The Great SSP Canada Cancel Culture & Wokeism Thread

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by wave46

Or in a world of finite resources and societies that are still brutish, do the brutish win in the long run, because they can force some of the members of that society to do the unpleasant things required in a world of scarce resources?

This is how it has always been, and it seems unlikely from both an economics and human nature standpoint that we will reduce or eliminate a world made of haves and have nots any time soon. Even in a world of abundance the powerful will ensure they have more of desirable goods than the less powerful.

But the less the population has to worry about severe problems in their lives, the more they will have time to focus on trivial harms. Trans issues are the one area I do not feel very woke about, and I do think that continually saying to people growing up that they can be whatever they want to be, when in some cases that simply isn't true, doesn't set people up well for the real world of work where conforming and obeying rules is a good idea the majority of the time.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by milomilo

This is how it has always been, and it seems unlikely from both an economics and human nature standpoint that we will reduce or eliminate a world made of haves and have nots any time soon. Even in a world of abundance the powerful will ensure they have more of desirable goods than the less powerful.

But the less the population has to worry about severe problems in their lives, the more they will have time to focus on trivial harms. Trans issues are the one area I do not feel very woke about, and I do think that continually saying to people growing up that they can be whatever they want to be, when in some cases that simply isn't true, doesn't set people up well for the real world of work where conforming and obeying rules is a good idea the majority of the time.

I'm not trying to trivialize many of the accomplishments of minority groups, but I'm wondering if we're losing the forest through the trees in a larger global sense. We waste all the oxygen on this while we apply ethical relativism to places outside our "world".

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by milomilo

In my mind, the most likely end up point of this is that enough hes become shes and shes become hes that it gets both mundane and confusing. Those words will either become useless and pointless forcing us to create new terms to refer to sexes, or we'll settle on using fewer gendered terms and more gender neutral ones, such that he and she continue to mean the same as they always meant.

? As I understand it, the prevalence of people who identify as "transgender" in Canada/United States is ~0.5%.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

? As I understand it, the prevalence of people who identify as "transgender" in Canada/United States is ~0.5%.

I did make a point to say that the numbers talked about are tiny as a proportion of the population. But if the media and societal discussion continues to give undue attention to the individual cases then the the actual incidence rate becomes irrelevant. To most people, myself included, Page (for example) can never be a "he", we're changing the word to mean something it did not before. If the current trajectory continues, where society changes what he and she means, then we are either going to reverse course at some point or find new terms for biological sexes as those prior terms have irrelevant definitions.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I did make a point to say that the numbers talked about are tiny as a proportion of the population. But if the media and societal discussion continues to give undue attention to the individual cases then the the actual incidence rate becomes irrelevant.

I don't really understand your argument here.

Originally Posted by milomilo

To most people, myself included, Page (for example) can never be a "he", we're changing the word to mean something it did not before.

On this basis, do you think that society/law should never have changed the meaning of the word "person"? Or "marriage"?

Or more frivolously, have you been able to adapt to the shifting meaning of the word "phone" over the past 20 years? Or "tablet"?

Originally Posted by milomilo

If the current trajectory continues, where society changes what he and she means, then we are either going to reverse course at some point or find new terms for biological sexes as those prior terms have irrelevant definitions.

Again, I don't understand your argument here. Definitions change all the time. I don't see how the definitions of "he" and "she" will become irrelevant?

"He" [pronoun] used to refer a person who identifies as a man or boy, previously mentioned or easily identified.

Is that definition irrelevant? If so, please explain why?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

"He" [pronoun] used to refer a person who identifies as a man or boy, previously mentioned or easily identified.

I'd argue that it still does, for the vast majority of people. Not saying you don't think it is, just picking up on your use of the past tense.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I'd argue that it still does, for the vast majority of people. Not saying you don't think it is, just picking up on your use of the past tense.

I was just trying to mimic the past tense that might be used in a dictionary definition.

Of course, the more traditional definition would just read something like this:

"He" [pronoun] used to refer a person who is a man or boy, previously mentioned or easily identified.

So, yes, the definition is changing, but the change has not rendered the definition irrelevant, as miliomilo argued.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I did make a point to say that the numbers talked about are tiny as a proportion of the population. But if the media and societal discussion continues to give undue attention to the individual cases then the the actual incidence rate becomes irrelevant. .

I don't know how much lasting visibility these issues will have going forward, but as you say right now the focus is extremely out-sized, relative to population share. Though it can be argued we're making up for lost time, as they were almost totally ignored for decades.

But it's nonetheless very striking when you compare the percentages to, say, how many Canadians are persons with disabilities. Which I believe is in range of 15% of all of us.

We don't hear much about them, relatively speaking.

[lio45]

" 'He' [pronoun] used to refer to a man who identifies as a man or boy, or to a woman who identifies as a man or a boy" would be what some are arguing should be the definition nowadays.

I personally find it unreasonable - if you want to be called "he", you need to physically/hormonally transition at least a bit. That bar is low but it's there. I don't think it'll ever be possible to achieve widespread acceptance of the idea without at least a bar.

[jamincan]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't know how much lasting visibility these issues will have going forward, but as you say right now the focus is extremely out-sized, relative to population share. Though it can be argued we're making up for lost time, as they were almost totally ignored for decades.

But it's nonetheless very striking when you compare the percentages to, say, how many Canadians are persons with disabilities. Which I believe is in range of 15% of all of us.

We don't hear much about them, relatively speaking.

Good question. Why do you give so much attention to trans issues and not accessibility issues? This has got to be the third?... fourth? thread now that you've turned into a revolving list of gripes about trans people.

[wg_flamip]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Being gay is not unique, novel, interesting, or anything to be particularly proud of. It's like screaming out loud and looking for a hero biscuit because you happen to be left handed. Being gay is like being black, white, yellow, Jewish, Indian, or Italian...............it's neither good nor bad but just "is".

You know, you're free not to associate with the community if you don't want to, but the consistent bitterness and contempt you exhibit towards it reflects more poorly on you than on the community. Feeling a sense of belonging to and pride of your community, its history and culture is not a self-serving attempt to feel "unique, novel, [or] interesting". It's telling (and a bit sad TBH) that you appear to believe it is.

[MolsonExport]

I am not wasting any more of my time in this thread. Full stop.

Cancel that, full stop after saying this to the OP and those that support his viewpoint:

" We now interrupt this regularly-scheduled SSP Canada classic, "You Guys Are Just Living in the Past, Get With the Program"...

Which is neither my point of view (and most certainly not with respect to Quebec and the French fact), but the OP clearly imagines living in or wants to live in a place where only the dichotomous world view (zeitgeist? I hate that pretentious word) is possible.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by jamincan

Good question. Why do you give so much attention to trans issues and not accessibility issues? This has got to be the third?... fourth? thread now that you've turned into a revolving list of gripes about trans people.

I am not the one who brought it up first on here. It was Loco101.

Am I not permitted to share views now, even if it's someone else who brings up a topic?

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

I don't really understand your argument here.



On this basis, do you think that society/law should never have changed the meaning of the word "person"? Or "marriage"?

Or more frivolously, have you been able to adapt to the shifting meaning of the word "phone" over the past 20 years? Or "tablet"?



Again, I don't understand your argument here. Definitions change all the time. I don't see how the definitions of "he" and "she" will become irrelevant?

"He" [pronoun] used to refer a person who identifies as a man or boy, previously mentioned or easily identified.

Is that definition irrelevant? If so, please explain why?

Does this depend on maintaining the standard definitions of “man” and “boy”? Is anyone objectively a man or a boy, on this view, independently of the act of identification? If not, then with what are the “he” people identifying?

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Does this depend on maintaining the standard definitions of “man” and “boy”? Is anyone objectively a man or a boy, on this view, independently of the act of identification? If not, then with what are the “he” people identifying?

I realized after I posted that it is really the definition of "man/boy" and "woman/girl" which are shifting.

"Man" means a person who identifies as a man.

"Woman" means a person who identifies as a woman".

The definitions of "he" and "she" aren't actually changing at all, but their changing usage reflects the shifting meaning of "man" and "woman".

I was just too lazy to make that edit.

It is, of course, important to note that I do not believe that there is any movement afoot to reimagine the meanings of "male" and "female" (which are based on physical characteristics derived from sex chromosomes and genes that lead to certain gonads, internal and external genitalia, and physiological hormones).

[Nashe]

I'll gladly call you whatever you wish to be called as long as I can remember what that was supposed to be. Just don't make it too complicated for me.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Vorkuta

I'll gladly call you whatever you wish to be called as long as I can remember what that was supposed to be. Just don't make it too complicated for me.

This could be complicated, even with certain individuals. I saw an interview on TV earlier this week with a young lad/lady (he/she looked pretty androgynous) of about 12-14 years old.

This individual seemed exceedingly gender fluid. They asked how he/she wanted to be addressed, they said something to the effect "It depends, I might feel feminine in the morning, but by the time the evening rolls around I might feel more masculine. It's really whatever my mood is at that particular time......"

A person such as this really needs a whole new set of gender neutral pronouns.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

A person such as this really needs a whole new set of gender neutral pronouns.

It really comes down to whatever their personal preference is and respecting that choice and preference. I have a few friends of mine who prefer to be identified as they/them. It's no more difficult on me than using he or she or whatever else. It's not for me to say what's right or wrong - if that's what they want then i'll respect that.

A lot of this issue just comes down to listening, understanding, and better educating oneself on why someone would choose to do this and respecting their choice thereafter.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Vorkuta

I'll gladly call you whatever you wish to be called as long as I can remember what that was supposed to be. Just don't make it too complicated for me.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

This could be complicated, even with certain individuals. I saw an interview on TV earlier this week with a young lad/lady (he/she looked pretty androgynous) of about 12-14 years old.

This individual seemed exceedingly gender fluid. They asked how he/she wanted to be addressed, they said something to the effect "It depends, I might feel feminine in the morning, but by the time the evening rolls around I might feel more masculine. It's really whatever my mood is at that particular time......"

A person such as this really needs a whole new set of gender neutral pronouns.

Concerns about "complexity" are, in my opinion, a total red herring. This is not rocket science. Here is the guidance from the Ontario Human Rights Commission (which is pretty easy to find for anyone actually interested):

Gender-neutral pronouns may not be well known. Some people may not know how to determine what pronoun to use. Others may feel uncomfortable using gender-neutral pronouns. Generally, when in doubt, ask a person how they wish to be addressed. Use “they” if you don’t know which pronoun is preferred.[2] Simply referring to the person by their chosen name is always a respectful approach.

[someone123]

Imagine the day when the Ontario Human Rights Commission rules on which skyline is best and SSP then instantly becomes redundant.

I tend to agree that this isn't so complicated overall, with most people navigating all of it just fine in everyday life, but there are edge cases where "accept whatever I identify as" fall down and they generate most of the legitimate debate. They tend to be less about pronouns and more about social boundaries and expectations of what's available to whom.

For example around here we had Jessica Yaniv who demanded that ladies be required to wax her penis and sued them when they refused. A wider objection tends to come from shelters for battered women which argue that self-identification should not be sufficient for their residents.

Another example is stuff for gay men which women tend to want to attend. This could include say a clinic for people who are high risk of HIV or are HIV positive, or a sex-positive environment for people who are mostly interested in male body parts.

Another one I encountered was somebody who self-identified as "Sir" (in place of "he"; if I remember correctly was a trans person although I could be wrong about that) and potentially sexually enjoyed the minor act of control over others and their submission. I don't feel that people are actually entitled to be called whatever they want by others; it should be subject to negotiation and reasonableness on both sides like anything else.