The comment below is where I get lost. Another big thing about UUism is a belief in the Principle of democracy. The way the democratic UU faith is going is the same way the whole world is going-trying for the first time in history to intentionally include perspectives that have never had a voice. So those voices now have a voice, and you don't like what they're saying, so...where is the problem?
The comment below is where I get lost. Another big thing about UUism is a belief in the Principle of democracy. The way the democratic UU faith is going is the same way the whole world is going-trying for the first time in history to intentionally include perspectives that have never had a voice. So those voices now have a voice, and you don't like what they're saying, so...where is the problem?
The problem is that there is no questioning allowed. In regards to the trans movement any comment critical of the trans movement is labeled trans-phobic and hate speech. There is no place for debate.
Good call. Cloak the issue/rhetoric in democracy and the over used inclusivity wording. It is debate, evidence based, fact driven argument that should be presented. Medical science anyone? Gender dysphoria, which was originally Gender ID, is totally different from removal of body parts with respect to your aforementioned comment.
Greeks don't question Greek Orthodoxy. Many of us who might not like certain aspects of its dogma nevertheless find comfort in the liturgy and rituals familiar to and beloved by our grandparents (when we do attend church) and go about our daily business as we need to. It works out.
I guess it's like cafeteria Catholics -- except that Catholicism makes noises about relevancy and cultural issues, and Catholics debate them. The Greek Orthodox Church is tolerant of its wayward and sporadic members but stands rooted in its history.
I hope it is never silly enough to repair the schism and team up with Rome.
The existence of trans people is not a matter of debate. What, do you think you can debate someone into denying their own experience? We have a word for that. It's called gaslighting.
This post is not debating the existence of trans people. Transgender people have been part of the human community for thousands of years and they deserve dignity, respect and all civil rights (except when those rights encroach upon the hard won rights of natal women such as in sports and battered women's shelters) however, what desperately needs debate is the notion that drugs, chemicals and surgery (all of which are irreversible and have serious health risks), are the best treatment for gender dysphoria, especially in young people and adolescents, population groups that are not able to understand the full ramifications of irreversible decisions that will affect the rest of their lives. There are many ways to support, validate, and respect gender non-conformity without the necessity to tamper with healthy young bodies.
It's factually incorrect that there are perspectives now being included that have never had a voice. The perspectives you talk about have always had a voice. They've just not been permitted to silence others. They call their new power "inclusion" and "centering the marginalized."
I call it totalitarian control by an unpopular minority opinion.
Democracy that doesn't seek to heed the call from the margins is just mob rule. Democracy is the best system, but it's flawed when we become uncurious about our neighbor and entrenched with our own ideas.
Sometimes people are marginalized for extremely good reasons. Some calls from the margins have useful insights. Some calls from the margins are destructive and dangerous. That's why they're marginalized.
For example, part of the problem with our current society is that we've centered psychopathic thinking instead of marginalizing it. A psychopath who is permitted to be centered ONLY on condition of good behavior is mostly harmless. A psychopath who calls to center psychopathic thinking and behavior should stay marginalized.
Yep. So glad those voices finally getting the opportunity to say тАЬevery voice but ours is False, every view but ours is morally debased, all the world but us is racist, no one except us deserves to be employed, no one can help with societyтАЩs problems except by doing what we say without questioning, and the proper activity of any voice but ours is to revile itself for our pleasure.тАЭ Great to see these folks flourish.
It's interesting that you start with a false characterization of the comment you're replying to and the original post as well. It's clear that the objection is not to inclusion of marginalized voices but the intolerance for other voices.
Those "marginalized voices" have totalitarian ambitions, and zero interest in including other perspectives.
It appears that you have never lived in an area where those "marginalized voices" have gained control over institutions of power. I have. I still do. B Smith's characterization is exactly correct.
The comment below is where I get lost. Another big thing about UUism is a belief in the Principle of democracy. The way the democratic UU faith is going is the same way the whole world is going-trying for the first time in history to intentionally include perspectives that have never had a voice. So those voices now have a voice, and you don't like what they're saying, so...where is the problem?
The problem is that there is no questioning allowed. In regards to the trans movement any comment critical of the trans movement is labeled trans-phobic and hate speech. There is no place for debate.
Good call. Cloak the issue/rhetoric in democracy and the over used inclusivity wording. It is debate, evidence based, fact driven argument that should be presented. Medical science anyone? Gender dysphoria, which was originally Gender ID, is totally different from removal of body parts with respect to your aforementioned comment.
Greeks don't question Greek Orthodoxy. Many of us who might not like certain aspects of its dogma nevertheless find comfort in the liturgy and rituals familiar to and beloved by our grandparents (when we do attend church) and go about our daily business as we need to. It works out.
I guess it's like cafeteria Catholics -- except that Catholicism makes noises about relevancy and cultural issues, and Catholics debate them. The Greek Orthodox Church is tolerant of its wayward and sporadic members but stands rooted in its history.
I hope it is never silly enough to repair the schism and team up with Rome.
Exactly; and don't even think about criticizing Islam!
The existence of trans people is not a matter of debate. What, do you think you can debate someone into denying their own experience? We have a word for that. It's called gaslighting.
This post is not debating the existence of trans people. Transgender people have been part of the human community for thousands of years and they deserve dignity, respect and all civil rights (except when those rights encroach upon the hard won rights of natal women such as in sports and battered women's shelters) however, what desperately needs debate is the notion that drugs, chemicals and surgery (all of which are irreversible and have serious health risks), are the best treatment for gender dysphoria, especially in young people and adolescents, population groups that are not able to understand the full ramifications of irreversible decisions that will affect the rest of their lives. There are many ways to support, validate, and respect gender non-conformity without the necessity to tamper with healthy young bodies.
It's factually incorrect that there are perspectives now being included that have never had a voice. The perspectives you talk about have always had a voice. They've just not been permitted to silence others. They call their new power "inclusion" and "centering the marginalized."
I call it totalitarian control by an unpopular minority opinion.
The mob that silences dissent is not democracy.
Democracy that doesn't seek to heed the call from the margins is just mob rule. Democracy is the best system, but it's flawed when we become uncurious about our neighbor and entrenched with our own ideas.
Sometimes people are marginalized for extremely good reasons. Some calls from the margins have useful insights. Some calls from the margins are destructive and dangerous. That's why they're marginalized.
For example, part of the problem with our current society is that we've centered psychopathic thinking instead of marginalizing it. A psychopath who is permitted to be centered ONLY on condition of good behavior is mostly harmless. A psychopath who calls to center psychopathic thinking and behavior should stay marginalized.
If you don't see the problem, it's pointless to engage this question.
Let's not give up so easily. We must stay engaged with the people we share our piece of society with even when they say false things.
Yep. So glad those voices finally getting the opportunity to say тАЬevery voice but ours is False, every view but ours is morally debased, all the world but us is racist, no one except us deserves to be employed, no one can help with societyтАЩs problems except by doing what we say without questioning, and the proper activity of any voice but ours is to revile itself for our pleasure.тАЭ Great to see these folks flourish.
It's interesting that you start with a false characterization of the comment you're replying to and the original post as well. It's clear that the objection is not to inclusion of marginalized voices but the intolerance for other voices.
So why are you mischaracterizing?
Those "marginalized voices" have totalitarian ambitions, and zero interest in including other perspectives.
It appears that you have never lived in an area where those "marginalized voices" have gained control over institutions of power. I have. I still do. B Smith's characterization is exactly correct.