'Federal education authorities found on Monday that an Illinois school district had violated anti-discrimination laws when it did not allow a transgender student [biological high school boy] who identifies as a girl and participates in athletics to change and shower in the girls' locker room without restrictions.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/us/illinois-district-violated-transgender-students-rights-us-says.html
Me too!
I could foresee a lot of high school boys start claiming to identify as girls. :hmm:
Call me Christine.
ZOMG, Phil, you're such a transphobe. :mad:
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 02, 2015, 09:37:28 PM
I could foresee a lot of high school boys start claiming to identify as girls. :hmm:
Yeah this will end well.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 02, 2015, 09:37:28 PM
I could foresee a lot of high school boys start claiming to identify as girls. :hmm:
You know... I am not the most trans-friendly person around here, But I don't foresee that in the least.
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2015, 01:16:03 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 02, 2015, 09:37:28 PM
I could foresee a lot of high school boys start claiming to identify as girls. :hmm:
You know... I am not the most trans-friendly person around here, But I don't foresee that in the least.
Yeah, it's one of the most moronic bigoted arguments I have ever heard and I have heard a lot. It's right there on par with Jeremy Irons' "if gays are allowed to marry, what is to prevent fathers marrying sons to avoid inheritance tax".
The thread title is a piece of garbage, by the way.
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2015, 01:16:03 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 02, 2015, 09:37:28 PM
I could foresee a lot of high school boys start claiming to identify as girls. :hmm:
You know... I am not the most trans-friendly person around here, But I don't foresee that in the least.
Got to agree with the Beeb
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 03, 2015, 01:21:57 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2015, 01:16:03 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 02, 2015, 09:37:28 PM
I could foresee a lot of high school boys start claiming to identify as girls. :hmm:
You know... I am not the most trans-friendly person around here, But I don't foresee that in the least.
Got to agree with the Beeb
Though it's interesting to see whose mind immediately goes to deception as an acceptable means of getting sexual gratification - and whose doesn't.
I don't see anything remotely bigoted about the belief that guy guys will try to take advantage of this.
Nor is it moronic to think so. After all, the only objective way to prevent it would be to create a test of female identification. I presume the plaintiff in this case was not given one.
Of course a rather impartial test would be if the dude gets a woodie in the shower, but at that it's already mission accomplished.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 01:20:30 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2015, 01:16:03 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 02, 2015, 09:37:28 PM
I could foresee a lot of high school boys start claiming to identify as girls. :hmm:
You know... I am not the most trans-friendly person around here, But I don't foresee that in the least.
Yeah, it's one of the most moronic bigoted arguments I have ever heard and I have heard a lot. It's right there on par with Jeremy Irons' "if gays are allowed to marry, what is to prevent fathers marrying sons to avoid inheritance tax".
That one's easy its still incest. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2015, 01:34:28 AM
I don't see anything remotely bigoted about the belief that guy guys will try to take advantage of this.
Nor is it moronic to think so. After all, the only objective way to prevent it would be to create a test of female identification. I presume the plaintiff in this case was not given one.
Of course a rather impartial test would be if the dude gets a woodie in the shower, but at that it's already mission accomplished.
I don't even know where to begin. Each of three lines of your post contain misconceptions and errors.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 01:24:13 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 03, 2015, 01:21:57 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2015, 01:16:03 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 02, 2015, 09:37:28 PM
I could foresee a lot of high school boys start claiming to identify as girls. :hmm:
You know... I am not the most trans-friendly person around here, But I don't foresee that in the least.
Got to agree with the Beeb
Though it's interesting to see whose mind immediately goes to deception as an acceptable means of getting sexual gratification - and whose doesn't.
Humor is lost on this place. :rolleyes:
You're all becoming a bunch of stodgy old curmudgeons and thin-skinned internet warlords who take everything way too seriously. :P
Ok let me try.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2015, 01:34:28 AM
I don't see anything remotely bigoted about the belief that guy guys will try to take advantage of this.
Will a bunch of "jokesters" go "hur hur I am gurl now, let me into gurl showers?" Possibly. But to be unable to clearly distinguish that from an actual transgendered student you got to be a fucking moron. So no, it doesn't need to be bigoted - you can simply be stupid instead.
QuoteNor is it moronic to think so. After all, the only objective way to prevent it would be to create a test of female identification. I presume the plaintiff in this case was not given one.
There is a "female identification" test - it's called a psychologist evaluation. But the point is moot, because if you actually bothered to read the article, rather than simply rely on a transphobic headline posted by your fellow Korean moron, you would learn that the school has never contested the student's transgenderism, and in fact has consistently acknowledged it, referring to the student as a "she" and allowing her to participate in girls' group sports - it's only the issue of showers that caused controversies. So yes, I find it highly unlikely that the student was not given a psychologist evaluation before that.
QuoteOf course a rather impartial test would be if the dude gets a woodie in the shower, but at that it's already mission accomplished.
Of course not, because transgendered people are not all asexual or even heterosexual, and only because they are transgendered it does not mean that their biological sexual organs do not work.
Frankly speaking, given that the issue of transgenderism has been in public eye for many years now, yet you spout so much ignorant bullshit, I must conclude that you must be either trolling, or incredibly stupid.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 03, 2015, 01:51:18 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 01:24:13 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 03, 2015, 01:21:57 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2015, 01:16:03 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 02, 2015, 09:37:28 PM
I could foresee a lot of high school boys start claiming to identify as girls. :hmm:
You know... I am not the most trans-friendly person around here, But I don't foresee that in the least.
Got to agree with the Beeb
Though it's interesting to see whose mind immediately goes to deception as an acceptable means of getting sexual gratification - and whose doesn't.
Humor is lost on this place. :rolleyes:
You're all becoming a bunch of stodgy old curmudgeons and thin-skinned internet warlords who take everything way too seriously. :P
Well, I wasn't necessarily talking about you - but clearly not everyone in this thread was joking as you were.
Besides, humour is at its best when it is aimed at those in power. It is at its shittiest when it is aimed at the weakest.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 01:54:57 AM
Will a bunch of "jokesters" go "hur hur I am gurl now, let me into gurl showers?" Possibly. But to be unable to clearly distinguish that from an actual transgendered student you got to be a fucking moron. So no, it doesn't need to be bigoted - you can simply be stupid instead.
You said the claim that guys will *try* was bigoted and moronic. AFAIK no said they would succeed.
QuoteThere is a "female identification" test - it's called a psychologist evaluation. But the point is moot, because if you actually bothered to read the article, rather than simply rely on a transphobic headline posted by your fellow Korean moron, you would learn that the school has never contested the student's transgenderism, and in fact has consistently acknowledged it, referring to the student as a "she" and allowing her to participate in girls' group sports - it's only the issue of showers that caused controversies. So yes, I find it highly unlikely that the student was not given a psychologist evaluation before that.
This was my point. The school "just knew" he was a transgender. And with other guys they would "just know" they weren't. So if some guy really wanted to press the issue he could force the school into the awkward position of testing them both.
It's analogous to the Colander Head Spaghetti worshiper. Others don't get tested for the sincerity of their beliefs, so why should Colander Head?
QuoteOf course not, because transgendered people are not all asexual or even heterosexual, and only because they are transgendered it does not mean that their biological sexual organs do not work.
Frankly speaking, given that the issue of transgenderism has been in public eye for many years now, yet you spout so much ignorant bullshit, I must conclude that you must be either trolling, or incredibly stupid.
Man, it's almost like you're trying to hurt my feelings.
I admit, I can't tell the difference between a Puerto Rican and a Mexican, but it takes a Polack to mistake one for a Korean. :wacko:
Nvm, assumed he meant Tim. Though Phil is Cambodian...
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 02, 2015, 09:37:28 PM
I could foresee a lot of high school boys start claiming to identify as girls. :hmm:
Guys giving the sentiment "I wish I was a girl so I could see more *@$#" - yes
Guys actually going this far just to see naked girls? Unlikely
Isn't "pretend to be gay to get a chance of coping a feel with girls" sort of a high school trope already? Or maybe I'm seeing the wrong films.
I stand with Marti on this issue. -_-
Quote from: garbon on November 03, 2015, 03:56:22 AM
I stand with Marti on this issue. -_-
Yet you maintained for years that you were a Republican. lol.
Am I a member of the Republican party? Have a I voted for Republican candidates in general presidential elections? Have a I voted for local Republican politicians? :hmm:
QuoteThere is a "female identification" test - it's called a psychologist evaluation
:huh:
So people are NOT free to choose their gender - it is determined for them.
Yeah pile on Yi, but he raises a valid point: if a biological male is allowed in the shower room of biological females if he identifies himself as a she, then either there must be an official evaluation test of non-biological gender, which is discriminating because at the end of the day it is another person deciding the gender of the person in question, OR people cannot be prevented from showering with whichever gender they wish, regardless of their own sexual orientation or true gender.
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2015, 04:37:31 AM
QuoteThere is a "female identification" test - it's called a psychologist evaluation
:huh:
So people are NOT free to choose their gender - it is determined for them.
Like sexual orientation, psychological gender is not a choice.
It's amazing how ignorant some of you guys are. :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 04:43:12 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2015, 04:37:31 AM
QuoteThere is a "female identification" test - it's called a psychologist evaluation
:huh:
So people are NOT free to choose their gender - it is determined for them.
Like sexual orientation, psychological gender is not a choice.
It's amazing how ignorant some of you guys are. :huh:
What if the subject of the test declares the test result wrong? Will he/she be forced to adhere to the gender rules forced upon him/her by the psychologist?
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2015, 04:44:12 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 04:43:12 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2015, 04:37:31 AM
QuoteThere is a "female identification" test - it's called a psychologist evaluation
:huh:
So people are NOT free to choose their gender - it is determined for them.
Like sexual orientation, psychological gender is not a choice.
It's amazing how ignorant some of you guys are. :huh:
What if the subject of the test declares the test result wrong? Will he/she be forced to adhere to the gender rules forced upon him/her by the psychologist?
It's not a "test" - basically, the psychologist evaluates whether the person is potentially transgendered or if they are just full of shit. Such tests are being done in every aspect of our lives (not just by psychologists, but all kinds of professionals) - I see no reason why this is a particular issue here.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 04:53:47 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2015, 04:44:12 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 04:43:12 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2015, 04:37:31 AM
QuoteThere is a "female identification" test - it's called a psychologist evaluation
:huh:
So people are NOT free to choose their gender - it is determined for them.
Like sexual orientation, psychological gender is not a choice.
It's amazing how ignorant some of you guys are. :huh:
What if the subject of the test declares the test result wrong? Will he/she be forced to adhere to the gender rules forced upon him/her by the psychologist?
It's not a "test" - basically, the psychologist evaluates whether the person is potentially transgendered or if they are just full of shit. Such tests are being done in every aspect of our lives (not just by psychologists, but all kinds of professionals) - I see no reason why this is a particular issue here.
Really? The issue is quite obvious. You are replacing one forced determination of gender (based on biology) with another forced determination of gender (based on a guy's opinion).
You cannot fight for individuals' right to determine their own gender while also forcing them to submit to third parties determining their genders.
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2015, 04:56:35 AM
You cannot fight for individuals' right to determine their own gender while also forcing them to submit to third parties determining their genders.
I think you're mistaking something - the individual isn't determining (i.e. choosing) their gender. It's already chosen and doesn't match their biological gender, therefore creating severe stress for them.
ID-ing this mismatch, however, can be tricky and I'm fine with a professional assessing it. I presume that in progressive countries, if a person feels they're "mis-identified" by a professional they have means of recourse (second opinions etc.). It's not just one psychologist flipping a coin.
Quote from: Syt on November 03, 2015, 05:17:06 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2015, 04:56:35 AM
You cannot fight for individuals' right to determine their own gender while also forcing them to submit to third parties determining their genders.
I think you're mistaking something - the individual isn't determining (i.e. choosing) their gender. It's already chosen and doesn't match their biological gender, therefore creating severe stress for them.
ID-ing this mismatch, however, can be tricky and I'm fine with a professional assessing it. I presume that in progressive countries, if a person feels they're "mis-identified" by a professional they have means of recourse (second opinions etc.). It's not just one psychologist flipping a coin.
Still in theory it goes against the notion that each person is free to choose their gender. If you have that system in place, they are not. Sure, the system would not fail in 90% of cases, but that is also sort of true for the hardliner biological determination of gender
I think you're missing something there though. The idea is that these people don't choose to be a different gender towhat they were born, it's that they were born the wrong gender to begin with and can't help being the way they are.
I don't see the problem. It's not psychologists going around and telling you what you are without your permission. It's someone claiming to be one thing and the psychologist doing a check to make sure they're telling the truth (as a tiny part of their general job of helping them deal with the situation)
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 01:20:30 AM
Yeah, it's one of the most moronic bigoted arguments I have ever heard and I have heard a lot.
See? I knew this was going to end well.
Really? Toni just made the most moronically bigoted thing you have ever heard? Is there any particular reason you couldn't have just voiced your disapproval with BB?
QuoteBesides, humour is at its best when it is aimed at those in power. It is at its shittiest when it is aimed at the weakest.
Wasn't Toni's joke directed at Federal Authorities? Seems like you do not like it when humor is used against those in power when they do something you like.
Quote from: Tyr on November 03, 2015, 06:37:36 AM
It's someone claiming to be one thing and the psychologist doing a check to make sure they're telling the truth (as a tiny part of their general job of helping them deal with the situation)
Huh. Is this a thing? A gender test?
Quote from: Tyr on November 03, 2015, 06:37:36 AM
I think you're missing something there though. The idea is that these people don't choose to be a different gender towhat they were born, it's that they were born the wrong gender to begin with and can't help being the way they are.
I don't see the problem. It's not psychologists going around and telling you what you are without your permission. It's someone claiming to be one thing and the psychologist doing a check to make sure they're telling the truth (as a tiny part of their general job of helping them deal with the situation)
I am not saying those persons CHOSE to be of different gender than their biological one. What even made you think I did that?
And I repeat: the problem is, that in your sequence of third party gender validation is:
-Person A claims to be of different gender than his/her biological one
-Appointed authority tests this claim and declares the claim to be true or untrue
Now there is a) no way on Earth step two is error-free b) even having such a check invalidates the whole freedom of sexuality thing
But let's forget as trivial things as morals and personal liberty and go back to point a) and continue the sequence:
-Third-person verdict on Person A's gender is received, it says that Person A is not in fact transgender despite his/her claims
-Person A disagrees and declares it so
What is the next step? There are only two options:
-Let Person A dismiss the verdict and proceed with his/her life as he/she was indeed the gender he/she claims to be. To stay in this current example, shower in female shower rooms as biological male. But I would like to emphasise this is just an example
-Force Person A to adhere to the authority's declaration on his/her gender, which I hopefully don't have to explain why is bad
Maybe because you keep writing about the idea that everyone is free to choose their gender.
Quote from: garbon on November 03, 2015, 07:28:00 AM
Maybe because you keep writing about the idea that everyone is free to choose their gender.
I am writing about everyone being free from others telling them their gender. There is a world of difference.
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2015, 01:16:03 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 02, 2015, 09:37:28 PM
I could foresee a lot of high school boys start claiming to identify as girls. :hmm:
You know... I am not the most trans-friendly person around here, But I don't foresee that in the least.
I imagine they'll need some sort of doctor/psychologist certificate, but yeah, I agree.
I think this is liberalism gone mad. The basic rule should be: Got a dick, shower with boys. He MAY feel uncomfortable, but what about the girls having to shower with a boy?
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2015, 07:41:05 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 03, 2015, 07:28:00 AM
Maybe because you keep writing about the idea that everyone is free to choose their gender.
I am writing about everyone being free from others telling them their gender. There is a world of difference.
So maybe you should say that and not the phrase you keep repeating. ;)
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 01:56:41 AMBesides, humour is at its best when it is aimed at those in power. It is at its shittiest when it is aimed at the weakest.
It's hilarious how you turn into a braindead SJW every time your Goodperson narcissistic construct scents Thoughtcrime and an opportunity to virtue-signal.
Oh good the resident idiot has appeared.
Quote from: Legbiter on November 03, 2015, 08:00:51 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 01:56:41 AMBesides, humour is at its best when it is aimed at those in power. It is at its shittiest when it is aimed at the weakest.
It's hilarious how you turn into a braindead SJW every time your Goodperson narcissistic construct scents Thoughtcrime and an opportunity to virtue-signal.
:unsure:
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2015, 06:53:16 AM
I am not saying those persons CHOSE to be of different gender than their biological one. What even made you think I did that?
Whether you believe people are free to choose their gender or not...you did say that.
Quote
And I repeat: the problem is, that in your sequence of third party gender validation is:
-Person A claims to be of different gender than his/her biological one
-Appointed authority tests this claim and declares the claim to be true or untrue
Now there is a) no way on Earth step two is error-free b) even having such a check invalidates the whole freedom of sexuality thing
For a)- there are few things in this world we can ensure are 100% error free. However we do have a lot of systems of checks in place that help keep things reasonably error free.
e.g. you need a driver's license to drive. There's still a lot of car accidents but less than there would be if any idiot could just drive at will.
In this particular case, there is a pretty good system in place for vetting and licensing mental health professionals.
For b) not really. You're perfectly free to go around calling yourself whatever you want without medical confirmation. If you want the legal associations of a change in status however then you need to get it legally confirmed. Kind of like marriage in a lot of places really.
Quote
But let's forget as trivial things as morals and personal liberty and go back to point a) and continue the sequence:
-Third-person verdict on Person A's gender is received, it says that Person A is not in fact transgender despite his/her claims
-Person A disagrees and declares it so
What is the next step? There are only two options:
-Let Person A dismiss the verdict and proceed with his/her life as he/she was indeed the gender he/she claims to be. To stay in this current example, shower in female shower rooms as biological male. But I would like to emphasise this is just an example
-Force Person A to adhere to the authority's declaration on his/her gender, which I hopefully don't have to explain why is bad
You're perfectly free to go around in a dress calling yourself Madam Tamasha.... but unless you've got the paperwork to prove it you can't expect the legal rights that go with this.
I think the marriage analogy is a pretty good one here. In civilized countries you can do whatever you want with whoever you want (proper consent providing)...but except in the cream of the civilized crop you won't get many of the rights of being a couple unless you get the paperwork.
So just to make it clear: you are lobbying for state authorities evaluating and determining people's genders and then forcing those people to adhere to a set of limits based on this state-determined gender?
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2015, 08:33:20 AM
So just to make it clear: you are lobbying for state authorities evaluating and determining people's genders and then forcing those people to adhere to a set of limits based on this state-determined gender?
I'm not lobbying for it at all, it's the way things have always been. The only difference is these days there is the potential for someone to request this be changed.
Strikes me that this issue is that people insist on being either one gender or another - when the reality is that some are "trans". That includes the people who identify as "trans".
The position taken in this case is that requiring these people to shower in separate facilities is a human rights abuse, rather than "reasonable accommodation".
QuoteIn a letter sent Monday, the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education told the Palatine district that requiring a transgender student to use private changing and showering facilities was a violation of that student's rights under Title IX, a federal law that bans sex discrimination. The student, who identifies as female but was born male, should be given unfettered access to girls' facilities, the letter said.
"All students deserve the opportunity to participate equally in school programs and activities — this is a basic civil right," Catherine Lhamon, the Education Department's assistant secretary for civil rights, said in a statement. "Unfortunately, Township High School District 211 is not following the law because the district continues to deny a female student the right to use the girls' locker room."
Thing is, this flies somewhat in the face of reality - namely, that this person, although they are 'female', have 'male' genitals. While this remains the case, insisting that they are for all purposes and under all circumstances a "girl", including in the locker room where everyone gets naked, will not work, because the other "girls" will, without doubt, notice the difference. Nor will forcing the student to use the boy's facilities work, because these boys will, without doubt, notice that this student dresses and identifies as a girl. Thus, private facilities looks like reasonable accommodation - but that is just what was ruled against.
I'm not sure why this is a big deal: increasingly we find separate washroom facilities to (say) accommodate people in wheelchairs, without insisting that every single facility be wheelchair-accessible.
Quote from: Tyr on November 03, 2015, 08:35:38 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2015, 08:33:20 AM
So just to make it clear: you are lobbying for state authorities evaluating and determining people's genders and then forcing those people to adhere to a set of limits based on this state-determined gender?
I'm not lobbying for it at all, it's the way things have always been. The only difference is these days there is the potential for someone to request this be changed.
Precisely.
You are arguing that one's own definition of their own gender is irrelevant, and it is the outside world that should determine in it for them, just like it has always been. Except for the possibility to file a complaint.
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2015, 08:40:46 AM
Strikes me that this issue is that people insist on being either one gender or another - when the reality is that some are "trans". That includes the people who identify as "trans".
The position taken in this case is that requiring these people to shower in separate facilities is a human rights abuse, rather than "reasonable accommodation".
QuoteIn a letter sent Monday, the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education told the Palatine district that requiring a transgender student to use private changing and showering facilities was a violation of that student's rights under Title IX, a federal law that bans sex discrimination. The student, who identifies as female but was born male, should be given unfettered access to girls' facilities, the letter said.
"All students deserve the opportunity to participate equally in school programs and activities — this is a basic civil right," Catherine Lhamon, the Education Department's assistant secretary for civil rights, said in a statement. "Unfortunately, Township High School District 211 is not following the law because the district continues to deny a female student the right to use the girls' locker room."
Thing is, this flies somewhat in the face of reality - namely, that this person, although they are 'female', have 'male' genitals. While this remains the case, insisting that they are for all purposes and under all circumstances a "girl", including in the locker room where everyone gets naked, will not work, because the other "girls" will, without doubt, notice the difference. Nor will forcing the student to use the boy's facilities work, because these boys will, without doubt, notice that this student dresses and identifies as a girl. Thus, private facilities looks like reasonable accommodation - but that is just what was ruled against.
I'm not sure why this is a big deal: increasingly we find separate washroom facilities to (say) accommodate people in wheelchairs, without insisting that every single facility be wheelchair-accessible.
It is complicated isn't it? The righteousness of everybody involved makes it more difficult. And of course if some of the other girls or their parents have any concerns well they are calling for the violation of human rights so that makes it difficult to find a compromise.
Glad I am not running a school.
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2015, 08:41:11 AM
Precisely.
You are arguing that one's own definition of their own gender is irrelevant, and it is the outside world that should determine in it for them, just like it has always been. Except for the possibility to file a complaint.
And once that complaint has been processed and approved then the outside world has determined that they are legally a different gender and entitled to all the rights that go with this.
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2015, 08:40:46 AM
Strikes me that this issue is that people insist on being either one gender or another - when the reality is that some are "trans". That includes the people who identify as "trans".
The position taken in this case is that requiring these people to shower in separate facilities is a human rights abuse, rather than "reasonable accommodation".
QuoteIn a letter sent Monday, the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education told the Palatine district that requiring a transgender student to use private changing and showering facilities was a violation of that student's rights under Title IX, a federal law that bans sex discrimination. The student, who identifies as female but was born male, should be given unfettered access to girls' facilities, the letter said.
"All students deserve the opportunity to participate equally in school programs and activities — this is a basic civil right," Catherine Lhamon, the Education Department's assistant secretary for civil rights, said in a statement. "Unfortunately, Township High School District 211 is not following the law because the district continues to deny a female student the right to use the girls' locker room."
Thing is, this flies somewhat in the face of reality - namely, that this person, although they are 'female', have 'male' genitals. While this remains the case, insisting that they are for all purposes and under all circumstances a "girl", including in the locker room where everyone gets naked, will not work, because the other "girls" will, without doubt, notice the difference. Nor will forcing the student to use the boy's facilities work, because these boys will, without doubt, notice that this student dresses and identifies as a girl. Thus, private facilities looks like reasonable accommodation - but that is just what was ruled against.
I'm not sure why this is a big deal: increasingly we find separate washroom facilities to (say) accommodate people in wheelchairs, without insisting that every single facility be wheelchair-accessible.
How do you make sure that only transgender people visit transgender bathrooms? And what if somebody born male identifies as female, and do not wishes to share a bathroom with biological females who identify as males?
Also, would you extend this to biological females who identify as males, or the lack of clearly visible biological "clue" of their transgender nature makes this unnecessary? If you do want transgender biological females to use transgender bathrooms, how do you wish to enforce this rule?
Quote from: Tyr on November 03, 2015, 08:46:10 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2015, 08:41:11 AM
Precisely.
You are arguing that one's own definition of their own gender is irrelevant, and it is the outside world that should determine in it for them, just like it has always been. Except for the possibility to file a complaint.
And once that complaint has been processed and approved then the outside world has determined that they are legally a different gender and entitled to all the rights that go with this.
What if the complaint is rejected?
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2015, 08:46:44 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 03, 2015, 08:46:10 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2015, 08:41:11 AM
Precisely.
You are arguing that one's own definition of their own gender is irrelevant, and it is the outside world that should determine in it for them, just like it has always been. Except for the possibility to file a complaint.
And once that complaint has been processed and approved then the outside world has determined that they are legally a different gender and entitled to all the rights that go with this.
What if the complaint is rejected?
Then its up to them. Do they listen to the psychologists who say they are merely confused and not actually transgender?
Do they keep going as they are and try again?
IIRC trans people usually do have to live as the other gender on their own for a while before they're granted the legal rights that go with it. Rejections are common.
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 08:44:53 AM
It is complicated isn't it? The righteousness of everybody involved makes it more difficult. And of course if some of the other girls or their parents have any concerns well they are calling for the violation of human rights so that makes it difficult to find a compromise.
Glad I am not running a school.
Agreed - I think eventually something has to give way, and that something, IMO, ought to be the notion that there are only two possible gender identities, and that if you aren't in category "A", you must be in category "B". It will be difficult though. In other cultures there have always been more than two, but not in ours!
Quote from: Tyr on November 03, 2015, 08:49:04 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2015, 08:46:44 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 03, 2015, 08:46:10 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2015, 08:41:11 AM
Precisely.
You are arguing that one's own definition of their own gender is irrelevant, and it is the outside world that should determine in it for them, just like it has always been. Except for the possibility to file a complaint.
And once that complaint has been processed and approved then the outside world has determined that they are legally a different gender and entitled to all the rights that go with this.
What if the complaint is rejected?
Then its up to them. Do they listen to the psychologists who say they are merely confused and not actually transgender?
Do they keep going as they are and try again?
IIRC trans people usually do have to live as the other gender on their own for a while before they're granted the legal rights that go with it. Rejections are common.
So you are fine with the authorities denying people their right to live as their true gender then, if the authorities find that is warranted?
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2015, 08:49:36 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 08:44:53 AM
It is complicated isn't it? The righteousness of everybody involved makes it more difficult. And of course if some of the other girls or their parents have any concerns well they are calling for the violation of human rights so that makes it difficult to find a compromise.
Glad I am not running a school.
Agreed - I think eventually something has to give way, and that something, IMO, ought to be the notion that there are only two possible gender identities, and that if you aren't in category "A", you must be in category "B". It will be difficult though. In other cultures there have always been more than two, but not in ours!
Alright but that has nothing to do with this scenario. The only people involved here are the ones who identify with one of the two possible gender identities. Even if we made a few more I presume these trans-girls would still be trans-girls.
I guess the number of genders is not really the issue but rather that they are not as distinct as we make it. There can remain two so long as they are fluid and flexible enough to incorporate almost everybody, that way our cultural traditions can be allowed to accommodate, what might make it easier to find widespread acceptance. A sort of 'big tent' genderism.
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2015, 08:46:14 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2015, 08:40:46 AM
Strikes me that this issue is that people insist on being either one gender or another - when the reality is that some are "trans". That includes the people who identify as "trans".
The position taken in this case is that requiring these people to shower in separate facilities is a human rights abuse, rather than "reasonable accommodation".
QuoteIn a letter sent Monday, the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education told the Palatine district that requiring a transgender student to use private changing and showering facilities was a violation of that student's rights under Title IX, a federal law that bans sex discrimination. The student, who identifies as female but was born male, should be given unfettered access to girls' facilities, the letter said.
"All students deserve the opportunity to participate equally in school programs and activities — this is a basic civil right," Catherine Lhamon, the Education Department's assistant secretary for civil rights, said in a statement. "Unfortunately, Township High School District 211 is not following the law because the district continues to deny a female student the right to use the girls' locker room."
Thing is, this flies somewhat in the face of reality - namely, that this person, although they are 'female', have 'male' genitals. While this remains the case, insisting that they are for all purposes and under all circumstances a "girl", including in the locker room where everyone gets naked, will not work, because the other "girls" will, without doubt, notice the difference. Nor will forcing the student to use the boy's facilities work, because these boys will, without doubt, notice that this student dresses and identifies as a girl. Thus, private facilities looks like reasonable accommodation - but that is just what was ruled against.
I'm not sure why this is a big deal: increasingly we find separate washroom facilities to (say) accommodate people in wheelchairs, without insisting that every single facility be wheelchair-accessible.
How do you make sure that only transgender people visit transgender bathrooms? And what if somebody born male identifies as female, and do not wishes to share a bathroom with biological females who identify as males?
Also, would you extend this to biological females who identify as males, or the lack of clearly visible biological "clue" of their transgender nature makes this unnecessary? If you do want transgender biological females to use transgender bathrooms, how do you wish to enforce this rule?
I don't think it will be a significant problem, if these are individual facilities that are being provided. The "rule" would be pretty simple: those whose physical attributes match their gender use the appropriate gendered facilities, as they have always done; those who, for whatever reason, find a mis-match, or for any other reason (such as crippling shyness) cannot or don't want to use the common facilities, use the individual ones.
Same as right now with the extra-wide wheelchair stalls in washrooms. They are there for wheelchairs to use but others use them as well - like the morbidly obese. It works out without any need for supervision, because the actual number of people in wheelchairs is pretty small (and I suspect the actual number of the transgendered is even smaller). In our office we have the obligatory extra-large facilities, and I don't think and actual wheelchairs have ever used them - but they get used nonetheless.
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 08:54:04 AM
Alright but that has nothing to do with this scenario. The only people involved here are the ones who identify with one of the two possible gender identities. Even if we made a few more I presume these trans-girls would still be trans-girls.
Yes, and that is exactly the problem - the trans-girl in question (and the administrative authorities) are insisting that her identification with one of the two possible categories is a human right that is violated by "special" treatment, presumably because this singles her out as "different".
Thing is, she *is* "different". No amount of pretending is going to make a person with a dick into a "girl" for all purposes, just the same as every other girl born without one. Anyone looking at her naked (like in a locker room) will know, at once, that she is "different".
This isn't the school's fault, it is the fault of cruel nature, that evidently gave her a mind that didn't match her body. To my mind, it makes less sense to pretend it isn't so, and makes more sense to accommodate that difference by admitting that not everyone fits neatly into "a" or "b".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2015, 01:34:28 AM
I don't see anything remotely bigoted about the belief that guy guys will try to take advantage of this.
Nor is it moronic to think so. After all, the only objective way to prevent it would be to create a test of female identification. I presume the plaintiff in this case was not given one.
Of course a rather impartial test would be if the dude gets a woodie in the shower, but at that it's already mission accomplished.
I figure that if you pretend to be transgendered, then you have to at least cross-dress, no?
Basically, if a straight boy is willing to dress as a girl to attend school and then get in the girl's shower, than the ridicule might be worst than the gratification he would get.
Quote from: celedhring on November 03, 2015, 03:15:42 AM
Isn't "pretend to be gay to get a chance of coping a feel with girls" sort of a high school trope already? Or maybe I'm seeing the wrong films.
You are seeing the wrong films, clearly.
Quote from: viper37 on November 03, 2015, 09:11:55 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2015, 01:34:28 AM
I don't see anything remotely bigoted about the belief that guy guys will try to take advantage of this.
Nor is it moronic to think so. After all, the only objective way to prevent it would be to create a test of female identification. I presume the plaintiff in this case was not given one.
Of course a rather impartial test would be if the dude gets a woodie in the shower, but at that it's already mission accomplished.
I figure that if you pretend to be transgendered, then you have to at least cross-dress, no?
Basically, if a straight boy is willing to dress as a girl to attend school and then get in the girl's shower, than the ridicule might be worst than the gratification he would get.
I think if the captain of the basketball team announced that he was going to dress up as a girl and claim gender-female status so he can go shower with the girls basketball team, he would not get any ridicule at all.
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2015, 08:46:44 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 03, 2015, 08:46:10 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2015, 08:41:11 AM
Precisely.
You are arguing that one's own definition of their own gender is irrelevant, and it is the outside world that should determine in it for them, just like it has always been. Except for the possibility to file a complaint.
And once that complaint has been processed and approved then the outside world has determined that they are legally a different gender and entitled to all the rights that go with this.
What if the complaint is rejected?
You do realise that every right or privilege we have in a society is, ultimately, subject to a court review, right? I fail to see how this issue is any different from the question whether you are free to live, work, marry etc the way you like. If someone challenges that right (like the school did in this story) you either reach a compromise or go to court and live with the verdict.
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2015, 09:03:33 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 08:54:04 AM
Alright but that has nothing to do with this scenario. The only people involved here are the ones who identify with one of the two possible gender identities. Even if we made a few more I presume these trans-girls would still be trans-girls.
Yes, and that is exactly the problem - the trans-girl in question (and the administrative authorities) are insisting that her identification with one of the two possible categories is a human right that is violated by "special" treatment, presumably because this singles her out as "different".
Thing is, she *is* "different". No amount of pretending is going to make a person with a dick into a "girl" for all purposes, just the same as every other girl born without one. Anyone looking at her naked (like in a locker room) will know, at once, that she is "different".
This isn't the school's fault, it is the fault of cruel nature, that evidently gave her a mind that didn't match her body. To my mind, it makes less sense to pretend it isn't so, and makes more sense to accommodate that difference by admitting that not everyone fits neatly into "a" or "b".
Replace gender identity with race and you just made a great argument for segregated showers. ;)
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 09:28:15 AM
Replace gender identity with race and you just made a great argument for segregated showers. ;)
Um we already have segregated showers based on gender. If you replaced it with race it would be a discussion of trans-race people which is a topic but really does not have anything to do with arguing, in a great or non-great manner, for segregated showers based on race
I kinda agree with Malthus, though, but I think the conclusion should be the abolishment of segregated showers - this is because the idea of segregated showers presupposes a cis-hetero-normative vision of the world (I assume the key is not to prevent people from seeing "foreign body parts" but to stop them from being aroused by each other), so this obviously does not work when you have trans or gay kids.
The alternative is to create separate showers for everyone, including other-kin.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 09:28:15 AM
Replace gender identity with race and you just made a great argument for segregated showers. ;)
We *already* have "segregated showers", as Valmy notes - boys and girls. That doesn't mean we have to segregate by race as well.
Now, one possible solution would be to end that and go the Scandinavian route - I understand there it is common to have one set of facilities.
I wonder to what extent having gender-segregated showers strenghtens the rape culture. :ph34r:
What I mean by that, insisting on gender segregated showers seems to rest on the implied assumption that boys are natural sexual abusers who are unable to control themselves when in the presence of naked girls - so, in a sense this also lifts responsibility from them and puts them on others (the girls, the school, the environment). So when they finally are in a situation where they have access to vulnerable women, they rape them.
Perhaps instead we should be teaching the kids self control.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 09:38:26 AM
I wonder to what extent having gender-segregated showers strenghtens the rape culture. :ph34r:
Does having gender-segregated showers make gay rape less likely or more?
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 09:36:00 AM
I kinda agree with Malthus, though, but I think the conclusion should be the abolishment of segregated showers - this is because the idea of segregated showers presupposes a cis-hetero-normative vision of the world (I assume the key is not to prevent people from seeing "foreign body parts" but to stop them from being aroused by each other), so this obviously does not work when you have trans or gay kids.
The alternative is to create separate showers for everyone, including other-kin.
I think the "key" or reason isn't to stop people from getting aroused (we have no way of doing that), but rather, feelings of comfort and safety - particularly on the part of women. Men wouldn't care nearly as much as women would: for men (at least hetero men) it would be more a concern about ridicule, but for women, it would be more a concern about (perceived) safety, as well as deeply ingrained cultural notions of modesty.
Fact is that women are far more likely to be the victims of sexual aggression, and cultural norms re modesty reflect that fact.
I don't think it would be really necessary to create separate facilities for each "flavor" of difference. There is already a lot of reasons to have one "separate" facility in major venues - for example, in our local municipal pool, there is a men's, a woman's, and a "family" change-room - the last a response to people with children who are too young to go into the gender-appropriate facilities on their own, but too old not to make others uncomfortable for various reasons (no man really wants to be in a shower room with a seven year old girl). There are other reasons for usoing a separate facility - crippling shyness, for example. Being trans would just be another.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 09:41:11 AM
What I mean by that, insisting on gender segregated showers seems to rest on the implied assumption that boys are natural sexual abusers who are unable to control themselves when in the presence of naked girls - so, in a sense this also lifts responsibility from them and puts them on others (the girls, the school, the environment). So when they finally are in a situation where they have access to vulnerable women, they rape them.
Perhaps instead we should be teaching the kids self control.
It could just as easily be to prevent tons of completely consensual sexual acting out by teenagers in a public place. That might be awkward.
As far as self control well we have a long and proud tradition of abstinence based sexual education. That has a great track record.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 09:28:15 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2015, 09:03:33 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 08:54:04 AM
Alright but that has nothing to do with this scenario. The only people involved here are the ones who identify with one of the two possible gender identities. Even if we made a few more I presume these trans-girls would still be trans-girls.
Yes, and that is exactly the problem - the trans-girl in question (and the administrative authorities) are insisting that her identification with one of the two possible categories is a human right that is violated by "special" treatment, presumably because this singles her out as "different".
Thing is, she *is* "different". No amount of pretending is going to make a person with a dick into a "girl" for all purposes, just the same as every other girl born without one. Anyone looking at her naked (like in a locker room) will know, at once, that she is "different".
This isn't the school's fault, it is the fault of cruel nature, that evidently gave her a mind that didn't match her body. To my mind, it makes less sense to pretend it isn't so, and makes more sense to accommodate that difference by admitting that not everyone fits neatly into "a" or "b".
Replace gender identity with race and you just made a great argument for segregated showers. ;)
And you could replace "gender identity" with "ability to taste aspartame" and mean nothing. I'm not sure why gays and lesbians have hitched their wagon to transsexualism. It certainly doesn't help their cause. It's not much like homosexuality and is considered a certified mental illness. Sex changes are unsatisfactory solution due to the high number of people who express unhappiness after having the procedure. It's much closer to Body integrity identity disorder then being gay.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 09:41:11 AM
What I mean by that, insisting on gender segregated showers seems to rest on the implied assumption that boys are natural sexual abusers who are unable to control themselves when in the presence of naked girls - so, in a sense this also lifts responsibility from them and puts them on others (the girls, the school, the environment). So when they finally are in a situation where they have access to vulnerable women, they rape them.
Perhaps instead we should be teaching the kids self control.
The problem isn't the actual occurrence of sexual violence (I assume it is very unlikely to happen in a public facility filled with people), but the fear of it on the part of the vulnerable, which has led to a culture of female modesty.
I agree in an ideal world this should not exist and no-one should feel such concerns. But it strikes me as a trifle harsh to force women to 'get over it' and shower with men in the name of that ideal.
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2015, 09:51:25 AM
The problem isn't the actual occurrence of sexual violence (I assume it is very unlikely to happen in a public facility filled with people), but the fear of it on the part of the vulnerable, which has led to a culture of female modesty.
I agree in an ideal world this should not exist and no-one should feel such concerns. But it strikes me as a trifle harsh to force women to 'get over it' and shower with men in the name of that ideal.
It would only happen in a few extremely progressive communities over here anyway. What is needed is a standard even bumfuck Texas can do to accommodate trans kids since their school board will likely vote in the uni-sex locker room sometime after they stop teaching creationism.
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2015, 08:56:40 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2015, 08:46:14 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2015, 08:40:46 AM
Strikes me that this issue is that people insist on being either one gender or another - when the reality is that some are "trans". That includes the people who identify as "trans".
The position taken in this case is that requiring these people to shower in separate facilities is a human rights abuse, rather than "reasonable accommodation".
QuoteIn a letter sent Monday, the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education told the Palatine district that requiring a transgender student to use private changing and showering facilities was a violation of that student's rights under Title IX, a federal law that bans sex discrimination. The student, who identifies as female but was born male, should be given unfettered access to girls' facilities, the letter said.
"All students deserve the opportunity to participate equally in school programs and activities — this is a basic civil right," Catherine Lhamon, the Education Department's assistant secretary for civil rights, said in a statement. "Unfortunately, Township High School District 211 is not following the law because the district continues to deny a female student the right to use the girls' locker room."
Thing is, this flies somewhat in the face of reality - namely, that this person, although they are 'female', have 'male' genitals. While this remains the case, insisting that they are for all purposes and under all circumstances a "girl", including in the locker room where everyone gets naked, will not work, because the other "girls" will, without doubt, notice the difference. Nor will forcing the student to use the boy's facilities work, because these boys will, without doubt, notice that this student dresses and identifies as a girl. Thus, private facilities looks like reasonable accommodation - but that is just what was ruled against.
I'm not sure why this is a big deal: increasingly we find separate washroom facilities to (say) accommodate people in wheelchairs, without insisting that every single facility be wheelchair-accessible.
How do you make sure that only transgender people visit transgender bathrooms? And what if somebody born male identifies as female, and do not wishes to share a bathroom with biological females who identify as males?
Also, would you extend this to biological females who identify as males, or the lack of clearly visible biological "clue" of their transgender nature makes this unnecessary? If you do want transgender biological females to use transgender bathrooms, how do you wish to enforce this rule?
I don't think it will be a significant problem, if these are individual facilities that are being provided. The "rule" would be pretty simple: those whose physical attributes match their gender use the appropriate gendered facilities, as they have always done; those who, for whatever reason, find a mis-match, or for any other reason (such as crippling shyness) cannot or don't want to use the common facilities, use the individual ones.
Same as right now with the extra-wide wheelchair stalls in washrooms. They are there for wheelchairs to use but others use them as well - like the morbidly obese. It works out without any need for supervision, because the actual number of people in wheelchairs is pretty small (and I suspect the actual number of the transgendered is even smaller). In our office we have the obligatory extra-large facilities, and I don't think and actual wheelchairs have ever used them - but they get used nonetheless.
What I am getting at is that basically, what you are doing, is drawing a line at a level of sensibility, and creating extra rules to accomodate it, but then you stop and refuse to accomodate similar additional sensibilities, on account of that being unnecessary.
Now you may be right, but I'd like to point out that your position isn't different from the position of "have two bathrooms based on biological gender and that's it case closed" And in a more general theoretical sense from the position of "gender is based on genetics and while you are free to dress as you wish and have sex with whatever gender you wish, as far as the law is concerned your gender is based on your genetics".
The latter, BTW, seeming the most sensible approach considering all these complications arising from all the different kind of trans/cross/cis/etc gendered identities out there.
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2015, 09:17:20 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 03, 2015, 09:11:55 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2015, 01:34:28 AM
I don't see anything remotely bigoted about the belief that guy guys will try to take advantage of this.
Nor is it moronic to think so. After all, the only objective way to prevent it would be to create a test of female identification. I presume the plaintiff in this case was not given one.
Of course a rather impartial test would be if the dude gets a woodie in the shower, but at that it's already mission accomplished.
I figure that if you pretend to be transgendered, then you have to at least cross-dress, no?
Basically, if a straight boy is willing to dress as a girl to attend school and then get in the girl's shower, than the ridicule might be worst than the gratification he would get.
I think if the captain of the basketball team announced that he was going to dress up as a girl and claim gender-female status so he can go shower with the girls basketball team, he would not get any ridicule at all.
Sure, but everyone would know its a joke/scam/weird Yi like attempt to get sexual gratification.
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2015, 10:19:36 AM
What I am getting at is that basically, what you are doing, is drawing a line at a level of sensibility, and creating extra rules to accomodate it, but then you stop and refuse to accomodate similar additional sensibilities, on account of that being unnecessary.
I didn't think I was doing that.
QuoteNow you may be right, but I'd like to point out that your position isn't different from the position of "have two bathrooms based on biological gender and that's it case closed" And in a more general theoretical sense from the position of "gender is based on genetics and while you are free to dress as you wish and have sex with whatever gender you wish, as far as the law is concerned your gender is based on your genetics".
The latter, BTW, seeming the most sensible approach considering all these complications arising from all the different kind of trans/cross/cis/etc gendered identities out there.
I think my position is to avoid the multiple problems involved with this situation by offering an accommodation to anyone who, for whatever reason, finds that the traditional communal bathroom/locker-room set-up doesn't work well - trans, the very shy, anyone with special requirements.
Such accommodation wouldn't be all that difficult, because for other reasons separate facilities are already not unusual. For example, separate washrooms for wheelchair access.
Btw here is the Vancouver School Board policy regarding the same issue.
a.The use of washrooms and change rooms by trans* students shall be assessed on a case-by-case basis with the goals of maximizing the student's social integration, ensuring the student's safety and comfort, minimizing stigmatization and providing equal opportunity to participate in physical education classes and sports.
b.Trans* students shall have access to the washroom and change room that corresponds to their gender identity. Students who desire increased privacy will be provided with a reasonable alternative washroom and/or changing area. Any alternative arrangement will be provided in a way that protects the student's ability to keep their trans* status confidential.
c.The decision with regard to washroom and change room use shall be made in consultation with the trans* student.
d.The Board will strive to make available single stall gender-neutral washrooms at all school locations and worksites
Sounds pretty reasonable.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 11:17:31 AM
Sounds pretty reasonable.
It didn't cause much controversy here when it was introduced. The main controversy was a companion policy that the school would not inform parents if a child self identified as Trans if the child wished to keep that information private. I have mixed feelings about that. As a parent I would want to know so that I could support my child appropriately. But I can see the other side of the argument that a child might be fearful of what a parent might do if the information was shared.
Quote from: Josephus on November 03, 2015, 07:44:54 AM
I think this is liberalism gone mad. The basic rule should be: Got a dick, shower with boys. He MAY feel uncomfortable, but what about the girls having to shower with a boy?
:yes: Nonsense like this is discrediting the concept of tolerance.
Quote from: DGuller on November 03, 2015, 11:31:13 AM
Quote from: Josephus on November 03, 2015, 07:44:54 AM
I think this is liberalism gone mad. The basic rule should be: Got a dick, shower with boys. He MAY feel uncomfortable, but what about the girls having to shower with a boy?
:yes: Nonsense like this is discrediting the concept of tolerance.
:yes: this is what I tried to point out in this thread
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2015, 11:34:31 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 03, 2015, 11:31:13 AM
Quote from: Josephus on November 03, 2015, 07:44:54 AM
I think this is liberalism gone mad. The basic rule should be: Got a dick, shower with boys. He MAY feel uncomfortable, but what about the girls having to shower with a boy?
:yes: Nonsense like this is discrediting the concept of tolerance.
:yes: this is what I tried to point out in this thread
What all of you have demonstrated is a lack of understanding of what it means to be trans. I don't pretend to understand it fully myself but I can understand the need for appropriate accommodation for a transgendered person similar to what Malthus has been arguing and the sort of guidelines developed by the Vancouver School Board posted above.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2015, 11:28:43 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 11:17:31 AM
Sounds pretty reasonable.
It didn't cause much controversy here when it was introduced. The main controversy was a companion policy that the school would not inform parents if a child self identified as Trans if the child wished to keep that information private. I have mixed feelings about that. As a parent I would want to know so that I could support my child appropriately. But I can see the other side of the argument that a child might be fearful of what a parent might do if the information was shared.
Yeah - I am fairly sure that a child would not want to hide this from a supportive parent anyway - unfortunately, a lot of people are assholes.
Quote from: Josephus on November 03, 2015, 07:44:54 AM
I think this is liberalism gone mad. The basic rule should be: Got a dick, shower with boys. He MAY feel uncomfortable, but what about the girls having to shower with a boy?
Why not educate the girls that the child is not a boy, and therefore they should not feel uncomfortable, instead?
Ok, let me ask a question to Tamas, Yi, Josephus, DGuller and the rest of the crowd here - do you guys question the objective existence of transgenderism as something that is inborn and "incurable"?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2015, 11:37:17 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2015, 11:34:31 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 03, 2015, 11:31:13 AM
Quote from: Josephus on November 03, 2015, 07:44:54 AM
I think this is liberalism gone mad. The basic rule should be: Got a dick, shower with boys. He MAY feel uncomfortable, but what about the girls having to shower with a boy?
:yes: Nonsense like this is discrediting the concept of tolerance.
:yes: this is what I tried to point out in this thread
What all of you have demonstrated is a lack of understanding of what it means to be trans. I don't pretend to understand it fully myself but I can understand the need for appropriate accommodation for a transgendered person similar to what Malthus has been arguing and the sort of guidelines developed by the Vancouver School Board posted above.
:yes:
Pretty much a rather shameful display here on Languish.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 11:46:16 AM
Ok, let me ask a question to Tamas, Yi, Josephus, DGuller and the rest of the crowd here - do you guys question the objective existence of transgenderism as something that is inborn and "incurable"?
No.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 11:43:09 AM
Quote from: Josephus on November 03, 2015, 07:44:54 AM
I think this is liberalism gone mad. The basic rule should be: Got a dick, shower with boys. He MAY feel uncomfortable, but what about the girls having to shower with a boy?
Why not educate the girls that the child is not a boy, and therefore they should not feel uncomfortable, instead?
Somehow I don't think the Department of Education has this kind of authority to rule on society wide standards.
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 11:47:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 11:43:09 AM
Quote from: Josephus on November 03, 2015, 07:44:54 AM
I think this is liberalism gone mad. The basic rule should be: Got a dick, shower with boys. He MAY feel uncomfortable, but what about the girls having to shower with a boy?
Why not educate the girls that the child is not a boy, and therefore they should not feel uncomfortable, instead?
Somehow I don't think the Department of Education has this kind of authority to rule on society wide standards.
This is a bizarre statement. Shouldn't public schools be in the "business" of promoting inclusive learning environment for students, especially if it is based on science? Does the Department of Education has authority to teach children they shouldn't call black students the n-word?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2015, 11:05:29 AM
Btw here is the Vancouver School Board policy regarding the same issue.
a.The use of washrooms and change rooms by trans* students shall be assessed on a case-by-case basis with the goals of maximizing the student's social integration, ensuring the student's safety and comfort, minimizing stigmatization and providing equal opportunity to participate in physical education classes and sports.
b.Trans* students shall have access to the washroom and change room that corresponds to their gender identity. Students who desire increased privacy will be provided with a reasonable alternative washroom and/or changing area. Any alternative arrangement will be provided in a way that protects the student's ability to keep their trans* status confidential.
c.The decision with regard to washroom and change room use shall be made in consultation with the trans* student.
d.The Board will strive to make available single stall gender-neutral washrooms at all school locations and worksites
This is a good policy. The problem I have is when it comes down to HUMAN RIGHTS being violated and that determination is being made by a federal agency. They cannot do this kind of thing, that is a school board's prerogative. So they have to say 'human rights require you to do X'. And this standard has to be reasonably applied to hundreds of small districts in a dizzying variety of communities across this country. Tricky.
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 11:50:04 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2015, 11:05:29 AM
Btw here is the Vancouver School Board policy regarding the same issue.
a.The use of washrooms and change rooms by trans* students shall be assessed on a case-by-case basis with the goals of maximizing the student's social integration, ensuring the student's safety and comfort, minimizing stigmatization and providing equal opportunity to participate in physical education classes and sports.
b.Trans* students shall have access to the washroom and change room that corresponds to their gender identity. Students who desire increased privacy will be provided with a reasonable alternative washroom and/or changing area. Any alternative arrangement will be provided in a way that protects the student's ability to keep their trans* status confidential.
c.The decision with regard to washroom and change room use shall be made in consultation with the trans* student.
d.The Board will strive to make available single stall gender-neutral washrooms at all school locations and worksites
This is a good policy. The problem I have is when it comes down to HUMAN RIGHTS being violated and that determination is being made by a federal agency. They cannot do this kind of thing, that is a school board's prerogative. So they have to say 'human rights require you to do X'. And this standard has to be reasonably applied to hundreds of small districts in a dizzying variety of communities across this country. Tricky.
Ok, but this is a rather obscure formal point that does not really fit into the discussion on values we are having here.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 11:50:00 AM
This is a bizarre statement. Shouldn't public schools be in the "business" of promoting inclusive learning environment for students?
It is not that simple.
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 11:52:29 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 11:50:00 AM
This is a bizarre statement. Shouldn't public schools be in the "business" of promoting inclusive learning environment for students?
It is not that simple.
It is only "not that simple" because a part of the society lives in a bizarre prejudiced world that is orthogonal to understanding of modern psychology.
Just build a separate unique snowflake shower for all the precious deviants. Problem solved.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 11:52:20 AM
Ok, but this is a rather obscure formal point that does not really fit into the discussion on values we are having here.
It absolutely does. Values are controlled by local communities in this country and we are discussing a judgement made by the department of education that will apply everywhere. So I thought the question was what standard could be applied to protect trans students in all these communities, many of which are not progressive. So hence why reasonableness, like Malthus was discussing, is important. Trans students are not going to be protected by making this a culture war battlefield where the Feds are going to try to define Gender for the whole nation.
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 11:56:32 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 11:52:20 AM
Ok, but this is a rather obscure formal point that does not really fit into the discussion on values we are having here.
It absolutely does. Values are controlled by local communities in this country and we are discussing a judgement made by the department of education that will apply everywhere. So I thought the question was what standard could be applied to protect trans students in all these communities, many of which are not progressive. So hence why reasonableness, like Malthus was discussing, is important. Trans students are not going to be protected by making this a culture war battlefield where the Feds are going to try to define Gender for the whole nation.
I don't see why not. The battlefield has already long been set for transgender folks, so it isn't a matter of starting a war but rather seeing it through.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 11:55:05 AM
It is only "not that simple" because a part of the society lives in a bizarre prejudiced world that is orthogonal to understanding of modern psychology.
Yes. And those people have democratic rights to enforce their will. Hence the lack of the kind of simplicity we would have if the Philosopher Kings were in charge.
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 11:50:04 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2015, 11:05:29 AM
Btw here is the Vancouver School Board policy regarding the same issue.
a.The use of washrooms and change rooms by trans* students shall be assessed on a case-by-case basis with the goals of maximizing the student's social integration, ensuring the student's safety and comfort, minimizing stigmatization and providing equal opportunity to participate in physical education classes and sports.
b.Trans* students shall have access to the washroom and change room that corresponds to their gender identity. Students who desire increased privacy will be provided with a reasonable alternative washroom and/or changing area. Any alternative arrangement will be provided in a way that protects the student's ability to keep their trans* status confidential.
c.The decision with regard to washroom and change room use shall be made in consultation with the trans* student.
d.The Board will strive to make available single stall gender-neutral washrooms at all school locations and worksites
This is a good policy. The problem I have is when it comes down to HUMAN RIGHTS being violated and that determination is being made by a federal agency. They cannot do this kind of thing, that is a school board's prerogative. So they have to say 'human rights require you to do X'. And this standard has to be reasonably applied to hundreds of small districts in a dizzying variety of communities across this country. Tricky.
The policy was created, in large part, to be in compliance with our Human Rights Act.
Quote from: garbon on November 03, 2015, 11:58:16 AM
I don't see why not. The battlefield has already long been set for transgender folks, so it isn't a matter of starting a war but rather seeing it through.
Alright so you are in favor of a required gender education standard for the entire country?
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 11:59:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 11:55:05 AM
It is only "not that simple" because a part of the society lives in a bizarre prejudiced world that is orthogonal to understanding of modern psychology.
Yes. And those people have democratic rights to enforce their will. Hence the lack of the kind of simplicity we would have if the Philosopher Kings were in charge.
I don't really understand your point. What was being enforced here was Human Rights Legislation which was itself enacted by a democratically elected body.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2015, 12:03:03 PM
I don't really understand your point. What was being enforced here was Human Rights Legislation which was itself enacted by a democratically elected body.
My point was exactly that. This was a school board elected by a community that supported these ideas and passed legislation to address it. I think that is great.
But I thought we were discussing an order passed down by the Department of Education :hmm:
Oh wait you are talking about anti-discrimination laws. Well I don't think those have specific standards on how to apply them. How to do that, I thought, was the topic of conversation. I suppose it could involve mandating a nationwide gender education standard. But wow...
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 12:02:52 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 03, 2015, 11:58:16 AM
I don't see why not. The battlefield has already long been set for transgender folks, so it isn't a matter of starting a war but rather seeing it through.
Alright so you are in favor of a required gender education standard for the entire country?
I don't know that would say that though yes I think teachers and administrators being smacked for spreading ignorant and backwards views. I also don't fear culture wars as I see them as a great opportunity to grind the outdated into the ground. Very unlikely that at my former high school today would a health teacher shame gay students by stating anal sex is bad as the anus is an exit only area.
Quote from: garbon on November 03, 2015, 12:10:20 PM
I don't know that would say that though yes I think teachers and administrators being smacked for spreading ignorant and backwards views. I also don't fear culture wars as I see them as a great opportunity to grind the outdated into the ground. Very unlikely that at my former high school today would a health teacher shame gay students by stating anal sex is bad as the anus is an exit only area.
Well I think we are in agreement here. I was responding to Marty claiming that if any girls have a problem with somebody who is physically male in their shower they should be educated to be right thinking. That seems a bit...difficult to pull off unless the community and school board are on board.
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 12:04:40 PM
Oh wait you are talking about anti-discrimination laws. Well I don't think those have specific standards on how to apply them. How to do that, I thought, was the topic of conversation. I suppose it could involve mandating a nationwide gender education standard. But wow...
I don't think so. I am not sure why each school district couldn't create its own policy so long as that policy met the wider requirements of the applicable legislation.
Can't we identify all the morans in the world and then have them use the "special shower"? Problem solved.
Quote from: The Brain on November 03, 2015, 12:14:52 PM
Can't we identify all the morans in the world and then have them use the "special shower"? Problem solved.
I don't think you would agree with who we would identify. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 12:04:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2015, 12:03:03 PM
I don't really understand your point. What was being enforced here was Human Rights Legislation which was itself enacted by a democratically elected body.
My point was exactly that. This was a school board elected by a community that supported these ideas and passed legislation to address it. I think that is great.
But I thought we were discussing an order passed down by the Department of Education :hmm:
Oh wait you are talking about anti-discrimination laws. Well I don't think those have specific standards on how to apply them. How to do that, I thought, was the topic of conversation. I suppose it could involve mandating a nationwide gender education standard. But wow...
But the finding in the case quoted was that the school's behaviour violated anti-discrimination laws - presumably these were laws passed by someone with legislative power (and hopefully of a higher rank than the school's board). So again I am not sure what your problem is.
Quote from: The Brain on November 03, 2015, 11:56:01 AM
Just build a separate unique snowflake shower for all the precious deviants. Problem solved.
Don't you have kitchens to sell, Slargos?
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 12:12:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 03, 2015, 12:10:20 PM
I don't know that would say that though yes I think teachers and administrators being smacked for spreading ignorant and backwards views. I also don't fear culture wars as I see them as a great opportunity to grind the outdated into the ground. Very unlikely that at my former high school today would a health teacher shame gay students by stating anal sex is bad as the anus is an exit only area.
Well I think we are in agreement here. I was responding to Marty claiming that if any girls have a problem with somebody who is physically male in their shower they should be educated to be right thinking. That seems a bit...difficult to pull off unless the community and school board are on board.
Again I am not sure I agree. I am not talking about educating to be "right thinking". I am talking about educating about facts (such as "a transgendered student is not a boy despite being born with male genitals"). Surely, if the community and the school board was "educating" students that the Earth is flat and is in fact one of the genitals of Satan, Our Supreme Lord and Saviour, the Board of Education would have a right to intervene. How else would you enforce compliance with the national curriculum (which may - and in fact should - include anti-discrimination education).
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2015, 12:14:27 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 12:04:40 PM
Oh wait you are talking about anti-discrimination laws. Well I don't think those have specific standards on how to apply them. How to do that, I thought, was the topic of conversation. I suppose it could involve mandating a nationwide gender education standard. But wow...
I don't think so. I am not sure why each school district couldn't create its own policy so long as that policy met the wider requirements of the applicable legislation.
Exactly. Each district will be creating its own policy to match a federal standard based on this ruling. So it should be one people can reasonably apply that protects trans students without causing too much of a shit storm for the local communities.
Quote from: The Brain on November 03, 2015, 12:14:52 PM
Can't we identify all the morans in the world and then have them use the "special shower"? Problem solved.
I don't like where this is heading. :Joos
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 12:21:19 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2015, 12:14:27 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 12:04:40 PM
Oh wait you are talking about anti-discrimination laws. Well I don't think those have specific standards on how to apply them. How to do that, I thought, was the topic of conversation. I suppose it could involve mandating a nationwide gender education standard. But wow...
I don't think so. I am not sure why each school district couldn't create its own policy so long as that policy met the wider requirements of the applicable legislation.
Exactly. Each district will be creating its own policy to match a federal standard based on this ruling. So it should be one people can reasonably apply that protects trans students without causing too much of a shit storm for the local communities.
Other than practical consideration for accomodating bigots, why exactly would that be?
Going by that logic, Brown vs. Board of Education also created a lot of "shit storm for the local communities". But when it did, someone braver than you sent in the National Guard.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 12:20:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 12:12:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 03, 2015, 12:10:20 PM
I don't know that would say that though yes I think teachers and administrators being smacked for spreading ignorant and backwards views. I also don't fear culture wars as I see them as a great opportunity to grind the outdated into the ground. Very unlikely that at my former high school today would a health teacher shame gay students by stating anal sex is bad as the anus is an exit only area.
Well I think we are in agreement here. I was responding to Marty claiming that if any girls have a problem with somebody who is physically male in their shower they should be educated to be right thinking. That seems a bit...difficult to pull off unless the community and school board are on board.
Again I am not sure I agree. I am not talking about educating to be "right thinking". I am talking about educating about facts (such as "a transgendered student is not a boy despite being born with male genitals"). Surely, if the community and the school board was "educating" students that the Earth is flat and is in fact one of the genitals of Satan, Our Supreme Lord and Saviour, the Board of Education would have a right to intervene. How else would you enforce compliance with the national curriculum (which may - and in fact should - include anti-discrimination education).
Your idea that there is a strict dividing line between 100% boy and 0% boy with no middle ground is weird.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 12:20:26 PM
Again I am not sure I agree. I am not talking about educating to be "right thinking". I am talking about educating about facts (such as "a transgendered student is not a boy despite being born with male genitals"). Surely, if the community and the school board was "educating" students that the Earth is flat and is in fact one of the genitals of Satan, Our Supreme Lord and Saviour, the Board of Education would have a right to intervene. How else would you enforce compliance with the national curriculum (which may - and in fact should - include anti-discrimination education).
Right so if a girl, or her family or whatever, freak out that somebody they think is a boy is allowed in their shower they are wrong and must be taught to be correct. Ergo 'right thinking'.
Quote from: The Brain on November 03, 2015, 12:24:19 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 12:20:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 12:12:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 03, 2015, 12:10:20 PM
I don't know that would say that though yes I think teachers and administrators being smacked for spreading ignorant and backwards views. I also don't fear culture wars as I see them as a great opportunity to grind the outdated into the ground. Very unlikely that at my former high school today would a health teacher shame gay students by stating anal sex is bad as the anus is an exit only area.
Well I think we are in agreement here. I was responding to Marty claiming that if any girls have a problem with somebody who is physically male in their shower they should be educated to be right thinking. That seems a bit...difficult to pull off unless the community and school board are on board.
Again I am not sure I agree. I am not talking about educating to be "right thinking". I am talking about educating about facts (such as "a transgendered student is not a boy despite being born with male genitals"). Surely, if the community and the school board was "educating" students that the Earth is flat and is in fact one of the genitals of Satan, Our Supreme Lord and Saviour, the Board of Education would have a right to intervene. How else would you enforce compliance with the national curriculum (which may - and in fact should - include anti-discrimination education).
Your idea that there is a strict dividing line between 100% boy and 0% boy with no middle ground is weird.
I don't have such idea - that is why I support the Vancouverian policy Crazy Canuck quoted, which calls for such cases to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. We are talking of possibly a handful of students per school, so there is no need for a "one size fits all" policy.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 12:22:34 PM
Other than practical consideration for accomodating bigots, why exactly would that be?
Going by that logic, Brown vs. Board of Education also created a lot of "shit storm for the local communities". But when it did, someone braver than you sent in the National Guard.
Oh FFS. Transgendered students are not be segregated out of school. We are talking about bathroom accommodations.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 12:25:44 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 03, 2015, 12:24:19 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 12:20:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 12:12:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 03, 2015, 12:10:20 PM
I don't know that would say that though yes I think teachers and administrators being smacked for spreading ignorant and backwards views. I also don't fear culture wars as I see them as a great opportunity to grind the outdated into the ground. Very unlikely that at my former high school today would a health teacher shame gay students by stating anal sex is bad as the anus is an exit only area.
Well I think we are in agreement here. I was responding to Marty claiming that if any girls have a problem with somebody who is physically male in their shower they should be educated to be right thinking. That seems a bit...difficult to pull off unless the community and school board are on board.
Again I am not sure I agree. I am not talking about educating to be "right thinking". I am talking about educating about facts (such as "a transgendered student is not a boy despite being born with male genitals"). Surely, if the community and the school board was "educating" students that the Earth is flat and is in fact one of the genitals of Satan, Our Supreme Lord and Saviour, the Board of Education would have a right to intervene. How else would you enforce compliance with the national curriculum (which may - and in fact should - include anti-discrimination education).
Your idea that there is a strict dividing line between 100% boy and 0% boy with no middle ground is weird.
I don't have such idea - that is why I support the Vancouverian policy Crazy Canuck quoted, which calls for such cases to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. We are talking of possibly a handful of students per school, so there is no need for a "one size fits all" policy.
You presented "a transgendered student is not a boy despite being born with male genitals" as a fact.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 12:25:44 PM
I don't have such idea - that is why I support the Vancouverian policy Crazy Canuck quoted, which calls for such cases to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. We are talking of possibly a handful of students per school, so there is no need for a "one size fits all" policy.
Yes but there has to be a minimum standard nationwide if this is a human rights issue. So sure a school district or board may make rulings on a case by case basis to benefit the student and the community but there has to be a baseline of compliance that suits every case. If this is a human rights issue and it seems to be.
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 12:25:18 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 12:20:26 PM
Again I am not sure I agree. I am not talking about educating to be "right thinking". I am talking about educating about facts (such as "a transgendered student is not a boy despite being born with male genitals"). Surely, if the community and the school board was "educating" students that the Earth is flat and is in fact one of the genitals of Satan, Our Supreme Lord and Saviour, the Board of Education would have a right to intervene. How else would you enforce compliance with the national curriculum (which may - and in fact should - include anti-discrimination education).
Right so if a girl, or her family or whatever, freak out that somebody they think is a boy is allowed in their shower they are wrong and must be taught to be correct. Ergo 'right thinking'.
You have to weigh the conflicting rights and sensibilities here. If a girl freaks out about this, then it is not about "teaching her to be correct", but about explaining the situation to her and trying to have her understand the context. It would be the same if a white girl freaked out about having to shower with a black girl.
Otoh, the concerns of the girl's family should be of absolutely no relevance.
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 12:27:43 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 12:25:44 PM
I don't have such idea - that is why I support the Vancouverian policy Crazy Canuck quoted, which calls for such cases to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. We are talking of possibly a handful of students per school, so there is no need for a "one size fits all" policy.
Yes but there has to be a minimum standard nationwide if this is a human rights issue. So sure a school district or board may make rulings on a case by case basis to benefit the student and the community but there has to be a baseline of compliance that suits every case. If this is a human rights issue and it seems to be.
Ok. But as others asked - why is this an issue again?
Quote from: The Brain on November 03, 2015, 12:27:08 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 12:25:44 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 03, 2015, 12:24:19 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 12:20:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 12:12:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 03, 2015, 12:10:20 PM
I don't know that would say that though yes I think teachers and administrators being smacked for spreading ignorant and backwards views. I also don't fear culture wars as I see them as a great opportunity to grind the outdated into the ground. Very unlikely that at my former high school today would a health teacher shame gay students by stating anal sex is bad as the anus is an exit only area.
Well I think we are in agreement here. I was responding to Marty claiming that if any girls have a problem with somebody who is physically male in their shower they should be educated to be right thinking. That seems a bit...difficult to pull off unless the community and school board are on board.
Again I am not sure I agree. I am not talking about educating to be "right thinking". I am talking about educating about facts (such as "a transgendered student is not a boy despite being born with male genitals"). Surely, if the community and the school board was "educating" students that the Earth is flat and is in fact one of the genitals of Satan, Our Supreme Lord and Saviour, the Board of Education would have a right to intervene. How else would you enforce compliance with the national curriculum (which may - and in fact should - include anti-discrimination education).
Your idea that there is a strict dividing line between 100% boy and 0% boy with no middle ground is weird.
I don't have such idea - that is why I support the Vancouverian policy Crazy Canuck quoted, which calls for such cases to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. We are talking of possibly a handful of students per school, so there is no need for a "one size fits all" policy.
You presented "a transgendered student is not a boy despite being born with male genitals" as a fact.
Yes, but I am talking about a situation where, on a case-by-case psychological evaluation, it has already been established that the transgendered student identifies with the non-biological sex and should be treated as the sex they identify with instead.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 11:43:09 AM
Quote from: Josephus on November 03, 2015, 07:44:54 AM
I think this is liberalism gone mad. The basic rule should be: Got a dick, shower with boys. He MAY feel uncomfortable, but what about the girls having to shower with a boy?
Why not educate the girls that the child is not a boy, and therefore they should not feel uncomfortable, instead?
The same issue exists for having gender-separate facilities in the first place. It would be great (plus a savings of expense) to simply educate children to not suffer shyness or have any other problems in the presence of naked kids with different genitals, and maybe in the future that will be the way forward - but for as long as such differences are culturally ingrained, it seems incoherent to accommodate them by having different facilities generally, but to ignore them in specific cases. It strikes me as creating more problems than it solves.
The idea, I would think, would be to educate kids to accept Trans kids without bullying, teasing, or confrontation. I think it does no particular good to attempt to educate all girls into accepting that goal by specifically requiring them to shower alongside a trans girl, an act that simply highlights the physical difference, in a culture that still makes a big deal about such physical differences (insofar as it has separate facilities). While in the ideal world there ought to be no problem with that, and maybe in some places and with some individuals there isn't, requiring all trans girls to shower with the girls maybe isn't the best policy; I would prefer a flexible policy of accommodation based on individual circumstances. Here's another example, from the Toronto school board:
http://www.tdsb.on.ca/AboutUs/Innovation/GenderBasedViolencePrevention/AccommodationofTransgenderStudentsandStaff.aspx
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 12:28:43 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 12:27:43 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 12:25:44 PM
I don't have such idea - that is why I support the Vancouverian policy Crazy Canuck quoted, which calls for such cases to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. We are talking of possibly a handful of students per school, so there is no need for a "one size fits all" policy.
Yes but there has to be a minimum standard nationwide if this is a human rights issue. So sure a school district or board may make rulings on a case by case basis to benefit the student and the community but there has to be a baseline of compliance that suits every case. If this is a human rights issue and it seems to be.
Ok. But as others asked - why is this an issue again?
I thought that was the issue we were discussing :unsure:
If you do not think it merits discussion feel free not to post here.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 12:30:25 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 03, 2015, 12:27:08 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 12:25:44 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 03, 2015, 12:24:19 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 12:20:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 12:12:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 03, 2015, 12:10:20 PM
I don't know that would say that though yes I think teachers and administrators being smacked for spreading ignorant and backwards views. I also don't fear culture wars as I see them as a great opportunity to grind the outdated into the ground. Very unlikely that at my former high school today would a health teacher shame gay students by stating anal sex is bad as the anus is an exit only area.
Well I think we are in agreement here. I was responding to Marty claiming that if any girls have a problem with somebody who is physically male in their shower they should be educated to be right thinking. That seems a bit...difficult to pull off unless the community and school board are on board.
Again I am not sure I agree. I am not talking about educating to be "right thinking". I am talking about educating about facts (such as "a transgendered student is not a boy despite being born with male genitals"). Surely, if the community and the school board was "educating" students that the Earth is flat and is in fact one of the genitals of Satan, Our Supreme Lord and Saviour, the Board of Education would have a right to intervene. How else would you enforce compliance with the national curriculum (which may - and in fact should - include anti-discrimination education).
Your idea that there is a strict dividing line between 100% boy and 0% boy with no middle ground is weird.
I don't have such idea - that is why I support the Vancouverian policy Crazy Canuck quoted, which calls for such cases to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. We are talking of possibly a handful of students per school, so there is no need for a "one size fits all" policy.
You presented "a transgendered student is not a boy despite being born with male genitals" as a fact.
Yes, but I am talking about a situation where, on a case-by-case psychological evaluation, it has already been established that the transgendered student identifies with the non-biological sex and should be treated as the sex they identify with instead.
So?
Claws come out!
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 12:26:33 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 12:22:34 PM
Other than practical consideration for accomodating bigots, why exactly would that be?
Going by that logic, Brown vs. Board of Education also created a lot of "shit storm for the local communities". But when it did, someone braver than you sent in the National Guard.
Oh FFS. Transgendered students are not be segregated out of school. We are talking about bathroom accommodations.
Priorities Valmy, priorities. Get in line.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 11:46:16 AM
Ok, let me ask a question to Tamas, Yi, Josephus, DGuller and the rest of the crowd here - do you guys question the objective existence of transgenderism as something that is inborn and "incurable"?
Do you recognize this as a known mental illness as categorized by ISC and DSM?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 03, 2015, 01:01:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 11:46:16 AM
Ok, let me ask a question to Tamas, Yi, Josephus, DGuller and the rest of the crowd here - do you guys question the objective existence of transgenderism as something that is inborn and "incurable"?
Do you recognize this as a known mental illness as categorized by ISC and DSM?
DSM V has gender dysphoria to relate to the distress these individuals feel and not to suggest being transgender is a disorder. Besides the Dsm is a living document and changes its stance over time.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 12:28:01 PM
You have to weigh the conflicting rights and sensibilities here. If a girl freaks out about this, then it is not about "teaching her to be correct", but about explaining the situation to her and trying to have her understand the context. It would be the same if a white girl freaked out about having to shower with a black girl.
Would it be the same as if a girl with a penis freaked out about having to shower with boys with penises?
Quote from: garbon on November 03, 2015, 01:05:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 03, 2015, 01:01:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 11:46:16 AM
Ok, let me ask a question to Tamas, Yi, Josephus, DGuller and the rest of the crowd here - do you guys question the objective existence of transgenderism as something that is inborn and "incurable"?
Do you recognize this as a known mental illness as categorized by ISC and DSM?
DSM V has gender dysphoria to relate to the distress these individuals feel and not to suggest being transgender is a disorder. Besides the Dsm is a living document and changes its stance over time.
Individuals feel stress because of the disorder. They believe they are living in the wrong type of body. There are similar illnesses that don't revolve around gender. But just to be clear the DSM has
currently regards this as a mental illness. It may change one day, it may not. But the current medical and scientific consensus is that it is an illness. To argue otherwise is contradict science.
Again DSM V makes a point not to suggest the gender identity is actually a problem to correct but rather the distress that comes from it.
Quote from: garbon on November 03, 2015, 01:18:37 PM
Again DSM V makes a point not to suggest the gender identity is actually a problem to correct but rather the distress that comes from it.
Yes, but that's not different from a lot of mental illnesses. Is it or is it not an illness in the DSM V?
Gender dysphoria is. As far as I know, gender identity disorder no longer is.
Quote from: garbon on November 03, 2015, 01:23:40 PM
Gender dysphoria is. As far as I know, gender identity disorder no longer is.
ICD-10 still calls GID http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2015/en#/F64.9 So we are clear that these people are in fact, mentally ill correct? Now imagine a pill was invented and caused a person to become satisfied with their biological sex. Would this be an acceptable solution?
So ICD is behind? Cool.
And no, I would not say in general that these people are mentally ill.
Quote from: garbon on November 03, 2015, 01:30:24 PM
So ICD is behind? Cool.
And no, I would not say in general that these people are mentally ill.
Behind? Okay, whatever. Just so we are clear, you are out of step with current scientific and medical positions when you deny there is a mental illness. You are under the impression that relevant bodies will "catch up", right? What makes you believe this, garbon?
Man we go from Marty insisting that his views are facts to Raz saying science says it all is a mental illness. This does sound like a debate at a meeting of an American School Board after all.
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 01:39:05 PM
Man we go from Marty insisting that his views are facts to Raz saying science says it all is a mental illness. This does sound like a debate at a meeting of an American School Board after all.
Naw. Nobody, so far, is "witnessing" about God. :D
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 01:39:05 PM
Man we go from Marty insisting that his views are facts to Raz saying science says it all is a mental illness. This does sound like a debate at a meeting of an American School Board after all.
We had a big thread about disregarding science due to religion and how dangerous it is, certainly disregarding science due to political concerns is just as bad, right? I think that since garbon and Marty are so emotionally and politically invested in this, they are ignoring what current medicine and science says about it.
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2015, 01:42:43 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 01:39:05 PM
Man we go from Marty insisting that his views are facts to Raz saying science says it all is a mental illness. This does sound like a debate at a meeting of an American School Board after all.
Naw. Nobody, so far, is "witnessing" about God. :D
Well yeah the next person would have to stand up and say this proposal threatens religious freedom.
Thread exec.sum. please. :)
Did I miss anything?
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 01:44:29 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2015, 01:42:43 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 01:39:05 PM
Man we go from Marty insisting that his views are facts to Raz saying science says it all is a mental illness. This does sound like a debate at a meeting of an American School Board after all.
Naw. Nobody, so far, is "witnessing" about God. :D
Well yeah the next person would have to stand up and say this proposal threatens religious freedom.
:D
Quote from: mongers on November 03, 2015, 01:45:27 PM
Thread exec.sum. please. :)
Did I miss anything?
Not really. Yi assumes boys will pretend to be trans to obtain sexual gratification; some take the position that boys just need to be boys; others take the view that reasonable accommodation is the answer and the policies in Vancouver and Toronto were posted; Valmy was concerned about local autonomy in creating such policies - that was probably the best part of the discussion. After that the discussion was diverted into whether outdated definitions of mental illness were still valid.
Current definitions.
Raz just wants the transgendered folk to be part of the same big family he is in. :hug:
Well, what if he really is Napoleon?
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 02:01:51 PM
Raz just wants the transgendered folk to be part of the same big family he is in. :hug:
We are already there. :contract:
Quote from: Razgovory on November 03, 2015, 01:44:03 PMI think that since garbon and Marty are so emotionally and politically invested in this, they are ignoring what current medicine and science says about it.
Indeed.
QuoteThe pro-transgender advocates do not want to know, said McHugh, that studies show between 70% and 80% of children who express transgender feelings "spontaneously lose those feelings" over time. Also, for those who had sexual reassignment surgery, most said they were "satisfied" with the operation "but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn't have the surgery."
"And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a 'satisfied' but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs," said Dr. McHugh.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change)
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2015, 08:49:36 AM
In other cultures there have always been more than two, but not in ours!
really? I admit my curiosity now. Thailand, apparently, but other than that, which culture recognizes more than two genders?
Well there are thousands of cultures. I am sure there are a few in there with dozens of genders.
Quote from: viper37 on November 03, 2015, 02:39:46 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2015, 08:49:36 AM
In other cultures there have always been more than two, but not in ours!
really? I admit my curiosity now. Thailand, apparently, but other than that, which culture recognizes more than two genders?
Native Americans, for one.
http://plainshumanities.unl.edu/encyclopedia/doc/egp.gen.004
QuoteIn the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, French explorers, traders, and missionaries in the Mississippi Valley occasionally encountered Native Americans who could be classified neither as men nor women. They called such individuals berdaches, a French term for younger partners in male homosexual relationships. In fact, Plains Indian berdaches are best described as occupying an alternative or third gender role, in which traits of men and women are combined with those unique to berdache status. Male berdaches did women's work, cross-dressed or combined male and female clothing, and formed relationships with non-berdache men.
Plains Indian women often engaged in hunting and warfare, but a female role equivalent to that of male berdaches, although common west of the Rockies, has been documented in the Plains only among the Cheyennes (the hetaneman). Even so, some Plains Indian women became notable warriors and leaders and behaved much like berdaches. In the early nineteenth century, Running Eagle of the Piegans wore male clothing on war parties, while Woman Chief of the Crows had four wives.
The French even invented the term for it. ;)
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2015, 09:17:20 AM
I think if the captain of the basketball team announced that he was going to dress up as a girl and claim gender-female status so he can go shower with the girls basketball team, he would not get any ridicule at all.
If think if he started dressing up as a girl all day long at school, he would get ridiculed.
There is a difference between dressing as a girl once to visit the girls' showers or crawling to a deck to see the girls showering or finding any other way into their dressing room and being dressed as a girl and doing sports with the girls every day for many months.
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2015, 02:42:35 PM
Native Americans, for one.
Do Native American progressives reject the Gender Trinary?
How common was this? My impression was that each Native American nation had a pretty different culture and language.
Quote from: viper37 on November 03, 2015, 02:46:18 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2015, 09:17:20 AM
I think if the captain of the basketball team announced that he was going to dress up as a girl and claim gender-female status so he can go shower with the girls basketball team, he would not get any ridicule at all.
If think if he started dressing up as a girl all day long at school, he would get ridiculed.
There is a difference between dressing as a girl once to visit the girls' showers or crawling to a deck to see the girls showering or finding any other way into their dressing room and being dressed as a girl and doing sports with the girls every day for many months.
The ability to pull off this scheme depends entirely on the idiocy of the adults in charge. So...it probably would happen someplace.
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2015, 02:42:35 PM
QuoteIn the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, French explorers, traders, and missionaries in the Mississippi Valley occasionally encountered Native Americans who could be classified neither as men nor women. They called such individuals berdaches, a French term for younger partners in male homosexual relationships. In fact, Plains Indian berdaches are best described as occupying an alternative or third gender role, in which traits of men and women are combined with those unique to berdache status. Male berdaches did women's work, cross-dressed or combined male and female clothing, and formed relationships with non-berdache men.
Plains Indian women often engaged in hunting and warfare, but a female role equivalent to that of male berdaches, although common west of the Rockies, has been documented in the Plains only among the Cheyennes (the hetaneman). Even so, some Plains Indian women became notable warriors and leaders and behaved much like berdaches. In the early nineteenth century, Running Eagle of the Piegans wore male clothing on war parties, while Woman Chief of the Crows had four wives.
The French even invented the term for it. ;)
The real French term, in modern spelling at least, is
bardache though, otherwise Viper and other francophones won't be able to find it in a dictionary. :P
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 02:49:19 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2015, 02:42:35 PM
Native Americans, for one.
Do Native American progressives reject the Gender Trinary?
:P
They are just pissed that the name comes from the French, a slang term at that. They now prefer "two-spirit".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2015, 02:56:00 PM
They are just pissed that the name comes from the French, a slang term at that. They now prefer "two-spirit".
So they chose an English term. Well we guess we know who won the Seven Years War. Stupid Louis XV.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2015, 01:52:08 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 03, 2015, 01:45:27 PM
Thread exec.sum. please. :)
Did I miss anything?
Not really. Yi assumes boys will pretend to be trans to obtain sexual gratification; some take the position that boys just need to be boys; others take the view that reasonable accommodation is the answer and the policies in Vancouver and Toronto were posted; Valmy was concerned about local autonomy in creating such policies - that was probably the best part of the discussion. After that the discussion was diverted into whether outdated definitions of mental illness were still valid.
Thanks CC, half an hour of my life saved. :cheers:
I think India and Nepal also have the third gender. And some Polynesian cultures.
But I guess this is the curse of our culture. We like to be binary. Very manichean. Hell, even 90% of the entire gay liberation culture has been about pretending we are just like the straights.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 03:12:25 PM
I think India and Nepal also have the third gender. And some Polynesian cultures.
But I guess this is the curse of our culture. We like to be binary. Very manichean. Hell, even 90% of the entire gay liberation culture has been about pretending we are just like the straights.
Huh. I have known many people from Nepal and India and none of them have mentioned this before. But then how often does a gender category a tiny percentage of the population occupy come up in conversation?
Our culture is not unique to having two genders.
As far as gays pretending to be just like the straights well...when you raised by wolves you are going to resemble them at least a little bit surely? :P
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 03:12:25 PM
I think India and Nepal also have the third gender. And some Polynesian cultures.
But I guess this is the curse of our culture. We like to be binary. Very manichean. Hell, even 90% of the entire gay liberation culture has been about pretending we are just like the straights.
You do realize, this isn't really the type transsexualism we were talking about, right. It's closer to being a nun or eunuch.
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 03:17:56 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 03:12:25 PM
I think India and Nepal also have the third gender. And some Polynesian cultures.
But I guess this is the curse of our culture. We like to be binary. Very manichean. Hell, even 90% of the entire gay liberation culture has been about pretending we are just like the straights.
Huh. I have known many people from Nepal and India and none of them have mentioned this before. But then how often does a gender category a tiny percentage of the population occupy come up in conversation?
Our culture is not unique to having two genders.
As far as gays pretending to be just like the straights well...when you raised by wolves you are going to resemble them at least a little bit surely? :P
Yeah, but we are different. We tend towards polyamory, or at least more unusual set ups - yet we settle for monogamy. Also, equating lesbians and gays is just a no-no - we are galaxies apart.
But I also agree with Bill Maher - after all the sexual liberation of the last decade, it's you, heterosexual folk, who get the short end of the stick - because we are free to express ourselves, but you guys are still stuck in your old Victorian expectations. Time to throw off the shackles and begin the new aeon. :P
Throw off the shackles to express yourself sexually? Are you on drugs?
Quote from: The Brain on November 03, 2015, 03:30:56 PM
Throw off the shackles to express yourself sexually? Are you on drugs?
Touche. You can leave the dog collar and the leash on.
Yeah I thought Marty was into a bit of light bondage.
Anyway I want no part of any of that. Monogamy is what I have wanted since I was a small child. I have always had exactly zero percent interest in other structures. I want a cozy home with a supporting family and a close intimate bond with my partner. That is me expressing myself. It is not for everybody but I find it pretty damn amazing.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 11:46:16 AM
Ok, let me ask a question to Tamas, Yi, Josephus, DGuller and the rest of the crowd here - do you guys question the objective existence of transgenderism as something that is inborn and "incurable"?
I will answer for myself. I think it is inborn and incurable as of today. Just like homosexuality.
I am not excluding that over time we could find the cause of transgenderism and maybe have a treatment, psychological or otherwise. Just like homosexuality where some research are beginning to indicate a genetic factor.
While I do believe psychological, genetical and other research should be pursued to better understand the phenomenon, I do not believe, even if such treatments were 100% effective and without any side-effects should be forced on someone. Though I suspect there could be family/social pressure into taking it.
I do think that there is a somewhat recent increase in transgender behavior (people identifying themselves as the opposite sex of their biology) and I am uncertain that the current situation where we encourage them to express their difference and eventually let them go to sex reassignment surgery is the right way to go, given that many seem to express regret. Maybe there is a need for more psychological challenges before they reach that point, maybe they need to be confronted, shocked, whatever. Maybe I am spouting crap too, that's possible, that's what you'll tell me anyway. I just think we definately need more research to better understand these people in the long run. In the mean time, seek accomodations based on the Vancouver school board's guidelines seems the proper attitude. I'd hate to see an increase in teenage suicide because trans people feel untolerated.
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 03:35:10 PM
Yeah I thought Marty was into a bit of light bondage.
Anyway I want no part of any of that. Monogamy is what I have wanted since I was a small child. I have always had exactly zero percent interest in other structures. I want a cozy home with a supporting family and a close intimate bond with my partner. That is me expressing myself. It is not for everybody but I find it pretty damn amazing.
That's fine. I think we should get all flavours at the ice cream truck of human sexuality, and I actually do frequently choose vanilla. At ice cream trucks, not at sexuality, but I can appreciate the sentiment.
Quote from: viper37 on November 03, 2015, 03:35:25 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 11:46:16 AM
Ok, let me ask a question to Tamas, Yi, Josephus, DGuller and the rest of the crowd here - do you guys question the objective existence of transgenderism as something that is inborn and "incurable"?
I will answer for myself. I think it is inborn and incurable as of today. Just like homosexuality.
I am not excluding that over time we could find the cause of transgenderism and maybe have a treatment, psychological or otherwise. Just like homosexuality where some research are beginning to indicate a genetic factor.
While I do believe psychological, genetical and other research should be pursued to better understand the phenomenon, I do not believe, even if such treatments were 100% effective and without any side-effects should be forced on someone. Though I suspect there could be family/social pressure into taking it.
I do think that there is a somewhat recent increase in transgender behavior (people identifying themselves as the opposite sex of their biology) and I am uncertain that the current situation where we encourage them to express their difference and eventually let them go to sex reassignment surgery is the right way to go, given that many seem to express regret. Maybe there is a need for more psychological challenges before they reach that point, maybe they need to be confronted, shocked, whatever. Maybe I am spouting crap too, that's possible, that's what you'll tell me anyway. I just think we definately need more research to better understand these people in the long run. In the mean time, seek accomodations based on the Vancouver school board's guidelines seems the proper attitude. I'd hate to see an increase in teenage suicide because trans people feel untolerated.
I think it's a complex issue. I don't have a final view on this myself, but I get a sort of knee-jerk reaction to ignorance and bigotry.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 11:46:16 AM
Ok, let me ask a question to Tamas, Yi, Josephus, DGuller and the rest of the crowd here - do you guys question the objective existence of transgenderism as something that is inborn and "incurable"?
No. I agree it's a real thing.
My issue with it is accommodation. I can see how some girls and their parents would feel awkward if a "boy"...that is to say a human with a penis.. would use the same change room/ shower.
CC's Vancouver example, is something that is a fair compromise. But unless a separate room exists, then I think it's best for all if the "boy" used the men's changeroom.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 03:36:57 PM
and I actually do frequently choose vanilla.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billboard.com%2Ffiles%2Fstylus%2F109795-vanilla_ice_617_409.jpg&hash=fbc7cc2eac3f1798c33eb249b564d830960967f8)
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 03:36:57 PM
That's fine. I think we should get all flavours at the ice cream truck of human sexuality, and I actually do frequently choose vanilla. At ice cream trucks, not at sexuality, but I can appreciate the sentiment.
Yeah so leave me with my emotionally nurturing shackles :P
Polish ice cream truck flavors:
Potato
Dead Jew
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 03:38:46 PM
I think it's a complex issue. I don't have a final view on this myself, but I get a sort of knee-jerk reaction to ignorance and bigotry.
Yeah I have no idea what is true and what isn't. I just figure we should not be assholes to people.
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 03:44:56 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 03:38:46 PM
I think it's a complex issue. I don't have a final view on this myself, but I get a sort of knee-jerk reaction to ignorance and bigotry.
Yeah I have no idea what is true and what isn't. I just figure we should not be assholes to people.
Yeah. I think we should minimise suffering. The transgendered kids probably have enough shit going on in their life. Like wondering whether to cut off their penis.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 03:28:48 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 03:17:56 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 03:12:25 PM
I think India and Nepal also have the third gender. And some Polynesian cultures.
But I guess this is the curse of our culture. We like to be binary. Very manichean. Hell, even 90% of the entire gay liberation culture has been about pretending we are just like the straights.
Huh. I have known many people from Nepal and India and none of them have mentioned this before. But then how often does a gender category a tiny percentage of the population occupy come up in conversation?
Our culture is not unique to having two genders.
As far as gays pretending to be just like the straights well...when you raised by wolves you are going to resemble them at least a little bit surely? :P
Yeah, but we are different. We tend towards polyamory, or at least more unusual set ups - yet we settle for monogamy. Also, equating lesbians and gays is just a no-no - we are galaxies apart.
But I also agree with Bill Maher - after all the sexual liberation of the last decade, it's you, heterosexual folk, who get the short end of the stick - because we are free to express ourselves, but you guys are still stuck in your old Victorian expectations. Time to throw off the shackles and begin the new aeon. :P
Heh, I have found it sorta amusing (if reasonably predictable) that the actual effect of actually liberating homosexuals from the culture of discrimination at the hands of the hetero majority has been - that the whole culture of gays as sexually promiscuous, adventurous outsiders has faded. More and more, it seems, they use their freedom to "want" to engage in stereotypical 'heteronormative' couples behavior that would do the Cleavers proud. :D Gay marriage was, as it turned out, a two-edged thing - hell, I have a gay couple living two doors down, and they are so goddamned normal they make me look like a freak. :P Even our Gay Pride Day Parade is basically a civic institution, becoming about as 'transgressive' as the Santa Claus Parade.
And then there is NPH and David Burtka who do this kind of shit with their kids each year. It's so fucking obnoxiously sweet, it's annoying.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets-s3.usmagazine.com%2Fuploads%2Fassets%2Farticles%2F94193-neil-patrick-harris-wins-halloween-with-amazing-star-wars-outfits%2F1446369575_harris-article.jpg&hash=a1a9f2d0d91e8704168551928a6ed6e89aa396ee)
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 03:46:53 PM
Yeah. I think we should minimise suffering. The transgendered kids probably have enough shit going on in their life. Like wondering whether to cut off their penis.
Or get one added.
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2015, 03:51:36 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 03:46:53 PM
Yeah. I think we should minimise suffering. The transgendered kids probably have enough shit going on in their life. Like wondering whether to cut off their penis.
Or get one added.
Yup. I wonder if a lot of trans people are sorta pressured into gender reassignment surgery.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 03:50:49 PM
And then there is NPH and David Burtka who do this kind of shit with their kids each year. It's so fucking obnoxiously sweet, it's annoying.
NPH really is king of the dorks.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 03:52:57 PM
Yup. I wonder if a lot of trans people are sorta pressured into gender reassignment surgery.
Yeah I don't know. These are the kind of subjects you just do not bring up. 'So...thinking of getting gender reassignment surgery?' 'Hey so are you happy you got gender reassignment therapy?'
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 12:20:26 PM
How else would you enforce compliance with the national curriculum
We aren't supposed to have a national curriculum in the States.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 12:20:26 PM
I am talking about educating about facts (such as "a transgendered student is not a boy despite being born with male genitals").
It's not a fact. Facts can be verified. This is impossible to verify as of now. No brain scan is going to definately reveal if you are a female trapped in a man's body. What is required is a psych eval and these kind of evaluations will differ from therapist to thereapist and the majority of psychological experiments can not be reproduced in controlled environment.
While I have no doubt the trans person really feel how he/she says, there is no facts here, you evaluate the sincerity of the person, not the reality or permanency of the thing. Someone may very well be convinced to be girl, take all the steps up to the surgery and then express regret at the loss of their masculine organ and be even more distressed about it than before.
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2015, 12:31:07 PM
The same issue exists for having gender-separate facilities in the first place. It would be great (plus a savings of expense) to simply educate children to not suffer shyness or have any other problems in the presence of naked kids with different genitals, and maybe in the future that will be the way forward - but for as long as such differences are culturally ingrained, it seems incoherent to accommodate them by having different facilities generally, but to ignore them in specific cases. It strikes me as creating more problems than it solves.
Given that many women seem to like the idea of all female gym, I won't hold my breath on this ;)
Quote from: Razgovory on November 03, 2015, 01:01:34 PM
Do you recognize this as a known mental illness as categorized by ISC and DSM?
Not so long ago, Martinus and Garbon would have been considered mentally ill. Imho, it means the DSM is not infaillible.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 03, 2015, 01:27:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 03, 2015, 01:23:40 PM
Gender dysphoria is. As far as I know, gender identity disorder no longer is.
ICD-10 still calls GID http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2015/en#/F64.9 (http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2015/en#/F64.9) So we are clear that these people are in fact, mentally ill correct? Now imagine a pill was invented and caused a person to become satisfied with their biological sex. Would this be an acceptable solution?
it there was a pill to transform gay people into straight people, would homosexuality (re)become a mental illness?
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2015, 02:42:35 PM
The French even invented the term for it. ;)
interesting! They never taught us that in history class. Damn Catholic school! ;)
I think Raz does believe homosexuality is a mental illness.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2015, 04:37:19 PM
I think Raz does believe homosexuality is a mental illness.
I guess we're all a little mentally ill.
Quote from: viper37 on November 03, 2015, 04:36:52 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2015, 02:42:35 PM
The French even invented the term for it. ;)
interesting! They never taught us that in history class. Damn Catholic school! ;)
Well to be fair to the Catholics ( ;) ), its a pretty obscure topic - I only heard about it in a social anthropology course in university ("Kinship and the Family", I believe).
A lot of the concepts are simply not readily translatable into terms understandable in a European context - for example, the "two spirited" were thought to have, basically, special ritual status and magical powers, which both gave them high status in some cases, but also exposed them to a lot of danger (if shit went wrong they were liable to be accused of causing it through bad sorcery).
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2015, 04:46:29 PM
for example, the "two spirited" were thought to have, basically, special ritual status and magical powers, which both gave them high status in some cases, but also exposed them to a lot of danger (if shit went wrong they were liable to be accused of causing it through bad sorcery).
So it's not different from the Western society after all. Of course our special ritual status mainly involves hosting Tonys and our magical powers seem to center around being able to tell eggshell from ecru. :P
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 04:51:57 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2015, 04:46:29 PM
for example, the "two spirited" were thought to have, basically, special ritual status and magical powers, which both gave them high status in some cases, but also exposed them to a lot of danger (if shit went wrong they were liable to be accused of causing it through bad sorcery).
So it's not different from the Western society after all. Of course our special ritual status mainly involves hosting Tonys and our magical powers seem to center around being able to tell eggshell from ecru. :P
:lol:
Does that mean we ought to persecute you guys because you "caused" Eurovision? :hmm:
:lol:
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 04:51:57 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2015, 04:46:29 PM
for example, the "two spirited" were thought to have, basically, special ritual status and magical powers, which both gave them high status in some cases, but also exposed them to a lot of danger (if shit went wrong they were liable to be accused of causing it through bad sorcery).
So it's not different from the Western society after all. Of course our special ritual status mainly involves hosting Tonys and our magical powers seem to center around being able to tell eggshell from ecru. :P
I knew your bad sorcery caused Ragtime to lose to The Lion King :mad:
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2015, 04:46:29 PM
Well to be fair to the Catholics ( ;) ), its a pretty obscure topic - I only heard about it in a social anthropology course in university ("Kinship and the Family", I believe).
The Dustin Hoffman movie "Little Big Man" featured one.
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2015, 04:53:57 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 04:51:57 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2015, 04:46:29 PM
for example, the "two spirited" were thought to have, basically, special ritual status and magical powers, which both gave them high status in some cases, but also exposed them to a lot of danger (if shit went wrong they were liable to be accused of causing it through bad sorcery).
So it's not different from the Western society after all. Of course our special ritual status mainly involves hosting Tonys and our magical powers seem to center around being able to tell eggshell from ecru. :P
:lol:
Does that mean we ought to persecute you guys because you "caused" Eurovision? :hmm:
I'm afraid that shit has sailed long time ago. :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2015, 04:56:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2015, 04:46:29 PM
Well to be fair to the Catholics ( ;) ), its a pretty obscure topic - I only heard about it in a social anthropology course in university ("Kinship and the Family", I believe).
The Dustin Hoffman movie "Little Big Man" featured one.
Interesting. I haven't actually seen that movie.
Some Plains Indians had 4 genders. It is often marginalized, but quite a few cultures have ritual gender fluidity at certain times. The basic man-woman role is not fixed beyond culture, but defined within culture.
Quote from: Legbiter on November 03, 2015, 02:20:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 03, 2015, 01:44:03 PMI think that since garbon and Marty are so emotionally and politically invested in this, they are ignoring what current medicine and science says about it.
Indeed.
QuoteThe pro-transgender advocates do not want to know, said McHugh, that studies show between 70% and 80% of children who express transgender feelings "spontaneously lose those feelings" over time. Also, for those who had sexual reassignment surgery, most said they were "satisfied" with the operation "but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn't have the surgery."
"And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a 'satisfied' but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs," said Dr. McHugh.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change)
Ah yes, I would trust a man who stated these views. No bias:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._McHugh
QuoteMcHugh believes that trans women who wish to surgically alter themselves to appear more anatomically female fall into two main groups: (1) "conflicted and guilt-ridden homosexual men" and (2) "heterosexual (and some bisexual) males who found intense sexual arousal in cross-dressing as females". McHugh, had several other impressions: First, "they [the transgender individuals] were little changed in their psychological condition. They had much the same problems with relationships, work, and emotions as before. The hope that they would emerge now from their emotional difficulties to flourish psychologically had not been fulfilled". Second, they expressed little interest in and seemed indifferent to babies or children (typically female interests). Third, they came off as caricatures of the opposite sex.
Also, I like the notion that I am emotionally and politically invested in this issue. It actually has no influence or effect on my life whatsoever. :lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2015, 04:37:19 PM
I think Raz does believe homosexuality is a mental illness.
I think a very strong argument can be made. It was essentially taken off the list of mental illnesses because it was thought the stigma of being a mental illness caused more harm then what little good they could do for it. Essentially picked a morality over a purely scientific view. It was probably the correct one. It does demonstrate why science should be tempered with morals. Consider this, if medical community reversed itself and declared it a mental illness would you regard garbon as mentally ill?
Quote from: garbon on November 03, 2015, 06:10:42 PM
Ah yes, I would trust a man who stated these views. No bias:
Because he thinks transgenders are conflicted, you can't trust his opinion that transgenders are conflicted? :huh:
Quote from: viper37 on November 03, 2015, 04:19:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 03, 2015, 01:01:34 PM
Do you recognize this as a known mental illness as categorized by ISC and DSM?
Not so long ago, Martinus and Garbon would have been considered mentally ill. Imho, it means the DSM is not infaillible.
No science is. A science can be correct for the time but not correct at a later time.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 03:38:46 PM
I think it's a complex issue. I don't have a final view on this myself, but I get a sort of knee-jerk reaction to ignorance and bigotry.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2015, 03:38:46 PM
I get a sort of knee-jerk reaction to ignorance and bigotry.
:hmm: Is that a complete list?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 03, 2015, 06:32:42 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 03, 2015, 04:19:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 03, 2015, 01:01:34 PM
Do you recognize this as a known mental illness as categorized by ISC and DSM?
Not so long ago, Martinus and Garbon would have been considered mentally ill. Imho, it means the DSM is not infaillible.
No science is. A science can be correct for the time but not correct at a later time.
You do know that most psychological experiences can not be reproduced, right?
Quote from: viper37 on November 03, 2015, 07:53:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 03, 2015, 06:32:42 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 03, 2015, 04:19:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 03, 2015, 01:01:34 PM
Do you recognize this as a known mental illness as categorized by ISC and DSM?
Not so long ago, Martinus and Garbon would have been considered mentally ill. Imho, it means the DSM is not infaillible.
No science is. A science can be correct for the time but not correct at a later time.
You do know that most psychological experiences can not be reproduced, right?
You mean that is subjective? Yes I know this. I was talking about changes in science. Take gravity. Newtonian physics were correct in 1825, but were supplanted by Einstein's relativity. So they were no longer correct in 1925. A decision made based on Newtonian physics in 1825 would be one in line with scientific knowledge, but one made using Newtonian physics in 1925 may be not be. Now we know our current understanding of gravity is still faulty. So eventually a new theory will develop to explain gravity better and it will be correct. Well hopefully. It's entirely possible that we never develop a new theory. It may simply be impossible for us to imagine, or we may all die off, or in the future nobody will care anymore.
Psychology is a bit more spotty, but the same basic concept applies. In 1950 garbon might be considered to be suffering from a mental illness. Today he would not. In the future, a quality you have might be considered a mental illness and you would be classified as insane. We are all just one definition change from lunacy. Such is the price of progress.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 03, 2015, 08:41:06 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 03, 2015, 07:53:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 03, 2015, 06:32:42 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 03, 2015, 04:19:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 03, 2015, 01:01:34 PM
Do you recognize this as a known mental illness as categorized by ISC and DSM?
Not so long ago, Martinus and Garbon would have been considered mentally ill. Imho, it means the DSM is not infaillible.
No science is. A science can be correct for the time but not correct at a later time.
You do know that most psychological experiences can not be reproduced, right?
You mean that is subjective? Yes I know this. I was talking about changes in science. Take gravity. Newtonian physics were correct in 1825, but were supplanted by Einstein's relativity. So they were no longer correct in 1925. A decision made based on Newtonian physics in 1825 would be one in line with scientific knowledge, but one made using Newtonian physics in 1925 may be not be. Now we know our current understanding of gravity is still faulty. So eventually a new theory will develop to explain gravity better and it will be correct. Well hopefully. It's entirely possible that we never develop a new theory. It may simply be impossible for us to imagine, or we may all die off, or in the future nobody will care anymore.
Psychology is a bit more spotty, but the same basic concept applies. In 1950 garbon might be considered to be suffering from a mental illness. Today he would not. In the future, a quality you have might be considered a mental illness and you would be classified as insane. We are all just one definition change from lunacy. Such is the price of progress.
tectonic movement. When the theory was first presented, it was accepted. Then it became ridiculed. And now, we accept it as scientifical facts.
Take nutrition science. Fat was good once. Then it's been bad. Today, we're told eating fat ain't that bad and when you stop ingesting it you won't lose weight unless you reduce your calory count too. Science is often back&forth, depending on the studies.
Of course we should base our policies on scientific knowledge of the moment. But psychology, it's a grey area, even more so than most modern social sciences. There's a clear lack of correct statiscal studies unlike other sciences like finance and economy, they don't even care about mathematical models that could try to explain human behavior.
So, if you're talking about the opinion of some psychologists whose studies can not be reproduced in controlled environments and whose opinion of a single subject will vary widly from expert to expert, I take this kind of reasoning, that we should base our policies on the opinion of these people with a grain of salt. Also, the DSM is only used in America. I wouldn't be surprised if Atheism was in there ;)
But seriously, there is this:
QuoteWhile the DSM has been praised for standardizing psychiatric diagnostic categories and criteria, it has also generated controversy and criticism. Critics, including the National Institute of Mental Health, argue that the DSM represents an unscientific and subjective system.[1] There are ongoing issues concerning the validity and reliability of the diagnostic categories; the reliance on superficial symptoms; the use of artificial dividing lines between categories and from "normality"; possible cultural bias; and medicalization of human distress.
And finally, there is the fact that the DSM does not cover illness, but behavior. If Garbon or Marty were insecure about their sexual orientation, it would be covered by the DSM, but not their sexual orientation per see. As others told you, it is the same with transgendered people, the anxiety they may suffer from their condition is what the DSM is concerned about, not the transgenderism in itself.
I haven't the time to read all 14 pages, but transgenderism is wrong and the Lesbian-Bi-Gay trialliance would do well to distance themselves from self mutilators.
I would also take issue with the concept that a married couple bringing up children in a loving and caring home is "vanilla". It is sufficiently rare nowadays to count at least as "strawberry" or possibly even "raspberry ripple".
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 04, 2015, 03:15:31 AM
I would also take issue with the concept that a married couple bringing up children in a loving and caring home is "vanilla". It is sufficiently rare nowadays to count at least as "strawberry" or possibly even "raspberry ripple".
That sounds rather fruity.
Quote from: viper37 on November 04, 2015, 01:13:44 AM
tectonic movement. When the theory was first presented, it was accepted. Then it became ridiculed. And now, we accept it as scientifical facts.
Take nutrition science. Fat was good once. Then it's been bad. Today, we're told eating fat ain't that bad and when you stop ingesting it you won't lose weight unless you reduce your calory count too. Science is often back&forth, depending on the studies.
Okay, I stopped here. You aren't describing nutritional science you are describing popular trends on daytime TV shows.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 04, 2015, 10:26:33 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 04, 2015, 01:13:44 AM
tectonic movement. When the theory was first presented, it was accepted. Then it became ridiculed. And now, we accept it as scientifical facts.
Take nutrition science. Fat was good once. Then it's been bad. Today, we're told eating fat ain't that bad and when you stop ingesting it you won't lose weight unless you reduce your calory count too. Science is often back&forth, depending on the studies.
Okay, I stopped here. You aren't describing nutritional science you are describing popular trends on daytime TV shows.
nope. I am describing nutritional science. And we could talk about the glutten scare too.
Yeah, that's daytime TV. Actually doctors of Nutritional Science are not shifted so wildly because of fad diets.
I will observe that deciding if something is an illness or not is about as much about science as deciding if Pluto is a planet or not.
Quote from: The Brain on November 04, 2015, 01:03:22 PM
I will observe that deciding if something is an illness or not is about as much about science as deciding if Pluto is a planet or not.
What is it about then?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 04, 2015, 01:44:41 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 04, 2015, 01:03:22 PM
I will observe that deciding if something is an illness or not is about as much about science as deciding if Pluto is a planet or not.
What is it about then?
Rather arbitrary categorization based on the biases of the group doing the categorizing.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 04, 2015, 01:44:41 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 04, 2015, 01:03:22 PM
I will observe that deciding if something is an illness or not is about as much about science as deciding if Pluto is a planet or not.
What is it about then?
Playing with the meaning of the word illness.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2015, 01:52:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 04, 2015, 01:44:41 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 04, 2015, 01:03:22 PM
I will observe that deciding if something is an illness or not is about as much about science as deciding if Pluto is a planet or not.
What is it about then?
Rather arbitrary categorization based on the biases of the group doing the categorizing.
Preferred situation?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2015, 01:52:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 04, 2015, 01:44:41 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 04, 2015, 01:03:22 PM
I will observe that deciding if something is an illness or not is about as much about science as deciding if Pluto is a planet or not.
What is it about then?
Rather arbitrary categorization based on the biases of the group doing the categorizing.
You make the simple act of classifying items based on similar characteristics sound so sinister. What kind of insidious bias made people group dogs and wolves as related animals? :(
CC presumes a result he doesn't like is due to bias. There is a view point that the job of science is bring bring equity and goodness to mankind and is essentially "progressive". I don't take this view. I see science as providing facts. Some facts may not be want we want to know. Some facts could be dangerous. What if someone were to demonstrate scientifically that one ethnic group has a stronger tendency toward violence then others. Or that people who are decended from one place are statistically more likely to be less intelligent then average? How would people react to this information? How would governments or employers? We stopped racial sciences after WWII not because there was some landmark study that deduced that all people are equal and nothing can prove otherwise. We stopped because work in that area can be dangerous. Sometimes its better not to know.
mental illness is a term used for a mental problem. what's the problem with homosexuality? nothing, so it's not a mental illness. for the same reason, we don't claim introverts have a mental illness.
I generally think an eudaimonistic (?) approach to mental illnesses is the correct one - the question you want to ask is whether the individual having some trait or condition is capable, in the absence of outside intervention, of being happy (and, obviously, in a way that does not make him a threat to others).
Homosexuality is not a mental illness according to this definition, because homosexual individuals do not require medical or surgical intervention to live a happy life (and any mental problems they have are caused by prejudice and discrimination of those around them).
With transgenderism the situation is more tricky. If a transgendered person is the kind of person that does not require a gender reassignment surgery to be happy (for example, they are a transvestite - including in a non-erotic way - and identify with the gender different from their biological one) then I would say it is not a mental illness by that definition; if they do, I would say it is a mental illness but it stops being one after the surgery because surgery effectively removes the distress indefinitely.
Now, there may be also a third category of people who think they want a surgery but are not happy afterwards - here the mental illness remains. I think the biggest challenge is to differentiate between the three groups and this is the job for the psychologists.
Besides, in psychology and psychiatry there is probably a selection bias towards pathology because most psychologists and psychiatrists tend to deal with individuals who express various traits and conditions in a pathological way.
It's like when people who work in the criminal justice system tend to see other people as potential criminals.
That was very insightful Marty.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 04, 2015, 11:18:48 PM
CC presumes a result he doesn't like is due to bias. There is a view point that the job of science is bring bring equity and goodness to mankind and is essentially "progressive". I don't take this view. I see science as providing facts. Some facts may not be want we want to know. Some facts could be dangerous. What if someone were to demonstrate scientifically that one ethnic group has a stronger tendency toward violence then others. Or that people who are decended from one place are statistically more likely to be less intelligent then average? How would people react to this information? How would governments or employers? We stopped racial sciences after WWII not because there was some landmark study that deduced that all people are equal and nothing can prove otherwise. We stopped because work in that area can be dangerous. Sometimes its better not to know.
Actually the point I am making is that decisions based on prevailing societal norms should not be confused with judgments based on science.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2015, 08:55:01 AM
Actually the point I am making is that decisions based on prevailing societal norms should not be confused with judgments based on science.
I don't think the prevailing social norms had anything to do with the reclassification of Pluto. So it was an odd thing to post as an explanation for what The Brain was saying and think we would all get that.
Quote from: Valmy on November 04, 2015, 10:06:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2015, 01:52:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 04, 2015, 01:44:41 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 04, 2015, 01:03:22 PM
I will observe that deciding if something is an illness or not is about as much about science as deciding if Pluto is a planet or not.
What is it about then?
Rather arbitrary categorization based on the biases of the group doing the categorizing.
You make the simple act of classifying items based on similar characteristics sound so sinister. What kind of insidious bias made people group dogs and wolves as related animals? :(
Did I? Do you think being critical of how a particular classification is made means that one is necessarily critical of all classifications?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2015, 08:59:53 AM
Did I? Do you think being critical of how a particular classification is made means that one is necessarily critical of all classifications?
Not necessarily. Just that it sounded like that was what you were doing.
Quote from: Valmy on November 05, 2015, 09:13:56 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2015, 08:59:53 AM
Did I? Do you think being critical of how a particular classification is made means that one is necessarily critical of all classifications?
Not necessarily. Just that it sounded like that was what you were doing.
You need to get your ears checked. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2015, 09:17:47 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 05, 2015, 09:13:56 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2015, 08:59:53 AM
Did I? Do you think being critical of how a particular classification is made means that one is necessarily critical of all classifications?
Not necessarily. Just that it sounded like that was what you were doing.
You need to get your ears checked. :P
If you say that the classification of Pluto was done due to biased social norms then what am I to think? You were not very clear at all.
Quote from: Valmy on November 05, 2015, 09:19:18 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2015, 09:17:47 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 05, 2015, 09:13:56 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2015, 08:59:53 AM
Did I? Do you think being critical of how a particular classification is made means that one is necessarily critical of all classifications?
Not necessarily. Just that it sounded like that was what you were doing.
You need to get your ears checked. :P
If you say that the classification of Pluto was done due to biased social norms then what am I to think? You were not very clear at all.
And since I didn't say that you need not worry yourself. I was comparing arbitrary decisions which were of course made for different reasons but with the appearance of a scientific judgment.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2015, 09:49:18 AM
And since I didn't say that you need not worry yourself.
Oh yes you did.
QuoteI was comparing arbitrary decisions which were of course made for different reasons but with the appearance of a scientific judgment.
And you just did it again. The "appearance of scientific judgment"? How tinfoil-y.
Wow
The classification of Pluto as a planet was not an "arbitrary decision" at all, despite what the scientific ignoramuses think about it. It was a decision debated at the time of Pluto's discovery, and frequently since. Pluto was not reclassified based on another arbitrary decision, nor on some change in social norms, but due to the accumulation of additional scientific data about other planet-like bodies the size of Pluto, which require the creation of the dwarf planet classification, and the completely non-arbitrary decision to include Pluto in this class.
I'm not sure why the whole "Pluto is/isn't a planet" issue is so attractive to the il-informed as an example of something-or-other anti-scientific, but i hope that the currently-ignorant on this forum, at least, are now educated past the point where they will commit that fallacy again.
Quote from: grumbler on November 05, 2015, 10:40:22 AM
The classification of Pluto as a planet was not an "arbitrary decision" at all, despite what the scientific ignoramuses think about it. It was a decision debated at the time of Pluto's discovery, and frequently since. Pluto was not reclassified based on another arbitrary decision, nor on some change in social norms, but due to the accumulation of additional scientific data about other planet-like bodies the size of Pluto, which require the creation of the dwarf planet classification, and the completely non-arbitrary decision to include Pluto in this class.
I'm not sure why the whole "Pluto is/isn't a planet" issue is so attractive to the il-informed as an example of something-or-other anti-scientific, but i hope that the currently-ignorant on this forum, at least, are now educated past the point where they will commit that fallacy again.
:console:
Quote from: grumbler on November 05, 2015, 10:40:22 AM
The classification of Pluto as a planet was not an "arbitrary decision" at all, despite what the scientific ignoramuses think about it. It was a decision debated at the time of Pluto's discovery, and frequently since. Pluto was not reclassified based on another arbitrary decision, nor on some change in social norms, but due to the accumulation of additional scientific data about other planet-like bodies the size of Pluto, which require the creation of the dwarf planet classification, and the completely non-arbitrary decision to include Pluto in this class.
I'm not sure why the whole "Pluto is/isn't a planet" issue is so attractive to the il-informed as an example of something-or-other anti-scientific, but i hope that the currently-ignorant on this forum, at least, are now educated past the point where they will commit that fallacy again.
Actually, the decision was made after a vote of iirc three options. Expand the number of planets to include Pluto and other bodies which were discovered to have a greater size, keep the number of planets the same and exclude the larger bodies on some other basis, or drop Pluto. The vote was not unanimous and continues to be controversial to this day. There was nothing "scientific" about the decision other than having found larger bodies. The decision was an arbitrary decision based on what the majority of the people who had a vote decided would be the best way to deal with the issue. If Pluto had a better PR team the result would likely have been different. I truly hope I have allowed the currently ignorant to have some relief from their present circumstances.
Quote from: Valmy on November 05, 2015, 08:28:29 AM
That was very insightful Marty.
That's probably why it was ignored in favour of a Pluto hijack. :D
Quote from: Martinus on November 05, 2015, 12:06:24 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 05, 2015, 08:28:29 AM
That was very insightful Marty.
That's probably why it was ignored in favour of a Pluto hijack. :D
Yeah. :lol:
I did read your post and I think it was very good.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2015, 11:53:47 AM
Actually, the decision was made after a vote of iirc three options. Expand the number of planets to include Pluto and other bodies which were discovered to have a greater size, keep the number of planets the same and exclude the larger bodies on some other basis, or drop Pluto. The vote was not unanimous and continues to be controversial to this day. There was nothing "scientific" about the decision other than having found larger bodies. The decision was an arbitrary decision based on what the majority of the people who had a vote decided would be the best way to deal with the issue. If Pluto had a better PR team the result would likely have been different. I truly hope I have allowed the currently ignorant to have some relief from their present circumstances.
:o Oh no you didn't?! :o
Quote from: Martinus on November 05, 2015, 12:06:24 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 05, 2015, 08:28:29 AM
That was very insightful Marty.
That's probably why it was ignored in favour of a Pluto hijack. :D
Well, in the context of this topic, it would probably be in bad taste to have a hijack about Uranus. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2015, 08:55:01 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 04, 2015, 11:18:48 PM
CC presumes a result he doesn't like is due to bias. There is a view point that the job of science is bring bring equity and goodness to mankind and is essentially "progressive". I don't take this view. I see science as providing facts. Some facts may not be want we want to know. Some facts could be dangerous. What if someone were to demonstrate scientifically that one ethnic group has a stronger tendency toward violence then others. Or that people who are decended from one place are statistically more likely to be less intelligent then average? How would people react to this information? How would governments or employers? We stopped racial sciences after WWII not because there was some landmark study that deduced that all people are equal and nothing can prove otherwise. We stopped because work in that area can be dangerous. Sometimes its better not to know.
Actually the point I am making is that decisions based on prevailing societal norms should not be confused with judgments based on science.
How do you know this to be the case?
Quote from: Martinus on November 05, 2015, 01:34:04 AM
I generally think an eudaimonistic (?) approach to mental illnesses is the correct one - the question you want to ask is whether the individual having some trait or condition is capable, in the absence of outside intervention, of being happy (and, obviously, in a way that does not make him a threat to others).
Homosexuality is not a mental illness according to this definition, because homosexual individuals do not require medical or surgical intervention to live a happy life (and any mental problems they have are caused by prejudice and discrimination of those around them).
With transgenderism the situation is more tricky. If a transgendered person is the kind of person that does not require a gender reassignment surgery to be happy (for example, they are a transvestite - including in a non-erotic way - and identify with the gender different from their biological one) then I would say it is not a mental illness by that definition; if they do, I would say it is a mental illness but it stops being one after the surgery because surgery effectively removes the distress indefinitely.
Now, there may be also a third category of people who think they want a surgery but are not happy afterwards - here the mental illness remains. I think the biggest challenge is to differentiate between the three groups and this is the job for the psychologists.
I disagree with the initial definition as you state it, because it ignores behavior that may be illegal or self-destructive.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2015, 11:53:47 AM
Actually, the decision was made after a vote of iirc three options. Expand the number of planets to include Pluto and other bodies which were discovered to have a greater size, keep the number of planets the same and exclude the larger bodies on some other basis, or drop Pluto. The vote was not unanimous and continues to be controversial to this day. There was nothing "scientific" about the decision other than having found larger bodies. The decision was an arbitrary decision based on what the majority of the people who had a vote decided would be the best way to deal with the issue. If Pluto had a better PR team the result would likely have been different. I truly hope I have allowed the currently ignorant to have some relief from their present circumstances.
The scientific debate was about whether there were many thousands of planets in the solar system, or whether Pluto and the other thousand or so like bodies were something other than planets. The IAU decided that they needed a scientific definition for the word "planet" and developed one. Pluto didn't meet this definition. There are historians and others that argue that there should be a "cultural definition" of the term "Planet" so that Pluto would be included, and Harvard even had a debate as to whether the public and media should follow some cultural or the scientific definition of planet (for the very and sole purpose of allowing geezers and others resistant to change to call Pluto a "planet") and even got the audience to agree. I believe that they ran out of time before they got around to making pi equal to exactly 3.
There is no scientific controversy over whether Pluto is a planet. Not one astronomer has asked the IAU to reconsider the definition of "planet." If Pluto "had a better PR Team" then there would be hundreds, at least, of planets. No one was really arguing for that.
Now, the status of Pluto could change if we discover more about whether or not it has cleared it vicinity in its orbit, so as to satisfy the definition of a planet, but we won't see scientists arbitrarily deciding that Pluto (and no other, similar body) is a planet. This decision has been the very opposite of arbitrary, no matter what you recollect.
Quote from: grumbler on November 05, 2015, 01:23:48 PM
Now, the status of Pluto could change if we discover more about whether or not it has cleared it vicinity in its orbit, so as to satisfy the definition of a planet, but we won't see scientists arbitrarily deciding that Pluto (and no other, similar body) is a planet. This decision has been the very opposite of arbitrary, no matter what you recollect.
In fact it was an attempt to take a very arbitrary ad-hoc definition and define it with better parameters, in particular with regards to future usage of the term inside and outside the solar system.
The bigger definitional mystery is: if Pluto is a dog, what is Goofy? :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on November 05, 2015, 01:29:06 PM
The bigger definitional mystery is: if Pluto is a dog, what is Goofy? :hmm:
And what's the mental state of the individuals having sex with him?
Quote from: Martinus on November 05, 2015, 12:06:24 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 05, 2015, 08:28:29 AM
That was very insightful Marty.
That's probably why it was ignored in favour of a Pluto hijack. :D
I just did not appreciate CC's snide remarks on classification.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2015, 11:53:47 AM
Actually, the decision was made after a vote of iirc three options. Expand the number of planets to include Pluto and other bodies which were discovered to have a greater size, keep the number of planets the same and exclude the larger bodies on some other basis, or drop Pluto. The vote was not unanimous and continues to be controversial to this day. There was nothing "scientific" about the decision other than having found larger bodies. The decision was an arbitrary decision based on what the majority of the people who had a vote decided would be the best way to deal with the issue. If Pluto had a better PR team the result would likely have been different. I truly hope I have allowed the currently ignorant to have some relief from their present circumstances.
It sounds like it was decided after a long and careful discussion of professionals. But I guess unless every decision is unanimous it is arbitrary? Where does that put the legal practice?
And classification is not "Scientific" whatever that means but that does not mean it is arbitrary. Definitions are important in any profession.
Quote from: Valmy on November 05, 2015, 01:40:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2015, 11:53:47 AM
Actually, the decision was made after a vote of iirc three options. Expand the number of planets to include Pluto and other bodies which were discovered to have a greater size, keep the number of planets the same and exclude the larger bodies on some other basis, or drop Pluto. The vote was not unanimous and continues to be controversial to this day. There was nothing "scientific" about the decision other than having found larger bodies. The decision was an arbitrary decision based on what the majority of the people who had a vote decided would be the best way to deal with the issue. If Pluto had a better PR team the result would likely have been different. I truly hope I have allowed the currently ignorant to have some relief from their present circumstances.
It sounds like it was decided after a long and careful discussion of professionals. But I guess unless every decision is unanimous it is arbitrary? Where does that put the legal practice?
The SCC, at least in Canada.
Quote from: Valmy on November 05, 2015, 01:39:26 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 05, 2015, 12:06:24 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 05, 2015, 08:28:29 AM
That was very insightful Marty.
That's probably why it was ignored in favour of a Pluto hijack. :D
I just did not appreciate CC's snide remarks on classification.
:lol:
Did I? Do you think being critical of how a particular classification is made means that one is necessarily critical of all classifications?
Quote from: frunk on November 05, 2015, 01:30:52 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 05, 2015, 01:29:06 PM
The bigger definitional mystery is: if Pluto is a dog, what is Goofy? :hmm:
And what's the mental state of the individuals having sex with him?
Why, just apply the metric developed in this thread:
'Goofysexuality is not a mental illness according to this definition, because Goofysexual individuals do not require medical or surgical intervention to live a happy life (and any mental problems they have are caused by prejudice and discrimination of those around them).'
;)
Quote from: Malthus on November 05, 2015, 01:44:25 PM
Quote from: frunk on November 05, 2015, 01:30:52 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 05, 2015, 01:29:06 PM
The bigger definitional mystery is: if Pluto is a dog, what is Goofy? :hmm:
And what's the mental state of the individuals having sex with him?
Why, just apply the metric developed in this thread:
'Goofysexuality is not a mental illness according to this definition, because Goofysexual individuals do not require medical or surgical intervention to live a happy life (and any mental problems they have are caused by prejudice and discrimination of those around them).'
;)
The definition of the sexuality of Pluto was fine until Goofy was discovered. Now we are not sure what to make of Pluto.
The idea that decisions on nomenclature are science is quaint.
Quote from: Malthus on November 05, 2015, 01:44:25 PM
Quote from: frunk on November 05, 2015, 01:30:52 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 05, 2015, 01:29:06 PM
The bigger definitional mystery is: if Pluto is a dog, what is Goofy? :hmm:
And what's the mental state of the individuals having sex with him?
Why, just apply the metric developed in this thread:
'Goofysexuality is not a mental illness according to this definition, because Goofysexual individuals do not require medical or surgical intervention to live a happy life (and any mental problems they have are caused by prejudice and discrimination of those around them).'
;)
:hmm: That's a very persuasive argument.
Quote from: The Brain on November 05, 2015, 01:47:07 PM
The idea that decisions on nomenclature are science is quaint.
/Valmy/ STOP making snide comments about classification :mad: /Valmy/
Quote from: DGuller on November 05, 2015, 01:47:31 PM
:hmm: That's a very persuasive argument.
It is, isn't it. Marty came up with a pretty good test. :)
Quote from: The Brain on November 05, 2015, 01:47:07 PM
The idea that decisions on nomenclature are science is quaint.
Classification has no place in science! We should be free to define species and phenomenon however we like.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 05, 2015, 01:51:37 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 05, 2015, 01:47:07 PM
The idea that decisions on nomenclature are science is quaint.
Classification has no place in science! We should be free to define species and phenomenon however we like.
:unsure:
Still would like to know how CC concluded the definitions were "arbitrary".
Quote from: Razgovory on November 05, 2015, 02:04:36 PM
Still would like to know how CC concluded the definitions were "arbitrary".
A bunch of people sat in a room and voted on what Pluto should be called. At least two of the available options were equally justifiable on a scientific basis. Now we have people here trying to argue the classification was based on science.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2015, 02:19:07 PM
A bunch of people sat in a room and voted on what Pluto should be called. At least two of the available options were equally justifiable on a scientific basis. Now we have people here trying to argue the classification was based on science.
Is the definition better than what was used before? Yes because it is more precise with less ambiguity. Could there have been other definitions that categorized Pluto as a planet and were also less ambiguous than the previous definition? Sure. It's arbitrary in the same sense as how we decided on how long a meter is. It originally had a few different ways of being determined, until the modern definition of the distance light travels in a vacuum in a fraction of a second. It could have been easily defined as a different fraction but the important element is the clarity of communication in such definitions not how arbitrary or not the definition is.
Quote from: frunk on November 05, 2015, 02:33:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2015, 02:19:07 PM
A bunch of people sat in a room and voted on what Pluto should be called. At least two of the available options were equally justifiable on a scientific basis. Now we have people here trying to argue the classification was based on science.
Is the definition better than what was used before? Yes because it is more precise with less ambiguity. Could there have been other definitions that categorized Pluto as a planet and were also less ambiguous than the previous definition? Sure. It's arbitrary in the same sense as how we decided on how long a meter is. It originally had a few different ways of being determined, until the modern definition of the distance light travels in a vacuum in a fraction of a second. It could have been easily defined as a different fraction but the important element is the clarity of communication in such definitions not how arbitrary or not the definition is.
Using the definition of how to measure a meter isn't a very good analogy. The problem with that definition is that until we were able to create precise measuring tools we had to use less precise tools. The problem with whether or not to define Pluto as a planet has nothing to do with the precision of the measurements we use. The cut off point of when something is a planet or not is entirely arbitrary.
I agree that clarity is important. But that misses the point made earlier entirely. Which is perhaps excusable given how badly Valmy missed the point and took us on this tangent. Just because psychiatrists in the dark ages of psychiatry had a clear definition of homosexuality being a mental illness does not make the definition any less arbitrary or invalid.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2015, 02:48:56 PM
Using the definition of how to measure a meter isn't a very good analogy. The problem with that definition is that until we were able to create precise measuring tools we had to use less precise tools. The problem with whether or not to define Pluto as a planet has nothing to do with the precision of the measurements we use. The cut off point of when something is a planet or not is entirely arbitrary.
Picking which fraction of time that light travels also has nothing to do with the precision of the measurements we use. It could be 1/299,792,458 of a second or 1/300,000,000 and it would be just as valid as long as its usage was consistent. This definition could have been used from the very beginning and been just as valid, it just wasn't necessary (or practical). The definition was changed for the meter because we needed a more precise definition, similarly the definition of a planet was changed because we needed a more precise definition.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2015, 02:19:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 05, 2015, 02:04:36 PM
Still would like to know how CC concluded the definitions were "arbitrary".
A bunch of people sat in a room and voted on what Pluto should be called. At least two of the available options were equally justifiable on a scientific basis. Now we have people here trying to argue the classification was based on science.
I was thinking along the lines of mental illness...
Quote from: frunk on November 05, 2015, 03:17:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2015, 02:48:56 PM
Using the definition of how to measure a meter isn't a very good analogy. The problem with that definition is that until we were able to create precise measuring tools we had to use less precise tools. The problem with whether or not to define Pluto as a planet has nothing to do with the precision of the measurements we use. The cut off point of when something is a planet or not is entirely arbitrary.
Picking which fraction of time that light travels also has nothing to do with the precision of the measurements we use. It could be 1/299,792,458 of a second or 1/300,000,000 and it would be just as valid as long as its usage was consistent. This definition could have been used from the very beginning and been just as valid, it just wasn't necessary (or practical). The definition was changed for the meter because we needed a more precise definition, similarly the definition of a planet was changed because we needed a more precise definition.
I can understand why a precise definition is needed for a unit of measurement. But I think we are getting into a debate of precision vs accuracy now. Sure the measurement for a planet is more precise but is it necessarily accurate? Just as the definition for homosexuality being a mental illness was precise but not at all accurate.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2015, 03:42:08 PM
I can understand why a precise definition is needed for a unit of measurement. But I think we are getting into a debate of precision vs accuracy now. Sure the measurement for a planet is more precise but is it necessarily accurate? Just as the definition for homosexuality being a mental illness was precise but not at all accurate.
Why was it not accurate? What is your standard that medicine failed to see?
Quote from: The Brain on November 05, 2015, 01:47:07 PM
The idea that decisions on nomenclature are science is quaint.
As is the idea that decisions on classification are arbitrary.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2015, 02:19:07 PM
A bunch of people sat in a room and voted on what Pluto should be called. At least two of the available options were equally justifiable on a scientific basis. Now we have people here trying to argue the classification was based on science.
That may be your narrative, but it is a canard. No one voted on what Pluto was going to be called.
The relevant committee of the IAU voted on whether to extend the classification of "planet" to the hundreds of Pluto-like objects that had been discovered, or were expected to shortly be discovered, and decided, for good scientific reasons, not to do so. They instead created the classifications of "planets" and "dwarf planets." DPs are believed to be significantly different from planets in both origin and composition. Pluto was clearly assigned to the classification that matched its known characteristics most closely. There was no scientific basis whatsoever to call Pluto a planet and not call all of the other Pluto-like bodies planets as well.
The record is clear on this. Your belief that the change in Pluto's classification was arbitrary is unsupported by any of the evidence. Even those who want Pluto reclassified don't argue that it is more like Neptune or Mars than it is like Ceres, Eris, Sedna, Makemake, Haumea, etc. Theirs is the unscientific view.
Quote from: frunk on November 05, 2015, 02:33:03 PM
Is the definition better than what was used before? Yes because it is more precise with less ambiguity. Could there have been other definitions that categorized Pluto as a planet and were also less ambiguous than the previous definition? Sure. It's arbitrary in the same sense as how we decided on how long a meter is. (snip)
Take a look at the orbit of Pluto and tell me that its exclusion from the same classification as the eight planets is arbitrary.
Quote from: grumbler on November 05, 2015, 05:53:34 PM
Take a look at the orbit of Pluto and tell me that its exclusion from the same classification as the eight planets is arbitrary.
It's inclination and eccentricity are significantly different, but note that the official definition of planet doesn't exclude Pluto because of its orbit being unusual, but because it hasn't "cleared the neighborhood of its orbit". I think they intentionally wrote the definition to allow for solar systems with unusual planetary orbits. I agree that if they would have written a definition that considered Pluto a planet it would have also included potentially hundreds of undiscovered trans Neptunian objects. It's also likely that Pluto has a distinct origin from the planets, but I'm not sure that necessarily should be a criteria for exclusion.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2015, 03:42:08 PM
I can understand why a precise definition is needed for a unit of measurement. But I think we are getting into a debate of precision vs accuracy now. Sure the measurement for a planet is more precise but is it necessarily accurate? Just as the definition for homosexuality being a mental illness was precise but not at all accurate.
The difference is the reason for the definition. Precise definition of the meter is important so that measurements can be taken with a minimum of error. Precise definition of a planet is important so that when referencing objects in scientific papers it will be clear what is being referred to. In neither case does it change how the things being referred to are treated. Pluto isn't more or less important now, just has a different label. Defining homosexuality as a mental illness changes how it is treated, it presumably becomes something that needs to be cured. That's a horrible mistake, something much worse than refining a measurement or a classification of objects in space.
Quote from: frunk on November 05, 2015, 07:55:17 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 05, 2015, 05:53:34 PM
Take a look at the orbit of Pluto and tell me that its exclusion from the same classification as the eight planets is arbitrary.
It's inclination and eccentricity are significantly different, but note that the official definition of planet doesn't exclude Pluto because of its orbit being unusual, but because it hasn't "cleared the neighborhood of its orbit". I think they intentionally wrote the definition to allow for solar systems with unusual planetary orbits. I agree that if they would have written a definition that considered Pluto a planet it would have also included potentially hundreds of undiscovered trans Neptunian objects. It's also likely that Pluto has a distinct origin from the planets, but I'm not sure that necessarily should be a criteria for exclusion.
The official definition of planet is incomplete, but enough to go on for now, because they don't know enough about dwarf planets to really categorize them. Dwarf planets are suspected to have a different origin process than planets. There will probably be a number of different types of dwarf planets (Ceres, for instance, isn't the same kind of dwarf planet as Pluto and Eris, IMO). Pluto is far more like Eris than like any planet; likely this is in origin and composition as well as in eccentricity. The eccentric orbit and inclination is just another clue.
Quote from: frunk on November 05, 2015, 08:18:33 PM
The difference is the reason for the definition. Precise definition of the meter is important so that measurements can be taken with a minimum of error. Precise definition of a planet is important so that when referencing objects in scientific papers it will be clear what is being referred to. In neither case does it change how the things being referred to are treated. Pluto isn't more or less important now, just has a different label. Defining homosexuality as a mental illness changes how it is treated, it presumably becomes something that needs to be cured. That's a horrible mistake, something much worse than refining a measurement or a classification of objects in space.
+1
Solution: take kids out in a field and turn the water hose on them.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 05, 2015, 09:17:20 PM
Solution: take kids out in a field and turn the water hose on them.
I wasn't exactly sure what you were talking about, then realized you solution would solve all of the problems in this thread.
Might need a fire hose to clean off the goths. And the smelly kid that reads the satanic bible in the back of class.
Quote from: grumbler on November 05, 2015, 05:49:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2015, 02:19:07 PM
A bunch of people sat in a room and voted on what Pluto should be called. At least two of the available options were equally justifiable on a scientific basis. Now we have people here trying to argue the classification was based on science.
That may be your narrative, but it is a canard. No one voted on what Pluto was going to be called.
The relevant committee of the IAU voted on whether to extend the classification of "planet" to the hundreds of Pluto-like objects that had been discovered, or were expected to shortly be discovered, and decided, for good scientific reasons, not to do so. They instead created the classifications of "planets" and "dwarf planets." DPs are believed to be significantly different from planets in both origin and composition. Pluto was clearly assigned to the classification that matched its known characteristics most closely. There was no scientific basis whatsoever to call Pluto a planet and not call all of the other Pluto-like bodies planets as well.
The record is clear on this. Your belief that the change in Pluto's classification was arbitrary is unsupported by any of the evidence. Even those who want Pluto reclassified don't argue that it is more like Neptune or Mars than it is like Ceres, Eris, Sedna, Makemake, Haumea, etc. Theirs is the unscientific view.
One of your better attempts at parsing to avoid admitting an error. Well done!
I will take CC's refusal to respond as admission that he doesn't know.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2015, 09:34:37 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 05, 2015, 05:49:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2015, 02:19:07 PM
A bunch of people sat in a room and voted on what Pluto should be called. At least two of the available options were equally justifiable on a scientific basis. Now we have people here trying to argue the classification was based on science.
That may be your narrative, but it is a canard. No one voted on what Pluto was going to be called.
The relevant committee of the IAU voted on whether to extend the classification of "planet" to the hundreds of Pluto-like objects that had been discovered, or were expected to shortly be discovered, and decided, for good scientific reasons, not to do so. They instead created the classifications of "planets" and "dwarf planets." DPs are believed to be significantly different from planets in both origin and composition. Pluto was clearly assigned to the classification that matched its known characteristics most closely. There was no scientific basis whatsoever to call Pluto a planet and not call all of the other Pluto-like bodies planets as well.
The record is clear on this. Your belief that the change in Pluto's classification was arbitrary is unsupported by any of the evidence. Even those who want Pluto reclassified don't argue that it is more like Neptune or Mars than it is like Ceres, Eris, Sedna, Makemake, Haumea, etc. Theirs is the unscientific view.
One of your better attempts at parsing to avoid admitting an error. Well done!
Since you are conceding my point that I made no error, this should end the debate. Contrary to your assertion, no "bunch of people sat in a room and voted on what Pluto should be called."
Let's vote on who won this debate.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2015, 08:30:37 AM
Let's vote on who won this debate.
Okay, I cast a vote for me. Voting closed.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2015, 08:30:37 AM
Let's vote on who won this debate.
You'll have to list the languishtas who never opened the thread, so we can choose between them.
What's with the dicsussion of Pluto details?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2015, 01:48:40 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 05, 2015, 01:47:07 PM
The idea that decisions on nomenclature are science is quaint.
/Valmy/ STOP making snide comments about classification :mad: /Valmy/
I never questioned Brain's point. He is right. I took issue with what you added which I thought was unfair and ridiculous.
Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2015, 02:13:44 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2015, 01:48:40 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 05, 2015, 01:47:07 PM
The idea that decisions on nomenclature are science is quaint.
/Valmy/ STOP making snide comments about classification :mad: /Valmy/
I never questioned Brain's point. He is right. I took issue with what you added which I thought was unfair and ridiculous.
That the classification of homosexuals as being mentally ill was based cultural bias rather then science. Ok Raz
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 06, 2015, 02:15:33 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2015, 02:13:44 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2015, 01:48:40 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 05, 2015, 01:47:07 PM
The idea that decisions on nomenclature are science is quaint.
/Valmy/ STOP making snide comments about classification :mad: /Valmy/
I never questioned Brain's point. He is right. I took issue with what you added which I thought was unfair and ridiculous.
That the classification of homosexuals as being mentally ill was based cultural bias rather then science. Ok Raz
Yeah, you said that, but offered no proof.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2015, 02:19:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 05, 2015, 02:04:36 PM
Still would like to know how CC concluded the definitions were "arbitrary".
A bunch of people sat in a room and voted on what Pluto should be called. At least two of the available options were equally justifiable on a scientific basis. Now we have people here trying to argue the classification was based on science.
A bunch of people sitting in a room making a decisions based on scientific principles is certainly based on science.
The fact that many scientific principles have differing levels of persuasiveness doesn't make them not-science.
They might even get it wrong, but that doesn't make it not-science.
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2015, 02:27:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2015, 02:19:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 05, 2015, 02:04:36 PM
Still would like to know how CC concluded the definitions were "arbitrary".
A bunch of people sat in a room and voted on what Pluto should be called. At least two of the available options were equally justifiable on a scientific basis. Now we have people here trying to argue the classification was based on science.
A bunch of people sitting in a room making a decisions based on scientific principles is certainly based on science.
The fact that many scientific principles have differing levels of persuasiveness doesn't make them not-science.
They might even get it wrong, but that doesn't make it not-science.
But it wasn't based on scientific principles. They were creating an ad hoc definition based on the fact that Pluto was smaller than some other bodies recently found. That fact that they could have just as easily classified those other bodies as planets rather than demoting Pluto to its current status gives an indication of how arbitrary the determination was.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2015, 02:31:39 PM
But it wasn't based on scientific principles. They were creating an ad hoc definition based on the fact that Pluto was smaller than some other bodies recently found. That fact that they could have just as easily classified those other bodies as planets rather than demoting Pluto to its current status gives an indication of how arbitrary the determination was.
The point was is that like objects were classified together based on shared traits. The fact that the other planets in the neighborhood were all gas giants made it scientifically sketchy to lump Pluto in with those rather than with the objects it more closely shared traits. I do not think it was, therefore, arbitrary but based on reasoning that resulted from observation.
Here's something for Raz:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/10/i-am-so-done-with-the-trans-outrage-brigade-why-im-supporting-drop-the-t/
See Raz, don't say I don't care. :hug:
Wow he said 'trannies'. He is just asking for it.
Ok that was a hilariously un-PC rant. Was that comedy?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2015, 02:31:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2015, 02:27:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2015, 02:19:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 05, 2015, 02:04:36 PM
Still would like to know how CC concluded the definitions were "arbitrary".
A bunch of people sat in a room and voted on what Pluto should be called. At least two of the available options were equally justifiable on a scientific basis. Now we have people here trying to argue the classification was based on science.
A bunch of people sitting in a room making a decisions based on scientific principles is certainly based on science.
The fact that many scientific principles have differing levels of persuasiveness doesn't make them not-science.
They might even get it wrong, but that doesn't make it not-science.
But it wasn't based on scientific principles. They were creating an ad hoc definition based on the fact that Pluto was smaller than some other bodies recently found. That fact that they could have just as easily classified those other bodies as planets rather than demoting Pluto to its current status gives an indication of how arbitrary the determination was.
That makes no sense.
The concept of a planet has always included the idea that planets have a definition that includes some characteristics that make them significant in a solar system. It is not arbitrary to decide that an object that is on the very margins of being "like the others" doesn't actually fit in with them when additional data comes out that makes it clear that if you expand the definition such that it can include that outlier, that it would then include literally hundreds of other outliers - and in fact the objects that previously defined the term would then become the outliers!
In other words, the term planet had scientific meaning, and included a bunch of objects that had similar characteristics. Pluto barely fit into those characteristics, but was allowed to be in the set because, well, why not. It doesn't really matter that much if there are 8 planets or 9, because they all still fit within a reasonable range.
Once you realize that in fact Pluto is not the smallest planet, but rather a very typical object in a class of objects of which there are hundreds, then if we accept that Pluto is a planet, we have to accept all those other objects as planets as well.
At that point, the actual definition of a planet has radically changed, and now the 8 "traditional" planets are not even "planets" anymore, since they are the bizarre examples in the set of planets that would demand some other label to describe them since they are clearly different from the hundreds of pluto-like objects.
This is all completely part of what we call "science". Defining objects, sets of objects, their characteristics, what they have in common, what they do not have in common, and what that tells us is all very much NOT arbitrary.
Quote from: Valmy on November 10, 2015, 02:35:18 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2015, 02:31:39 PM
But it wasn't based on scientific principles. They were creating an ad hoc definition based on the fact that Pluto was smaller than some other bodies recently found. That fact that they could have just as easily classified those other bodies as planets rather than demoting Pluto to its current status gives an indication of how arbitrary the determination was.
The point was is that like objects were classified together based on shared traits. The fact that the other planets in the neighborhood were all gas giants made it scientifically sketchy to lump Pluto in with those rather than with the objects it more closely shared traits. I do not think it was, therefore, arbitrary but based on reasoning that resulted from observation.
Yes, that was the rationale. But there was also a competing logic which was equally scientifically valid that the objects with shared traits included Pluto and those other objects along with the other planets. That position was rejected not on scientific grounds. Both were equally scientifically valid.
A great many things that are useful and based on science are not science.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2015, 02:45:51 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 10, 2015, 02:35:18 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2015, 02:31:39 PM
But it wasn't based on scientific principles. They were creating an ad hoc definition based on the fact that Pluto was smaller than some other bodies recently found. That fact that they could have just as easily classified those other bodies as planets rather than demoting Pluto to its current status gives an indication of how arbitrary the determination was.
The point was is that like objects were classified together based on shared traits. The fact that the other planets in the neighborhood were all gas giants made it scientifically sketchy to lump Pluto in with those rather than with the objects it more closely shared traits. I do not think it was, therefore, arbitrary but based on reasoning that resulted from observation.
Yes, that was the rationale. But there was also a competing logic which was equally scientifically valid that the objects which shared traits would include Pluto and those other objects with the other planets. That position was rejected not on scientific grounds. Both were equally scientifically valid.
So, it is your expert opinion as a lawyer that the scientists were all wrong in their analysis of the scientific validity, and you are right?
Quote from: The Brain on November 10, 2015, 02:46:18 PM
A great many things that are useful and based on science are not science.
True. Classification is not science but it is not arbitrary either.
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2015, 02:43:35 PM
The concept of a planet has always included the idea that planets have a definition that includes some characteristics that make them significant in a solar system. It is not arbitrary to decide that an object that is on the very margins of being "like the others" doesn't actually fit in with them when additional data comes out that makes it clear that if you expand the definition such that it can include that outlier, that it would then include literally hundreds of other outliers - and in fact the objects that previously defined the term would then become the outliers!
So are you saying that all the scientists who thought that Pluto and those other bodies should be categorized as planets didn't know what they were talking about? A decision was made where the dividing line should be if for no other reason that the majority thought that having more planets was problematic
Quote from: The Brain on November 10, 2015, 02:46:18 PM
A great many things that are useful and based on science are not science.
Fair enough, but at the same time, saying they are arbitrary implies something that is simply not accurate.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2015, 02:50:18 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2015, 02:43:35 PM
The concept of a planet has always included the idea that planets have a definition that includes some characteristics that make them significant in a solar system. It is not arbitrary to decide that an object that is on the very margins of being "like the others" doesn't actually fit in with them when additional data comes out that makes it clear that if you expand the definition such that it can include that outlier, that it would then include literally hundreds of other outliers - and in fact the objects that previously defined the term would then become the outliers!
So are you saying that all the scientists who thought that Pluto and those other bodies should be categorized as planets didn't know what they were talking about? A decision was made where the dividing line should be if for no other reason that the majority thought that having more planets was problematic
Who are all these scientists demanding that Pluto be called a planet?
I've worked with planetary scientists. I can assure you they could not care less what you call Pluto, or anything around what people call things.
I imagine when the IAU came along and said "Hey, it doesn't really work to call Pluto a planet, since that means that the set of 'planets' becomes a set of things most of which are actually nothing like the things we used to call planets" they mostly shrugged and went back to work.
So now we have "planets" divided into "terrestrial", "jovian", and "dwarf". So what?
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2015, 02:54:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2015, 02:50:18 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2015, 02:43:35 PM
The concept of a planet has always included the idea that planets have a definition that includes some characteristics that make them significant in a solar system. It is not arbitrary to decide that an object that is on the very margins of being "like the others" doesn't actually fit in with them when additional data comes out that makes it clear that if you expand the definition such that it can include that outlier, that it would then include literally hundreds of other outliers - and in fact the objects that previously defined the term would then become the outliers!
So are you saying that all the scientists who thought that Pluto and those other bodies should be categorized as planets didn't know what they were talking about? A decision was made where the dividing line should be if for no other reason that the majority thought that having more planets was problematic
Who are all these scientists demanding that Pluto be called a planet?
The ones that put forward that option during the meeting on which this issue was voted on.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2015, 02:45:51 PM
Yes, that was the rationale. But there was also a competing logic which was equally scientifically valid that the objects with shared traits included Pluto and those other objects along with the other planets. That position was rejected not on scientific grounds. Both were equally scientifically valid.
You keep sayig this, but that does not make it true. The competing logic was not equally scientifically valid. It was always suspected that Pluto was not, indeed, a planet, but was instead a captured body or a runaway moon. With the discovery of other bodies like Eris, that suspicion hardened. The only argument for calling Pluto a planet (and thus being forced to call all such bodies, and even Ceres, also planets) was that "I learned to call it a planet when I was growing up, and I don't like change." When you choose the most scientifically-supported option over the most emotionally-supported one, that's not arbitrary.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2015, 02:50:18 PM
A decision was made where the dividing line should be if for no other reason that the majority thought that having more planets was problematic
This is entirely made up. Did you find it in a novel?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hoodie.cz%2Fimage%2Fcache%2Fdata%2Fzzz-products-2014%2Fneverforget_pluto_product-483x598.jpg&hash=2348345730c46309fbc881252ffc471a4e63dc7e)
Quote from: Valmy on November 10, 2015, 02:48:00 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 10, 2015, 02:46:18 PM
A great many things that are useful and based on science are not science.
True. Classification is not science but it is not arbitrary either.
Why is classification not "science?" The Table of the Elements hangs in every Chemistry (a science) classroom in the world.
For Grumbler and the others who think the demotion of Pluto was based on science.
http://www.space.com/9594-fighting-pluto-planet-title-planetary-scientist-alan-stern.html?li_source=LI&li_medium=more-from-space
All this over Mickey Mouse's dog.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2015, 05:51:25 PM
For Grumbler and the others who think the demotion of Pluto was based on science.
http://www.space.com/9594-fighting-pluto-planet-title-planetary-scientist-alan-stern.html?li_source=LI&li_medium=more-from-space
I am not sure what he is arguing that you are agreeing with. He says, in response to a question, exactly what the IAU said:
QuoteWhat do you say to those who argue that Pluto is just a big Kuiper Belt object?
I say they're right! But that doesn't really relate to whether Pluto is a planet or not. Just because Pluto orbits with many other dwarf planets doesn't change what it is, just as whether an object is a mountain or not doesn't depend on whether it's in a group or in isolation.
What we see in the Kuiper Belt is a third class of planets, the dwarf planets, or DPs. Most, like Pluto and Eris, have primarily rocky compositions (like Earth), moons, and polar caps, atmospheres, seasons and other attributes like the larger planets. They're just somewhat smaller.
Back before the Kuiper Belt was discovered, Pluto did look like a misfit that didn't belong with either the terrestrials or the giant planets. Turns out that was exactly right, but now we know why: Pluto looked like a misfit because our technology back then couldn't see that it was just the brightest and easiest to detect of a large new class of planets.
In fact, that's why it's clear Ceres [the largest object in the asteroid belt] was a planet all along, but was misclassified for a time because we didn't have enough similar examples to recognize dwarf planets as their own category. Today, however, it's clear the DPs outnumber both of the other two planet classes we know of in our solar system — the giants and the terrestrials. Which types look to be the misfit now, versus the norm?
Some people seem to be uncomfortable with that fact. I see it as just another step in the Copernican revolution that began by displacing the Earth from the center of the universe.
Pluto is a dwarf planet. That's what the IAU said, and that's what he is arguing for. He's not arguing that Pluto was arbitrarily declared a dwarf planet, he is explaining exactly why it is a dwarf planet and was so classified: because now we have new knowledge. This is the opposite of arbitrary.
If even your own sources don't agree with you, who will?
Quote from: grumbler on November 10, 2015, 07:54:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2015, 05:51:25 PM
For Grumbler and the others who think the demotion of Pluto was based on science.
http://www.space.com/9594-fighting-pluto-planet-title-planetary-scientist-alan-stern.html?li_source=LI&li_medium=more-from-space
I am not sure what he is arguing that you are agreeing with. He says, in response to a question, exactly what the IAU said:
QuoteWhat do you say to those who argue that Pluto is just a big Kuiper Belt object?
I say they're right! But that doesn't really relate to whether Pluto is a planet or not. Just because Pluto orbits with many other dwarf planets doesn't change what it is, just as whether an object is a mountain or not doesn't depend on whether it's in a group or in isolation.
What we see in the Kuiper Belt is a third class of planets, the dwarf planets, or DPs. Most, like Pluto and Eris, have primarily rocky compositions (like Earth), moons, and polar caps, atmospheres, seasons and other attributes like the larger planets. They're just somewhat smaller.
Back before the Kuiper Belt was discovered, Pluto did look like a misfit that didn't belong with either the terrestrials or the giant planets. Turns out that was exactly right, but now we know why: Pluto looked like a misfit because our technology back then couldn't see that it was just the brightest and easiest to detect of a large new class of planets.
In fact, that's why it's clear Ceres [the largest object in the asteroid belt] was a planet all along, but was misclassified for a time because we didn't have enough similar examples to recognize dwarf planets as their own category. Today, however, it's clear the DPs outnumber both of the other two planet classes we know of in our solar system — the giants and the terrestrials. Which types look to be the misfit now, versus the norm?
Some people seem to be uncomfortable with that fact. I see it as just another step in the Copernican revolution that began by displacing the Earth from the center of the universe.
Pluto is a dwarf planet. That's what the IAU said, and that's what he is arguing for. He's not arguing that Pluto was arbitrarily declared a dwarf planet, he is explaining exactly why it is a dwarf planet and was so classified: because now we have new knowledge. This is the opposite of arbitrary.
If even your own sources don't agree with you, who will?
Maybe I'm mistaken but the IAU decision seemed to suggest that dwarf planets are a completely different classification from planets. /when I google dwarf planet it tells me that those are not planets.
CC's source says this:
QuoteDo you think astronomers will ever come to a consensus?
I do. I expect that before long, consensus will be that our solar system was good at making planets in very large numbers, and that most of them are faraway dwarfs, rather than the closer big guys that we knew about in childhood.
Then schools will teach that, like the rivers of Earth, there is a huge number of planets in our solar system, and you only need to remember the names of the ones that are nearby or particularly famous.
which seems to suggest that he actually considers dwarf planets to be a subset of what should be considered planets. That kind of makes sense that he'd be arguing that position given how much space in that interview is how he thinks saying Pluto was no longer a planet was arbitrary.
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2015, 08:07:23 PM
Maybe I'm mistaken but the IAU decision seemed to suggest that dwarf planets are a completely different classification from planets. /when I google dwarf planet it tells me that those are not planets.
That's the current consensus; that "planet" is a classification and "dwarf planet" another. The issue is semantic; as Neil DeGrasse Tyson notes, the unqualified word "planet' has become even less meaningful since the IAU resolution, and he tries to avoid using it. That has nothing to do with CC's claim that the distinction between Pluto and the IAU planets is arbitrary, though.
QuoteCC's source says this:
QuoteDo you think astronomers will ever come to a consensus?
I do. I expect that before long, consensus will be that our solar system was good at making planets in very large numbers, and that most of them are faraway dwarfs, rather than the closer big guys that we knew about in childhood.
Then schools will teach that, like the rivers of Earth, there is a huge number of planets in our solar system, and you only need to remember the names of the ones that are nearby or particularly famous.
which seems to suggest that he actually considers dwarf planets to be a subset of what should be considered planets. That kind of makes sense that he'd be arguing that position given how much space in that interview is how he thinks saying Pluto was no longer a planet was arbitrary.
Again, CC's source says nothing about the distinction being arbitrary, which was his claim.
Even the quibble about "clearing the neighborhood" is rather trite; the "neighborhood is cleared" as a function of how planets form. Pluto didn't form like the other planets, it formed like the rest of the trans-Neptunian bodies formed. Regular planets, it is believed, form from the nebular disk that forms around a protostar. Dwarf planets probably form from more isolated clouds of gas, or are captured from interstellar space, or are escaped moons (or, probably, all three, depending). They have different compositions and orbits compared to the solar planets. Had the earth formed at the distance of that Neptune or Pluto did, as Stern hypothesizes, it wouldn't have formed as the earth, it would have formed as Neptune or Pluto. If formed as Pluto did, it wouldn't be a planet. But so what? If frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their ass. Again, the difference isn't arbitrary.
I think we will see sub-categorization of dwarf planets as we learn more about them. Again, this won't be arbitrary.
Losing two science debates in one thread, not bad CC!
That last debate wasn't a science debate, it was a classification debate.
So is this. Both classification are based on science. Not just arbitrary decisions. CC assumed they were arbitrary, (after all he didn't agree with them, how could they be anything else?), but didn't look to actually find out if that was true.
Quote from: Martinus on November 10, 2015, 02:35:48 PM
Here's something for Raz:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/10/i-am-so-done-with-the-trans-outrage-brigade-why-im-supporting-drop-the-t/
See Raz, don't say I don't care. :hug:
Hah, he's like the anti-Marti this guy.
Quote...It seems like any time you hear about about an LGBT person causing a scene, it's a transsexual. For instance, whenever we're thrown furiously into the conservative wood-chipper over some silly bathroom issue, it's always the trans lobby pushing us in. It used to be gay guys propositioning police officers after taking a peek at the urinals. Those were the good old days!...
...I'm sorry to say, and this does matter, very often those playing the trans card in the media, whether personally transgender or not, are very often the most awful people on the planet: hectoring, nannying control freaks without an ounce of joy in their hearts. These are not the people I want making public policy or pontificating from the pages of national newspapers and they're hardly doing their own "trans isn't a mental illness" argument much credit by acting so damn bonkers all the time. ...
We should invite him to Languish.
Quote from: Valmy on November 10, 2015, 02:38:37 PM
Wow he said 'trannies'. He is just asking for it.
Ok that was a hilariously un-PC rant. Was that comedy?
I'm wondering if this thing in some part is a false flag operation. I mean the petition doesn't even have 2000 people who have signed it...
That said, I do feel some kinship to these two items cited in this article:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/09/exclusive-gay-man-explains-his-petition-to-drop-the-t-in-lgbt/
QuoteAny attempt to rationally discuss issues that gays/lesbians/bisexuals are concerned about regarding the trans movement is met with unparalleled vitriol, harassment, death threats, and silencing—demanding that the person commenting contrary to the trans narrative be banned from forums, for example.
Which has happened as a result of this appearing / also when we think about how Ru Paul was attacked as transphobic...
QuoteTo me, the LGB movement, with its celebration of all types of gay men and women, such as bears, leather daddies, drag queens, diesel dykes, lipstick lesbians, etc., has always been about expanding and re-defining concepts of gender; the trans movement, on the other hand, appears to be about re-asserting and codifying traditional concepts of gender.
Which, of course runs right into my hang-ups around gender and expected gender role behaviors. -_-
Well, whatever you think about the transgendered people, there is something to be said about the fact that
"Pick one that does not fit in with the others:
A. I want to suck dick.
B. I want to eat pussy.
C. I want to suck dick and eat pussy.
D. I want to cut my dick off."
is the world's easiest IQ test.
Quote from: Legbiter on November 11, 2015, 09:47:24 AM
Hah, he's like the anti-Marti this guy.
I just don't like ignorance but I don't think this guy is the complete opposite of me. I think he goes over the tope, and brushing the entire group of people with actions of a vocal group of individuals is not always reasonable, but I do not necessarily disagree with all of his points.
Quote from: Martinus on November 11, 2015, 10:57:18 AM
Well, whatever you think about the transgendered people, there is something to be said about the fact that
"Pick one that does not fit in with the others:
A. I want to suck dick.
B. I want to eat pussy.
C. I want to suck dick and eat pussy.
D. I want to cut my dick off."
is the world's easiest IQ test.
<_<
On and I'd pick B. That person forgot that it always needs to involve doing something with a dick.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2015, 09:42:09 PM
Losing two science debates in one thread, not bad CC!
Only for people who dont bother to read but simply accept Grumbler's misinterpretation ;)
Just because Grumbler says something it doesn't mean it isn't true.
How on earth did this thread get onto discussing the status of Pluto? :lol:
Anyway. Its not a planet. And its not the first to be demoted with new evidence.
If Pluto is a planet then so must be a whole bunch of other kuiper objects. The dwarf planet explanation makes sense.
Quote from: garbon on November 11, 2015, 09:57:17 AM
QuoteAny attempt to rationally discuss issues that gays/lesbians/bisexuals are concerned about regarding the trans movement is met with unparalleled vitriol, harassment, death threats, and silencing—demanding that the person commenting contrary to the trans narrative be banned from forums, for example.
Which has happened as a result of this appearing / also when we think about how Ru Paul was attacked as transphobic...
Calling for someone to be banned from a forum is hardly exclusive to trans - gay relationships. ;)
Quote from: Tyr on November 11, 2015, 05:16:02 PM
How on earth did this thread get onto discussing the status of Pluto? :lol:
Anyway. Its not a planet.
Transplanet.:contract:
If enough people identify it as a planet then it is one. You need to educate yourself.
Viper should be banned for watching crappy procedurals.
I think the most important classification question is: What would katmai be classified as?
He would be classified as awesome. :)
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 11, 2015, 06:15:39 PM
I think the most important classification question is: What would katmai be classified as?
That's no moon.
I suppose the discussion shifting from Transsexuals to Trans-neptunium objects makes a certain amount of sense.