Author Topic: Gender Culture  (Read 56152 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12477
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1395 on: November 04, 2019, 07:19:09 pm »
Is that how we design policy?  By focusing on what could go right and ignoring what could go wrong?    The mainstream thought in gun control debates is now apparently that we need to take handguns away from hundreds of thousands of responsible gun owners because a few dozen young men in Toronto won't stop shooting each other.

That's a pretty bad analogy.  No we don't ignore what could go wrong, but that's not what this ostensibly public discussion was about.  There was no discussion of what transgender rights were about here, it was just an entertainment for people like me.

Quote
Our gun laws go to considerable effort to try to ensure that people who might be mentally unstable or criminally inclined can't get a firearms license.   You mention ****... organizations that place young people in the care of adults, like Boy Scouts and foster child placement and school boards, try to make sure that the adults are trustworthy. Policies in those two areas, and many others, spend a lot of time considering what could go wrong and trying to figure out

Since I don't advocating ignoring what could go 'wrong' then I'll skip by that.

Quote
In the case of enshrining gender self-ID into Canadian law, no thought seems to have been given to what could go wrong. Perhaps Jordan Peterson deserves a hearty ****-you for that, for making the public debate around C-16 focus on fake pronouns rather than serious efforts to discuss the potential ramifications of the bill.  But regardless of why there was so little serious discussion of C-16, nobody seems to have paid much attention to voices like Murphy, who were trying to point out the ramifications for women and girls.

Well, yes Peterson initially had some serious qualms about the debate but not about that part.

Quote

Okay, that's good.  Coverage of the ruling seems to be giving people the impression that Yaniv only lost because of the racism aspect of this.

I'm a good bellweather of the public perception on this, because I only 1/2 pay attention.  I remember 3 things: racism, online harassment, and the fact that they weren't trained to remove hair from male genitalia.

Quote
I don't think "we" are "working through these things".   I think that women have been told what is expected of them, and that anybody who objects is branded as a heretic of some kind.  "Working through these things" would imply that there is some sort of dialogue going on.

Aren't we having a dialogue ?  There's a lot of cis white male outrage coming out of this... that's feedback if not outright dialogue.  The Murphy talk was dialogue... the Peterson discussion...

Quote
You're willing to listen to 42 minutes of Canadaland podcast explaining why Meghan Murphy is a terrible person, but you can't spend 27 minutes to listen to what Murphy herself says?  That says a lot.

I listen to Canadaland anyway.  That just happened to be the topic.  I am still planning to listen to this, don't worry.   

Quote
I won't criticize you for being a man and expressing an opinion.  But it doesn't seem to me like you've made much effort to learn about other aspects of this issue, especially ones that challenge your cheerful preconceptions.

Mostly because I'm not a stakeholder in any of this.  People actually tell me to stay out of topics like abortion, for example, because it's a woman's issue.  I don't fully recall but I was drawn into this because of the media aspect - which makes sense as Canadaland is a media show.  There are lots of topics I don't fully immerse myself in, believe it or not.

Quote
That cuts both ways, though.  Okay, the right-wing is willing to listen to feminists when it comes to criticisms of the impact of gender ideology and trans activism on women.  But how come progressives are completely deaf when feminists talk about these things?

I have been following the debate, so I'm not deaf.  I haven't heard your side defended, so much.  Again, maybe if I were a woman people would ask me to join the discussion and I would find out. 

Quote
Your podcast expert got it wrong.

Also, I wasn't able to find that episode of your podcast, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that they can't actually cite any specific instance of Murphy actually saying anything discriminatory beyond her opinions regarding the need for sex-specific protections for biologically female human beings.  Much like how the "hate speech" she's accused of is just saying that male people aren't women. 

Firstly, the library doesn't outlaw 'hate speech' it outlaws 'discrimination'.  I heard the interview and I couldn't figure out why she kept saying hate speech when that's not what the policy is. Saying a trans woman is not a woman seems to me would violate the C-16 provision and therefore would qualify as discrimination.  I can say this whether or not I agree with the TPL's policy...   The Canadaland episode is here, I think.  I'm not sure why it's so hard to find episodes after August - https://www.canadalandshow.com/podcast/short-cuts-234-the-cbcs-very-dumb-lawsuit/

The host is against the library denying free speech, but the guest supports the library.