He’s not against the use of inclusive language, rather he’s against compelled speech. There’s no law ordering us all to use he/she/it or else but when the matter becomes “inclusive” then it is basically mandated or face consequences and somehow people are okay with that? Insane.
Firstly, that was not what I was referring to, when I mentioned that he’s against inclusive language. I was referring to inclusive and accurate language in medical settings.
But secondly, nobody is compelling speech. Not any more than anyone is compelled to refer to someone by their name. You can call anybody anything you like. Other people might just think you’re being an asshole, if you choose to refer to someone in deliberately disrespectful ways.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of that speech.
Doctors have to 100% respect their patient’s wishes but treatment has to be delivered in a biological sense. There’s no good reason to not point out to a patient that this or that treatment is the best course of action based on their biological make up, even if that may hurt or even offend some people. There’s no way a patient could make informed decisions about their own health otherwise. If the doctors don’t do that then they become liable for the wrong diagnoses or treatments they prescribe.
I mostly agree with the second half of your comment though. What I disagree is that people seem to be very quick to stereotype anything that doesn’t fit the narrative as supremacist and the likes. That’s not constructive at all to say the least. If we want change we need to promote change in a good and positive sense because otherwise will mean shutting that communication’s door with a lot of people.
I’ve heard something that made sense and went like: “I’ve never seen a racist person stop being racist for being called a racist”. Yes real racists must be punished for doing what they do but we can’t generalise and call everybody a racist for things they’re mostly ignorant about. They need to be informed and invited to follow a better path.
Doctors have to 100% respect their patient’s wishes but treatment has to be delivered in a biological sense. There’s no good reason to not point out to a patient that this or that treatment is the best course of action based on their biological make up, even if that may hurt or even offend some people. There’s no way a patient could make informed decisions about their own health otherwise. If the doctors don’t do that then they become liable for the wrong diagnoses or treatments they prescribe.
You do not know what I am talking about. Please stop making wild assumptions about what I mean. You are making up nonsense narratives to argue against.
Nobody is saying doctors shouldn’t treat people in line with their current biology. Which by the way, for trans people is more complicated than just treatment based on sex at birth.
Trans people want inclusive and accurate terminology to be used. Talking about prostate cancer? Refer to “people with prostates”. That is accurate and inclusive.
People like Sam Harris say we shouldn’t do that, and only ever say “men” or “women” even if that is both less accurate and invalidating towards trans people.
The rest of your comment has little to do with what I said before. So I’m not going to go chasing after it. I give people the benefit of the doubt, but I’m also not going to waste time trying to convince a person who doesn’t want to be convinced to be less bigoted. Convincing the racist to be less racist often isn’t the goal.
Virulent? She’s got the most basic opinions of your average American moderate. You don’t know what virulent looks like, and if you want to know just browse ovarit for a bit.
The average US moderate does not give a toss about transgender people. Meanwhile JK Rowling has made ranting about this tiny minority a huge part of her personal brand. She tweets constantly about transgender people. So the idea that her opinions are that of an average US moderate are laughable, to say the least.
JKR thinks she’s fighting Death Eaters, fictionalised fascists, for goodness sakes.
And JKR regularly moves to support people like Kellie-Jay Keen, who straight up says the more extreme parts out loud. For example Keen suggests that US men should use women’s toilets and threaten any women they think might be trans with a gun. JKR has gone so far as to offer monetary support for Keen, so she can file SLAP suits against people criticising her online.
He’s also transphobic. The age of assholes includes Sam Harris.
deleted by creator
I mean he’s defended JK Rowling, and argues that we shouldn’t use inclusive language. So yeah, he’s a transphobe.
And sure if you deliberately both-sides every argument, you can pretend there’s nothing useful being said, and ignore both! Very convenient that!
He’s not against the use of inclusive language, rather he’s against compelled speech. There’s no law ordering us all to use he/she/it or else but when the matter becomes “inclusive” then it is basically mandated or face consequences and somehow people are okay with that? Insane.
Firstly, that was not what I was referring to, when I mentioned that he’s against inclusive language. I was referring to inclusive and accurate language in medical settings.
But secondly, nobody is compelling speech. Not any more than anyone is compelled to refer to someone by their name. You can call anybody anything you like. Other people might just think you’re being an asshole, if you choose to refer to someone in deliberately disrespectful ways.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of that speech.
Doctors have to 100% respect their patient’s wishes but treatment has to be delivered in a biological sense. There’s no good reason to not point out to a patient that this or that treatment is the best course of action based on their biological make up, even if that may hurt or even offend some people. There’s no way a patient could make informed decisions about their own health otherwise. If the doctors don’t do that then they become liable for the wrong diagnoses or treatments they prescribe.
I mostly agree with the second half of your comment though. What I disagree is that people seem to be very quick to stereotype anything that doesn’t fit the narrative as supremacist and the likes. That’s not constructive at all to say the least. If we want change we need to promote change in a good and positive sense because otherwise will mean shutting that communication’s door with a lot of people.
I’ve heard something that made sense and went like: “I’ve never seen a racist person stop being racist for being called a racist”. Yes real racists must be punished for doing what they do but we can’t generalise and call everybody a racist for things they’re mostly ignorant about. They need to be informed and invited to follow a better path.
You do not know what I am talking about. Please stop making wild assumptions about what I mean. You are making up nonsense narratives to argue against.
Nobody is saying doctors shouldn’t treat people in line with their current biology. Which by the way, for trans people is more complicated than just treatment based on sex at birth.
Trans people want inclusive and accurate terminology to be used. Talking about prostate cancer? Refer to “people with prostates”. That is accurate and inclusive.
People like Sam Harris say we shouldn’t do that, and only ever say “men” or “women” even if that is both less accurate and invalidating towards trans people.
The rest of your comment has little to do with what I said before. So I’m not going to go chasing after it. I give people the benefit of the doubt, but I’m also not going to waste time trying to convince a person who doesn’t want to be convinced to be less bigoted. Convincing the racist to be less racist often isn’t the goal.
deleted by creator
If one is defending her, rather virulent, transphobia, I’d argue it does constitute “doing a transphobia” actually.
Virulent? She’s got the most basic opinions of your average American moderate. You don’t know what virulent looks like, and if you want to know just browse ovarit for a bit.
The average US moderate does not give a toss about transgender people. Meanwhile JK Rowling has made ranting about this tiny minority a huge part of her personal brand. She tweets constantly about transgender people. So the idea that her opinions are that of an average US moderate are laughable, to say the least.
JKR thinks she’s fighting Death Eaters, fictionalised fascists, for goodness sakes.
And JKR regularly moves to support people like Kellie-Jay Keen, who straight up says the more extreme parts out loud. For example Keen suggests that US men should use women’s toilets and threaten any women they think might be trans with a gun. JKR has gone so far as to offer monetary support for Keen, so she can file SLAP suits against people criticising her online.
So yes. Virulent.
deleted by creator
No, no we definitely know. If you defend unrepentant transphobes you yourself are a transphobe and should go fuck yourself.
deleted by creator
You can be Marsha P. Johnson and it would still be transphobic if you publicly defend transphobes, not that they would have done that.
It’s not about who you are, it’s about what you do.
Izzard who is, famously, not trans.
deleted by creator
“hey peeps, homophobe here!” Such hypocrites not even noticing.
deleted by creator
Well, the important thing is that you have learned how to ignore that particular bigotry entirely. Well done!
deleted by creator