Making SL more welcoming to males

[AyelaNewLife]

It's 1am so I don't have the time/energy/attention span to write up a full reply, so you're getting bulletpoints (sorry):

• He's not refused to call his students by their preferred gender. If you have a quote or clip of him directly saying otherwise, I'd love to see it - no one I've challenged about this has been able to, but I'd prefer to know if I'm actually wrong on this one.
• When giving verbal evidence to said committee he referenced studies that demonstrated that the brain chemistry of transpeople often matched their gender, rather than their birth sex. He is not talking about a juvenile "hurr durr chromosomes" biological basis for gender.
• The problem with C-16 wasn't the bill itself, but with the secondary legislation it relied upon. The vagueness in those regulations means the remit of the bill covered more than just misgendering, especially in the absence of definitive case law. And as a civil servant, open-ended secondary legislation is the work of the devil.
• I agree that the "free speech" argument is usually an excuse for stirring up hate; see also, human refuse like M*lo. Dagger emoji.
• Legitimately curious about Lindsay Shepherd, I've barely heard her name since the suspension situation.
• He's turned his 'fame' into a career, and does interviews all the time with all sorts of people - he's probably done more UK interviews than half our Cabinet. His naive-academic approach of "I'll be interviewed by anyone" is why he's in various videos with some nasty people, even if it's a small chunk of his activities.
• My views on him have admittedly been shaped by 'that' interview with Cathy Newman, which is honestly the worst example of journalism I've ever seen. I fully admit that colours my perception on things.
• I'd compare him to Jeremy Corbyn; his complacency regarding the impact his words and actions have has caused a great deal of harm, and he's in denial about the damage that does. And he deserves to be called out for that. But that makes him an idiot, not a bigot.

In short, I am a firm believer in Hanlon's Razor, and while his actions have caused harm (I wouldn't even consider contesting that point) I'm not convinced by the argument that he's legitimately transphobic. Even if he is still problematic.

[AyelaNewLife]

Just to swing things back on topic; 

There seems to be a widespread lack of men that know how to respond to my answer to "what are you up to?". I tend to get two types of responses:

• I know you just explained how you are doing something inworld that requires your attention but my brain does not compute words that aren't references to body parts therefore I shall continue with my planned followup of "tp me?"
• I know you just mentioned how you're procrastinating while idling at home but I shall pretend you've just said "go forth and multiply" and so excuse myself from this conversation while groveling profusely

So in order to make SL more welcoming to men, there should be a default autoresponse for women which says "The garbage mindgames only start a month into a relationship, so respond to what I say and not what you think I'm saying."

[Akane Nacht]

15 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

(Also, you do know that Jordan Peterson is a very vocal trans-phobe, right? That he first came to public attention by refusing to use people's pronouns of choice, and essentially denying the existence of trans identities? Are you comfortable with that, really?)

I've been watching his youtube channel for years and I didn't get that impression at all (ie that he is "transphobic"). He has helped a lot of people, and spoken on issues like depression, dealing with grief, etc. that I found quite moving, wise and helpful. He's a clinical psychologist, and he speaks largely from that perspective. I wouldn't expect him to be as adept in speaking from a sociological or political perspective.

But I'm not trying to change your mind. If you want to dislike him, that's your choice. I'm just saying that people don't fit into neat "good" and "bad" boxes - even if he did have a crappy opinion on some topics (and he does, IMO) that doesn't mean he doesn't have valuable things to say too.

[Ted McGregor]

On 11/15/2019 at 1:48 AM, Bree Giffen said:

 What would you suggest.

The committee to agree on the print on the welcome sign should read that it either f**ks or s**ks you dry.

Edited December 8, 2019 by TDD123

[Luna Bliss]

20 minutes ago, Akane Nacht said:

I've been watching his youtube channel for years and I didn't get that impression at all (ie that he is "transphobic"). He has helped a lot of people, and spoken on issues like depression, dealing with grief, etc. that I found quite moving, wise and helpful. He's a clinical psychologist, and he speaks largely from that perspective. I wouldn't expect him to be as adept in speaking from a sociological or political perspective.

But I'm not trying to change your mind. If you want to dislike him, that's your choice. I'm just saying that people don't fit into neat "good" and "bad" boxes - even if he did have a crappy opinion on some topics (and he does, IMO) that doesn't mean he doesn't have valuable things to say too.

I don't know anything about this guy, but if he went around denigrating black people, say if he used the N-word all the time, would you still be willing to accept the good parts of him and defend him by saying he just has a "crappy opinion" on some "topics" ?

[Desiree Moonwinder]

Edited December 8, 2019 by Desiree Moonwinder

[Ted McGregor]

5 hours ago, AyelaNewLife said:

 so respond to what I say and not what you think I'm saying."

So I suppose I think you mean .. a certain no .. perhaps yes ?  *nudgenudge/winkywink*

Say .. you get around, do you ? Aye ?

Edited December 8, 2019 by TDD123

[Desiree Moonwinder]

[AyelaNewLife]

I'm just going to skip the next half dozen posts and throw in this one early:

[Luna Bliss]

No, Desiree, I'm not using a straw man argument. By using this analogy to evoke clarity I am pointing out that generally, in polite circles at least, we do not condone denigrating blacks -- we consider this inhumane and would not excuse someone using the N-word as simply not being on a certain side of a political argument. Nor would be excuse them by saying "well, they do good things too so lets not be too harsh".  Instead, most likely the person denigrating blacks would be fired from their job or shunned by a good part of society.
But in the case of trans people many do not seem to recognize the inhumanity of denigrating them, and instead prefer to see the issues in terms of a "political stance" whereby the abuser can be excused for their behavior. I think we need to see transphobia for what it is -- it is viewing another group of people unfamiliar to us as subhuman and not deserving of equal rights in our society.

* But she is guilty, regarding transphobia issues, and hopefully she sees that she is.

[Desiree Moonwinder]

[AyelaNewLife]

2 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

No, Desiree, I'm not using a straw man argument. By using this analogy to evoke clarity I am pointing out that generally, in polite circles at least, we do not condone denigrating blacks -- we consider this inhumane and would not excuse someone using the N-word as simply not being on a certain side of a political argument. Nor would be excuse them by saying "well, they do good things too so lets not be too harsh".  Instead, most likely the person denigrating blacks would be fired from their job or shunned by a good part of society.
But in the case of trans people many do not seem to recognize the inhumanity of denigrating them, and instead prefer to see the issues in terms of a "political stance" whereby the abuser can be excused for their behavior. I think we need to see transphobia for what it is -- it is viewing another group of people unfamiliar to us as subhuman and not deserving of equal rights in our society.

* But she is guilty, regarding transphobia issues, and hopefully she sees that she is.

Emphasis mine. This is a very new phenomenon, and not one most of society actually agrees with.

Most major inspirational figures have a dark side. Gandhi was a racist who has been repeatedly quoted complaining that the British were treating the Indians as if they were black. Mandela founded a terror cell and beat his first wife. Dr King was a hypocritical philanderer. These men are (rightly) looked up to as iconic role models, because the balance of their actions is clearly weighted towards the good of society.

I'm not claiming for one moment that Peterson has anywhere near the good side of those three pioneers and champions; because he doesn't. But as a concept, it's clear that actually society does look at the balance of actions, and it's only a small vocal minority which takes a zero tolerance stance on such things.

[Garnet Psaltery]

Is it possible to discontinue the orgy of fallacio and get on with the topic?

[Desiree Moonwinder]

Topic is:

Quote

Making SL more welcoming to males

I looked back and it seems to me that the topic ran to completion very early.  There's really nothing more to be said insofar as the topic is concerned. 

[Ted McGregor]

10 minutes ago, Garnet Psaltery said:

Is it possible to discontinue the orgy of fallacio and get on with the topic?

Your fallacy is presuming this discussion is about d**ks, eventhough you heard something quack.

[Garnet Psaltery]

16 minutes ago, Desiree Moonwinder said:

Topic is:

I looked back and it seems to me that the topic ran to completion very early.  There's really nothing more to be said insofar as the topic is concerned. 

 

14 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

Your fallacy is presuming this discussion is about d**ks, eventhough you heard something quack.

Oh well, in that case, what about chickens? 

 

[Luna Bliss]

33 minutes ago, AyelaNewLife said:

Emphasis mine. This is a very new phenomenon, and not one most of society actually agrees with.

Most major inspirational figures have a dark side. Gandhi was a racist who has been repeatedly quoted complaining that the British were treating the Indians as if they were black. Mandela founded a terror cell and beat his first wife. Dr King was a hypocritical philanderer. These men are (rightly) looked up to as iconic role models, because the balance of their actions is clearly weighted towards the good of society.

I'm not claiming for one moment that Peterson has anywhere near the good side of those three pioneers and champions; because he doesn't. But as a concept, it's clear that actually society does look at the balance of actions, and it's only a small vocal minority which takes a zero tolerance stance on such things.

I can excuse so many behaviors in others -- after all, we're all a product of our conditioning and it's hard work to become whole. I can excuse the randy radical, MLK, or the 'man of his times', Ghandi. I can even excuse Connal on this thread for using the word 'viper' to describe women who can't get along (he probably has no knowledge of the psychodynamics regarding what enables people to transform difficulties in life and become empowered -- how the valid acknowledgement and expression of anger for women plays such a central part -- and how denigrating women's anger by calling them 'vipers', or their fights as only 'cat fights', and referring to a demanding boss as a 'baetch' while a man is simply assertive, on and on...is so damaging).
But I really can't excuse a Psychologist...a PSYCHOLOGIST for god's sake who is supposed to be a teacher in our society...who would advocate subhuman attitudes toward other humans (if he did -- have yet to research the guy).

You're right in that society needs time to adjust in some cases. With attitudes toward black people and the 'N-word' though, I can't imagine that a good percentage of those in the U.S. would not write the person off completely who would defend blatant denigration of blacks.

We really shouldn't accept those who insist on relegating certain members of society into the 'other'...into a category that can affect their lives so gravely (homicide of trans people, loss of jobs and the ability to take care of oneself, loss of self-esteem that can lead to suicide, loss of the ability to become a valuable person who develops their strengths and joy in being alive -- something we all aspire to). Nope, zero tolerance for those who insist other categories of people are subhuman.

Edited December 8, 2019 by Luna Bliss

[Selene Gregoire]

 

I should have quoted Garnet.

 

Edited December 8, 2019 by Selene Gregoire

[Ted McGregor]

6 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

( have yet to research the guy).

 

I strongly suggest you do. Peterson single handedly advocated for free speech on behalf of us ALL regarding bill C-16.

Let' s not forget that first in any discussion about that.

[Ted McGregor]

2 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

You would be so much sexier with a dancepole.

[Luna Bliss]

4 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

I strongly suggest you do. Peterson single handedly advocated for free speech on behalf of us ALL regarding bill C-16.

Let' s not forget that first in any discussion about that.

I will research him eventually, but I like debating with Ayela as she is so intelligent and articulate.   HowEVER, I am supposed to be working!

[Ted McGregor]

Just now, Luna Bliss said:

 but I like debating with Ayela as she is so intelligent and articulate. 

Already told her how sexy she looks, but she is, understandably, ignoring me ..

[Selene Gregoire]

48 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

You would be so much sexier with a dancepole.

 

 

ETA: Forum is acting stupid today.

Edited December 8, 2019 by Selene Gregoire

[Luna Bliss]

I think the thread is on topic though, as in making SL welcoming to males we do need to include Trans Males.....those who were born men and transitioning to womanhood, and those who were born women and transitioning to manhood.

But I can make anything on topic given enough time...  😁

[Luna Bliss]

3 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

4 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

 but I like debating with Ayela as she is so intelligent and articulate. 

Already told her how sexy she looks, but she is, understandably, ignoring me ..

Take it from a woman...you should leave the 'looks' for last and go for the other compliments first