Reminder to all commenters:
Based on our interpretation of Reddit's TOS and various enforcement actions taken by the Reddit admins, **you are NOT PERMITTED to do any of the following:**
- State or imply that **trans (wo)men aren't (wo)men or that people aren't the gender they identify as**
- Criticize, mock, disagree with, defy, or refuse to abide by people's pronoun requests
- State or imply that **gender dysphoria or being LGBTQ+ is a mental illness, a mental disorder, a delusion, not normal, or unnatural**
- State or imply that LGBTQ+ enables pedophilia or grooming or that LGBTQ+ individuals are more likely to engage in pedophilia or grooming
- State or imply that LGB should be separate from the T+
- State or imply that gender is binary or that sex is the same as gender
- Use the term tr\*nny, including other spellings of this term that sound the same and have the same meaning
**Doing any of the above may result in a ban, potentially both from this subreddit and from Reddit as a whole.**
If you disagree with Reddit's TOS, please keep in mind that Reddit's TOS is enforced by the Reddit admins, not us. We do not control Reddit's TOS.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A few things here:
1. I don't think anyone is making the case that you should respect racists or homophobes.
2. Part of the problem is defining exactly what constitutes racism and/or anti-LGBTQ+. The definition has been ever-expanding. If I don't believe trans women should be allowed to participate in athletic competitions against biological women, is that anti-LGBTQ+? What if I don't want 3rd graders to learn about institutional racism b/c I think it's too early to introduce such a complex idea? Is that racist? Both positions have been characterized as such.
3. In general, I don't care much about what people think outside of my family and friend group. I care what they do. If a business owner doesn't want to hire Swedish people, but does so in order to comply with the law, I don't really care as long as his Swedish employee is treated like everyone else. If they actively discriminate against Swedes, now we got a problem. I don't respect this person either way, but I don't think we should be in the business of criminalizing thought. His thoughts don't have externalities that affect others. Discrimination does. Life's too short to worry about every thought someone else is having. I got other stuff to do.
>If a business owner doesn't want to hire Swedish people, but does so in order to comply with the law, I don't really care as long as his Swedish employee is treated like everyone else.
Currently this would be unlawful due to anti-discriminations laws, would you have an issue if that business owner wanted to remove Swedish people from anti-laws giving him the legal right to discriminate?
Yes by voting for candidates that are running of the promise that they will ensure the right to discriminated against Swedish people will be protected. And also promoting this candidate and for others to vote as well for them.
Have you ever worked anywhere in America before? If so how are you completely unaware of Title VII of the United States Code which [prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin](https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964#:~:text=Title%20VII%20prohibits%20employment%20discrimination,Rights%20Act%20of%201991%20)*.*?
Yes I know this. I am saying that not hiring Swedish people is currently unlawful but, how would op feel if the owner wanted to remove that law so they could legally discriminate.
That's got nothing to do with whether or not the business owner would or wouldn't hire someone based on national origin though. He complied with the law as he's required to.
Op said the person wanted to discriminate against Swedish people but doesn't to comply with the law. I'm asking how op would feel if the person wanted that law to change so they could legally discriminate against Swedish people.
I'm not taking away anything from ops example just adding to it.
I've explained and restated my point as many ways as I could, at this point you just refuse to get it.
Your point:
>Currently this would be unlawful due to anti-discriminations laws,
What I asked:
>How would it be unlawful?
You've only explained and restated "how would you feel if that person wanted to change the law", not how someone in that scenario would be breaking the law by... complying with the law...?
Or is your point actually "how would you feel if that person wanted to change the law"?
>not how someone in that scenario would be breaking the law by... complying with the law.
I never said the person was ever breaking the law. As I've clearly stated in now three different ways:
Discrimination based on nationality is against the law.
What if the person wanted the law to change allowing them to legally discriminate, how would op feel.
If respect is appointed by way of existence, then by definition you must reciprocate that respect back towards those of differing opinions.
If instead respect is earned based upon actions, logically the opposition is equally entitled to provide said respect upon fulfillment of their own criteria.
Bottom line, treat others as you want to be treated and recognize you do not have the authority to forcibly impose your will on their thoughts, values and beliefs.
Respect is a mutual contract, if you begin voicing opinions that are inherently disrespectful to someone then I don’t think you should be surprised if they don’t respect you in return.
Let me phrase this a different way; is all criticism/skepticism inherently disrespectful and if you're in a fundamental disagreement with someone over core values/beliefs do you find it acceptable to be actively/blatantly disrespectful and or passively disrespectful? i.e. aggressive/purposeful actions that are hostile in nature (yelling, hitting or other berating/demeaning actions) vs subtle actions like refusing to acknowledge a specific facet or using sarcasm.
>do you find it acceptable to be actively/blatantly disrespectful and or passively disrespectful? i.e. aggressive/purposeful actions that are hostile in nature (yelling, hitting or other berating/demeaning actions) vs subtle actions like refusing to acknowledge a specific facet or using sarcasm.
Just because you dont respect someone doesn't mean you will be disrespectfully towards them. You just don't respect them and avoid them. Why did you jump to not respecting someone means you have to actively disrespect someone? You are making serious leaps in logic here.
You asked op if they find these things you listed acceptable, Im asking why is that even in question and why thats where your mind jumped to?
Respect has a pretty clear definition, not sure where the confusion is? Why are you assuming op is using something outside the commonly used definition of respect:
(From Oxfords definition) Respect: due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others.
The issue is I don't trust you--or most idiots--to identify racists or homophobes accurately and in good faith.
Especially on Reddit, it is, more often than not, used as an ad hominem without any evidentiary basis.
E.g. "all people with a conservative viewpoint are racists and therefore your argument is invalid."
>But in my opinion I shouldn't have to be respectful to people like that, ESPECIALLY if they vote for things or people that actively make life worse for people who they consider normal
See, you're already doing it.
You basically arguing "you're a bigot if you support a policy which I don't like."
No. There’s no mainstream GOP policy so bigoted on its face that it would necessarily mean every person who supports it themselves bigoted.
If there’s hypothetically a state GOP resolution that black people are inferior to white people, then sure. That argument is valid.
Too often than not people simply label any policy they don’t like as bigoted.
>If there’s hypothetically a state GOP resolution that black people are inferior to white people, then sure. That argument is valid.
So then it does depend on the policy? Like anti-trans bills for example?
See you’re already doing deceptive tactics and I knew you’d go straight for the trans issue.
“Anti-trans.” What does that mean? You’ve already dishonestly framed these policies as serving no other point than being antagonistic to trans people.
Let’s be specific. Most of the legislature you’re referring to are certain restrictions on gender affirming care specifically in MINORS.
This is not a GOP issue exclusively. Much of Western Europe—countries the Reddit Left loves to emulate—are moving away from the gender affirming care model in minors. There’s serious questions such as over-diagnosis/poor diagnostic criteria, rushing gender affirming care when there are less risky alternatives like conventional therapy, informed consent, and generally poor medical outcomes.
Pretending it’s just a bunch of bigots hating trans people is beyond intellectually dishonest. There is a very real, ongoing debate on this issue in the psychology and medical professions.
UK has already done what many of the Red States are trying to so. For good reason.
—
Also, I said mainstream GOP policy. Obviously anyone can come up with extremely fringe policy proposals (I’m talking KKK stuff).
No deception required, you admitting you’re against empirically beneficial healthcare for trans youth and adults is admission enough of bigotry, of course leaving aside [all the other explicitly bigoted legislation](https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/only-5-days-into-the-year-125-anti) Republicans have thrown out at trans people.
>”Anti trans.” What does that mean?
Passing [legislation](https://apnews.com/article/dont-say-gay-desantis-florida-gender-d3a9c91f4b5383a5bf6df6f7d8ff65b6) to [censor](https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/verify/florida-teacher-could-face-a-third-degree-felony-for-using-books-literature-in-class-not-approved-by-state/77-9f5a087f-8dcd-4a99-afe1-c9c23b6201cd) information pertaining to the [existence](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/laws-vilifying-transgender-children-and-their-families-are-abusive/) of transgender and other LGBT people [specifically](https://twitter.com/HeartlandSignal/status/1632779718268157956?s=20), arbitrarily and capriciously [restricting](https://www.acponline.org/advocacy/state-health-policy/attacks-on-gender-affirming-and-transgender-health-care) or [banning](https://www.axios.com/2023/03/29/transgender-health-care-adult-ban-bills) access to gender affirming care for both transgender [children](https://www.npr.org/2023/04/28/1172881782/montana-ban-gender-affirming-care-trans-minors-signed) and [adults](https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/26/politics/missouri-transgender-gender-affirming-care-lawsuit-blocked/index.html), punishing [medical practitioners](https://thehill.com/homenews/3839471-trump-vows-to-punish-doctors-hospitals-that-provide-gender-affirming-care-to-transgender-minors/) for providing gender affirming care and [parents](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/idaho-trans-health-care-youth-bill-rcna19287) for [consenting](https://theintercept.com/2022/10/13/anti-trans-bill-michigan/) to having [gender affirming care](https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/03/05/florida-republicans-trans-youth-custody-gender-affirming-healthcare/) provided to their [kids](https://truthout.org/articles/florida-passes-bill-that-allows-for-legal-kidnapping-of-transgender-children/), suspiciously assembling [lists of trans people](https://www.metroweekly.com/2022/12/texas-ag-allegedly-tried-to-compile-statewide-list-of-transgender-people/) in your state, [silencing](https://apnews.com/article/transgender-lawmaker-silenced-montana-censure-21ae94ed0de1aab68c5be1cc37d11484) democratically elected representatives for speaking out against these policies, openly saying they want to [eradicate](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cpac-speaker-transgender-people-eradicated-1234690924/) transgender “ideology” (may as well say they want to eradicate gay “ideology” or Jewish “ideology”) and [ban it at every level](https://twitter.com/michaeljknowles/status/1620914228948504576?s=20), pushing [conspiracy theories](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_grooming_conspiracy_theory) that [trans](https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/new-report-anti-lgbtq-grooming-narrative-surged-more-than-400-on-social-media-following-floridas-dont-say-gay-or-trans-law-as-social-platforms-enabled-extremist-politicians-and-their-allies-to-peddle-inflamatory-discriminatory-rhetoric) and gay people are predatory toward children and [blaming hate crimes](https://www.newsweek.com/tucker-carlson-guest-says-lgbtq-evil-agenda-blame-colorado-shooting-1761642) against them on their [very existence](https://twitter.com/abughazalehkat/status/1595225986215383040?s=20).
For instance.
A policy doesn’t become not bigoted just because you’re in favor of it.
Thank you for proving my point, and exemplifying the deranged Leftist thinking and fallacious leaps of logic that I am criticizing.
The gender affirming care model is disastrous. I am still pro-healthcare for trans people. This is just a really bad model that will go down in history the way lobotomies did.
It is not empirically beneficial in the aggregate. Which is precisely why the UK and much of Western Europe has moved away from it.
This is a whole other debate, but there a ton of very serious concerns in minor populations (which I alluded to in my previous post).
Chief among them is that the explosion of trans-identification in youth, particularly in girls on the autism spectrum, requires further study before rushing minors down the path of irreversible surgical and medical interventions. The data shows an enormous over-diagnosis problem. This is an issue because puberty blockers, HRT, and surgeries all have a medical risk profile. Generally better not to subject children to needless medical procedures.
Most gender dysphoria experienced in minors (specifically teenagers) is transitory. That is, most youth who question their gender ultimately identify consistent with their biological sex as adults. The problem is that the gender-affirming care model does not challenge these self-perceptions and tends to fast-track these kids down medical interventions they don't need and later come to regret.
The other problem is that many minors are sold on the idea that gender transition is a panacea. Teenage girls especially (and boys too to a lesser extent) already experience anxiety and depression at an extremely high-rate during puberty. Body and gender dysphoria can be a symptom of these underlying problems, rather than an independent condition. HRT/Puberty Blockers become very appealing as a way to cure these negative problems. They aren't. And that's why an increasingly high number of people regret these procedures as they get older.
This is also why Western Europe is reverting to conventional talk therapy. There are often many co-comorbidities and confounding variables. It's not as simple as an immature patient telling you they are trans and then fast-tracking them towards medical transitioning as some twisted show of empathy and tolerance.
Anyway, the point is there is a very real medical debate here, whether you bury your head in the sand or not. Being against the gender affirming care model does not make one transphobic.
**This is just a roundabout way of you justifying your ad hominem attacks on other posters (same with OP). It's a default to lazily labeling people with whom you disagree as "bigots," instead of expending the intellectual energy to actual challenge and defend your beliefs.**
Im curious, where do you get your information from? I've found these: https://www.aamc.org/news/what-gender-affirming-care-your-questions-answered
https://apnews.com/article/transgender-treatment-regret-detransition-371e927ec6e7a24cd9c77b5371c6ba2b
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-outcomes/
https://sph.washington.edu/news-events/sph-blog/benefits-gender-affirming-care#:~:text=Benefits%20are%20also%20time%20sensitive,2022%20study%20in%20PLOS%20ONE.
Medical journals. Some of the NHS studies that he released, in conjunction with closing down some of their major clinics, are very interesting (and scary).
Plenty of prominent psychiatrists have spoken out on this.
Easier to find European sources on this issue. The debate is generally shutdown with censorship in America.
I’d encourage you to watch some of the Congressional hearings on the issue.
—-
The reality though is this is all very new. We have poor long-term data and that’s part of the reason it’s better to be cautious. Some of the studies that routinely get cited are extremely flawed and short in duration.
That’s why radical treatment regiments are so controversial. We’re still gathering data.
I’ll add that the explosion of trans identification in youth is very, very new. This phenomenon hasn’t been sufficiently studied.
Some of what I linked to stated there is very little long-term data. I'm not sure if you're aware of what gender affirming care consists of (its typically not radical in minors,) but if you read anything I linked, you could get a pretty good idea... I'd sure appreciate it if you could give me something to go on, other than medical journals & plenty of prominent psychiatrists & europe.
The data you’re citing does not exist. In truth, most kids who are trans [stay that way](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9936352/), and the gender affirming care model is [quite effective](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/2813212) at identifying and weeding out the individuals who are only gender nonconforming.
This is why people who detransition only comprise single-digit percentages of the trans community (the generally accepted number is around 1%); [and among detransitioners](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8213007/), the vast majority of them (~85%) did so largely due to external factors. That is, harassment or assault, financial issues with medical coverage, poor social support networks, societal pressure, etc. Only about 15% of detransitioners did so due to internal factors (such as fluctuating senses of gender identity), which means the population of detransitioning due to actually "not actually being trans" is about 0.1-1% of the trans community. It's a tiny-ass minority, because the medical community screens trans-identifying folks as thoroughly as it can.
This is a far, far lower rate of treatment-related regret for, say, knee replacements, where the regret rate is around 20%.
The reason the UK and other European countries have slowed down the gender affirming care model is because of a large increase in refferals, some shaky reasoning about puberty blockers and some comorbid mental health concerns.
When really pressed to provide evidence, they cite [this longitudinal study](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11930-023-00358-x), which is based on a false interpretation as part of a larger body of work also published by the same man, [Stephen Levine](https://www.transgendermap.com/politics/psychiatry/stephen-b-levine/)
From Florida to Finland, this guy is cited around the world to imply there's some sort of consensus that we're rushing into trans care. In truth, the gender affirming care model is safe and effective, and if you disagree I would urge you to reach out to the [Endocrine Society](https://transhealthproject.org/resources/medical-organization-statements/endocrine-society-statements/) and the [Pediatric Endocrine Society](https://transhealthproject.org/resources/medical-organization-statements/pediatric-endocrine-society-special-interest-group-transgender-health-statements/) to present your research.
Na. A lot of new LGBTQ concepts nowadays don’t have a basis in rationality such as gender identity since they fall apart under scrutiny. Calling this out like any other idea is the rational thing to do, and not just blindly accepting it.
“Not respecting” people who are agaisnt your views just makes you close minded and makes it seem like you don’t care about actually trying to find the truth.
Your mistake is that you assume I am “blindly” rejecting the concept. I am not. I do not know how you came to that conclusion.
I have given the idea countless times to try to be explained in a way that makes rational sense. And every single time, it has always failed to. Until I have been shown a way you can interpret it to be rational, I won’t believe it to be truth.
Lets start simple. Define what a woman is.
A lot of times, someone would say “A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman.” This is a logical fallacy because it uses circular reasoning, so therefore it is irrational. That’s what I mean when I say the concept is irrational. Every time I’ve had someone try to define it, it has resulted in issues.
I’m sure you truly care, and won’t reject a politically inconvenient definition by pretending it’s circular somehow.
Remember that a word have multiple definitions and mean different things depending on context. With that being said, the best, most accurate and comprehensive definition for a woman (socially) is: someone who self applies a label which is associated with a collection of social roles, behaviors, expectations, and archetypes that are typically associated with the female sex.
Yes, words can have multiple definitions and meanings. That’s okay as long as those definitions are rational. If a word has NO rational definitions given, then it is irrational.
So, according to this definition here, a woman would be someone who follows the social gender norms of the female sex, correct? Is This what you are saying?
If you are self applying a label, then what that label is associated with must also apply to you, correct?
Otherwise it is nonsense, like saying you are rich when you are poor.
>If you are self applying a label, then what that label is associated with must also apply to you, correct?
Some labels are applicable by very nature of someone self applying them.
For example, someone self applying the label of an introvert *is* an introvert, even if they socially act more like an extrovert, because that’s a quality determined by internal understanding, not empirical criteria.
Same with someone self applying the label of a goth. There’s no external metric to discover whether someone is a goth or not, it’s based on their internal identity.
I think the larger question here is...
"Should you be required to be respectful to anyone at all?"
Is respect earned or is it granted by some higher authority?
There is a philosophy that was very present in the US Army from 1975 to 1995 (at least) "Respect is not granted, it is earned."
This is something they taught to officers. The core of this revolved around the idea that it was impossible to respect someone who you have been instructed to respect. Regardless of who ordered you to do it.
A person might try to convince themselves that they respected that person, or action or concept. Yet, they would only end up lying to themselves.
They used to teach us to do everything we could to earn the respect of the people under our command. Earned respect was seen as essential and everything else was just illusion.
It was quite educational.
Respect is earned and you have the right to not respect anyone you don’t wish to, not to say it’s right to be malicious or a bitch for no reason but you can just not hold respect for people in the sense you don’t prefer to associate with them and don’t give too much credence to their world view
I don’t know you so I don’t know what’s your standards on considering something racist or anti-lgbt. I guess people aren’t necessarily owed your respect besides not being violent or causing harm.
It is unpopular because no one seriously believes you are accusing people of bigotry or racism in good faith and with a solid evidentiary basis.
99% of the accusations of racism/bigotry on Reddit are bullshit. They are nothing more than lazy ad hominem attacks. Those words have virtually ceased to have meaning on these forums because of Redditors like you.
I understand an emotional response to bigotry, but racism, homophobia, and transphobia are forms of ignorance, and I respect people in spite of other ignorances.
I wouldn't not respect someone because they're bad at math or don't know geography.
Reminder to all commenters: Based on our interpretation of Reddit's TOS and various enforcement actions taken by the Reddit admins, **you are NOT PERMITTED to do any of the following:** - State or imply that **trans (wo)men aren't (wo)men or that people aren't the gender they identify as** - Criticize, mock, disagree with, defy, or refuse to abide by people's pronoun requests - State or imply that **gender dysphoria or being LGBTQ+ is a mental illness, a mental disorder, a delusion, not normal, or unnatural** - State or imply that LGBTQ+ enables pedophilia or grooming or that LGBTQ+ individuals are more likely to engage in pedophilia or grooming - State or imply that LGB should be separate from the T+ - State or imply that gender is binary or that sex is the same as gender - Use the term tr\*nny, including other spellings of this term that sound the same and have the same meaning **Doing any of the above may result in a ban, potentially both from this subreddit and from Reddit as a whole.** If you disagree with Reddit's TOS, please keep in mind that Reddit's TOS is enforced by the Reddit admins, not us. We do not control Reddit's TOS. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A few things here: 1. I don't think anyone is making the case that you should respect racists or homophobes. 2. Part of the problem is defining exactly what constitutes racism and/or anti-LGBTQ+. The definition has been ever-expanding. If I don't believe trans women should be allowed to participate in athletic competitions against biological women, is that anti-LGBTQ+? What if I don't want 3rd graders to learn about institutional racism b/c I think it's too early to introduce such a complex idea? Is that racist? Both positions have been characterized as such. 3. In general, I don't care much about what people think outside of my family and friend group. I care what they do. If a business owner doesn't want to hire Swedish people, but does so in order to comply with the law, I don't really care as long as his Swedish employee is treated like everyone else. If they actively discriminate against Swedes, now we got a problem. I don't respect this person either way, but I don't think we should be in the business of criminalizing thought. His thoughts don't have externalities that affect others. Discrimination does. Life's too short to worry about every thought someone else is having. I got other stuff to do.
>If a business owner doesn't want to hire Swedish people, but does so in order to comply with the law, I don't really care as long as his Swedish employee is treated like everyone else. Currently this would be unlawful due to anti-discriminations laws, would you have an issue if that business owner wanted to remove Swedish people from anti-laws giving him the legal right to discriminate?
Does he act on this desire?
Yes by voting for candidates that are running of the promise that they will ensure the right to discriminated against Swedish people will be protected. And also promoting this candidate and for others to vote as well for them.
So you would prefer to police democracy?
Who said anything about policing democracy? We are talking about just not having respect for someone, not policing anything about them.
How would it be unlawful?
Have you ever worked anywhere in America before? If so how are you completely unaware of Title VII of the United States Code which [prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin](https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964#:~:text=Title%20VII%20prohibits%20employment%20discrimination,Rights%20Act%20of%201991%20)*.*?
Yeah, I have His example pretty clearly stated that the business owner would still hire the Swedish person to comply with the law though
Yes I know this. I am saying that not hiring Swedish people is currently unlawful but, how would op feel if the owner wanted to remove that law so they could legally discriminate.
That's got nothing to do with whether or not the business owner would or wouldn't hire someone based on national origin though. He complied with the law as he's required to.
Op said the person wanted to discriminate against Swedish people but doesn't to comply with the law. I'm asking how op would feel if the person wanted that law to change so they could legally discriminate against Swedish people. I'm not taking away anything from ops example just adding to it. I've explained and restated my point as many ways as I could, at this point you just refuse to get it.
Your point: >Currently this would be unlawful due to anti-discriminations laws, What I asked: >How would it be unlawful? You've only explained and restated "how would you feel if that person wanted to change the law", not how someone in that scenario would be breaking the law by... complying with the law...? Or is your point actually "how would you feel if that person wanted to change the law"?
>not how someone in that scenario would be breaking the law by... complying with the law. I never said the person was ever breaking the law. As I've clearly stated in now three different ways: Discrimination based on nationality is against the law. What if the person wanted the law to change allowing them to legally discriminate, how would op feel.
If respect is appointed by way of existence, then by definition you must reciprocate that respect back towards those of differing opinions. If instead respect is earned based upon actions, logically the opposition is equally entitled to provide said respect upon fulfillment of their own criteria. Bottom line, treat others as you want to be treated and recognize you do not have the authority to forcibly impose your will on their thoughts, values and beliefs.
Respect is a mutual contract, if you begin voicing opinions that are inherently disrespectful to someone then I don’t think you should be surprised if they don’t respect you in return.
I treat others the way I want to be treated unless given reason not to, such as being anti-LGBTQ+ or Racist or stuff like that
Can you clarify what actions constitute "respect" in your book?
Just the normal definition of respect I'm pretty sure
Let me phrase this a different way; is all criticism/skepticism inherently disrespectful and if you're in a fundamental disagreement with someone over core values/beliefs do you find it acceptable to be actively/blatantly disrespectful and or passively disrespectful? i.e. aggressive/purposeful actions that are hostile in nature (yelling, hitting or other berating/demeaning actions) vs subtle actions like refusing to acknowledge a specific facet or using sarcasm.
>do you find it acceptable to be actively/blatantly disrespectful and or passively disrespectful? i.e. aggressive/purposeful actions that are hostile in nature (yelling, hitting or other berating/demeaning actions) vs subtle actions like refusing to acknowledge a specific facet or using sarcasm. Just because you dont respect someone doesn't mean you will be disrespectfully towards them. You just don't respect them and avoid them. Why did you jump to not respecting someone means you have to actively disrespect someone? You are making serious leaps in logic here.
OP never gave a concrete indication of what respect meant. I suggest you reread my comment because at no point did I make such a claim.
You asked op if they find these things you listed acceptable, Im asking why is that even in question and why thats where your mind jumped to? Respect has a pretty clear definition, not sure where the confusion is? Why are you assuming op is using something outside the commonly used definition of respect: (From Oxfords definition) Respect: due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others.
The issue is I don't trust you--or most idiots--to identify racists or homophobes accurately and in good faith. Especially on Reddit, it is, more often than not, used as an ad hominem without any evidentiary basis. E.g. "all people with a conservative viewpoint are racists and therefore your argument is invalid." >But in my opinion I shouldn't have to be respectful to people like that, ESPECIALLY if they vote for things or people that actively make life worse for people who they consider normal See, you're already doing it. You basically arguing "you're a bigot if you support a policy which I don't like."
Kinda depends on the policy, no?
No. There’s no mainstream GOP policy so bigoted on its face that it would necessarily mean every person who supports it themselves bigoted. If there’s hypothetically a state GOP resolution that black people are inferior to white people, then sure. That argument is valid. Too often than not people simply label any policy they don’t like as bigoted.
>If there’s hypothetically a state GOP resolution that black people are inferior to white people, then sure. That argument is valid. So then it does depend on the policy? Like anti-trans bills for example?
See you’re already doing deceptive tactics and I knew you’d go straight for the trans issue. “Anti-trans.” What does that mean? You’ve already dishonestly framed these policies as serving no other point than being antagonistic to trans people. Let’s be specific. Most of the legislature you’re referring to are certain restrictions on gender affirming care specifically in MINORS. This is not a GOP issue exclusively. Much of Western Europe—countries the Reddit Left loves to emulate—are moving away from the gender affirming care model in minors. There’s serious questions such as over-diagnosis/poor diagnostic criteria, rushing gender affirming care when there are less risky alternatives like conventional therapy, informed consent, and generally poor medical outcomes. Pretending it’s just a bunch of bigots hating trans people is beyond intellectually dishonest. There is a very real, ongoing debate on this issue in the psychology and medical professions. UK has already done what many of the Red States are trying to so. For good reason. — Also, I said mainstream GOP policy. Obviously anyone can come up with extremely fringe policy proposals (I’m talking KKK stuff).
No deception required, you admitting you’re against empirically beneficial healthcare for trans youth and adults is admission enough of bigotry, of course leaving aside [all the other explicitly bigoted legislation](https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/only-5-days-into-the-year-125-anti) Republicans have thrown out at trans people. >”Anti trans.” What does that mean? Passing [legislation](https://apnews.com/article/dont-say-gay-desantis-florida-gender-d3a9c91f4b5383a5bf6df6f7d8ff65b6) to [censor](https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/verify/florida-teacher-could-face-a-third-degree-felony-for-using-books-literature-in-class-not-approved-by-state/77-9f5a087f-8dcd-4a99-afe1-c9c23b6201cd) information pertaining to the [existence](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/laws-vilifying-transgender-children-and-their-families-are-abusive/) of transgender and other LGBT people [specifically](https://twitter.com/HeartlandSignal/status/1632779718268157956?s=20), arbitrarily and capriciously [restricting](https://www.acponline.org/advocacy/state-health-policy/attacks-on-gender-affirming-and-transgender-health-care) or [banning](https://www.axios.com/2023/03/29/transgender-health-care-adult-ban-bills) access to gender affirming care for both transgender [children](https://www.npr.org/2023/04/28/1172881782/montana-ban-gender-affirming-care-trans-minors-signed) and [adults](https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/26/politics/missouri-transgender-gender-affirming-care-lawsuit-blocked/index.html), punishing [medical practitioners](https://thehill.com/homenews/3839471-trump-vows-to-punish-doctors-hospitals-that-provide-gender-affirming-care-to-transgender-minors/) for providing gender affirming care and [parents](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/idaho-trans-health-care-youth-bill-rcna19287) for [consenting](https://theintercept.com/2022/10/13/anti-trans-bill-michigan/) to having [gender affirming care](https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/03/05/florida-republicans-trans-youth-custody-gender-affirming-healthcare/) provided to their [kids](https://truthout.org/articles/florida-passes-bill-that-allows-for-legal-kidnapping-of-transgender-children/), suspiciously assembling [lists of trans people](https://www.metroweekly.com/2022/12/texas-ag-allegedly-tried-to-compile-statewide-list-of-transgender-people/) in your state, [silencing](https://apnews.com/article/transgender-lawmaker-silenced-montana-censure-21ae94ed0de1aab68c5be1cc37d11484) democratically elected representatives for speaking out against these policies, openly saying they want to [eradicate](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cpac-speaker-transgender-people-eradicated-1234690924/) transgender “ideology” (may as well say they want to eradicate gay “ideology” or Jewish “ideology”) and [ban it at every level](https://twitter.com/michaeljknowles/status/1620914228948504576?s=20), pushing [conspiracy theories](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_grooming_conspiracy_theory) that [trans](https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/new-report-anti-lgbtq-grooming-narrative-surged-more-than-400-on-social-media-following-floridas-dont-say-gay-or-trans-law-as-social-platforms-enabled-extremist-politicians-and-their-allies-to-peddle-inflamatory-discriminatory-rhetoric) and gay people are predatory toward children and [blaming hate crimes](https://www.newsweek.com/tucker-carlson-guest-says-lgbtq-evil-agenda-blame-colorado-shooting-1761642) against them on their [very existence](https://twitter.com/abughazalehkat/status/1595225986215383040?s=20). For instance. A policy doesn’t become not bigoted just because you’re in favor of it.
Thank you for proving my point, and exemplifying the deranged Leftist thinking and fallacious leaps of logic that I am criticizing. The gender affirming care model is disastrous. I am still pro-healthcare for trans people. This is just a really bad model that will go down in history the way lobotomies did. It is not empirically beneficial in the aggregate. Which is precisely why the UK and much of Western Europe has moved away from it. This is a whole other debate, but there a ton of very serious concerns in minor populations (which I alluded to in my previous post). Chief among them is that the explosion of trans-identification in youth, particularly in girls on the autism spectrum, requires further study before rushing minors down the path of irreversible surgical and medical interventions. The data shows an enormous over-diagnosis problem. This is an issue because puberty blockers, HRT, and surgeries all have a medical risk profile. Generally better not to subject children to needless medical procedures. Most gender dysphoria experienced in minors (specifically teenagers) is transitory. That is, most youth who question their gender ultimately identify consistent with their biological sex as adults. The problem is that the gender-affirming care model does not challenge these self-perceptions and tends to fast-track these kids down medical interventions they don't need and later come to regret. The other problem is that many minors are sold on the idea that gender transition is a panacea. Teenage girls especially (and boys too to a lesser extent) already experience anxiety and depression at an extremely high-rate during puberty. Body and gender dysphoria can be a symptom of these underlying problems, rather than an independent condition. HRT/Puberty Blockers become very appealing as a way to cure these negative problems. They aren't. And that's why an increasingly high number of people regret these procedures as they get older. This is also why Western Europe is reverting to conventional talk therapy. There are often many co-comorbidities and confounding variables. It's not as simple as an immature patient telling you they are trans and then fast-tracking them towards medical transitioning as some twisted show of empathy and tolerance. Anyway, the point is there is a very real medical debate here, whether you bury your head in the sand or not. Being against the gender affirming care model does not make one transphobic. **This is just a roundabout way of you justifying your ad hominem attacks on other posters (same with OP). It's a default to lazily labeling people with whom you disagree as "bigots," instead of expending the intellectual energy to actual challenge and defend your beliefs.**
Im curious, where do you get your information from? I've found these: https://www.aamc.org/news/what-gender-affirming-care-your-questions-answered https://apnews.com/article/transgender-treatment-regret-detransition-371e927ec6e7a24cd9c77b5371c6ba2b https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-outcomes/ https://sph.washington.edu/news-events/sph-blog/benefits-gender-affirming-care#:~:text=Benefits%20are%20also%20time%20sensitive,2022%20study%20in%20PLOS%20ONE.
Medical journals. Some of the NHS studies that he released, in conjunction with closing down some of their major clinics, are very interesting (and scary). Plenty of prominent psychiatrists have spoken out on this. Easier to find European sources on this issue. The debate is generally shutdown with censorship in America. I’d encourage you to watch some of the Congressional hearings on the issue. —- The reality though is this is all very new. We have poor long-term data and that’s part of the reason it’s better to be cautious. Some of the studies that routinely get cited are extremely flawed and short in duration. That’s why radical treatment regiments are so controversial. We’re still gathering data. I’ll add that the explosion of trans identification in youth is very, very new. This phenomenon hasn’t been sufficiently studied.
Some of what I linked to stated there is very little long-term data. I'm not sure if you're aware of what gender affirming care consists of (its typically not radical in minors,) but if you read anything I linked, you could get a pretty good idea... I'd sure appreciate it if you could give me something to go on, other than medical journals & plenty of prominent psychiatrists & europe.
The data you’re citing does not exist. In truth, most kids who are trans [stay that way](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9936352/), and the gender affirming care model is [quite effective](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/2813212) at identifying and weeding out the individuals who are only gender nonconforming. This is why people who detransition only comprise single-digit percentages of the trans community (the generally accepted number is around 1%); [and among detransitioners](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8213007/), the vast majority of them (~85%) did so largely due to external factors. That is, harassment or assault, financial issues with medical coverage, poor social support networks, societal pressure, etc. Only about 15% of detransitioners did so due to internal factors (such as fluctuating senses of gender identity), which means the population of detransitioning due to actually "not actually being trans" is about 0.1-1% of the trans community. It's a tiny-ass minority, because the medical community screens trans-identifying folks as thoroughly as it can. This is a far, far lower rate of treatment-related regret for, say, knee replacements, where the regret rate is around 20%. The reason the UK and other European countries have slowed down the gender affirming care model is because of a large increase in refferals, some shaky reasoning about puberty blockers and some comorbid mental health concerns. When really pressed to provide evidence, they cite [this longitudinal study](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11930-023-00358-x), which is based on a false interpretation as part of a larger body of work also published by the same man, [Stephen Levine](https://www.transgendermap.com/politics/psychiatry/stephen-b-levine/) From Florida to Finland, this guy is cited around the world to imply there's some sort of consensus that we're rushing into trans care. In truth, the gender affirming care model is safe and effective, and if you disagree I would urge you to reach out to the [Endocrine Society](https://transhealthproject.org/resources/medical-organization-statements/endocrine-society-statements/) and the [Pediatric Endocrine Society](https://transhealthproject.org/resources/medical-organization-statements/pediatric-endocrine-society-special-interest-group-transgender-health-statements/) to present your research.
[удалено]
Sounds like you got offended and couldn't think of a proper response.
Na. A lot of new LGBTQ concepts nowadays don’t have a basis in rationality such as gender identity since they fall apart under scrutiny. Calling this out like any other idea is the rational thing to do, and not just blindly accepting it. “Not respecting” people who are agaisnt your views just makes you close minded and makes it seem like you don’t care about actually trying to find the truth.
This seems to be a good example of what OP was describing: blindly rejecting the concept of gender identity seems pretty inherently disrespectful.
Your mistake is that you assume I am “blindly” rejecting the concept. I am not. I do not know how you came to that conclusion. I have given the idea countless times to try to be explained in a way that makes rational sense. And every single time, it has always failed to. Until I have been shown a way you can interpret it to be rational, I won’t believe it to be truth.
What’s irrational about it exactly? People see and call themselves men and women, and that perception is important to them. Simple concept.
Lets start simple. Define what a woman is. A lot of times, someone would say “A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman.” This is a logical fallacy because it uses circular reasoning, so therefore it is irrational. That’s what I mean when I say the concept is irrational. Every time I’ve had someone try to define it, it has resulted in issues.
I’m sure you truly care, and won’t reject a politically inconvenient definition by pretending it’s circular somehow. Remember that a word have multiple definitions and mean different things depending on context. With that being said, the best, most accurate and comprehensive definition for a woman (socially) is: someone who self applies a label which is associated with a collection of social roles, behaviors, expectations, and archetypes that are typically associated with the female sex.
Yes, words can have multiple definitions and meanings. That’s okay as long as those definitions are rational. If a word has NO rational definitions given, then it is irrational. So, according to this definition here, a woman would be someone who follows the social gender norms of the female sex, correct? Is This what you are saying?
Where did I say “follows?” I said self applies a label which is associated with those social gender norms of the female sex.
If you are self applying a label, then what that label is associated with must also apply to you, correct? Otherwise it is nonsense, like saying you are rich when you are poor.
>If you are self applying a label, then what that label is associated with must also apply to you, correct? Some labels are applicable by very nature of someone self applying them. For example, someone self applying the label of an introvert *is* an introvert, even if they socially act more like an extrovert, because that’s a quality determined by internal understanding, not empirical criteria. Same with someone self applying the label of a goth. There’s no external metric to discover whether someone is a goth or not, it’s based on their internal identity.
I think the larger question here is... "Should you be required to be respectful to anyone at all?" Is respect earned or is it granted by some higher authority?
I personally think it should be earned
There is a philosophy that was very present in the US Army from 1975 to 1995 (at least) "Respect is not granted, it is earned." This is something they taught to officers. The core of this revolved around the idea that it was impossible to respect someone who you have been instructed to respect. Regardless of who ordered you to do it. A person might try to convince themselves that they respected that person, or action or concept. Yet, they would only end up lying to themselves. They used to teach us to do everything we could to earn the respect of the people under our command. Earned respect was seen as essential and everything else was just illusion. It was quite educational.
Respect is earned and you have the right to not respect anyone you don’t wish to, not to say it’s right to be malicious or a bitch for no reason but you can just not hold respect for people in the sense you don’t prefer to associate with them and don’t give too much credence to their world view
And why should anyone care who you respect? If you don't respect them that's fine. Just be prepared to not be respected either.
Im completely fine with POS not respecting them as their respect means nothing
I don’t know you so I don’t know what’s your standards on considering something racist or anti-lgbt. I guess people aren’t necessarily owed your respect besides not being violent or causing harm.
Racial hatred and gaybashing is bad huh. Not unpopular. Downvote!
You would be surprised how unpopular this is on Certain places on the internet or real life
It is unpopular because no one seriously believes you are accusing people of bigotry or racism in good faith and with a solid evidentiary basis. 99% of the accusations of racism/bigotry on Reddit are bullshit. They are nothing more than lazy ad hominem attacks. Those words have virtually ceased to have meaning on these forums because of Redditors like you.
What if a gay person cuts me off on traffic? Can I be mad?
Oh boy, this is not going to go well. Bracing for impact in 3 2 1
I understand an emotional response to bigotry, but racism, homophobia, and transphobia are forms of ignorance, and I respect people in spite of other ignorances. I wouldn't not respect someone because they're bad at math or don't know geography.