Religious parents ...boy wearing dress

rjsterry

mfin wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

You previously claimed all sorts of negative behaviours are motivated by religion, but in the paragraph I quoted you then claimed that positive behaviours are just that and any religious motivation is post-rationalised. Either religious beliefs motivate people - for better or worse - or they don't.

Ah, ok, I disagree with some of that. I think kind acts are mis-attributed by religious people to being a product of their belief, remember importantly that what they believe is not true, so it's some sort of mental condition.

The mental condition might motivate them to do something, but not the religion. Mostly though, religious people like to attach anything charitable they do to being a product of their beliefs, whereas normal people just see it as plain old being kind, and that's actually all that religious people are doing.

If a murderer said his table lamp had told him to go out and kill women, you'd think he had a mental problem of some kind wouldn't you? That's because no table lamp exists that tells people to do things. No god exists either.

You believe no god exists. Buddhists do not believe in a god, but I think we can agree that Buddhism is a religion. For someone so keen to dismiss religion on account of its belief in what you might call the supernatural, and so critical of things that are not real, how can you justify inventing the idea that a belief in the divine is some sort of mental condition. Can you provide any reference from any psychiatric diagnostic manual to back up that assertion.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand what religion is to those who follow one. It's not about believing a set of stories as an objective record. Whether a particular verse of the Bible is historically and factually accurate is to some extent beside the point. You would presumably not dispute that a piece of secular literature can give insight into some aspect what it means to be a human being. Why do you find it so hard to accept that a religious text could also give some insight?

In other words something does not need to be 'real' to be true.

mamba80

mfin wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

mfin wrote:

Ah, ok, I disagree with some of that.

But you are blaming religious beliefs for bad things. Maybe that's not what you mean but that's certainly how it reads. If a belief can make someone do something wrong it can surely influence behaviour for the better as well.

I don't disagree with your last sentence there when I read the word "can". But, what I am saying is the positive side of things gets mis-attributed by those doing it way more often than not, because many religious people tend to automatically think all their good qualities come from their religion. All religion is complete made up nonsense, so in cases where it does inform any behaviour, positive or negative, then these actions by people are being informed by not just rubbish, but someone believing that that very rubbish is true, going against all common sense and logic.

You are confusing Church with Christianity, some one who truly believes in thr word of God, rather than a series of "acts!" knows full well they do nothing that is so called Good, people get hung up on this story or that, instead of looking at the whole book/belief or if you like Faith.

the only person i knew who was a devout Christian was my Mum, she would never have judged this boy like these parents have or Burnt seems too and when she knew she was dying, her religious belief gave her peace and understanding.

Is there a God? well, until we die, we ll never know but then it ll be too late.

btw i m not a Christion, i mean how do you become one?

mfin

rjsterry wrote:

You believe no god exists. Buddhists do not believe in a god, but I think we can agree that Buddhism is a religion. For someone so keen to dismiss religion on account of its belief in what you might call the supernatural, and so critical of things that are not real, how can you justify inventing the idea that a belief in the divine is some sort of mental condition. Can you provide any reference from any psychiatric diagnostic manual to back up that assertion.

First of all, you saying "You believe no god exists". If you are religious that might sound reasonable, but unless you are being deeply philosophical there, which I expect you are not, then it is nothing but throwaway stupid really.

I'll also repoint you to "If a murderer said his table lamp had told him to go out and kill women, you'd think he had a mental problem of some kind wouldn't you? That's because no table lamp exists that tells people to do things. No god exists either." ...are you going to argue that their can be a table lamp that exists that tells people to do things? It is equally ridiculous to the assertion there is a god.

rjsterry wrote:

I think you fundamentally misunderstand what religion is to those who follow one. It's not about believing a set of stories as an objective record. Whether a particular verse of the Bible is historically and factually accurate is to some extent beside the point. You would presumably not dispute that a piece of secular literature can give insight into some aspect what it means to be a human being. Why do you find it so hard to accept that a religious text could also give some insight?

In other words something does not need to be 'real' to be true.

"something does not need to be 'real' to be true" ??? Well, that doesn't mean anything does it. You could say that "something needs to be real to be real" though, and god is not real.

Any religious writings give an insight into what it means to be a human being? I don't know what you mean I am afraid. You're a living organism, you die, there is no "meaning" to it, no meaning whatsoever.

slowbike

mfin wrote:

.are you going to argue that their can be a table lamp that exists that tells people to do things? It is equally ridiculous to the assertion there is a god.
<snip>
Any religious writings give an insight into what it means to be a human being? I don't know what you mean I am afraid. You're a living organism, you die, there is no "meaning" to it, no meaning whatsoever.

Well - these days it's quite a strong possibility that there is an internet connected table lamp that has a speaker and could feasibly tell someone to do something ... so it's a poor argument ...
It's not equally rediculous to assert that there is a god - we cannot prove that [a] god doesn't exist - and we can't prove that there is one - there is mearly faith that there is something else. There are some well respected Scientists who have faith in (their) god - so to dismiss it out of hand as not being a remote possibility is to denounce their intelligence too ...

The answer to life, the universe and everything is 42 - we all know that ..
what we don't know - because there is know way of knowing that we are currently aware of - is that if our "spirit" continues on in life. I'll grant you that in all probability, it doesn't - you're right - we are born, we live, we die - end of ... but equally - we have no idea if we're in a version of the Matrix - in which case you could say that there is a god - the one(s) that control the matrix ...
I'd like to believe that there is more to life than this - but I don't think that anything we do on earth will have any influence - there is no "day of reckoning" - whatever it is is beyond our (current) comprehension ... of course, I could be totally wrong .... but for now it's just fine for me.

bianchimoon

A quote from Steven Weinberg, Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

mr_goo

Just think how more advanced we as a species would be if it wasn't for the shackles of religion holding us back now and over the preceeding centuries.

rjsterry

Of course it means something. Shakespeare's plays aren't real but they still contain truth in their observation of human behaviour.

There's an irony in you accusing me of making meaningless statements and then claiming that all life is meaningless anyway. I would argue that such a worldview doesn't have much to say about having to live with other people. If you are so sure that nothing has any meaning, why do you care that others have a different viewpoint.

rjsterry

Mr Goo wrote:

Just think how more advanced we as a species would be if it wasn't for the shackles of religion holding us back now and over the preceeding centuries.

Orthodoxy and resistance to change is entirely independent of religion. Organised religions are as much a part of human nature as any other behaviour. Wishing for us to grow out of religion is as fruitless as wishing we could overcome our need for artistic expression.

rjsterry

bianchimoon wrote:

A quote from Steven Weinberg, Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

It's a neat quote but demonstrably untrue. For a start, people don't neatly fit into good and evil categories.

mfin

rjsterry wrote:

Of course it means something. Shakespeare's plays aren't real but they still contain truth in their observation of human behaviour.

There's an irony in you accusing me of making meaningless statements and then claiming that all life is meaningless anyway. I would argue that such a worldview doesn't have much to say about having to live with other people. If you are so sure that nothing has any meaning, why do you care that others have a different viewpoint.

Sorry, I have no clue what you're on about, what on earth does "Shakespeare's plays aren't real but they still contain truth in their observation of human behaviour" mean? Come on, at least make sense.

Also "There's an irony in you accusing me of making meaningless statements and then claiming that all life is meaningless anyway", what is that supposed to mean, just because the two things you mention contain the word "meaningless" doesn't make them comparable.

Your last sentence doesn't make any sense to me either, I can't follow it. What has an absence of any religious meaning to life have to do with any interest in different viewpoints?

rjsterry

mfin wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Of course it means something. Shakespeare's plays aren't real but they still contain truth in their observation of human behaviour.

There's an irony in you accusing me of making meaningless statements and then claiming that all life is meaningless anyway. I would argue that such a worldview doesn't have much to say about having to live with other people. If you are so sure that nothing has any meaning, why do you care that others have a different viewpoint.

Sorry, I have no clue what you're on about, what on earth does "Shakespeare's plays aren't real but they still contain truth in their observation of human behaviour" mean? Come on, at least make sense.

Also "There's an irony in you accusing me of making meaningless statements and then claiming that all life is meaningless anyway", what is that supposed to mean, just because the two things you mention contain the word "meaningless" doesn't make them comparable.

Your last sentence doesn't make any sense to me either, I can't follow it. What has an absence of any religious meaning to life have to do with any interest in different viewpoints?

I'm not sure where I've lost you, but I'll try another tack. Your whole argument seems to boil down to an objection to some of the stories in religious texts not being real. I'm assuming by that you mean that they contain supernatural or miraculous events (fairy stories if you prefer), which if taken literally, are incompatible with our current understanding of science.

If the supposed miracles are physically impossible or can explained by other non-divine means, there is no need for a god to enact them. My point is that this is just as simplistic as those religious literalists that you seem to despise. It denies the importance of symbolism and metaphor in conveying ideas about how one should treat one's fellow human beings. I was using Shakespeare to illustrate this point: Macbeth isn't really about a fictionalised obscure period of Scottish history - it's an illustration of the dangers of unconstrained ambition. Whether Macbeth really existed or not is beside the point, the plan's observations on ambition are still true.

mr_goo

rjsterry wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Just think how more advanced we as a species would be if it wasn't for the shackles of religion holding us back now and over the preceeding centuries.

Orthodoxy and resistance to change is entirely independent of religion. Organised religions are as much a part of human nature as any other behaviour. Wishing for us to grow out of religion is as fruitless as wishing we could overcome our need for artistic expression.

Religion repressed scientific advancement for centuries.
The only beneficial thing religion has brought to humanity is art. I can live without the Sistine Chapel.

mfin

rjsterry wrote:

I'm not sure where I've lost you, but I'll try another tack. Your whole argument seems to boil down to an objection to some of the stories in religious texts not being real. I'm assuming by that you mean that they contain supernatural or miraculous events (fairy stories if you prefer), which if taken literally, are incompatible with our current understanding of science.

If the supposed miracles are physically impossible or can explained by other non-divine means, there is no need for a god to enact them. My point is that this is just as simplistic as those religious literalists that you seem to despise. It denies the importance of symbolism and metaphor in conveying ideas about how one should treat one's fellow human beings. I was using Shakespeare to illustrate this point: Macbeth isn't really about a fictionalised obscure period of Scottish history - it's an illustration of the dangers of unconstrained ambition. Whether Macbeth really existed or not is beside the point, the plan's observations on ambition are still true.

Your first para, my argument is not simply that stories in religious texts are not real, it is also that god does not exist anyway. As for stories containing supernatural or miraculous events which can't be explained by science, it is a completely mute point as to how they can be explained as they did not happen in the first place, they are made up. The only ones that might not be made up are those which can be explained.

Your second para, there are no miracles, it is a shite term, the closest thing you can get to a miracle is something with an outcome which was incredibly unlikely but happened and can be explained. As for "The importance of symbolism and metaphor in conveying ideas about how one should treat one's fellow human beings", well, only religious people could feel that is important, as other people get that just as well or better simply on their own with some common sense and experience of growing up.

The Shakespeare bit is not making any point that I can see, it's just a weird attempt to try use the word true. For example "The plan shows observations on ambition" I can agree with, it makes sense, "the plan's observations on ambition are still true" does not make sense, I don't get the "true" bit.

rjsterry

Mr Goo wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Just think how more advanced we as a species would be if it wasn't for the shackles of religion holding us back now and over the preceeding centuries.

Orthodoxy and resistance to change is entirely independent of religion. Organised religions are as much a part of human nature as any other behaviour. Wishing for us to grow out of religion is as fruitless as wishing we could overcome our need for artistic expression.

Religion repressed scientific advancement for centuries.
The only beneficial thing religion has brought to humanity is art. I can live without the Sistine Chapel.

Sure they had their moments. Like any body in a position of power the Catholic Church didn't like anyone threatening the status quo, but without them, Copernicus would've been just another Pole with no universities to attend.

The exhortation in the Qur'an to investigate and understand nature led to a wealth of Islamic mathematical and scientific discovery along with the preservation of ancient Greek and Roman knowledge, allowing Europeans to rediscover it and call it the Renaissance.

rjsterry

mfin wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I'm not sure where I've lost you, but I'll try another tack. Your whole argument seems to boil down to an objection to some of the stories in religious texts not being real. I'm assuming by that you mean that they contain supernatural or miraculous events (fairy stories if you prefer), which if taken literally, are incompatible with our current understanding of science.

If the supposed miracles are physically impossible or can explained by other non-divine means, there is no need for a god to enact them. My point is that this is just as simplistic as those religious literalists that you seem to despise. It denies the importance of symbolism and metaphor in conveying ideas about how one should treat one's fellow human beings. I was using Shakespeare to illustrate this point: Macbeth isn't really about a fictionalised obscure period of Scottish history - it's an illustration of the dangers of unconstrained ambition. Whether Macbeth really existed or not is beside the point, the plan's observations on ambition are still true.

Your first para, my argument is not simply that stories in religious texts are not real, it is also that god does not exist anyway. As for stories containing supernatural or miraculous events which can't be explained by science, it is a completely mute point as to how they can be explained as they did not happen in the first place, they are made up. The only ones that might not be made up are those which can be explained.

Your second para, there are no miracles, it is a shite term, the closest thing you can get to a miracle is something with an outcome which was incredibly unlikely but happened and can be explained. As for "The importance of symbolism and metaphor in conveying ideas about how one should treat one's fellow human beings", well, only religious people could feel that is important, as other people get that just as well or better simply on their own with some common sense and experience of growing up.

The Shakespeare bit is not making any point that I can see, it's just a weird attempt to try use the word true. For example "The plan shows observations on ambition" I can agree with, it makes sense, "the plan's observations on ambition are still true" does not make sense, I don't get the "true" bit.

First bit in bold: that's your assertion but presumably you have an argument to back that up. What is it?

The Shakespeare comparison. It is true that over-ambition is destructive even though the events in the play are not real. I can't make it any plainer than that.

tangled_metal

That quote about evil taking religion amused me greatly with its ignorance of human nature.

Let me explain this with an example. Communist USSR did a great many evil acts against foreign nations and their own people. It was a state which banned religion IIRC. China did the same but quite possibly killed more of their own ppl than Christian nations every did.

Just a few examples but there will be a lot more atrocities committed that have nothing to do with religion. Evil exists in and outside of religion. If you can open your eyes enough to see that, then can you consider what is causing that evil. It's less about religion and more about human nature. However it gives bigoted ppl a good angle to hang evil on. Perhaps this is more about clearing our species of guilt for evil by attributing it to religion. I'm not religious so I'm not evil, or something like that.

Religion, IMHO, doesn't have to believe the contents of the Bible. It's not a rule book to follow literally to many religious ppl. It's used as metaphors, fables, etc to inform behaviour within society. If you like fairy tales then consider them as a kind of Aesops fables. Stories with meaning if you care to look and choose to look. You personally don't and that's perfectly OK just as it's ok to use these fables to inform your behaviour IMHO. To condemn ppl for that on the sole grounds of your opposition to religion is narrow minded and oppressive. You're guilty of some of the bad actions carried out by ppl under the false banner of religion only without the cover of any belief / faith.

Can I just say one more thing, any thread that can have a religious element on this forum soon degenerates into a mean spirited diatribe against religion. I just wish we could ban religious threads. Whatever you believe about religion (whether informed or ignorant) it shouldn't offend others in the way I believe some posters intend. I'm not religious myself but I don't impose my views on others. Atheists and religious can be guilty if that.

tangled_metal

Didn't they find some Greek mathematical text believed to be the missing work of a prominent classical Greek mathematician under a middle ages Bible? The monks scraped the original text off the page, folded into a book and copied the Bible on it. IIRC Muslims of the same era was reading other mathematical texts from similar Greek mathematicians in the original documents.

What is this significance? Well I'm not sure because in other styles of Christianity there were enlightened practices too. For example in the Roman Christian period there was a strict state controlled Christianity I believe all about control and orthodoxy. In the east there was an alternative society with different Christian practices (can't remember where). That society was conquered by the romans who forced their religious orthodoxy. Before their conquest this alternative Christian nation allowed many religions both Christians and others indeed no religion too. It was a relatively enlightened society according to archeological evidence and evidence from period accounts.

So what is my point? Guess that would be that the same basic religion exists in both societies but tolerance was in one while control and orthodoxy in the other. IMHO that implies society is at fault not religion for the oppression and control in Roman state compared to the freedoms and acceptance of the "barbarian" state. It's not just religion that's evil.

mfin

rjsterry wrote:

First bit in bold: that's your assertion but presumably you have an argument to back that up. What is it?

I don't need to, because even entertaining the idea that god exists is utterly ridiculous. To think god exists is about as sensible as if I believed the microwave in my kitchen runs on petrol when it clearly doesn't and that if I were to open the door and climb inside it I will be transported to Okinawa in Japan. In short, it is crap.

Now, back to the parents of this kid. Their views and actions I find wrong, and I think they are informed by believing in their religion and so do they as they have said it.

Perhaps they have got it all wrong, they are religious but they are just plain confused too as others have said. My guess is that if they were not religious they would be way more likely not to have been so stupid about the situation.

mfin

Tangled Metal wrote:

Didn't they find some Greek mathematical text believed to be the missing work of a prominent classical Greek mathematician under a middle ages Bible? The monks scraped the original text off the page, folded into a book and copied the Bible on it. IIRC Muslims of the same era was reading other mathematical texts from similar Greek mathematicians in the original documents.

What is this significance? Well I'm not sure because in other styles of Christianity there were enlightened practices too. For example in the Roman Christian period there was a strict state controlled Christianity I believe all about control and orthodoxy. In the east there was an alternative society with different Christian practices (can't remember where). That society was conquered by the romans who forced their religious orthodoxy. Before their conquest this alternative Christian nation allowed many religions both Christians and others indeed no religion too. It was a relatively enlightened society according to archeological evidence and evidence from period accounts.

So what is my point? Guess that would be that the same basic religion exists in both societies but tolerance was in one while control and orthodoxy in the other. IMHO that implies society is at fault not religion for the oppression and control in Roman state compared to the freedoms and acceptance of the "barbarian" state. It's not just religion that's evil.

You would have liked the BBC Four Series "Science and Islam", maybe you saw it? (guessing from your first para, as the muslim/greek maths thing you mentioned was looked at IIRC).

tangled_metal

Do you not think that what has been accepted as fact by modern scientific consensus could have been seen as utterly ridiculous in the past. I believe the early pioneers in the idea of small single cell organisms causing illness were ridiculed. You couldn't see them so many even in scientific community didn't accept it.

I'm sure others could come up with more examples.

Whatever your views are about religion you're ruling it out based on your belief in it being wrong. You can't prove it disprove religion by scientific means. Science has developed a lot in the the last few hundred years. What science is capable of now in terms of scientific investigation was beyond that of the scientific community a few hundred years ago. When scientists were proposing bacteria causing illness they weren't able to show them. They still believed in the theory later proven true by other means.

My rambling point is basically that scientific knowledge grows but given enough time modern advances seem impossible in one or more generations previously. What we know now doesn't explain everything. If we cannot rule out the existence of something then the theory is potentiality still valid. If you think of the existence of God as a theory to explain some of the unknown then proof one way or the other is the only way to conclude the religion based around that God is rubbish. Stating it is utter rubbish is a case of personally belief. Unproven statement. Null hypothesis?

Just saying mfin is claiming the modern, scientific high ground without any scientific basis I think. Everything he believes about religion is purely based on his personal belief on the matter. Just like Christians you could say
.

rjsterry

mfin wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

First bit in bold: that's your assertion but presumably you have an argument to back that up. What is it?

I don't need to, because even entertaining the idea that god exists is utterly ridiculous. To think god exists is about as sensible as if I believed the microwave in my kitchen runs on petrol when it clearly doesn't and that if I were to open the door and climb inside it I will be transported to Okinawa in Japan. In short, it is crap.

Now, back to the parents of this kid. Their views and actions I find wrong, and I think they are informed by believing in their religion and so do they as they have said it.

Perhaps they have got it all wrong, they are religious but they are just plain confused too as others have said. My guess is that if they were not religious they would be way more likely not to have been so stupid about the situation.

That's such a cop out You must be able to come up with something!

Anyway, I agree with you on the parents albeit for different reasons. I think they're wrong on their own terms - their position doesn't conform with their stated beliefs - and I also think have lost all perspective over something as harmless as a young boy wearing a dress.

Alex99

I think the more interesting part of this story is the question of gender fluidity. I've been reading about this a bit and I'm still not sure what to think (maybe never will be).

Anyway... two concepts: sex, and gender. Sex is the realm of biology (male: Y chromosomes, cock and balls, hairy chin, high testosterone etc...; female: estrogen, womb, smooth chin, breasts etc...). You can also point to differences in population averages in personality and behavioral traits between sexes as contributing factors to a range of phenomena, but that can get you into hot water (see Google vs Damore).

From some reading, the 'modern' view seems to be that gender and sex are separable. Indeed, a persons gender can be said to change, often over a short period of time. A person can go to bed as one gender, and wake up the other, or somewhere in between. We are told that people can self identify their gender, and that the self identified gender is something that we must respect. Often, it is said that not to respect the self identified gender is an act of abuse or even equivalent to violence. In some countries, the compulsion to respect self-identified gender (including using the correct pronoun) is written into law (e.g. Canada). To not do so is classed as a hate crime.

Sometimes trans gender people will say that they were "born in the wrong body". Others will say that a transgender person has a mental condition and we should no more respect their self identified agenda then we would any other delusion (Je suis Napoleon!). In this case, causing insult is not (usually) the intention, but a by-product of holding true speech as the most important standard. The ability to speak the truth does seem to be pretty important.

Sometimes a person will take steps in an attempt to change their sex such as removing genitalia or having hormone therapy. Such efforts may seem at least partly futile since a person can't change a Y chromosome for an X in each cell and can't (yet) become fully biologically functional.

rick_chasey

Alex99 wrote:

Sometimes trans gender people will say that they were "born in the wrong body". Others will say that a transgender person has a mental condition and we should no more respect their self identified agenda then we would any other delusion (Je suis Napoleon!). In this case, causing insult is not (usually) the intention, but a by-product of holding true speech as the most important standard. The ability to speak the truth does seem to be pretty important.
.

Or it's just polite to call them by the pronoun they want to be called by.

In the same way if you wanted to be called Alex not Alexander, I'd call you Alex.

If you think that they're probably going through some anguish, and the whole pronoun thing is a reminder of that, it's just common courtesy to do your best to call them what they want to be called.

In return, the person demanding unusual pronouns should be polite and cut people some slack when they're obviously trying but finding it difficult.

We all should try and get along, and if it means trying a different pronoun and not taking in personally if people make a mistake then it's all OK.

Ultimately it's not up to you to decide what someone else feels their gender is.

haydenm

rjsterry wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Just think how more advanced we as a species would be if it wasn't for the shackles of religion holding us back now and over the preceeding centuries.

Orthodoxy and resistance to change is entirely independent of religion. Organised religions are as much a part of human nature as any other behaviour. Wishing for us to grow out of religion is as fruitless as wishing we could overcome our need for artistic expression.

Religion repressed scientific advancement for centuries.
The only beneficial thing religion has brought to humanity is art. I can live without the Sistine Chapel.

Sure they had their moments. Like any body in a position of power the Catholic Church didn't like anyone threatening the status quo, but without them, Copernicus would've been just another Pole with no universities to attend.

The exhortation in the Qur'an to investigate and understand nature led to a wealth of Islamic mathematical and scientific discovery along with the preservation of ancient Greek and Roman knowledge, allowing Europeans to rediscover it and call it the Renaissance.

I agree with this. Religion and science have been deeply connected forever, religion has often been used to explain the bits people can't explain with science, and science was a way to find meaning in religion. I think these days religion has moved away from that in the UK.

When religions are extorted for power (which you might argue is what they are for in the first place) it can bring out the worst in people. Presumably this works the other way for bringing out the best in people. Getting a large group of people to do things requires subscription to an idea whether it's religion, an idolised leader or a nation, for good or bad.

From my non-religious background I like to think I believe things using facts (I'm aware it's not as simple as that). For science to work you believe nothing until it is proven, hence why religion can look ridiculous. I can't believe that a God exists because I have no proof, and it's not really up to a non-believer to prove God doesn't exist.

Ben6899

mfin wrote:

...if I were to open the door and climb inside [my microwave] I will be transported to Okinawa in Japan.

That would be so cool. I'd prefer Osaka, but I could always catch a Shinkansen once in Japan.

Alex99

Rick Chasey wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

Sometimes trans gender people will say that they were "born in the wrong body". Others will say that a transgender person has a mental condition and we should no more respect their self identified agenda then we would any other delusion (Je suis Napoleon!). In this case, causing insult is not (usually) the intention, but a by-product of holding true speech as the most important standard. The ability to speak the truth does seem to be pretty important.
.

Or it's just polite to call them by the pronoun they want to be called by.

In the same way if you wanted to be called Alex not Alexander, I'd call you Alex.

If you think that they're probably going through some anguish, and the whole pronoun thing is a reminder of that, it's just common courtesy to do your best to call them what they want to be called.

In return, the person demanding unusual pronouns should be polite and cut people some slack when they're obviously trying but finding it difficult.

We all should try and get along, and if it means trying a different pronoun and not taking in personally if people make a mistake then it's all OK.

Ultimately it's not up to you to decide what someone else feels their gender is.

Getting along, politeness and not causing pointless insult, I think we can agree on. In a one to one situation, I think most people would be receptive to a genuine request to be referred to in a particular way. I also agree that if someone is expecting to be addressed by an unusual pro noun, then they should cut some slack.

"Ultimately it's not up to you to decide what someone else feels their gender is."
I agree, I can't exactly decide what someone else feels their gender is. Presumably a psychologist could say something about a persons 'gender state of mind' based on questions and such.

People believe a whole range of things, some rational, some not. Whilst we respect the rights of people to believe whatever they want to, we are usually not compelled to respect the belief itself, although we may choose to. I don't know where gender identity sits. If I say "OK, I feel female, I'm now female." What kind of claim is that? Is it scientifically testable, or is it just some other kind of claim?

rick_chasey

Alex99 wrote:

People believe a whole range of things, some rational, some not. Whilst we respect the rights of people to believe whatever they want to, we are usually not compelled to respect the belief itself, although we may choose to. I don't know where gender identity sits. If I say "OK, I feel female, I'm now female." What kind of claim is that? Is it scientifically testable, or is it just some other kind of claim?

What difference does it make? To you?

Tashman

Pross wrote:

Whilst I agree the school in question is a C of E school and so you'd expect people sending their kids there to have religious beliefs (even though the church seems to have different ones in this case).

Nope, religion didn't enter the frame for sending my kids to the local "CofE" school. The fact it was a good school and 400m from the front door were the deciding factors. To go to a non-CofE school near me we'd have to bypass the 4 closest villages and head to the local town.

slowbike

Rick Chasey wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

People believe a whole range of things, some rational, some not. Whilst we respect the rights of people to believe whatever they want to, we are usually not compelled to respect the belief itself, although we may choose to. I don't know where gender identity sits. If I say "OK, I feel female, I'm now female." What kind of claim is that? Is it scientifically testable, or is it just some other kind of claim?

What difference does it make? To you?

The only difference it makes is when we unintentionally address the person incorrectly - and they take offence - or offence is taken on their behalf (eg the school rules were suggested to treat calling the child by the incorrect pronoun as bullying and punished accordingly.)

rick_chasey

Slowbike wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

People believe a whole range of things, some rational, some not. Whilst we respect the rights of people to believe whatever they want to, we are usually not compelled to respect the belief itself, although we may choose to. I don't know where gender identity sits. If I say "OK, I feel female, I'm now female." What kind of claim is that? Is it scientifically testable, or is it just some other kind of claim?

What difference does it make? To you?

The only difference it makes is when we unintentionally address the person incorrectly - and they take offence - or offence is taken on their behalf (eg the school rules were suggested to treat calling the child by the incorrect pronoun as bullying and punished accordingly.)

Well there's 2 things here.

1) if you're going to not be the usual when it comes to pronouns, you need to be able to give people some slack. I indeed have fallen foul of this; gender of a classmate would change from week to week and I would forget and get it wrong, and s/he didn't cut me all that much slack. That was irritating, but then, I figured, their isuses are probably worse than me being called out for using the wrong pronoun. A bit annoying? Yes. But fine.

2) to deliberately call someone who's going through gender changes, whether physical or otherwise, the wrong pronoun is probably a type of bullying. As I said earlier, it's up to the individual to decide what pronoun they respond to.