If someone is making the personal choice not to support something you don't like, it's a boycott. If they are making the choice not to support something that you do like, then it's cancelling. These days I prefer to think of it as a personal embargo.
Don't you think it's a bit counterproductive when crafting policy to start with the most extreme examples and use that as the baseline as if they're the most common and then extrapolate outward to even more extreme hypothetical crimes?
Maybe. Alternatively, maybe such people are judgmentally assessed in oppositional terms as malign and deceptive because it makes the psychological task of disagreeing with them easier: people can't just be wrong, they have to be evil, too.
And? The argument here is that there should be protections in place to prevent this from happening. It wouldn't now because trans rights activists still haven't achieved their ultimate goal of full acceptance of transexuals. We do have at least one example of people of dubious honesty already probing how much they can get away with in the Yaniv individual, once transexuals become more accepted these kinds of individuals will become much more bold. This does not mean that transexuals should be denied these spaces but that we should have rules and laws to prevent the exploiters from using being trans as a cover. It is in the trans community's best interest to be the ones to make these rules themselves before an incident occurs that allows their opponents to use it as propaganda to repeal all their gains.
I don't think they're evil, I just think they're wrong, selfish, and too happy to punch down. For many I think it's nothing more than an ick factor they don't want to admit to because they know it looks (and is) bad.
So ... your example of serial killers was about something that hasn't happened? It's stepped down from 'serial killer' to 'dubious honesty already probing how much they can get away with'? Shit, I do that when I file a tax return.
I dunno. I see the only way to do this is to remain exclusionary towards transpeople. The concern some people claim to have would be for a situation where you can't remove a predatory individual because a rule says they can stay on the basis of gender. So the rules and laws are already in place (the predatory person should be gotten rid of), but the concern is over new and inclusive rules that can be exploited. But y'know, does it really happen often enough that the concern can't be alleviated some other way?
I think just nailing down a proper set of criteria for when a person is trans and creating a proper procedure to verify that someone falls under this criteria and thus be able to give them some kind of certificate verifying that they are in fact trans would be enough. It would make a system of weeding out the false trans people and if an incident were to occur then blame would fall on whoever or whatever system failed to verify the person properly rather than on the trans community as a whole.
Those nuggets of truth aren't worth the amount of hateful propagandist BS paddled along with it. Why not to get the truth without the BS?
How are we going to have systems to check these trans cards? We're not going to go back to the days of all public toilets having attendants, for instance.
Hhm. I just feel doing nothing is leaving everything wide open to some kind of huge mess once such an incident occurs, but I suppose you make a fair argument. How depressing this whole situation is.
What do you think the criteria should be to judge when a person is trans?
Have you noticed that you're operating on the automatic assumption that any trans person who causes an "incident" isn't a real trans person?
How about we prominently brand sex offenders rather than assuming innocent people present a risk? (Obviously we'll need a much better legal system first.)
Ok oddly I've addressed this argument and I think even this paper before.I know there are some structural differences. But what do those differences mean? What behaviour has been proven to differ because of them? The UPenn study is only actually examining a tiny, miniscule minority of brain connections; it's looking at adolescents (boys and girls mature at different rates), with no compensation for things like brain size.
Let's take hydrocephalus, a condition where the fluid-filled areas of the brain are abnormally large and the grey and white matter of the cerebrum correspondingly reduced. Some people with extreme hydrocephalus (where brain mass is about a tenth of normal) are, understandably, severely mentally impaired. But about half of them actually have normal behaviour and IQs averaging over 100, much like the non-hydrocephalic population. How do we make sense of this, that people can have such a huge difference in brain structure and be behaviourally normal, and at the same time that other people also with a similar huge difference from normal, are so different?
I don't presume to supply an answer, because I don't think we have one. But I do think that until there are sufficient experiments that prove a difference in behaviour based on an anatomical/phsyliological difference, we're never doing any more than hypothesising. A lot of hypotheses are wrong.
Okay, this a gross simplification of complex scientific argument muddled through simplicities in order make things digestable and engaging to the public.
The idea of male and female brains goes back a very long way. Men and women acted differently in society, so it was assumed they must have different brains. Charlatans a century or more ago claimed (wrongly) they could identify a brain as male or female just by looking at one (presumably removed from a dead body) and its gross features. So this has been a common baseline assumption rumbling along for generations, despite never really having a solid basis. The idea women and men might differ in large part because of the way they were brought up and the social roles they were squeezed into wasn't equally considered. Social roles were assumed to be the product of different behaviour from different brains.
Let's skip forward a long way into the era of neuroimaging, where possibly the most useful start point might be Simon Baron-Cohen, mostly known for autism research, who defined brains as "systematising", "empathising", or "balanced". He then popularised the notion that the "male" brain is systematising (autism being ultra-systematising), and the female brain empathising. Now, he didn't say "male" and "female" brains in his academic publishing, but he and others did pass that notion on to the public. He wrote a book "The Essential Difference: Men, Women and the Extreme Male Brain" (which might be more accessible to read than his hard science articles for non-experts). Thus from him and others, with weight from centuries-old assumptions, people latched onto this idea that gender differences were true and provable by anatomical/physiological studies. As for the inaccuracy of this male/female distinction, it is there in Baron-Cohen's research itself: whilst men mostly have systematising and women mostly empathising brains, it is far from absolute. (Incidentally, the idea of autism as being extreme male is also very dubious.)
Subsequent experiments show all sorts of extreme complications in trying to define "male" and "female" brains. To give one example of many (and bearing in mind almost no scientific papers should be considered the final word), try the one below as it's a relatively well known one. The long and short of it is, as I said, that I just don't think we know anything like enough to make firm conclusions.
Sex beyond the genitalia: The human brain mosaic
Sex/gender differences in the brain are of high social interest because their presence is typically assumed to prove that humans belong to two distinct categories not only in terms of their genitalia, and thus justify differential treatment of males and females. Here we show that, although there...www.pnas.org
Hope this helps.
I just wanted to clarify for the sake of getting the record straight. I was pretty plugged into the right-wing podcast scene in 2014-2017 and a lot of people where propagating the Pizzagate "idea." And I remember thinking at the time "This is going to blow up in your faces like the Satanic daycare abuses, isn't it?"
I mean, a certificate would be somewhat patronising. But there's already a process in place for applying for a change of legal gender in most Western countries.
