I agree. And since I both care about minorities and don't care to deeply interrogate people's medical histories, I'm ok with calling people whatever the heck they want to be called. No skin off my elbows. It'd be pretty silly if we thought the arguably more objective sex characteristics of a person were not binary but thought that their gender had to be binary, wouldn't it?
To imply that those who don't wish to act the way you wish them to don't care about minorities is invidious and not supported by any evidence I've seen.
> I'm ok with calling people whatever the heck they want to be called.
As are most people until they are compelled.
> It'd be pretty silly if we thought the arguably more objective sex characteristics of a person were not binary but thought that their gender had to be binary, wouldn't it?
Would it? If, as some do, we posit that there can be an infinite number of genders or even a large number like… 42, are there 42 different categories of sex? If not, and I don't believe there are, then it's possible for multiple sexes to fit into a gender category and multiple genders into a sex category. You could probably fit all 42 into male and female and cut out a lot absurdities.
I'd go for 3, male, female and 3rd sex. Come up with a better name if you like.
> To imply that those who don't wish to act the way you wish them to don't care about minorities is invidious and not supported by any evidence I've seen.
It is if how I wish them to act is to care about minorities, like for instance the population that is not a part of, in your words, the population that's "overwhelmingly binary" - aka a minority, by definition.
> As are most people until they are compelled.
So you're ok with calling people what they want to be called. Nice!
> You could probably fit all 42 into male and female and cut out a lot absurdities.
Why do you, of all the people in the world, get to decide what is and isn't absurd? Is there a particular scientific method you're using to define absurdity?
> I'd go for 3, male, female and 3rd sex. Come up with a better name if you like.
I'd suggest if you need a better name for people that are neither male nor female you educate yourself. Lumping people into "other" isn't particularly useful for those people or even descriptive.
> Why do you, of all the people in the world, get to decide what is and isn't absurd?
I get to decide what I think is absurd, because:
a) I'm free.
b) I would still value my opinion as good enough for me even if I wasn't.
To think otherwise would be absurd, and the irony of being told this by one who wishes to impose their view upon others else they be othered is, at the very least, amusing.
> It is if how I wish them to act is to care about minorities
You're running around in circles now and thus, there is little point in continuing.
Why do you even bother to share your very free personal own opinion if you can't argue it in a broader context? If you're going to pose something as a general objective idea, then backpedal and defending it as only your very own personal views which you are entitled to hold but really if they have no bearing on the general context of discussion you might as well not share it because who wants to hear this?
It appears that you are misinterpreting the form of my argument because you don’t understand how people who aren’t authoritarian can hold an opinion of their own while it also being valid generally because we don’t need to impose them on others, its authority comes from its truth not who I am, which is why you also fail to understand the retort. Thus, my opinion is good enough for me. Only you think it’s backpedaling to point out what should be obvious.
If you’re so keen on educating yourself then you should start with Orwell and move on to J S Mill.
Ahhhh awesome, so when you were talking about your perspective on the interplay of sex and gender you weren't implying that there was anything inherently, objectively absurd about there being 42 sexes, you were just implying you felt that was absurd for some... personal reason? By the way, there's probably way more than 42 since so many things play into sex characteristics, and some of the measures are continuous rather than discrete.
> You're running around in circles now and thus, there is little point in continuing.
By saying there existed an "overwhelmingly binary" sex spectrum, you implied the existence of a minority, so I'm simply saying to give those people the respect they deserve. That's how I "wish them to act" so it absolutely follows, based on your words, that someone who doesn't "wish to act the way you wish them to" doesn't want to respect those minorities. Easy logical reasoning to follow.
No one is arguing for disrespect of anyone so there's not much else to say about your argument, other than you might try showing more respect to those you disagree with in future.
You think you aren't, but you are when you say the categories of "male, female and 3rd sex" are appropriate for simplifying the "absurdities". You should show people who fit in your "absurd" minority sexual categories with more respect in future.
Please don't do tit-for-tat flamewars like this on HN. The further they get to the right of the page, the nastier and more repetitive they get, and curiosity has been lost long ago.
You guys have been going at it in other subthreads too. That's not what this site is for. In the future, please take a step back and refrain.
Please don't do tit-for-tat flamewars like this on HN. The further they get to the right of the page, the nastier and more repetitive they get, and curiosity has been lost long ago.
You guys have been going at it in other subthreads too. That's not what this site is for. In the future, please take a step back and refrain.
You've said a few times that "No one is arguing for disrespect of anyone", but the case you quote does argue that point explicitly.
He knew his stance would cause offence and even harm. His argument was that his employers should ignore that because of his convention rights to religious freedom.
> It is deeply disturbing that this is the first time in the history of English law that a judge has ruled that free citizens must engage in compelled speech
For one thing this isn't anything like the first case where the courts have found that a company hasn't done something wrong for firing an employee for not saying what the company wants them to say.
The judgment is saying that when you're a doctor employed by a government department you'll have to obey the law and the government department's policies. Note that the judgment doesn't force this doctor to use any particular pronoun, it only says that the government department can fire him.
And, in this particular context, everything about the meetings the doctor had with service users was "compelled" speech -- there's literally a template the doctor has to read from.
His legal team didn't attempt a freedom of speech defence. They tried to use a discrimination against religious beliefs defence, and that failed because...
> It was confirmed by the representatives at the start of the hearing that it was agreed that Dr Mackereth did not assert that he was treated less favourably than a person who, for reasons unrelated to Christianity or other belief refused to comply with the DWP’s gender reassignment or equal opportunities policy
> You've said a few times that "No one is arguing for disrespect of anyone", but the case you quote does argue that point explicitly.
> He knew his stance would cause offence and even harm. His argument was that his employers should ignore that because of his convention rights to religious freedom.
Knowing that what you say may be offensive is not the same as arguing for the disrespect of someone. The judgement also does not contain the word disrepect and it is not part of his defence that it is his intention to disrespect anyone. Much as I disagree with why he's doing it, he is being compelled. Again, to compel has a well worn definition, if you will be fired unless you do certain things you are being compelled, so I disagree with your description.
So your argument is that being offensive to someone isn't the same as being disrespectful? Like, I am genuinely curious about how you're justifying this to yourself.
