distic
2yr ago
But belonging to a country is a matter of allegiance more than of ethnicity. Would you argue that someone who has never lived in France, doesn't speak french and hates France is actually french just because his biological parents are? And anyway the person is french if society declares her french ( e g with an id or a passport), not if she self identifies as a french person. She can self identify as much as she wants, it won't change anything. The same is true for parenthood : your are the parent of a child if he declares you as his parent, not if you self identify as his parent. It means society expects you to take care of the child. When we think about parent, we think about that more than about the sexual act to make the child.
Transgender identity, on the other side, is meaningless because when we think about women, we think about people with a vagina, two tits, a menstrual cycle, who experienced that from their young age and can bear children. Men are free to wear make up if they want, a lot of men have, it won't make them women. Thinking you can become a woman is like thinking you can become King Charles: either you are born the first son of Elisabeth, or you're not. There is nothing we can do about it, even if you self identify as Charles.
distic
2yr ago
Italy and Greece are not the most feminist countries in the world. The US are much more feminist, I think.
distic
2yr ago
Their productivity per hour is low because they work a lot. It's expected that the hours when you are awake and do the most important part of your job are more productive than those when you are tired and do something less useful. You should do a comparison ceteris paribus, but it is more difficult.
distic
2yr ago
The transgender being "apoplectic when people question their metaphysics" is purely the result of their requests to be treated as the "gender" they identify with. Society is not discussing whether cis-women are women, so the only way to treat trans-women equally would be to not discuss it either for them. It is a ridiculous expectation, obviously, but it explains why the truth question is so important.
distic
2yr ago
If society has to live a lie, it certainly is at a higher cost than if it is telling the truth. You cannot train everyone to lie everyday and expect no consequences. (1984 is often presented as a book about mass surveillance, it is actually about truth and lies. "Freedom is the freedom to say that two and two make four, everything else follows".)
So it seems that both questions (the truth of the gender theory and the damages to society) are related.
Personaly, I would comply with anyone's desire to be treated as a woman, a man or anything else. I don't see the point in bothering these people about their personal choices. But if someone asks me out of context, what I think about gender theory, it seems to me it is my duty to say that I don't believe in it (or at least in some of its main points).
And I have no problem with society enforcing more kindness toward trans people, but at some point there must be spaces where we forget any kindness requirements and look coldly at the truth.
distic
2yr ago
It seems to me you are assuming that the main goal of a secret document is to remain secret, while it is actually to be read by some people (else, there are better ways to avoid leaks, like not having any secret document). So there is some kind of trade off between the security measures, and who will be able to read the document. At some point, you have to decide if it's worse that sometimes documents leak, or that someone doesn't get the information he should get. It seems to me that the incentives are strong enough to avoid leaks most of the time (the guy will spend his life in prison because he wanted to brag on discord...).
What's more worrying in my view is the time spent between the leak and the guy getting caught. If it takes one year to detect a leak from a dumb soldier unable to cover his tracks, you can guess that china has access to most us secret document.
distic
2yr ago
You might be right (I don't know). The main point of my post was to give historical data.
distic
2yr ago
Sorry, I meant when someone says is transgender, surely he believes that gender and sex are different things and that transgender people really exist. So what you call his identity is itself a belief, isn't it?
distic
2yr ago
You might be on something. In another message in this CW thread, someone implies that companies want their sector to be as lightly regulated as possible. However, it seems to me it is not always true. Think about children toys: if the regulations remain light, then there is no or less incentive to buy new toys compared to re-use older ones. If the regulations become heavier, then old children toys become dangerous. You should not re-use them. You should buy new ones. Why would the toy industry oppose it? In this case, it might be a win-win situation (children get safer toys, and toy companies get more money).
But you can also have the exact same phenomenon with "social regulation" or with authorship. It might be expensive to compete with the best works of the past. You have to hire talented people, to give them money, and even then you have a high failure risk. So what about lowering the bar? Just use whatever social trend to make the older works worse, out of fashion. And if it makes you free of the authors and their IP, even better, right?
distic
2yr ago
But when you say you are transgender, you at least believe in the theory that gender and sex are not the same thing, right? Certainly, if you claim you are a unicorn, you believe unicorns do exist? Do you think that the hatred toward a cisgender white man claiming he believes in this theory would be any different from the hatred toward a transgender man?
distic
2yr ago
I can give you some historical data. The initial message spoke about "decades past the last French monarch actually was on throne", and yours about "quickly revert[ing] to a [monarchy] in all but name".
-
It should be noted that before the French Revolution, some french women had a right to vote in some circumstances: those that were declared heads of a noble family, because they were widows or single, or some religious women, were called to vote in the Etat Généraux. It is irrelevant to the discussion.
-
The last french monarchy died in 1848. It is also in 1848 that all french men got the right to vote (before that, the right to vote was limited to a few rich men).
-
The Second Empire lasted from 1952 to 1870.
-
After 1870, France was a Republic, except for 4 years during Second World War.
-
Women got the right to vote in France in 1944 (so right after second world war) and voted for the first time in 1945.
-
Some people on the left argue that France is still some kind of monarchy (a "republican monarchy") since 1958 (Fifth Republic) as the president is very powerful. However, as the president is elected for a finite amount of time, I suppose that is not what you could call "a monarchy in all but name".
So I think "decades past the last French monarch actually was on throne" meant from 1870 to 1944.
But to what degree do we know that women were actually more royalist decades after the revolution?
It is a difficult question to answer, but the question was not only that they were royalist, but that they were supposed to be more religious than men. It is difficult to know if it is true, but it is certain that it was one of the main arguments advanced by the anticlerical Parti Radical, which was a strong centrist party under the Third Republic.
distic
2yr ago
-
As you are claiming that the effect of prayer come from the truth of your faith (and not just on some psychological phenomenon) you cannot count the other religion as "the same medicine" as those religions believe yours to be false.
-
Anyway, the fact that people "claim to benefit" from something does not mean they really benefit from it. A lot of atheists also claim to benefit from atheism, don't they?
-
Religion increases longevity, it does not mean that prayer does. There is no proof that a religion without prayer would not also increase longevity as long as it promotes a healthy lifestyle.
-
Religion might increase the longevity of religious people, but religious countries are poorer and have a worse longevity than not-so-religious countries. So it seems religion increases the longevity of the religious people at the expense of the average longevity of the country. It's a bit as if religious people were vampires, killing everyone else to extend their own life. But as religious people show less altruism (see https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/children-with-a-religious-upbringing-show-less-altruism/ ), they probably don't care.
distic
2yr ago
Far left do focus on economy because that is what far left is about. Das Kapital speaks a lot about economy, Mein Kampf not so much. It's precisely the nature of the far left ideologies to think that everything is about making the rich richer.
distic
2yr ago
Atheism answers the question of belief, and agnosticism the question of knowledge: they are orthogonal.
Sorry, what do you mean by that? Are you saying you can believe something you know to be false? because it is a consequence of the orthogonality.
distic
2yr ago
Racists are far-right, homophobes are far-right, and homophobia means not being enthusiastic about everything you are told to be enthusiastic about.
I'm sorry, where do you read this in the wikipedia article? Especially the part in bold?
distic
2yr ago
That seems like a very isolated standard that I have never seen applied to anyone before, and doesn't hold besides.
The fact that you have seen it applied or not is not very relevant. You can write an abstract of Marx writings without ever mentionning race or homosexuality and you wouldn't miss much. The same cannot be said about far right leaders or thinkers. On guevara, you are probably right, I don't know. Anyway as I stated before those things cannot be taken in isolation. Just because you are homophobic does not mean you are far right. For example, I don't think the distinction between gender and sex makes any sense (at least not as it is applied in liberal ideology). Some people would call me transphobic. But as I'm not racist and homophobic, I don't think I would qualify as far right by any reasonable standard.
What did you think the point of the wiki article was, if not offering institutional support to a wildly expansive definition of "far right"?
As it is an article about the far right, I'd say its purpose is to inform people about what is called far right by most people in our society. I'd be very interested to read your version of a definition of the far right...
distic
2yr ago
I will comply, but should I really report someone that is arguing like that? It seems to me that he broke no rule apart from those of logic.
distic
2yr ago
like the framework of being a revolutionary ideology to remake all society in their own image
The libertarians are the same, so they are some kind of socialists?
If just being racist and homophobic is enough, then Marx, Engels and Guevera are "far-right"
Racism and homophobia weren't particularly important in their politics. That is what matters.
If we're going to ignore the distinctions and categories enough to group Brandon Sanderson with the Nazis
I never said you should group Brandon Sanderson with the nazis because I don't know him and I'm not interested in fantasy authors anyway. That is not my point, and that is certainly not the point of the wikipedia article either.
distic
2yr ago
It's not so much about the faith ("the structure of beliefs") as about your personal journey and your community. You can have a muslim wedding if you are from a christian background, but you won't live it the same way as someone from a muslim family. His family will know the rite and be a part of it, while yours will be just spectators (if they are comfortable attending at all). At the end that is not the same experience.
First thing. I'm not arguing against the fact that you should be polite and kind with trans people. If someone wants to be treated as a woman, I would use "her" and "she" if this is this person's preference. At least when the person is there (but it's exactly the same thing as being polite with someone by calling him Caius Julius, because he thinks he is Caesar). The problem with the transgender activism is that it requires a lot more than that. It requires that I never say what I think to be the truth, even on the internet, and as a general comment (not to offend anyone, but just to state that I don't believe transwomen to be actual women if it's relevant to the conversation). It seems to me that if you transpose your sentence "in my mind I certainly perceive that family as not a real family." to trans people, you would get in trouble in some places (e g reddit). And that is what I call enforcing a lie, and that is what I think is an important issue. Would you comply with your own requirement that "it would be forbidden for anyone to mention the way in which you differ from a native or a biological parent", your entire post could not exist. You need to be able to mention the fact that both differ to build your argument.
By the way, I don't think nationality is a "social version" of ethnicity. It's not in the US, it's not in France, and it's not in most countries. Sure, some countries might decide that their nationality is about ethnicity, just like they can make it about religion. Would you say that someone is or is not "ethnically vaticanese"? Both parenthood and nationality are about law more than about identity. Your nationality gives you some rights, being recognized as a parent gives you some rights. From the political viewpoint, "nationality" and "parenthood" is just those set of rights (anyone who has them is a citizen or a parent). Being a woman gives you no special rights. The only special rights of women are actually rights of females, related to biology, like being accepted in a maternity hospital or competing with people with less testosterone in sports (female sports has never been about gender, but only about biological sex). All the rights that could relate to your gender (like the right to vote) have been extended to women, at least in the West, so being a "legal woman" is not a thing, because a "legal woman" is exactly the same thing as a legal man, as men and women have the same rights.
More options
Context Copy link