Is There Such a Thing as Too Different?

[henry quirk]

Cool. So in no way are you asserting that Josephine is actually wrong or mistaken. You are instead assenting that everybody makes up their own mind and as such there is no right or wrong to the matter. I feel like you didn't approve when I asserted something similar, but perhaps my feeble memory is to blame.

No, no, no: Joe is wrong and deluded. He's ill. But thatt's his business. He makes it my business when he demands I accept him as her, which I won't do cuz he is not she.

An example: I see Joe all gussied in his Josephine get up. we may be shoppin' in the same store or standin' next to each other in the same movie line. I note his lunacy to myself, and go about my business. I got no obligation, as I reckon things, to confront Joe on this, or any other, matter. My mindin' my own business is not acceptance of Joe's delusion, it's just me, mindin' my own business.

So the content of Joe's mind is not proper? Joe's mind contains a wrong idea about Joe's gender identitiy.

Joe is a sick puppy.

Again: Joe can pretend to be a girl, may actually believe he's a girl, but he is not, and never will be, a girl.

Not my business, till he makes it mine.

To be as clear as possible...

If you take it upon yourself to decide that they have no right to that certainty,

Joe has the right to decide anything for himself and to be be as certain as he likes, about anything. And he has the right to be as wrong as he likes. He doesn't however, have the right to decide for me.

you are assuming a right of your own to decide the proper contents of somebody else's mind.

No. I advocate no solutions for Joe, or about Joe: I, like him, merely claim ownership of my own thinkin'.

-----

Sumthin' to nosh on...

https://quillette.com/2020/02/02/i-may- ... t-fantasy/

[FlashDangerpants]

Ok, so let's rephrase then...

When somebody is certain in themselves that they do not belong to their biological gender, if you take it upon yourself to decide that their certainty is invalidated by your certainty, you are assuming a right of your own to decide the validity of the contents of somebody else's mind. You, Mannie, Daschund, Henry, and all the other reactionaries really haven't thought the implications of that through. You for instance are now just wrong to be a depressive, you should just cheer up, stop being whiny, worse things happen to other people every day. Do you enjoy it when people cast that sort of thing at you? Does it help in any way?

Now if you are willing to accept that Joesephine's belief about Joesephine's own internal nature is priviliged, private and beyond your interrogation, then that is cool. You just have to accept that your own thing isn't True according to the Universe, it's just the opinion of some guy who cannot possibly have access to all the facts. What does all your blather about self-ownership really amount to if this is a point beyond which you cannot travel?

[henry quirk]

Let me get this straight: If I merely think the other guy is wrong, then I'm wrong.

That's what you're sayin', yeah?

[FlashDangerpants]

Let me get this straight: If I merely think the other guy is wrong, then I'm wrong.

That's what you're sayin', yeah?

No. Some guys think they are Napoleon, loads of them in fact. Only one has ever been right. Some mad bastard probably believes he is an apple or a wolf or something, these are beliefs that can definitely be challenged also.

But you have a certain set of beliefs about your identity, beliefs in fact is too shallow aword. You have certainty that you are <inser name here> and that you are <gender> and that you believe in <Crom> and so on. You wouldn't take too kindly to me saying for instance that you aren't so much a libertarian as a conformist with pretensions. There's stuff that you can know about the contents of your mind that I would be entirely presumptious to assume I knew better than you.

That Josephine person knows what men and women are, but still has a certainty that her external appearance belies an internal reality which is at odds with it. If Josephine has the self-ownership thing, and if that involves private privileged knowledge of one's internal workings, there's no valid way to override such self-knowledge. Your own self-knowledge is formed without any tension between the gender you know yourself to be, and that which matches the typical gential format, hair arrangements, and sweaty parts usually associated with that sex. So neither you nor I can have the slightest idea what it is like to know differently.

[henry quirk]

"there's no valid way to override such self-knowledge."

Joe can pretend to be a girl...ain't no skin offa my node.

Joe may actually believe he's a girl...ain't no skin offa my nose.

But: if Joe demands I participate in or validate what I, with good reason, see as a delusion, then we got a got a problem, cuz Joe is not, and never will be, a girl.

Me, I don't care if Joe thinks he's a girl, a platypus, or Zothon, King of the Chicken People; I don't care if he thinks fire freezes, water burns, grass is made of glass, or the moon is made of cork.

What I won't do is participate in his self-deceptions and delusions.

I'm not over-riddin' him, I'm disagreein' with him.

[Gary Childress]

Is that the issue? Do we want people teaching our children who are merely "not harming" in a way we can readily identify? Or do we want excellent, well-adjusted teachers, the best people, to teach our children? In many locales, teachers are held to a much higher standard than ordinary individuals, due to the important and sensitive nature of what they do. A special code of ethics guides their profession, putting obligations on them much higher than on other people. But perhaps not everywhere.

As it is, children are developing individuals. One aspect of their development is sexual, and another is in relation to their gender. Normal development is what we should expect of all the models we are giving them. And someone who is dysphoric has lost control of that aspect of his life, and is no longer representative of a well-adjusted individual. I suggest he's not suitable for a career in nurturing vulnerable children. I wouldn't want him around kids, any more than I'd want any mentally ill person having access to them.

I think children are too important for us to be lax about that, and higher standards are warranted. They guy should find another job, until he's addressed his problem.

That seems like a fair point. Positive role models are a good thing I suppose. But what if a transsexual teacher were some sort of genius like Alan Turing, for example. Turing was, of course, persecuted by the British government after the war for being gay. He killed himself as a result and Britain probably lost one of their brightest stars who probably would have gone on to do more great things.

I don't know if it is true of the teacher in question, however, if a transgender teacher is exceptionally good at teaching, then wouldn't it be a tragedy to keep him/her away from a profession that always has a demand for talented teachers? Conversely, suppose a person was just the most upstanding person in the world, a real saint, but didn't know the first thing about teaching, Should we just drop people like that in the classrooms so that kids can look at them and want to emulate them but the kids come out of the class ignorant and uneducated?

I'm guessing one answer would be that we should want teachers that exemplify both attributes; positive role model and good at teaching, however, schools right now seem to be more beggars than choosers. Teaching is an often thankless job and a lot of people would rather do something else less stressful and better paying.

What rolemodel could be more positive than somebody who has faced difficulty in their life and overcome it by remaining true to themselves rather than being beaten down by a series of judgmental little men like you and Mannie?

That's a good point. I don't see any more valid reasons to deny him a teaching position. It sounds to me like it's perfectly OK for him or her to teach.

As I say it's just kind of odd these days what we all have to go through to accommodate people. I generally don't believe people should accommodate me by validating my beliefs when I'm delusional. That's why I take meds. When I was last hospitalized against my will (Baker acted) I told them I didn't want to be medicated and they (a group of 4 strong people) basically cornered me in a room and told me I either cooperate or they were going to forcibly pin me down and give me a shot. I asked them if I had my rights to refuse, they said, "no".

I don't think I would be allowed to teach while I'm in a delusional state and I understand and accept that. But I suppose being transsexual doesn't make one delusional, I guess it just means someone "Identifies" with or feels like they are a different sex than what they were born with and the person does that consciously and all other mental faculties are intact. I suppose that is different from me if I stood up at work and said, "I identify as the CEO of this company," when I'm not. I suppose something like gender dysphoria can be accommodated. But I don't think they should get upset if people accidentally forget to call them by the wrong pronoun, especially if s/he were to dress and act like a male.

[henry quirk]

Okay, I'm on a more user friendly machine, so let me tackle sumthin'...

Some guys think they are Napoleon, loads of them in fact. Only one has ever been right. Some mad bastard probably believes he is an apple or a wolf or something, these are beliefs that can definitely be challenged also.

How is it permissible to challenge a deluded guy who thinks he's a dead Frenchman but not permissible to challenge a deluded guy who thinks he's a girl? Seems to me, the evidence that Joe is not a girl is as strong, or more so, than the evidence Stan is not Napoleon.

#

You wouldn't take too kindly to me saying for instance that you aren't so much a libertarian as a conformist with pretensions.

I would certainly ask how you arrived at such a conclusion. I would challenge your evidence if you had any. Would I seek legislation demanding you assess me as I assess me? No. Would I demand your profession be ended cuz you see me differently than i see myself? No.

[Gary Childress]

Would I demand your profession be ended cuz you see me differently than i see myself? No.

Is it "libertarian" to deny a transsexual a teaching position, though, so long as they can coherently teach the material? Maybe I'm wrong, but at first glance, it seems to me that a "libertarian" would or should be pretty easy going with something like that. No?

[FlashDangerpants]

Okay, I'm on a more user friendly machine, so let me tackle sumthin'...

Some guys think they are Napoleon, loads of them in fact. Only one has ever been right. Some mad bastard probably believes he is an apple or a wolf or something, these are beliefs that can definitely be challenged also.

How is it permissible to challenge a deluded guy who thinks he's a dead Frenchman but not permissible to challenge a deluded guy who thinks he's a girl? Seems to me, the evidence that Joe is not a girl is as strong, or more so, than the evidence Stan is not Napoleon.

That was why I included that Josephine knows what men and women are. If Joe physically has a dick but insists you insert your dick into his vagina, then Joe doesn't know what men and women are, or at least not some of the important parts. If Josephine however is well aware that she has the hairy man boobs of a man on the outside, then it is false equivalence to compare her to some guy who doesn't know that he isn't made of fruit or is not the emperor of France.

You wouldn't take too kindly to me saying for instance that you aren't so much a libertarian as a conformist with pretensions.

I would certainly ask how you arrived at such a conclusion. I would challenge your evidence if you had any. Would I seek legislation demanding you assess me as I assess me? No. Would I demand your profession be ended cuz you see me differently than i see myself? No.

But you see, if you get to do gatekeeping over who can know they are male and who can know they are female (on the inside), you are setting the terms for the facts of somebody else's being. Perhaps you got that agenda from some folk knowledge of what is right and wrong here, or some gut feel, or just the wisdom of the crowd. In any case your, gender conformism is inflexible though and your approach to self-ownership is deeply suspect, and you have asserted, admit it or not, that somebody going against the grain is wrong, otherwise you wouldn't have to make a big deal of tolerating it.

So that's enough, I can just Know that you are a conformist first and are just lipsticking the pig with the talk of libertarianism and self-ownership, it's just the application of your own rules. The great thing is, uncertainty works for me. Maybe you are more libertarian than not, perhaps I judge you too harshly, perhaps there's more than one aspect to being libertarian. This is going to be absolutely fine for me.

None of that legislation says you aren't allowed to see a person as something other than they see themselves. It says you aren't allowed to deny them service or treat them differently because of this disagreement. There might be some reason why legislation protecting minorities from abuses at the hands of majorities has proven necessary in the past.

[henry quirk]

Would I demand your profession be ended cuz you see me differently than i see myself? No.

Is it "libertarian" to deny a transsexual a teaching position, so long as they can coherently teach the material? Maybe I'm wrong, but at first glance, it seems to me that a "libertarian" would or should be pretty easy going with something like that. No?

I can deny a job to anyone and hire anyone, for whatever reasons I suss out. Ain't nuthin' in my libertarianism sez I gotta hire anyone for reasons other than my own. My principles obligate me to leave them be, not cater to them.

I would not hire a bearded man in a dress, no matter how competent he may be. and I would not hire the pretty young competent girl with FUCK YOU tattooed across her forehead, for reasons you, Gary, state up-thread.

[FlashDangerpants]

That's a good point. I don't see any more valid reasons to deny him a teaching position. It sounds to me like it's perfectly OK for him or her to teach.

Indeed, the prurient interests of hedge twitching busybodies isn't really an important metric in deciding who should do what job. Just as those people who want proof the donor is white before they will accept a blood transfusion aren't making a sound choice.

As I say it's just kind of odd these days what we all have to go through to accommodate people.

I would suggest that we start by wondering not whether it makes us feel all weird, but whether we can actually accomodate this person's request. Medical ethics would say no with reference to a patient experiencing a severe breakdown who wants to go unmedicated. But there's just a lot of other ways for people to live their lives than the boring normal way that most of us go about it.

I don't think I would be allowed to teach while I'm in a delusional state and I understand and accept that. But I suppose being transsexual doesn't make one delusional, I guess it just means someone "Identifies" with or feels like they are a different sex than what they were born with and the person does that consciously and all other mental faculties are intact. I suppose that is different from me if I stood up at work and said, "I identify as the CEO of this company," when I'm not. I suppose something like gender dysphoria can be accommodated. But I don't think they should get upset if people accidentally forget to call them by the wrong pronoun, especially if s/he were to dress and act like a male.

You know I really don't think they give a fuck about the occasional squint of confusion while somebody tries to work out what to call them, by now they would be used to that. The thing that seems to piss them off is people making a whole thing about not respecting their self-identity at all. A whole lot of what is being discussed here would make most trannies laugh till the melons fell out of their bras.

[Gary Childress]

Would I demand your profession be ended cuz you see me differently than i see myself? No.

Is it "libertarian" to deny a transsexual a teaching position, so long as they can coherently teach the material? Maybe I'm wrong, but at first glance, it seems to me that a "libertarian" would or should be pretty easy going with something like that. No?

I can deny a job to anyone and hire anyone, for whatever reasons I suss out. Ain't nuthin' in my libertarianism sez I gotta hire anyone for reasons other than my own. My principles obligate me to leave them be, not cater to them.

I would not hire a bearded man in a dress, no matter how competent he may be. and I would not hire the pretty young competent girl with FUCK YOU tattooed across her forehead, for reasons you, Gary, state up-thread.

I guess I was thinking that someone who goes through gender dysphoria is more like a person in a wheelchair who overcomes his or her disability than a girl who arrogantly or foolishly puts "fuck you" on her forehead. I would hire the former but not the latter.

[Gary Childress]

Or perhaps a much better likeness would be that a transsexual person is like a black person who overcomes all the negative stereotypes to have a successful career as opposed to a foolish girl who puts "fuck you" across her forehead and then expects employers to hire her. Again, I would hire the former over the latter.

[henry quirk]

If Josephine however is well aware that she has the hairy man boobs of a man on the outside...

...and still insists he's a girl, then he's deluded.


it is false equivalence to compare her to some guy who doesn't know that he isn't made of fruit or is not the emperor of France.

No, it exactly equivalent: Leo believes he is X when demonstrably he is not X.


But you see, if you get to do gatekeeping over who can know they are male and who can know they are female (on the inside), you are setting the terms for the facts of somebody else's being.

I can only go on what's apparent. A man sex he's a woman. I can see he's a guy. the contents of his head are therefore scrambled.

I'm bald. If I believe I'm fully haired, does that make it so? No. Obviously, there's a disconnect between what I am (bald) and what I assess myself as (haired). Which should you take as reality, flash?

Let's say I wear a rug, or get plugs, and so affect the appearance of being haired. Am I haired, or have merely indulged in cosmetics? Does the appearance of fake hair mean I'm not bald, that I am other than genetically-disposed to baldness?


you have asserted, admit it or not, that somebody going against the grain is wrong, otherwise you wouldn't have to make a big deal of tolerating it.

No, I have asserted that somebody bein' a loon is to be tolerated right up to the point the loon demands you or I agree with his lunacy. You, can, as you like, agree with the loon. I will not.


None of that legislation says you aren't allowed to see a person as something other than they see themselves. It says you aren't allowed to deny them service or treat them differently because of this disagreement. There might be some reason why legislation protecting minorities from abuses at the hands of majorities has proven necessary in the past.

Some of the legislation goin' through in Calif sez if you refer to someone by other than their chosen pronoun you can be fined. So, if Joe, a guy, demands to be called she, the weight of the law is behind him.

In both high school and college, young men, declaring themselves to be women, and only on the basis of that declaration, are horning in to women sports and locker rooms.

Men, declaring themselves women, and based solely on that declaration, are bein' housed in women's jails.


I think you misunderstand my motives in all this. As I say, there's a movement or trend at play. This isn't me bein' a dick, this is me noticin' sumthin' alarming.

-----

I guess I was thinking that someone who goes through gender dysphoria is more like a person in a wheelchair who overcomes his or her disability than a girl who arrogantly or foolishly puts "fuck you" on her forehead. I would hire the former but not the latter.

Interesting to me how gender dysphoria is bein' viewed as sumthin' other than an illness. Flash alludes to minorities, you sympathize with the disability.

[henry quirk]

Has anyone read this?

https://quillette.com/2020/02/02/i-may- ... t-fantasy/