Poll: Is Woke a new religion?

[Estro Felino]

A very bad result of wokeism in the USA. It's heartbreaking.
In my country that would have never happened.

 

[Estro Felino]

And by the way, why are all these MTFs are into women and want to have access to female locker-rooms?

 

[Debater Slayer]

We are just talking past each other a touch on this. I'm not suggesting we ignore white supremacy. What I'm suggesting is that in responding to white supremacy, I'm going to be as rational, detached, and objective as possible.

I won't (as a stupidly simple example) throw white supremacists in gaol and throw away the key no matter my visceral reaction, because I think it's important we adhere to evidentiary standards, natural justice, etc.
A slightly more cogent example...if white supremacists argue against racial quotas in government, that won't cause me to argue for them. I will ignore them as best I can, and make as rational, and objective a call on this, considering my worldview and experience.

Long story short, I'm not ignoring white supremacy, but robbing white supremacists of the ability to have an outsized impact on my decision making.

Agreed.

Well...genocide is unequivocally bad, and I don't mean there aren't clear macro statements to be made about such things. Genocide, bad. Racism, bad. Sexism, bad. LA Lakers, bad.

But there are kernels at a micro level. For example, what rights does a government have to take actions which improve the security of the general population, at the cost of individual right? Some might say carte blanche rights to do anything. Some might say no rights at all. But the vast majority...myself included...would be somewhere between those poles.

It's worth remembering (in my opinion) and explicitly calling this out. Too often now we see ourselves as binary opposites, when we are different plot points on a spectrum. There is a value and a commonality in that. I'm no longer trying to convince my 'enemy' that governments should be able to take internal security actions when they think they shouldn't. We are working through when...how to mitigate against the obvious cost and downside of this...how to prevent this level of power being used for nefarious purposes...etc.

Sometimes I think the fundamental assumptions are different, though. I have had discussions on this forum where people were against hate speech laws, while others were for them. Some are also against socialism, while others support it. In many cases, it's not just about how to prevent that level of power from being abused or misused; it's also that some people see these measures as inherently abusive on the part of government. Once it even tries to introduce such a law, there are people who will deem it nefarious by default... and they're far from a small minority when it comes to American politics.

I see a lot of value in finding common ground with certain people, but this isn't always the case, and sometimes it distracts from much more pressing issues. One problem with a subset of the left is that they sometimes focus so much on finding common ground that they don't take action when it matters most, such as when Democrats became so ineffectual despite having control of Congress and the White House that they allowed Roe v. Wade to be reversed.

If they had instead stopped trying to find common ground with theocrats and evangelical extremists and used their control of two branches of government to the utmost extent, they could have done a lot more to protect the rights of the people who ended up being affected by Republican ideology.

This is perhaps one of the areas where you and I might disagree most: my worldview is influenced by Marxism, and I have no problem advocating for strong change when most necessary even if that means any common ground with those who advocate for a harmful status quo temporarily takes a back seat.

Saudi Arabia kept being steeped in theocracy and has only started reversing some of its most stringent laws, such as the ban on women's driving, not because activists liberal like Lujain al-Hathloul and Raif Badawi found common ground with the religiously extremist scholars but because of international pressure and a desire to have a better image. At state level, material conditions like economy, political relations, and trade are, in my opinion, far stronger as tools of effecting change than mere negotiations and discussions.

To be clear, I was an extremely strong and unequivocal advocate for marriage equality here, which I'd see as a more recent (and therefore perhaps more controversial) version of the same basic argument. My overarching principles guiding this are as follows;

1. People shouldn't have differentiated rights based on race, religion or sexuality. Even allowing that they do in practice, this is an important guiding principle for legislation.

2. When deciding on legislation, I shouldn't be determine it based on what I would do, what is right for me, or my personal preferences.

So, in this case, I'm not gay, would never be in a gay relationship, and would not utilise gay marriage.
I have been in an interracial relationship previously (to tie it back to your example), and whilst unlikely to happen again, it's theoretically possible.

My passion for allowing interracial marriage and gay marriage are equal because of what I outlined in point 1, rather than the level of personal impact.

The 'Why do you care?' position I heard from some is weird, to my mind.

However, again at a micro level there are considerations within the opposing side of the argument that aren't based on racism/sexism...or at least not deliberately or subjectively in the minds of the opposers.

An example of this would be around what impact a law about marriage equality has for access. Is the Catholic Church now required to marry gay couples? If so, why? If not, do we suggest that the right to marriage and access to marriage services are different issues?

All issues have nuance beneath the surface, and people might be surprised that they'll sometimes agree with their opponents on particular aspects of an issue, even whilst vehemently being opposed on others.

I agree that sometimes there's a lot of agreement that might get overlooked or buried under strong disagreement, but I also think this varies on a case-by-case basis. The question I would ask afterward would be how much the agreement mattered in the grand scheme of things. Would it facilitate desirable change? Would it outweigh the conspicuous disagreement that sometimes had to do with core values rather than mere expressions thereof? Would focusing on it distract from more pressing issues? These are questions that I can't answer without context, personally.

When I'm talking to individual conservatives, who are the vast majority, whether online or in person, I see them as people just like everyone else who have a specific worldview due to the same circumstances and processes whereby others form their worldviews. I'm also friends with a TERF I met through a Discord server, which is something that has resulted in some flak for me. (I'll get to that in a moment.)

However, when we're talking about government and legislation chambers where officials have the power to affect people's lives, things change drastically: in my opinion, protecting people's rights should take priority over almost everything else in that context. If it means finding common ground with legislators from another party, so be it. If it means tossing aside common ground as a distraction and assertively pushing for required changes where one can, so be it. Finding common ground becomes a secondary consideration rather than a primary one in that context.

I have also heard the "Why do you care?" position and found it bizarre, if not unfortunate. "Why do you care about women's rights when you're not a woman?" or, "Why do you care about LGBT rights when you're not gay?" are pretty common ones. So is "Why do you care about persecution of Christians [or any other religious group]?"

(To be continued in the following post due to the character limit. I can't snip anything out without losing context.)

 

[Debater Slayer]

(Continued.)

It's a good point, and my main issue with my own position. I will answer like this, but also readily admit this is entirely subjective...

It's not the left per se I'm blaming for this. If pressed, I'd call myself left, and I don't fall into this groupthink category. It's also clearly not just the left who partake in this, and the right have a clear history of doing it.

What I'm worried about is the way these discussions are now framed. They have become increasingly binary. We move too quickly from a discussion about trans rights (valuable) to deciding that 15 year old kids who buy a game are transphobes (oh let me count the ways THAT is a position of privilege and myopic self indulgence) or...and this is the kicker for me...that trans activists are self-indulgent and myopic fools.

That last is a somewhat natural human reaction to idiocy, but trans activism ISN'T idiocy, and IS required.
But for every valuable, nuanced and educational step taken towards true reform we get ten of these simplistic and binary yelling matches about nothing.
Just try and have a sensible conversation about trans athletes...lol.

I strongly agree here. This is where the personal anecdote about meeting a TERF comes in for me.

So, around two years ago, I joined an atheist Discord server to find company. I was particularly lonely at the time, and I wanted to meet more like-minded people where I live. It turns out that the place ran the gamut from alt-right trolls (yes, they existed on the server just to troll and offend others) to pro-USSR communists. Needless to say, there was a lot of friction in the politics channel.

One of the most active members on the server was a TERF. She was strongly progressive in practically all other ways besides that: socialist, supportive of religious freedom and reproductive rights, supportive of same-sex marriage, etc. She also had a very traumatic family life and history of religious oppression, which multiple members empathized with and related to. As soon as she expressed her views on trans issues, though, a lot of members shunned her, gossiped about her, and refused to talk to her at all. At one point, someone tried to imply that I was a bad person for not shunning her.

I asked that person and a few others what their own beliefs had been like just a few years earlier. One had been a literal, self-admitted fascist, while others had been fundamentalist Muslims but then changed their mind thanks to the internet... like the vast majority on the server. I then asked whether they believed they would have changed if progressives and other liberals had shunned them and gossiped about them due to their beliefs, and almost all of them said no.

This is an example where I would definitely classify what happened from some people as narrow-minded, unnuanced, and unempathetic. I say "some people" because I fully understand why some people wouldn't want to hang out with a TERF, and I don't think they're obligated to. But the way some others went far beyond that was petty at best, and it made it seem like we had all been perfect from the start even though most of us had been very conservative and held hateful views prior to talking to people online and changing our minds.

We're not talking about a public figure with significant social influence or a legislator who can impose their will on people's lives. This was just a regular person with no power and a traumatic past that was strongly relatable to ours in multiple ways. Is it really reasonable or empathetic to treat her like she's the next incarnation of Ted Cruz? Who does it help? When a progressive circle from her own country mistreats her in that manner, I'm not sure what they expect to happen other than her being restricted to communities with other TERFs where her problematic beliefs will only be amplified.

Around a month ago, she told me that she was deeply thankful I didn't give up on her and that she was glad to have someone to talk to while her family pushed her into an arranged marriage. Sometimes I wonder whether the people who treated her in the way I mentioned saw anything about her more deeply than the level of her views on trans issues (which were indeed extremely problematic).

No, it's not uniquely American, but American cultural impact, the higher degree of political and religious polarisation, and the freedom to have these discussions are more clearly expressed in America than anywhere else I would guess.

Ultimately I think of it as a first world problem (ie. It only exists where basic needs are met) and it's timeless. Cancel culture in a broad sense absolutely existed in Ancient Rome, for example. Again, I just think we're trending the wrong way on this.

Incidentally, a discussion like this would make little sense in Papua New Guinea, despite massive swathes of the population being without a voice (women, for example). No need to talk about over simplification of discussions when the country is still grappling with the macro level. 'Domestic Violence is bad' is more than enough to wrestle with there. Once that's clearly established you can have more nuanced conversations like 'should unproven accusations have people lose their careers'. That's a country that kills hundreds per year based on accusations of witchcraft...

From what I see, there's also a lot of freedom to have similar discussions in much of Europe, but it doesn't seem to be as huge of a deal as it is in the US. I think that may have to do with the increased polarization in the latter in recent years.

The Papua New Guinea example is an excellent one, and it applies to almost anywhere outside the developed world, in my opinion, albeit to varying extents. Talking about social-media "cancel culture" as a major issue in countries where "blasphemy" is still a capital crime seems a bit premature.

Sure. But these are outlier positions, and you're somewhat making my point for me. We deal with black and white, and pretend things are binary.

I definitely wouldn't say that I'm pretending here, especially not that things are binary. The positions I listed also don't seem to me to be outliers at all, at least if we're talking about American politics. The GOP platform includes explicit rhetoric against LGBT people, for instance, and they have millions of supporters who align with their ideology on such things. Add to that the fact that rates of vaccination were lower and COVID fatality rates were significantly higher in conservative-majority states and I don't think we're talking about outliers at all.

Things aren't binary, but sometimes they're also far from being ambiguous.

What do you think about the throttling or blacklisting of accounts by Twitter such as Dr Jay Bhattacharya's?

I'm ambivalent about it, especially in hindsight; however, I lean toward the view that it was the best decision to make with the given information and circumstances.

On the one hand, I think it was the correct and responsible decision for three reasons:

• The vast majority of experts and medical institutions rejected his views, so despite his qualifications, he was practically no different from a random YouTuber spreading dangerous myths about the pandemic in terms of the effect he had on the conversation. He indeed turned out to be wrong, too. (We now have evidence for the latter part due to the luxury of hindsight, though, so I'm not factoring it into my position.)

• He was fostering opposition to preventive measures in order to develop "herd immunity," and that was at a time when the medical infrastructure and staff were heavily overwhelmed, hundreds of thousands were dying, and thousands were getting severely sick from the disease. On top of that, his position was strongly on the fringe and not backed up by any reputable medical institution. Twitter had no reason or solid evidence based on which they would treat him differently from other purveyors of misinformation.

• He sometimes used ideologically charged rather than medical arguments against lockdowns, such as "civil rights." This meant that in those specific instances, whatever medical qualifications he had were entirely irrelevant because he was discussing ideology and value judgments, not medical facts or evidence.

On the other hand, I see two reasons that it wasn't an ideal decision:

• There's value in allowing reasoned, expert minority views on medical issues, including the pandemic. For example, during the early stages of the pandemic, the majority of experts said that masks were unnecessary, which we now know was incorrect and dangerous. The doctors who said otherwise were in the minority back then, but heeding their advice earlier would have saved lives.

• Twitter needed more transparency about their policies and criteria for blacklisting. The way they handled such things could have been more systematic and less likely to raise questions if they had shared more about their processes and systems.

As I said, though, with the available information and circumstances at the time, I think the blacklisting was overall the correct decision. In my opinion, hindsight now gives the decision even more support, even though I think it was also justified at the time.

If I had a choice between a conservative theocracy and a bunch of leftist idealogues, sign me up to the lefties.
I would also agree that this is more of 'a problem' if you're already living in a liberal democracy.
And I think the right are largely...erm...people I don't trust to engage in honest and nuanced dialogue, let's say.
So we largely agree.

I just think the left is trending the wrong way on the 'honest and nuanced dialogue' front.
For all that I disagree with much of Nietzsche, I always found him challenging, and I try to keep in mind that we need to guard against becoming that which we reject through reactionism.

Agreed.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

And by the way, why are all these MTFs are into women and want to have access to female locker-rooms?
I find it incredibly suspicious.

Why on earth would being into women preclude you from being able to use women's locker rooms as a woman? Are you equally suspicious of lesbian and bisexual cisgendered women?

Or is this more a projection on your part? Are you unable to deal with naked men without fetishizing them?

 

[Estro Felino]

Why on earth would being into women preclude you from being able to use women's locker rooms as a woman? Are you equally suspicious of lesbian and bisexual women?

Or is this more a projection on your part? Are you unable to deal with naked men without fetishizing them?

I am not assuming anything. I think that, as I said in post #181 that it depends on the women of the only-female facility: it's them who have to say if they are okay with a MtF who hasn't undergone surgery yet. In that space.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I am not assuming anything. I think that, as I said in post #181 that it depends on the women of the only-female facility: it's them who have to say if they are okay with a MtF who hasn't undergone surgery yet. In that space.

If the majority of straight women said they weren't comfortable having lesbians or black women in that spacd would that make it okay to push them out?

 

[Estro Felino]

If the majority of straight women said they weren't comfortable having lesbians or black women in that spacd would that make it okay to push them out?

It's a different thing because cisgender lesbians and black cisgender women have both female genitalia.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

It's a different thing because cisgender lesbians and black cisgender women have both female genitalia.

You literally were arguing from pure suspicion of motive before, based on sexuality, not genitalia. Because you've done what countless terfs and alt right in the states have done: tried to set up transwomen in women's spaces as secret predators.

 

[Estro Felino]

You literally were arguing from pure suspicion of motive before, based on sexuality, not genitalia. Because you've done what countless terfs and alt right in the states have done: tried to set up transwomen in women's spaces as secret predators.

I would like to understand the criterion used in the US to identify trans women: because some "curious" men could identify as women and have access to female facilities. Or the other way around. "Curious" women wearing male clothes.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I would like to understand the criterion used in the US to identify trans women: because some "curious" men could identify as women and have access to female facilities. Or the other way around. "Curious" women wearing male clothes.

Do you automatically assume that anyone who hasn't had surgery is a "curious" cis person?

That's pretty harsh. Especially here in the states where healthcare costs are high and gender affirming care aren't always accessible or possible with varying medical conditions.

The issue of cisgendered people posing as trans isn't a thing. It's fearmongering. And especially funny when you realize that cismen and ciswomen walk into sex segregated facilities that don't match their biosex all the time. With no consequence except usually a bit of embarrassment for the mistake.

 

[Estro Felino]

Do you automatically assume that anyone who hasn't had surgery is a "curious" cis person?
.

Absolutely not. The great-great majority are trans women.

But, if no criterion is set, anyone can have access to only-female facilities, like this case shows Trans woman found guilty of rape moved to men’s prison.
Safety measures are needed even when the great majority of people attending a place is 100% safe.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Absolutely not. The great-great majority are trans women.

But, if no criterion is set, anyone can have access to only-female facilities, like this case shows Trans woman found guilty of rape moved to men’s prison
Safety measures are needed even when the great majority of people attending a place is 100% safe,

Again, there are plenty of cases of cisgender bisexual and lesbian women sexually assaulting people too. Any demographic can have bad people. But we don't say that lesbians and bisexuals shouldn't have access to women's facilities just because they have a sexual preference for women, nor treat them in bathrooms as potential sex predators. So why special treatment for transwomen?

 

[Estro Felino]

Again, there are plenty of cases of cisgender bisexual and lesbian women sexually assaulting people too. Any demographic can have bad people. But we don't say that lesbians and bisexuals shouldn't have access to women's facilities just because they have a sexual preference for women, nor treat them in bathrooms as potential sex predators. So why special treatment for transwomen?

Women cannot rape other women, according to the juridical definition of rape, that requires intercourse.
There can be some sort of sexual assault, which is much less serious than rape.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Women cannot rape other women, according to the juridical definition of rape, that requires intercourse.
There can be some sort of sexual assault, which is much less serious than rape.

I don't think this is the case in the UK, where penetration is all that is required for rape - and could be oral or other.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Women cannot rape other women, according to the juridical definition of rape, that requires intercourse.
There can be some sort of sexual assault, which is much less serious than rape.

It also isn't the case in the US, where nonconsentual penetration by any body part (ie finger) or object constitutes rape.

And is also not the point. Sexual assault by women is no less traumatizing than by men. This was just an excuse to not acknowledge we hold transwomen to different standards as lesbian and bisexual ciswomen.

 

[Estro Felino]

It also isn't the case in the US, where nonconsentual penetration by any body part (ie finger) or object constitutes rape.

And is also not the point. Sexual assault by women is no less traumatizing than by men. This was just an excuse to not acknowledge we hold transwomen to different standards as lesbian and bisexual ciswomen.

Because transsexuality is different than sexual orientation. And sexual orientation is not the issue here.
People's genitalia is, as the video in post #181 shows.

I respect everyone...but the situation in the US is pretty different than my country.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Because transsexuality is different than sexual orientation. And sexual orientation is not the issue here.
People's genitalia is, as the video in post #181 shows.

I respect everyone...but the situation in the US is pretty different than my country.

You brought up sexual orientation, not genitalia, in the first post I replied to. Maligning transwomen bi and lesbians as 'suspicious' for wanting to use facilities which correspond to their gender, even though you have no problem with cisgender bi and lesbians using the same facilities without being called suspicious. That, to me, is the real crux of the issue.

 

[Estro Felino]

You brought up sexual orientation, not genitalia, in your first post. Maligning transwomen bi and lesbians as 'suspicious' for wanting to use facilities which correspond to their gender, even though you have no problem with cisgender bi and lesbians using the same facilities without being called suspicious. That, to me, is the real crux of the issue.

I presented a case. About the video.
Do you think that athlete has a point, in her rant?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I presented a case. About the video.
Do you think that athlete has a point, in her rant?

I'm not watching that video. You can summarize it if you want, but as I said there's plenty of cases of ciswomen being sexually assaulted by other ciswomen in spaces for women, including women's prisons. But we don't deny women's facilities to those women just because of the bad behavior of a tiny minority.