Author Topic: Glinner: thread for backseat moderators and hand-wringing [split topic]  (Read 15668 times)

Re: Glinner: thread for backseat moderators and hand-wringing [split topic]
« Reply #600 on: July 27, 2020, 12:59:57 PM »
Women's clothes already come in midget, giant, and enormously bellied, surely broader than average shoulders would be good for swimmers and stuff. And an increasing number of designers are making gender-neutral clothes. ASOS has a range, although many of them are awful, but that's true of ASOS's other clothes as well.

Just to be clear, I was taking the piss with those questions. But thanks for answering patiently.

Pdine

  • Apparently I'm Jewish
Re: Glinner: thread for backseat moderators and hand-wringing [split topic]
« Reply #601 on: July 30, 2020, 10:21:01 AM »
I think the question that this debate has raised for me is not about trans issues specifically at all. You can maybe state it briefly as:

What should society do if different groups claim rights that - although reasonable in themselves - end up being incompatible?

I think that the history of expanding civil rights has up to now not had too much of a problem with this. Granting the right to whites-only spaces to black people upset racists, but racists' rights to whites-only spaces were never reasonable in the first place. Giving gay people the right to marry upset some who felt that it impinged on or broke 'traditional' concepts of marriage, but in the end those supporters of 'traditional' concepts of marriage couldn't identify any real repercussions beyond uncomfortable feelings. Society found it relatively easy to weigh the rights of fundamentalist B&B owners against gay couple guests. The 'unacceptable cake messages' cases in the EU and US got closer to finding a really intractable conflict, but (a) they concerned a fairly niche right and (b) the outcomes in both cases were (I'd argue) in the end reasonable.

All of these are successful examples of balancing rights I'd say; not perfect, but earnest and labourious attempts to find a societally sanctioned ethical basis for declaring where a line between conflicting rights lies. I don't think, though, that the fact that these examples worked out means that we will always be able to find such a line. Maybe in some cases there is no ethically justifiable line, there's just two groups with two views that in isolation seem fine but in combination cause conflict and upset. What do we do then?

One possibility is arguing that - where no agreed line can be drawn - society's role is to step back and just attend to practical outcomes. We do this with religions, obviously, where society feels no particular need to reconcile conflicting supernatural beliefs because in practice they don't usually result in conflicts. Catholics and Protestants believe different things about the physical process of communion/transubstantiation, but as it happens (or doesn't) in the privacy of people's throats, there's not much scope for practical contention. By this view society should step in either (a) where there is an ethically justifiable line to be drawn or, if there isn't then (b) where conflicts of rights result in actual harm. I think I agree with that view, but I'd be interested to hear other views. Should society always try to make a ruling once there's a public conflict occurring? Should society never try to make a ruling, and just devote energy to stopping people actually hurting each other?

Re: Glinner: thread for backseat moderators and hand-wringing [split topic]
« Reply #602 on: July 30, 2020, 10:28:32 AM »
law and legislation should go for the least-harm approach.

Pdine

  • Apparently I'm Jewish
Re: Glinner: thread for backseat moderators and hand-wringing [split topic]
« Reply #603 on: July 30, 2020, 10:32:41 AM »
law and legislation should go for the least-harm approach.

Sure, but should they also try - where possible - to make a general declaration about which outcome of the conflict is least harmful? Trying to rule case-by-case on cake messaging is going to get hard quickly...

Re: Glinner: thread for backseat moderators and hand-wringing [split topic]
« Reply #604 on: July 30, 2020, 10:33:42 AM »
Sure, but should they also try - where possible - to make a general declaration about which outcome of the conflict is least harmful? Trying to rule case-by-case on cake messaging is going to get hard quickly...

If it's evidence-based rather than based off gut instincts or casual bigotry, then yes of course.

GoblinAhFuckScary

  • Feeble birds fly out gob
Re: Glinner: thread for backseat moderators and hand-wringing [split topic]
« Reply #605 on: July 30, 2020, 10:36:50 AM »
I think that the history of expanding civil rights has up to now not had too much of a problem with this.

See: Gay rights

Not seeing your point as much more than semantics how this specific emancipation movement is so unique.

Pdine

  • Apparently I'm Jewish
Re: Glinner: thread for backseat moderators and hand-wringing [split topic]
« Reply #606 on: July 30, 2020, 10:41:13 AM »
If it's evidence-based rather than based off gut instincts or casual bigotry, then yes of course.

Yes absolutely... I'm just struck by how in some cases the evidence seems bluntly obvious - as with desegregation - whereas with others it becomes a more 'legislate and observe' strategy. I suppose my point is that not every kind of conflict can be resolved cleanly, obviously and without need for ongoing monitoring.

Pdine

  • Apparently I'm Jewish
Re: Glinner: thread for backseat moderators and hand-wringing [split topic]
« Reply #607 on: July 30, 2020, 10:43:11 AM »
See: Gay rights

Not seeing your point as much more than semantics how this specific emancipation movement is so unique.

I don't think it is unique, but I think it's harder to do right. I also think we will encounter more examples in future that are hard, because they will also involve conflicts that need deep thought and real, unbiased measuring of outcomes. Maybe the easier battles have been won already?

Re: Glinner: thread for backseat moderators and hand-wringing [split topic]
« Reply #608 on: July 30, 2020, 11:13:16 AM »
I don't think there's anything new or difficult raised by trans people. For a long time there have been issues such as whether the Roman Catholic church, conservative Jewry, golf clubs, and freemasons should be forced to give women, gays, trans people, Irish, Jews, blacks, and other groups equal rights, but the consensus seems to be that public services must be for everyone but you let the nutters do what they want as long as it's in private and they're not actively inciting hate.

Re: Glinner: thread for backseat moderators and hand-wringing [split topic]
« Reply #609 on: July 30, 2020, 11:32:45 AM »
I would think a more tricky balancing act that you couldn't defer to 'experts' or 'whatever produces the least harm' would be intentional race segregation. For instance, the Bahar Mustafa controversy from a few years ago, but writ large. It's one thing to host an event that is targeted towards women or ethnic minorities, and it's an arguably trickier proposal to host an event that white people or men are forbidden from attending. You'll be hard-pressed to convince people that it's okay to prevent people from accessing public or private spaces based on their gender or race, because they're part of the 'oppressor class'. Bahar Mustafa also compounded the problem by saying things like #killallmen - and if you're doing that in combination with throwing events they're forbidden from accessing, it's hard to say 'I'm only joking about kill all men, and anyway this is not really sexist because of issues of power and privilege and it's something that I should be allowed to do.'

I kinda think that this whole 'all white people and men are awful, and it is fine for me to say this' political movement died a death anyway a few years ago but I wouldn't be surprised to see it re-emerge.

When Bahar Mustafa happened, I was not very sympathetic, and I think things like that could've been used to subsume me into the alt-right. As it happens, it was a big hullaballoo about nothing and I can't believe I even cared about it.

Other things that I don't think should be a challenge but I can imagine getting a lot of societal pushback include:

  • Gender segregation in religious facilities
  • Ritual circumcision of infants

nothing to do with Glinner though

chveik

  • I feel like swimmin' in rat piss
Re: Glinner: thread for backseat moderators and hand-wringing [split topic]
« Reply #610 on: July 30, 2020, 11:37:50 AM »
I think the question that this debate has raised for me is not about trans issues specifically at all. You can maybe state it briefly as:

What should society do if different groups claim rights that - although reasonable in themselves - end up being incompatible?

hmm. this might look like you're implying that terfs are actually reasonable.

Pdine

  • Apparently I'm Jewish
Re: Glinner: thread for backseat moderators and hand-wringing [split topic]
« Reply #611 on: July 30, 2020, 11:50:19 AM »
I don't think there's anything new or difficult raised by trans people. For a long time there have been issues such as whether the Roman Catholic church, conservative Jewry, golf clubs, and freemasons should be forced to give women, gays, trans people, Irish, Jews, blacks, and other groups equal rights, but the consensus seems to be that public services must be for everyone but you let the nutters do what they want as long as it's in private and they're not actively inciting hate.

What I struggle with, though, is whether it will always, necessarily, be easy to steer that course (or to put it another way whether we will always be able to build a consensus provided people behave reasonably)? I'd like to think yes, but I can't see any particular reason why that should be true.

I would think a more tricky balancing act that you couldn't defer to 'experts' or 'whatever produces the least harm' would be intentional race segregation. For instance, the Bahar Mustafa controversy from a few years ago, but writ large. It's one thing to host an event that is targeted towards women or ethnic minorities, and it's an arguably trickier proposal to host an event that white people or men are forbidden from attending. You'll be hard-pressed to convince people that it's okay to prevent people from accessing public or private spaces based on their gender or race, because they're part of the 'oppressor class'. Bahar Mustafa also compounded the problem by saying things like #killallmen - and if you're doing that in combination with throwing events they're forbidden from accessing, it's hard to say 'I'm only joking about kill all men, and anyway this is not really sexist because of issues of power and privilege and it's something that I should be allowed to do.'

I kinda think that this whole 'all white people and men are awful, and it is fine for me to say this' political movement died a death anyway a few years ago but I wouldn't be surprised to see it re-emerge.

When Bahar Mustafa happened, I was not very sympathetic, and I think things like that could've been used to subsume me into the alt-right. As it happens, it was a big hullaballoo about nothing and I can't believe I even cared about it.

Other things that I don't think should be a challenge but I can imagine getting a lot of societal pushback include:

  • Gender segregation in religious facilities
  • Ritual circumcision of infants

nothing to do with Glinner though

Thanks for that, and yes it's an interesting example because it's a conflict that - as you say - could have been more divisive and important if it hadn't just fizzled. I do think that this question is relevant to the Glinner thing, but only because an appreciation of how complex this kind of thing can be should make it easier to not get enormously angry with people who disagree with one about rights.

Endicott

  • I've done no research
Re: Glinner: thread for backseat moderators and hand-wringing [split topic]
« Reply #612 on: July 30, 2020, 02:08:52 PM »
hmm. this might look like you're implying that terfs are actually reasonable.

Yes, this. Summed up far better that I could. All the conflicts are strawmen.

Re: Glinner: thread for backseat moderators and hand-wringing [split topic]
« Reply #613 on: July 30, 2020, 02:23:44 PM »
Can't believe there's a Glinner red button!

Pdine

  • Apparently I'm Jewish
Re: Glinner: thread for backseat moderators and hand-wringing [split topic]
« Reply #614 on: July 30, 2020, 02:28:59 PM »
Yes, this. Summed up far better that I could. All the conflicts are strawmen.

Why do you say that?

GoblinAhFuckScary

  • Feeble birds fly out gob
Re: Glinner: thread for backseat moderators and hand-wringing [split topic]
« Reply #615 on: July 30, 2020, 03:00:45 PM »
I think this argument stems from the assertion that there are no reasonable grounds for differentiating between trans women and women. This implies that sexual dimorphism isn't a reasonable ground for such a distinction. I agree it's a reach to then argue that this implies that sexual dimorphism is irrelevant in all cases, but I think that's where that view starts.

Going in circles pal

Pdine

  • Apparently I'm Jewish
Re: Glinner: thread for backseat moderators and hand-wringing [split topic]
« Reply #616 on: July 30, 2020, 03:05:58 PM »
Going in circles pal

I think you're taking something from that I didn't intend, which is my fault as reading it back it is very unclear :)

PlanktonSideburns

  • and now the dream is over: the pingu is awake
Re: Glinner: thread for backseat moderators and hand-wringing [split topic]
« Reply #617 on: July 30, 2020, 06:01:11 PM »

What should society do if different groups claim the right to exist rights that - although reasonable in themselves - end up being incompatible?



Blue Jam

  • TAKE IT FROM ME, I LOVE YOU!
Re: Glinner: thread for backseat moderators and hand-wringing [split topic]
« Reply #618 on: July 30, 2020, 06:05:34 PM »
The right to exist? That settles it then. Glinner is a shit Kafka. Trans Kafka. Woke up one day and realised he was an insect, crushed on the windshield of his own racecar bed.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2020, 06:39:00 PM by Blue Jam »

Blue Jam

  • TAKE IT FROM ME, I LOVE YOU!
Re: Glinner: thread for backseat moderators and hand-wringing [split topic]
« Reply #619 on: July 30, 2020, 06:12:22 PM »
.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2020, 06:38:47 PM by Blue Jam »

GoblinAhFuckScary

  • Feeble birds fly out gob
Re: Glinner: thread for backseat moderators and hand-wringing [split topic]
« Reply #620 on: July 30, 2020, 06:46:16 PM »
The right to exist? That settles it then. Glinner is a shit Kafka. Trans Kafka. Woke up one day and realised he was an insect, crushed on the windshield of his own racecar bed.

Oh my God.

Pdine

  • Apparently I'm Jewish
Re: Glinner: thread for backseat moderators and hand-wringing [split topic]
« Reply #621 on: July 31, 2020, 09:37:18 AM »
What should society do if different groups claim the right to exist rights that - although reasonable in themselves - end up being incompatible?

I'm confused now... that isn't a quote from me. I posted the bits that aren't in bold. If you're saying that an example of a conflict of rights might be one group wanting a right to exist, and another group wanting the right to eliminate the first, I'd say that would be a simple case for society to rule on: everyone has a right to exist. As I say though, I don't really feel I understand your post enough to respond sensibly.

Endicott

  • I've done no research
Re: Glinner: thread for backseat moderators and hand-wringing [split topic]
« Reply #622 on: July 31, 2020, 12:52:51 PM »
Why do you say that?

Sorry for the delay. Take encroachment into safe spaces as an example. The claim is that one logical consequence of self-id is that it will allow men to enter women's refuges. But this is a distortion. It is easily refuted because women's refuges are not places that are open to any woman, they are controlled spaces and whomsoever runs a refuge can exclude anyone they want if they think that person is going to disrupt the space. Hence the claim fits the definition of a strawman.

Tags: