Post by toomanyhatz on Aug 3, 2022 21:42:06 GMT
OK, so in between the back-slapping, dick-swinging, and jabs, Goat Boy brought up some things worthy of discussion. I do think this is something we can have a nuanced conversation about. I hope I'm not being naïve. Anyway:
Maher’s logic around the number of kids simply being labelled “trans” (his basic point is that it might just be a social contagion)
Yes, it is absolutely a social...let's use the word 'phenomenon' or maybe 'trend'. Contagion is a matter of opinion, but it is mine that it is no more so than drug use in the 60s, leisure wear in the 80s or hip-hop culture for the last quarter-century at least. And I am absolutely convinced that the amount of gay kids, trans kids, 'furries', or whatever 'outside the norm' classifications there are out there that I'm unaware of, has remained remarkably static throughout history. Point to any time in our shared human history and I'm not convinced there's much variance. Has there been variance in ways our particular societies have handled things? Of course. Due to an almost limitless amount of natural and unnatural factors.
Has there been harm done? Absolutely. Have there been success stories? Absolutely. I would say that there is what there always is, which is a series of individual stories, some positive, some negative, some a combination thereof.
Now that there might be a few - or even many - individual cases of people acting appallingly and endangering others, whether in the interest of greed, ego, desire to 'stick it to' some invisible enemy, or a multitude of reasons. What I don't think it is, is 100% (or even 1%) due to 'wokeness.'
So how does society cope with it? Don't know about you, but I can't think of a single event in history that everyone got 100% right or 100% wrong. They debate, regulate, argue, sometimes go to war, and hopefully eventually settle on what benefits the most people. A number I put at somewhere near 30% will decide on their un-nuanced view and be completely un-movable and do what they perceive as being best for them personally.
The sporting examples are a similar variety. As many female athletes have pointed out, yes, dominance by birth males is a potential issue that should be dealt with, but is likely a lower-level priority than promoting women's sports in general. But do I agree that the governing bodies should consider the physical realities above social trends or 'norms?' I'll give that one a hearty 'yes.' But a biking community that is dedicated toward inclusion rather than competition? I don't have a problem with them making their own rules.
Maher’s logic around the number of kids simply being labelled “trans” (his basic point is that it might just be a social contagion)
Yes, it is absolutely a social...let's use the word 'phenomenon' or maybe 'trend'. Contagion is a matter of opinion, but it is mine that it is no more so than drug use in the 60s, leisure wear in the 80s or hip-hop culture for the last quarter-century at least. And I am absolutely convinced that the amount of gay kids, trans kids, 'furries', or whatever 'outside the norm' classifications there are out there that I'm unaware of, has remained remarkably static throughout history. Point to any time in our shared human history and I'm not convinced there's much variance. Has there been variance in ways our particular societies have handled things? Of course. Due to an almost limitless amount of natural and unnatural factors.
Has there been harm done? Absolutely. Have there been success stories? Absolutely. I would say that there is what there always is, which is a series of individual stories, some positive, some negative, some a combination thereof.
Now that there might be a few - or even many - individual cases of people acting appallingly and endangering others, whether in the interest of greed, ego, desire to 'stick it to' some invisible enemy, or a multitude of reasons. What I don't think it is, is 100% (or even 1%) due to 'wokeness.'
So how does society cope with it? Don't know about you, but I can't think of a single event in history that everyone got 100% right or 100% wrong. They debate, regulate, argue, sometimes go to war, and hopefully eventually settle on what benefits the most people. A number I put at somewhere near 30% will decide on their un-nuanced view and be completely un-movable and do what they perceive as being best for them personally.
The sporting examples are a similar variety. As many female athletes have pointed out, yes, dominance by birth males is a potential issue that should be dealt with, but is likely a lower-level priority than promoting women's sports in general. But do I agree that the governing bodies should consider the physical realities above social trends or 'norms?' I'll give that one a hearty 'yes.' But a biking community that is dedicated toward inclusion rather than competition? I don't have a problem with them making their own rules.