Comments by "Vic 2.0" (@Vic2point0) on "WUSA9"
channel.
-
9
-
7
-
5
-
@r-platt "Treating others the way they want to be treated does not require you AGREE with them."
Ah, good then. So you concur that I'm not breaking your "golden rule" by disagreeing with someone about their gender. What are you objecting to then? Just that I disagree openly? I shouldn't express my disagreement?
"Gender dysphoria is a medical condition like schizophrenia or autism."
Right. And transgenderism is an incoherent worldview and therefore not a good way to deal with gender dysphoria.
"You do not oppose people being transgender."
I absolutely do, yes. I think they should reject this worldview that says they are some particular gender all because they "identify" as that, or some other equally illogical reason.
"Medical science has made a great deal of sense of it."
So in order to claim that science supports transgenderism itself, you would definitely need to provide objective definitions for your terms. Just what are they assessing, and how? Do you even know?
"discrimination has existed FAR LONGER than the fight to end it."
1. I don't see how this refutes anything I've said.
and 2. Some discrimination is justified, and therefore no one should fight to end all discrimination.
"There is always the temptation to poke fun at someone with deformities or wearing glasses or writing poorly or doing anything abnormal. Civility holds my tongue."
Well that's great. Likewise I try not to poke fun at people over things they can't control. And even gender dysphoria is included in that. But once someone subscribes to a worldview they cannot logically defend (be that in response to gender dysphoria or any other condition beyond their control), I can at least criticize that if not make a little fun as well.
"If you tell me your name is Vickie then I will use that name. If you say it's Victor and you want me to use they/them, I will comply."
The problem with equating this with "civility" or following your supposed "golden rule", is that it is in fact extremely limited. Indeed, it is an arbitrary exception you've made for gender. By contrast, if I as a 40-year old white human being identify as a black 10-year old or as a giraffe, I will be quickly corrected. So your worldview is not only incoherent but inconsistently applied.
"It requires very little effort on my part and actually MEANS something to YOU."
And neither of these things morally obligate you to do as I request. Again, we all understand that in regards to literally everything else in the world. We should understand that about gender too.
5
-
@r-platt "Yes. There are limits on what you give."
Okay, so we should drop the pretense that the "golden rule" is to simply treat everyone as they want to be treated. There are exceptions, and for various reasons. If I as a white 40-year old man identified as a black 10-year old or a giraffe, I would be corrected despite this "golden rule" only applied to gender.
"What I want is EASIER."
Something being easy has nothing to do with it being right, logical, or what's best for society. So this doesn't constitute any reason for me to feel obligated to call a biological male a woman. Besides which, what would be easiest is for us to continue calling them men. And it'd be easier for those who've subscribed to a worldview they cannot logically defend, to abandon that worldview in general.
"I want you to short-cut that analysis so that you see a clear sign of femininity and you assume "she/her"."
Having "femininity" doesn't make you a woman, though. Some men who do not identify as women are nonetheless very "feminine". Some gay men would fall into this category, and your way of thinking would task us with labeling them women against their will (very, what's that goofy made-up word again? homophobic). Some men even cross-dress but do not identify as women. So we wouldn't be preventing "misgendering" others at any rate. That's if misgendering were even possible on transgenderism which it is not, as I explained earlier.
ME: "Yes, but in order for me to be incorrect in using a given word, you will need to assess it using an objective standard."
YOU: "The definition is the objective standard."
What definition? If it's the circular "a woman is someone who identifies as a woman", this is subjectively defined quite obviously. And you admitted this earlier...
"For example, "car: a four-wheeled road vehicle that is powered by an engine and is able to carry a small number of people"
Okay. Simple enough. But what qualifies as "a small number"? 5? Then some minivans are not cars, some are. 7? Then some trucks are not cars, some are."
Right, so this would mean you couldn't definitively say someone was incorrect if they called a minivan or a truck a car. This might even show that we need a better definition of "car". In any case, to call a dolphin a car would be incorrect as per the objective definition you gave. We can say someone is incorrect for using the wrong word in at least some situations. Now... what's the difference between a male who identifies as a woman and is correct, and a male who identifies as a woman and is incorrect?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3