zlacker

[return to "A Letter on Justice and Open Debate"]
1. anonms+Ip[view] [source] 2020-07-07 16:33:29
>>tosh+(OP)
I think this is very important.

Mob justice over what people said years ago is very dangerous. And due to the global nature of the internet, it is very hard to get the mob off your back. It seems many students have been denied their college admissions due to stuff they tweeted as a teenager. It seems in the modern world felons deserve redemption, but bad tweeters do not. Not to mention that cancelling people over what they said in the past is so stupid, that if applied consistently, will lead to funny scenarios. For example, if teenagers should be punished for their past tweets, why shouldn't be Joe Biden for saying on the record that he doesn't support same.sex marriage in the 2008 VP debates. This is not even counting what opinions biden held in the 20th century.

It seems that we have come to a point where you simply can't speak on certain topics, neither in the affirmative nor in the negative, and so most people end up saying what will keep the mob at bay. Case in point, all the people attacking JK Rowling do not want to say that any man who self ids as a woman should have access to women's private spaces.

◧◩
2. steffa+Vq[view] [source] 2020-07-07 16:40:26
>>anonms+Ip
> It seems many students have been denied their college admissions due to stuff they tweeted as a teenager.

How many of them have still been denied after showing genuine remorse for their views? Nobody is owed a college admission.

> all the people attacking JK Rowling do not want to say that any man who self ids as a woman should have access to women's private spaces

Nobody's saying that men who falsely claim to be women should have access to women's spaces.

◧◩◪
3. lliama+gt[view] [source] 2020-07-07 16:51:14
>>steffa+Vq
> Nobody's saying that men who falsely claim to be women should have access to women's spaces.

What are they saying?

◧◩◪◨
4. Pulcin+Yv[view] [source] 2020-07-07 17:02:30
>>lliama+gt
That trans women are women.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. lliama+ZC[view] [source] 2020-07-07 17:32:30
>>Pulcin+Yv
In what sense? That is, in terms of their gender, or their sex, or both?
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. joshua+XR[view] [source] 2020-07-07 18:45:47
>>lliama+ZC
"Women" is not a sex.

You don't see people saying "trans women are biologically female" for a reason.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. newen+5Y[view] [source] 2020-07-07 19:21:48
>>joshua+XR
Things are getting just a little bit ridiculous in America when you have people saying "women" is not a sex.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. joshua+iY[view] [source] 2020-07-07 19:23:54
>>newen+5Y
Not at all. It's a gender.

Can you elaborate on what makes that statement so ridiculous on it's face?

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. cfmcdo+Qd1[view] [source] 2020-07-07 20:57:22
>>joshua+iY
If you check a dictionary, the top definition for "woman" is typically something like "an adult female person" or "an adult female human." So the claim that woman/man is a totally different thing from male/female is pretty novel.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
10. joshua+Pf1[view] [source] 2020-07-07 21:10:27
>>cfmcdo+Qd1
Indeed, I bring this up elsewhere, but there's been a lot of overlap of the medical and the social throughout history. That's changed recently. I don't see how that makes things "ridiculous" to quote GP.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧
11. lliama+fG1[view] [source] 2020-07-08 00:16:21
>>joshua+Pf1
How widespread are those changes though?

The Wikipedia article on Sex Differences in Humans uses the terms man/woman and male/female interchangeably[1]. What little I've seen of the scientific literature follows this convention as well.

It's my experience that, across a broad swath of American society, that many people follow the old convention as well.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans

[go to top]