What would be the most important thing than humans should try to achieve in priority in your opinion ?

[iNow]

9 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I would argue that most confliction is a result of a mental disorder, not physical. 

Historically, the same mindset was applied to homosexuality. 

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

lets flip it and I now identify as a dog, as a result do I automatically lose my rights as a human?

Nobody is identifying as a dog, but you raise a valid point that people’s rights shouldn’t be limited when/if they do. 

“Gay marriage?!? What’s next… letting people marry their dog!!” Ahh… memories. 

[Phi for All]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

What I don't agree with is a person expecting those rights to extend into a right to do what ever they please without consideration or consequence.

This seems to be one of those points where you think something is going on, some kind of deceit or exaggeration or stubborn willfulness. You seem to think people with different mindsets regarding gender and sexuality are simply acting on a whim, making non-typical decisions simply to be contrary, or overly demanding, or because it strikes their fancy. "Whatever they please without consideration or consequence" is what you claim, as if you actually knew the mindset of folks like this. 

Be careful that you aren't misattributing motives. Many people think LGBTQ folks choose to be this way so they can get around the system (to be in a different bathroom or dressing room, for instance). What if it's not a choice, and acknowledging the truth of it was always the primary concern, and things like where to go to the bathroom or change your clothes didn't even cross their minds till later?

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

“Gay marriage?!? What’s next… letting people marry their dog!!” Ahh… memories. 

Especially as these issues have nothing to do with other. Legally it is a bit of grey zone as many countries do not seem to have laws explicitly prohibiting marriages with animals. The wiki article is a bit of a mess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human–animal_marriage.

But I think these lines of argument follow a rather similar structure. First, remove any reasonable context (there are no laws explicitly forbidding human animal marriages as these things are normally expected to happen, same as marriages with plants, rocks or bodies of water are prohibited) and then cram in something you don't like (homosexuality, transgenderism, poets). Thereby it is easy to create ridiculous scenario to attack.

I mean, clearly poets are linguistic deviants who just want to disassemble clear communication. All these contortions using rhymes and unusual sentence structures rob us of our ability to clearly present facts. As such, they should be banned under law. After all, what prevents me to declare myself a science poet and force journals to publish my gibberish!

 

[Intoscience]

On 1/6/2023 at 12:53 PM, dimreepr said:

Those are just excuses to not be content with another person's reason for being content.

So I ask again, why do you care? iow what "reason" do you have to deny anothers perceived identity? 

I have no reason to deny them their perceived Identity, nor should I change my opinion to align with others. 

On 1/6/2023 at 7:12 PM, Phi for All said:

This seems to be one of those points where you think something is going on, some kind of deceit or exaggeration or stubborn willfulness. You seem to think people with different mindsets regarding gender and sexuality are simply acting on a whim, making non-typical decisions simply to be contrary, or overly demanding, or because it strikes their fancy. "Whatever they please without consideration or consequence" is what you claim, as if you actually knew the mindset of folks like this. 

Be careful that you aren't misattributing motives. Many people think LGBTQ folks choose to be this way so they can get around the system (to be in a different bathroom or dressing room, for instance). What if it's not a choice, and acknowledging the truth of it was always the primary concern, and things like where to go to the bathroom or change your clothes didn't even cross their minds till later?

And you seem to assume that I have agenda against LGBTQ folks. I have an issue with activists using these types and the actually real inequality issues as an excuse to extend their positions beyond what is reasonable. Then I have an issue with what should e a reasonable compromise to keep the ship steering on course as apposed to steering way off the opposite way.

I see no other path forward than balance. Tip a little extra to even things out yeah, sure. But tip too far , well... you end up back to square one.      

On 1/6/2023 at 9:52 PM, CharonY said:

Thereby it is easy to create ridiculous scenario to attack

But there are ridiculous scenarios are being created by the extreme activists to start with. 

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I have no reason to deny them their perceived Identity, nor should I change my opinion to align with others. 

So why are you wiasting our time with this discussion?

In this context reason and excuse are interchangeable... 

[Intoscience]

59 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

So why are you wiasting our time with this discussion?

In this context reason and excuse are interchangeable... 

You are assuming others feel the same (my bold) or have you preferred pronouns? No one is forcing you to participate, feel free to seek other avenues where your time maybe be better used. 

I could argue you are wasting my time by constantly contesting everything I say with flippant comments. 

But I'm still here still posting... 

[Moontanman]

16 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

You are assuming others feel the same (my bold) or have you preferred pronouns? No one is forcing you to participate, feel free to seek other avenues where your time maybe be better used. 

I could argue you are wasting my time by constantly contesting everything I say with flippant comments. 

But I'm still here still posting... 

And with each post you reveal a typical conservative attitude full of Fox news bigoted talking points. 

[iNow]

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I have no reason to deny them their perceived Identity

The insertion of the word "perceived" struck me here. Are you able to elaborate a bit about what you mean, specifically in what relevant ways is the "perceived" identity of a trans person different or in any way "less than" the "perceived" identity of a cis person?

Not attacking. Just trying to understand. 

[TheVat]

If I were to guess, I would say he is making a distinction between identities that have some objective marker, like XY chromosomes and frankfurters, and identities that rely upon a subjective self-assessment.  If a cis male has a subjective inner narrative that develops through childhood of being male (which he often does, in his quest for identity), he also has objective markers that provide confirmation of the narrative.  If that male has a different one, e.g. "I have always felt like a female," then there is both interior friction, and social friction, between that felt condition and what the world sees.  I assume that IntoSci is extending an olive branch, in that respect, by asserting that he would not push back against that felt identity and add to someone's difficulties.  However, if that is the case, it does beg the question:  why not trust them?   

 

[CharonY]

48 minutes ago, TheVat said:

objective marker,

In that regard, I would also add that in this case there might be "objective" markers, but we just do not know them yet. Gender identity seems to be so fixed (i.e. they rarely change rapidly or due to external influences) that there are likely at least neuronal correlates. Also objective biological markers can be highly specific on the individual level (e.g. depending on certain genetic background and individual development a certain structure could result in different phenotypes). This does make them hard to detect from population studies, but they are nonetheless "objective".

Just adding to emphasize that just because we do not know or see certain mechanisms, it does not mean that the resulting outcome or phenotypes are arbitrary or fluid.

[Intoscience]

18 hours ago, Moontanman said:

And with each post you reveal a typical conservative attitude full of Fox news bigoted talking points. 

I'm not a conservative nor do I watch Fox news. I just form my own opinions based on what I feel to be sensible and unbiased. People assume I'm biased when my opinion doesn't align with their own, which many posts on this thread reveal.  

15 hours ago, iNow said:

The insertion of the word "perceived" struck me here. Are you able to elaborate a bit about what you mean, specifically in what relevant ways is the "perceived" identity of a trans person different or in any way "less than" the "perceived" identity of a cis person?

Not attacking. Just trying to understand. 

I did not originally use the word perceived, Dim used it in a reply to one of my posts and so I replied back using the term to stay within the context of which Dim was using.

You should really be asking Dim first this question. 

14 hours ago, TheVat said:

If I were to guess, I would say he is making a distinction between identities that have some objective marker, like XY chromosomes and frankfurters, and identities that rely upon a subjective self-assessment.  If a cis male has a subjective inner narrative that develops through childhood of being male (which he often does, in his quest for identity), he also has objective markers that provide confirmation of the narrative.  If that male has a different one, e.g. "I have always felt like a female," then there is both interior friction, and social friction, between that felt condition and what the world sees.  I assume that IntoSci is extending an olive branch, in that respect, by asserting that he would not push back against that felt identity and add to someone's difficulties.  However, if that is the case, it does beg the question:  why not trust them?   

 

Yes, this sums up the basic premise. Though "why not trust them"? is a good question. I guess this comes from historical upbringing, culture etc... I guess really it will come down to what is accepted by the majority within each culture and whether people can be educated and accept change even if they personally feel its not for the better. 

I do try and sympathise and empathise with people (this is in my nature being an INFJ, in another thread! lol) so I do try and understand things from both perspectives. however, i do also believe that there has to be a system in place that protects all. But then this gets complex since protecting one may hurt another. So again there has to find a balance where an attempt to achieve the "greater good" for the society as a whole is the goal.   

Edited January 10, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Yes, this sums up the basic premise. Though "why not trust them"? is a good question. I guess this comes from historical upbringing, culture etc... I guess really it will come down to what is accepted by the majority within each culture and whether people can be educated and accept change even if they personally feel its not for the better. 

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I'm not a conservative nor do I watch Fox news. I just form my own opinions based on what I feel to be sensible and unbiased.

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I do try and sympathise and empathise with people (this is in my nature being an INFJ, in another thread! lol) so I do try and understand things from both perspectives. however, i do also believe that there has to be a system in place that protects all. But then this gets complex since protecting one may hurt another. So again there has to find a balance where an attempt to achieve the "greater good" for the society as a whole is the goal.

protect from what? 

our bias is the only real danger to society...

 

[Intoscience]

51 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

protect from what? 

our bias is the only real danger to society...

 

Sometimes themselves, but there are many things to protect people from,  it can be very complex. 

Bias is a good one and thinking about my own replies/opinions that I have posted on this forum makes me question my own biases. In that my own opinions even though not intentionally so, or obvious to me, can be and have been bias.

This is one of the beauties of forums like these where I can express my opinions, stand by what I believe in, but then reconsider those beliefs, especially when I receive differing perspectives.

I participate on these types of forums for a number of reasons:

• I learn new vocabulary
• I learn to better present my thoughts and ideas
• I learn about new perspectives
• I learn about different cultures and societies and what is important or at the forefront within each
• I learn new science and gain a better understanding of the areas I'm mostly interested in
• I learn about new science that i wasn't previously aware of
• They provide me with the opportunity to look in the mirror and consider my own thoughts, feelings and reflection
• I get to state my opinions for peer review and reflect on how they make others feel and how they sit within each culture 

This is just a short list off the top of my head, I'm sure there will be hidden benefits. A quick one which as just entered my mind is the benefit of escaping from the environment/society in which I live, and the people I interact with close up on a daily basis. Certainly helping with my mental wellbeing is an added benefit. 

But yeah awareness of bias and the resulting oppression is definitely up there.   

Edited January 10, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling

[dimreepr]

23 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

This is one of the beauties of forums like these where I can express my opinions, stand by what I believe in, but then reconsider those beliefs, especially when I receive differing perspectives.

 🤞

[iNow]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

You should really be asking Dim first this question.

Fair, but I was hoping for an answer that clarified and didn't further muddy.  

Didn't realize it was his word, so sorry for that.

So... Dim? What did you mean by "perceived?"

[Moontanman]

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I'm not a conservative nor do I watch Fox news. I just form my own opinions based on what I feel to be sensible and unbiased. People assume I'm biased when my opinion doesn't align with their own, which many posts on this thread reveal.  

 

Where does your insinuation of males suddenly deciding to indetify as females so they can ogle young girls in the dressing room come from? Nothing but conservative fear mongering or in some cases simple projection.  

[Intoscience]

19 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Where does your insinuation of males suddenly deciding to identify as females so they can ogle young girls in the dressing room come from? Nothing but conservative fear mongering or in some cases simple projection.  

I wasn't insinuating anything, that's your assumption. It was a news report admittedly, it was not reported in any sensationalized manner but rather a clip with no running commentary (that there are many of) of parents addressing an education board regarding curriculum policies. This particular case was one parent addressing the panel as spokes person for the parent's association. They also petitioned against girls competing against boys in physical sporting competition which personally I have mixed views on.

I guess my point around this is that policies are being forced upon children without the consent of the parents where the parents views/rights are being ignored.

People want in general to make the world a better place, this is great and should be applauded. However, there are many many problems across the world that require addressing, some more so than others. Yet focus tends to be around what's in trend especially so that which gains momentum from outrage or negativity and then sensationalised to get everyone onboard with the trend.