they preach tolerance but are ALWAYS the ones to start the abuse, insults, name calling and threats when they are disagreed with.
First off, the group that I’ve always experienced starting with outright hate and name calling has been the right. Look at two protests, one by leftists, one by the right wing, on the same issue, and you will almost always find the most aggressive, slur using, name calling people on the right making themselves known far before anyone on the left will actually start doing anything even remotely similar.
And secondly, tolerance doesn’t work when dealing with the intolerant. Consider this: Hitler is a brand new figure, comes into the public square, and starts preaching his views. Do we tolerate him, or do we not tolerate him? We should tolerate him, because after all, tolerance is good, right? Well, of course not, because his ideology is intolerant, and directly attacks the tolerant, extinguishing them from society.
The only way you maintain tolerance is by being intolerant of intolerance.
If a conservative states that trans people shouldn’t be allowed to exist in public spaces, and the left shuns that person and ostracizes them, the left is being intolerant, but so is the conservative, who if they had their way, would have then eliminated far more presumably tolerant trans people from public life, if given the chance.
However, conservatives will then frame this as the left being intolerant, and act as if it’s some kind of hypocrisy to try and preserve tolerance by being intolerant of intolerant ideologies.
On a place light Reddit most subs will just ban you for showing any right leaning opinions.
Because many subs have moderators that respect marginalized groups that are often the ones attacked by conservatives.
If someone comes into your community, and begins spouting off an ideology that’s explicitly harmful to members of that group, the most tolerant thing a moderator can do when given two choices:
Tolerate the conservative and let them spout hate
Don’t tolerate the conservative and prevent them from spouting hate
is the second, because otherwise your community is now persistently allowing in someone who is intolerant of the others in the community.
If I were to say “there are two genders (male and female) and you can not change what you were born as” the red mist descends and because my views don’t align I get called a phobe or ist or a bigot. They simply can’t accept that not everyone shares their ideology.
Because that statement is not just fundamentally wrong, (male and female aren’t genders, they’re sexes, even sex is a spectrum of characteristics that can’t be cleanly defined in 100% of cases, so a blanket statement that only 1 and 2 exist when 3, 4, 5, etc do as well fundamentally fails even when it comes to sex, let alone social identity characteristics and expression) but it is used to justify erasing trans people from existence, and is the core statement that allows for anti-trans policies to exist.
That statement is directly used to justify and further policies that directly harm trans people, and thus it isn’t just a difference in opinion, but a clear and obvious case of intolerance that we know leads to real harm.
If you’d like any further explanation of why exactly that statement is incorrect, I’d be happy to provide it.
As for the right starting the abuse just look at the Reform member conference in Cornwall last week.
Apologies, but considering I’m American, I don’t have much of a personal social context for the events, so do take my opinions here with the understanding I don’t follow UK politics much. I agree that any violence there was likely extreme, at least based on my very limited understanding of the party’s politics, but that is, of course, what seems to be an isolated incident.
As I don’t think we share as much direct societal context, I’m fine with dropping this point against your argument if you don’t wish to continue it, especially considering it’s a little subjective in terms of, say, statistically determining which group is more likely to be aggressive, since I haven’t seen many actual studies or meta-analyses on that particular topic in specific.
There are two biological genders. Male and female. Anything else is a birth defect and it is biologically impossible to change what you are.
Just because a person thinks they aren’t the gender they were born as does not make them some third gender. It is a mental health issue.
Sex and gender are fundamentally the same thing but the definitions have been twisted to suit a specific ideology which has no basis in fact.
You are of course free to believe anything you wish. If a person wants to believe there are 100+ genders then they have that right, But what nobody has the right to do is expect and demand that others fall into line with their ideology and beliefs. And they absolutely do not have the right to start throwing abuse and words like transphobe around simply because beliefs don’t match.
Any exception disproves your rule. If you say there are only 1 and 2, and I show you 3, then the statement that only 1 and 2 exist is false, because it’s only true if no other numbers ever exist. Show me a binary, I show you numbers outside that binary, it’s not a binary.
Sex and gender are fundamentally the same thing
What genetic code determines things like:
Women wearing skirts (…while not being socially accepted for men. Except in Ireland, with Kilts, where it is, because this is cultural, not biological)
Men being louder and more aggressive (on average)
Women being better cooks (on average)
Socially accepted hobbies/personality traits of men/women
Your preference for “pink”/“blue” toys (e.g. toys usually promoted to only girls/boys, like dolls, which we have no evidence kids naturally pick along a binary line unless taught to by parents/guardians)
Oh wait, what’s that? None of that is biological, but it’s all traditionally gendered traits? Interesting, maybe biological characteristics and social ones aren’t the same.
What about someone with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS), where someone can have XY (usually male) chromosomes, but goes through female sexual development? Or someone with Mosaicism, who has a split of XX and XY chromosomes in their body, could have the genitalia of either group, or ambiguous genitalia, and who’s split of chromosomes across their cells could be as high as 50%, or shift in one direction or the other over time. Or someone who has chromosome patterns that don’t fit into XX or XY, like XXXXX. (yes, that’s a real combination of chromosomes that humans can have.)
You cannot easily classify these people into sex categories, and no definition you make for sex and gender being the same thing will be capable of properly resolving which group these people fall into. You’ll end up putting ambiguous people into categories that don’t align with how they internally feel about themselves, you’ll find ways to accidentally lump cis people into categories they don’t fit in by trying to define these people into male or female categories, and that means it’s impossible to make a definition that covers every single one of these people and neatly fits them into the categories you think only exist in a rigid binary, and by extension, any attempt to assign them to man/woman categories will only demonstrate how subjective the entire thing is in the first place.
Even just the fact that various traits traditionally assigned to men/women (e.g. high heels originally being worn by men) have shifted over time to being in different categories, and that different ways of self-expression, and experience, have developed over time, disproves the notion that there is this simplistic binary of human experience that cannot be un-aligned from your sex, or that certain traits are tied to sex as opposed to entirely social expectations.
And they absolutely do not have the right to start throwing abuse and words like transphobe around simply because beliefs don’t match.
Your position is categorically hostile to their existence. The definition of transphobia includes “fear or dislike of transgender and non-binary people” If you dislike what they believe, and by extension, what they are, then you are categorically transphobic. You can agree and say that you believe being transphobic is correct, but you still definitionally dislike trans people, and thus fit the definition.
We’ve both made our arguments, I’ve said everyone is free to believe whatever they wish and it’s obvious we will never agree. But you simply can’t accept that people disagree with gender ideology and must try and push your beliefs onto others, in this case, me.
So to finalise this conversation.
I am of the opinion that there are two genders.
You are of the opinion that there are more.
We are both entitled to our respective opinions whether you agree with them or not.
In what way? You just dismissed everything i said by not responding to it then acted like I’d proved you correct.
But you simply can’t accept that people disagree with gender ideology and must try and push your beliefs onto others, in this case, me.
“But you simply can’t accept that black people are inherently less intelligent, and must try to push your beliefs on others”
Do you see how this argument fails? Sometimes, people are just wrong, and hold opinions that cause societal harm. You haven’t been capable of refuting the evidence I provide, instead choosing to ignore it, then continue perpetuating the exact justification used every time trans people are oppressed in any way.
Keep proving my point for me. We disagree. Let it go. You don’t have to hammer your point home to those that disagree.
Oh and by the way. In absolutely no way did I even mention black people. I’m not sure why you’re bringing race into the conversation but it’s disgraceful and you should be ashamed.
As I don’t wish to be preached too and as you simply can’t accept differing opinions I’m blocking you now and may also report your racism.
. In absolutely no way did I even mention black people.
How did you not underatand that it was an analogy? I was testing your logic, by demonstrating that your exact argument can identically be applied to racist arguments, yet you would probably not see it as valid in that context, thus your own logic in this situation falls short.
People can have differences in opinion, but sometimes, those opinions are harmful, and there’s a reason why people are so angry at you past just simply disagreeing on logic.
First off, the group that I’ve always experienced starting with outright hate and name calling has been the right. Look at two protests, one by leftists, one by the right wing, on the same issue, and you will almost always find the most aggressive, slur using, name calling people on the right making themselves known far before anyone on the left will actually start doing anything even remotely similar.
And secondly, tolerance doesn’t work when dealing with the intolerant. Consider this: Hitler is a brand new figure, comes into the public square, and starts preaching his views. Do we tolerate him, or do we not tolerate him? We should tolerate him, because after all, tolerance is good, right? Well, of course not, because his ideology is intolerant, and directly attacks the tolerant, extinguishing them from society.
The only way you maintain tolerance is by being intolerant of intolerance.
If a conservative states that trans people shouldn’t be allowed to exist in public spaces, and the left shuns that person and ostracizes them, the left is being intolerant, but so is the conservative, who if they had their way, would have then eliminated far more presumably tolerant trans people from public life, if given the chance.
However, conservatives will then frame this as the left being intolerant, and act as if it’s some kind of hypocrisy to try and preserve tolerance by being intolerant of intolerant ideologies.
Because many subs have moderators that respect marginalized groups that are often the ones attacked by conservatives.
If someone comes into your community, and begins spouting off an ideology that’s explicitly harmful to members of that group, the most tolerant thing a moderator can do when given two choices:
is the second, because otherwise your community is now persistently allowing in someone who is intolerant of the others in the community.
Removed by mod
Because that statement is not just fundamentally wrong, (male and female aren’t genders, they’re sexes, even sex is a spectrum of characteristics that can’t be cleanly defined in 100% of cases, so a blanket statement that only 1 and 2 exist when 3, 4, 5, etc do as well fundamentally fails even when it comes to sex, let alone social identity characteristics and expression) but it is used to justify erasing trans people from existence, and is the core statement that allows for anti-trans policies to exist.
That statement is directly used to justify and further policies that directly harm trans people, and thus it isn’t just a difference in opinion, but a clear and obvious case of intolerance that we know leads to real harm.
If you’d like any further explanation of why exactly that statement is incorrect, I’d be happy to provide it.
Apologies, but considering I’m American, I don’t have much of a personal social context for the events, so do take my opinions here with the understanding I don’t follow UK politics much. I agree that any violence there was likely extreme, at least based on my very limited understanding of the party’s politics, but that is, of course, what seems to be an isolated incident.
As I don’t think we share as much direct societal context, I’m fine with dropping this point against your argument if you don’t wish to continue it, especially considering it’s a little subjective in terms of, say, statistically determining which group is more likely to be aggressive, since I haven’t seen many actual studies or meta-analyses on that particular topic in specific.
Sorry but your gender argument is plain false.
There are two biological genders. Male and female. Anything else is a birth defect and it is biologically impossible to change what you are.
Just because a person thinks they aren’t the gender they were born as does not make them some third gender. It is a mental health issue.
Sex and gender are fundamentally the same thing but the definitions have been twisted to suit a specific ideology which has no basis in fact.
You are of course free to believe anything you wish. If a person wants to believe there are 100+ genders then they have that right, But what nobody has the right to do is expect and demand that others fall into line with their ideology and beliefs. And they absolutely do not have the right to start throwing abuse and words like transphobe around simply because beliefs don’t match.
Any exception disproves your rule. If you say there are only 1 and 2, and I show you 3, then the statement that only 1 and 2 exist is false, because it’s only true if no other numbers ever exist. Show me a binary, I show you numbers outside that binary, it’s not a binary.
What genetic code determines things like:
Oh wait, what’s that? None of that is biological, but it’s all traditionally gendered traits? Interesting, maybe biological characteristics and social ones aren’t the same.
What about someone with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS), where someone can have XY (usually male) chromosomes, but goes through female sexual development? Or someone with Mosaicism, who has a split of XX and XY chromosomes in their body, could have the genitalia of either group, or ambiguous genitalia, and who’s split of chromosomes across their cells could be as high as 50%, or shift in one direction or the other over time. Or someone who has chromosome patterns that don’t fit into XX or XY, like XXXXX. (yes, that’s a real combination of chromosomes that humans can have.)
You cannot easily classify these people into sex categories, and no definition you make for sex and gender being the same thing will be capable of properly resolving which group these people fall into. You’ll end up putting ambiguous people into categories that don’t align with how they internally feel about themselves, you’ll find ways to accidentally lump cis people into categories they don’t fit in by trying to define these people into male or female categories, and that means it’s impossible to make a definition that covers every single one of these people and neatly fits them into the categories you think only exist in a rigid binary, and by extension, any attempt to assign them to man/woman categories will only demonstrate how subjective the entire thing is in the first place.
Even just the fact that various traits traditionally assigned to men/women (e.g. high heels originally being worn by men) have shifted over time to being in different categories, and that different ways of self-expression, and experience, have developed over time, disproves the notion that there is this simplistic binary of human experience that cannot be un-aligned from your sex, or that certain traits are tied to sex as opposed to entirely social expectations.
Your position is categorically hostile to their existence. The definition of transphobia includes “fear or dislike of transgender and non-binary people” If you dislike what they believe, and by extension, what they are, then you are categorically transphobic. You can agree and say that you believe being transphobic is correct, but you still definitionally dislike trans people, and thus fit the definition.
I must thank you for proving my point.
We’ve both made our arguments, I’ve said everyone is free to believe whatever they wish and it’s obvious we will never agree. But you simply can’t accept that people disagree with gender ideology and must try and push your beliefs onto others, in this case, me.
So to finalise this conversation.
I am of the opinion that there are two genders. You are of the opinion that there are more.
We are both entitled to our respective opinions whether you agree with them or not.
In what way? You just dismissed everything i said by not responding to it then acted like I’d proved you correct.
“But you simply can’t accept that black people are inherently less intelligent, and must try to push your beliefs on others”
Do you see how this argument fails? Sometimes, people are just wrong, and hold opinions that cause societal harm. You haven’t been capable of refuting the evidence I provide, instead choosing to ignore it, then continue perpetuating the exact justification used every time trans people are oppressed in any way.
Keep proving my point for me. We disagree. Let it go. You don’t have to hammer your point home to those that disagree.
Oh and by the way. In absolutely no way did I even mention black people. I’m not sure why you’re bringing race into the conversation but it’s disgraceful and you should be ashamed.
As I don’t wish to be preached too and as you simply can’t accept differing opinions I’m blocking you now and may also report your racism.
How did you not underatand that it was an analogy? I was testing your logic, by demonstrating that your exact argument can identically be applied to racist arguments, yet you would probably not see it as valid in that context, thus your own logic in this situation falls short.
People can have differences in opinion, but sometimes, those opinions are harmful, and there’s a reason why people are so angry at you past just simply disagreeing on logic.