A bit of compelled speech in Virginia

[SomeRandom]

Congratulations, you are the winner of today's "captain obvious" award

This is not an isolated situation. It is a part of a trend towards the idea that people somehow have the right to not be offended. I would recommend you refresh your memory of Vonnegut's story: Harrison Bergeron.

Right not to be offended, aye?
Well then if this legitimately affects you, I sincerely hope you are misgendered every single day of your life and maybe you can see what it’s like.
Also manners cost nothing. You want to talk about the right not to be offended? Try conversing in Victorian England’s high society. The most snowflakiest of snowflakes ever to exist

Lol acting like PC thing is a new thing. Bruh. Have you never heard of the 50s? Or the Hays code?

 

[Debater Slayer]

This thread reminds me of Jordan Peterson's overdramatic misrepresentation of Bill C-16 as supporting "compelled speech" even though both legal experts and the text of the bill itself disagreed with his conclusion.

The right-wing, so-called "centrist" movement that seeks to oppose equal rights under the pretense of defending "free speech" seems to have become eerily popular among irreligious and skeptical circles. From misrepresenting feminism based on a fringe minority's opinions to acting as if misgendering someone shouldn't be grounds for penalties against teachers when addressing anyone rather than just transgendered students, this "anti-woke," pseudo-intellectual trend has beeen playing into the hands of right-wing demagogues for years while pretending to promote "reason" and to criticize "both sides," sometimes while focusing more on criticizing progressive laws and movements than blatantly hateful and regressive conservative ones.

 

[SomeRandom]

This thread reminds me of Jordan Peterson's overdramatic misrepresentation of Bill C-16 as supporting "compelled speech" even though both legal experts and the text of the bill itself disagreed with his conclusion.

The right-wing, so-called "centrist" movement that seeks to oppose equal rights under the pretense of defending "free speech" seems to have become eerily popular among irreligious and skeptical circles. From misrepresenting feminism based on a fringe minority's opinions to acting as if misgendering someone shouldn't be grounds for penalties against teachers when addressing anyone rather than just transgendered students, this "anti-woke," pseudo-intellectual trend has beeen playing into the hands of right-wing demagogues for years while pretending to promote "reason" and to criticize "both sides."

Haha Peterson just appeared on the Prager U channel. A literal right wing propaganda channel pretending to be a valid university by using the moniker without valid authority.
Oh the irony


PragerU - Wikipedia

 

[Debater Slayer]

Haha Peterson just appeared on the Prager U channel. A literal right wing propaganda channel pretending to be a valid university by using the moniker without valid authority.
Oh the irony

His thinly veiled prejudice often makes itself explicit quite quickly alright, despite his frequently cloaking it in fancy language and supposed concern for "free speech."

It's especially a shame because he has some excellent material on psychology. I wish he, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris would stick to their respective fields of expertise instead of embarrassing themselves by dabbling in politics and expressing strong opinions without thorough enough understanding or knowledge of the topics in question.

 

[SomeRandom]

His thinly veiled prejudice often makes itself explicit quite quickly alright, despite his frequently cloaking it in fancy language and supposed concern for "free speech."

I’ll admit. He almost sort of had me conned at the start. I mean I was sort of primed by a lot of the skeptics I followed to defer to academic authority when I didn’t know the topic at hand. That’s what “smart people” do, after all. Not like those religious people and their ancient texts and preachers.
In hindsight I should have noticed the red flags. Yeah he had fancy language but he wasn’t speaking on his field at all. So technically I wasn’t even deferring to academic authority to begin with lol

It's especially a shame because he has some excellent material on psychology. I wish he, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris would stick to their respective fields of expertise instead of embarrassing themselves by dabbling in politics and expressing strong opinions without thorough enough understanding or knowledge of the topics in question.

You and me both. I shudder to think what Hitchens would say had he not tragically died when he did. Maybe he’d be even worse, I dunno.
Peterson is no doubt accomplished in his field of expertise. I assume, anyway.
But all this anti woke, anti SJW whatever stuff just seems so antithetical to what Dawkins, Harris etc all seemed to preach. At least I thought so at the time. I mean they were the ones who were mocking religious folks for being misogynistic, homophobic and even transphobic. Now they’re all pretty much edgelords, it’s weird.

Also your comment reminded me of the complete downward spiral of the online skeptics I used to watch on YT. I mean yikes! There’s a couple who are still good. A couple who completely abandoned the anti woke stuff. But the rest don’t deserve to call themselves “skeptics” if I’m completely honest.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I’ll admit. He almost sort of had me conned at the start. I mean I was sort of primed by a lot of the skeptics I followed to defer to academic authority when I didn’t know the topic at hand. That’s what “smart people” do, after all. Not like those religious people and their ancient texts and preachers.
In hindsight I should have noticed the red flags. Yeah he had fancy language but he wasn’t speaking on his field at all. So technically I wasn’t even deferring to academic authority to begin with lol

Yeah, I get the impression some of his fans start out admiring his competent work on psychology and end up idealizing him or treating him as some sort of intellectual leader and buying into his largely unfortunate political views.

You and me both. I shudder to think what Hitchens would say had he not tragically died when he did. Maybe he’d be even worse, I dunno.
Peterson is no doubt accomplished in his field of expertise. I assume, anyway.
But all this anti woke, anti SJW whatever stuff just seems so antithetical to what Dawkins, Harris etc all seemed to preach. At least I thought so at the time. I mean they were the ones who were mocking religious folks for being misogynistic, homophobic and even transphobic. Now they’re all pretty much edgelords, it’s weird.

Also your comment reminded me of the complete downward spiral of the online skeptics I used to watch on YT. I mean yikes! There’s a couple who are still good. A couple who completely abandoned the anti woke stuff. But the rest don’t deserve to call themselves “skeptics” if I’m completely honest.

I completely agree. When I felt a sense of belonging years ago after coming across speeches from Dawkins, Harris, etc., it was because they ostensibly stood up for the same values I found so sorely lacking in my religious background and society. But as time went on, their harmful, anti-progressive opinions on multiple topics led me to believe I would be doing my own skepticism a disservice if I kept identifying with them and much of their base in its current state. I didn't leave religion to replace it with another form of hateful, tribalistic flavor of political and ideological thinking.

I share your view of Hitchens. The guy even supported the Iraq War, one of the 21st century's biggest atrocities. It is indeed tragic that he passed the way he did, but that doesn't make his political views any less toxic or harmful.

 

[icehorse]

I would encourage everyone to try to separate the message from the messenger

 

[SomeRandom]

Yeah, I get the impression some of his fans start out admiring his competent work on psychology and end up idealizing him or treating him as some sort of intellectual leader and buying into his largely unfortunate political views.

I wasn’t a Peterson fan, per se. But I ran in similar circles to them. At least online. And yeah that’s sort of my impression too.
The rhetoric and the sense of being “rational and righteous” was also somewhat intoxicating. Especially if you were an insecure fledgling nerd at the time. I think also some of Peterson’s rhetoric did appeal to young men who might have felt alienated by the increasing amount of discussions feminists were having. Not that that excuses them, just that I think the demagogues did appeal to that demographic for a reason.

I completely agree. When I felt a sense of belonging years ago after coming across speeches from Dawkins, Harris, etc., it was because they ostensibly stood up for the same values I found so sorely lacking in my religious background and society. But as time went on, their harmful, anti-progressive opinions on multiple topics led me to believe I would be doing my own skepticism a disservice if I kept identifying with them and much of their base in its current state. I didn't leave religion to replace it with another form of hateful, tribalistic flavor of political and ideological thinking.

I was suckered in for a time. I wasn’t in the best headspace at the time though. Maybe I just wanted to prove myself as a skeptic. Ironically it was me reevaluating the skeptics positions that made me into a better skeptic. At least I hope it did.

I share your view of Hitchens. The guy even supported the Iraq War, one of the 21st century's biggest atrocities. It is indeed tragic that he passed the way he did, but that doesn't make his political views any less toxic or harmful.

Oh yeah I almost forgot about that. Hitchens was a brilliant mind. But that doesn’t mean he didn’t have some rather harmful views all the same.
Never meet your heroes, eh?

 

[Kooky]

Congratulations, you are the winner of today's "captain obvious" award

You seem to find these very common situations a constant violation of basic human rights, but have not even bothered to advance an argument as to why. You have commented on other people's positions in this thread, but so far refused to engage with them in any significant way, instead feeling content to snipe from the side lines and mock other people's positions.

Is this the extent of argumentative effort you are going to put into this thread, or will there come a point where you actually start engaging with the arguments presented so far?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is not an isolated situation. It is a part of a trend towards the idea that people somehow have the right to not be offended.

The teacher in your OP certainly comes across that way.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don't know the answer to this question, although it might also depend on what one considers force. If a child is raised in a Christian family, are they forced to become Christians?

I think a child has no legal choice until he or she becomes an adult.

 

[icehorse]

You seem to find these very common situations a constant violation of basic human rights, but have not even bothered to advance an argument as to why. You have commented on other people's positions in this thread, but so far refused to engage with them in any significant way, instead feeling content to snipe from the side lines and mock other people's positions.

Is this the extent of argumentative effort you are going to put into this thread, or will there come a point where you actually start engaging with the arguments presented so far?

You know how these threads go, they go in unpredictable directions. There are several different, engaging sub-discussions going on, hooray.

But to answer your question more directly, I think political correctness is often headed into dangerously counter-productive areas, and this case is just one data point in a larger, worrying trend. But taken alone, this data point isn't too worrying.

 

[VoidCat]

A doctor's diagnosis. Transsexualism is a medical condition.

Gender dysphoria is a medical condition not being trans according to the APA
Answers to your questions about transgender people, gender identity, and gender expression

A psychological state is considered a mental disorder only if it causes significant distress or disability. Many transgender people do not experience their gender as distressing or disabling, which implies that identifying as transgender does not constitute a mental disorder. For these individuals, the significant problem is finding affordable resources, such as counseling, hormone therapy, medical procedures and the social support necessary to freely express their gender identity and minimize discrimination. Many other obstacles may lead to distress, including a lack of acceptance within society, direct or indirect experiences with discrimination, or assault. These experiences may lead many transgender people to suffer with anxiety, depression or related disorders at higher rates than nontransgender persons.

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), people who experience intense, persistent gender incongruence can be given the diagnosis of "gender dysphoria." Some contend that the diagnosis inappropriately pathologizes gender noncongruence and should be eliminated. Others argue that it is essential to retain the diagnosis to ensure access to care. The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is under revision and there may be changes to its current classification of intense persistent gender incongruence as "gender identity disorder."

Edited to include link I forgot to put

Edit again to include this:

The idea that people dont identify as the gender assigned at birth has existed for thousands of years. It was not always called such and there are many ways people would identify in this regard. They didn't all desire or want what methods of surgery may have existed such as eunuchs. Some were just ok with idenitfying as such and being perceived as such. I done forgot what region but in Africa there was a woman whose name I forgot(will look up later) who insisted on being called a king not queen. They insisted on it despite looking female and dressing as such. This was centuries ago if I remember correctly...beside cis men are still men even if feminine. And ciswomen are women if masculine. Why must trans people limit themselves? Why the double standard?

 

[jonathan180iq]

His thinly veiled prejudice often makes itself explicit quite quickly alright, despite his frequently cloaking it in fancy language and supposed concern for "free speech."

It's especially a shame because he has some excellent material on psychology. I wish he, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris would stick to their respective fields of expertise instead of embarrassing themselves by dabbling in politics and expressing strong opinions without thorough enough understanding or knowledge of the topics in question.

As someone who has to constantly be defensive about reading and enjoying other bits of Peterson's works, I unequivocally agree.

 

[Kooky]

You know how these threads go, they go in unpredictable directions. There are several different, engaging sub-discussions going on, hooray.

But to answer your question more directly, I think political correctness is often headed into dangerously counter-productive areas, and this case is just one data point in a larger, worrying trend. But taken alone, this data point isn't too worrying.

And by "political correctness", you are referring to, of course, requiring teachers to respect a transgender student's gender; and not, say, the internal and external censorship and the suppression of homosexual and trans voices that has factually existed for most of the 20th century, and still exists in most areas of the world.

Correct?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You know how these threads go, they go in unpredictable directions. There are several different, engaging sub-discussions going on, hooray.

If you'd prefer to steer things back to the OP, I'm still not clear on something: why have you assumed that this case involves compelled speech?

Reading the article in the OP, it seems like it could just as easily be about the teacher refusing to not deadname trans kids as anything.

 

[ChristineM]

I agree, although it seems that times have changed quite a bit since I was in school. I had some pretty nasty teachers.

yeah, me too.

 

[icehorse]

And by "political correctness", you are referring to, of course, requiring teachers to respect a transgender student's gender; and not, say, the internal and external censorship and the suppression of homosexual and trans voices that has factually existed for most of the 20th century, and still exists in most areas of the world.

Correct?

I'm trapped! I'm cornered! Ya got me! I'm hit!

No, not really, wanna guess again?

 

[icehorse]

If you'd prefer to steer things back to the OP, I'm still not clear on something: why have you assumed that this case involves compelled speech?

Reading the article in the OP, it seems like it could just as easily be about the teacher refusing to not deadname trans kids as anything.

This is not the first time that legal action has been taken or threatened on this issue. So, this is just another data point in trend analysis.

 

[fantome profane]

You know how these threads go, they go in unpredictable directions. There are several different, engaging sub-discussions going on, hooray.

But to answer your question more directly, I think political correctness is often headed into dangerously counter-productive areas, and this case is just one data point in a larger, worrying trend. But taken alone, this data point isn't too worrying.

Speaking of dangerous, have you considered how dangerous this teacher’s actions could be to the health and well being of the student? This teacher could be exposing a student to abuse and bullying from other students who might not have been aware of the situation, until this ********* comes along and refers to a transgender boy by a girls name. (and please go ahead and object to my language, I dare ya).