Berkeley Prof tangles with Sen Hawley, calls him trans phobic

It is exclusive of them. That's why awful people like Hawley get so worked up when we used inclusive language. I'm "prioritizing the feelings" of people who are actually being harmed over people who want to harm others. It's basically the same as gay marriage. "[T]hose who think traditionally" might not like gay marriage, but it doesn't harm them or their marriages. Meanwhile, denying gay people the ability to get married actually does harm them.

 

It's amazing, the 1st Amendment can be very harmful.

 

Now, we've moved the goal posts to adults (which still isn't even fully accurate because numerous Republican states have passed laws prevented transgender adults from doing what they want to do).

You're right that it's whataboutism. You teed up it so perfectly. And you're right that you don't consider it stolen. Where you're wrong is the idea that transgender people are delusional. Gender is a social construct.

 

Yep, that's accurate. I don't know anybody who believes otherwise.

 

I'm not sorry you think it's radical for Republicans to raise eyebrows at radical activists giving drugs to perfectly healthy children that will likely permanently alter how they develop. If you want to call that mass oppression towards transgender people:



Even social constructs have some semblance of meaning. People who subscribe to this theory of gender cannot pin gender to anything. It renders terms like "man" or "woman" meaningless.

 

I'm sorry the First Amendment is happening to you.

 

Maybe I'm not, but even if you were right, why should anyone be constrained by a gender binary imposed on them? Sexual freedom and self-expression is a good thing. What gives you the right to discriminate based on that?

 

It's not happening to me. But the great thing about the First Amendment is that myself and others who think like me can call out those who are behaving poorly and seek to impose social consequences on them. Yay First Amendment!

In other words, transgender people can't do what they want because big government "conservatives" know better than doctors and parents. That contradicts what you said earlier.

If it rendered terms like "man" or "woman" meaningless, you wouldn't make such a stink out of trying to tell us that transgender people can't be a "woman" or a "man." What it actually does is conflict with your construct of what a "man" or "woman" is. Oh well.

P.S. In Florida, DeSantis and his cronies have gone further than drugs. They are trying to stop "social transition."

 

Careful, gator_lawyer, when the social makeup of this country changes those "social consequences" may just rear their ugly head on you and people who think like you. And when that happens, nobody will shed a tear for you because they'll remember who you are and what you stand for.

It may take some time, but it will happen.

 

So he basically showed you his quote. You realized he was right. So then you just go straight to attacking his integrity by your new knowledge of his degrading all transgenders “behind their back”. Lol. Priceless.

 

Funny I think the gender binary falls apart in rather obvious ways. Is race not "biological?" Are there not "biological" differences among races? Scientific racism was the norm and widely accepted, until some Marxist and leftist academics deconstructed it and attacked it. Lots of people didnt like that, and it has a lot to do with why conservatives have it out for academics to this day, and oppose things like CRT. So why do you accept those arguments and cast racial difference aside in favor of equality and choose not to give "scienftific" racism meaning, but refuse to do that with gender?

 

First of all, this is exactly what I said.

If you want to call that statement inconsistent because Republicans think parents shouldn't be able to put breasts in their twelve-year old boy, or Republicans think parents shouldn't be able to give a perfectly healthy ten-year old hormones because they're kids... then I guess you got me.

The monsters.

 

The point was that he said he would use their preferred pronouns while referring to trans men as "her." If you are going to jump in, try to understand the whole context of the conversation.

 

I read it, I thought I understood, but apparently, like Tillys private life, you also know my reading comprehension. Is your defensive go to move always to insult?

 

I've heard this before and I've kept my distance on the discussion here so far, but after thinking about it I find the boiled down single sentence misleading. Gender is not exclusively a social thing, but also a function of biological (genetic and hormonal) forces. To suggest it's exclusively social seems to be what causes a lot of the argument. Hence my earlier question about conflating "man" and "male".

 

Let's see, you declared what I know (which apparently you do know as well) and then laughed and called it priceless rather than deal with the point that I made substantively. If you substantively addressed my post, I would respond in kind. At no point did I personally insult Tilly (although I don't know if he felt insulted, but my responses were substantive on the issue of his language in that post).

 

It does sound substantive.

 

Now your case seems to be "trust the academics."

You're no longer even directly making the case that trans men are men, you're just saying liberal academics were right in attacking "scientific racism," allow them to castrate your perfectly healthy child.

 

What does? Your post came out attacking and laughing, not addressing your concerns based on the conversation I had with Tilly.

 

Castrate? Now who’s straying from anything fact based? Btw, my genitals were mutilated via circumcision when I was a kid, because culture said that was normal for my gender. There was even bullshit science that said it was cleaner or healthier. It was all horseshit, so obviously science often simply reinforces widely held ideas that have no basis in anything substantive.