..... [and simultaneously given license to force (or at least persuade via social engineering tactics) other people to wear bright colors, stripes, and flash a message that might not be authentic and should not be adopted if it is not true].....




I appreciate the idea of being a safe person. I know that I have a great deal more to learn about being a kind person who is aware of differences and somehow manages to avoid any and all mention of any and all gender and sex matters forever. At this juncture in my lifelong educational journey, I have a few questions. How safe is it for anyone when entire populations are forced to follow prescribed way of living as compared to permitting the existence of awareness that seeing beyond appearances leads more directly to knowing people based upon what is within them than wearing cause colors? Where is the freedom to wear something that shows support for other causes or for no causes? What if we do not want to support or enrich specific industries? Why should anyone be allowed to co-opt the use of our appearances and pocketbooks? Are any of us going to be safe if we are not wearing the prescribed cause colors, or will be shunned, maimed, or killed for doing something else?

The implementation of such safety which is meant for one people group, is nothing but an assault on freedom of individual thought and academic inquiry, the givens of nature, the defaults and options of nurture, what should be a vast if not infinite array of expression (because much expression happened in the past and has disappeared and much will happen in the future), everyone's personal preferences, and an insult to the notion that people of any/all persuasions can learn to co-exist without orders from headquarters-- be those from governments, activists, lobbyists, or control freaks from anywhere else.

So how can we be safe, authentic, and free?




But read the article and make up your own mind about what I perceive as hypocrisy on steroids. You might see it differently. If so, good. We all should be free to be and think and decide.

If you are uncomfortable with following a link, just look for The Telegraph (UK) and 'university staff given list of banned microinsults...'





[www.telegraph.co.uk]

I was paywalled, but according to the first paragraph this is about basic decency. Things not to say to trans people. What is the problem with giving faculty a list of things to avoid saying to a trans person that they may not have known were insults? It seems more helpful than offensive to me.

This action implies that faculty and the rest of us somehow, automatically, will know who is trans and of those, who needs to spoken to in specific ways. Otherwise, how will we know what to say to each person-- trans and otherwise?

I suggest that we could expand our basic understanding of basic decency. We could consider a larger view and move our conversations and inquiries in directions that permit all of us to be whoever we are, as we define this, without ever needing to discuss this publicly or in response to "demographic questions." One specific measure could just say, "No!" to activists who have lobbied successfully to include sex and gender demographics in research. Another way is to identify non-sex/non-gender topics of conversation and study. *


*Note to self: Clearly, it is time to find a new topic of conversation!

*eta*

I posted a long list of other topics in a new thread. There are a lot of people mentioned or implied in that list!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/21/2021 07:29AM by Shop-et-al.

Oh, I don't know how to respond without likely offending some small portion of today's overly sensitive human population. But let me try to be succinct. I'd like to say that I support individual freedom. That you can think however you want. Make your own decisions. I prefer to live in the world as Mother Nature intended for humans; a man and a woman. I don't care if you want to create your own derivative of non-pronouns / neopronouns, etc. Just don't offend me by forcing me to honor your own belief system. And I'm not on board with rewriting history either.

Oh, and for the record, I'm also in support of your freedom for personal suicide, any uncontrolled substance, or non-conventional belief system if that's your adult desire. Just don't include me or any other unwilling victim, adult or child directly or indirectly.

I'll end with an observation...Mental health issues are real and magnified by a worldwide pandemic.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/21/2021 11:33PM by maverick1.

My choice of reply to your transphobic comment would get me banned.

@maverick1 wrote:

Oh, I don't know how to respond without likely offending some small portion of today's overly sensitive human population. But let me try to be succinct. I'd like to say that I support individual freedom. That you can think however you want. Make your own decisions. I prefer to live in the world as Mother Nature intended for humans; a man and a woman. I don't care if you want to create your own derivative of non-pronouns / neopronouns, etc. Just don't offend me by forcing me to honor your own belief system. And I'm not on board with rewriting history either.

Oh, and for the record, I'm also in support of your freedom for personal suicide, any uncontrolled substance, or non-conventional belief system if that's your adult desire. Just don't include me or any other unwilling victim, adult or child directly or indirectly.

I'll end with an observation...Mental health issues are real and magnified by a worldwide pandemic.

The mistakes in PC directives or mandates converge at the intersection of inclusion looks good--at least on paper; planned exclusion; and unintended exclusion.

I am not so much against or for any personally chosen descriptors as I am for an overhaul of the entire political correctness system. Apparently, only a few types of persons can be included at any given time while others must be excluded. It is not so easy to prove conclusively that marketing efforts that churn tastes, loyalties, and behaviors are but one part of systematic and organized social engineering that includes trans and other sex/gender matters. In fact, I wonder how many people believe in Malthus so strongly that they make themselves non-reproductive in order to leave more for other people. There are other possible factors.

As we cannot overlook the brightly colored, striped gay pride flags, we can start there. Most people can see those things. I hope no one is blinded by the very brightness of the colors. Rainbow colors that bright are Icarus-close to the sun, are they not?

I do not identify as a brightly colored stripe from a flag or as a Lego toy of any pride flag color. I am just a boring old bag who is thisclose to becoming permanently anti sexual and asexual and starting a movement in that direction for the whole damned and accursed world. Before taking that drastic step, I demanded a broader sense of inclusion!

Plaid toys are only the beginning. Or, if ever the world wakes up my little demanded plaid toys can be the end of trendy identifiers and the beginning of our ability to relate to each other in ways that are not steeped in sex and gender. If we find other ways to relate and we incorporate them incrementally, will human relations improve exponentially?

All you have to do is look at all the anti trans laws being passed in states to know it is not really "safe" to be different. In my backward red state, I choose not to visibly wear on my body, car or home anything that professes my beliefs. The US is not a safe place right now.

It might help if people would just shut up already about their personal crusades to influence and increase their numbers. We can do the math. The fewer there are of whoever you are, the more different you are and the more special treatment you may receive. If there are too many of whoever you are, there are so many the same that no one is different. There is homogeneity, at least in subsets, and everyone is the same. No difference, no special treatment. That would be bad because there would be no more need for lobbying, funding, attention-grabbing, and other tactics. Why, oh why, are people so fixated on sex, gender, and sex? Is there some evolutionary process in play that renders us incapable of other thoughts and behaviors? *scurries away to look up information regarding evolutionary process in the human world in the twentieth and twenty first centuries*

I am sorry you have to go through this and I am sorry that the people on this forum keep railing against your need to safely be yourself. This is not the safe space I once thought it was.

@Equine24 wrote:

All you have to do is look at all the anti trans laws being passed in states to know it is not really "safe" to be different. In my backward red state, I choose not to visibly wear on my body, car or home anything that professes my beliefs. The US is not a safe place right now.

Equine24 does not feel safe. They are in good company: Absolutely no one is safe. The inclusion tactics are excluding different points of view and attempting to strong-arm people into one prescribed set of behaviors. The topic of the thread is trans/sex/gender/LGBTQ/other parts of the glossary. This is only one part of the political correctness which is making right wrong and wrong right. It is harming everyone, everywhere.

In other examples, meat eaters and other eaters need not hassle each other. People of various religions need not hassle each other. In fact, they might consider trying each other's methods. In event of massive devastation or catastrophe, food, shelter, and other resources might be scarce. Then, everyone would need to pull together and find something to eat as well as some way to prepare it safely. Who, when hungry, would dare to argue about a food blessing or some other ritualistic or legalistic issue? Wouldn't most people realize that everyone should be fed, sheltered, and nurtured to the greatest extent possible?

It should be right to refrain from hassling people while remembering that all people are not equally tactful, equally in sync with one's own personal thought processes, and/or equally interested in supporting assorted points of view. Nothing more than that should be needed.

Where did we go wrong!?

You started the thread with the purpose of hassling people from the LGBTQ community. No one is hassling you.
You are a bully.

I think the concept of trans people being open is so new most people don't know how to react. Eighteen months ago my [niece] figured out she was a trans man. She lives halfway across the country, so on Facebook I've followed her journey...from revelation ,to renaming, to hormones, to 'top' surgery.

Although I don't personally agree with all her decisions, I can support her by keeping my opinions to myself. Along the way I've been educated. A couple of days ago I was at a checkout counter and assisted by a person who I wasn't sure was a male or female. They were flat chested but wore feminine clothes, fingernail polish, and sparkly earrings. They asked me if I was in their loyalty program and I replied 'yes sir'. Immediately regretted my words and apologized. I could tell they were touched that I had made an effort.

I did not. In fact, everyone is bullied by political correctness.

As it turns out, there has been so much of sex, gender, and sex in my lifetime that I declared long ago that it was enough and a few posts ago that I am thisclose to becoming anti-sexual and asexual because I have had too much of all of it-- all types of it.

How, exactly, did you equate my running away from the seemingly non-stop and non-voluntary forced exposure to whatever sex/gender/sex stuff of any given moment with bullying?

Your response will be an interesting read.

@heartlandcanuck wrote:

You started the thread with the purpose of hassling people from the LGBTQ community. No one is hassling you.
You are a bully.

Geesh! It appears that we are misinterpreting each other here. I spoke about freedom. That means freedom in sexuality. Freedom in religious belief. Freedom to take whatever substance you want to take. While I enjoy a loving, long term (over 3 decades) relationship with the same person who is the opposite sex, you are free to do as you wish as a consenting adult. I acknowledge that there are others with another view point. I don't have to buy into other beliefs or theories if I don't want to, do we agree? I just went on to say that there is also a mental health issue in society.

Look, in the not so distant past, the Geocentric theory was believed by the Catholic church especially because the church taught that God put Earth as the center of the universe which made earth special and powerful. Human kind now knows this was a false theory. Same with flat Earth theory, etc.

Let us remember, the Galileo affair (early 1600's) culminated with the trial and condemnation of Galileo by the Roman Catholic Inquisition in 1633. Galileo was prosecuted for his support of heliocentrism, the astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around the Sun at the center of the Solar System.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2021 06:29AM by maverick1.

I am sure mother nature designed the scientifically documented increase in gayness in any species in danger of overpopulation. The fact that nature is flexible should give you pause, Mav 1

Because of one of my jobs, I question the notion of sexual freedom It might be an illusion. In some surveys, respondents are not free to identify themselves as they wish to do, as this pertains to gender and sex. For example, I listened with delight as another interviewer gently explained that they knew of the concept of one man and one woman and that this concept was neither part of the survey nor one of the provided answers from which the respondent may choose. Apparently, the concept is also disappearing from some so-called educational materials-- but that is for other threads. imho all those questions should be eradicated. Why? Instead of learning that hetero is a problem and passe, we could do better. Much better! We could learn to relate to each other as human beings with whom we rarely if ever need to find out their gender, sex, and sex. But I am practical. And cynical. So if no one has the balls to do that, they should implement my plan B: make those questions open-ended and have the interviewers type in whatever respondents say for answers. In that situation, everyone can express what they want to say about the matter and the talking points will cease to be shaped by prevailing lacks of freedom within academic research (which is "supposed" to be free so as to allow inquiry). Ironic, isn't if. I understand that some people saw an issue with one man and one woman and a historical framework for that. I understand that some people do not like the general background and want to buck the system, make their own religion, establish new rules, and/or otherwise contribute to their version of a new world order. Changing the published history does not change the actual history. Changing the perceptions does not change the nature. There will always be people who like the one man, one woman concept and other people who like other configurations. Let's stop glorifying all types of sex/gender/sex.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2021 02:03AM by Shop-et-al.

Tough nuggies it doesn't really matter in the end because no one gets out alive!