iNow

Perhaps you can’t agree with it because that’s very clearly NOT a valid representation of my conclusion.

It has been shown to be false, even though you remain obstinate and stubbornly and personally incredulous regarding why.

Thought I'd already clarified this about 7 or 29 or 498 times, but just to share once more: The claim is that the belief in god must be put aside when doing science, and anywhere it continues to be included (other than personal motivations) means that science is not being conducted properly. I'm sorry my flippant use of the word "pretend" in that brief post has led to such continued confusion and outcry... something about which I've also already apologized.

And to clarify, I wasn’t suggesting that you had. I was suggesting that others had, and you replied without ever even questioning the assertion. You accepted the premise that delusion explains why some transgendered individuals identify with the gender they do and responded accordingly by calling everyone else too sensitive or too PC. Questioning the premise is the correct first step in these discussions. Is delusion a valid description for why the majority of trans individuals identify how they do? Absolutely not, and it seems you agree, but that wasn’t clear when your response implicitly accepted the false premise.

Correct. Convince me of it’s relevance to the actual discussion and first clearly define your terms then perhaps I’ll reconsider. Please clarify. In this discussion about trans individuals asking others to respect their gender identity, who are you saying is delusional?

Is that what you think happened here? One person requested JP call them Ze and he went out on a speaking tour to express how his rights were being taken away… and all this happened when what he REALLY desperately wanted to do (full of sincerity and goodness) was to have a respectful discussion about the meaning of Ze and to better understand why this person identified that way. But, NO!! Those horrible people looking for acceptance and inclusion chose instead to call him a transphobe and that was it!! It was over at that moment. All of his warmth and goodness and desire to proceed forward in the spirit of mutual understanding (and NOT earn buckets of speaking fees and sell tens of millions of books with divisive tribal politics) was rebuffed and spat upon!! That’s the point you’re making to me right now?

I agreed with the answer Peterkin already gave. Ask the person requesting you call them that. Have a respectful discussion. Problem solved.

You’re not the only participant here nor are you alone representative of what’s happening across society. It’s not all about you, brother. Thou dost protest too much IMO Probably, “why are you asking me? I’m your proctologist, now bend over.”

Who suggested it was crossing a line to request they refer to transgendered individuals by their stated gender instead of their assigned one when they “don’t even know if they’re just delusional?” Is that a serious question? You were the first to introduce the possibility here: Then when @Arete asked you what harm it does to accept someone else’s stated gender identity even if you think it’s a delusion, you didn’t reject the premise and instead answered it as a valid description saying: Later when @TheVat suggested it was a matter of etiquette and morality to respect the request for using the chosen gender pronoun, and to do so even if one thinks it’s a delusion, both @Intoscience and @kotiagain accepted the premise and replied with suggestions that this was all about being PC and that those making the request are being ridiculous. Then once again you suggested explicitly that a number of trans individuals are likely just delusional and suffering mental health issues… saying some are just nutbars are how it’s simply fashionable these days to “appease” them here: We then had another poster come in with this same basic framing: …and continued with that framing in their next posts. Maybe my point has been made. Maybe you were just sloppy with your language, but let’s be clear… it’s not just an issue in this thread here at SFN. In the general public outside of SFN it’s very regularly suggested that being transgendered is a delusion. 23 seconds of googling gives about 50+ examples. Here are a handful: Quentin Van Meter, Germaine Greer, James Caspian, Rosi Sexton, and yes… many have summarized our very own Jordan Petersons view on trans individuals as suggesting they’re delusional for their gender identity expression. Representatives across US state legislatures… in churches around the globe… elsewhere and on and on… they’re doing it, too… during debates about making it illegal to use certain bathrooms or play certain sports… issues with which I know you’re familiar given our exchanges in the transgendered sports threads… judges like Matthew Kacsmaryk in the Northern District of Texas, or Representative John Ragan in Tennessee, or North Carolina Lieutenant Governor Rep. Mark Robinson, for example. And I won’t even mention Fox News media personalities… You asked me to name one. I’ve done that and more.

Uhm. It was directed at people who assert anyone assigned at birth as Gender A now identifying as Gender B is “delusional.” … exactly like I said the first time… in the bit you quoted. Speaking of honesty, how about you stop questioning mine, eh?

No, though if they truly ARE delusional, I remain unsure why calling them that to their face is supposed to be a good thing to do. It’s not courteous, not helpful, and majority of the time not relevant. I think about the gay marriage fights. Two people with similar genitalia and pee pee plumbing love each other and want to share their lives together. They want the same recognition, acceptance, and benefits as those with different genital plumbing. Then, someone says they’re “delusional” for loving and wanting to marry someone of the same sex. It makes zero sense. It’s borderline bigoted if not entirely so. Now apply that same thinking to folks who assert anyone assigned at birth as Gender A now identifying as Gender B is “delusional.” This isn’t about fear of hurt feelings. It’s about stopping the disrespect and dismissal of others simply because they don’t fit into our preconceived, rigid, and outdated notions of gender. It’s about inclusion and acceptance, (or at least halting being close minded asshats with no accountability).

People who wish to break said law grasping at straws / seeking justifications and rationalizations for continuance of their discriminatory behavior

Nor did I suggest otherwise, but this applies to the population as a whole and regardless of one’s expressed gender identity. Well… I’d agree with you, but then we’d BOTH be wrong. While nobody has claimed ALL trans individuals are simply delusional, the claim that MANY individuals expressing themselves as a gender contrary to the one they were assigned at birth may simply be delusional has been repeated many times and over and over again. So, either you’re not paying very close attention to the conversation, or you’re intentionally attacking a strawman of what I’m saying. Neither of those possibilities inclines me to take your specious criticisms very seriously.

Nope

Maybe bc I wasn’t trying to? Am I really failing this badly at communicating such a simple and straight forward point? Sigh… whatever. I have a valid point here, but it’s off topic anyway so cheers.

The system of the whole train is not. The individual cars are, in which case he’s mixing frames (pretending that the cars being in different places is equivalent to the train as a whole being in more than one place). He thinks he’s being clever.

If you’re struggling with my wormhole example, let me present an alternative. If our framework is an Excel spreadsheet sorted alphabetically by name, then Saturn truly is closer to Sun than Earth is to Sun. That’s all I’m saying. Everyone is making claims about truths and facts and I’m simply saying they’re not universal. They depend on the framework… or frame of reference if you prefer. I don’t generally spout nonsense, regardless of how often my wife might assert otherwise. ✌️

This definition really only seems to apply at the margins. The literal definition of “atheist” is “a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods,” according to Merriam-Webster. Not believing is not the same as actively believing in none. https://theweek.com/articles/476559/rise-atheism-america

I didn't say it was off-topic. I said it was unrelated to the subtopic of the actual exchange taking place between me and MigL. Here's the play-by-play / paint by numbers version for you: MIGL: No one has the right to dictate to others what their opinion should be. INOW: Who exactly do you believe is doing this? Can you name names? MIGL: No one has the right to take that choice [of whether or not to be courteous] away from you. INOW: Who precisely do you believe is trying to remove that choice from you? Can you name names? MIGL: If someone sues you for repeatedly calling them by the 'wrong' pronoun, it goes to court, and the judge rules that you are in violation of their personal rights. INOW: Right, but getting sued in court has literally nothing to do with others "dictating your opinion" or others "removing choices from you." You've evaded my question and answered with a red herring. That red herring is not what we were actually talking about in our last several posts and replies to one another. Hence, your question to me: ... suggests only that you were not reading closely enough OR are attempting to attack me for something I did not actually say. Which is it? In this thread, in writing, other members suggested that trans individuals may simply be delusional. So, yes. I think that's going on here and that's precisely what I was referencing. No amount of handwaving or disingenuous posting will change that.

There are different "flavors" of atheist, but pretty much all of them simply mean "not theist." It's right there in the word... A (not) - theist. But there is weak atheism: I don't believe in god or gods. And there is strong atheism: I actively believe there are NO gods. These are subtly, but importantly different. There's also agonistic atheism (I don't believe, but cannot know for sure), and agnostic theism (I do believe, but cannot be sure I'm right). Anyway... looks like our OP was just here to spam us anyway, and I have strong beliefs about spammers.

Within our current framework, you are correct.

I'm fairly sure we're not as far apart on this as you're making it seem. My core point is that God will never be mentioned in the Methods section of their paper. The reason? It's totally and completely irrelevant to the experiment itself, even if on a personal / psychological level it is motivating factor.

In what way and by what mechanism?

It's unclear to me why you think we disagree. I mentioned nothing of intellectual dishonesty. I said they must leave their beliefs out of the picture entirely and pretend their personal version of god(s) don’t actually matter while engaged in that science. Is it that I used the word "pretend" when mentioning their god was irrelevant to the processes they are studying?

But now you're moving the goalposts. You spoke of others dictating your opinion. You spoke of others removing your choices. Neither of those things are happening, and now in response you've switched over instead to talking about a response based on actual actions... not a response to your opinion... not a response to your choices or preferences... a response to your actions... You "repeatedly called them by the wrong pronoun," which is different from choosing to think they're wrong or having an opinion that they're ridiculous. It's also a red herring unrelated to the actual topic we were covering together. In addition to this, it's all of the opportunities we fail to pursue because we keep spinning our wheels on dumb stuff like this... Like instead of addressing climate change, we have to devote attention to false claims that the election was stolen... instead of addressing universal health care, we devote attention to death panels, etc. The opportunity cost imposed by these social wedge issues is yuge! I'm sure you'll get over it.