and of the moral government we are under.

    But in a world dominated by evolutionary materialistic scientism and associated radical secularism, there will be a strong tendency to instead imagine that value, rights, truth and more are relative and in the end driven by power games of manipulation and intimidation. The blunt words are: might and manipulation make ‘right’, ‘truth’ etc.

    The proper — and even harder to swallow — name for that social vision is, nihilism.

    Which is sobering.

    We need to wake up and rethink where we are headed, and turn back.

    If, it is not already too late.

    KF

  3. 3
    kairosfocus says:

    Z, we need to handle exceptions as exceptions, and not allow that to set the norms for our general conduct. Not, when fundamental issues of social stability and sustainability are on the table. Remember, social challenge number one is the proper socialisation of young men that through strong social reinforcement that backs up families, channels their energies and sexuality in stable, constructive directions. We are playing with fire here. KF

  4. 4
    Dean_from_Ohio says:

    Zachriel points to physical reality as the ground of truth. My congratulations! That is progress, even though it is not progressive.

    Hard cases make bad law. KF is right: that we should treat exceptions as such. But we should apply compassion and discernment for ALL concerned, including the society as a whole and not just for the cannon fodder of the Progressive Left. Decisions injurious to society multiply pain, misery and death. The Left wants to wash its hands of all such intrusions of reality, but truth will out, and the Judge of all men does not sleep.

  5. 5
    bb says:

    Playing with identification sounds fun. Today I self-identify as the president of the U.S. and declare that North Carolina is correct in what they did. I demand that everyone recognize my current identity and they honor my declaration, though it might change tomorrow. But, for now, my actions, as supreme law-enforcement officer, must be upheld.

  6. 6

    Z said:

    About one in a thousand human births involve ambiguous genitalia. Parents are often offered the option of surgery, but those results do not necessarily resolve all ambiguity. And this number doesn’t include all the variations in sexual behavior and attitudes in humans. For centuries, a common social response was to beat up sissies and other misfits, so there is a long history of discrimination against those who do not fit your notions of a perfect dichotomy.

    I didn’t say that everyone was physically a man or a woman. A hermaphrodite is a hermaphrodite. Etc. However, behavior and attitude do not change physical facts no matter how much the progressive left insists otherwise. Just because someone might behave like a woman and have the attitude that they are a women does not obligate the rest of society to conform to their concept of themselves.

    Others, note how Z makes an appeal to sentiment about the “long history of discrimination” about beating up “sissies and other misfits” as if anyone here is advocating such, and as if such sentiment entitles such people to characterize as “hate” and “violence” anyone that doesn’t indulge their reality-contradicting characterizations.

    A man who dresses up and acts like a woman is a man that dresses up and acts like a woman. That doesn’t grant us permission to “beat up” or ridicule that person, but it doesn’t grant them the right to go into a woman’s bathroom. They might do it discreetly, and get away with it, but that doesn’t mean we should change the law or policy to accommodate their particular concept of themselves.

  7. 7
    goodusername says:

    I think it’s quite possible that some people are mentally of one sex but physically of another. Development of mental characteristics and genitalia occur at different times, and so I can potentially see slight hormonal shifts during development causing mismatches between mental characteristics and physical characteristics.
    Embryonic development is a complicated process with still a lot of unknowns.

    If I had to guess, I’d say that within the transgender community, there are some where hormonal or other issues during development caused a mismatch between mental characteristics and physical characteristics, others that had ambiguous genitalia at birth and had surgery as an infant, and others that are just plain delusional. I couldn’t even guess at the percentages of each though.

    I think it’s interesting that it’s more often liberals that deny mental differences between men and women, and conservatives that claim that such differences exist, yet on this subject it’s suddenly conservatives usually claiming that the only difference between the sexes is genitalia.

  8. 8
    john_a_designer says:

    First of all, here are a couple of things to keep in mind:

    (1)My obligation to respect your rights doesn’t mean that I should surrender mine.

    (2)Your subjective feelings cannot be the objective basis of universal human rights, even if it represents a widespread form of group think.

    Historically and traditionally, especially in the United States, equal rights have been connected with freedom of conscience. Everyone was equally free to follow their own conscience when it came to personal morality, as well as religious and political beliefs. From this basic right comes freedom of speech, press and association etc.

    The secular progressive left, however, with its political correctness has turned this concept on its head. From the left’s perspective equality is no longer about conscience but about acceptance, inclusion and fighting oppression.

    The left’s ideological position is a utopian pipe dream as well as self-refuting and hypocritical. For example, on the issue of transgender bathroom rights, it’s not all inclusive because it excludes those who on the basis of conscience do not recognize such rights. Not only does it exclude but it also very viciously vilifies and demonizes anyone who disagrees with its agenda. (Yet hypocritically that is what the left uses for a justification when it’s directed towards transgendered individuals.) Who is the oppressor? Anyone who disagrees with the left’s egalitarian views of social progress. Furthermore, it succeeds not through rational persuasion but coercion—which is the only way it can succeed.

    You can achieve the left’s utopian vision of equality but only through an authoritarian or totalitarian legal route. In other words, legal equality without freedom of conscience.

  9. 9
    Mung says:

    Zachriel: About one in a thousand human births involve ambiguous genitalia.

    So?

  10. 10
    critter says:

    I am an obese female, I often wear baggy sweats; sometimes I am addressed as male. Can I be allowed in the ladies room without inspection?

  11. 11
    ziggy lorenc says:

    KF — “Z, we need to handle exceptions as exceptions, and not allow that to set the norms for our general conduct. “

    It’s not as simple as that. Nothing is. Would you opposed handicapped accessible bathrooms? Braille signs on bathroom doors? Flashing alarms lights to accommodate the deaf? They are all exceptions.

    KF — “Remember, social challenge number one is the proper socialisation of YOUNG MEN that through strong social reinforcement that backs up families, channels their energies and sexuality in stable, constructive directions.”

    I guess young women are secondary?

  12. 12
    MatSpirit says:

    Can we allow gay men to use the men’s room? You know that’s liable to incite lust.

    How about letting lesbians use the women’s facilities?

    Shouldn’t we be testing everybody for their proclivities and assigning them to the appropriate rest room based on that?

  13. 13
    mike1962 says:

    Three Restrooms: Men, Women, Other

    The Target and the mall near me have Men, Women restrooms, and a separate “Family” restroom that is in it’s own room, has a single toilet, wash basin, diaper changing station, and a locking door. That’s the one I use, even though I am not LGBT, or some other minority mutant. I prefer to be alone regardless of the other considerations when I’m doing my business. Maybe all the stores should have those. However, if a store or restaurant have restrooms that only have one toilet in them, then let people choose which they want to use. Have two “unisex” restrooms. Problem solved. OK, I get that ladies don’t necessary want to visit a toilet were males splatter their urine all over. Oh well. Hey, let’s make a law and force males to sit while they take a leak. Think that’s over the top for even a liberal culture warrior? Nothing would surprise me these days.

    At any rate, there are far more worthy problems in the world that deserve attention. Amazing that issues like this get any press at all…. except for the fact that the left-wing culture warriors are hell-bent on recreating the world in their image.

  14. 14
    ziggy lorenc says:

    Mike1962 — “At any rate, there are far more worthy problems in the world that deserve attention.”

    I couldn’t agree more. Transgendered and transsexuals have been using the bathroom of their non-biological gender for decades. And I haven’t heard anywhere that it has been a problem. In the women’s bathroom they use the stalls like everybody else. In the men’s, they also use the stalls. No children being exposed or threatened. Nobody getting raped or assaulted.

  15. 15

    Ziggy said:

    I couldn’t agree more. Transgendered and transsexuals have been using the bathroom of their non-biological gender for decades. And I haven’t heard anywhere that it has been a problem. In the women’s bathroom they use the stalls like everybody else. In the men’s, they also use the stalls. No children being exposed or threatened. Nobody getting raped or assaulted.

    Which begs the question, why did California change the law concerning school bathrooms, school locker rooms and school sports teams, and why did Target institute a policy of gender-neutral bathrooms? Since the old system was working so well and there were no complaints or incidents to speak of?

  16. 16
    ziggy lorenc says:

    WJM — “Which begs the question, why did California change the law concerning school bathrooms, school locker rooms…”

    I suspect it is because people don’t want to be breaking the law.

  17. 17

    WJM said:

    “Which begs the question, why did California change the law concerning school bathrooms, school locker rooms and school sports teams, and why did Target institute a policy of gender-neutral bathrooms? Since the old system was working so well and there were no complaints or incidents to speak of?”

    This is the point that the left is missing. They want it both ways. They want us to recognize that a man who dresses as a woman IS a woman, but that as a man, he should be allowed to use the womens’ restroom.

    They don’t recognize the total absurdity of such a position. If they are indeed women, there need be no law allowing men to use womens’ restrooms and vice versa.

    The reason, of course is because there’s an agenda – whereby the left wants those who disagree with transgenderism, to acknowledge it. That seems to be the only reason for gender neutral restrooms – to force acceptance by all.

    We should be able to see right through such an agenda.

    But another inconsistency with the left, particularly the LGBT crowd; and I’ve pointed this out before, is that men and women are perfectly right in changing their sex, but anyone who wants to change their sexual orientation from gay to straight, are in denial. Hmmm.

  18. 18

    Here we have a case where the Federal government is threatening to revoke $6 million in funding “unless they gave a biologically male student unfettered access to the girls’ locker” in Palatine, IL.

    “They are effectively redefining a clear and unambiguous term in a federal statute,” he said. “The term is ‘sex’. For the 40 years of that statute’s history – sex has always meant male and female. But they redefined the term to include gender identity.”

    As per my last thread about the use of redefined, incorrect terminology to advance an agenda, the term “sex” is being redefined as “gender identity” in order to coerce a leftist agenda into the population beginning with the school system.

    What exactly is the point of all of this if, as Ziggy said, things were working just fine before?

    From here:

    If we agree to change language to suit the transgender lobby, we ultimately agree to destroy in law the entire basis (sex distinctions) for the only union that can result in autonomously formed families. The implications for privacy and personal relationships are vast, and we need to understand that.

    And if the family is no longer accepted as a union that originates through the union of male and female, there is no real basis for the State to recognize any family as an autonomous unit. Without any such obligation, children become more easily classified as state property and our personal relationships are more easily controlled by the state. If that sounds totalitarian, that’s because it is.

    On the surface, the transgender package, with its assortment of gender identities, to many still resembles a fringe movement, or a passing fad. So lots of folks have been duped into thinking that the purpose of it all is to grant equal rights to a minority demographic. But it’s really about changing the language, and thereby redefining us all.

    Indeed, “civil rights” is always a nice line. It works well to stop debate. There’s lots of emotional blackmail involved because of the social punishments (labels of “hater” or “bigot”) heaped upon anyone who might question the agenda.

    So how might an elite impose “collective belief formation” upon an unwitting public? It’s about marketing, of course, injecting memes (an older term is “hype”) into public discourse in order to build opinion cascades. An interesting academic look at this is in a Stanford Law Review article by Cass Sunstein and Timur Kuran on “availability cascades.” It explains how you can take an implausible idea and make it seem plausible by raising its availability in public discourse. Once you’ve shaped public opinion through all the usual channels—Hollywood, academic, the media, and so on—then the road to public policy has been nicely paved.

    Which is exactly why schools have been targeted to enforce this dramatic change of one of the core aspects of physical reality and society.

  19. 19
    Zachriel says:

    kairosfocus: we need to handle exceptions as exceptions, and not allow that to set the norms for our general conduct.

    And here we thought that in free societies, each person has an equal right to the benefits of society.

    William J Murray: Men are not women, and women are not men

    William J Murray: I didn’t say that everyone was physically a man or a woman.

    If you say so…

    William J Murray: However, behavior and attitude do not change physical facts no matter how much the progressive left insists otherwise.

    Yes, and the facts are that not everyone fits into the boxes you have decided everyone must fit into.

    William J Murray: A man who dresses up and acts like a woman is a man that dresses up and acts like a woman.

    Or she could be someone who doesn’t fit into the boxes you have decided everyone must fit into.

    Mung: So?

    It refutes William J Murray’s claim that “Men are not women, and women are not men”. In the real world, there is a wide range of sexual and gender diversity in the human population.

  20. 20
    News says:

    Very few women want to use washrooms also used by men, whether they claim to be transgender or not, or whatever is the story. Most women don’t care what the story is. There is a history and many of us know it.

    I don’t know how transgender washrooms even came to be a topic at Uncommon Descent.

    But I do have a question for all readers: How did it EVER come to pass that governments, courts, and corporations are trying to force women to relax their standards about who is allowed in the women’s washroom?

    The answer, I am afraid, is political correctness. No one dare say that “desegregating” public washrooms will benefit predators more than transgenders – by impact of numbers alone.

    One tries to take a practical view of these problems: If women vote for governments or buy goods from corporations or approve of the selection of judges or belong to the organizations who front this stuff, they are solely responsible for the outcomes to themselves and those they care about. But other women will suffer too.

    There will be more and more situations like the transgender washrooms, and crazier than this, as progressivism – the political end of naturalism – takes hold.

    The road to reality will be painful and dangerous, and not profitable for the governments, corporations, judges and organizations, who will fight it every step of the way.

    Those who want to live must be on the road to reality, and must not expect establishment sources to point it out to them.

  21. 21
    vjtorley says:

    Zachriel,

    The Left makes a sharp distinction between sex and gender. The fact that we can identify individuals whose sex is ambiguous has no relation to the question of what society should do about trans-gender individuals. By your own admission, those are two entirely different questions.

    I would also ask you: do you really believe that being a woman is nothing but a state of mind, and that if someone feels like a woman, that automatically makes them a woman? If so, why do you not adopt the same subjective standard with regard to other human categories?

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    Related note:

    The Death of Humanity, Part 2 – interview
    Professor Richard Weikart shows when philosophers discard God, they attempt to replace Him with ideas that lead to suicide, mass killing, abortion, moral depravity, sexual hedonism & more. An important book for all of us!
    http://carrieabbott.com/death-humanity-part-2/

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    The Death of Humanity, Part 1
    Professor Richard Weikart makes a case for life, while explaining the secular philosophies throughout history that have shaped a culture of death. A book for all pro-life advocates!
    http://carrieabbott.com/death-humanity-part-1/

  24. 24
    computerist says:

    It’s simply impractical. Society simply cannot take into account all the possible subjective categories/exceptions.
    And it would wrong to put the burden on the taxpayer to appease and empower the progressive left.

  25. 25
    ziggy lorenc says:

    Mr. Murray — “What exactly is the point of all of this if, as Ziggy said, things were working just fine before?”

    I didn’t quite say that. I said that things were going without any serious incidents. But that is a far cry from saying that things were working just fine. Every time a male transgender used a women’s bathroom, he was breaking the law. Turning a blind eye to breaking the law is never s good thing. It is a “slippery slope”.

    News — “Very few women want to use washrooms also used by men, whether they claim to be transgender or not, or whatever is the story.”

    It must be great to be rich enough for you and your husband to have seperate bathrooms. My husband and I must share the same one.

    News — “Most women don’t care what the story is. There is a history and many of us know it.”

    I don’t think that either you or I can speak for “most women”, as much as we would like to think that we do.

    News — “I don’t know how transgender washrooms even came to be a topic at Uncommon Descent.”

    I think it evolved from Mr. Murray’s thread on the loss of rational thought. I think it was KF’s fixation on same sex marriage that started it.

    News — “But I do have a question for all readers: How did it EVER come to pass that governments, courts, and corporations are trying to force women to relax their standards about who is allowed in the women’s washroom?”

    It applies to both men’s and women’s bathrooms. And what “standards”, exactly, are being relaxed? The “standards” that simply legalize what has been happening for decades, without any incident?

  26. 26

    Ziggy said:

    “Every time a male transgender used a women’s bathroom, he was breaking the law.”

    Let me get this straight. A man who dresses as a woman, and who identifies as a woman, IS legally, in fact, a woman – according to the PC agenda of the left.

    Yet you say that “he” was breaking the law by using the womens’ restroom? How so?

    I’m really quite confused by the language utilized here. You say “a male transgender.” Which is it, is he a woman, or is she a man? You see, even the left is so confused on the terminology, that they mix up these categories, calling a transgendered person either male or female, but not the gender of which they identify. You just did exactly that. And that’s why society is now rejecting stores like Target, who have become so PC on this, yet even they aren’t consistent with what to call a “transgendered male.”

    And you don’t see how a society can reject such a proposition on its merits? It’s probably THE most obviously incoherent social construct of the last century. Liberals are fools for suggesting that society should just adapt.

  27. 27
    ziggy lorenc says:

    CY — “Liberals are fools for suggesting that society should just adapt.”

    As they were fools for suggesting that society should just adapt to blacks marrying whites, to women being allowed to vote, to women being paid equal money for equal work, to not jailing people for being homosexual, to not charging Chinese immigrants a head tax, to allowing Jews to join clubs, to allowing kids to talk about homosexuality at school, to allowing girls to play sports traditionally played only by men, to understanding that no means no.

    It seems to me that society has been asked to “just adapt” to many things over the last century. And it appears to be stronger because of it. Oh those foolish Liberals.

  28. 28
    velikovskys says:

    WJM:

    Which begs the question, why did California change the law concerning school bathrooms, school locker rooms and school sports teams,

    Good question, seems like they thought discrimination was a greater evil than changing the status quo. Wonder why it took two years to get so riled up? Maybe the war on Christmas was losing its power to gin up outrage.

    and why did Target institute a policy of gender-neutral bathrooms?

    They support the federal Equality Act

    Since the old system was working so well and there were no complaints or incidents to speak of?

    The rush of conservative states to change the present system meant the old system no longer existed.

  29. 29
    EvilSnack says:

    Where is the line between socially protected self-identification in conflict with physical facts and delusion? Can physically unrelated people identify themselves as family and represent themselves as such on legal forms? Can an adult self-identify as a child and thus obligate his parents to take care of him his entire life?

    The line is drawn wherever it gets the most support for the Democratic Party. If anyone can identify a more consistent principle involved, I’m all ears.

  30. 30
    Robert Byers says:

    Its the right of the people to decide what the rights are except natural rights.
    One does not have rights until proving the source of that right.
    the use of the word RIGHTS has been allowed by the people to allow any activist.
    Before we contend about rights the one claiming rights, denied at the moment, must prove the source/authority behind the RIGHT claim.
    God and man have always said God and man have the right to insist and impose the segregation on people os sex and this a segregation of association.
    If someone says God and man neverr and don’t have this right then prove it.
    Saying the right not to be segregated trumps is saying nothing.
    All these things come back to Lockean natural rights from God. Then mans right to make his civilization and contracts backing it up.

    If these unwell dysfunctional transgender s say they have the right to enter this or that place then say you have the right to stop them.
    Just say rights equals right.
    Who is the boss???
    THE BOSS WAS SETTLED LONG AGO ESPECIALLY IN AMERICA.
    obey the boss.

  31. 31
    News says:

    Ziggy Lorence at 25, you write:

    News — “Very few women want to use washrooms also used by men, whether they claim to be transgender or not, or whatever is the story.”

    It must be great to be rich enough for you and your husband to have seperate bathrooms. My husband and I must share the same one.

    You must be very proud of yourself thinking up such a clever riposte.

    It did not perhaps occur to you that he IS your husband.

    No, of course not. What difference would that make?

    One does not have that relationship with every male who wishes to be in women’s restrooms or change rooms.

    None of this is workable and would not be considered if women’s welfare mattered.

    But you just go on advocating what you are advocating as stridently and self-righteously as you can. The world is listening now, more than it used to.

  32. 32
    Zachriel says:

    vjtorley: The Left makes a sharp distinction between sex and gender.

    So does the dictionary.

    gender, the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

    sex, either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures

    vjtorley: The fact that we can identify individuals whose sex is ambiguous has no relation to the question of what society should do about trans-gender individuals.

    It’s obvious evidence that the human species is not strictly dichotomous with regards to sex, and with regards to gender. There is wide variation, not just in physical aspects of humans, but in how humans view themselves, and in their sexual predilections.

    vjtorley: do you really believe that being a woman is nothing but a state of mind, and that if someone feels like a woman, that automatically makes them a woman?

    You keep wanting to push people into gender boxes. Some people born male certainly do identify as female, and some born female who certainly do identify as male. And there are people who identify as both or neither or something in between. In some cases, there is a known biochemical or genetic basis for this, but in most cases, little is actually understood.

    computerist: Society simply cannot take into account all the possible subjective categories/exceptions.

    Why do you say that?

    ziggy lorenc: It seems to me that society has been asked to “just adapt” to many things over the last century. And it appears to be stronger because of it.

  33. 33
    Zachriel says:

    News: One does not have that relationship with every male who wishes to be in women’s restrooms or change rooms.

    Nor do transgender or intersexual people want to be in the “wrong” bathroom. Yet, there is a movement afoot which will force them to do so.

    https://twitter.com/JayShef/status/712845760287494144/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

  34. 34

    velikovskys said;

    Good question, seems like they thought discrimination was a greater evil than changing the status quo.

    Should anti-discrimination laws be extended to protect personal conceptualizations of oneself in contradiction to physical facts? For instance, should woman who conceive of themselves as fit and strong enough to be fire fighters be allowed to be fire fighters whether or not they can pass tests meant to determine if they are fit and strong enough?

    What about sports? If men conceive of themselves as women, should sports organizations be forced to allow men to compete against women in women’s venues and leagues, like tennis and the olympics?

    Aren’t those indeed cases of discrimination? Shouldn’t the NFL be forced by anti-discrimination laws to give women tryouts for the team? Shouldn’t colleges be forced to integrate their all-male teams with women even if it means they don’t put the best team possible on the field?

    Also, exactly how will these bathroom laws be enforced? Does a man who identifies as being a woman have to dress like a woman and wear make-up to try to pass as a woman? No, such laws necessarily mean that anyone can walk into any bathroom regardless of who is in there, regardless of what anyone appears to look like. This essentially means forced co-sex bathrooms. IOW, if you go out in public, you must use a bathroom that anyone can use, male or female or other.

    When the term “discrimination” is used to protect personal conceptualizations of oneself in contradiction to physical facts, it has been transformed from a useful, meaningful concept to an absurdity, a blatant lie used only to coerce the population according to an agenda.

    There is an easy, public-friendly way to avoid all of this; instead of forcing society to adopt open, gender-neutral public restrooms, they could have instead adopted Mike1962’s suggestion: single-user restrooms that lock from the inside. Even at venues where there also need to be open, public male/female bathrooms, there could still be a law that requires a certain number of single-user inside-lock rest rooms.

    Ziggy said:

    As they were fools for suggesting that society should just adapt to blacks marrying whites, to women being allowed to vote, to women being paid equal money for equal work, to not jailing people for being homosexual, to not charging Chinese immigrants a head tax, to allowing Jews to join clubs, to allowing kids to talk about homosexuality at school, to allowing girls to play sports traditionally played only by men, to understanding that no means no.

    Surely you realize your logical error here – just because some changes were good for society doesn’t mean all changes are good for society; and just because some things are cases of discrimination and prejudice doesn’t mean all things are cases of discrimination and prejudice. If “discrimination” is extended to insist that society ignore physical facts and adopt absurd definitions, the the term “discrimination” has lost it’s merit as a tool for good change and has instead become nothing more than emotional rhetoric.

    It’s one thing to allow girls to try out for a boy’s team, it’s another thing entirely to pass an ill-conceived law that allows any boy that wishes to to compete on girls teams. The logical, unintended consequence of this law will be gender-neutral team sports (just like gender-neutral restrooms) that will drive many girls out of sports since they will have to compete against boys, just as the gender-neutral restrooms will drive women away from using public restrooms, and drive families out of public entertainment venues and shopping. It has nothing whatsoever to do with thinking transgenders are perverts or dangerous; it has to do with the fact that men are permitted to enter any restroom they wish.

    It seems to me that society has been asked to “just adapt” to many things over the last century. And it appears to be stronger because of it. Oh those foolish Liberals.

    You may not know this, but there is a difference between classical Liberalism (which is Libertarian in nature, a feature of the rightist side of the political spectrum) and socialist progressivism. Most of the things you mention were indeed championed through classical liberalism (individual liberty and equality), but where classical liberalism stops and socialistic progressivism begins is where facts and truth cease to matter and serving the fascist thought-agenda is everything.

    Demanding that we ignore the physical, factual difference between males and females (and their autonomous ability to, in concert, create families) in service of progressive utopian ideals (at best) or some dystopian reconceptualization of humanity as borderless, gender-free non-family state-owned commodities (at worst) is fascism of the worst kind.

    Also, how are you defining the term “stronger”? How is society “stronger”, in your opinion, through the recent laws dealing with sexual orientation, SSM, and gender identification?

  35. 35
    EDTA says:

    A question for those of atheistic belief: If the other animals pick on their sissies—the members of their species that are somehow “different”, forcing them to leave the flock/pack/herd in disgrace—then why can’t we humans do it? It would be the natural thing to do. And aren’t we all about doing whatever comes naturally these days? In fact, isn’t that what the sexually non-traditional are doing: whatever comes naturally to them?

    It will be replied that we can do better than the other animals. They behave out of instinct, we can do far better by according all equal respect, and bearing with those that find life difficult because they were born outside of the statistically-normal sexual pattern for our species. This raises us above the other animals, as is fitting for creatures with larger brains.

    I would respond by asking what difference any of that makes from an atheistic perspective. All the things mentioned above, from an atheistic perspective, are irrelevant, as they are only ultimately meaningless artificial social constructs. No natural phenomenon calls us to be “respectful”. Atoms know no such thing as “bearing with others”. Bare nature knows of no such things.

    To obey those higher ideas (or even to call some ideas higher than others), is to deny the very principle that we are supposed to follow nature wherever it leads. Since the 1960’s, that’s what we’ve been all about, isn’t it—letting the instincts have ever greater reign? So we regular folk are supposed to treat the sexually non-traditional in ways that reflect virtuously on us, while the sexually non-traditional are allowed to follow their biology wherever it may lead them? This makes no sense at all, and is in fact quite condescending towards the sexually non-traditional.

    As a theist, I believe that there is a higher standard we are called to. Our Maker can call us to it legitimately. We should treat each other with respect, but understand that in our less-than-perfect state, we cannot cope with every corner case that crops up, biologically speaking. Got a biologically-ambiguous or even reversed body or psyche? We’ll do the best that we can, but we’re going to have to take care of the majority (heterosexual) case first. Your life may not be a bed of roses…but then many of our lives aren’t beds of roses either, for a host of possible reasons. We’re all still expected by our Maker to behave virtuously in all regards.

    I say all this as a happily married, always-heterosexual person who has never picked on a sexually non-traditional person. In fact, in my youth, I was a picked-on sissy who, around the age of 11 began considering taking my own life because of how I was treated by my peers. It was only because of my (at the time rudimentary) theistic beliefs that I chose not to pursue taking my own life, but instead chose to stick it out. I shudder to think of the pain I would have caused others had I not had those theistic beliefs, as crude as they were at the time.

    In fact, it was my decision to stick it out that was the beginning of strength. It is only by striving toward lofty goals that one finds that. To acquiesce to mere nature is weakness.

  36. 36
    mike1962 says:

    Z: Nor do transgender or intersexual people want to be in the “wrong” bathroom.

    Fine. Make single-user restrooms for them, and anyone else who wants to use them (like me.) My local Target does this. And it’s the only thing that keeps me from boycotting them given their idiotic new general policy. No reason to change policy that negatively affects the vast majority. Just make a single-user restroom and move on to another issue. But, no, Target has some lefty LGBT culture warriors in the higher ups that feel they have to make some kind of a grand gesture. I have not been to my local Target since this all started. Maybe I’ll spend my dollars elsewhere and let them know why.

    EDTA @35 +1

    I have become much more sociopathic since the atheists convinced me there is no God or higher purpose, or karma… or final judgement. It’s so… liberating. Lions and gazelles, baby, lions and gazelles. And I’m one of the lions. And I have a voracious appetite.

  37. 37
    EDTA says:

    >It seems to me that society has been asked to “just adapt” to
    >many things over the last century. And it appears to be stronger because of it.

    Really? I would argue that (aside from military and technological considerations), we are weaker than we’ve been in a long time. (Western civ. that is.) We have addressed many social inequities of late, but that does not necessarily equate with societal strength.
    Strength has to be measured as integrity: the ability to preserve the things we value over time and if/while under pressure. Yet we are in a period of extremely rapid cultural change, which means that anything can happen nearly overnight in civilizational terms. Less stability equals greater potential for revolutionary change, and nothing about human nature or human history guarantees that change will always be in the direction of good. There are fewer guarantees than ever that we will retain our freedom or prosperity for even another generation. For a deeper analysis, see here.

  38. 38
    ziggy lorenc says:

    News — “None of this is workable and would not be considered if women’s welfare mattered.”

    It has been working for decades without incident. All that is happening is that they are removing the legal restrictions on something that is going on now and has caused no harm. I dare say that you have shared a bathroom with a transsexual on numerous occasions without even knowing it. Are you going to stop using public washrooms now that you know this?

  39. 39
    ziggy lorenc says:

    Mr. Murray — “If “discrimination” is extended to insist that society ignore physical facts and adopt absurd definitions, the the term “discrimination” has lost it’s merit as a tool for good change and has instead become nothing more than emotional rhetoric.

    Your so-called “absurd definitions” are recognized by doctors and psychiatrists. And in many cases there is a measurable physical fact (eg, hormonal, genetic, brain structure) to explain them.

  40. 40

    Indeed, EDTA, if gender is nothing but a social construct attempting to put people in boxes, then what is not just a mere social construct? Age? Race? Lineage? Skill? Strength?

    Ziggy:

    All that is happening is that they are removing the legal restrictions on something that is going on now and has caused no harm.

    No, that is not “all that is happening”. What the law does is give any man, whether they honestly see themselves as transgender or not, legal right to go into any bathroom. The law in California also allows boys to compete on girl’s teams. You appear to be trying to make this appear as if the objections are rooted in some kind of bigotry against transgenders, it is not. The objection is about the consequences of the laws which have nothing whatsoever to do with actual transgenders, dressed and made up to look like women (which is an odd contradiction in itself, seeing as such conformity to social norms of what a woman should look like contradicts the idea that there are no gender identity “boxes”), going discreetly into the woman’s rest room.

    But the federal government, in pushing it’s gender-fluid utopian concept upon us as if there are no men or perverts (NOT SAYING this applies to transgenders) out there ready to abuse this new law, is forcing the confrontation which resulted in the NC law. They could have gone another route entirely, such as a law insisting that places of business offer single-user, inside-lock rest rooms.

    You’re arguing a straw man. This is not about transgender rights or transgender equality AT ALL. It’s about ignoring physical reality in favor of some leftist ideal. Just like with the county clerk religious freedom issue, there is another way to go about giving transgenders restrooms without all of the unintended consequences of providing only open, gender-neutral restrooms in public.

  41. 41

    Ziggy said:

    Your so-called “absurd definitions” are recognized by doctors and psychiatrists. And in many cases there is a measurable physical fact (eg, hormonal, genetic, brain structure) to explain them.

    You don’t even see how self-defeating your logic is. You and Zachriel argue that gender cannot be “boxed”, yet you both make arguments that do just that – that transexuals “dress” and “act” like women, or as if some there are psychological and physical markers that identify them as “women”. Claiming that a man can identify as a women presumes the real existence of the very standards of gender identification that you claim are discriminatory and “puts people in social boxes”. Even the term “transgender” puts people in a socially defined box.

    If we apply the actual logic of your viewpoint to find the real consequences (something you seem to be unable to do), this is where we get to: there is no reference to sex at all. Asking people their sex for any reason becomes illegal. Barring people from anything based on sex is illegal because it attempts to impose a conceptual, boxed limitation on their idea of “self”.

    Now, imagine the result of truly gender-neutral legal system and truly gender-neutral public policy where anyone can “self-identify” as anything they wish and act, and expect others to act, as if that self-identification was a physical reality. Do you think that would be a good thing? Now expand the scope of that to other areas of physical reality, such as age, race, skills, strength, intelligence, etc.

    Should society be skill, age, race, strength and intelligence blind when it comes to law and policy? Should people be able to self-identify as any age, skill, race, strength and intelligence they wish and society, via policy and law, forced to agree to such self-conceptualizations?

  42. 42
    ziggy lorenc says:

    Mr. Murray — You’re arguing a straw man.”

    And you arguing that it will make it legal for some pervert to enter a woman’s bathroom for nefarious purposes isn’t? Doing that was illegal and will remain illegal. There are more and more establishments in Canada that have completely done away with gendered bathrooms. No urinals. Floor to ceiling stalls. Common sink area. And I haven’t heard about any incidents that have resulted from this.

  43. 43

    Ziggy said:

    [ There are more and more establishments in Canada that have completely done away with gendered bathrooms. No urinals. Floor to ceiling stalls. Common sink area. And I haven’t heard about any incidents that have resulted from this. ]

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/.....rdes-seleh

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/sexual-predator-jailed-after-claiming-to-be-transgender-in-order-to-assault

    Now you have.

  44. 44

    Ziggy @ 27:

    [ It seems to me that society has been asked to “just adapt” to many things over the last century. And it appears to be stronger because of it. Oh those foolish Liberals. ]

    How is society bettered by enabling a delusion at the cost of giving perverts more license?

  45. 45

    Ziggy said:

    And you arguing that it will make it legal for some pervert to enter a woman’s bathroom for nefarious purposes isn’t?

    I never made such an argument. Can you not engage arguments as they are actually stated? Of course the law doesn’t “make it legal” for perverts to do anything. I would never argue such an inane point. My entire point is about the actual social consequences of a law that effectively makes it legal for any man to go into any public restroom or facility marked “women”, and I’m arguing about the consequences of enacting laws that pursue a gender-neutral social agenda.

    You appear to steadfastedly refuse to argue the actual points being raised and insist on recharacterizing arguments presented as something else.

    There are predatory males and females in society – people that wish to force unwelcome sexual, dangerous behavior onto others. That’s a factual state of affairs. A woman-segregated bathroom is not segregated to prevent such people from entering at all (lawbreakers break laws), but rather to (1) accommodate a fairly universal social more of gender-based modesty and (2) provide a basic (if imperfect) sense of physical equality and relative personal safety, which is lost if (1) when they enter a rest room, there is 1 or more men inside, or if already inside, 1 or more men come in.

    Under old custom and law, if a woman found a man in the rest room, or one came in while she was in there, she would be immediately justified in shouting in order to get the attention of other people and to bring help or to get the man to leave; under current law, she would have no such recourse. If a man enters, she must wait until the man acts against her before she can alert anyone, and that could well be too late.

    Indeed, under old custom, if a man is seen entering the women’s rest room, store staff or others are fully authorized to do something about it; under new law, there’s nothing they can do about it.

    Doing that was illegal and will remain illegal. There are more and more establishments in Canada that have completely done away with gendered bathrooms. No urinals. Floor to ceiling stalls. Common sink area. And I haven’t heard about any incidents that have resulted from this.

    You apparently haven’t read a thing I’ve written. Even if what you say is true (and apparently it is not, thanks to CannuckianYankee), is it because both sexes are using those restrooms without incident, or is it because women and people with children will simply, by and large, avoid using those facilities?

    Do you really think there are not predators who will take advantage of the situation for their benefit wrt such laws? Further, do you really believe that women and families will not simply opt out of going into such establishments when they can avoid it due to the fact that they cannot be sure what will be in the restrooms if they have to go, especially with a child?

    Do you not agree that a better answer to the transgender restroom question is to insist public venues, government facilities and relevant businesses offer single-user, inside-lock rest room facilities?

  46. 46
    ziggy lorenc says:

    CY — “Now you have.”

    You found two examples. One of a common dorm washroom/shower room that was not modified to afford adequate privacy (my example was with floor to ceiling stalls) and the other didn’t have anything to do with bathrooms. The one legitimate example occurred in a co-ed dorm where men and women live together. This incident could just of easily happened if the washrooms were same sex. This has more to do with a couple immature men (who were charged) than with gender neutral bathrooms. Maybe we should just revert to the days when dorms were single gender. The same arguments were made back when there was the move to make dorms co-ed.

    The bathroom bill that was reference, in the article that had nothing to do with bathrooms, was passed in 2012 (five years ago) and you could only find one incident? Should I do a search to see how many incidents have occurred in one sex bathrooms over the same time frame?

    As I inferred, this is a tempest in a teapot. Raising absurd hypotheticals and extremely rare (and questionable) incidents, does not make it a serious issue.

  47. 47

    From here

    “Gender identity or expression” is defined in MA law as “gender-related identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person’s physiology or assigned sex at birth.” The law does NOT require any medical history or even consistency of expression to prove one’s “gender identity.” For example, this could mean a man wearing a wig or a dress, but it could also mean a man who simply says he feels like a woman. How are business owners and law enforcement officials expected to determine the difference?

    Some Massachusetts cities have passed local Bathroom Bills. These have also lead to problems. For example, a Boston man was arrested for refusing to leave the bathroom in a women’s shelter and was recently awarded $20,000 of taxpayer money after he sued the city under Boston’s transgender bathroom law. If HB4253 is passed, it would allow for incidents like this to spread throughout the entire Commonwealth.

    The Bathroom Bill carries a number of unintended consequences that could negatively impact the Bay State’s business community.

    PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS INCLUDE:
    Locker Rooms
    Bathrooms
    Shelters
    Fitness Centers
    Dressing Rooms
    Churches
    Nursing Homes

    The Bathroom Bill carries a number of unintended consequences that could negatively impact the Bay State’s business community.

    This bill opens businesses to criminal prosecution if they are accused of discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Under HB4253, even the standard male/female bathroom designation signs could be considered illegal discrimination. Penalties for violations would include fines and even imprisonment!

    Businesses will be forced to let men use the women’s restrooms

    This bill prevents a business from treating customers differently due to gender identity, but fails to make exceptions for restrooms on the business’s premises. This is a no-win situation for businesses: Comply with the law, and make employees or customers uncomfortable by letting men use the women’s restrooms, or ignore the law, and face expensive battles in court.

    The law gives even more power to the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD), which is tasked with receiving, investigating, and mediating allegations of gender identity discrimination. This constitutes an expansion of ideologically motivated state bureaucracy into the daily affairs of businesses small and large.

    Can you imagine the legal and social ramifications of such a bill? Can you image a slip of the tongue – a simple “Yes, ma’am” or “Yes sir” leading to a discrimination lawsuit? Can you see the opportunists lining up at the door to file such lawsuits? Heck, you don’t even have to be consistent or prove you are in any factual way a “transgender” other than on your say so. Companies could no longer market to women or men – it would be discriminatory. How about writing stories – books, novels, TV scripts; is casting for a male and female part going to be illegal? Is portraying traditional male and female roles going to be illegal?

  48. 48

    Here:

    A Seattle, Wash. community is in uproar after a man undressed in the women’s locker room at a local pool, seemingly to test a new rule that allows transgender people to use the bathroom of their gender identity, according toKing 5 News.

    The women inside the locker room at the time attempted to kick him out, but the guy refused and said “the law has changed and I have the right to be here.”

    “We’re not here saying that the transgendered community are predators,” a woman who was a victim of sexual assault told KING-5 TV, “We will never say that because we don’t believe that. What we do believe is that this code is so poorly written that predators will abuse. We know it because we have lived it.”

    He returned to the restroom for a second time later that evening, when young girls were changing for swim practice.

    These laws are just asking for this kind of thing on an epic scale. Sadly, IMO that is exactly the purpose of such laws – to make virtually everyone who doesn’t toe the ideological line an actual criminal or publicly condemned as a “hater” or a “bigot”.

  49. 49
    computerist says:

    Why do you say that?

    Because there would be too many to account for, and it offsets the burden on the taxpayer, which is coercive and immoral.
    One has to accept the society they live in, and that the minority does not trump the majority. When the left wants something, they run to the government.

  50. 50

    Ziggy @ 46

    “The bathroom bill that was reference, in the article that had nothing to do with bathrooms, was passed in 2012 (five years ago) and you could only find one incident?”

    I wasn’t conducting an exhaustive search. I did a 2 second Google search for just 1 or 2 examples, which are a sufficient counter to your statement “I haven’t heard about any incidents that have resulted from this.” Indeed, now you have.

  51. 51
    ziggy lorenc says:

    Mr. Murray — “These laws are just asking for this kind of thing on an epic scale.”

    Then you modify them accordingly. That is what the amendment process is for. You just don’t throw up your arms and say that something is completely unworkable.

  52. 52
    ziggy lorenc says:

    CY — ““I haven’t heard about any incidents that have resulted from this.” Indeed, now you have.”

    No, you have not demonstrated that the criminal antics of two stupid boys in a co-ed dorm was the result of gender neutral bathrooms. Unless you can say, with reasonable certainty, that it would not have happened in a female only dorm bathroom.

    I lived in a co-ed dorm with single gender bathrooms, and I had my clothes stolen by one of the boys such that I had to use the shower curtain as a robe. And I wasn’t the only one. Others had Saran placed over the toilet seats. I am just thankful that we didn’t have smart phones back then. But that sort of thing can happen, regardless of whether or not they are gender neutral. The important thing is to ensure that they are designed to ensure the safety and security for all. Something as simple as floor to ceiling bathroom and shower stalls.

  53. 53

    Ziggy.

    You said.

    [ There are more and more establishments in Canada that have completely done away with gendered bathrooms. ]

    Then you implied that these are all what you call “gender neutral” bathrooms.

    But that isn’t the case. They aren’t all “gender neutral.” They are “gender inclusive.” There’s a huge difference.

    I have no problem with gender neutral bathrooms for those who wish to use them.

    At the college where I attended until recently, these bathrooms were equipped such that wheel-chair bound students, and faculty could use them; so they were of maximum benefit.

    If that’s what society chooses to do, I’m all for it.

    But that’s not what’s happening. What’s happening is an agenda that makes no logical sense whatsoever, and that is to create “gender inclusive” washrooms based on the notion that a female transgendered person (one who is a man who now identifies as a woman), is not in-fact a woman, and needs a law that says “she” can use the womens’ washroom. That is the insanity. If “she” is indeed a woman by virtue of “her” self-identity, there need be no law declaring that self-identified women have a right to use the women’s restroom, shower, or what have you. It’s the law that makes no sense, given the left’s insistence that a self-identified woman is in-fact a woman. Do you not see the incongruence here?

    Then of course there’s the license to predators, that such laws encourage. And the law encourages such behavior because it is necessarily vague as to what constitutes a man using a women’s washroom.

    You can’t have a law that says: “a man who identifies as a woman” has a right to use a women’s washroom. The reason you can’t have a law that says that, is because in a court of law, “self-identity” would not stand as a sufficiently objective criteria; and the lying left knows this.

  54. 54
    JDH says:

    One of the things that helps to solidify my Christian faith is the absurd and foolish things that people who abandon God work themselves into a position of believing. Confusion of gender is just the latest.

    “Men and women are essentially alike except of the physical sex organs.” “Gender is fluid, but sexuality is not” “It is good for a society to make women fight in combat roles” “We really can’t deny you the right to use the bathroom of the gender you feel like” “Marriage between two men should be just as honored as marriage between a man and a woman” All of these are things you have to be a fool to believe. All of them go against simple common sense and are things you have to be taught to accept.

    I am beginning to appreciate more and more that verse “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God”. It is not just about the past that caused the fool to come to that position, but also about the future foolishness which will come from the confused thinking that rejects the existence of a Creator.

  55. 55
    Zachriel says:

    EDTA: If the other animals pick on their sissies—the members of their species that are somehow “different”, forcing them to leave the flock/pack/herd in disgrace—then why can’t we humans do it?

    And a male lion will kill the children of another male lion when taking over a pride. So?

    mike1962: Make single-user restrooms for them, and anyone else who wants to use them (like me.)

    Meanwhile …
    http://www.blogcdn.com/www.man.....throom.jpg

  56. 56
    EDTA says:

    Z @ 55,

    And a male lion will kill the children of another male lion when taking over a pride. So?

    Well, that is an impulse I hadn’t noticed in humans yet. But if it were, then in the absence of a Creator calling us to any higher standard, people would probably be hollering for the right to be able to act on that instinct also.

    In other words, if you are going to argue that you can’t argue with biology, you have to be consistent about it. So if the gender identity issue is a case in point, then a fortiori, you have to let the rest of humanity do what it does instinctively, which is to ridicule and harass those who are different. After all, both are natural things.

    Only a theist can legitimately argue that we are called to better behavior, because only for him is there someone higher doing the calling.

  57. 57

    WJM @ 47

    [ The law does NOT require any medical history or even consistency of expression to prove one’s “gender identity.” For example, this could mean a man wearing a wig or a dress, but it could also mean a man who simply says he feels like a woman. How are business owners and law enforcement officials expected to determine the difference? ]

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfXKQyHuleA&index=2&list=PLgfUUbVoYe1itA3wJtmX8V6_LDNNDVS9V

    The main speaker in the above video – the one with the beard and rather male appearing business suit, who introduces Mark Schierbecker, is “Danielle Muscato,” who was formerly David Muscato.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/f.....-old-self/

    Muscato is a leader in “American Atheists.”

    You’ll notice the video’s connection to the recent freedom of the press incident at the University of Missouri, which led to the firing of professor Melissa Click, for demanding “I need some help getting this journalist out of here. I need some muscle here.” Mark Shierbecker was the journalist whom she assaulted and denied the right to cover a public event on campus.

    But let’s take a look at this self-identified woman, “Danielle Muscato,” who completely and quite apparently identifies in public as a man in dress, facial hair, mannerisms and all outward appearances, and is a “woman” only by virtue of an arbitrary name change.

    This, by all appearances, man, will be permitted to use a womens’ washroom if laws are changed. There’s no objective criteria whatsoever, which permits this man to identify as a woman.

  58. 58
    vividbleau says:

    Ziggy RE 51
    “Then you modify them accordingly. That is what the amendment process is for. You just don’t throw up your arms and say that something is completely unworkable.”

    How would you modify them? Keep in mind that gender identity is fluid and can change moment to moment.

    Vivid

  59. 59

    Vivid,

    A bathroom re-modifier. Steady work if you have carpentry and plumbing skills. 🙂

  60. 60
    vividbleau says:

    Cannuckian

    I’m asking about how Ziggy would modify the law. After all I could get in my car dressed as a man,since that is my identity at that moment, then get out of the car and on my entrance to the pool have a gender change. So wearing a mans swimsuit with I would want to use the woman’s shower,.

    Vivid

  61. 61

    Vivid,

    I know. Don’t expect a rational response.

    And thus the need for bathroom re-modifiers, who re-modify a bathroom each time the gender switches. I know, it’s absurd, and that’s the point.

    Of course, if you prefer law-re-modifiers, we could go that route as an alternative. 🙂

    The transgender movement is pushing for “gender-fluidity,” which requires society to adjust to the ever-changing whims of those who believe their gender is not defined by their genitalia, but is rather fluid, depending on their given feelings at a particular time. It’s absurd; and demands an absurd response.

  62. 62
    vividbleau says:

    RE 61

    Cannuck tell that to my child who just recently had to sit through a day of indoctrination. Had to grin and bear it to keep the job. It is indeed absurd but there are serious consequences for those who point out the absurdity.

    BTW my nickname for Ziggy is ” stalls with walls”

    Vivid

  63. 63

    Ziggy said:

    Then you modify them accordingly. That is what the amendment process is for. You just don’t throw up your arms and say that something is completely unworkable.

    Or, as an alternative, you think through the potential consequences of legislation before attempting to change an fundamental cultural norm that is being uprooted for no reason other than sentiment, and perhaps studying the issue to see if there are less problematic solutions, such as making single-user, inside-lock restrooms available instead of or in addition to the open, many user restrooms.

    CannuckianYankee @57:

    It’s impossible to tell which are the useful idiots that simply parrot talking points and make sentimental “arguments” to “protect” some disenfranchised, reality-defying minority towards some half-baked idea of a progressive utopia, and which are the true Alinskyites who are pushing the downfall of western civilization knowingly.

    These consequences are not “slippery slope” projections, these are the right now, already-happening consequences of these kinds of laws. Right now there are boys playing on girls soccer teams and boys in girl’s locker rooms and girls who complain being accused of being haters and bigots. Right now there are perverts taking advantage of these laws. Right now there are lawsuits being filed for “gender identity” discrimination.

    And all of this to indulge the reality-defying, impossible to objectively define or even recognize self-conceptualization of 0.3% of the population.

  64. 64

    Vivid,

    “my child who just recently had to sit through a day of indoctrination. ”

    Let me guess: it was called something like “cultural competency?”

    Orwellian.

  65. 65
    kairosfocus says:

    WJM, I fear we are just beginning the REAL slide. For comparison ponder Germany 1933 and 1945 — I doubt many would have believed what would happen in 12 years. KF

  66. 66
    vividbleau says:

    Re 64

    Canuck it was called LGBTQ safe space training. They had to draw there own genderbread person, yes genderbread. That’s when I learned about gender fluidity, evidently it can change from one day to the next, hour to hour, moment to moment.

    I wrote all about it on another thread…. WJMs Reasonable Debate thread.

    Vivid

  67. 67

    WJM @ 63

    [ It’s impossible to tell which are the useful idiots that simply parrot talking points and make sentimental “arguments” to “protect” some disenfranchised, reality-defying minority towards some half-baked idea of a progressive utopia, and which are the true Alinskyites who are pushing the downfall of western civilization knowingly. ]

    Allow me to shed some light on this a bit more.

    What I neglected to mention for brevity, is how exactly “Danielle” Muscato had arranged for Mark Sheirbecker to speak at what was supposed to be a Skepticon event, but in all appearances, it devolved into a BLM accusathon towards Shierbecker. Did you notice that?

    Did you also notice, that as Schierbecker was being accused of racism, and forced to accept that role, Muscato never defended him?

    That’s why several days later, as Shierbecker had realized he had been used (he has explained that he is autistic – hence his vulnerability in such situations), he completely broke off his relationship with Muscato. He realized that he really wasn’t a racist; but because of his race and present circumstances alone, was being conveniently used in order to frame a narrative regarding alleged rampant racism at the University of Missouri. It was planned to work because of his newfound celebrity. Regardless of whether there is actual racism at Mizzou (there likely is), the tactics utilized and made quite clear in that video, are horrendous.

    So in this case, I think it’s clear who the Alynskyites are, and also in this case, the “useful idiot” eventually refused to be used. He finally realized what was going on; and while it had nothing to do with Mr. Muscato’s gender identity; it DID have something to do with the operant conditioning Alynskyites employ in order to underhandedly fashion an agreement regarding our “collective shame” and “white privilege,” or whatever happens to be the current social justice issue.

    If it took only a few days for an autistic man to realize he’d been had, I would think we should be able to see these tactics for what they are, as they’re happening; but we fail to do anything about them; and that’s a definite bane on the collective integrity of our society.

  68. 68

    Vivid,

    “LGBTQ safe space training.”

    Does each one require a separate space? That could get expensive.

  69. 69
    vividbleau says:

    RE 68

    Haha. Hey we should be grateful they only used 20% of the alphabet 🙂 Ok it was just over 19% but it early they are just getting started.

    Vivid

  70. 70

    Vivid,

    My college has a “Gay-Straight Alliance” student organization.

    Conveniently missing in LGBTQ is the “S.”

    I’m shaking my head. They want alliances and safe spaces at the same time?

  71. 71
    ziggy lorenc says:

    KF — “WJM, I fear we are just beginning the REAL slide. For comparison ponder Germany 1933 and 1945 — I doubt many would have believed what would happen in 12 years. KF”

    It starts with equal rights for women, then legalizing homosexuality, then same sex marriage, closely followed by gender neutral bathrooms and then, as inevitable as night follow day, the rounding up and murder of millions of Jews.

    Do you not think that your absurdly rediculous hyperbole might be just a little offensive to the millions who actually suffered under Hitler?

  72. 72
    vividbleau says:

    RE 64
    Canuck speaking of Orwell this is what I wrote concerning the hijacking of language in The End of Reasonable Debate thread.

    “WJM You are spot on. The left has hijacked our language by doing so they turn everything upside down. Telling the truth is indeed a revolutionary act and can get you fired all under the guise of tolerance. The tolerant left is anything but tolerant; they are the most intolerant people anyone can imagine, they are fascists ( this is not an ad hominim it is an accurate description) and want to impose totalitarianism. The fascism is most notable on our college campuses. Here is where language and Orwells “newspeak” really becomes evident. Terms such as hate speech, offensive speech and safe zones, are “newspeak” for intolerance, the silencing of free speech and any ideas that do not comport with leftist ideology. So Orwellian.”

    Vivid

  73. 73
    Eugen says:

    They keep adding letters, might as well type LGBTQWERTY 😀
    I use it on Facebook , it gets them ( social justice warriors) angry

  74. 74

    Ziggy said:

    It starts with equal rights for women, then legalizing homosexuality, then same sex marriage, closely followed by gender neutral bathrooms and then, as inevitable as night follow day, the rounding up and murder of millions of Jews.

    Do you not think that your absurdly rediculous hyperbole might be just a little offensive to the millions who actually suffered under Hitler?

    It would be absurd if that was the point KF was making. I believe he was making a comparison about the quick rise of fascist power and how it was achieved in Germany which followed the same pattern we are witnessing here with regards to the fracturing, polarization and internal strife deliberately generated in order to pave the way for the comfort and security of a totalitarian regime, enforced by their own version of social justice warriors and BLM activists, the Sturmabteilung, also called the Brownshirts.

    From Wiki:

    It played a significant role in Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in the 1920s and 1930s. Their primary purposes were providing protection for Nazi rallies and assemblies, disrupting the meetings of opposing parties, (….) and intimidating Slavic and Romani citizens, unionists, and Jews – for instance, during the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses.

    The future SA developed by organizing and formalizing the groups of ex-soldiers and beer hall brawlers who were to protect gatherings of the Nazi Party from disruptions from Social Democrats (SPD) and Communists (KPD) and to disrupt meetings of the other political parties.

    Sound familiar? Conservative speakers, groups and organizations are facing similar intimidation tactics and physical threat in universities around the US and at public rallies or events. Have you read about BLM planning to “shut down” the upcoming Republican Convention? Have you heard about conservtive Ben Shapiro’s events being harassed and blocked by leftist militants? Have you read about the violence and intimidation tactics that forced Trump to cancel his Chicago rally out of safety concerns for supporters?

    If you read the reddit accounts of people who were there, you get the real story that the news media did not report. Here are a couple of accounts:

    “Because you were in there, I don’t blame you for not knowing, but it was a matter of life and death.

    I was listening to the police scanner throughout. Two people were shot in one of three separate shooting incidents. The cops were chasing a white dodge ram with temp tags, I’m unsure if they were able to stop the vehicle. There were multiple assaults happening everywhere. It came over the scanner that a group of black protestors were targeting and assaulting white Trump supporters. Rioters were stealing Trump signs from supporters and ripping them up. They were throwing bottles and rocks at police. They managed to climb the walls of the parking garage and up on the third floor were hitting cars with bats and hammers smashing in windows. Two police officers were taken to the hospital with serious injuries. They were blocking highways and side streets trying to prevent people from leaving so they could attack them. People were getting violent with police and when they would arrest someone other people would come over and attack the police. Two hispanic males shot at a firetruck. A black male was seen walking around with a handgun, description was white shirt black pants red shoes.

    It was insane. Even crazier was the fact that the media wasn’t reporting on any of it. You know they have scanners and the entire time I’m hearing the people on the news saying that it was a peaceful protest.”

    “I feel that I experienced today, for the first time in my life, true totalitarianism and authoritarianism, expressed laterally from citizen to citizen, in order to silence opinions from being shared. This enforcement was shared through sheer numbers and intimidation, and in a few cases, violence.

    People brought their children, loved ones, and friends to attend the Trump rally. I saw an older Asian man and his white wife in attendance, and the looks on their faces when the rally was declared cancelled almost broke my heart. I saw scared children clinging to their parents’ sides as they exited the building to the screams of protesters. I saw a quiet, but excited crowd of Donald Trump supporters get thrown out of Chicago.

    Worst of all, I saw the first amendment trampled, spit on, and discarded like trash.

    This cannot go on. As I finish this, I feel a sense of utter dread and hopelessness for what is becoming of the youth in this country, particularly those of the regressive left. So polarized has political opinion become, that dissenting thoughts on college campuses are now seen as hateful. These people deal in absolutes. They are right, and whatever means they must take to achieve their ends, they will do it. They will not stop themselves from violence or censorship. They will do it, and they will call hell down upon you if anyone dare does upon them the same.

    Tonight I went to the Trump Rally to hear the thoughts of not only the man who was supposed to come and speak, but the people who support him. I found respect. I found calmness. I found peace.

    The truth is, I am a legal immigrant, not a US citizen. I am not American. I am not white. I cannot vote.

    After tonight, I support Donald Trump.”

    I’m not saying that I’d vote for Trump, but this is the fascist left attempting to shut down all opposition in the same manner that the Sturmabteilung used to put and keep the Nazis in power.

    Also, are you unaware of the strong undercurrent of anti-semitism that runs virtually throughout leftist groups? It’s not like the Obama administration and Israel are on the best of terms.

    The problem is, Ziggy, that there’s no telling what this wave of enabled and encouraged political and social fascism coming from the left is capable of, and it’s not like leftist leaders are condemning this behavior. They are, by and large, either silent or encourage it.

  75. 75
    kairosfocus says:

    ZL, your serial, slanderous stereotypical projections are now telling us more about you than about those you target. Your favourite accusation is that we are bigots (thus by definition driven by hate and irrationality) and yet you refuse to do the simple duty of care to truth and fairness to be accurate and responsible in statements. I have taken time to lay out the geostrategic and worldview, culture/policy agenda rooted nature of my concerns, with historic exemplars and sober assessment of dangers ahead by significant scholars laying out a case on fact and logic. It is obvious that this has triggered you in ill-informed and toxic enabling behaviour now culminating in false accusations and refusal to entertain reflection on why a reasonable person could be concerned for trends tied to the homosexualisation of marriage under false colour of law. In short, you are playing the indoctrinated angry troll. I would say you have some walking back to do, but it is obvious that absent being impacted by painful consequences of our civilisation going over the cliff and breaking its back [it has not dawned on you that I have some directly relevant experience and have done linked analysis that leads me to say, our civilisation needs to turn back from ill advised agendas tracing to the red, double green de facto alliance before it is too late . . . ], your mind is closed and hostile. I suggest, you are making yourself into an exhibit of the problem. KF

  76. 76
    kairosfocus says:

    WJM, I did not know a lot of that about Chicago, but it does not surprise me. On the Brownshirts, they grew out of the Freicorps, which were allied to the German Army and were involved in the onward fighting in the East from 1918 on. Multiple, intersecting wars in the E continued into the 1920’s. The SA more or less allied with the emerging Nazis and were suppressed in the night of the long knives. In part, that was a decision by Hitler to go with the established Army though the SS was built up into a parallel military force and it is likely no accident that the Nazi air force also disposed of ground formations. The poarisation and rise of violent street struggles driven by ideology is a hallmark of societal subversion and a facet of 4th generation warfare. So is resort to lawfare, which twists the instruments of justice into ideological weapons. ZL and others of like ilk are so indoctrinated in evolutionary materialism and/or its fellow traveller movements that they cannot register the force of the warning in Plato’s The Laws Bk X, “hence arise factions.” Likewise extreme nominalism . . . growing in the same soil . . . leads them to imagine that one can trifle with something as foundational and as anchored in core human nature and requisites of sound child nurture as marriage, without destructive consequences. They need to at minimum watch George’s lecture on social costs of such lawfare-tinged tampering, but they will be disinclined to ponder the consequences of a heady march of rage fuelled folly. A sadly often repeated story with predictable, destructive consequences. In the saying from my native land, fire deh pon mus mus tail, but him think cool breeze deh dere. KF

    PS: Ironically, this is exactly wrong: “These people deal in absolutes. They are right, and whatever means they must take to achieve their ends, they will do it. ” Nope, they have been brought under radically relativist might makes right. In short, even the objector is partly caught up in the problem. Plato:

    Ath. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ –> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . .

    [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-

    [ –> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by “winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . ” cf a video on Plato’s parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]

    These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,

    [ –> Evolutionary materialism — having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT — leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for “OUGHT” is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in “spin”) . . . ]

    and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ –> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality “naturally” leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ –> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, “naturally” tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush — as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them.

  77. 77
    kairosfocus says:

    Vivid, you are so right. KF

  78. 78
    kairosfocus says:

    ZL, you may find this paper I presented at a conference I helped organise on Islam and the Caribbean 13 years ago, will tell you a lot about just how utterly grotesquely far off base you have gone into the weeds of toxic slanderous projections. Notice my appendix on the modern history of Israel. As one with an honorary Jewish mother and brother [I come from a family that is like that — I have many close relatives who are not blood relations], the suggestion of antisemitism you would project is grossly ill informed and even outright offensive. In fact the first political position I ever had was acquired literally at my mother’s knee: anti-fascism in the Nazi form. In future before trying to skewer others with your favourite accusation — bigot, you would be well advised to look in the mirror. KF

  79. 79
    kairosfocus says:

    CY, Gender used to be a grammatical term. Its meaning was conveniently extended into psychosexual identity which is now force fitted into extreme nominalism. The sex stamped into our chromosomes and expressed in not only organs of reproduction but in many other ways in our bodies is then discounted. Agendas are imposed, most notably the porn-perversion agenda. The demand is made, backed by intimidation and manipulation, to invert sound time tested social praxis and to stigmatise those who do not go with the agit prop agenda. All of this is part of the pattern of a march of folly and loss of soundness that points in very dangerous directions. KF

  80. 80
    Zachriel says:

    EDTA: So if the gender identity issue is a case in point, then a fortiori, you have to let the rest of humanity do what it does instinctively, which is to ridicule and harass those who are different.

    Allowing people freedom when they aren’t hurting anyone else is quite different than allowing assaults against people for their differences.

    ziggy lorenc: It starts with equal rights for women, then legalizing homosexuality, then same sex marriage, closely followed by gender neutral bathrooms and then, as inevitable as night follow day, the rounding up and murder of millions of Jews.

    Yeah, then they’ll let gay men in the men’s room. And you know how that will turn out!

  81. 81
    ziggy lorenc says:

    Mr. Murray — “It would be absurd if that was the point KF was making. I believe he was making a comparison about the quick rise of fascist power and how it was achieved in Germany which followed the same pattern we are witnessing here with regards to the fracturing, polarization and internal strife deliberately generated in order to pave the way for the comfort and security of a totalitarian regime, enforced by their own version of social justice warriors and BLM activists, the Sturmabteilung, also called the Brownshirts.”

    How could you possibly infer that from his comment? This entire thread has been about LGBT issues. And then, out of the blue, KF comes out with this steaming turd:

    “WJM, I fear we are just beginning the REAL slide. For comparison ponder Germany 1933 and 1945 — I doubt many would have believed what would happen in 12 years. KF

    Only an insensitive idiot would come out with a statement like this. The fact that you would defend it is worrisome. Over 100,000 homosexuals were rounded up and sent to concentration camps by Hitler. Forced to wear a pink triangle patch. Over half of them were executed. And now KF is drawing a parallel between fights for LGBQ rights and the lead up to the holocaust. That is as stupid as claiming that laws enacted against anti-semetism are a parallel to what led to the holocaust.

  82. 82
    ziggy lorenc says:

    KF — “ZL, your serial, slanderous stereotypical projections are now telling us more about you than about those you target.”

    You draw a parallel between LGBQ and the holocaust and I am the one being slanderous? I’m afraid that my irony meter just broke.

    People can read your comment in the context of the thread and decide who is being slanderous.

  83. 83
    ziggy lorenc says:

    Z — “Yeah, then they’ll let gay men in the men’s room. And you know how that will turn out!”

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JmzuRXLzqKk

  84. 84

    Ziggy asks:

    How could you possibly infer that from his comment? This entire thread has been about LGBT issues. And then, out of the blue, KF comes out with this steaming turd:

    By reading it in context. This thread is not only about supposed LGBT “issues”, but about the impact current laws and policies are having on society and the apparently unforseen ramifications of those laws which you, apparently, refuse to address, such as the proliferation of lawsuits coming from an impossible to obejctively identify self-concept.

    He was responding to my post which, in context, is response to CY’s post, which all in context is about historical fascist tactics of using apparatchik operatives, useful idiots and intimidating ground troops to force a narrative that is entirely divorced from reality into public acceptance, generating support for a more powerful and pervasive government.

    But, I realize that reasonable, charitable debate is not your purpose here, seeing as you have decided to out yourself by lying for your agenda in your accusation against KF:

    You draw a parallel between LGBQ and the holocaust and I am the one being slanderous? I’m afraid that my irony meter just broke.

    He did no such thing; he drew a parallel between the socio-political tactics of Nazis that gave rise to and supported the Nazi regime. If you’re too dense to realize that, then I suppose there’s no hope for you.

  85. 85

    Ziggy said:

    Only an insensitive idiot would come out with a statement like this. The fact that you would defend it is worrisome.

    No, only an insensitive idiot (or agent provocateur) would interpret KF’s statement the way you did.

  86. 86
    ziggy lorenc says:

    Mr. Murray — “No, only an insensitive idiot (or agent provocateur) would interpret KF’s statement the way you did.”

    Really? So, you agree with and support KF’s claim that the LGBT lawsuits and LGBT anti-discrimination laws are analogous to the divisive Nazi anti- semetic, anti-homosexual propoganda campaigns and laws that ultimately led to the murdering of millions of people.

    Forgive me if I think that it is insensitive hyperbole taken to the extreme in an effort to make the issue orders of magnitude more serious than it actually is. It was stupendously insensitive for two reasons:

    1) One of the groups targeted and murdered by Hittler were over 50,000 homosexuals.

    2) inferring that the approach used to extend rights to LGBT could lead to something like the holocaust is massively insulting to people directly affected by the holocaust.

  87. 87

    Ziggy said:

    Really? So, you agree with and support KF’s claim that the LGBT lawsuits and LGBT anti-discrimination laws are analogous to the divisive Nazi anti- semetic, anti-homosexual propoganda campaigns and laws that ultimately led to the murdering of millions of people.

    Those and other laws and policies and propaganda, yes. Only now it isn’t homosexuals and Jews who are the target of hateful propaganda and rhetoric (well, to be fair, Jews are coming under attack by the left again), but rather conservatives, tea partiers and others on the right side of the political spectrum. Similarly, Occupy Wall Street and BLM and other radical leftist groups that shut down political discourse they disagree with are analogous to the Nazi brownshirts. What we are seeing is a fascistic ideology imposed on us in a way that generates public unrest and so leads to increase government power and control, and foments hate at specific groups that oppose it and/or can be used as scapegoats for people’s anger.

    inferring that the approach used to extend rights to LGBT could lead to something like the holocaust is massively insulting to people directly affected by the holocaust.

    You mean “implying”. And no, it’s not insulting to those people directly affected by the holocaust, it honors their memory by being ever wary of the tools and tactics of would-be fascist oppressors, and pointing it out when people shut down political discourse, inject invective at every opportunity to gin up emotions and social strife, and use shaming, intimidation and even violence to impose their agenda.

  88. 88
    kairosfocus says:

    ZL, c 1933 Hitler represented hope for the German people. In twelve years he moved Germany to first the best performing major economy in the depression era then getting its pride and land back then reducing Versailles to a dead letter then triumphant in an Olympics Games — Berlin, 1936 — then increasingly dominant and triumphant across Europe (by which time he was the most popular leader ever in Germany), then there was a rapid collapse to utter ruin from 1942 – 45 . . . with Stalingrad the horrendously bloody pivot fully comparable to the worst WW I battles. My point — stated in almost these words — is that c 1933 no one would have believed you if you were to show them a movie of Berlin in July 1945 (which I linked somewhere). That is how fast a devastating collapse of the most technologically and scientifically advanced single nation in the world was at the hands of beguiling and superficially successful but in the end utterly ruinous leadership. And yet, as I have been saying, the pointing trends were there, visible to Heinie in 1830 . . . a point that you sneeringly dismissed as bigotry when it was made. Likewise in the 1930’s Churchill, having read and taken Mein Kampf seriously was trying to warn of the gathering storm but was derided and dismissed. When your rhetoric of turnabout accusation, setting up and lighting up toxically laced strawman caricatures and the like is set aside, it is quite clear that your real complaint is that I and others have been warning that there are very dangerous developments with our civilisation and that some of what is being celebrated in some quarters as progress is deeply involved in the warning signs that are all too visible if one is willing to look. KF

  89. 89

    WJM @ 74

    And it’s been going on for some time now. Remember in 2008 when they tried to bomb the Republican convention with molotov cocktails? One of their own, Brandon Darby, who now works for Breitbart in Texas, was one of those leftist agitators, until he came to realize just how far his own group would go to get their message out. He infiltrated a particular group as an FBI informant, and turned in the two perpetrators. The bombing was prevented, and the would-be perpetrators, arrested.

    But that wasn’t the end for Darby; he was attacked by the left leaning media, and NPR called him a “rat.”

    http://www.examiner.com/articl.....tion-a-rat

    PBS broadcast a documentary about the incident, which suggested that Darby actually led the plot to bomb the convention, then backed out and implicated the two young males who he led. A total fabrication, and it was broadcast on national TV. That’s how far this goes.

    http://www.pbs.org/pov/betterthisworld/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hW9xtBTHO8

    The left fabricated a narrative in order to destroy this man, because he repudiated their tactics, stood up and prevented lives from being lost.

    Here’s the usual suspects;

    http://motherboard.vice.com/bl.....-magaphone

    http://www.motherjones.com/pol.....-terrorism

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Darby

    Darby, Breitbart, et al – take on the violence of the Occupy Movement:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHcr_8Qgdos

  90. 90
    ziggy lorenc says:

    Mr. Murray — “ And no, it’s not insulting to those people directly affected by the holocaust, it honors their memory…”

    Forgive me if I call bullshit on this. I can obviously only speak for one person directly affected by the holocaust, my mother was a survivor, but I find KF’s attempt to trivialize the holocaust by making absurd claims that tactics used by LGBT activists are analogous to those use by Hitler and his cronies, to be deeply offensive.

    Standing behind a friend (KF) is noble. But to try to justify his statement with a lame rationalization, to use KF’s words, speaks volumes.

    I would demand an apology from him but I know that I would be wasting my breath. Some people are just incapable of admitting an error.

  91. 91
    vividbleau says:

    WJM

    It is interesting to observe that Ziggy has no substantive response to your post # 84 other than to proclaim it to be a rationalization and announce how offended he or she is.

    Boohoo Ziggy who cares that your offended. Has WJM and KF violated your safe space? Do you have any rebuttal other than playing the victim card?

    Vivid

  92. 92
    kairosfocus says:

    ZL,

    I know this thread deals with very painful, distressing and threatening issues and perspectives that are not commonly discussed. And I know you expect that people who take opposed views will fall into various ugly stereotypes. But, just perhaps, it is time to take a fresh and different look from a different vantage point.

    Now, we all like to think that we are making progress and that things and movements that seem good to us are in fact good.

    Sometimes, however that is simply not so and the long haul of history makes it plain that civilisations rise and fall.

    Ours is overdue for serious reformation or it is likely to fail badly; maybe it is actually beyond the point of no return.

    And it is likely utterly strange to you to hear that the ideas of rights, progress and advancement that are often championed may well have history of ideas roots that are deeply questionable (here, self-falsifyingly incoherent and inescapably amoral lab coat clad evolutionary materialistic scientism and/or fellow travellers and astro-turfed front groups and agendas, also the influences and strategies of cultural marxism [often discussed self-promotingly as “critical theory”]), and may reflect trends that point to threats that are generally not in the headlines or college classes.

    Unfortunately, we need to realise just how rapidly things can fall apart.

    Especially when many have become caught up in movements that boil down to the — here comes a hard but necessary word: nihilistic — premise that might and manipulation make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘value’ etc.

    For one instance, though the distinguished British political philosopher John Gray and I come from very different views, I agree with him on his semi-famous remark in his Straw Dogs, that:

    [O]nly someone miraculously ignorant of history could believe that competition among ideas could result in the triumph of truth. Certainly ideas compete with one another but the winners are normally those with power and human folly on their side. Truth has no systematic evolutionary advantage over error.

    A bleak view but a well warranted one in terms of the sadly usual course of history and the consequences of evolutionary materialism. It is far easier to wreck, break down or demolish than to build.

    He is also right to point out just before that that — as consequences of evolutionary materialism (by contrast with popular secular humanist or fellow traveller progressivist views), the following would obtain:

    Modern humanism is the faith that through science humankind can know the truth – and so be free. But if Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true this is impossible. The human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth. To think otherwise is to resurrect the pre-Darwinian error that humans are different from all other animals.

    William Provine in a well known 1998 Darwin Day keynote at U Tenn gave further force to these consequences of the evolutionary materialistic view:

    Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . .

    The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will

    Provine goes on to try to make all this sound so progressive, we must move to a therapeutic view of crime and dealing with criminals etc. However, his remarks — and those of Gray — inadvertently (and self referentially) imply that we cannot be sufficiently responsibly free that we can choose to follow an argument based on insights on fact, logic and meaning, and a commitment to the truth, or decide freely and responsibly. So, we must turn this around: are Gray and Provine saying these things because of commitment to truth and responsible, free following of the facts and logic or because they are under the control of their particular genes and social- psychological programming, or random chance events?

    It should be clear how rational, responsible freedom and the grounds for rights have been undermined here.

    Leaving, only might and manipulation as means to advance movements that claim to be progressive or to champion rights and overthrow what we may see as outdated, bigoted, barbarous oppression of minorities or identity groups that until recently were viewed with dismissive contempt.

    However, in the case of recently championed “rights” issues, failure to deal with the sort of self referential incoherence and amorality just pointed out has serious consequences for the quality of decisions we are likely to make under their influence.

    When falsity is embedded in your yardstick, the contrary truth will seem wrong and even absurd. For truth is what accurately says of what is so that it is so, and of what is not so that it is not so. Therefore the actual relevant truth will cut across what we are using as a yardstick if that yardstick is based on falsity. (Which falsity is so, through self referential absurdity as was just seen by way of key illustrative cases.)

    This brings back to focus a cluster of steps of thought I have been highlighting in recent days:

    1 –> inescapably, we are morally governed as individuals and as communities.

    2 –> on pain of immediate, patent absurdities, core moral principles are evident to conscience guided reason to certainty and are binding.

    3 –> systems of thought that reduce morality to subjectivity, relativism or to illusion end in implying grand delusion and utter unreliability of our intelligence and conscience.

    4 –> likewise, for things that undermine the premise that we have responsible, rational freedom and quasi-infinite worth and dignity; aptly captured in the traditional Judaeo Christan premise that we are equally created in the image of the good God and just Lord of all worlds.

    5 –> Right to life, to liberty, to conscience and responsible expression, to innocent reputation, to the fruit of our labour and more flow from this, as say the US DoI of 1776 epochally acknowledges.

    6 –> That document sums up this view in terms of the laws of nature and of nature’s God. It has far deeper idea roots and a centuries deep history behind it. Its legacy of liberty speaks for itself. Let me clip its first two paragraphs, noting the right of reformation and if necessary revolution in the face of a long train of abuses and usurpations (where the ballot box provides a peaceful instrument of audit, replacement, reformation and revolution but is critically dependent on an informed, responsible public cf the Ac 27 case here . . . a sobering lesson on the perils of manipulated democracy):

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    7 –> In this context, a core basic right is a binding moral expectation to be respected in regards to key aspects of our nature. That is, it is the mirror image and dual of mutually binding obligations imposed by our nature and its inherent dignity. That is rights are inherently matters of moral law connected to our nature.

    8 –> As a consequence, a rights claim is a claim to be in the right and to be owed duties of care by others of like morally freighted nature.

    9 –> You cannot have a right to the wrong, you cannot demand that others enable and support you in the wrong, such is to poison other souls with the taint of compulsion to do and to support the wrong. Such is monstrous and wicked.

    10 –> Likewise, there are no rights to twist key institutions crucial to human thriving as individuals, families and communities. For the blessings of the civil peace of justice and liberty under legitimate law are key requisites of human thriving.

    11 –> This holds for demanding that marriage be perverted through lawfare and agit prop, and the linked demand that sexual perversion be acknowledged on equal terms with the manifest order of nature stamped into our genes, organs, biology of reproduction and social- psychological- relational requisites of sound child nurture.

    Ideas have consequences, and our civilisation faces sobering concerns and issues as we go through a prolonged crisis.

    Walking a tightrope is not sustainable for a civilisation.

    I think it is highly advisable for us to turn back, addressing both the prevailing worldviews climate and the agendas being imposed on us through the seven mountain commanding heights of a community or civilisation.

    Where, also, we need to face the even more challenging question of our own degree of complicity in the problem. Ranging from being swept up in a march of folly, to becoming an activist enabler, to involvement in astro-turfed pseudo-grassroots front groups, to the rarer involvement as a strategic decision maker shaping radical, destructive agendas.

    Yes, such thoughts are painful to face.

    But if we refuse to do so, we are headed for serious trouble in a march of folly as a civilisation. Sorry if this term sounds hard, it comes from noted historian Barbara Tuchmann. I again suggest Ac 27 has a case study in miniature — http://kairosfocus.blogspot.co.....-year.html — that speaks volumes.

    KF

  93. 93
    ziggy lorenc says:

    KF — “And I know you expect that people who take opposed views will fall into various ugly stereotypes.”

    You are projecting your approach to opposition on to me. You should know better than to do that. I disagree with Mr. Murray but I do not project ugly stereotypes on him, even though the reverse is not always true as Mr. Murray has clearly demonstrated in calling me a fascist. I must admit that it is difficult not to project an ugly stereotype on you as you fit into one of them with almost every comment you make to someone who disagrees with you. I try to refrain from doing so, but I admit that it is difficult when trying to interact with you.

    KF — “A bleak view but a well warranted one in terms of the sadly usual course of history and the consequences of evolutionary materialism. It is far easier to wreck, break down or demolish than to build.”

    I agree, as has been clearly demonstrated in society’s efforts to afford equality and respect on everyone, including those of different gender, different cultures, different religions, those with no religion, those who are attracted to the same sex, etc. For some strange reason, you perceive this as “breaking down” civilization. I perceive it as building up civilization.

    KF — “He is also right to point out just before that that — as consequences of evolutionary materialism (by contrast with popular secular humanist or fellow traveller progressivist views), the following would obtain:…”

    We have been over this at length. It was clearly demonstrated that Gray’s assumptions were wrong, and therefore your assertion of self referentially incoherent is also wrong. The fact that you refuse to accept these correctives is very telling.

    KF — “It should be clear how rational, responsible freedom and the grounds for rights have been undermined here.”

    So you say. What freedoms have you lost?What freedoms have I lost? Be specific and avoid hypotheticals and anecdotes.

    KF — “However, in the case of recently championed “rights” issues, failure to deal with the sort of self referential incoherence and amorality just pointed out has serious consequences for the quality of decisions we are likely to make under their influence.”

    Since there is nothing self referentially incoherent, there is nothing to deal with.

    KF — “When falsity is embedded in your yardstick, the contrary truth will seem wrong and even absurd.”

    And what truth are we referring to? The truth that homosexuality exists, has always existed, and will always exist? The truth that homosexuality is observed in nature? The truth that the term marriage, and the institution itself, is not owned by any religion? The truth that government has always had a role in the institution of marriage? The truth that homosexuality does not equal pedophile?

    KF — “Ideas have consequences,…”

    You will get no argument from me. But have you ever considered that your ideas might have negative consequences? No, I thought not.

    KF — “… and our civilisation faces sobering concerns and issues as we go through a prolonged crisis.”

    Whether or not we are undergoing a prolonged crises is certainly open for debate. It is certainly true that societies evolve. This has been shown to be true from the time of recorded history to the present day. But to claim that our current civilization is undergoing a prolonged crisis is not substantiuated.

    KF — “Where, also, we need to face the even more challenging question of our own degree of complicity in the problem. Ranging from being swept up in a march of folly, to becoming an activist enabler, to involvement in astro-turfed pseudo-grassroots front groups, to the rarer involvement as a strategic decision maker shaping radical, destructive agendas.”

    Responding to this hyperbole in any detail is not worth my time.

    KF — “Yes, such thoughts are painful to face.”

    So you claim.

    KF — “But if we refuse to do so, we are headed for serious trouble in a march of folly as a civilisation.”

    Again, an unsupported assertion.

    KF — “Sorry if this term sounds hard,…”

    No, it just sounds like unsupported paranoia. I’m sorry if this term sounds hard.

  94. 94

    Ziggy said:

    And what truth are we referring to? The truth that homosexuality exists, has always existed, and will always exist? The truth that homosexuality is observed in nature?

    The problem as I see it, Ziggy, is that you cannot even begin to comprehend the nature of KF’s argument. You really cannot, because if you could you’d see the absurd, self-contradictory nature of your statement above. Let’s pop in a different word:

    And what truth are we referring to? The truth that homosexuality pedophilia exists, has always existed, and will always exist? The truth that homosexuality pedophilia is observed in nature?

    Since you cannot really comprehend KF’s argument, you latch onto certain words and phrases he uses (like “pervert”, or “Nazi Germany”), etc, run them through the superficial associations defined and mandated by your sentiment and progressive viewpoint, and then issue forth responses to his terminology (but not his actual argument or the concepts addressed) that portray him in the worst possible way.

    I’ve seen many, many people do exactly this – take a sentimental objection to terminology KF uses instead of understanding those terms in context according the whole of his argument. Hell, to be honest, I’ve even done it. It took me a while to actually even try to understand some of KF’s arguments because I, too, reacted to terminology according to my progressive, sentimental conditioning.

    But that’s the very point of progressive conditioning; to get you to react to trigger terminology in a way that destroys any chance whatsoever of rational discourse. If KF says “perversion”, then he’s a bad guy. No further reading necessary. No need to even understand the full context of what he is saying.

    So, if you are going to rationally debate on these subjects, then provide some answers to the following questions:

    Is there any sexual act that is perverted? If so, how so? If not, why not?

    What is a “right”, where do they come from, what gives a right its authority?

    Should everything that occurs in nature be an acceptable aspect of human nature? If not, why not? Where do we draw the line, and why?

    What are the determining factors that arbit whether or not a society is good, or better than other?

  95. 95
    kairosfocus says:

    WJM,

    thanks, and indeed I remember, including when I ran across your name on a web search and when you came back to UD. I was glad when you got posting privileges.

    ZL,

    I suggest you take a read here on to understand just how seriously and how long I have thought on the sins of Christendom. (It will probably help you to know that I am descended from slaves, from the indentured and from marginalised people of Britain and Ireland [onwards it seems Belgium].)

    I have come to firmly hold ethical theism because it is the only satisfying worldview that sets a framework for responsible, rational freedom in a coherent world. I also have come to accept the Judaeo Christian tradition within that worldview, on separate grounds.

    Both of these point to how dangerous freedom is, and how weighty responsibility is. But without responsible rational freedom virtue is impossible, starting with love.

    Likewise, what evil and good are is pivotal. Evil being the privation, frustration, twisting — that is, perversion — of what is good out of its proper purpose, nature, end.

    Such are hard words and likely harder concepts, but without them we rapidly fall into a thicket of incoherence.

    Likewise, what a right is is closely tied to the moral government we are under and our intrinsic value.

    It is in that light that we can come to understand the dangers, the matches our civilisation is lightly playing with.

    Playing with without any depth of understanding.

    And is now walking a watershed razorback. not appreciating the dual slippery slopes of mutual polarisation and ruin that face us.

    Frankly, I am pessimistic about our prospects in coming years and decades. It seems that only the horrific pain of a back-breaking fall will wake us up. As happened 1942 – 45 with Germany. (Which was the context of my reference that seems to have triggered you.)

    And with the vultures I see circling, given 1400 years of history of conflict with radical aggressive IslamISM (not all or even most muslims, but the geostrategically crucial part), I shudder.

    I look at the ungarrisoned continent, Africa, I think of Mackinder transferred to a new pivot, and my heart bleeds in pain for what I see coming.

    We are playing with fire.

    Some of it liable to be nuclear.

    As 1945 almost was for Germany . . . yes Berlin was original target to be Ground Zero.

    And if we cannot learn from the blood of 6 million Jews, 3 million of them Poles, 2 million other Poles, 25 million Russians, and altogether what 60 maybe 80 millions in WW II, we doom ourselves to even worse horrors.

    We MUST learn from history, lest we repeat its worst chapters.

    KF

    PS: ZL, please take time to read and ponder this warning from Plato, written in a broken Athens, which — as I outlined a few days ago as part of context for what I am saying — grasped for and lost Empire and then went down to utter ruin in Plato’s youthful days:

    Ath. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ –> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . .

    [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-

    [ –> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by “winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . ” cf a video on Plato’s parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]

    These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,

    [ –> Evolutionary materialism — having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT — leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for “OUGHT” is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in “spin”) . . . ]

    and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ –> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality “naturally” leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ –> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, “naturally” tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush — as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them.

  96. 96
    EDTA says:

    Z @ 80:

    Allowing people freedom when they aren’t hurting anyone else is quite different than allowing assaults against people for their differences.

    I’m sure only one side in this discussion gets the privilege of defining when anyone else is being hurt.

    And I never mentioned assaulting anyone, nor do I condone assaulting anyone. I was just suggesting that the other side might want to be consistent in how they apply principles. Silly me.

  97. 97
    ziggy lorenc says:

    KF — “I have come to firmly hold ethical theism because it is the only satisfying worldview that sets a framework for responsible, rational freedom in a coherent world.”

    The words that you have left out here, and leave out in almost all of your comments is:

    IN MY OPINION

    We all think that our opinions are right. That is just human nature and, in my opinion, a healthy thing. The only time when it ceases to be healthy is when we deceive ourselves into a firm belief that we are right. This is the category that you fall into. Your comments clearly show that you have long since abandoned the possibility that you may be wrong. In so doing, you have lost the enjoyment that can be obtained by debating someone who disagrees with you and replaced it with anger at the thought that someone might have the audacity to disagree. Sadly revealing.

  98. 98
    kairosfocus says:

    ZL, the matter is a philosophical one amenable to comparative difficulties analysis, it is not just tastes, preferences and subjective opinion that can be tagged and dismissed. I suggest you look at the 101 level summary of such an approach here on in context. I suggest in a nutshell, that the problem of the one and the many with linked issues is decisive across the broad live options: naturalism, pan-/panen- theism, ethical theism. Naturalism due to its embedded evolutionary materialism is self-falsifying and cannot ground moral governance. Pan-/panen- theism cannot resolve unity and diversity leading to undermining the significance of the responsibly free morally governed individual. Ethical theism is able to bridge this crucial divide, one form of the upper/lower storey analysis Schaeffer discussed at semipopular level decades ago and which I have used in current threads such as here: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ed-crisis/ . So, no it is not mere opinion. KF

    PS: Have you pondered the self-referential import of:

    The only time when it [having opinions] ceases to be healthy is when we deceive ourselves into a firm belief that we are right

    The very form of this implies that you firmly hold yourself to be right in dismissing “a firm belief that we are right.” So, have you merely deceived yourself? Or is it that you imagine yourself well warranted but those who differ with your own scheme — popular in fashionable, relativism influenced circles — cannot have good warrant so they must be deceived? And of course, they are often bigoted fundies who are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. I suggest, you need to think again. The discussion of William G Perry’s flawed thought on truth that is now too often embedded in educational curricula and in institutional culture, here on, will help.

  99. 99
    Zachriel says:

    EDTA: I’m sure only one side in this discussion gets the privilege of defining when anyone else is being hurt.

    Not at all. Feel free to explain how you are harmed by the existence of transgender persons.

  100. 100
    EDTA says:

    Zachriel,

    At UD, I do get a small say in the debate. What I meant was that in US society as a whole, our most influential institutions (which disagree with my position) refuse to entertain the possibility that anyone is being hurt by the existence and increasing prevalence of the sexually non-traditional. And those institutions cannot be successfully argued with at this point. I will however accept the offer to explain myself, if for no other reason than any lengthy replies of mine eventually (after some editing) make it onto my blog.

    Of course the question, “How are you harmed by the existence of transgender persons?” is a distraction. It is not a question about me alone, but a question about society as a whole (Western civilization, US culture). The ploy of redirecting the question into a harder-to-answer form is legendary in this topic.

    Nor should it just be about the transgender. They are a willing and welcome part of a much larger picture which includes the whole sexually non-traditional segment of our society.

    So, the question should really be “What is the impact on Western civilization/US society as a whole of the existence (and rapid coming to power) of the sexually non-traditional members of our culture(s)?” There’s a question worth asking.

    I take it as a given that Western civ is in decline. The things that once set it apart are no longer valued, but are being discarded wholesale. Suffice it to say that civilizations die by suicide, and ours has the earmarks.

    When it dies, the things liberals like about our current direction (fewer moral restrictions of all kinds–not just re sexuality, social democratic ideals like wealth redistribution, health insurance for more, concern for the environment, etc.) will likely disappear with it. That’s the chance one takes when hosting rapid social change: it is necessarily unpredictable and probably uncontrollable.

    Stability (which *can* imply being stuck with some bad things) does at least imply a type of strength, in that you can at a minimum propagate society forward another generation at the status quo. It won’t be a perfect status quo, but it’s not uncontrolled change.

    So what effect do the sexually non-traditional have in such a situation as ours? Are they a force for continuity and stability, making another generation reasonably similar to the one before them? Or have they forsaken some fundamental societal responsibilities directly impacting continuity in the name of following their biology or their feelings? And they attack traditional institutions and people, creating social drag. For example: misogyny. See here.

    I don’t take this position because of fear or because I want to see anyone repressed or unhappy. All other things being equal, I’d rather see people satisfied with life. But the path we are going down is leading people into visibly less satisfying lives featuring fewer and less satisfying relationships, while promising them more mere animal pleasure. I actually care more than those who would let people slouch into whatever their instincts/emotions drive them to at the moment. The dictum “if it feels good, do it” never lead anyone to a truly satisfying life by any substantive measure. People are being cheated, and our society cannot have a substantive debate about it.

    I know. People will say, “Why can’t you let people find their own happiness?” I do. How have I stopped a single person from being sexually non-traditional? I haven’t. (There’s that form of question again, turned around, and intentionally made personal. [grin])

    There you have it. I believe all of this has been articulated in other forms by the “regulars” here, so there shouldn’t be any surprises in what I’ve said. But if you wish to help me hone my arguments, feel free.

  101. 101
    ziggy lorenc says:

    EDTA — “And those institutions cannot be successfully argued with at this point.”

    The fact that you are not successful doesn’t mean that they can’t be argued with.

    EDTA — “I take it as a given that Western civ is in decline.”

    A given that is not supported by the evidence.

    EDTA — “That’s the chance one takes when hosting rapid social change: it is necessarily unpredictable and probably uncontrollable.”

    But you make it sound like the changes we are going through now are rapid compared to the changes in the past. They are not.

    EDTA — “But the path we are going down is leading people into visibly less satisfying lives featuring fewer and less satisfying relationships, while promising them more mere animal pleasure”

    How do you judge a satisfying relationship? How do you measure it? How do you know that the realationship a same sex couple has is not as satisfying as that of an opposite sex couple?

    This being said, I would like to commend you on presenting your case honestly and openly, without asserting, as others have, that civilization is heading towards a cliff, with a broken back as the only outcome, if we don’t mend our ways. That type of over the top hyperbole is just childish.

  102. 102
    Zachriel says:

    EDTA: All other things being equal, I’d rather see people satisfied with life. But the path we are going down is leading people into visibly less satisfying lives featuring fewer and less satisfying relationships, while promising them more mere animal pleasure.

    Rail away about the downfall of society, but it’s quite another thing to advocate using the force of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection and due process clauses.
    http://cdn.campaignbrief.com/w.....153559.jpg

  103. 103
    EDTA says:

    ZL @ 101,

    – From the standpoints of technology, total prosperity, and our military capabilities, the Western world is definitely in good shape. But governments and corporations have quite a bit of power and are gaining more rapidly. The gap between rich and poor is widening rapidly. The US is as politically polarized as it has been in my lifetime. I have many concerns in this area, obviously.

    – Regarding the pace of cultural change: At least with regard to relationship formation (marriage, dating, etc.), it seems that change has accelerated since the 1960’s (not surprisingly). You would be correct to point out that although anything from mere chatting to sex has always been *possible* on two people’s meeting, the range of alternatives actually explored by people was a lot more limited 100 years ago. Out-of-wedlock birth rates and STD transmission rates bear that out. Antibiotics and birth control pills facilitated the major shift in morals.

    – It is difficult to measure satisfaction or happiness. I draw my conclusions from divorce rates, statistics on duration of relationships (breaking up is stressful and impacts one’s health), impact of divorce and singlehood on longevity, studies done on happiness in various types of relationships, among other things.

  104. 104
    ziggy lorenc says:

    EDTA — “…the range of alternatives actually explored by people was a lot more limited 100 years ago. Out-of-wedlock birth rates and STD transmission rates bear that out.”

    Do they? Even in my life, I remember high school girls going “to live with their aunts”. In the mid 70s I had an abortion. It is not something that I am proud of, but I refuse to listen to patronizing, misogynist idiots like KF about my decision. I now have three children that may not have been possible without my earlier decision.

    EDTA — “It is difficult to measure satisfaction or happiness. I draw my conclusions from divorce rates, statistics on duration of relationships…”

    I agree, divorce rates are terrible. I wish that couples would take more time thinking about it before they took the plunge. But I got married at 22, on an impulse, and we love each other as much, 30+ years on, as we did then. Each couple is unique. Why should I attempt to deny a same sex couple the happiness that we have had simply because the odds against them are higher?

Leave a Reply