Chosen or innate characteristics

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Jon Stewart 12 Nov 2019

Continuation of another thread...

In reply to Coel Hellier:

> I don't fully buy into the "attributes one chooses" versus "attributes one doesn't" distinction. 

> There's much evidence that political orientation is innate and not a "choice", though there is a lot of choice in how one acts on it.    Things like that can be a strong part of ones identity.   Being a fan of a football team can be a strong part of ones identity...

> Following a religion is ultimately a choice, but again, social conditioning means that the vast majority of people around the world identify with the religion that their parents did.  And that's often a hugely strong part of their identity.  Yet it's still a choice.

> Sexual orientation is not a choice, but there is choice in how one acts on it.  The internal feeling of being trans is not a choice, but whether to transition and whether to "present" the opposite gender role are choices. 

I agree about there not being a clear distinction between what's a choice or not, at a rigorous philosophical level. But I don't think that's relevant at the practical level of policy, at this level making the distinction is helpful.

I don't think we really make any choices, as the events of the universe pan out and we turn into the people we are, and do the things we do. However, at the level of experience, there is a difference between a characteristic that you know you can change (like your religion or football club), and one that you know you can't (like your sexual orientation or gender identity).

When you suffer abuse for a characteristic you know you can't change, it is absolutely f*cking horrible. A couple of times in my life, I've had someone look at me with hatred and disgust and mutter "faggot" or "queer" so that I can hear. That's an experience that is only possible to encounter if you happen to be a member of a minority that has a history of abuse.

Your argument, [...hate speech]

> Including when they are white and male?

Is a demonstration that you are simply ignorant of what it means to suffer abuse for an innate characteristic (that is, one you know you can't change), when there's a history of people like you being viewed as second-class citizens.

I don't think you're going to publicly change your mind, but I honestly believe that it is possible for you to internally come to a more intelligent understanding of the issue. It's very simple: heterophobia (as one example) doesn't exist, so it's impossible to offer the same protection for straight people as gay people. This isn't just a political difference, your understanding of what equality means is incorrect. If you are a member of a minority that is defined by an innate characteristic and has a history of abuse, you're not on a level playing field with those who don't. If you pretend they are, you're going to get outcomes determined by that difference in opportunity. Or you can try to level it.

You appear to object to attempts to level the playing field.

Are you prepared to follow your argument through to policy implications? I think you're arguing that complaints of racism, homophobia, etc should be ignored because they amount to pleading for special status. I think you're arguing that policies that specifically attempt to reduce abuse of minorities and don't provide anything for those who are white, straight, male should be abolished.

How does that work in practice?  A gay kid whose parents are homophobic gets no counter message about how society at large finds homophobia unacceptable. Are you OK with the outcome from there? OK, so some gay kids kill themselves who wouldn't have had we put policies in place to eradicate homophobia, but that's better than restricting the abuse people can post on Twitter. Really?

> Germaine Greer's disrespectful language might be interpreted as an attack on a non-chosen innate identity, but she would see it as a response to activist encroachment on women-only safe spaces that are important to her -- and about the latter people do have a choice.  

Whatever she feels about activist encroachment on women-only spaces, she still launched an at on *all* trans women, on the basis of them being trans, in the most hurtful possible language. That's just the facts of what she did, whatever her reasons for doing so. The reasons don't justify it, because abuse of minorities who don't enjoy equal access to opportunities is totally unacceptable in a decent society.

You seem to prize freedom to spew abuse above the freedom for minorities to enjoy equal opportunity. I think it's total failure of reasoning.

I think pretending that abuse of minorities is legitimate political comment is destructive - it's encouraging abuse and as such is militating against proper debate of the issues. Abuse is very very bad for debate: this is an obvious point. If you actually want to live in a society in which issues are debated openly, you would support efforts to reduce abuse and to encourage moderate language. Instead, you leap to the defence of those who don't debate with any integrity or respect, rather they spew abuse. Your actions are deeply misguided, if indeed you are honest about your aims.

Post edited at 18:36
7
 marsbar 12 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

It's the very definition of privilege really.  Middle aged, comfortably off, straight, cis, white male with a nice ivory tower to pontificate from.

13
 Timmd 12 Nov 2019
In reply to marsbar: Within our society is it, not quite so in Taiwan (regarding racism), but here it is.

Reading about the increase in homophobic attacks following the school protests in Birmingham, had me thinking about Coel's thread about the Australian rugby guy who got sacked for what he posted about being gay being a sin, and his scepticism that sexual minorities in Australia might need any protection from what may result from prominent national figures like the rugby fellow having free reign to post about the sinfulness of homosexuality, given his audience. 

The rise in homophobic attacks in Birmingham could seem to be a rebuttal of his scepticism*.

* Edit; If he'd look beyond his own freedom from the need to think about such things...

Post edited at 19:28
1
Pan Ron 12 Nov 2019
In reply to marsbar:

> It's the very definition of privilege really.  Middle aged, comfortably off, straight, cis, white male with a nice ivory tower to pontificate from.

Interesting.  All those innate characteristics you list have become grounds to attack someone and, in your quest for equity, argue others deserve more protections from the "violence" of "harmful" speech than him.

Objection number 2 to the left.  Not only do they believe in unequal rights and institutionally tilting playing fields on account of chosen characteristics, but they are out and out hypocrites with regard to their own proclaimed standards. 

14
 Timmd 12 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron: 

> Interesting.  All those innate characteristics you list have become grounds to attack someone and, in your quest for equity, argue others deserve more protections from the "violence" of "harmful" speech than him.

Not exactly, it's about the position within our society which these characteristics can (but not always do) afford people. Being male, I know that I don't need to worry about walking home in the dark late at night in the way that females can, and I don't feel remotely attacked if anybody points out that this is a privilege I have which females don't. Hopefully I've articulated this in a way which is clear and easy to understand.

Post edited at 19:31
1
 marsbar 12 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

Nonsense.  It's not an excuse for attack.  It's a statement of fact that some people are fortunate not to be on the receiving end of racism.  Some people are fortunate not to be on the receiving end of homophobia.  Some people are fortunate enough not to have to worry about where their next meal is from.  I'm privileged in all those 3 as a straight white comfortably off woman.  I'm descended from immigrants in all directions, but I'm white so nobody knows.  I don't have to feel uncomfortable explaining my relationship choices or suffer abuse for them.  

It's not an attack to say someone who doesn't suffer racism probably doesn't fully understand how it feels.  

Its not an attack to free speech to prevent hate speech.  Free speech doesn't actually mean you can say what you like.  

Post edited at 19:31
1
 marsbar 12 Nov 2019
In reply to Timmd:

As I said at the time, in this country it's clear that gay rights trump religious rights.

(As in top trumps not as in the US toddler/president )

I personally agree with that.  

However, anyone who generally assumes all Christians/Muslims/whoever are nasty homophobic types is also an idiot.  Not everyone follows Leviticus literally.  Probably best really. 

(As for the Taiwan bit I really don't understand your point.  I've read it 3 times and I can't make sense of it. )

Post edited at 19:33
 Timmd 12 Nov 2019
In reply to marsbar:

> As I said at the time, in this country it's clear that gay rights trump religious rights.

I agree, qualified with a - but also - expressions of the 'sinful nature' of homosexuality (which Coel was defending the freedom of expression of), can lead to a reduction in the experiencing of these rights (one being a right to a freedom from attacks for being what one innately is), which has been demonstrated by the rise in attacks following the school protests I think. 

> (As in top trumps not as in the US toddler/president )

> I personally agree with that.  

> However, anyone who generally assumes all Christians/Muslims/whoever are nasty homophobic types is also an idiot.  Not everyone follows Leviticus literally.  Probably best really. 

I'm not too sure about the top Trumps bit, but I agree that not all religious people are homophobic.

Post edited at 19:42
1
 marsbar 12 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I do believe in choices.  I understand that everyone has different things going on, but in the end we can choose much of how we deal with things even if we can't choose what happens to us.  There are external ways to boost resilience and to help people make good choices and they do make a difference if someone wants them to.  If they choose not to engage then they don't.  

Pan Ron 12 Nov 2019
In reply to Timmd:

And the poor white kid and the rich white kid are more privileged than the black or gay kid according to left-wing dogma.  Its a highway to disaster, not equality.

Whichever side of the argument you fall on, what staggers me is how oblivious the left is to the understandable frustration of a wide range of people with this hypocrisy.  And instead of realising that this likely comes despite strong support for equal rights, they instead blame bigotry, ignorance, racism or a desire to cause harm.  Then get offended when these same people tick another box at voting time, telling the Left to fuvk-off.

If you want equity just be honest and say you don't want equality.  Because you can't have both together.  And its worth remembering, there's no reliable method for working out who gets what if you are going to start according privilege to certain groups to acheive equity.  We've been there before, in several countries in the last century, and I really don't think, with identity politics, "this time we've got it right".  Especially not if success is defined by "shut up white man" becoming a valid argument.

It's especially rich to read someone on UKC accuse others of privilege while they themselves sit fat and happy in the 1%.  It's beyond parody.

10
 Timmd 12 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> And the poor white kid and the rich white kid are more privileged than the black or gay kid according to left-wing dogma.  Its a highway to disaster, not equality.

Not at all (re the lefty generalisation), poor white kids (boys particularly) are rather screwed if one looks into the figures, I'm a lefty, but I fully acknowledge that. IIRC there is a parity of lack of opportunity for poor black boys and white boys, or close to parity, my up until recent poor sleep routine means that I've not remembered the figures (sleep helps towards remembering things). 

> Whichever side of the argument you fall on, what staggers me is how oblivious the left is to the understandable frustration of a wide range of people with this hypocrisy.  And instead of realising that this likely comes despite strong support for equal rights, they instead blame bigotry, ignorance, racism or a desire to cause harm.  Then get offended when these same people tick another box at voting time, telling the Left to fuvk-off.

To be honest I don't quite know what you're talking about, possibly because (whether it's through choice or not isn't clear) I'm generally only really exposed to people who take the time to look into statistics to inform what they think about life in the UK, that's who I surround myself with, and with varying success I try and look into 'what actually is'.

Post edited at 19:53
3
Pan Ron 12 Nov 2019
In reply to Timmd:

Well then, in line with the policy exchange document I posted on the other thread, the statistics seem to point to left-wing views being permissible and right-wing ones not being permissible in a university environment.  Does that alarm you?  I got the impression a few people on the previous thread appeared to have suddenly "had enough of experts" so didn't think it important.

1
 marsbar 12 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

I'm not in the 1%, I'm comfortably in the middle.  

Poor white boys don't do well at school for a number of reasons.  You will notice I already put income in the criteria.

Rich white boys are privileged.  I don't see how you could think otherwise. 

1
 Timmd 12 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Well then, in line with the policy exchange document I posted on the other thread, the statistics seem to point to left-wing views being permissible and right-wing ones not being permissible in a university environment.  Does that alarm you?  I got the impression a few people on the previous thread appeared to have suddenly "had enough of experts" so didn't think it important.

I've not seen the thread, but that would alarm me, yes, views have got to be about reality, as far as possible when allowing for how subjective we all are. Being human is a pain for being objective, it being difficult to be.  I don't like the no platforming which can happen, too, I think students arguing back after preparing their responses in advance would be much better, much healthier in a number of ways to do with thinking and exposure to different perspectives, and nasty people not being able to paint themselves as martyrs and gain kudos within certain circles from that, and then gaining political leverage towards bad things happening because of their supporters.

Post edited at 20:11
1
pasbury 12 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

I hadn't realised that this was a left/right thing.

Your posts do come across as spittle and bile flecked things you know.

7
Pan Ron 12 Nov 2019
In reply to marsbar:

You're in the 1%.  The very fact you are posting on UKC, able to pontificate about the advantages brought by being "CIS" indicates as much.  Perhaps its time you checked your privilege.

10
Pan Ron 12 Nov 2019
In reply to pasbury:

> I hadn't realised that this was a left/right thing.

It's been two threads of left/right. Hard to miss.

> Your posts do come across as spittle and bile flecked things you know.

Yep, nothing winds me up more than people claiming virtue while repeating the same tried and tested mantras proven to be the building blocks of despotism.  Everyone is equal, but some must be more equal than others, words are harm, blah blah blah.  The wilful ignorance of it.  But I guess this time it will be different.  True equality has never been tried after all.

12
 Luke90 12 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> You're in the 1%.  The very fact you are posting on UKC, able to pontificate about the advantages brought by being "CIS" indicates as much.  Perhaps its time you checked your privilege.

Is there a need for clarification of terms here? Perhaps you're talking about 'the global 1%' and marsbar's talking about 'the UK 1%' which would be wildly different metrics.

OP Jon Stewart 12 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> And the poor white kid and the rich white kid are more privileged than the black or gay kid according to left-wing dogma.  Its a highway to disaster, not equality.

That simply isn't true. Misrepresenting other people's views is a waste of everyone's time.

I've set the out the case that interventions that reduce abuse of minorities who have a history of abuse supports equality (of opportunity not outcome). 

The burden falls upon you to justify your view that such policies actually privilege these minorities above the mainstream. Let's hear the case. Justify your position if you want to genuinely engage in the debate, rather than just bang on and on about your inaccurate perceptions of "The Left".

Post edited at 21:18
 Yanis Nayu 12 Nov 2019
In reply to Timmd:

> Not exactly, it's about the position within our society which these characteristics can (but not always do) afford people. Being male, I know that I don't need to worry about walking home in the dark late at night in the way that females can, and I don't feel remotely attacked if anybody points out that this is a privilege I have which females don't. Hopefully I've articulated this in a way which is clear and easy to understand.

I understand your point, but not sure this is a great example. I suspect your chances of being harmed are higher as a male than as a female. 

1
pasbury 12 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

I wish I knew what you were talking about. Your greivance seems almost unsupportably enourmous yet you write with such haste and anger that it's impossible to know what the grievance actually is.

3
 Timmd 12 Nov 2019
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> I understand your point, but not sure this is a great example. I suspect your chances of being harmed are higher as a male than as a female. 

It's most likely to happen during the late teens to mid 20's (IIRC) and in situations like being on a night out and drinking, the risk of being a victim of assault and violence reduces after that. I actually think, too, that I'm free(r) of the wariness/caution which tends to go with how careful females seem to be about walking home - whatever it's grounding in reality, which in itself is a form of freedom (or privilege given the tone of the thread, but freedom seems more apt).

Edit: I've never had a fight, but I've noticed that now I'm older I can 'frown' at younger males sometimes, and there seem to be a modicum of wariness because I'm older. It was an accidental discovery but interesting, I can struggle to disguise what I'm feeling. 

Post edited at 21:40
1
OP Jon Stewart 12 Nov 2019
In reply to marsbar:

> I do believe in choices

Here's a brilliant conversation about that:

youtube.com/watch?v=eELfSwqJNKU&

 marsbar 12 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

I’m well aware of my privileges.  I’m very lucky.  See my post above. 

I don’t understand what exactly your problem is.   

Calling out someone for stirring things up and suggesting they don’t understand what it’s like to be in the receiving end isn’t an attack.  Some people are so over sensitive.  

1
 marsbar 12 Nov 2019
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Certainly agree males are at higher risk of violence from a stranger.  It’s a perception issue I guess.  

 FactorXXX 12 Nov 2019
In reply to marsbar: 

>   Some people are so over sensitive.  

Yes, they are, aren't they.

 Tom Valentine 12 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I look forward to .a time when we can actually discuss paedophilia in a rational and unemotive way. 

It's obviously seen a a lifestyle choice by the hordes but I've always thought it can't be as simple as that.

2
OP Jon Stewart 12 Nov 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> I look forward to .a time when we can actually discuss paedophilia in a rational and unemotive way. 

> It's obviously seen as a lifestyle choice by the hordes but I've always thought it can't be as simple as that.

Interesting but uncomfortable topic! I don't see any reason anyone would choose to be sexually aroused by children. I would view it as a very dark compulsion that if coupled with a lack of impulse control is going to lead to horrific harm to innocent victims. 

 Tom Valentine 12 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

>  I don't see any reason anyone would choose to be sexually aroused by children. 

I don't know for a fact that they do actually "choose" to be sexually aroused by children and  would welcome clinical research  proving this one way or the other. 

Post edited at 00:05
 Bob Kemp 13 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Well then, in line with the policy exchange document I posted on the other thread, the statistics seem to point to left-wing views being permissible and right-wing ones not being permissible in a university environment.  Does that alarm you?  I got the impression a few people on the previous thread appeared to have suddenly "had enough of experts" so didn't think it important.

One non-peer-reviewed study based on a convenience sample by a couple of academics working for a right-wing think-tank. Hmm...

 Yanis Nayu 13 Nov 2019
In reply to marsbar:

I agree, and if women fear being attacked when the evidence suggests that fear is largely misplaced, perpetuating the misconception only serves to increase the misplaced fear. 

 marsbar 13 Nov 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

I see it as messed up brain processes in some cases.  In many others it's about power imbalances and wanting to hurt rather than about sex.  

I don't agree with the old fashioned idea that it's just another sexual orientation.  

 marsbar 13 Nov 2019
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Women are historically conditioned to fear as a control thing.  

2
 blurty 13 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Chosen or innate characteristics: A fascinating area, that I think of as 'Hardware' Vs 'Software'. Also an area that identity politics struggles with.

E.g. most gay men & women claim that being homosexual is innate, and hardwired into them. Most trans people claim that gender is a choice and is fluid. Liberal universities/ thinkers tie themselves up in knots over that contradiction.

OP Jon Stewart 13 Nov 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> I don't know for a fact that they do actually "choose" to be sexually aroused by children and  would welcome clinical research  proving this one way or the other. 

No such proof is possible. Obvectively, we don't choose anything; the question is whether subjectively we *feel* we have a choice. And that question can't be answered until we can read minds. 

In reply to blurty:

> Chosen or innate characteristics: A fascinating area, that I think of as 'Hardware' Vs 'Software'. Also an area that identity politics struggles with.

> E.g. most gay men & women claim that being homosexual is innate, and hardwired into them. Most trans people claim that gender is a choice and is fluid. Liberal universities/ thinkers tie themselves up in knots over that contradiction.

There isn't a contradiction. Feeling that you are a gender other than that your body type suggests is just as innate as attraction to one sex or another (or both) 

Post edited at 10:46
1
Pan Ron 13 Nov 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> One non-peer-reviewed study based on a convenience sample by a couple of academics working for a right-wing think-tank. Hmm...

Show me then the peer-reviewed refutions then. 

Otherwise it just looks like you've had enough of these particular experts.

3
Pan Ron 13 Nov 2019
In reply to pasbury:

> I wish I knew what you were talking about. Your greivance seems almost unsupportably enourmous yet you write with such haste and anger that it's impossible to know what the grievance actually is.

In more simple terms, I don't trust people who claim to know the degree to which some people should be accorded more rights that others. Which is what the equity/identitarian movement requires.

For all its failings, according equal rights appears to me unassailable. Yet it is a principal the left has abandoned and now criticises.

There appears to be a real lack of self awareness on the left, seemingly from an assumption of moral superiority. That lack gives me no confidence that the left is capable of recognising when it has become the thing it opposes (which is exactly where the left has failed throughout history, in the most disasterous of fashions)

Just as right-wingers, on account of lessons of the last century, should be on guard against tendencies towards excessive hierarchy, bigotry and racism, the Left for the same reasons should be on guard against the mistakes Communists made. The change in language in just a decade, where statements even Obama made are now considered racist, should be cause for concern that this caution is lacking.

The overwhelming response is it's a fringe issue, not a real issue, or nothing to be concerned about. In fact, even mentioning concerns seems to be tantamount to betrayal and sparks a surprising amount of vitriol.

The discussion yet again seems to be going nowhere, no doubt you will complain about the use of the term  "left", or simply deny any such problem exists. But at the very least you should accept there is a backlash and pushing ever onwards in one direction isn't always a good thing.

11
OP Jon Stewart 13 Nov 2019
In reply to blurty:

> Chosen or innate characteristics: A fascinating area, that I think of as 'Hardware' Vs 'Software'. Also an area that identity politics struggles with.

The reality is that it's all wetware. Brain processes just doing what they do. 

> E.g. most gay men & women claim that being homosexual is innate, and hardwired into them.

I know with 100% certainty that I do not choose my sexual orientation. 

> Most trans people claim that gender is a choice and is fluid. Liberal universities/ thinkers tie themselves up in knots over that contradiction.

I'm not sure that's right. I would have thought most trans people would say that they innately *are* the gender they transition to. You might find another group who identify as "non binary" etc, who think it's all a choice, socially constructed, etc, but I doubt that's the case with most trans people.

A lot of the debate here seems to rest on false assumptions about trans=social construction="The Left"=threat to freedom of speech, mainly thanks to Pan Ron. But these are all totally distinct concepts with a far from overlapping Venn diagram! 

Pan Ron 13 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Justify your position if you want to genuinely engage in the debate, rather than just bang on and on about your inaccurate perceptions of "The Left".

Any law applied unequally is the issue and can be far more objectively confirmed than whether you can consider someone privileged or not.

The innate characteristic argument is just a convenient hook to hang your coat on, and its coming apart under increasing identitarianism.  It can also be viewed as a racist construct unless  you deny all existence of disadvantage coming from internal, rather than external, formed biases.

4
Pan Ron 13 Nov 2019
In reply to Luke90:

> Is there a need for clarification of terms here? Perhaps you're talking about 'the global 1%' and marsbar's talking about 'the UK 1%' which would be wildly different metrics.

Indeed. I'm simply highlighting that privilege is all down to perspective. People not falling within the requirements of the innate characteristics allowed may be far less privileged than those who do. Simply saying white, CIS, male is just more bigotry, but seemingly allowable 

1
 Bob Kemp 13 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Show me then the peer-reviewed refutions then. 

It's not in a peer-reviewed journal. That reduces its credibility. Using a convenience sample in an area where bias is likely to be an issue undermines it too. 

> Otherwise it just looks like you've had enough of these particular experts.

That's a stupid remark. I have no problem with 'these particular experts', just the quality of the work. 

 elsewhere 13 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

Which of Obama's statements are now considered racist and by whom?

Post edited at 14:08
 Timmd 13 Nov 2019
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Actually, it was sexual assault i had in mind, rather than violence, though it is a form of aggression, or violence too depending on the circumstances.

Post edited at 14:58
 La benya 13 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

‘Blah blah blah...*excessive racism*...’

As if there is an appropriate amount of racism to be had and it is the right of the Right to have it...

Thats not what you meant is it?

2
OP Jon Stewart 13 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Any law applied unequally is the issue and can be far more objectively confirmed than whether you can consider someone privileged or not.

Are we talking about laws being applied unequally? I haven't made any comments about any such laws. I've said that I support policies that curb abuse of minorities, e.g. A school cracking down on homophobic bullying and use of homophobic language in the playground. 

> The innate characteristic argument is just a convenient hook to hang your coat on, and its coming apart under increasing identitarianism.  It can also be viewed as a racist construct unless  you deny all existence of disadvantage coming from internal, rather than external, formed biases.

I've no idea how anyone could construe policies to curb abuse of minorities as a racist construct (unless they were mad). The innate characteristics argument I've set out is one of encouraging equality of opportunity so that if you have certain traits you don't choose, you don't get shat on for it.

Can you just clarify your position: do you think all policies to curb abuse of minorities are unfair and privelege minorities above others? So you want all such policies abolished? Or am I misreading you? 

Post edited at 15:50
1
Pan Ron 13 Nov 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> That's a stupid remark. I have no problem with 'these particular experts', just the quality of the work. 

They are reputable academics.  Why not argue with the substance of the work instead?  All you're doing is refusing to engage with it, presumably because its conclusions are heresy, by drawing in to doubt its provenance with absolutely nothing to back the claim up.

 marsbar 13 Nov 2019
In reply to Timmd:

I'm not sure we have accurate figures for male to male sexual assault or female to male either. 

From my work I'd guess adult males are significantly less likely to be attacked than women. 

I wouldn't be at all surprised if sexual assault of children turned out to be as many boys as girls.    

 elsewhere 13 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> In more simple terms, I don't trust people who claim to know the degree to which some people should be accorded more rights that others. Which is what the equity/identitarian movement requires.

> For all its failings, according equal rights appears to me unassailable. Yet it is a principal the left has abandoned and now criticises.

> There appears to be a real lack of self awareness on the left, seemingly from an assumption of moral superiority. That lack gives me no confidence that the left is capable of recognising when it has become the thing it opposes (which is exactly where the left has failed throughout history, in the most disasterous of fashions)

> Just as right-wingers, on account of lessons of the last century, should be on guard against tendencies towards excessive hierarchy, bigotry and racism, the Left for the same reasons should be on guard against the mistakes Communists made. The change in language in just a decade, where statements even Obama made are now considered racist, should be cause for concern that this caution is lacking.

> The overwhelming response is it's a fringe issue, 

Do you have any evidence of Obama's statements now being considered racist? It is not an opinion I am familiar with so it sounds like a weird fringe issue or delusional opinion. However it would be useful to know the evidence that led you to suggest Obama statements are considered racist.

 marsbar 13 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

I'm not sure why you think I want to give some people more rights than others.  

Allowing same sex marriage is about giving same sex couples the same rights as I have.  

They don't get extra.  

I want black people to be able to walk down the street without being called names based on their skin colour. It doesn't happen  to me, I want the same for them.  Not extra.  Is it infringing someone's free speech to tell them that calling someone a dirty N word is unacceptable?  I don't think so.  

I want random men on the tube to keep their hands off my arse.  It's not infringing their rights to expect this.   I wouldn't grab a mans bum on public transport.  Am I being unreasonable? 

1
 Neil Williams 13 Nov 2019
In reply to marsbar:

> I want random men on the tube to keep their hands off my arse.  It's not infringing their rights to expect this.   I wouldn't grab a mans bum on public transport.  Am I being unreasonable?

Drunk groups of women are terrible for pinching the backsides of blokes who don't necessarily want that approach.  Yet nobody seems to want to do anything about that either.  I do agree with you though - nobody should make wilful physical contact with anyone else who does not want that contact, and if you're not sure assume they don't.

Post edited at 16:50
2
 Neil Williams 13 Nov 2019
In reply to marsbar:

> From my work I'd guess adult males are significantly less likely to be attacked than women.

I would think so, largely because (a) they are possibly in a better position to defend themselves[0], and (b) it's pretty rare for a woman to attack[1] a man to the point I'm not sure I ever heard of it - attacks on males tend to be male on male, which if it's sexual limits the attacker to being gay (or straight but mentally ill in some way) which rather narrows the field of possible attackers.

[0] Largely due to being bigger/stronger, and being 6' 4" and almost as broad I've never been physically attacked or threatened in any form by anyone, and I suspect that has to do with height / build more than much else.  While I quite like the body shape I've got barring that I could do with taking a few stone off, I didn't choose it (height or tendency to put muscle on), it's what I was given.

[1] By attack I mean serious attack e.g. assault or sexual assault, not "bum pinching" etc which also needs to stop regardless of gender but is much more common.

Post edited at 16:55
Pan Ron 13 Nov 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> Which of Obama's statements are now considered racist and by whom?

A lot of discussion has been had about turning away, or arresting, migrants who attempt illegal crossings of the US border.  The current US regime, and presumably any in future, is routinely castigated for it.  Yet Obama is on record as saying the same thing.

It was all fine just a decade ago.  Today it is racist.

Pan Ron 13 Nov 2019
In reply to La benya:

> ‘Blah blah blah...*excessive racism*...’

> As if there is an appropriate amount of racism to be had and it is the right of the Right to have it...

> Thats not what you meant is it?

No, it's not what I mean.  Excessive hierarchy.  Bigotry.  Racism.

But I see what you're trying to do...

3
 Neil Williams 13 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

I don't think discussion of limiting immigration is racist.

I think what Trump says has undertones of superiority that Obama didn't.

Pan Ron 13 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

A school cracking down on homophobic bullying and use of homophobic language in the playground, just like picking on anyone in a playground doesn't strike me as problematic.  

Creating a legal definition of "hate speech", "dead-naming", or simply saying it is ok to use language against one race that will is not allowable against another is where the issue is.

To use your example, your hypothetical playground extended to the outside world says homophobic abuse will suffer serious consequences.  But the same level of abuse aimed at others is allowed, and even protesting at that abuse is in some way indicative of personal shortcomings.   

The issue is inconsistency.  Primavayada Gopal can launch invective against white people and remain firmly ensconced in her position at Cambridge, while Noah Carl (or Jordan Peterson) are declared persona non-grata for doing things which are arguably a hell of a lot less racist...though apparently not now that we have redefined racism to no longer mean abuse of someone on account of their race.

You don't think it is possible to curb abuse of minorities by creating norms that apply to everyone?  Do you really believe that going that step further, and creating specific protections, is necessary?  And if so, when will those protections be rescinded?  Or, when whites become a minority in the UK, would they then be applied to white people?

2
 elsewhere 13 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> A lot of discussion has been had about turning away, or arresting, migrants who attempt illegal crossings of the US border.  The current US regime, and presumably any in future, is routinely castigated for it.  Yet Obama is on record as saying the same thing.

> It was all fine just a decade ago.  Today it is racist.

So you don't have evidence or examples  that backs up "where statements even Obama made are now considered racist, should be cause for concern that this caution is lacking".

1
 La benya 13 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

I’m not trying to do anything. You made the list and put those things together, presumably you see them as similar in some way. You also used commas instead of periods. 
 

it’s all very well getting shouty about things but best to do it carefully and make sure you aren’t saying silly stuff inadvertently. 

2
Pan Ron 13 Nov 2019
In reply to marsbar:

> From my work I'd guess adult males are significantly less likely to be attacked than women. 

I'm sceptical.  I suspect males are physically assaulted a hell of a lot more than females, from school to adulthood.

I was having a discussion about abuse within marriages over the weekend.  Admittedly it was in a group of 3 other males, the context being a mutual friend of us all having fled a marriage with two of his three kids who, I was surprised to learn, his (apparently normal and perfectly charming) wife was repeatedly beating.  Another mutual friend was mentioned who had been in a similar situation of his wife throwing plates around the house, and despite her own admission to social services that she had instigated attacks, he is still struggling to get access to his daughter and forced to financially support the entire family.  All four of us had experienced varying degrees of what would today be considered assault or abuse, be it verbal or physical, from girlfriends.

It's not something you can retaliate against.  It's not something generally discussed.  I certainly haven't seen many column inches dedicated to it.  I used to cycle into my office on numerous occasions to sleep on the floor to escape what I had, verbally and sometimes physically, thrown at me by a girlfriend, which occurred like clockwork on a monthly basis.  

I think you would find that there's a hell of a lot more female-on-male abuse out there than you realise.  Add to that male-on-male abuse, and the chances of being physically assaulted if you are a male are exceedingly high, despite females likely appearing easier targets.  The cultural taboo against assaulting women isn't reciprocated and a bit of bludgeoning between males doesn't attract much attention either. 

The one-dimensional argument, that because of your gender or strength, you are automatically going to suffer less is part of the problem.

2
 elsewhere 13 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Or, when whites become a minority in the UK

Is that a concern of yours?

1
Pan Ron 13 Nov 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> So you don't have evidence or examples  that backs up "where statements even Obama made are now considered racist, should be cause for concern that this caution is lacking".

Short of saving everything I come across, I'm not inclined to go searching through Obama footage right now.  Rest assured, it exists and is entirely unremarkable given he was delivering perfectly normal and reasonable statements back then.  Go back to 2008, see what was considered acceptable language aimed at the rights of Mexicans to illegally cross borders. Then fast forward now and see what is acceptable (not even if uttered by Trump) and what is considered racist.

Frogs in pots as far as noticing societal change goes.  Is it always for the better? 

5
Pan Ron 13 Nov 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> > Or, when whites become a minority in the UK

> Is that a concern of yours?

Again, I see what you are doing...it belies a complete lack of good faith in your arguments. 

So f*ck off with your racist accusations.

Not that you deserve an explanation, but whites are projected to be a minority in the US and the UK in 50 years time.  I don't care a jot about it - my own kids being mixed race will contribute to that.  The question is, will they be accorded minority rights and protections when that happens?  Or like Asians, will their innate characteristics no longer be considered eligible?

4
 elsewhere 13 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Again, I see what you are doing...it belies a complete lack of good faith in your arguments. 

Well it was a rather striking comment so I had to ask.

> So f*ck off with your racist accusations.

Fair comment.

> Not that you deserve an explanation, but whites are projected to be a minority in the US and the UK in 50 years time.  I don't care a jot about it - my own kids being mixed race will contribute to that.  The question is, will they be accorded minority rights and protections when that happens?  Or like Asians, will their innate characteristics no longer be considered eligible?

Post edited at 17:38
 Bob Kemp 13 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

You're not reading what I said. As in 'I have no problem...'. I know who they are. I am not suggesting there is anything wrong with them. I am not refusing to engage with the work. Did you not see the point about using convenience sampling? That's engaging with the work. 

To expand, there are several reasons for treating this study with a pinch of salt. I mistrust studies on politicised topics that use convenience sampling. I suspect the reliability of such approaches. And I also have doubts about the questions they ask, which only investigate limited aspects of academic freedom using contentious examples that are designed to polarise.

Apart from that, this study only looks at the opinions of undergraduate students. As you must know there is much more to academic freedom than that. And it doesn't prove anything about left vs. right - that doesn't feature in the study. 

 MonkeyPuzzle 13 Nov 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> > Or, when whites become a minority in the UK

> Is that a concern of yours?

That phrase really leaps off the screen, doesn't it?

 Coel Hellier 13 Nov 2019
In reply to the thread:

Evening All,  sorry, I rather over-looked this thread. Have I missed much? 

I've just been listening to a postcast with Yasmine Mohammed (one of the more prominent ex-Muslim campaigners and author of new book: "Unveiled: How Western Liberals Empower Radical Islam").   I recommend it:

https://samharris.org/podcasts/175-leaving-faith/

https://www.yasminemohammed.com/

 Coel Hellier 13 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I think you're arguing that complaints of racism, homophobia, etc should be ignored because they amount to pleading for special status.

No, absolutely not (on the first), and no it doesn't (on the second). 

What I'm saying is imagine your ideal society, what you would like to achieve. Then head towards that.   And do so by "performing" that ideal as much as possible.

So, if equality is the goal, don't think:  Behaviour X towards group A is fine and acceptable; but the same behaviour X towards group B is totally unacceptable.  Because that double-standard is not the ideal we want to move towards. We want to move towards the same rules for all.

Nothing about that says you shouldn't complain about currently being treated worse than others, nor does it say that asking that you not be treated worse is "pleading for special status".

Post edited at 18:38
1
 marsbar 13 Nov 2019
In reply to Neil Williams:

I'm aware that some drunk women do this.  Its unacceptable to me. I don't behave like that.

 marsbar 13 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

I have googled but I can't find what Primavayada Gopal actually said?  

 marsbar 13 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Back to the Muslim obsession.  Are you bored of trans this week?  

1
 marsbar 13 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

I was referring very specifically to sexual abuse in that particular post.  

I agree that male domestic abuse victims are very under reported although things are starting to change for the better.  The local domestic abuse service has now got specific sessions and staff in place to support male victims and a provide a safe place for them.  

 Coel Hellier 13 Nov 2019
In reply to marsbar:

> Back to the Muslim obsession.  Are you bored of trans this week?  

I think I've only ever posted much on trans on one thread, namely the previous one. 

And on the other (NB: "Islam obsession", not "Muslim obsession"), Islam does happen to be the most harmful ideology in the world today.

1
pasbury 13 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> I'm sceptical.  I suspect males are physically assaulted a hell of a lot more than females, from school to adulthood.

> I was having a discussion about abuse within marriages over the weekend.  Admittedly it was in a group of 3 other males, the context being a mutual friend of us all having fled a marriage with two of his three kids who, I was surprised to learn, his (apparently normal and perfectly charming) wife was repeatedly beating.  Another mutual friend was mentioned who had been in a similar situation of his wife throwing plates around the house, and despite her own admission to social services that she had instigated attacks, he is still struggling to get access to his daughter and forced to financially support the entire family.  All four of us had experienced varying degrees of what would today be considered assault or abuse, be it verbal or physical, from girlfriends.

> It's not something you can retaliate against.  It's not something generally discussed.  I certainly haven't seen many column inches dedicated to it.  I used to cycle into my office on numerous occasions to sleep on the floor to escape what I had, verbally and sometimes physically, thrown at me by a girlfriend, which occurred like clockwork on a monthly basis.  

> I think you would find that there's a hell of a lot more female-on-male abuse out there than you realise.  Add to that male-on-male abuse, and the chances of being physically assaulted if you are a male are exceedingly high, despite females likely appearing easier targets.  The cultural taboo against assaulting women isn't reciprocated and a bit of bludgeoning between males doesn't attract much attention either. 

> The one-dimensional argument, that because of your gender or strength, you are automatically going to suffer less is part of the problem.

I know, terrible isn't it to be in a discriminated against majority.

We've had it soo hard over the past 10, 50, 100 ,1000 years.

I sympathize with your experiences of abuse but disagree with you that they represent a majority of examples of abuse.

Post edited at 20:17
5
 MG 13 Nov 2019
In reply to marsbar:

I am slightly stunned to find myself in partial agreement with PanRon. Primavayada Gopal does appear to be a spectacularly unpleasant bully.   The most obvious example was her publicly slandering security staff at a Cambridge College for racism after they dared ask her for ID.  Apparently they were meant to know she was a Terribly Important Professor and just doff their caps.  I only exaggerate very slightly.

 marsbar 13 Nov 2019
In reply to MG:

Thanks, I couldn’t find it.  

 TobyA 13 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> but whites are projected to be a minority in the US and the UK in 50 years time. 

I don't know about the US, but is that something universally agreed on by demographers for the UK? England is about 80% white british, and the other constituent parts are well over 90% WB, so that it could change so rapidly in 50 years seems very surprising.

 TobyA 13 Nov 2019
In reply to MG:

> I am slightly stunned to find myself in partial agreement with PanRon. Primavayada Gopal does appear to be a spectacularly unpleasant bully.   The most obvious example was her publicly slandering security staff at a Cambridge College for racism after they dared ask her for ID. 

I don't remember it from the time, but I've just read a Times interview with her and it seems there is quite a lot more to it than just that. Other non-white staff and students reported the same kind of attitude shown to them.

Who knows what the truth is, but still probably somewhere between the two extreme versions where it was all the fault of the other party.

1
 elsewhere 13 Nov 2019
In reply to TobyA:

A majority non-white in 50 years would require a majority non-white babies now or in the next decade. That doesn't seem likely and nor is mass non-white immigration.

Post edited at 21:30
 MG 13 Nov 2019
In reply to TobyA:

> Who knows what the truth is, but still probably somewhere between the two extreme versions where it was all the fault of the other party.

You reckon. Have you seen her Twitter?

https://twitter.com/PriyamvadaGopal

 TobyA 13 Nov 2019
In reply to MG:

> You reckon. Have you seen her Twitter?


Yeah, currently she seems to be particularly interested in criticising the Modhi government, a position I'm quite sympathetic to. Otherwise it seems to reflect the sort of stuff that you would expect an openly leftist and anti-colonial academic to be interested in.

 MG 13 Nov 2019
In reply to TobyA:

Is that really what you see?  Not an attention seeking finding fault with everyone but herself?  How about this, directed at another Cambridge Academic, Mary Beard?

https://medium.com/@zen.catgirl/response-to-mary-beard-91a6cf2f53b6

 marsbar 13 Nov 2019
In reply to MG:

I haven't got the attention span to read all that, I suspect it could have been covered in a much shorter way.  However the tweet she is talking about does seem at first sight to be well and truly of the "did she really say that" type.  Mary Beard has explained how it wasn't intended as it came across, and as I understand it the pair of them have had a chat with coffee and it's all sorted.  

 Neil Williams 13 Nov 2019
In reply to marsbar:

> I'm aware that some drunk women do this.  Its unacceptable to me. I don't behave like that.

Good to hear it, and for the record I didn't think you did

OP Jon Stewart 13 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> A school cracking down on homophobic bullying and use of homophobic language in the playground, just like picking on anyone in a playground doesn't strike me as problematic.  

> Creating a legal definition of "hate speech", "dead-naming", or simply saying it is ok to use language against one race that will is not allowable against another is where the issue is.

I think that for language to be illegal it should have to be pretty extreme, i.e. some kind of harassment/incitement etc. But I am in favour of soft sanctions against people who spew abuse, namely giving them a really hard time publicly or banning them from a website. If someone on UKC for example kept posting about "pakis" or "faggots", I'd expect the mods to act on a complaint and ban the tw*t. Even 4chan has "no racism" rule!

> To use your example, your hypothetical playground extended to the outside world says homophobic abuse will suffer serious consequences.  But the same level of abuse aimed at others is allowed, and even protesting at that abuse is in some way indicative of personal shortcomings.   

Your argument breaks down when you say "the same level of abuse". If a kid in a school (or an adult in a climbing wall in the outside world - it's happened!) just says the word "queer" when they pass a gay kid in the corridor, that's homophobic abuse. What's "the same level of abuse"? There isn't any such thing as heterophobia that can be directed at straight people. No one can tell straight people that they're inferior, they're simply not at that risk.

Imagine that 1.5% of the population had a gene that made them susceptible to a horrible skin rash, which was painful and occasionally fatal. But by keeping public places clean with a specific detergent, those people would be safe from the rash. All the other normal diseases would still exist, but by having a policy of keeping places clean with the detergent, the rash could be eradicated.

Would you have that policy, or would you think it unfair that those people were being afforded a special privilege? Or would it be fair to keep public places clean, always using the detergent, so that the rash was eradicated? 

> The issue is inconsistency.  Primavayada Gopal can launch invective against white people and remain firmly ensconced in her position at Cambridge, while Noah Carl (or Jordan Peterson) are declared persona non-grata for doing things which are arguably a hell of a lot less racist...though apparently not now that we have redefined racism to no longer mean abuse of someone on account of their race.

I don't know about that case. I'm quite prepared to believe that there is total hypocrisy in the university culture, unfair accusations of racism (I don't think JP ever did anything racist, he was just photographed next to someone with a racist t-shirt on or something?), and all the rest of it, and that here, you have some legitimate point.

Where you're completely wrong is to generalise some instance of wrongdoing by someone, and then say "that's what THE LEFT do", and then attempt to justify a total invalid argument against addressing abuse of minorities by claiming that they get special treatment with this type of example. I'm happy to debate the rights and wrongs of any specific case, e.g. I've said why I think Greer needed a shoeing for the abuse she spewed out. But you can't generalise that to any other case. For example, I take that prick Count Dankula's side when it comes to the ridiculous criminal charges against him.

You consistently make the same fallacy of generalisation again and again. I'm on the THE LEFT, I believe in policies to curb abuse of minorities, but that doesn't mean I always take the side of some simple binary that you think is THE LEFT. That's just not what the world is like, it's more complicated than that.

> You don't think it is possible to curb abuse of minorities by creating norms that apply to everyone?  Do you really believe that going that step further, and creating specific protections, is necessary? 

This is how it works: beating people up is illegal. But beating people up because they're gay attracts harsher punishment. Your interpretation that gay people are being afforded special protection is incorrect. The reason that the punishment is harsher is because beating up people for being gay has a larger impact. Not because gay people are more important, but because if you target one gay person for being gay, that sends a message that all gay people are targets, and that has a wide impact. If being gay puts you at a greater risk of being beaten up, then a policy is needed so that the *additional* risk is addressed; and simultaneously, the baseline risk of being beaten up should also be reduced. If there's no policy to address the *additional* risk, then gays don't enjoy the same rights of public safety as straights, and that's not equality, is it?

I don't believe that faced with a specific problem of gays being beaten up on the way home from bars, your proposed solution, "just reiterate the message that beating anyone up is wrong" isn't going to help. Where there's a specific minority-related problem, a specific minority-related response is required. Such policies do not deliver special privileges, this is a misunderstanding on your part.

> And if so, when will those protections be rescinded?  Or, when whites become a minority in the UK, would they then be applied to white people?

Oh come on - don't go down this white genocide bullshit road. Surely that's beneath you? If any minority is getting abuse, or has a history of abuse, or is getting treated as second class citizens, then policies need to be put in place to give them equal opportunity in society. I'm not arguing for any special protections: I'm arguing for *additional risks* faced by minorities to be addressed. When you argue for such policies to be abolished, because of the reality that minorities face discrimination and abuse (it's part of human nature), what you're arguing for in practice is an increase in that abuse, for minorities to have worse opportunities on account of their innate traits. I don't believe that's your intention, I think your understanding of the issue is incorrect.

Post edited at 23:42
1
OP Jon Stewart 13 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> No, absolutely not (on the first), and no it doesn't (on the second). 

> What I'm saying is imagine your ideal society, what you would like to achieve. Then head towards that.   And do so by "performing" that ideal as much as possible.

As a way to make policy, that simply fails to deal with the world as it is. If as a trans person, you have a greater risk of abuse, poorer opportunities, worse outcomes, than everyone else, then no amount of "performing an ideal" (on whose part, anyway?) is going to help. You need policy interventions that reduce the additional risks trans people face.

> So, if equality is the goal, don't think:  Behaviour X towards group A is fine and acceptable; but the same behaviour X towards group B is totally unacceptable.  Because that double-standard is not the ideal we want to move towards. We want to move towards the same rules for all.

The problem with your argument, which I've already pointed out, is that where behaviour X is homophobia, behaviour X can only be directed at group A (gays). What you're saying here simply isn't valid.

1
OP Jon Stewart 14 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> I think I've only ever posted much on trans on one thread, namely the previous one. 

There was a very long thread on which you defended a guy who'd posted abuse against trans people online and was told off by a copper. You didn't just say that the telling off was too harsh, you swore 'til you were blue in the face that a "poem" ridiculing trans people's bodies (fake vaginas that go nowhere, etc) wasn't abuse, rather it was legitimate political commentary that deserved protection.

2
 Tom Valentine 14 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I 'm not sure " queer".  is a good example since it seems to be gaining acceptance in some circles and I don't just mean in the exclusive way that "nigger"is used by some black people , more in a general usage by all sides of the community. I am pleased that a large part of the gay community  have given it the OK in mainstream language because I don't accept the notion of "reclaiming" language by anyone : I think it's a deliberatekly provocative and divisive ploy which a society striving to be inclusive can well do without.

Post edited at 07:56
 Coel Hellier 14 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> There was a very long thread on which you defended a guy who'd posted abuse against trans people online and was told off by a copper.

Ah yes, I'd forgotten that thread.  

> You didn't just say that the telling off was too harsh, you swore 'til you were blue in the face that a "poem" ridiculing trans people's bodies (fake vaginas that go nowhere, etc) wasn't abuse, rather it was legitimate political commentary that deserved protection.

Yes, and I'm sticking to that stance.  It would not be appropriate for him to have handed a copy of the poem to a teenager struggling with their identity, but for him to put it on his twitter feed where it would only be seen by those "following" him seems to me well within acceptable norms.  It is utterly ridiculous that the police thought this was anywhere near the boundary of a criminal issue. 

 Coel Hellier 14 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> The problem with your argument, which I've already pointed out, is that where behaviour X is homophobia, behaviour X can only be directed at group A (gays). What you're saying here simply isn't valid.

True, on the specific issue of sexuality.  But, saying "queer" when a gay teenager passes by could be compared to use of, say, "gammon" to describe someone.  Though you're going to tell me that it's not the same owing to history.  So if the reply is that "gammons" have not traditionally been derided and therefore it's ok to deride them (perhaps as a sort of leveling), then that's what I don't agree with.   Aim for what we're aiming for. 

> If as a trans person, you have a greater risk of abuse, poorer opportunities, worse outcomes, than everyone else, then no amount of "performing an ideal" (on whose part, anyway?) is going to help.

The "performing" should be on everyone's part.  And yes, it would help since key to that performance is fully equal treatment for the trans person. 

OP Jon Stewart 14 Nov 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> I 'm not sure " queer".  is a good example since it seems to be gaining acceptance in some circles and I don't just mean in the exclusive way that "nigger"is used by some black people , more in a general usage by all sides of the community. I am pleased that a large part of the gay community  have given it the OK in mainstream language because I don't accept the notion of "reclaiming" language by anyone : I think it's a deliberatekly provocative and divisive ploy which a society striving to be inclusive can well do without.

I think it's still a good example, because it's so blatantly obvious when the word "queer" is being used as slur against gays, and when it's being used in one of several other ways. I don't think the gay community have ever had the wherewithal to give any word the OK, or not. Language just carries different meanings over time, and there is some sort of consensus but which isn't universal. "Queer" is a funny example, because when used to mean "unusual in a kind of dodgy way" (which I think is a great thing to have a word for, and would be a shame to lose it to politics!), it now has a hint of being a naughty word to use which makes it more amusing (to me). When it comes to being used to describe sexual minorities, for me it has very political, shouty, brightly coloured died hair and lots of piercings overtone - which again is amusing (to me). It's fascinating how the same word can carry such different meanings, all with a social history of their own.

I think the way these words shift their meaning, and how different the meaning (or feeling tone/intention) can be depending on the context is really interesting. It's subtle, complex social behaviour that's so uniquely human. I know sometimes it's just a bit too subtle and complex for some people and they want simple rules of "this word good, that word bad" but I really think all human beings can, and should be encouraged to, rise to this challenge of using language with dexterity. This is exactly what human brains are uniquely good at, and doesn't take education, it's a totally natural skill that we generally just pick up by talking to each other.

I think you're just going to have to accept the "reclaiming" thing as just a part of how the world works. If a minority get a certain word used against them, they tend to respond. I don't think the fact that you don't like their response carries a lot of weight in the argument.

Post edited at 11:00
OP Jon Stewart 14 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> True, on the specific issue of sexuality. 

It's true whichever minority you pick. "Whitey" doesn't have equal connotations to "nigger"; there isn't even a word to contrast against "tranny", etc. Your argument really doesn't work.

> But, saying "queer" when a gay teenager passes by could be compared to use of, say, "gammon" to describe someone.  Though you're going to tell me that it's not the same owing to history. 

Yes, we understand each other! Great!

> So if the reply is that "gammons" have not traditionally been derided and therefore it's ok to deride them (perhaps as a sort of leveling), then that's what I don't agree with.   Aim for what we're aiming for. 

The reply is that firstly, "gammons" isn't a slur against all white middle-aged men, for being white, middle-aged and male. It refers specifically to white middle-aged men who go red in the face when they get outraged at stuff they read in the right wing press. Jeremy Corbyn, for example, is a white middle-aged man, but he isn't a gammon. He's a "wet lettuce lefty", which is an equivalent term. "Gammon" is a political insult, not a racial slur - although granted, it does refer to skin colour (it relates to politics plus ethnicity, not ethnicity alone). Some would argue that there is an unbreachable taboo around referring to skin colour in any way at all, making "gammon" a vile racist slur against whites, and I don't agree, I think language is far more subtle than that, and such a rule makes absolutely no sense.

The real difference between saying "gammon" and "queer" to someone's face does relate to the history, but that's not the crucial point. The reason "queer" is unacceptable in this context, whereas "gammon" is merely childish and unpleasant, is *consequences*. Using "queer" in this way is to tell someone that they are a second class citizen due to an innate trait (that's the intention, and it carries because gays have historically been second class citizens and we all know that), and if people with that trait grow up in world where that's acceptable, they have shit lives. That's the consequence. There is no such risk in using the word "gammon" because you can't address a red-faced white middle aged man reading the Telegraph as a second class citizen. It simply cannot carry that meaning, because every red-faced white middle aged man reading the Telegraph knows without question that they don't occupy the position of second class citizen.

You think my argument reduces to history, but it doesn't, it reduces to consequences. Telling people that they are second class citizens due to innate traits (this is only possible where there's history) is a seriously shit thing to do, and should be regarded as unacceptable. If you do it public, you should expect sanctions. It's shit behaviour, it doesn't deserve to be defended. When you defend it, it genuinely pisses me off, because you're making the world a worse place for people growing up with the problems I had as a kid, and on which a lot of improvement has been achieved. Too much improvement, for some?

> The "performing" should be on everyone's part.  And yes, it would help since key to that performance is fully equal treatment for the trans person. 

Perfect example of motherhood and apple pie. What's the solution to minorities being abused? "Everyone just be nice". Yeah, brilliant, digging your analytical policy work there, Coel. Can someone put this guy in charge of sorting out Brexit?

Post edited at 11:29
1
Pan Ron 14 Nov 2019
In reply to pasbury:

> I know, terrible isn't it to be in a discriminated against majority.

> We've had it soo hard over the past 10, 50, 100 ,1000 years.

It's very unhealthy to judge people of today by the behaviours of prior generations.  Its a form of collective punishment.

You're essentially laughing-off (victim blaming?) abuse against today's males because someone's great grandparents may (or may not) have done something.  Might as well be saying "but she was wearing a skirt" and presumably the same criticism could be said about Americans, Germans, Japanese, Romans or even Mongols?  Hardly a moral high ground against bigotry.

1
Pan Ron 14 Nov 2019
In reply to TobyA:

> I don't know about the US, but is that something universally agreed on by demographers for the UK? England is about 80% white british, and the other constituent parts are well over 90% WB, so that it could change so rapidly in 50 years seems very surprising.

Depends on how you count it and if looking at the population as a whole or age-group bands.  

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/when-britain-becomes-majority-m...

Pan Ron 14 Nov 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> Which of Obama's statements are now considered racist and by whom?

Conveniently, this popped up in my Twitter feed today.

‘‘..citizenship is a privilege & not a right; that without meaningful borders and respect for the law, the very things that brought them to America, the opportunities & protections afforded to those who live in the county will be eroded...’

Imagine the outcry if Trump said it. Or even potentially a Democrat. 

 TobyA 14 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

I hadn't seen that one but had done a quick google and seen articles from around the same time, and saw reporting like this - presumably from the same original academic article.  It is a projection from one demographer and he notes then that another team with different assumptions got considerably different results.

We are also a decade into that time projection, so for someone with the statistical skills I imagine it wouldn't be hard to see if the projection has been accurate so far or not. Looking at the chart and then the headline figure in the Wikipedia article on White British, it looks like he might have overestimated the speed of change. 

You originally said "whites become a minority", but actually its talking about White British, because white other and white irish are counted as ethnic minorities. He also notes it's quite possible that people will self identify (ha ha!) as White British who are from previously white other backgrounds, and, with EU immigration being such a big part of recent immigration patterns, not only are "whites" just generally still a significant majority, but so may well be people who call themselves white British.

I don't know where you live, I remember you used to live in London and can understand that majority minority think might well look imminent there, and is the case probably in some boroughs, but my experience of never living in London, but having lived in various rural and city areas in the Midlands and the North of England, plus a bit in Scotland, is that it doesn't seem imminent at all. Certain places, sure: I drove through Bradford recently for the first time in ages - early on Sunday morning so there weren't many people about, but I was really struck by how much Urdu (and maybe Bengali or Punjabi?) there was on shop and business signs and the like. But very quickly you're out of the city and soon in places like Skipton and Settle which feel very un-diverse. 

 jkarran 14 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I really think all human beings can, and should be encouraged to, rise to this challenge of using language with dexterity. This is exactly what human brains are uniquely good at, and doesn't take education, it's a totally natural skill that we generally just pick up by talking to each other.

Language is wonderful but for some of us the subtleties don't come naturally and if they can be taught formally, in general they aren't. I lean toward your opinion on this that we should wherever possible avoid proscribed lists of words or words which are only acceptable under rigidly defined circumstances but I do have some sympathy with those who like simple rules!

jk

 jkarran 14 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> ‘‘..citizenship is a privilege & not a right; that without meaningful borders and respect for the law, the very things that brought them to America, the opportunities & protections afforded to those who live in the county will be eroded...’  Imagine the outcry if Trump said it. Or even potentially a Democrat. 

I'm struggling to get over the idea of Trump dealing with grammar.

Also I don't see the problem with the quoted statement, could you expand a bit for the harder of thinking.

jk

1
 Bob Kemp 14 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

Have you got a source for this quote? Apart from Twitter of course. 

 Bob Kemp 14 Nov 2019
In reply to jkarran:

The trouble with this statement is that to say citizenship is a privilege and not a right is to hand over a huge amount of power to the state, and to undermine a number of other human rights. If you can be bothered there are some long and detailed arguments here:

https://tinyurl.com/yf4se3j2

"A privilege in law belongs not to the recipient, but to the patron who bestows it. A right belongs to the one who bears it. When members of the executive declare that citizenship is a privilege and not a right, what they are asserting is their own power to take it away." 

 elsewhere 14 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

Which of Obama's statements are now considered racist and by whom?

 TobyA 14 Nov 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Being a geek I googled it, and of course the twitter version that Pan quotes is completely shorn of context. It's from the Audacity of Hope https://archive.org/stream/TheAudacityOfHope_201607/The+Audacity+of+Hope_dj... and this Washington Times article - possibly the source of going into the Trump-friendly twitterverse - has it in context. https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/19/immigration-opportunist-obam...

Basically Obama had been asked to sponsor a 'private bill' as a senator that would have helped thirty, yes 30, people out of millions of undocumented immigrants.

 Bob Kemp 14 Nov 2019
In reply to TobyA:

Thanks - very interesting. 

 jkarran 14 Nov 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

I presumed the quote was in relationship to people arriving from elsewhere with citizenship of somewhere in which case it makes sense to me despite my wet liberal leanings that it is a privilege to have a new citizenship bestowed. 

Jk

Post edited at 18:14
 JohnBson 14 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

He's probably a Brexiteer! They're all the same, only interested when society is biased towards straight white men. 

1
 Timmd 15 Nov 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> I look forward to .a time when we can actually discuss paedophilia in a rational and unemotive way. 

> It's obviously seen a a lifestyle choice by the hordes but I've always thought it can't be as simple as that.

I watched a programme about it on youtube a week ago, the most recent science suggests that there's particular differences in the brain structure, which are seen in pedophiles and not the rest of the population. There's a subset who call themselves (or are known as) 'virtuous pedophiles' due to living a life of not acting on their thoughts and desires. 

Post edited at 15:47
 Timmd 15 Nov 2019
In reply to marsbar:

> (As for the Taiwan bit I really don't understand your point.  I've read it 3 times and I can't make sense of it. )

In Taiwan, any racism seems to be against white people, some westerners being racially abused at a bus stop started 'a national conversation' about the matter.

Post edited at 15:50
OP Jon Stewart 15 Nov 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> Language is wonderful but for some of us the subtleties don't come naturally and if they can be taught formally, in general they aren't. I lean toward your opinion on this that we should wherever possible avoid proscribed lists of words or words which are only acceptable under rigidly defined circumstances but I do have some sympathy with those who like simple rules!

Here's a great example of what we we lose if we stick to the rules:

youtube.com/watch?v=dF1NUposXVQ&

(It's pretty strong, won't be everyone's cup of tea, and it is from a known sex offender, but hey ho.)

 Tom Valentine 15 Nov 2019
In reply to Timmd:

You didn't cite your source so I had a quick look and so far saw a piece by Dr James Cantor which confirmed your point about brain structure so choice didn't seem to feature all that  much ( apart from the choice of seeking help or not). I was pleased that the notion of "evil" didn't have any part in his research. 

Though there was a tendency towards a slightly shorter stature and left-handedness........

Post edited at 17:58
OP Jon Stewart 15 Nov 2019
In reply to Timmd:

> I watched a programme about it on youtube a week ago, the most recent science suggests that there's particular differences in the brain structure, which are seen in pedophiles and not the rest of the population.

"It's brain tumours all the way down" - Sam Harris.

For any stable trait, pattern of behaviour, or entrenched repetitive style of thinking, there'll be some anatomical footprint of it in the brain (because neurons that fire together wire together). This is the case whether we consider behaviour that's done by choice, or whether it's innate. A classic example is the enlarged hippocampus in London cab drivers as a result of training for The Knowledge. Anatomical differences can be seen between men and women, and trans people do, unsurprisingly, seem to show some anatomical differences that look rather like the sex they identify as (Robert Sapolsky speaks about this research, somewhere in this amazing lecture series - sorry I can't be more accurate with the source!)

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL848F2368C90DDC3D

OP Jon Stewart 15 Nov 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> You didn't cite your source so I had a quick look and so far saw a piece by Dr James Cantor which confirmed your point about brain structure so choice didn't seem to feature all that  much ( apart from the choice of seeking help or not). I was pleased that the notion of "evil" didn't have any part in his research. 

> Though there was a tendency towards a slightly shorter stature and left-handedness........

As per my reply to Timmd, I don't think that brain anatomy excludes choice in such an easy way (although, I think the notion of real rather than perceived choice is impossible to justify in a scientific worldview).

Here's a brilliant podcast on this issue, and how the legal system deals with it (or fails to):

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/episodes/317421-blame

 Pefa 16 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

From previous thread - 

> I don't think that's true, sorry.  Each generation pretty much gets born afresh.  And your sentence is an example of the "concept creep" so prevalent among the SJW-left. 

> "Trauma" used to refer to something like being violently raped, or a soldier seeing a comrade being blown to bits.  

You didn't pick up on what I meant by traumas being passed down generations so I will explain. Many children of Jewish people that were in fascist controlled areas during World War Two were deeply affected by the traumas that happened to their parents in the form of emotional issues that would, if left unresolved be passed down to the next generation. This happens to people in every war situation and situations of poverty. Black Americans suffered badly before changes to civil rights in the 70s.

BTW you will like this, what we are, as in infinite eternal consciousness is completely gender free, it has no gender.Which is readily knowable if you open yourself up to what you really are. You should try it sometime. Namaste 

Post edited at 06:41
 Coel Hellier 16 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> Many children of Jewish people that were in fascist controlled areas during World War Two were deeply affected by the traumas that happened to their parents in the form of emotional issues that would, if left unresolved be passed down to the next generation.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree.  Yes, the history is a major part of their heritage and thus of their world-view, but I'm not aware of any evidence that "trauma" can be passed down to the next generation.  As I asserted, we're pretty much born anew.  (Which is actually a good thing.)  Yes, culture can be passed on, and the culture those kids grow up in will be strongly affected by the experiences of their parents and grandparents, but there's no passing on of emotional states beyond that.

> This happens to people in every war situation and situations of poverty. Black Americans suffered badly before changes to civil rights in the 70s.

Yes, Black Americans suffered badly in previous generations, but that's not that relevant to what kids are experiencing today, which is the important thing now. 

To make a comparison, a large fraction of a generation of young British males was traumatised is the trenches of the first world war -- but the children of the survivors grew up fine in emotional terms. 

As I said on that thread, too much wallowing in the past is unhelpful, compared to focusing on how things are today.  If we made every interaction with today's Germany as being "about" the two world wars, that would not be helpful or productive. 

Of course we should remember the past, but remembering is one thing; claiming "trauma" is another. 

1
 Pefa 16 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Sorry I didn't make my point clear enough. If you as a parent seen your parents hunted down by the German fascists or your terrified family, in hiding or taken away to be killed by the German fascists, then you as a parent would end up very traumatised and with PTSD. Which, if left untreated can result in the kids of the traumatised parent being reared with other traumas, emotional, addictions or neuroses. 

For talking sake say a PTSD parent who is traumatised from war or poverty or other matters, could in order to avoid facing the emotional trauma locked inside them be very cold, unemotional, distant or seemingly unloving toward their children. If your parent is like this or your household then you can develop complexes and neuroses yourself which if unresolved can also be passed down to your kids looking to you as a role model. 

The goal of your opinions I totally agree with as we should all strive to be living in the now 100% as that is all that exists-no future and no past-but your method requires a little bit more caring and understanding if you don't mind me saying as you will change nothing for the better by dismissing people whose recent ancestry were brutally traumatised. In fact by dismissing the effects of the conditions forced on these people by previous generations traumas and the subsequent current effects you are basically telling them to pull themselves together and stop being snowflakes which in turn carries on the pain and hurt. 

The effects of traumas,neuroses and  parental emotional deprivation run deep in people and greatly effect them from making them angry and emotionally stunted/immature individuals who treat others in that manner to even driving them to an early grave so we need to be very sensitive and caring. Only love, kindness and understanding can cancel out hate,injustice and ignorance. 

Post edited at 11:41
 TobyA 16 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Yes, Black Americans suffered badly in previous generations, but that's not that relevant to what kids are experiencing today, which is the important thing now.

Geez, of course it is because it structures the culture and society around the people born after that time. Wanting to deny the sheer obviousness of that seems to me a fundamentally ideological act on your part.

The baby boomer generation in Finland seems only in perhaps last decade to be coming to terms with traumatic childhoods many experienced because of the experience of so many of their fathers in the war (although the evacuation of Karelia meant that nearly half a million non-combatants, the majority women and children, also had very traumatic experiences from that period). The levels of killing that was done by the Finns, along with the very serious numbers of casualties they sustained left what increasingly is seen as a hidden broken generation - alcoholism, domestic abuse, mental health breakdowns and so on, what now everyone calls PTSD. Of course that trauma effects their children, and often enough the children of children.

Black Americans in significant parts of the country were facing not only domestic terrorism but actual state sanctioned and carried out violence at least into the 1960s. Mass incarceration and a criminal justice systems that is almost universally viewed as racially biased arguably continues that trauma to today. And you think because some black middle class kids get into good colleges, the rest of black America should just forget their own experiences of racism and the experience of their parents, grand parents and great grand parents?

You seem to think you are some Mr Spock like character seeing the world through pure logic and rationality - with no biases or deeply held assumptions about how the world works. But I assure you Coel, you're not. History matters - as Kenneth Boulding once said - we are who we are because we got this way.

3
 Coel Hellier 16 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> If you as a parent seen your parents hunted down by the German fascists or your terrified family, in hiding or taken away to be killed by the German fascists, then you as a parent would end up very traumatised and with PTSD.

Agreed, what that person experienced can leave them traumatised and with PTSD.

> Which, if left untreated can result in the kids of the traumatised parent being reared with other traumas, emotional, addictions or neuroses. 

That's where I disagree.  Unless the parent greatly mistreats the child, their own trauma is not passed on.  Parenting is generally much less a factor in moulding  a child than is generally supposed.  That's what things like twin studies tell us.

> For talking sake say a PTSD parent who is traumatised from war or poverty or other matters, could in order to avoid facing the emotional trauma locked inside them be very cold, unemotional, distant or seemingly unloving toward their children.

But does that really happen?  A parent, as a result, being so unloving towards that child that it damages the child?  (And anyhow, positive interactions with the other parent, or grandparents, or uncles and aunties, or siblings, or more or less any others, can  largely compensate for a "cold, unemotional, distant" parent.)

> If your parent is like this or your household then you can develop complexes and neuroses yourself which if unresolved can also be passed down to your kids looking to you as a role model. 

Evidence that any such affect then passes onto a second generation is pretty much non-existent.  Children are not that fragile. They are born anew. So long as they have positive relationships with at least some people, they'll be pretty much fine. 

Again, popular culture way over-estimates the influence of "upbringing" on the way kids turn out. 

> The effects of traumas,neuroses and  parental emotional deprivation run deep in people and greatly effect them ...

Yes, it can affect *them*.

> ... from making them angry and emotionally stunted/immature individuals who treat others in that manner ...

What you are actually asserting here is that, because of slavery, black parents who were slaves were then: "very cold, unemotional, distant or seemingly unloving toward their children".  I see absolutely no evidence that that was ever the case.    I suggest that they were every bit as warm-hearted, loving and nurturing towards their children as anyone else. 

 Coel Hellier 16 Nov 2019
In reply to TobyA:

> Geez, of course it is because it structures the culture and society around the people born after that time.

Which is fully compatible with saying we should focus on how things are today.

>  Wanting to deny the sheer obviousness of that seems to me a fundamentally ideological act on your part.

I don't want to deny that. I've never said that we should deny that.

> Black Americans in significant parts of the country were facing not only domestic terrorism but actual state sanctioned and carried out violence at least into the 1960s.

Which is not what the current generation in their teens and twenties have experienced in their lifetimes.

> Mass incarceration and a criminal justice systems that is almost universally viewed as racially biased arguably continues that trauma to today.

If it is "arguable" then go on, argue it.  The biggest factor in greater incarceration og blacks is that they commit more crime.  (Just as, the reason more males than females are incarcerates is because they commit more crime, especially of the sort that gets you incarcerated.)  And do, I don't think that America today is so racially biased that the experience of growing up as a black American can be sensibly labelled as "traumatic". That's just hyperbole, though hyperbolic concept-creep seems to be all the rage on woke left today.  

> And you think because some black middle class kids get into good colleges, the rest of black America should just forget their own experiences of racism and the experience of their parents, grand parents and great grand parents?

Here, you have replied to comments in which I explicitly said: "Of course we should remember the past ...", with "And you think ... black America should just forget ... the experience of their parents, grand parents and great grand parents?". 

And as for forgetting "their own experiences", that is what I have said -- several times -- that we *should* focus on.

> You seem to think you are some Mr Spock like character seeing the world through pure logic and rationality ..

Nope, I do not think that.

> ... - with no biases or deeply held assumptions about how the world works.

Nope, I have not said that and do not think it.

> But I assure you Coel, you're not.

And I can assure you, Toby, that I'm not!

> History matters ...

Yes, but not as much as commonly supposed.

Now, how about you write a comment addressing what I've actually said?

1
 Pefa 17 Nov 2019
In reply to marsbar:

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that study but I am aware of the work of Dr Gabor Mate who is a specialist on addiction and trauma, indeed he speaks of how his mother's trauma caused by the fascists (his family are Hungarian Jews) was passed down to him emotionally and how this has affected his interactions with his children in a very honest yet unsurprising way. 

1
 TobyA 17 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Yes, Black Americans suffered badly in previous generations, but that's not that relevant to what kids are experiencing today, which is the important thing now. 

Of course it's relevant. The past is what makes our society what it is now. 

And being convicted of a crime is not the same as committing crime, and what act is classified as a crime, or once classified - how seriously it is taken, are all social acts anyway that reflect the structure of society that makes those classifications. But you know all this anyway, so on you go...

 Pefa 17 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> That's where I disagree.  Unless the parent greatly mistreats the child, their own trauma is not passed on.  Parenting is generally much less a factor in moulding  a child than is generally supposed.  That's what things like twin studies tell us.

> But does that really happen?  A parent, as a result, being so unloving towards that child that it damages the child?  (And anyhow, positive interactions with the other parent, or grandparents, or uncles and aunties, or siblings, or more or less any others, can  largely compensate for a "cold, unemotional, distant" parent.)

Hi, if for example we are talking about Jewish folk during the war in Europe then would the grandparents aunts and uncles not be traumatised to if they managed to survive? And would that not apply to the entire group of survivors be they siblings or neighbours? Also the amount of time spent around specific traumatised parents would affect all the siblings so using my example of one surviving European Jewish parent being unable to show emotion because of the affect of trauma (not being unloving just unable to show it, which is very different thing). The children of that parent spend most of their time around that traumatised parent who they expect to receive most of their love from as well as learning how to be an emotionally mature adult from that parent but will also spend much time around a sibling or two who is also emotionally affected negatively by the parent so thinks that is also normal. 

> Evidence that any such affect then passes onto a second generation is pretty much non-existent.  Children are not that fragile. They are born anew. So long as they have positive relationships with at least some people, they'll be pretty much fine. 

As we discussed in the thread about genes and unbringing it is 50/50 as to what determines many conditions later in life from criminal behaviour to mental illness. Your last sentence above is very dismissive, curt and lacking empathy which tells me more about you than anything else if I'm honest. And your first sentence above lacks logic since there are numerous examples of how a traumatised parent can pass that down to their child from a parent becoming an addict through deprivation and trauma that goes on to affect their children down to the correlation between neglect and abuse with poverty. 

> Again, popular culture way over-estimates the influence of "upbringing" on the way kids turn out. 

I'm not referring to culture but to examples which show how traumas from war to poverty create dysfunctional families that are traumatised who then carry on the disfunction in other forms. Not always though as there are exceptions. 

> What you are actually asserting here is that, because of slavery, black parents who were slaves were then: "very cold, unemotional, distant or seemingly unloving toward their children".  I see absolutely no evidence that that was ever the case.    I suggest that they were every bit as warm-hearted, loving and nurturing towards their children as anyone else. 

No I'm going back to the USA of the 40s,50s and early 60s but I am also taking the affects of criminalization and poverty levels on the black community since then into account. There is a big difference between taking care of your kids, protecting and loving them and showing that love and emotion. That was what I was specifically referring to in my example,the demonstration of that love not whether there was love or not.Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough for you. 

Ps. It could also go the other way by transferring deep anxiety about that love onto the child by smothering and constantly worrying which can dramatically affect a child into developing neuroses or passing down the same anxiety to their children. 

Post edited at 01:41
1
 Coel Hellier 17 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

What is epigenetic inheritance?   It's a hugely over-hyped claim that may have rather small effects in a very few cases, but the studies barely pass statistical significance. 

Edit: A counter to the BBC piece: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2019/04/08/the-bbc-unwisely-jumps-...  

An examination of the papers making epigenetic claims: http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2018/05/grandmas-trauma-critical-appraisal-of...

Post edited at 08:39
 Coel Hellier 17 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> As we discussed in the thread about genes and unbringing it is 50/50 as to what determines many conditions later in life from criminal behaviour to mental illness.

It is roughly (rule of thumb) 50/50 between genetics and all forms of environment.  But "upbringing", according to the studies, is one of the less important forms of environment.  As, no, "upbringing" does not have a 50% influence on outcomes.

> through deprivation and trauma that goes on to affect their children down to the correlation between neglect and abuse with poverty.  

Nearly all the parental-child correlations, which many people attribute to "upbringing", are actually genetic:  parents with "genes for  ..." passing on those "genes for ...". 

 Pefa 17 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> It is roughly (rule of thumb) 50/50 between genetics and all forms of environment.  But "upbringing", according to the studies, is one of the less important forms of environment.  As, no, "upbringing" does not have a 50% influence on outcomes.

> Nearly all the parental-child correlations, which many people attribute to "upbringing", are actually genetic:  parents with "genes for  ..." passing on those "genes for ...". 

That's a bit vague so kids don't get neuroses and other emotional issues from their upbringing at all then as it is all passed on through genes and we can put people through all sorts of trauma and none of it will affect their kids or their kids? 

It's almost as if you don't know anyone and get all your info about people from books which you manipulate to fit what you want reality to be. Which incidentally denies that a very damaged person cannot rear their children without creating any neuroses or damaged emotional growth unless they were already preprogrammed to by their genes. It's ridiculous as i have been surrounded by examples that prove this wrong all my 53 years. It's BS. 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180709101155.htm

" The study showed that the children of parents who themselves had four or more adverse childhood experiences were at double the risk of having attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and were four time more likely to have mental health problems."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4150444/

" A mother's unresolved trauma may interfere with her ability to sensitively respond to her infant, thus affecting the development of attachment in her own child, and potentially contributing to the intergenerational transmission of trauma." 

Post edited at 09:46
1
 Pefa 17 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> An examination of the papers making epigenetic claims: http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2018/05/grandmas-trauma-critical-appraisal-of...

I had never heard of epigenetics other than that link and as you can see that is not what I have been saying here all along. I am coming from a purely behavioral angle and the effects of that. 

 Coel Hellier 17 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> That's a bit vague so kids don't get neuroses and other emotional issues from their upbringing at all then ...

The evidence is that family environment (that is, environment that would be shared by siblings) is not that significant.  Again, that conflicts with popular supposition, but it's what twin studies show. 

> ... and we can put people through all sorts of trauma and none of it will affect their kids or their kids? 

To a large extent, yes!   You will be harming the people you harm, but that's likely to be only a minor factor in how their kids turn out.  Isn't that a good thing? 

Indeed, it makes sense that evolution has made us this way. Over evolutionary time, most humans will have had very hard lives (vastly more so than the rather cushy lives with material affluence that we live today). As just one example, until rather recently, the experience of most humans was that more of their children died before age 5 than survived to that age (with each death being pretty traumatic for the parents). If this trauma added up over generations we'd all be basket cases; but luckily each generation is born anew.

> Which incidentally denies that a very damaged person cannot rear their children without creating any neuroses or damaged emotional growth ...

If I'm interpreting that multiple-negatives sentence correctly, then yes I deny it. I  assert that a very damaged person can indeed rear their children such that their children turn out fine. 

> " The study showed that the children of parents who themselves had four or more adverse childhood experiences were at double the risk of having attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and were four time more likely to have mental health problems." 

Also quote this bit of the paper: "However, these mental health and attitude factors only explained about a quarter of the association to their child's elevated behavioral health risks."

And then there's this: "With this data, they were able to find strong associations between the parents' adversity histories and their children's behavioral health problems, while controlling for factors such as family poverty and education level."

So did they also control for genetic factors?    After all, the whole point of children is that they carry their parents genes.  Similarities between successive generations can be and will be explained by shared genes.  If the study does not disentangle that effect from environmental ones (which is not at all easy in general, which is why twin studies are important), then the study is pretty much useless.

And be very sceptical of seemingly authoritative studies like this that don't explicitly discuss how they controlled for genetic factors.  After all, the social sciences are riddled with the blank-slate assumption that genes are irrelevant and can simply be ignored. 

 elsewhere 17 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

An association between increased childhood problems and parental trauma has a genetic control. Those at the low end of parental trauma have the same* genetic relationship to their children as those at the high end of parental trauma.

*yes that is an assumption open to question or further studies, but then even something as simple as physics (compared to human behaviour) is open to question and further studies.

Post edited at 11:55
 Coel Hellier 17 Nov 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> An association between increased childhood problems and parental trauma has a genetic control. Those at the low end of parental trauma have the same* genetic relationship to their children as those at the high end of parental trauma.

The same genetic relationship, yes, but not the same genes.  So no, there is no control sample there.  

If that's not obvious consider the following:

Finding: Parents who are alcoholics tend to have children who become alcoholics.

Environmental explanation:  Children copy alcoholic behaviour in their parents. Or, alcoholism leads to bad parenting, that then leads to bad outcomes in the child,  including alcoholism. 

Genetic explanation: Parental "genes for alcoholism" get passed on to children who then tend to have "genes for alcoholism".

Now let's consider your above point: Alcoholic parents do indeed have the same genetic relationship to their children as the non-alcoholic parents.  That indeed, is central to the genetic explanation.   But they don't have the same genes.  The alcoholic parents pass on "genes for alcoholism" whereas the non-alcoholic parents do not. 

So, without further information, we have no way of telling whether the above environmental explanation or the genetic explanation is more important.  That's why we need twin studies (comparing outcomes for fraternal twins to those for identical twins) where was can isolate the genetic contribution and so separate genetic and environmental effects. 

 Pefa 17 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

What is an alcoholic gene and how is this a part of our evolution?

I see what you mean about a control for genetics in any studies which makes sense.

> Also quote this bit of the paper: "However, these mental health and attitude factors only explained about a quarter of the association to their child's elevated behavioral health risks."

So they know a quarter are seriously affected by the parents behaviour and possibly another 3/4, when you say-

> To a large extent, yes!   You will be harming the people you harm, but that's likely to be only a minor factor in how their kids turn out.  Isn't that a good thing?

It can't have no effect and yet seriously affect a definite 1/4 and maybe another 3/4.

And in the last thread on genes and environment we concluded it was 50/50. So the environment ie poverty and war not just previous family traumas do have an affect on children of black Americans or Jewish survivors of WW2. 

Post edited at 14:22
1
OP Jon Stewart 17 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> What is an alcoholic gene and how is this a part of our evolution?

No such thing. But if you eliminate all other factors, as is the attempt in twins studies, you find that genetics have a massive influence in stuff like whether someone becomes an alcoholic. It absolutely cannot be a single gene (since there is nothing like enough genes in the genome for life to work this way), but the sum total of all the genes has the effect of hugely changing the probability of, e.g. becoming an alcoholic.

This effect of increasing likelihood of alcoholism isn't something that's selected for in evolution; it's an unfortunate consequence of other things that do increase fitness.

 Coel Hellier 17 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> What is an alcoholic gene and how is this a part of our evolution?

Genes for alcoholism are genes that, if you have them, then you are more likely to become an alcoholic.   These are part of our evolution in the sense that all our personality traits and attitudes have a strong generic component and are to a large extent products of evolution.

> So they know a quarter are seriously affected by the parents behaviour and possibly another 3/4, when you say-

They only know that if they have properly controlled for genetic factors, and the write-up in the link does not give enough information to be sure that they have (indeed, it's not mentioned at all, which suggests that they've not controlled for genetic factors).

> And in the last thread on genes and environment we concluded it was 50/50.

Yes, all environmental factors combined typically add up to about 50% of the variation.  But "shared environment", meaning the similarities in environment that siblings would share (which would thus include most of the parental-mental-health factors that you're pointing to) is usually a small or non-existence contribution to the overall "environment" score.

> So the environment ie poverty and war not just previous family traumas do have an affect on children of black Americans or Jewish survivors of WW2. 

You can't just leap from "all environmental factors added up account for 50% of the variation" to conclude that any particular aspect of the environment is therefore important. 

Again, studies that compare identical twins, fraternal twins, siblings, and unrelated children, can -- when properly done -- separate out genetic effects, "shared environment" affects, and "unshared environment" effects. 

 elsewhere 17 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

identical twin studies are all very nice but they exclude 99% of the population so far less feasible study.

 Coel Hellier 17 Nov 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> identical twin studies are all very nice but they exclude 99% of the population so far less feasible study.

Yes, there are fewer to study. Nevertheless, by making effort to study them you can accumulate data from thousands of identical twins (and compare to data from thousands of fraternal twins, and to data for siblings and to data from unrelated children). And samples of thousands are easily sufficient to learn important stuff about humans. And you can compare results for twins separated at birth and reared apart (which used to be common, before modern contraception) and for twins reared together.

All of this gives us by far the best information on the respective effects of genes and environment that we have.  But, the results are rather counter-intuitive (and some people, for ideological reasons, seem to dislike any notion that genes have any effect on our personalities), so many people just ignore this stuff or scheme up spurious reasons for discounting it. 

 Pefa 17 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Genes for alcoholism are genes that, if you have them, then you are more likely to become an alcoholic.  

I take it they apply to all types of substance addiction so what of other forms of addiction like behavioural?

> These are part of our evolution in the sense that all our personality traits and attitudes have a strong generic component and are to a large extent products of evolution.

And why would we evolve a gene for addiction? What survival advantage would that impart? 

> They only know that if they have properly controlled for genetic factors, and the write-up in the link does not give enough information to be sure that they have (indeed, it's not mentioned at all, which suggests that they've not controlled for genetic factors).

OK fair enough we can discard that study. 

> Yes, all environmental factors combined typically add up to about 50% of the variation.  But "shared environment", meaning the similarities in environment that siblings would share (which would thus include most of the parental-mental-health factors that you're pointing to) is usually a small or non-existence contribution to the overall "environment" score.

We have split the points for discussion into affects from various traumas or dysfunction on the children of parents then including that into the affects on a group ie. Black Americans or Jewish people in fascist areas during WW2. I for one don't believe for one moment that genes affect people equally to the environment as genes get their cues from the environment. I belatedly agreed to a 50/50 in the previous thread about genes  but I don't think in reality it is anywhere near that and I would say the affects of upbringing will be more than 50% considering how important parent child bonds are to forming a stable adult and that is before adding on all other environmental affects to. 

As I say why is there a so called addiction gene in evolution? 

Post edited at 18:04
1
 elsewhere 17 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

All very interesting but largely irrelevant to a study looking at an association between parental trauma and children's behaviour rather between genes and children's behaviour. 

An association with parental trauma is useful because it can be used as a predictor for the need for some mitigating measures for the child.

An association with genetics is less useful because it cannot be used as a predictor unless you know which genes to screen for.

Even if you know the genes it is not a predictor until you have the budget to screen for those genes.

Post edited at 18:42
 RomTheBear 17 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Problem is, most of most of these twin studies are mathematically flawed and vastly overestimate heritability. Reason: they fail to get 2nd order effects & complex interactions.

Post edited at 18:36
1
OP Jon Stewart 17 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> As I say why is there a so called addiction gene in evolution? 

This effect of increasing likelihood of alcoholism isn't something that's selected for in evolution; it's an unfortunate consequence of other things that do increase fitness.

 Coel Hellier 17 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> I take it they apply to all types of substance addiction so what of other forms of addiction like behavioural?

All behavioural traits have strong genetic influence.  But the set of genes for "overeating on junk food" is likely different from (but overlapping with) the set of genes for "overdoing alcohol".

> And why would we evolve a gene for addiction? What survival advantage would that impart? 

Well, overeating food has an obvious survival advantage in the vast majority of our evolutionary past where famine was common and storing food as body fat would enable you to survive.   It's now unhealthy in a world of supermarkets and unlimited junk-food, but was likely healthy for most of our past. 

Traits can also be by-products of things that are selected for, not things directly selected for themselves.

> As I say why is there a so called addiction gene in evolution? 

There isn't "an addiction gene".  There are lots of genes that affect people's personalities, and that can affect whether they develop addicted behaviour. 

 Coel Hellier 17 Nov 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> All very interesting but largely irrelevant to a study looking at an association between parental trauma and children's behaviour rather between genes and children's behaviour. 

Not at all. Whenever you are comparing parents to children, the shared genes are hugely relevant. 

> An association with genetics is less useful because it cannot be used as a predictor unless you know which genes to screen for.

Knowing that some outcome results from the parents' genes as opposed to the parents' behaviour is actually hugely useful and important for any interventions you want to make. 

 elsewhere 17 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> This effect of increasing likelihood of alcoholism isn't something that's selected for in evolution; it's an unfortunate consequence of other things that do increase fitness.

Maybe not even that. A gene with no impact on fitness that was irrelevant until the invention of beer and wine. Most DNA (98%!!) is junk with no known function but it does not seem to be deleted by evolution.

Post edited at 19:14
 Coel Hellier 17 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Problem is, most of most of these twin studies are mathematically flawed and vastly overestimate heritability. Reason: they fail to get 2nd order effects & complex interactions.

Says an anonymous non-entity on the internet. Send your critique to a refereed journal if you have something of substance to say.    And, no, they don't neglect "2nd order effects & complex interactions", the methodology allows for any complexity of gene-gene and gene-environment interaction. 

1
 elsewhere 17 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Not at all. Whenever you are comparing parents to children, the shared genes are hugely relevant. 

But if you don't have enough identical twins to study you can't know or say that.

> Knowing that some outcome results from the parents' genes as opposed to the parents' behaviour is actually hugely useful and important for any interventions you want to make. 

No. Knowing intervention A works and intervention B doesn't is hugely useful. 

 Coel Hellier 17 Nov 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> But if you don't have enough identical twins to study you can't know or say that.

People have studied thousands of them. That's enough to draw reliable conclusions about how humans work.

> No. Knowing intervention A works and intervention B doesn't is hugely useful. 

Did anyone say it wasn't? 

 elsewhere 17 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> People have studied thousands of them. 

ie far to few to determine which genes are relevant to human behaviour so genetic screening a poorer predictor than parental trauma

Post edited at 19:45
OP Jon Stewart 17 Nov 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> Maybe not even that. A gene with no impact on fitness that was irrelevant until the invention of beer and wine. Most DNA (98%!!) is junk with no known function but it does not seem to be deleted by evolution.

I'm not sure about this, and sorry for being wrong if you do have a good background in this. I thought that when the genome was first studied it looked like it was full of junk, because it didn't code for protein synthesis. But in the last ~20 years the function of the so-called junk was being uncovered?

 elsewhere 17 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart: 

For me it is a very interesting question why does junk DNA exist (if it does) as it doesn't make sense to me.

You may be right, I don't even have o level biology!

Post edited at 20:30
1
 Coel Hellier 17 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I thought that when the genome was first studied it looked like it was full of junk, because it didn't code for protein synthesis. But in the last ~20 years the function of the so-called junk was being uncovered?

Some of it does have function.  Even if a gene doesn't directly code for a protein, it can have function by regulating the effect of other genes, and quite a lot of DNA does that.    But, there is still lots of junk DNA that is genuinely junk DNA. 

 Coel Hellier 17 Nov 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> For me it is a very interesting question why does junk DNA exist

It exists because DNA-copying machinery in the cell copies DNA (and therefore copies junk DNA along with functional DNA).  It will continue to exist so long as the evolutionary cost of just propagating the junk DNA is less than the cost of creating a mechanism to get rid of it (which is not easy because that mechanism would have to know what is junk and what isn't). 

OP Jon Stewart 17 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Yes - I wonder how sure we'll be about the "genuine" junk in another 20 years (but of course there might be good reasons to believe in the genuineness of the junkiness).

As for genes for alcoholism: I would be very surprised if the large genetic influence (I assume exists) is to do with bits of DNA lurking in the junk that suddenly started to have some power once we discovered brewing. Much more likely they have other jobs, but which also, in the presence of booze and other environmental conditions (e.g. divorce), get expressed as propensity towards alcoholism.

I think that the unwillingness to accept the huge influence of genes on behaviour and outcomes from many people is rooted in a feeling that it's an affront to our control over things, as humans with a sense of agency. It just doesn't sit well, if you really believe free will and moral responsibility. Personally, I don't give a f*ck, I find it much more compelling and in tune with my world view to see the events of the world, full as it is of human monkeys, unfolding as a consequence of antecedent causes. But, that doesn't allow for moral cop-out, you're still much better off doing what is good than what is bad.

 RomTheBear 17 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Says an anonymous non-entity on the internet. Send your critique to a refereed journal if you have something of substance to say.   

All of this is well covered and well debunked in multiple papers unfortunately there is too much money to be made by psycho-fraudsters in academia for it to stop, despite the fact that most of their research is either mathematically flawed, or not even reproducible (and what little is reproducible / not flawed is just stuff that has already been known for thousands of years.)

> And, no, they don't neglect "2nd order effects & complex interactions", the methodology allows for any complexity of gene-gene and gene-environment interaction. 

Absolute rubbish. Measurement in twin studies are done in pairs, so only the variation within each pair is actually being measured. Since each twin pair shares geography, food, schooling, etc., most of the environmental variability or communality that exists between individuals in the wider population is de facto excluded.

You just need to look a the variance of results these studies. It's all over the place. the genetic contribution to a trait should not change over time or geography, given the slow pace of human biological  evolution, and yet is varies massively across geography and cohort. 

Of course their answer to that is that the contribution of genetic factors and the inheritability varies depending on the environment. which is completely nonsensical and circular.

By most the criteria normally applied in science the vast majority of GWA studies should now be refuted.

Post edited at 22:33
3
OP Jon Stewart 17 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

I'm sorry, I just don't believe that you understand this better than all the world class biologists, psychologists etc whose books I read. It's simply not plausible. 

 RomTheBear 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I'm sorry, I just don't believe that you understand this better than all the world class biologists, psychologists etc whose books I read. It's simply not plausible. 

And yet, most of their research has been debunked or is not reproducible. It’s laughable. Most world class psychologists are fraudsters. I came to the conclusion after many years of reading them. The entire field is shot. It attracts only mediocre scientists and suckers. There aren’t any theories about human behaviour that have held over time (appart from anything that is obvious or has already been known for millennias by grandmas, crooks, and magicians)

There is a yuuuuuuuge credibility crisis out there. Not a day passes without a psychology study being published and contradicting previous ones. Don’t he blinded by “status” and “award”. Psychology studies replicate even less well than economic studies. 

Post edited at 00:35
2
 RomTheBear 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I'm sorry, I just don't believe that you understand this better than all the world class biologists, psychologists etc whose books I read. It's simply not plausible.  

I’m not the only one who understand this better. Your average taxi driver, car salesman, or cop  understands and predicts human behaviour with a higher degree of accuracy than 99% of psychologists.

Why ? Because their survival and livelihood depends on being good at it.

For a psychologist, survival depends on getting university grants by publishing articles that pleases the political interests of the powers at be. No wonder only 36% of their findings can be replicated.

Post edited at 01:09
1
 Jim Fraser 18 Nov 2019
In reply to blurty:

> ... Most trans people claim that gender is a choice and is fluid. ...

Really? Where have you been hiding for the last decade or two?

Science is still in the early stages of describing how good or how awful nature is at doing this binary gender thing. We already know that there are hundreds of conditions that are deviations from the binary standard that has long been installed as a social norm. In decades to come I expect science will fill the many gaps in our knowledge and help to underpin new standards of civilised behaviour.

 RomTheBear 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Yes - I wonder how sure we'll be about the "genuine" junk in another 20 years (but of course there might be good reasons to believe in the genuineness of the junkiness).

> As for genes for alcoholism: I would be very surprised if the large genetic influence (I assume exists) is to do with bits of DNA lurking in the junk that suddenly started to have some power once we discovered brewing. Much more likely they have other jobs, but which also, in the presence of booze and other environmental conditions (e.g. divorce), get expressed as propensity towards alcoholism.

Well, alcoholism is a good example. A large twin study in Finland found a 30% difference in the contribution of genes to alcoholism between two different cohorts. Using the same methodology  and same data. If the contribution of genetic factors to a trait varies so drastically with even small environmental changes then by definition you have been overestimating massively the influence of genes, and missed complexity / second order effects.

Post edited at 08:58
1
 Coel Hellier 18 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> All of this is well covered and well debunked in multiple papers ...

Cites?

> ... unfortunately there is too much money to be made by psycho-fraudsters in academia for it to stop, despite the fact that most of their research is either mathematically flawed, or not even reproducible (and what little is reproducible / not flawed is just stuff that has already been known for thousands of years.)

Says an anonymous non-entity on the internet.

> Since each twin pair shares geography, food, schooling, etc., most of the environmental variability or communality that exists between individuals in the wider population is de facto excluded.

Which is why they compare twins separated at birth and reared apart with twins reared together.

> It's all over the place. the genetic contribution to a trait should not change over time or geography, given the slow pace of human biological  evolution, and yet is varies massively across geography and cohort. 

That's a basic misunderstanding.  When a "genetic contribution" is quoted, what that gives is the fraction of the total variation that is explained by genes.   

While the disparity in genes might not differ much between studies, the disparity in environment can vary a lot.   So, if one studies compares children all living in one town in Finland, then the environmental disparity might be low, so the fraction of the total disparity that is genetic will be high.  

If another study compares those Finnish kids to kids in Botswana and  a Brazilian favella, then the environmental disparity across the study will be much greater, so the the fraction of the total disparity that is genetic will be much lower.

> By most the criteria normally applied in science the vast majority of GWA studies should now be refuted.

Says an anonymous non-entity on the internet.

> And yet, most of their research has been debunked or is not reproducible.

Cites regarding twin studies or similar?

> Psychology studies replicate even less well than economic studies. 

Lots of areas of psychology are pretty much a different field from the twin-studies stuff.  Pointing to lack of reproducibility in *some* areas of psychology doesn't necessarily translate to other areas.

Actually, the twin studies stuff has been consistently reproduced for decades now.  It is solid science.

> Well, alcoholism is a good example. A large twin study in Finland found a 30% difference in the contribution of genes to alcoholism between two different cohorts. Using the same methodology  and same data.

Citation?   Money where mouth is? 

 RomTheBear 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Cites?

> Says an anonymous non-entity on the internet.

> Which is why they compare twins separated at birth and reared apart with twins reared together.

No, they don’t, there are only  a handful of cases of twins reared appart. This is extremely rare. In the most high profile ones researchers have simply refused categorically to share the raw data of their experiment with the public. It smells like total fraud to me. 
In any case even if you find twins reared appart the study will still be biased as twins are by definition born at the same time, so there are strong cohorts effects.

Unless we allow human cloning and get large numbers of human clones born at separate times in separate locations you’ll never get a proper control.

> That's a basic misunderstanding.  When a "genetic contribution" is quoted, what that gives is the fraction of the total variation that is explained by genes.   

That’s exactly what I meant.

> While the disparity in genes might not differ much between studies, the disparity in environment can vary a lot.   So, if one studies compares children all living in one town in Finland, then the environmental disparity might be low, so the fraction of the total disparity that is genetic will be high.  

> If another study compares those Finnish kids to kids in Botswana and  a Brazilian favella, then the environmental disparity across the study will be much greater, so the the fraction of the total disparity that is genetic will be much lower.

I agree but this leads to a completely circular argument as the conclusion of this argument is also its premise. This is simply illogical.

> Says an anonymous non-entity on the internet.

> Cites regarding twin studies or similar?

> Lots of areas of psychology are pretty much a different field from the twin-studies stuff.  Pointing to lack of reproducibility in *some* areas of psychology doesn't necessarily translate to other areas.

> Actually, the twin studies stuff has been consistently reproduced for decades now.  It is solid science.

Some of them are highly reproducible but reproducing something with a broken, logically  flawed method isn’t going to help you.

> Citation?   Money where mouth is? 

 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.14533

Post edited at 11:57
1
 Coel Hellier 18 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> No, they don’t, there are only  a handful of cases of twins reared appart.

Wrong, there are hundreds that have been studied.

> This is extremely rare.

It's rare now, yes.  But it used to be common.  Before modern birth control newborns were often given up for adoption, and it was routine for twins to be separated and adopted separately.   Thus twin studies managed to find hundreds of then-adults who were separately-raised twins. 

> In the most high profile ones researchers have simply refused categorically to share the raw data of their experiment with the public. It smells like total fraud to me. 

Citation? 

> In any case even if you find twins reared appart the study will still be biased as twins are by definition born at the same time, so there are strong cohorts effects.

One is comparing *identical* twins reared apart with *fraternal* twins reared apart.  Timing effects are thus the same for both. 

Your comment is another example of irrelevant blather trying to come up with spurious reasons for discounting solid science.

> Unless we allow human cloning and get large numbers of human clones born at separate times in separate locations you’ll never get a proper control.

And yet, in giving us both identical twins and fraternal twins, nature gives us the near-perfect control to separate out genetic effects.

> That’s exactly what I meant.

And since it's a well-known aspect of such studies it is not in any way a problem with such studies.

> I agree but this leads to a completely circular argument as the conclusion of this argument is also its premise. This is simply illogical.

Sorry, can you actually explain what you're trying to assert there?

> Some of them are highly reproducible but reproducing something with a broken, logically  flawed method isn’t going to help you.

More empty blather.  You've given no solid reason for rejecting twin-studies methods.

 Coel Hellier 18 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

>>> Well, alcoholism is a good example. A large twin study in Finland found a 30% difference in the contribution of genes to alcoholism between two different cohorts. Using the same methodology  and same data.

>> Citation?   Money where mouth is? 

Right, so now we can examine the study. The central point here is that the different cohorts have markedly different alcohol consumption. 

"Studies in western countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States have noted higher levels of alcohol consumption in more recent birth cohorts. Similar findings have been reported in Finland, as the large birth cohorts born after World War II started to drink more than cohorts preceding them. Finnish alcohol policies have traditionally been strict since the ending of Prohibition in 1932, but a progressive liberalization began with a 1969 law allowing convenience stores to sell mild alcoholic beverages such as beer. Subsequently, alcohol consumption increased steadily with annual per capita consumption increasing from 3.6 litres of pure alcohol in 1968 to 10.8 litres in 2016."

So, quite clearly, there are big changes in "environment" causing later cohorts to drink 3 times as much as earlier cohorts.   

If there are big differences in the environment, between cohorts, then it is hardly a surprise that the relative contributions of genes and environment to the total variation then changes between cohorts. 

Again, this is a well known property of such studies.  It is not in any sense a problem with the studies.  Any introductory textbook on such studies will explain this stuff.   It is not as though the researchers have simply over-looked such effects and thus the studies are flawed.  

So, no, nothing you've said gives any actual reason to doubt the studies.  (It is, of course, something that needs to be borne in mind to prevent making over-naive interpretations of the studies.)

 RomTheBear 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Wrong, there are hundreds that have been studied.

> It's rare now, yes.  But it used to be common.  Before modern birth control newborns were often given up for adoption, and it was routine for twins to be separated and adopted separately.   Thus twin studies managed to find hundreds of then-adults who were separately-raised twins. 

> Citation? 

> One is comparing *identical* twins reared apart with *fraternal* twins reared apart.  Timing effects are thus the same for both. 

Yes, they both have the same cohort bias.

> Your comment is another example of irrelevant blather trying to come up with spurious reasons for discounting solid science.

> And yet, in giving us both identical twins and fraternal twins, nature gives us the near-perfect control to separate out genetic effects.

Again, circular nonsense, in order to assert that this is a near perfect control your need to start with the premise that identical twin do not share a more similar environment than fraternal twins do, this is the central assumption on which these studies are based, which is false, a point that most authors of twins studies have conceded for at least 40 years. What did they do instead ? They simply argued that the fact the identical twin have more similar environments is due to the fact that they elicit their own environment. So the control assumption on which these studies are based stem essentially from their conclusion, in a infinite loop of flawed reasoning.

> And since it's a well-known aspect of such studies it is not in any way a problem with such studies.

> Sorry, can you actually explain what you're trying to assert there?

How many times do I need to explain it ?

> More empty blather.  You've given no solid reason for rejecting twin-studies methods.

I’ve given at least four reasons:

- the key central assumptions are known to be false

- publication bias is huge

- they do not capture second order effects

- they are based on a circular argument

No wonder these studies are frequently incompatible with epidemiological studies with proper methodologies

the whole field of twin studies and psychology is in a very very bad place right now. They have big big questions to answers and the cracks are starting to be too obvious to ignore.

its in fact very easy to show the method is flawed by using via negativa, which has been done. For example, the answer to stupid questions such has “did you have your back rubbed recently” is shown to be highly inheritable using the state of the art twin studies methodology.

Post edited at 12:57
1
OP Jon Stewart 18 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

You're worse than Coel for moving the goalposts. 

The replication problem in experimental psychology is real, but that's not the subject of discussion. I'm not referring to some paper or other by some psychology team or other, I'm talking about the current state of our understanding of the biology of human behaviour. That's a lot wider than psychology. 

The methodology of twins studies to evaluate heritability of traits has not been debunked; and the academics doing this research know rather more about the limitations than you or I. 

I think I'll stick to taking Robert sapolsky seriously, rather than you. 

 RomTheBear 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> You're worse than Coel for moving the goalposts. 

> The replication problem in experimental psychology is real, but that's not the subject of discussion. I'm not referring to some paper or other by some psychology team or other, I'm talking about the current state of our understanding of the biology of human behaviour. That's a lot wider than psychology. 

The current state of understanding of human behaviour is probably the same as it was a thousand years ago. Its just that now we have lucrative industry made out of publishing rubbish papers, books etc etc.

> The methodology of twins studies to evaluate heritability of traits has not been debunked; and the academics doing this research know rather more about the limitations than you or I. 

I doubt that many of them realise they don’t know what they are doing. Most psychologist only have a skin deep understanding of statistics and probability (which is extremely hard) and the field attracts mediocrity and dishonesty.

Some of them may know that what they are doing is total rubbish the problem is that without it they don’t have money / carreers / research grants etc etc so they just come up with more and more convulated and circular explanations

You can check it for yourself, the two main assumptions on which twin studies are based are categorically proven to be false.

I used to think exactly like you until I put my nose in the method these people use. 

Post edited at 13:16
1
 Coel Hellier 18 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Again, circular nonsense, in order to assert that this is a near perfect control your need to start with the premise that identical twin do not share a more similar environment than fraternal twins do, ...

If you take identical twins, separated at birth and reared apart, and compare their outcomes to fraternal twins, separated at birth and reared apart, then the premise would be pretty sound.

> How many times do I need to explain it ?

Once.

> I’ve given at least four reasons:

> - the key central assumptions are known to be false

Which is not true for separated-at-birth twins. 

> - publication bias is huge

You've presented nothing to support that claim re twin studies.

> - they do not capture second order effects

Oh yes they do.  They make no assumption about causal mechanism, and so include all effects, primary, secondary, tertiary or whatever.

> ... - they are based on a circular argument

You've still not clearly stated what is supposedly "circular" about the argument.

> No wonder these studies are frequently incompatible with epidemiological studies with proper methodologies

Cites for this claim?

> the whole field of twin studies and psychology is in a very very bad place right now.

Nope, you're tarring way too broad a swathe with the same brush.  There *are* fields within psychology where claims usually have low statistical significance and where the "replication crisis" is real.  Twin studies are not one of them. 

> its in fact very easy to show the method is flawed by using via negativa, which has been done.

Cites for this claim?

> For example, the answer to stupid questions such has “did you have your back rubbed recently” is shown to be highly inheritable using the state of the art twin studies methodology.

Cite? And anyhow, why wouldn't the answer to such question have a genetic component?

OP Jon Stewart 18 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> The current state of understanding of human behaviour is probably the same as it was a thousand years ago. Its just that now we have lucrative industry made out of publishing rubbish papers, books etc etc.

> I doubt that many of them realise they don’t know what they are doing. Most psychologist only have a skin deep understanding of statistics and probability (which is extremely hard) and the field attracts mediocrity and dishonesty.

Are you throwing out the whole of neurobiology, endocrinology, etc? Our understanding of human behaviour is not based on wobbly findings from experimental psychology. 

I will have a look at the critique of twins studies methodology and see how the competing views stack up. Your claims sound vastly overblown to me. 

Post edited at 13:57
 RomTheBear 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> If you take identical twins, separated at birth and reared apart, and compare their outcomes to fraternal twins, separated at birth and reared apart, then the premise would be pretty sound.

The vast majority of these studies do not used reared apart twins. In the few that were made, it often turns out that twins were not really reared apart, or the study was simply fraudulent.

In ANY case, identical twins reared apart will obviously share age, birth date, and sex, will be very similar in physical appearance, and usually grow up in very similar cultural and socioeconomic environments, in similar geographical areas. There are too many possible biases.

> Once.

Already did three times.

> Which is not true for separated-at-birth twins. 

It is. We now know that even identical twins do not share the same genes.
We knew for a while that epigenetic factors triggered by the environment and lifestyles can slow or shut genes down, on top of that we have recently discovered that the sequence itself can be altered. In a nutshell, even identical twins will not share the exact same DNA. 

Essentially pretty much all of the biology book need to be updated.

> You've presented nothing to support that claim re twin studies.

> Oh yes they do.  They make no assumption about causal mechanism, and so include all effects, primary, secondary, tertiary or whatever.

Wrong. They pretend to be able to isolate the percentage of variation in a trait that is due to genetic factor. This is clearly not true as this rests on assumptions which assume no such second order effects.

Take a very simple one dimensional problem, assume two twins reared apart have a genetic predisposition to Type 2 diabetes. In a hunter gatherer environment, they will show no correlation.
Now move them to Glasgow in the 21st century and they will show high correlation, hence false conclusions of "genetic determinism".

Now take this simple example and add a 100 dimensions to it. You realise very quickly that the numbers you get have absolutely zero scientific meaning.

> You've still not clearly stated what is supposedly "circular" about the argument.

I did in black and white, twice, just pay attention.

> Cites for this claim?

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cxo.12845

> Nope, you're tarring way too broad a swathe with the same brush.  There *are* fields within psychology where claims usually have low statistical significance and where the "replication crisis" is real.  Twin studies are not one of them. 

The reported statistical significance of those studies is not their actual statistical significance. This is valid for all fields that use hypothesis testing and have a publication bias. Put simply, if a thousand studies are made and one of them reports a p-value of 1/1000 and this is the only one being published, then the p-value is misleading at the publication level - although it is correct at the individual level.

The problem is particularly acute in in psychology, social science, but is becoming ever more present in biology and clinical trials as well. Given the huge impact that these co called "scientists" have on our life they shouldn't be able to get away with this.

Once we start giving them a bit more skin in the game it will work a lot better.

Post edited at 15:00
1
 Coel Hellier 18 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> The vast majority of these studies do not used reared apart twins.

Which doesn't matter, so long as the studies that do used reared-apart twins show the same results.

>  There are only a handful that were ever conducted. in most cases, these studies were either shown to be totally fraudulent, or the twins were not really reared apart,...

One notes the total absence of a citation, which seems typical of your style. 

> ... and in ANY case, identical twins reared apart will share age and sex, will be very similar in physical appearance, and usually grow up in very similar cultural and socioeconomic environments, in similar geographical areas.

It is totally accepted that the studies study the range of environments actually studied in the study. 

> We knew for a while that epigenetic factors triggered by the environment and lifestyles can slow or shut genes down, on top of that we have recently discovered that the sequence itself can be altered. In a nutshell, even identical twins will not share the exact same DNA. 

These are tiny effects overall.   Again, you're giving a lot of largely irrelevant bluster.

> Wrong. They pretend to be able to isolate the percentage of variation in a trait that is due to genetic factor. This is clearly not true as this rests on assumptions which assume no such second order effects.

Wrong, there is no assumption of no such second order effects.  You're not even being clear on what you mean by "second-order effects".

> Put simply, if a thousand studies are made and one of them reports a p-value of 1/1000 and this is the only one being published, then the p-value is misleading at the publication level - although it is correct at the individual level.

True, but you've presented to evidence that this affects twin-studies, as generally presented in the literature.  The findings of twin studies generally do replicate, multiple times. 

> The problem is particularly acute in in psychology, social science, but is becoming ever more present in biology and clinical trials as well.

Again, there are indeed *some* areas of science where this is true.  You are wrong to simply assert, backed by nothing, that it is true of behavioural genetics.  Again, the studies do replicate and have been replicated.   

This review article by Plomin specifically discussed replications and focused on multiply replicated findings:

"Top 10 Replicated Findings From Behavioral Genetics"

https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-plomin.pdf

 RomTheBear 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> >  There are only a handful that were ever conducted. in most cases, these studies were either shown to be totally fraudulent, or the twins were not really reared apart,...

> One notes the total absence of a citation, which seems typical of your style. 

You're not providing any citation either. It's easy enough to verify my claims.

I suggest you read this : https://www.amazon.co.uk/Trouble-Twin-Studies-Jay-Joseph/dp/113869892X

I'll do a small copyright violation and list out some of the problems he identified :"

  • Many twin pairs experienced late separation, and many pairs were reared together in the same home for several years
  • Most twin pairs grew up in similar socioeconomic and cultural environments
  • MZA correlations were inflated by non-genetic cohort effects, based on common age, common sex, and other factors
  • Twins share a common pre-natal (intrauterine) environment, and the MZA pre-natal environment is more similar than the DZA pre-natal environment
  • TRA study findings might not be (or are not) generalizable to the non-twin population
  • In studies based on volunteer twins, a bias was introduced because pairs had to have known of each other’s existence to be able to participate in the study
  • MZA samples were biased in favor of more similar pairs, meaning that studied MZA pairs are not representative of MZAs as a population
  • The similar physical appearance and level of attractiveness of MZAs will elicit more similar behavior-influencing treatment by their social environments
  • Twins sometimes had financial and other types of incentives to exaggerate or lie about their degree of separation and behavioral similarity, and their accounts are not always reliable
  • There were several questionable or false assumptions underlying the statistical procedures used in the studies
  • MZA pairs were not assigned to random environments
  • There was researcher bias in favor of genetic interpretations of the data
  • There were problems with the IQ and personality tests used
  • The validity of concepts such as IQ, personality, and heritability are questionable"
  • In cases where evaluations and testing were performed by the same person, there was a potential for experimenter bias in favor of twin similarity"

> It is totally accepted that the studies study the range of environments actually studied in the study. 

> These are tiny effects overall.   Again, you're giving a lot of largely irrelevant bluster.

There is no indication that these effect are weak on twins studies. Again, you are excluding possibel seocnd order effects. We simply do not know. The scientific thing to do is therefore to say "we don't know" instead of publishing rubbish. 

> Wrong, there is no assumption of no such second order effects.  You're not even being clear on what you mean by "second-order effects".

What I mean by second order effect is that even minute biases in a study can have knock on effects which are amplified down the line.

> True, but you've presented to evidence that this affects twin-studies, as generally presented in the literature.  The findings of twin studies generally do replicate, multiple times

Many if not most of them actually find contradictory results. See for example studies on alchol abuse, myopia, diabetes, dementia...

> Again, there are indeed *some* areas of science where this is true.  You are wrong to simply assert, backed by nothing, that it is true of behavioural genetics.  Again, the studies do replicate and have been replicated.   

> This review article by Plomin specifically discussed replications and focused on multiply replicated findings:

Please, Plomin doesn't even get that correlation is intransitive, and he's supposed to be the pope of twin studies !
His work used to be pretty solid and of very good quality until he started partnering up with politicians. 
That tells you everything you need to know about that state of things in this field. 

Given the thousands of twin studies being made, if all they can find is ten that are supposedly "solid", this might as well be due to pure chance anyway....

Post edited at 15:51
1
 RomTheBear 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Are you throwing out the whole of neurobiology, endocrinology, etc? Our understanding of human behaviour is not based on wobbly findings from experimental psychology. 

> I will have a look at the critique of twins studies methodology and see how the competing views stack up. Your claims sound vastly overblown to me. 

To be clear I am not saying there are no valid findings in these domains. There are very robust findings using very robust methods.
However twin studies are logically flawed from the onset and based on assumptions known to be false. In any other domain such a method would have been completely discredited 40 years ago but many cushy academic jobs depend on it at the moment.

1
 Coel Hellier 18 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

"In the final analysis, this book is not reasoning forward from a known set of facts, seeking their explanation; it is confabulating backwards from a fixed conclusion, eliding any segments of the evidence that don’t lead to the preordained destination. The Trouble With Twin Studies is science denial"

https://psqtest.typepad.com/blogPostPDFs/ArsonistsAtTheCathedral_10-22-2015...

 Pefa 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> All behavioural traits have strong genetic influence.  But the set of genes for "overeating on junk food" is likely different from (but overlapping with) the set of genes for "overdoing alcohol".

> Well, overeating food has an obvious survival advantage in the vast majority of our evolutionary past where famine was common and storing food as body fat would enable you to survive.   It's now unhealthy in a world of supermarkets and unlimited junk-food, but was likely healthy for most of our past. 

> Traits can also be by-products of things that are selected for, not things directly selected for themselves.

> There isn't "an addiction gene".  There are lots of genes that affect people's personalities, and that can affect whether they develop addicted behaviour. 

Right so you don't know why some genes mean people will be addicts but you made a good effort to guess although that doesn't answer the question because people are addicts to avoid pain from old trauma ie. They self medicate. So the cause, the source of addiction is from a persons past trauma in their lifetime, childhood or what not. Now say there is such a thing as genes that make you more prone to being an addict (which I seriously doubt) then the whole reason for them springs from trauma. Whether that trauma is starvation of your group in past generations or whatever, it still comes from trauma and would be a reaction to trauma. Anyway you look at it. 

In your explanation we evolve to quickly gorge on food to fatten up for survival and that helped us to flourish as a species but now we don't have to so it is now a killer gene.

So all the people who are addicted to substances are people acting out this old survival method and nothing more, that is what addiction is. 

So why do people take it to feel better and escape from pain, which is why people take substances? I mean it's not because they think it will help them live longer. 

And what of behavioural addictions, to work, sport, gambling, Internet, sex, etcetera? Any behavioural psychologist knows they to are avoidance tactics to escape from emotional pain and trauma and substance addiction can be easily swapped with behavioural addictions to avoid pain and trauma. 

As I pointed out people are addicts not because they needed to gorge on magic mushies every day 10,000 years ago but because traumas are left untreated so people self medicate and that is what an addict is, plain and simple. Someone self medicating to avoid the pain of past traumas that culturally we would in ancient times have treated not avoided. 

Post edited at 17:50
1
 RomTheBear 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> "In the final analysis, this book is not reasoning forward from a known set of facts, seeking their explanation; it is confabulating backwards from a fixed conclusion, eliding any segments of the evidence that don’t lead to the preordained destination. The Trouble With Twin Studies is science denial"

Pseudo scientist with no significant findings that hold over time shouting science denial....amazing....  I note that this article doesn’t address any of the issues that are pointed out.

the golden nugget is to be found in the article itself : « The EEA is false, but it doesn’t really matter. » really ? The central assumption on which these twin  studies are conducted is false but it doesn’t matter ? This is a joke.

Reading through the author seems to say that the book suggest none of these traits are inheritable. This is totally false. It says nothing about that. Nobody is saying that there aren’t inheritable traits - it’s obvious they exist. It just that the methodology is completely flawed.

The height of hypocrisy. You know, real scientists such as Feynman had only contempt for these people and I understand why.

Post edited at 18:14
1
 Coel Hellier 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> Right so you don't know why some genes mean people will be addicts but you made a good effort to guess although ...

The evidence is quite clear that addiction to alcohol has a strong genetic component.  You're right, we don't know which genes, exactly how they have their effect, and their evolutionary history, but we don't need to know those things in order to know that genes strongly influenced whether we become alcoholics. 

> So the cause, the source of addiction is from a persons past trauma in their lifetime, childhood or what not. 

One should not talk about "the" cause as though there were only one; usually there are multiple causes for nearly everything.  

And how you do know that alcohol addition is usually or always a response to past trauma?

 Coel Hellier 18 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> the golden nugget is to be found in the article itself : « The EEA is false, but it doesn’t really matter. » really ? The central assumption on which these twin  studies are conducted is false but it doesn’t matter ? This is a joke.

No, it's not a joke.  What it is saying is that the EEA ("equal environment assumption") is not fully true (so "false"), but that it is sufficiently close to being true that it is good enough assumption that the studies are basically valid.    

All of science depends on simplifications.  The real world is too complex to deal with the full complexity all in one go.  So one makes simplifying assumptions. Much of the art of science is then judging whether the assumptions are sufficiently close to the truth that the answer is still valid. 

For example, every single climate and climate-change model will make a huge range of simplifying  assumptions -- and all of these will be false in the literal sense of being not exactly true.  But they'll generally be good enough, good enough that the overall consensus can be relied upon, and the overall predictions of the models taken as valid, within some range of uncertainty.   To simply point to a simplifying assumption as a means of claiming that the results are invalid is a denialist tactic. 

 RomTheBear 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> The evidence is quite clear that addiction to alcohol has a strong genetic component. 

Run the same studies in Islamic countries where alcohol consumption is banned, and see how different the results are, just for a laugh.

I don’t understand how you don’t see the circularity.

Post edited at 19:06
1
 Coel Hellier 18 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Run the same studies in Islamic countries where alcohol consumption is banned, and see how different the results are, just for a laugh.

As I've said several times: yes, if you make a major change to the environment, then you'll likely change the ratio of how much of the total variation is genetic versus environmental.  This is not surprising and is well understood. 

> I don’t understand how you don’t see the circularity.

At this point I'm not sure if you know what a "circular argument" actually means. You've still not pointed to any actually circular argument within these studies.

1
 RomTheBear 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> No, it's not a joke.  What it is saying is that the EEA ("equal environment assumption") is not fully true (so "false"), but that it is sufficiently close to being true that it is good enough assumption that the studies are basically valid.    

The problem is that you cannot know whether it’s good enough.

> All of science depends on simplifications.  The real world is too complex to deal with the full complexity all in one go.  So one makes simplifying assumptions. Much of the art of science is then judging whether the assumptions are sufficiently close to the truth that the answer is still valid. 

That’s not the scientific method I’m afraid. You are supposed to make a hypothesis and then run experiment and collect data to confirm it or reject it. You’re not supposed to use unconfirmed assumptions.

If you take a Popperian view,  most theories in pshychology and behavourial genetics in fact cannot be called scientific theories.

> For example, every single climate and climate-change model will make a huge range of simplifying  assumptions -- and all of these will be false in the literal sense of being not exactly true.  But they'll generally be good enough, good enough that the overall consensus can be relied upon, and the overall predictions of the models taken as valid, within some range of uncertainty.   To simply point to a simplifying assumption as a means of claiming that the results are invalid is a denialist tactic. 

Very bad comparison. You are confusing using a simplified model with using flawed methodology. It’s ok to use simplified models as long as they can validated by experiment. It’s not ok to use models that are logically flawed and can never be tested.
 


 

2
 RomTheBear 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> As I've said several times: yes, if you make a major change to the environment, then you'll likely change the ratio of how much of the total variation is genetic versus environmental.  This is not surprising and is well understood. 

> At this point I'm not sure if you know what a "circular argument" actually means. You've still not pointed to any actually circular argument within these studies.

Isn’t that obvious ? If the environnement can change drastically the share of variation you attribute to genetic effect, then it means the share of the variation attributed to genes in fact also depends on the environment. Your conclusion (genetic factor explain x% of the variance) is therefore based on the premise that you have controlled for the environment, which you justify from the conclusion itself. You get stuck in an infinite loop of flawed reasoning.

The only logical conclusion you can take is that the genetic effect observed are only valid in the study sample, but nothing of scientific value can be drawn from it, it cannot be used to make inference, it doesn’t give you any law, in other words, that’s not a scientific theory, it’s unusable and of little interest.

Post edited at 20:06
1
 Coel Hellier 18 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> The problem is that you cannot know whether it’s good enough.

Partly you can, because you can look for concordance with other types of study.

> That’s not the scientific method I’m afraid. You are supposed to make a hypothesis and then run experiment and collect data to confirm it or reject it. You’re not supposed to use unconfirmed assumptions.

You have much too simplistic a view of science.  Every single science uses simplifying assumptions ("models") and then tests out how well these models work. And lots of sciences don't do experiments (including all those that deal with things too big or on too long a timescale to experiment on, e.g. paleontology, geology, cosmology, etc).

> If you take a Popperian view,  most theories in pshychology and behavourial genetics in fact cannot be called scientific theories.

Simplistic interpretations of a Popperian maxim are also too simplistic.

> It’s ok to use simplified models as long as they can validated by experiment. It’s not ok to use models that are logically flawed and can never be tested.

But then the twin studies are not logically flawed, and can be tested by comparison with other types of study.

 Coel Hellier 18 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> If the environnement can change drastically the share of variation you attribute to genetic effect, then it means the share of the variation attributed to genes in fact also depends on the environment.

Obviously, yes indeed.

> Your conclusion (genetic factor explain x% of the variance) is therefore based on the premise that you have controlled for the environment, ...

No, there's no claim that you have "controlled for the environment".  All it means is that the claim ("genetic factor explain x% of the variance") is specific to the range of environment studied contained in the study. 

In other words, the claim is not an abstract: "x% of the variance of a trait is explained genetically".   Instead the claim is: "For a given range of genetic variation, and a given range of environmental variation, x% of the variance of a trait is explained genetically".

And you stop there. So there really is no circularity.  Obviously if you changed either the range of genetic variation or the range of environmental variation then you'd change the fraction x.   This really is accepted and understood and explained in the introductory material to any account of such studies.   I think I've already stated it 6 times so far in this thread. 

> The only logical conclusion you can take is that the genetic effect observed are only valid in the study sample, ...

Yes, the particular value "x% of the variance ..." only applies to the study sample.

> ... but nothing of scientific value can be drawn from it, ...

Wrong.  The fact that it applies to the study sample is itself of scientific value.  Especially if you have a well-chosen study sample.  For example, if you're interested in the relative contribution of genes vs environment to the maths ability of 15-yr-olds in UK schools, then a sample of a couple of thousand kids across UK schools will give you a good answer to the question. 

> ... it cannot be used to make inference, it doesn’t give you any law, in other words, that’s not a scientific theory, it’s unusable and of little interest.

Making statement such as "... it doesn’t give you any law, in other words, that’s not a scientific theory, ..." shows you don't properly understand science.  Science does not have to apply universally to every situation to be useful and important.  

The above sample, a couple of thousand kids across UK schools, will of course not tell you specifically about kids in Botswana or Bolivia, but it will tell you about kids in UK schools. And that is worthwhile, useful and important. And it can tell you about human nature generally, since humans are not that different. 

 RomTheBear 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Obviously, yes indeed.

> No, there's no claim that you have "controlled for the environment".  All it means is that the claim ("genetic factor explain x% of the variance") is specific to the range of environment studied contained in the study. 

I agree bad wording it doesn’t indeed control for the environment, although they do imply (falsely) that they do exactly that.

> In other words, the claim is not an abstract: "x% of the variance of a trait is explained genetically".   Instead the claim is: "For a given range of genetic variation, and a given range of environmental variation, x% of the variance of a trait is explained genetically".

Which is circular, bebause in this methodology, the « range of environmental variation » is not specified, it is inferred from the conclusion, so you’ve got the conclusion of the study feeding into its assumption. That’s not a scientific claim.

> And you stop there. So there really is no circularity.  Obviously if you changed either the range of genetic variation or the range of environmental variation then you'd change the fraction x.   This really is accepted and understood and explained in the introductory material to any account of such studies.   I think I've already stated it 6 times so far in this thread. 

Correct but this is fundamentally flawed. It is essentially an infalsifiable statement.

> Yes, the particular value "x% of the variance ..." only applies to the study sample.

So we agree.

> Wrong.  The fact that it applies to the study sample is itself of scientific value.  Especially if you have a well-chosen study sample.  For example, if you're interested in the relative contribution of genes vs environment to the maths ability of 15-yr-olds in UK schools, then a sample of a couple of thousand kids across UK schools will give you a good answer to the question. 

Well no, it won’t, because, as you yourself admitted, this methodology does not allow you to make inferences outside of the sample.

> Making statement such as "... it doesn’t give you any law, in other words, that’s not a scientific theory, ..." shows you don't properly understand science.  Science does not have to apply universally to every situation to be useful and important.  

 

No, it doesn’t have to apply universally, but the basic principle is that scientific claim should be falsifiable.

> The above sample, a couple of thousand kids across UK schools, will of course not tell you specifically about kids in Botswana or Bolivia, but it will tell you about kids in UK schools.

 

But that’s not what these studies claim to achieve. They claim to explain something about the way human work, even though you finally admitted yourself that they really don’t. 
This has an impact on all of us as these studies are then used by politicians. Which is no coincidence, given that most of these people are politically motivated, either directly (see Plomin) or indirectly (academia)

> And that is worthwhile, useful and important. And it can tell you about human nature generally, since humans are not that different. 

How is that useful to known that genes contribute  x% to variation in a experiment if I can’t use it anywhere else but in the sample of said experiment ? You’ve learned nothing, all you’ve done is to produce a meaningless number.



 

1
 RomTheBear 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Partly you can, because you can look for concordance with other types of study.

Which simply isn’t there in many cases. Of course in some cases twin studies are bound to find results which are true and verifiable by other means, but this doesn’t mean the methodology isn’t flawed. 

> You have much too simplistic a view of science.  Every single science uses simplifying assumptions ("models") and then tests out how well these models work. And lots of sciences don't do experiments (including all those that deal with things too big or on too long a timescale to experiment on, e.g. paleontology, geology, cosmology, etc).

Experiments and/or collecting data.

> Simplistic interpretations of a Popperian maxim are also too simplistic.

> But then the twin studies are not logically flawed, and can be tested by comparison with other types of study.

Actually, they don’t compare well, the problem is widely recognised, twin studies seem to vastly overestimate inheritability in most cases where it was possible to check against other means. Which isn’t surprising really given their circularity.

This stuff has to be taken seriously, imbecile such as Plomin are now advising government, and we find ourselves with people like Dominic Cummings using Plomin’s «  findings » to suggest  genetic screening to identify those capable of scientific innovation in schools.

Plomin used to be serious and was very rigourous  and conservative in his claims previously, but since he realised he could get money and influence by compromising on rigour it has seriously going downhill. His previous book were brilliant until  »Blueprint » which is a mathematical horror show.

As soon as you start down that road it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy and dangerous feedback loop.

Post edited at 22:04
1
OP Jon Stewart 18 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

If we took your approach to science, we wouldn't know anything.

Science isn't all about universal laws that can be used to make prediction (physics is like this, behavioural genetics not so much), it's about investigating nature to see how it works. If you learn "in these circs, the genetic contribution to trait x was very significant but not overwhelming", then you've learnt a little bit about how trait x came about. You might start to look at how that genetic influence works, or how environmental factors can be manipulated to increase or decrease the expression of trait x. It's a bit of knowledge that on its own isn't a "theory" or law, it's a little bit of knowledge that contributes, perhaps by raising more questions, to our understanding of nature and ourselves.

Even if you could provide some examples of policies that took the findings from twins studies and over-extended them to justify something unhelpful, then that still wouldn't justify the idea that the studies themselves were useless. It would just show that the findings could be misused. 

Knowledge of nature and of ourselves is worth every bit of effort we put into it. If you want to understand what it is to be human, then understanding that we are the result of our genes interacting with our environment in unfathomably complex ways, is extraordinarily important. Any light that can be shed on how this works, even if it is but a glimmer, is valuable.

Post edited at 21:58
 Coel Hellier 18 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Which is circular, bebause in this methodology, the « range of environmental variation » is not specified, it is inferred from the conclusion, so you’ve got the conclusion of the study feeding into its assumption. That’s not a scientific claim.

No, not so. The "range of environmental variation" is indeed specified. That's an input into the study.  The *conclusion* is different.  The conclusion is about how much that affects the variation in the *trait*.   There's nothing circular here.

> Correct but this is fundamentally flawed. It is essentially an infalsifiable statement.

No so, it's a straightforward account of what the studies tell us.

> But that’s not what these studies claim to achieve. 

Yes it is.

> They claim to explain something about the way human work, even though you finally admitted yourself that they really don’t. 

They do. Telling us something about how humans work in UK schools is telling us something about how humans work.

> How is that useful to known that genes contribute  x% to variation in a experiment if I can’t use it anywhere else but in the sample of said experiment ?

You really are being obtuse.  If, given the typical range of variation in environment of kids in UK schools, and given the typical range of genes of kids in UK schools, the relative contributions to mathematics ability is X% genetic and Y% environmental, then that tells us something rather useful about how humans work.

If those numbers were 5% and 95%, or instead 50:50, or instead 95 and 5, then each of those possibilities has quite large implications for how humans work and for education policy and for how schools should treats kids, et cetera. 

 RomTheBear 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> If we took your approach to science, we wouldn't know anything.

> Science isn't all about universal laws that can be used to make prediction (physics is like this, behavioural genetics not so much), it's about investigating nature to see how it works. If you learn "in these circs, the genetic contribution to trait x was very significant but not overwhelming", then you've learnt a little bit about how trait x came about. You might start to look at how that genetic influence works, or how environmental factors can be manipulated to increase or decrease the expression of trait x. It's a bit of knowledge that on its own isn't a "theory" or law, it's a little bit of knowledge that contributes, perhaps by raising more questions, to our understanding of nature and ourselves.

I completely agree but the problem is that these method do not even do that, for the most part. They are fantastic tools to make the data tell you exactly what your are looking for.

> Even if you could provide some examples of policies that took the findings from twins studies and over-extended them to justify something unhelpful, then that still wouldn't justify the idea that the studies themselves were useless. It would just show that the findings could be misused. 

Well unfortunately, studies on inheritability  of IQ have long informed education policy, despite the fact that they are total bullshit (so is IQ, btw).

With great responsibility must come great rigour and high standard of ethics, unfortunately it isn’t to be found in behavioural genetics. As I’ve said the incentives are malign. Politician craves these types of studies because they can help justify policy, so in turn if your produce this king of garbage, you get tenure, research grants  etc etc

note that over time it produces self reinforcing feedback loops, if you start changing the environment based on these « findings » then you effectively tweak the environment to make the studies appear more valid, which then justifies more tweaking, etc etc. 
 

Post edited at 22:21
2
OP Jon Stewart 18 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Well unfortunately, studies on inheritability  of IQ have long informed education policy, despite the fact that they are total bullshit (so is IQ, btw).

My impression of education policy (from working in the DfE - but not in schools policy) is that the govt think that their policies make a difference, when in fact they don't. The idea that it's all about genes would be absolutely taboo in that environment.

 RomTheBear 18 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> No, not so. The "range of environmental variation" is indeed specified. That's an input into the study. 

> The *conclusion* is different.  The conclusion is about how much that affects the variation in the *trait*.  

Yes, but how much depends on the environment. And the environment isn’t an input, you’ve said it yourself, these studies do not control for it (typically because it’s too hard). That is in fact the whole point of doing twin studies over doing a simple family study, it supposedly allows you to disentangle the environment  from other factors (by comparing MZ pairs with DZ pairs, and using the broken equal environment assumption )

> If those numbers were 5% and 95%, or instead 50:50, or instead 95 and 5, then each of those possibilities has quite large implications for how humans work and for education policy and for how schools should treats kids, et cetera. 

Again, extremely dangerous, allowing these people to use twin studies to justify policy is like giving a hand grenade to a monkey. 

For example, in 2003,  Eric Turkheimer did a review on the heritability of I.Q., which relied heavily on twin studies. He noticed that most of the studies that found I.Q. is largely due to genetics involved twins from middle-class backgrounds. When he looked at twins from poor families, he found that the I.Q.s of identical twins varied just as much as the I.Q.s of fraternal twins...

Post edited at 23:06
1
 Pefa 19 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> And how you do know that alcohol addition is usually or always a response to past trauma?

After buying two of his books a couple of years ago i go to an expert on addiction called Dr Gabor Mate. 

https://drgabormate.com/opioids-universal-experience-addiction/

" The hardcore drug addicts that I treat, are, without exception, people who have had extraordinarily difficult lives. The commonality is childhood abuse. These people all enter life under extremely adverse circumstances. Not only did they not get what they need for healthy development; they actually got negative circumstances of neglect. I don’t have a single female patient in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver who wasn’t sexually abused, for example, as were many of the men, or abused, neglected and abandoned serially, over and over again. That’s what sets up the brain biology of addiction. In other words, the addiction is related both psychologically, in terms of emotional pain relief, and neurobiological development to early adversity."

Gabor Maté

Post edited at 04:33
1
 RomTheBear 19 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Knowledge of nature and of ourselves is worth every bit of effort we put into it. If you want to understand what it is to be human, then understanding that we are the result of our genes interacting with our environment in unfathomably complex ways, is extraordinarily important. Any light that can be shed on how this works, even if it is but a glimmer, is valuable

I agree, but twin studies don’t do that, they are completely flawed. I think it’s pretty much now consensus, very few people in modern genetics are still using them, except, of course, the mediocre, and those with a political or personal agenda to pursue.

Moreover, on complex systems, such a the interaction of human with their environments, you have to be extra careful, because you can easily get the illusion of knowledge, and fooling ourselves through layers or flawed intellectual acrobatics into thinking we understand this stuff is extremely dangerous. 

Post edited at 05:19
2
 Coel Hellier 19 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Yes, but how much depends on the environment. And the environment isn’t an input, you’ve said it yourself, these studies do not control for it (typically because it’s too hard).

Sheesh, all your comments are a confused mess.  Yes the environment IS an input to the study.  That is what the study is studying, the range of environment in the study. 

And no I have not "said myself" that the "environment isn’t an input", I've said the opposite.

And the studies do indeed "not control for" the environment, one "controls for" confounding factors that one is NOT studying, in order to isolate the thing being studied.  But here, the things being studied are the range of environment and the range of genes.  So of course one does not "control for" the environment. 

You seem to know enough to bullshit, but not know enough to know that you don't know. 

1
 Coel Hellier 19 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> After buying two of his books a couple of years ago i go to an expert on addiction called Dr Gabor Mate. 

I don't doubt that for SOME of those who get addicted to alcohol, past abuse is a major factor.  But can you point to an authoritative study that says that ALL alcoholics have been badly abused in the past?   Anecdotes aren't really sufficient to establish that. 

 RomTheBear 19 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Sheesh, all your comments are a confused mess.  Yes the environment IS an input to the study.  That is what the study is studying, the range of environment in the study. 

 

That isn’t true I’m afraid. Do you even know how these work ? They simply take pair of DZ and MZ twins, collect data on the traits being studied, and then look variance between the two.

There is no study of the environment itself. Instead they simply take as an assumption that MZ And DZ twins have equal variance in environment.

> And no I have not "said myself" that the "environment isn’t an input", I've said the opposite.

> And the studies do indeed "not control for" the environment, one "controls for" confounding factors that one is NOT studying, in order to isolate the thing being studied.  But here, the things being studied are the range of environment and the range of genes.  So of course one does not "control for" the environment. 

 

So, exactly as I’ve said, what constitutes the « environment » is an output of the model. Not an input. In fact, when attempts have been to indeed control for the environment, lower estimates of inheritability are typically found. ( as per turkehiemer)

> You seem to know enough to bullshit, but not know enough to know that you don't know. 

And yet the recent research on the validity of twin studies makes exactly the same points as mine. 
 


 

Post edited at 10:05
1
 Pefa 19 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

He has worked with drug addicts in one of the worst places around for many years and points out that every single one without exception suffered trauma or repeated trauma at some point in their development. Which isn't just an anecdote it is also intuitive. Addiction be it to substances or behaviour is a coping mechanism to avoid pain that is why they are interchangeable and won't stop until you deal with the source of the pain. 

1
 RomTheBear 19 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

You’re falling into the same traps as Coel.

 Coel Hellier 19 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> He has worked with drug addicts in one of the worst places around for many years and points out that every single one without exception suffered trauma or repeated trauma at some point in their development.

One person saying that in a popular book amounts to an anecdote.  It does not convince me that in any single case, alcoholism is a response to trauma.

cb294 19 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

Popperians can just go away (I was tempted to phrase that somewhat less politely).

I refuse to take anyone's comments on science serious who appeals to the authority of this charlatan for arguments about how science is supposed to work. As Feynman said, "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds", which is actually more true than it seems at first look: There is SOME limited use for the birds (e.g. ornithology may drive conservation projects), but of course no bird needs an ornithologist to teach it to fly.

Of course you design biological experiments with assumptions you know to be "wrong". You always ignore some parameter in the first phase, based on an informed guess, e.g. assuming it has no effect, or only if some other conditions are met (e.g. only in females or males). Good experiment design will then tell you whether you can still learn something about the other parameter that you are actually interested in, or whether your study is confounded by variation in the parameters you ignored and you need a better, more complex model.

For the moment I ignore parameters like circadian rhythm or nutritional status in my stem cell experiments, even though I already know that they do, in other systems, affect the parameters I am interested in. However, I can be equally sure that my other experimental perturbations will have much more dramatic consequences on stem cell behaviour.

The reason twin studies have somewhat fallen out of favour in behavioural genetics is not that they failed, but that they are too hard to organize and too restricted in what they can answer,  precisely because the shared prenatal environment is generally too similar.  The main reason, though, is that sequencing has become so cheap that you can ask the same questions by instead using GWAS and related approaches at a scale that would have been impossible even 10 years ago.

CB

 RomTheBear 19 Nov 2019
In reply to cb294:

> Popperians can just go away (I was tempted to phrase that somewhat less politely).

> I refuse to take anyone's comments on science serious who appeals to the authority of this charlatan for arguments about how science is supposed to work. As Feynman said, "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds"

And yet Feynman was as philosopher of science himself of sorts. In fact if you listen to some of his lecture on the scientific method, he himself said that there is a big problem with making « scientific »  claims that cannot be proven wrong. I’m not really appealing to authority here just citing a rather simple principle which is widely accepted and rather common sense.

Basically I have a problem with people publishing finding using model that are, by design, valid only for a specific  environment, a specific population at a specific time, and then claim they have enhanced our understanding.
Even if they do it perfectly (they don’t, in fact it tends to be conducted poorly) you still end up with something of limited scientific interest.

Thankfully it seems there is a movement in this field towards using predictive methods , which at least can be tested against reality.

> Of course you design biological experiments with assumptions you know to be "wrong". 

Of course, but if you do that then you can only  use the model as an exploratory tool to formulate guesses - which is absolutely fine by me - not as a way to assert the validity of an hypothesis.

Post edited at 12:36
1
 RomTheBear 19 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> One person saying that in a popular book amounts to an anecdote.  It does not convince me that in any single case, alcoholism is a response to trauma.


you are correct it’s anecdotal but yet he may be touching on something :

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10658224_Rethinking_Twins_and_Envi...

it seems that once accounting for several confounding factors to the EEA assumption, inheritability of depression and alcohol abuse either greatly diminishes or entirely disappears...

 Coel Hellier 19 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Basically I have a problem with people publishing finding using model that are, by design, valid only for a specific  environment, a specific population at a specific time, and then claim they have enhanced our understanding.

Well then you have a problem with science.  Since that's a necessary way of doing science.  The world is simply too complicated to create a fully general study, that will give us fully general results, all in one go.  Thus science is based on the accumulation of small steps, and many of those small steps would be "valid only for a specific  environment, a specific population at a specific time".  But then you accumulate small steps into an overall picture. 

 Coel Hellier 19 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> you are correct it’s anecdotal but yet he may be touching on something :

From that:

"Bivariate comparisons indicate that monozygotic twins show greater similarity than dizygotic twins in socially-based characteristics including physical attractiveness, time spent in each other's company, the overlap in friendship networks, and friends' use of alcohol."

OK, but all of those could be genetically influenced, surely?  Indeed, "physical attractiveness" is blatantly more about genes than environment.   So:

"Multivariate analyses indicate that measures of the social environment sometimes reduce or eliminate apparent genetic effects."

Except that the differences in social-environment themselves result from genetic differences.  This is Point 7 in Plomin's "Top 10 replicated findings ...", namely: "Finding 7. Most measures of the “environment” show significant genetic influence". 

"Since 1991, more than 150 articles have been published in which environmental measures were used in genetically sensitive designs; they have shown consistently that there is significant genetic influence on environmental measures, extending the findings from family environments to neighborhood, school, and work environments"

https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-plomin.pdf

 RomTheBear 19 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

This may be true but doesn’t address the issue, in fact it is just an admission of the circularity of the argument, you’re using the output of the model to assert the validity of said model. This cannot be right.

Now that I think about it there may be way to frame this as a classic problem of information leakage.

Post edited at 13:18
1
 RomTheBear 19 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Well then you have a problem with science.  Since that's a necessary way of doing science.  The world is simply too complicated to create a fully general study, that will give us fully general results, all in one go.  Thus science is based on the accumulation of small steps, and many of those small steps would be "valid only for a specific  environment, a specific population at a specific time".  But then you accumulate small steps into an overall picture. 

Fine, but in the scientific method you start by guessing a hypothesis, then collect data/ run experiment, if the experiments / data confirm the theory then your belief that the theory is true increases, if it doesn’t, then it’s WRONG (and it’s ok to be wrong).

Twin studies only deal with the first part, they help you make guesses. Which is very valuable in itself. But the social scientists stop there and present that as valid scientific claims. And then when they get famous such as Plomin, they get to advise ministers on policy and are given the stature of scientists. This is very dishonest, unethical, and dangerous.

All of this is not to say that inheritability of complex traits doesn’t exist, it seems rather obvious that it does (I didn’t really  need twin studies to get such a basic intuition)

Post edited at 13:22
1
 Coel Hellier 19 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> This may be true but doesn’t address the issue, in fact it is just an admission of the circularity of the argument, you’re using the output of the model to assert the validity of said model.

That is not what they are doing. As we've discussed ad nauseum.

 RomTheBear 19 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> That is not what they are doing. As we've discussed ad nauseum.

That’s exactly what they do. In order to show that you shouldn’t use environmental influence as an dependent variable in the twin study (because, you know, it kind of messes up their rubbish results) they show that what is thought of as environment is itself influenced by genes, using, you guessed it, twin studies...

It’s an infinite loop of nonsense. The more you show me examples of how these people conduct their analysis the more suspicious I become that these people are deliberately fraudulent.

note, this isn’t to say that studies that attempt to control for environmental factors aren’t fraudulent themselves, I’ve not looked into it but given how shot the field is it wouldn’t surprise me either.

Seriously, they need to stop this bullshit altogether, and move to predictive methods which generate testable predictions, instead of hiding behind intellectual acrobatics.

Post edited at 15:19
1
 RomTheBear 20 Nov 2019
In reply to cb294:

> For the moment I ignore parameters like circadian rhythm or nutritional status in my stem cell experiments, even though I already know that they do, in other systems, affect the parameters I am interested in. However, I can be equally sure that my other experimental perturbations will have much more dramatic consequences on stem cell behaviour.

This might be all well and good in many situations. I also do that all the time. As you point out it’s perfectly reasonable to simplify, ignore or live with imperfect parameters estimations in a model, if - and only if - you KNOW and can PROVE the impact will be minimal.

Unfortunately in the field of behavioural genetics, it seems we don’t know all that much. There seems to be very complex feedback loops between genes and the environment which makes everything very tricky and non linear.

As such even biases that would seem on the face of it safe to ignore can well  have a massive impact through amplifying feedback loops between genes and environment.

One example, I’ve recently learned that epigenetic factors can be passed down to children. The consequences of environmental influences can therefore be inherited.

Is it nature or nurture ? I don’t know, it seems that this dichotomy might not be so well founded.

The more I read about it the more it seems to me that these twins studies actually not only have too many pitfalls and limitations but are also the wrong approach. They attempt to disentangle nature and nurture (basically, through variance decomposition techniques) to help us understand what is going on, but the suspicion is increasingly that we should instead try to understand how these things are tangled. And btw, there is no guarantee that this is even computationally feasible.

cb294 20 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

The transgenerational epigenetics stuff is way overblown. Yes, if you carefully normalize for everything else you can detect some effect in mice. Humans is already more tricky, but possibly you can detect epigenetic marks of starvation. The reason for this difficulty is obvious: A key step in generating functional germ cells and then gametes is erasing all epigenetic marks, and then replacing them with sex specific imprints on the egg and sperm genome that have been selected for their effects on maternal resource allocation through zillions of generations of competition between sexes. Any epigenetic effect transmitted to the children has to pass through that "blank slate" phase.

All effect sizes for transgenerational epigenetic transmission I am aware off are so small that they are bound to disappear in the noise inherent in all behavioural studies (you simply cannot quantitatively measure behaviour to the same degree of precision as, say, size or RNA levels).

The fact that environment choice is also influenced by genetics (and can therefore induce feedback nonlinearities) is well known, and was in fact discovered through twin studies. This is discussed quite well in the review article Coel linked to in a thread some months ago, and I think again somewhere upthread here.

Anyway, I think you have the criticism of twin studies the wrong way round: If anything, wrongly attributing some effect to the environment when it is in fact genetic will lead to underestimating the genetic contribution. Most estimates of heritability from twin studies are therefore conservative estimates / lower bounds.

CB

 Coel Hellier 20 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> It’s an infinite loop of nonsense. The more you show me examples of how these people conduct their analysis the more suspicious I become that these people are deliberately fraudulent.

Whenever one deals with complex systems -- whether people or the climate -- making simplifying assumptions is inevitable, and researchers in the field will spend their lives asking whether the simplifying assumptions are reasonable and valid, and how much the results might be affected. 

Pointing to this and retorting "loop of nonsense", "completely flawed", "intellectual acrobatics", "dishonest, unethical, and dangerous", "fraudulent", and such, is basically denialism.  We're well used to the tactic from the climate-change deniers. 

 RomTheBear 20 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Whenever one deals with complex systems -- whether people or the climate -- making simplifying assumptions is inevitable

When dealing with complex systems, the right thing to do is to identify what you don’t know and can’t know and work with it, the worse thing you can do making shit up to pretend you know.

> Pointing to this and retorting "loop of", "completely flawed", "intellectual acrobatics", "dishonest, unethical, and dangerous", "fraudulent", and such, is basically denialism.

No, it’s just an observation.

>   We're well used to the tactic from the climate-change deniers. 

Comparing climate science to behavioral genetics is like comparing my wedding band with the Rolling Stones. 

Climate change deniers are stupid because it’s undeniable beyond doubt that the climate is warming and it’s also undeniable beyond doubt that this is due to human emission. It’s based on well trodden physics and chemistry.

But assuming we didn’t have this good quality  science to help us, I wouldn’t need a bullshit model to tell me what to do. Assuming I had no clue what taking carbon out of the ground and putting it in the atmosphere would do, the rational thing is to not do it, because I don’t understand the risks. The fraudulent thing to do is to come up with a bullshit model that may well tell me it’s ok.

The more the impact of your error on others is high the more careful and paranoid you have to be.

Post edited at 16:21
1
 Coel Hellier 20 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Comparing climate science to behavioral genetics is like comparing my wedding band with the Rolling Stones. 

Not at all.  In both cases the basics are well established and the central message of the scientific consensus is solid and reliable.   In both cases there is then legitimate uncertainty over "exactly how much?" questions, based on legitimate questions around simplifications on the models.  And again, this is pretty much inevitable when dealing with complex systems.

 Coel Hellier 20 Nov 2019
In reply to the thread:

Since this thread is a continuation of the previous one, it seems sufficiently on-topic to post this, about a legal case launched by a former member of the medical team at the Tavistock GIDS clinic to "protect children from experiment medical treatment".

The claim is that the current "medicalised" treatment of children with gender dysphoria is too "experimental" for the children to properly consent to.  

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/protect-children/

I'll be interested to see what happens.

1
 Coel Hellier 20 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

And since I've re-stated this, heck, let's go all in, with an account of the current climate in academia, in the form of 27 "case studies" on the topic:

"Are academics freely able to criticise the idea of ‘gender identity’ in UK Universities?"

https://medium.com/@kathleenstock/are-academics-freely-able-to-criticise-th...

 RomTheBear 20 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Not at all.  In both cases the basics are well established and the central message of the scientific consensus is solid and reliable. 

Surely you have to laugh at that. The “scientific consensus” said exactly the opposite for half a century before twin studies. And they also had their supposedly robust models.

That’s how shot to pieces this field is. They change their mind in function of the cultural fads of the day. Whatever makes you a buck I guess.

>  In both cases there is then legitimate uncertainty over "exactly how much?" questions, based on legitimate questions around simplifications on the models.  And again, this is pretty much inevitable when dealing with complex systems.

This isn’t inevitable, you can just say “I don’t know” or reserve conclusions for later.  But of course doing that doesn’t get you ten year tenure and research grants, doesn’t sell any books, etc etc.

Based on past history, it’s a safe bet to say that twin studies will be regarded a no more than a laughable fad 50 years from now.

Post edited at 20:49
1
 Coel Hellier 20 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> The “scientific consensus” said exactly the opposite for half a century before twin studies.

How typical of you that you give to cite to the state-of-play before twin studies.  But yes, science does indeed advance over time. And yes, modern studies that pay proper attention to the role of genes have indeed over-turned beliefs from before that era.

Post edited at 20:49
 RomTheBear 20 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> How typical of you that you give to cite to the state-of-play before twin studies.  But yes, science does indeed advance over time. And yes, modern studies that pay proper attention to the role of genes have indeed over-turned beliefs from before that era.

And I suspect that when we start paying attention to something else we’ll overturn again the belief of the current era.
In fact it’s already happening with modern genetic techniques, which point to a more dynamic interplay between nature and nurture rather than an opposition. This opposition is effectively nothing more than a cultural fad which has been encoded in the twin study methodology.

Churning out more and more papers and running around in circles, is not what I call advancement.

I’ll believe there is advancement only when I see RESULTS. When they can predict consistently complex behaviours and traits out of sample and better than naive approaches, I’ll start taking an interest.

Until then it stays firmly in the drawer labelled “things we don’t really understand but we are trying” along with psychology, economics, and sociology.

Post edited at 21:13
1
OP Jon Stewart 20 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> In fact it’s already happening with modern genetic techniques, which point to a more dynamic interplay between nature and nurture rather than an opposition. This opposition is effectively nothing more than a cultural fad which has been encoded in the twin study methodology.

Anyone with any interest in finding the genetic contribution to any trait, i.e. anyone with any interest in twins studies, is working on our attempt to quantify and add detail to our understanding of the complex, dynamic interplay of genes and environment. The nature vs. nurture "opposition" is decades out of date! Do you really think you're telling behavioural geneticists something they don't know here? Have a bit of humility.

> I’ll believe there is advancement only when I see RESULTS. When they can predict consistently complex behaviours and traits out of sample and better than naive approaches, I’ll start taking an interest.

This is a totally ridiculous view of science. I don't even understand what you mean. Research involves asking questions and putting forward tentative answers to those questions; and seeing how the amassed tentative answers to related questions can reveal more general explanations about the world we inhabit. Where do you get this idea that for science to be valuable it has to be a new Newton's law? I think you're labouring under a complete misunderstanding of what science is. It's just investigating nature as best we can, to uncover, very slowly and requiring lots and lots of little bits of work, better explanations of the world as it exists. It isn't this theory-law-prediction-experiment-proof thing you're demanding. That is 19th century nonsense. Please update your ideas to the current era.

> Until then it stays firmly in the drawer labelled “things we don’t really understand but we are trying” along with psychology, economics, and sociology.

In sciences such as biology, explanations are generally reductive: this may not provide complete explanations, but it provides a certain type of explanation in terms of independently observable smaller parts. So if it can be shown that certain traits are influenced x amount by genes, that's providing a partial explanation in reductive, scientific terms, and not claiming to fully explain the phenomenon (because of the complex, dynamic interplay of genes and the world). That's different to social sciences which don't deal in reductive explanations of how molecules build bigger things that display certain properties. 

What's wrong with seeing the difference between scientific, usually reductive, explanations and social sciences which take a different, more discursive approach? Quantifying the degree of heritability of a trait doesn't provide a complete explanation of human characteristics, e.g. why I am more open to experience than my brother. But it does shed a little light on how human animals are constructed, and what the causal factors are which are relevant to our behaviour.

It sheds a little light, and that is better than remaining in darkness.

Post edited at 22:37
Pan Ron 20 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

“I lost my job for speaking up about women’s rights” by Maya Forstater https://link.medium.com/0schm9UtM1

Interesting case. Who would have thought this would be an issue a decade or two back?

OP Jon Stewart 20 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

I think about these cases this way:

Both "sides" of this debate seem wrong to me: activists who campaign for self-identification being the legal definition of one's sex seem unreasonable, and the policy fraught with risk. On the other hand, arguments such as those made by Maya Forstater here seem just as wrong. She's reducing trans women to men in dresses and confusing what it means to not follow gender stereotypes with the radically different experience (as far as I understand it) of being transgender. She's basically denying trans people's existence, which I find quite nasty, although I think it's a failure of understanding rather than any malice on her part.

What do you say when you think both sides are basically thick as mince and totally unable to see the issue from the other's viewpoint? Maybe it's best to let them fight each other to the death, so different people, who are better able to contribute to the discussion, can eventually be heard?

 RomTheBear 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Anyone with any interest in finding the genetic contribution to any trait, i.e. anyone with any interest in twins studies, is working on our attempt to quantify and add detail to our understanding of the complex, dynamic interplay of genes and environment. The nature vs. nurture "opposition" is decades out of date! Do you really think you're telling behavioural geneticists something they don't know here? Have a bit of humility.

Well read imbeciles such as Plomin and you’ll find they clearly are peddling nature vs nurture, twin studies in fact embed the assumption that there is such an opposition.

May be true, may not be true, I don’t know.

> This is a totally ridiculous view of science. I don't even understand what you mean. Research involves asking questions and putting forward tentative answers to those questions; and seeing how the amassed tentative answers to related questions can reveal more general explanations about the world we inhabit. Where do you get this idea that for science to be valuable it has to be a new Newton's law?

 

No, no, it doesn’t have to be Newton law, it just has to be better than astrology. I’m not setting the bar very high you see.

> In sciences such as biology, explanations are generally reductive: this may not provide complete explanations, but it provides a certain type of explanation in terms of independently observable smaller parts.

Partially explaining a phenomenon is not the same as providing a potentially a fully misleading explanation for the whole. 

> What's wrong with seeing the difference between scientific, usually reductive, explanations and social sciences which take a different, more discursive approach? Quantifying the degree of heritability of a trait doesn't provide a complete explanation of human characteristics, e.g. why I am more open to experience than my brother. But it does shed a little light on how human animals are constructed, and what the causal factors are which are relevant to our behaviour.

The problem is that as far as I can tell it could be completely wrong, or wrong by a lot. Who knows they change their mind completely every 50 years.

> It sheds a little light, and that is better than remaining in darkness.

NO, no, no and no. Remaining in Darkness is BETTER than peddling potentially false results.

Knowing that you don’t know something is in itself very valuable. Fooling yourself into thinking you know something when you don’t is extremely DANGEROUS.

Too many lives have been ruined already by so called “findings” of pseudo-science.

Post edited at 03:23
1
 RomTheBear 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> And since I've re-stated this, heck, let's go all in, with an account of the current climate in academia, in the form of 27 "case studies" on the topic:

> "Are academics freely able to criticise the idea of ‘gender identity’ in UK Universities?"

Given how highly aware of the over politicisation and entrenched biases of academia in those domains, it’s amazing that you still can defend anything that comes out of it tooth and nail. Maybe you should apply the same healthy skepticism to research that confirm your political views to research that doesn’t.

 Coel Hellier 21 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> In fact it’s already happening with modern genetic techniques, which point to a more dynamic interplay between nature and nurture rather than an opposition.

Of course it's a dynamic interplay between genes and environment!  Of course it's not "an opposition".  This has been accepted for decades and decades, and twin studies have been a big part of discerning how all this works.

> This opposition is effectively nothing more than a cultural fad which has been encoded in the twin study methodology.

That sentence shows a complete failure to understand twin studies.   Nothing about their methodology assumes or involves "opposition" as opposed to dynamic interplay between genes and environment.

> When they can predict consistently complex behaviours and traits out of sample and better than naive approaches, I’ll start taking an interest.

"And when they can predict individual hurricanes and typhoons three years in advance, then I'll accept that them there climate scientists know what they're talking about" -- says the denialist.

 Coel Hellier 21 Nov 2019
In reply to the thread:

In the news:

"Officers who record social media comments as hate incidents are unlawfully acting as “thought police” curbing freedom of expression, a former constable has claimed in a landmark legal case.

"Harry Miller, a former constable with Humberside police, was visited by an officer from the force after posting a verse about transgender people on Twitter. In evidence to the High Court yesterday, he said that the officer, PC Mansoor Gul, told him: “I’m here to check your thinking.” Mr Miller, 54, said he was told he had not committed a crime but that his tweeting was being recorded as a “hate incident” under the College of Policing’s guidance and that his social media account would be monitored.

"The claims were made during a judicial review of the college’s guidance at the High Court. It defines a hate incident as “any non-crime incident which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice against a person”.

"Mr Miller, who co-founded the campaign group Fair Cop, argues that Humberside police had sought to “dissuade him from expressing himself on such issues in the future”, which was “contrary to his fundamental right to freedom of expression”.

"A hate incident can be kept on an individual’s police record, Mr Miller’s lawyers said. They claim that such allegations should be tested for their veracity and not recorded as an “incident” despite being based on a single complaint. Ian Wise, QC, for Mr Miller, said: “The claimant has never expressed hatred towards the transgender community, or sought to incite such hatred in others, and has simply questioned . . . the belief that trans women are women and should be treated as such for all purposes.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/transgender-tweet-row-officer-harry...

 TobyA 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Does the Times article quote the "F*ckers" bit of his tweet? I can't see the full article.

I notice the BBC doesn't https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-50490311

Whilst the Guardian does https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/nov/20/police-transgender-rules-br...

It's funny that one word rather changes the tone of his tweets. 

 Sir Chasm 21 Nov 2019
In reply to TobyA:

> Does the Times article quote the "F*ckers" bit of his tweet? I can't see the full article.

> It's funny that one word rather changes the tone of his tweets. 

Yes, the people who mis-species him are probably deeply offended.

 Coel Hellier 21 Nov 2019
In reply to TobyA:

> Does the Times article quote the "F*ckers" bit of his tweet?

It does!  (Though with some uncertainty as to whether the asterisks are original.)

"One tweet said: “I was assigned mammal at birth, but my orientation is fish. Don’t mis-species me. F***ers.” "

OP Jon Stewart 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

What a mess!

I agree that the police recording such incidents is inappropriate and invites the accusation of "thought police". In the debate about where the line is drawn over what should be published online, the police should not have a role in my view, unless there is an allegation of harassment, incitement, etc.  However, it's not terribly clear where the boundary of what communications the police should be able to record as intelligence might be. We would want someone to be monitored if what they were saying on social media was intelligence that they might go on to commit some other crime (like you, I see no reason to think that Miller might have gone on to commit a crime, but any political radical would say precisely the same before they fire bombed an animal testing lab, etc.) If someone was tweeting radical Islamist views, had not been monitored, and went on to commit some terrorist attack, that would be viewed as failure.

So, rather than falsely framing this a debate on 'should our right to freedom of expression ever be compromised' (clearly it has to be, since such expression can be criminal or provide intelligence about criminality, case closed), what we're really talking about here has two elements:

1. In cases of speech deemed "harmful", e.g. racism, transphobia, etc, what is the appropriate response?

My position is that it shouldn't involve the police (unless we're talking about harassment, incitement, etc), but that we should as a society be ungenerous in giving those who abuse minorities the means to amplify their voices. Just as almost all spaces for public discourse will not tolerate racism (you'll get banned from twitter, 4chan, youtube, etc), the same courtesy should be extended to gays and trans people. 

I think you tend to promote the view that one should be free to post racist material anywhere you like without sanction: that to take away the means of amplifying these views, e.g. youtube, is a transgression of freedom of speech. But you tend not to pick examples of racist content being taken down from youtube, although the arguments would be precisely the same. I think you take the view that transphobia on twitter (and elsewhere?) is fine, but you won't leap to defence of racists in the same way. This strikes me as inconsistent. (I think your argument last time was that twitter isn't sufficiently public to be regarded as public, even though it's public...would you defend racism on twitter using the same line?)

2. Are the views tweeted in this and similar cases transphobic? Is transphobia a legitimate complaint, alongside racism?

This is a different argument to the freedom of speech angle. If you see the need to remove racist content from youtube and don't see that as an infringement of freedom of speech, then the argument is something different and it would be helpful to be clear about that. You could say, "if the tweets were transphobic, then there should be some response (e.g. from Twitter, not the police), but this is not transphobic", if that's what you think.

My position on this is that we're really in a mess here. I don't like to see trans people being dismissed and ridiculed publicly, which is exactly what "identifying as a different species" etc, is, in substance. The idea that being homosexual is a "lifestyle choice" was absolutely toxic in the battle for gay rights, and this idea that transsexual gender identity isn't genuine is the same thing. On the other hand, the political stance that self-identification should be all that's required to ensure ones treatment as the gender you identify with is unreasonable and fraught with risk, in my view.

So of course there is nothing wrong, no reason to restrict, political discussion about how trans people should be recognised in circs where they have to be fitted into the male/female binary, to oppose the self-identification policy stance. But a response that "being trans is like a mammal claiming to be a fish" is a transphobic response, not a legitimate political one. It's not addressing any policy issue, it's just denying that trans people should be afforded the same respect as anyone else. Is it sufficiently transphobic to require some response, e.g. from Twitter? I don't know. I wouldn't seek either the extreme of social media being awash with abuse of minorities, as you argue for (point 1 above), nor that there must be intervention at any hint of racism, transphobia, etc. It's a difficult and delicate balance.

I don't think it's cut-and-dried as to what is legitimate political discourse and what's bigotry. I find it difficult to accept arguments against gay marriage as being motivated by anything other than a deep gut feeling that gays don't deserve equal rights because they are second class citizens, and as such these arguments are expressions of homophobia. I wouldn't want to see them removed from twitter though, it's not *sufficiently* homophobic to be abuse, in my view. In the trans case here, since the language is that of ridicule of all trans peoples' experience, maybe that's more worthy of a response (but not from the police). It's clear to me that there is a line to be drawn, as it is with no racism on youtube etc; but I can't say exactly where I think that should be, it's extremely difficult.

Post edited at 11:26
 Coel Hellier 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> However, it's not terribly clear where the boundary of what communications the police should be able to record as intelligence might be.

Hopefully, the police would only collect intelligence if there is pretty clear grounds for suspecting criminality.  We're not a police state, and shouldn't have intelligence gathering "just in case".

Second, another issue here is what the police would then tell others.  If this person applied for a role requiring DBS clearance, would the police then report "he has been involved in hate incidents"?

> If someone was tweeting radical Islamist views, had not been monitored, and went on to commit some terrorist attack, that would be viewed as failure.

There are vastly too many people tweeting radical Islamist views for them all to be monitored! 

> I think you take the view that transphobia on twitter (and elsewhere?) is fine, ..

No, **actual** transphobia I would **not* regard as fine.  Actual "transphobia" being actual hatred of people because they are trans, or promoting violence against them, or advocating that they be treated as inferior human beings, denied the basic rights the rest of us have. 

But that's different from "transphobia" defined as "anything any trans activist regards as transphobia", which is essentially a way to prevent other people from voicing opinions. 

> The idea that being homosexual is a "lifestyle choice" was absolutely toxic in the battle for gay rights, and this idea that transsexual gender identity isn't genuine is the same thing.

But suppose I assert that (and this is actually my opinion, as best I understand things):

A "trans women" is a male person who strongly dislikes being male, would have preferred being female, wishes to live a female gender role, and may (or not) modify their body to "pass" as female.  

The above does not deny that those attitudes are real, are part of their innate nature, are not a "choice", and are of major importance to that person. 

The only thing I am denying is that they "are women" in the sense of being "no different from any other woman" and "must be accepted as women for all purposes". 

In short, the above accepts that they are the *gender* they identify with, but does not accept that they have changed sex. 

I don't regard the above as "phobic"; it doesn't deny the reality of their internal feelings, and does not assert that they are "faking" or making a "lifestyle choice".

To me, to label the above as "phobic" amounts to "you're not allowed to disagree with me; I want my views to prevail by outlawing dissent". 

> But a response that "being trans is like a mammal claiming to be a fish" is a transphobic response, not a legitimate political one.

I disagree.  My above position statement denies that trans women "are of the female sex".   The mammal/fish tweet is saying that there is underlying biology that is not changed, however the person feels about it (and fully acknowledging that those feelings are real, important and not a "choice").

> It's not addressing any policy issue, ...

It *is* addressing a policy issue.  This issue of whether trans women then "are women" affects things like whether they are grouped with women in women's sport, women's prisons, women's rape crisis centres, etc. 

The tweet didn't directly mention these things, but that's the wider context.  None of these people would care about this, nor be pushing back against trans activists, except that they see such activists as unfairly encroaching on women's spaces to the real detriment of women! 

That's why such views are not "phobic", they result from genuine and proper concern for the rights of women.

> ...  it's just denying that trans people should be afforded the same respect as anyone else.

No, honestly it does not. 

> I find it difficult to accept arguments against gay marriage as being motivated by anything other than a deep gut feeling that gays don't deserve equal rights because they are second class citizens, and as such these arguments are expressions of homophobia.

I agree with you.   I can't see any way at all in which gays marrying has any negative effect at all on anyone else. 

But I can see that, if a male-bodied trans-women joins a women's rugby team, and is vastly bigger, faster and stronger then everyone else, than that is very unfair on the opposition team, and actually ruins their experience of a team sport. 

"Please can we women play sport against other women, we honestly can't compete against male-bodied athletes", seems to me a reasonable request, not a "phobic" one.  The attitude underlying it is really not "phobia", not a fear of or hatred of that person, not a denial of their very real feelings about their gender, is is just one of wanting to enjoy women's sport.

And that does not deny anyone their "human rights". The "right to participate in women's sport" is not a right afforded to all humans.   So, if we don't all have that right, denying it to those who don't qualify is not denying anyone their basic human rights. 

OP Jon Stewart 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Hopefully, the police would only collect intelligence if there is pretty clear grounds for suspecting criminality.  We're not a police state, and shouldn't have intelligence gathering "just in case".

I don't think your understanding of intelligence is correct. I once worked in an intelligence department in the Home Office, and while it was somewhat mickey-mouse, we did follow the National Intelligence Model. Gathering intel is completely different to gathering evidence - it's snippets of info that are recorded in a specific way that protects sources and grades the info in its reliability. The nature of intelligence is that it's "just in case". This is something of a sidetrack, but I'm afraid you already live in police state and always have done. Sorry about that.

> Second, another issue here is what the police would then tell others 

I agreed the police shouldn't be involved.

> No, **actual** transphobia I would **not* regard as fine.  Actual "transphobia" being actual hatred of people because they are trans, or promoting violence against them, or advocating that they be treated as inferior human beings, denied the basic rights the rest of us have. 

> But that's different from "transphobia" defined as "anything any trans activist regards as transphobia", which is essentially a way to prevent other people from voicing opinions. 

Can you see the problem with you defining what is and isn't "real" transphobia? The position I've set out is that there is a scale, from harassment, to abuse, to transphobia like the tweets here or GG (ridicule on the basis of being trans), to legitimate political comment (e.g. this is the problem with policy x; y would be preferable because...). It's a matter of judgement whether you view the tweets here as I do (transphobic) or as you do (not transphobic). There isn't a right or wrong answer. 

My position is not that anything defined as transphobia by activists is transphobia. My position is that anything that publicly ridicules trans people for being trans is transphobia. You can surely acknowledge that this is different.

> But suppose I assert that...A "trans women" is a male person who strongly dislikes being male, would have preferred being female, wishes to live a female gender role, and may (or not) modify their body to "pass" as female.  

Then your definition doesn't fit the reality of someone who transitioned years ago and just lives as woman. They're not a man who strongly dislikes being a man, if they're living as a woman. They might have disliked being male in the past, but if they've transitioned and they're comfortable living as a woman, then they're not defined by "disliking being male" as that becomes a hypothetical if they're not disliking anything about their bodies since transitioning. 

> The only thing I am denying is that they "are women" in the sense of being "no different from any other woman" and "must be accepted as women for all purposes". 

I don't see anything other than bullshit coming out of a binary position "trans women are women" or, the opposite position "trans women are men" (or as you so sensitively put it, "male persons"). Both positions are simplistic, and there's no need to decide which side of the false dichotomy is correct, and then to decide policy on that basis. Can you see that this is an absolutely terrible approach to a very difficult policy area?

I reject outright the idea that there is any legitimate or useful debate to be had about whether trans women are "women" or "men". The legitimate debate surrounds specific policy issues.

> I disagree.  My above position statement denies that trans women "are of the female sex". 

I don't care what words you use to categorise trans people. I care about how people are treated, and I reject the approach of categorising first then deciding how to treat people afterwards. 

>  The mammal/fish tweet is saying that there is underlying biology that is not changed

It looks like ridicule to me. I disagree with your interpretation, and I disagree that the point about underlying biology is relevant to the debate.

> It *is* addressing a policy issue.  

My point is that this is a terrible way to try to address the policy issues! Don't categorise all trans people according to a binary on some theoretical basis, and then make policy according to that theory. Take the sports issues on their merits. Take prison issues on their merits. 

> That's why such views are not "phobic", they result from genuine and proper concern for the rights of women...No, honestly it does not. 

In some cases (like this one) yes, in others (the guy with the abusive poem) no. You do yourself no favours by denying that transphobia can be dressed up as political debate, when it's motivated by hatred of trans people.

> But I can see that, if a male-bodied trans-women joins a women's rugby team...

Fine. I haven't put forward any view on trans women in sport, and don't really care about it. My view goes no further than saying the issue should be dealt with on its merits, not by deciding whether "trans women are women or men" on twitter.

Here's an analysis of the trans sports issue that actually looks at the issue, and thankfully ignores this stupid, simplistic false dichotomy that you promote.

(There's a classic social-media history to this video...the lad got massively shouted at by lots of people, presumably trans activists).

youtube.com/watch?v=02FCYz8bOo8&

Post edited at 13:41
 RomTheBear 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Of course it's a dynamic interplay between genes and environment!  Of course it's not "an opposition".  This has been accepted for decades and decades, and twin studies have been a big part of discerning how all this works.

> That sentence shows a complete failure to understand twin studies.   Nothing about their methodology assumes or involves "opposition" as opposed to dynamic interplay between genes and environment.

That is just so soooooooo wrong. I suggest you have a look at the equation of the classic twin study model. Moreover, even in advanced forms that claim to capture gene environment, they are still is essentially a multivariate linear model (only difference is that you are interested in the covariance), unlikely to capture non-linearities/feedback loops well at all.

If you use the wrong model, you get wrong results. Simple as that.

I agree that social scientist do recognise that in their majority. However they claim it doesn’t matter, but there isn’t much substance to that claim, other than intellectual acrobatics, or, I kid you not, simulations with made up data.

You are a scientist, tell us, how do you assess whether a model is good or not ? I know how I do it, how do you do it ?

> "And when they can predict individual hurricanes and typhoons three years in advance, then I'll accept that them there climate scientists know what they're talking about" -- says the denialist

When climate scientist start telling me they can predict a tornado  in three years time, I’ll call bullshit as well. But that’s not what they do. Blatant disingenuous comparison.

Post edited at 13:51
1
 RomTheBear 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Hopefully, the police would only collect intelligence if there is pretty clear grounds for suspecting criminality.  We're not a police state, and shouldn't have intelligence gathering "just in case.

Unfortunately that ship has sailed a while ago. Government departments are legally allowed to collect intelligence without any ground for suspicion in many cases. Moreover, in many cases, you are not even allowed to know what information is being collected or how it is processed. 

> Second, another issue here is what the police would then tell others.  If this person applied for a role requiring DBS clearance, would the police then report "he has been involved in hate incidents"?

Yep. In an enhanced security check this would typically show up. Basically any information collected by the police as long as they consider it relevant.

Sad.

1
 Coel Hellier 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> My position is that anything that publicly ridicules trans people for being trans is transphobia.

I don't agree that tweets such as the above ridicule "trans people for being trans".  Rather, they ridicule the trans activists' position that "trans women are women" as opposed to being trans women.

> I reject outright the idea that there is any legitimate or useful debate to be had about whether trans women are "women" or "men".

OK, fine, but that debate is being pushed by the trans activists (who then want to make policy based on that), and the tweets are a reaction to that promotion by the activists.

> They might have disliked being male in the past, but if they've transitioned and they're comfortable living as a woman, then they're not defined by "disliking being male" as that becomes a hypothetical if they're not disliking anything about their bodies since transitioning. 

I'm not an expert on today's medical interventions, but I'd guess that they're far from perfect and that most trans women would like-a-shot swap their after-transition body for a natal-woman body, if they had the option.

> My view goes no further than saying the issue should be dealt with on its merits, not by deciding whether "trans women are women or men" on twitter.

OK, fine.  That's pretty much my position also.   But it'll get you yelled at by the trans activists.  And if the activists are strongly promoting the claim "trans women are women" as a way of insisting on certain policies, then it is reasonable for others to vocally dissent from the claim. 

OP Jon Stewart 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> I don't agree that tweets such as the above ridicule "trans people for being trans".  Rather, they ridicule the trans activists' position that "trans women are women" as opposed to being trans women.

That's the claim, but when I read

“I was assigned mammal at birth, but my orientation is fish. Don’t mis-species me. F*ckers.”

it reads to me as ridiculing the idea that any person should want to be addressed as the gender they have transitioned to. In fact it's stronger than that, it's ridiculing the very notion of transition, showing a real disconnect from any understanding by using the word "orientation". There's nothing there which refers to, let alone critiques the political position that trans women should *always* be treated identically to other women; it's just repeating a transphobic meme, a variation on "I identify as an attack helicopter".

Sure, in the wider context it might be clear what's motivating the ridicule. But if someone has, say legitimate concerns about black gangs in their community but then they make a racist remark that implies black people in general are dangerous or inferior, I wouldn't excuse it because of the context, I'd say it was racist.

The tweeter in question is basically a bit thick. She's started out thinking about the potential impact on women of self-identification, and drifted into repeating transphobic memes without seeing that's what she's done. 

> OK, fine, but that debate is being pushed by the trans activists (who then want to make policy based on that), and the tweets are a reaction to that promotion by the activists.

"They started it" is not a good argument.

> I'm not an expert on today's medical interventions, but I'd guess that they're far from perfect and that most trans women would like-a-shot swap their after-transition body for a natal-woman body, if they had the option.

You're engaging in a pointless exercise of mind-reading. Relying on some residual self-hatred you think trans women must still suffer many years after transitioning does not support your position that they are "male persons who strongly dislike being male".

> OK, fine.  That's pretty much my position also.   But it'll get you yelled at by the trans activists.  And if the activists are strongly promoting the claim "trans women are women" as a way of insisting on certain policies, then it is reasonable for others to vocally dissent from the claim. 

It's reasonable when they do it in an intelligent way that demonstrates clearly that trans people deserve equal respect. Tweeting “I was assigned mammal at birth, but my orientation is fish. Don’t mis-species me. F*ckers.” is a failure to do this.

Post edited at 15:13
 RomTheBear 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> I don't agree that tweets such as the above ridicule "trans people for being trans".  Rather, they ridicule the trans activists' position that "trans women are women" as opposed to being trans women.

Shouldn’t it be up to the individual as to whether they want to be treated as « trans woman » or « woman » ? Live and let live I say.

 Coel Hellier 21 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> That is just so soooooooo wrong. I suggest you have a look at the equation of the classic twin study model.

Here's a basic method of comparing cakes:  make different cakes, with different amounts of ingredients, and compare the end result on a suck-it-and-see basis.  That makes no assumptions about how the ingredients interact, it just compares the different inputs and outputs.

Similarly, the basic twin-study method is just to compare different amounts of genetic relatedness, thrown into the mix, and then look at outcomes on a suck-it-and-see basis. Again, that doesn't make assumption as to how the ingredients interact.  Of course how you interpret various findings beyond that will indeed depend on interactions. 

 Coel Hellier 21 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Shouldn’t it be up to the individual as to whether they want to be treated as « trans woman » or « woman » ? Live and let live I say.

Not if they're asking for access to women's sports teams, women's prisons, women's rape crises centres, et cetera. 

 Coel Hellier 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> it reads to me as ridiculing the idea that any person should want to be addressed as the gender they have transitioned to. In fact it's stronger than that, it's ridiculing the very notion of transition, showing a real disconnect from any understanding by using the word "orientation".

I guess the Tweet is open to various interpretations as to the attitudes behind it. 

However, it is mild compared to the utter vitriol, and indeed literal physical assaults on women (by male-bodied persons), that come from the trans-activists side. 

(I guess you're going to reply about the difference being related to minorities that are traditionally oppressed.)

 Sir Chasm 21 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Shouldn’t it be up to the individual as to whether they want to be treated as « trans woman » or « woman » ? Live and let live I say.

Perhaps you say that because, as a man, you are never going to be personally affected if someone chooses to identify as a woman.

OP Jon Stewart 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> However, it is mild compared to the utter vitriol, and indeed literal physical assaults on women (by male-bodied persons), that come from the trans-activists side. 

> (I guess you're going to reply about the difference being related to minorities that are traditionally oppressed.)

No, I'm going to reply that I don't think that your generalised idea about what trans activists are like is remotely relevant, interesting or useful. Bad behaviour by some people does not justify ridicule of all the people who share some trait - a child could see that.

OP Jon Stewart 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Perhaps you say that because, as a man, you are never going to be personally affected if someone chooses to identify as a woman.

There's an implication there that trans women should not choose to identify as women, because doing so is harmful to women in general. Is that what you mean to say?

1
 Sir Chasm 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> There's an implication there that trans women should not choose to identify as women, because doing so is harmful to women in general. Is that what you mean to say?

No, you've chosen to make that inference. I don't think it's an issue of general harm, it's specific to some situations (and a minority of the people who choose to identify as women), women's prisons, refuges, medical treatment, sport, gender balance in employment, situations where natal women might reasonably expect to share the space, competion etc. with other women.

 RomTheBear 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Perhaps you say that because, as a man, you are never going to be personally affected if someone chooses to identify as a woman.

Nothing to do with my gender. I’m happy for anybody to identify with whatever gender they wish, as long as of course they return the favour. 

You could identify as a fish if you wanted, I’ll respect that, it doesn’t bother me.

 RomTheBear 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> No, you've chosen to make that inference. I don't think it's an issue of general harm, it's specific to some situations (and a minority of the people who choose to identify as women), women's prisons, refuges, medical treatment, sport, gender balance in employment, situations where natal women might reasonably expect to share the space, competion etc. with other women.

If anybody doesn’t want to share space with trans women who identify as women, or anybody else if fact, then I have no problem with that either. Nobody is forcing them to share their space with anybody they don’t want to.

Post edited at 16:20
1
OP Jon Stewart 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Do trans women choose to identify as women though? I couldn't choose to identify as a woman if for some reason I wanted to.

 RomTheBear 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Not if they're asking for access to women's sports teams, women's prisons, women's rape crises centres, et cetera. 

Seem like very marginal cases, but even then I’m not too sure what the problem is. If you don’t like being in a sports team with trans women nobody is forcing you to stay in that sport team.

Prison is a different matter as of course if you’ve been punished with prison time you’ve lost your freedom so it’s just not up to you. I guess you can always ask.

Post edited at 16:30
1
 RomTheBear 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Here's a basic method of comparing cakes:  make different cakes, with different amounts of ingredients, and compare the end result on a suck-it-and-see basis.  That makes no assumptions about how the ingredients interact, it just compares the different inputs and outputs.


> Similarly, the basic twin-study method is just to compare different amounts of genetic relatedness, thrown into the mix, and then look at outcomes on a suck-it-and-see basis. Again, that doesn't make assumption as to how the ingredients interact.  Of course how you interpret various findings beyond that will indeed depend on interactions.

Thats a total misunderstanding of the twin study method, or rather a very partial one. The basic twin study does not stop at comparing the outcomes. 

It doesn’t simply say « MZ twin pairs are more similar than DZ pairs on this trait ». This you can get from the data itself. No model required. If they stopped at that it would be absolutely fine.

But it doesn’t, the twin model attempts to decompose variance into several effects, as a way of providing an explanation for it. And that is done via a linear model which assumes the existence of three or four independent components.

1
 Sir Chasm 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Do trans women choose to identify as women though? I couldn't choose to identify as a woman if for some reason I wanted to.

I don't see why not. If trans is an innate quality then however you present you will still be trans. In the same way a gay person would be gay all their life but may have been married and had kids. Are you saying they're not gay while they are presenting as straight? Or are you saying trans people are only trans if they present as what they want/feel they are?

OP Jon Stewart 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> I don't see why not. If trans is an innate quality then however you present you will still be trans. In the same way a gay person would be gay all their life but may have been married and had kids. Are you saying they're not gay while they are presenting as straight? Or are you saying trans people are only trans if they present as what they want/feel they are?

I think we're at cross-purposes here, because now you're using the word 'present' when what I asked about was whether you really thought it was a choice to 'identify' as a woman, since you said:

> Perhaps you say that because, as a man, you are never going to be personally affected if someone chooses to identify as a woman.

I'm honestly not just trying to pick at some silly point about language - I'm not at all down with asserting that being trans is a choice. I think we agree that being trans is innate (as in, not changeable by choice) but which gender a trans person presents as is a choice. But your comment didn't portray this - you said "chooses to identify as a woman".

My overall problem with much of what gets spouted on this topic is that the issues around women's prisons etc. have been leveraged against all trans people, presenting them primarily as a threat, not as people who deserve equal treatment. For example, if a trans woman is raped, no one seems to take any interest at all in how she might access the support available, she's seen as a threat to the cis women whose space she might be perceived as invading. We're talking about a rape victim here being discussed in terms of the threat they pose to cis women. I find that quite disturbing, but it seems to be the mainstream view of those who see themselves as defending our society from the scourge of the trans activists.

Post edited at 17:38
 Coel Hellier 21 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> If you don’t like being in a sports team with trans women nobody is forcing you to stay in that sport team.

What about the other team?  Are they expected to accept the opposition fielding male-bodied players?

"Rugby referees are quitting the women’s amateur game because they fear rules allowing transgender women to play will lead to serious injuries.

"One, who did not want to be identified, said: “Being forced to prioritise hurt feelings over broken bones exposes me to personal litigation from female players who have been damaged by players who are biologically male. This is driving female players and referees out of the game.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/injury-fears-over-rugbys-trans-women-dri...

OP Jon Stewart 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Do these concerns relate to actual cases, or are they what ifs?

I get that the rules seem wrong, but how many trans women play rugby? The feeling one gets from the press is that you can't go anywhere without the constant threat of trans women being wherever you look...and yet as someone who sees a really wide cross section of people in my working life, I barely ever encounter a trans person. I can't square it.

 Coel Hellier 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Do these concerns relate to actual cases, or are they what ifs?

There are actual cases.  Obviously they are pretty rare currently (though maybe that will change, who knows?).

"At nearly 6ft she [Kelly] stands out among her team-mates, and club captain Jessica Minty-Madley recounts a time she folded an opponent "like a deckchair".

"That said, Kelly, 33, accepts transgender women may have an advantage in terms of size and strength. "I do feel guilty, but what can you do?" she says. "I don't go out to hurt anybody. I just want to play rugby.""

"He [the coach] can't resist a joke, though, adding: "She's going to be a good, good player for the next few years, as long as we can stop her injuring players in training.""

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/49298550

OP Jon Stewart 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Right, there is Kelly Morgan. Can you remind me why I should care again?

 Sir Chasm 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I think we're at cross-purposes here, because now you're using the word 'present' when what I asked about was whether you really thought it was a choice to 'identify' as a woman, since you said:

> I'm honestly not just trying to pick at some silly point about language - I'm not at all down with asserting that being trans is a choice. I think we agree that being trans is innate (as in, not changeable by choice) but which gender a trans person presents as is a choice. But your comment didn't portray this - you said "chooses to identify as a woman".

If we're agreeing that being trans is innate, then I'm happy to use identify and present interchangeably. As in, you present or identify yourself to other people as what you feel you are. That is a choice. If all you mean is could you choose to identify internally as a woman, without actually believing it, then obviously not.

> My overall problem with much of what gets spouted on this topic is that the issues around women's prisons etc. have been leveraged against all trans people, presenting them primarily as a threat, not as people who deserve equal treatment. For example, if a trans woman is raped, no one seems to take any interest at all in how she might access the support available, she's seen as a threat to the cis women whose space she might be perceived as invading. We're talking about a rape victim here being discussed in terms of the threat they pose to cis women. I find that quite disturbing, but it seems to be the mainstream view of those who see themselves as defending our society from the scourge of the trans activists.

Ah well, you might want to try addressing those people.

OP Jon Stewart 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> If we're agreeing that being trans is innate, then I'm happy to use identify and present interchangeably. As in, you present or identify yourself to other people as what you feel you are. That is a choice. If all you mean is could you choose to identify internally as a woman, without actually believing it, then obviously not.

That's a bit confusing. 'To identify as' means what you feel you are, internally. 'To present as' means how you, err, present to others, which is more of a choice. If you're using the terms interchangeably, you'll be misunderstood.

> Ah well, you might want to try addressing those people.

See the discussion.

 Sir Chasm 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> That's a bit confusing. 'To identify as' means what you feel you are, internally. 'To present as' means how you, err, present to others, which is more of a choice. If you're using the terms interchangeably, you'll be misunderstood.

It stems from your original misinterpretation. What you asked was  "There's an implication there that trans women should not choose to identify as women, because doing so is harmful to women in general. Is that what you mean to say?" . Now I'm using present and identify interchangeably, because that makes sense. If you choose to use identify as merely what you feel inside them how could that possibly be harmful to women in general, it wouldn't make any difference would it?

> See the discussion.

Well, "we" weren't discussing trans rape victims accessing women's services or refuges. So I don't know the we you're referring to.

OP Jon Stewart 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Now I'm using present and identify interchangeably, because that makes sense.

Not really, because when people say "I identify as a man/christian/British" etc, they're talking about their identity. But when they say "she presents as very traditionally feminine", they're talking about someone's clothes, hair, body language, etc. You're using the words in a different way to how they're generally understood, and that's confusing.

> If you choose to use identify as merely what you feel inside them how could that possibly be harmful to women in general, it wouldn't make any difference would it?

Hence the question, what do you actually mean? You said "choose to identify" and then said you thought being trans was innate. Sorry for struggling to understand what you're trying to say, but...

Post edited at 22:47
 Sir Chasm 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Not really, because when people say "I identify as a man/christian/British" etc, they're talking about their identity. But when they say "she presents as very traditionally feminine", they're talking about someone's clothes, hair, body language, etc. You're using the words in a different way to how they're generally understood, and that's confusing.

No, in this context you've heard of self identification, so I think you're being a little disingenuous. The identification part is clearly referring to how you present. If the identity/identification is all internal then there would be nothing to discuss.

> Hence the question, what do you actually mean? You said "choose to identify" and then said you thought being trans was innate. Sorry for struggling to understand what you're trying to say, but...

Sure, sure.

1
OP Jon Stewart 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Sir Chasm:

I assure you, when you said "choose to identify" my reaction was, "wtf?".

 FactorXXX 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Right, there is Kelly Morgan. Can you remind me why I should care again?

Because due to her physical size, she might well end up seriously injuring someone.
Isn't that alone enough to question her eligibility to play?
You also have to factor in that she'll have an advantage over her counterparts due to being taller, etc. 
If it was in a standard workplace, then absolutely no problem.
However, in a workplace where the main criteria is pure physicality, then surely she has a massive and unfair advantage over her contemporaries.    

 

OP Jon Stewart 21 Nov 2019
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Because due to her physical size, she might well end up seriously injuring someone.

If she is significantly bigger than any other woman in the sport, I can see the safety argument. If there is one other woman of equal size and weight in the sport, then the argument is invalid and would seem to be politically motivated.

> Isn't that alone enough to question her eligibility to play?

Sure, there are plenty of reasons to question her eligibility. I don't support the rules (what I know about the issue is taken from goaty-lad's video I posted above - this isn't an issue that interests me at all because I'm not into sport at all).

> You also have to factor in that she'll have an advantage over her counterparts due to being taller, etc. 

Yeah yeah. I asked why I should care, the debate about the rules and fairness is covered in that video.

I'm not part of the trans lobby, arguing for any given policy on anything. I'm expressing suspicion at the way the press - and people who lap it up - present trans women as primarily a threat to other women. I think it's unhealthy and sinister, and I don't believe that the motive is always the protection of women as claimed.

1
 tonanf 21 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

all youve done is describe your sample group

 tonanf 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

i think they mean 'present' as in how an illness presents, without choice.

 tonanf 21 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

and cohsen to identify is about becoming self aware and choosing to present your self as, not about you presentation choices

 RomTheBear 22 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> What about the other team?  Are they expected to accept the opposition fielding male-bodied players?

Nobody is forcing any other teams to play against teams they don’t like. If you pick a sport and want to play at competitive level then you just abide by the rules of whatever organisation is organising the competition, if you don’t like it go play with a different league that doesn’t allow trans women or play another sport. if you’re worried about getting hurt at playing rugby then go play golf or ping pong.

Post edited at 05:47
2
 Coel Hellier 22 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> If you pick a sport and want to play at competitive level then you just abide by the rules of whatever organisation is organising the competition, if you don’t like it go play with a different league that doesn’t allow trans women or play another sport.

In other words, if some male-bodied trans women want to take over a women's sport, then the women just need to lump it -- however unfair that makes the competition -- or stop playing and leave the sport. 

 Coel Hellier 22 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> If there is one other woman of equal size and weight in the sport, then the argument is invalid and would seem to be politically motivated.

A natal-born woman of that same size and weight would likely be fairly slow and not that strong.  A male would be bigger and heavier than (nearly all) the women, but also faster and stronger with that bulk. 

You've said that you have no interest in sport, so ok, you personally don't care.  It seems legitimate to me for women who like women's sports to care about this. 

OP Jon Stewart 22 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Are you talking about safety or fairness? 

I'm saying that if there's other women of the same size, the safety issue is bunk. If you're saying it's not just size, but other factors that contribute to safety I think you're speculating in a deliberate attempt to find an issue. Fishy. 

If you're talking about fairness, then yeah whatever. 

2
 Coel Hellier 22 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> If you're saying it's not just size, but other factors that contribute to safety I think you're speculating in a deliberate attempt to find an issue. Fishy. 

Speed and strength, in addition to size and weight, are also important issues for the safety of other players.   

> If you're talking about fairness, then yeah whatever. 

So you don't care about sport -- noted.  But fairness is a central issue of sport, and women can legitimately care about women's sport. 

OP Jon Stewart 22 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Speed and strength, in addition to size and weight, are also important issues for the safety of other players.   

I'm really struggling to see how the safety issue is an issue of concern on its own merits. We know of one trans woman in the sport and we don't know if she is the biggest player or not. It might or might not be an issue. It affects only female rugby players who choose to play a contact sport. Let's just say that this issue is not keeping me awake at night, and I don't feel any needs to be kept informed of developments. 

> So you don't care about sport -- noted.  But fairness is a central ssue of sport, and women can legitimately care about women's sport. 

Of course it is and of course they can. I'm just saying that this is a technical issue and I refer you to the analysis by goatee-boy. 

1
 Coel Hellier 22 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I'm really struggling to see how the safety issue is an issue of concern on its own merits. We know of one trans woman in the sport and we don't know if she is the biggest player or not. It might or might not be an issue.

We do know these things!  See the quotes from articles just up-thread (and read the whole articles).

> It affects only female rugby players who choose to play a contact sport. Let's just say that this issue is not keeping me awake at night, and I don't feel any needs to be kept informed of developments. 

OK, so you're not interested in women's sport. Noted, we really have noted that you are not interested in women's sport.

But other people are interested in women's sport, and can legitimately see things like this (and the increasing number of trans-women who win the competitions) as an issue. 

And again, my interest here is, firstly, that the activist ideology is one example of wider ideologies coming out of post-modernists "gender studies", "critical race studies", and similar, and secondly, that this leads to a free speech issue. 

You and I both think that we should decide such issues on their pragmatic merits.  The activists disagree, they think it should be decided on ideology -- namely that "trans women are women", and  that excluding them from *any* situation is a denial of their basic rights and is "transphobic".

And they promote that ideology by tactics of: reporting dissenters to police, to get them intimidated into silence; getting them banned from twitter etc though accusations of "transphobia"; trying to get them sacked from their jobs, through accusations of "transphobia", at the very least getting them harassed by their HR departments; trying to get any feminist who disagrees de-platformed as "transphobic"; getting events organised by women who disagree canceled as "transphobic", by the tactics of complaining to the venue, or simply by physically disrupting the event. Et cetera.   

And that's why I choose to take an interest, since it is symptomatic of wider issues of ideology, open discussion, and free speech.

1
 Coel Hellier 22 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Good old Douglas Murray.  Here he is 100% spot on.    (Everything below is him)

Perhaps it would simplify things if the 999 dialling service was amended. From now on it might say: “Press ‘1’ for ambulance, 2 for police, 3 for fire-service and 4 for thought-police.” Although given current priorities, perhaps the thought-police option should be offered first.

The thought is prompted by the case of Harry Miller, heard at the High Court this week. Mr Miller is a former police officer who was contacted by Humberside Police in January after a complaint that a number of tweets he had published were “transphobic”.

Such door-knocking is a growing and disturbing trend. In recent years there have been an increasing number of cases where members of the public have found the police at their door for saying things online that someone (anyone) has deemed “transphobic”. The fact that “transphobia” (like many other “phobias”) is a deeply unclear concept, is cause for concern. The fact that saying things about sex, gender and genitalia that are true should be considered any type of “crime” should be cause for serious alarm.

Mr Miller was told that he had not committed a crime but that his social media posts were being recorded as a “hate incident”. In the not very distant past there were crimes and there were not-crimes. When people did things that were not-crimes there was no need for the police to appear on their doorstep. If they robbed a bank, mugged or stabbed someone, however, quite often the police would get involved.

Of course, as residents of London and other cities might have noticed, the police are not especially good at stopping knife crime in particular these days. Whether because of political interference, incompetence or some other factor, our capital has in recent years become known worldwide as a hub of this barbarity.

Is it a coincidence that the eagerness of the police to pursue “hate incidents” seems to rise just as their ability to deal with real crime appears to fall? Perhaps officers simply find it more restful to turn up on the doorstep of naughty tweeters? Even former colleagues guilty of this charge.

Well Mr Miller, at least, was not taking this lying down. At the High Court this week he said that the actions of Humberside Police breached his human right to free expression. Meantime, the police claim that their actions were lawful and in no way interfered with his rights.

Perhaps Humberside Police are simply unaware of the problems with this claim. For instance, they seem to think that it is no particular bother if the police turn up on a member of the public’s doorstep and start questioning them about their opinions. They clearly see no current or historic occasions when such a procedure went wrong. Nor can they apparently guess why some of us might be concerned at the police taking it upon themselves to decide what is and is not allowed to be said in our society.

The additional problem is that the whole world of “hate-crime” legislation is replete with bad thinking. A hate-crime is a hate-crime if a person says it is so. Meaning that I could decide that from now on every single time somebody does not agree with 100 per cent of my opinions that I have been the victim of a hate crime. We could call it “Murray-opobia”. I think I could provide full-time work for a number of police forces if we agreed to do so.

Yet even this is not the deepest problem. The deepest problem with the police stepping into these areas is that for a society to make healthy decisions it must have healthy discussions: to do so freely and without fear. In the area of trans we are currently (as with other “phobias”) being bullied away from having such a discussion. By claiming they are “offended”, a small number of activists are trying to force everyone else into agreeing with extraordinarily radical demands. This includes a demand that irreversible medical interventions should be carried out on children.

Well those demands should not be agreed to. And those who are questioning some of the emerging trans orthodoxy will be seen in the future as having provided – at the very least – a useful corrective. They should be free to do so without fearing not just some extremists on their backs but the police at their door.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/21/police-war-free-speech/

1
 RomTheBear 22 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> In other words, if some male-bodied trans women want to take over a women's sport, then the women just need to lump it -- however unfair that makes the competition -- or stop playing and leave the sport. 

I don’t see the problem. If you think a competition is unfair because trans women are allowed participate in it then create your own competition without trans women. Maybe it will be a less popular competition as the public might label it as transphobic, but that is fine. You own the cost of your preferences.

Post edited at 11:44
1
 Coel Hellier 22 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I don’t see the problem. If you think a competition is unfair because trans women are allowed participate in it then create your own competition without trans women.

But many people wouldn't allow that. 

Shadow Equality Minister Tweet:

"Labour will reform the GRA to introduce self-declaration for trans people. We will remove outdated language from the Equalities Act [that means they'll change the protected characteristic from being "sex" to being "gender".]  And there is no way spaces will be permitted to discriminate against trans people.  That is illegal and it will stay illegal."

 RomTheBear 22 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> But many people wouldn't allow that. 

> Shadow Equality Minister Tweet:

> "Labour will reform the GRA to introduce self-declaration for trans people. We will remove outdated language from the Equalities Act [that means they'll change the protected characteristic from being "sex" to being "gender".]  And there is no way spaces will be permitted to discriminate against trans people.  That is illegal and it will stay illegal."

Well the problem is not specifically with Labour.

If you have blanket right to all forms if discrimination, then you crush those who want some form of light discrimination. If you say there is blanket discrimination, then you crush the minority of trans people.

In both case you have either the minority imposing its will on the majority, or vice versa. Which are both unacceptable situations.

How do you solve it ? The answer is scale. devolve the policy down to where it is applied. In this case, let the clubs / leagues make their own policy. Then everyone can join/leave according to their preference.

4
Pan Ron 22 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

The absolute disgust the Labour activist, Holly Rigby, shows towards Douglas Murray on https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000bh7g/politics-live-22112019 around the 49-minute mark, is a pretty telling example of where the debate is.  I think this is where the Left is losing people.  Civil, reasonable, discussion is considered outrage.

OP Jon Stewart 22 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

If you think you're taking an objective view, you're completely deluded. Murray sneers at Rigby and starts saying "people like you..." before Jo Coburn intervenes and tells him he's being a prick. If you think that's "civil and reasonable" on one side, and out of order on the other, you need to do something about the weird filter through which you experience reality.

1
Lusk 22 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I watched that this morning.  I know you shouldn't really judge someone on first viewing, but ...!

Re: the thread topic, checking him out, definitely innate.

 Coel Hellier 22 Nov 2019
In reply to the thread:

"YouTube Censored My Interview With Posie Parker"

"The reality revealed by this incident is that the big tech giants answer to no one. While there is a formal right of appeal, the tech giants of Twitter, Facebook and YouTube act as judge, jury and executioner. In many cases, the decision is made by automated algorithms and then superficially reviewed by faceless apparatchiks. We weren’t told which aspects of our video were “hate speech” and, beyond throwing around this catch-all term, no justification was offered for taking it down. In essence, YouTube is accountable to no one.

"The libertarian argument that YouTube is owned by a private company which is entitled to police content as it wishes is no longer sustainable. We live in a digital world in which a handful of big tech companies have seized control of the public square. As I have argued before, we need a First Amendment for the Internet."

https://quillette.com/2019/11/22/youtube-censored-my-interview-with-posie-p...

OP Jon Stewart 22 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> And again, my interest here is, firstly, that the activist ideology is one example of wider ideologies coming out of post-modernists "gender studies", "critical race studies", and similar, and secondly, that this leads to a free speech issue. 

> You and I both think that we should decide such issues on their pragmatic merits.  The activists disagree, they think it should be decided on ideology -- namely that "trans women are women", and  that excluding them from *any* situation is a denial of their basic rights and is "transphobic".

> And they promote that ideology by tactics of: reporting dissenters to police, to get them intimidated into silence; getting them banned from twitter etc though accusations of "transphobia"; trying to get them sacked from their jobs, through accusations of "transphobia", at the very least getting them harassed by their HR departments; trying to get any feminist who disagrees de-platformed as "transphobic"; getting events organised by women who disagree canceled as "transphobic", by the tactics of complaining to the venue, or simply by physically disrupting the event. Et cetera.   

> And that's why I choose to take an interest, since it is symptomatic of wider issues of ideology, open discussion, and free speech.

My problem is that you see this issue as a binary with "trans activists" on one side being bad, and anyone who disagrees with them being good. Normal trans people, and the impact the media obsession with them has on them: do you have any thoughts about them? You haven't displayed an iota of concern for anyone who's just the victim of abuse due to all the good work that your free speech heros are blessing us with, such tweeting abusive rhymes or using their position as world-renowned public intellectuals to publicly ridicule all trans people in the most personal way possible.

Can you see why it might be wiser to adopt a more nuanced position? If you don't like the philosophy, or the policies of the trans activists, perhaps you should be supporting someone who has sufficient intellectual capacity to make the arguments against them. Yet, the "political arguments" you support include:

"male to female transgender people do not look like, sound like or behave like women".

"you're a man, your breasts are made of silicone and we can tell the difference"

"I'm a mammal but my orientation is fish"

I wouldn't be suspicious of your motivation if you could actually see the difference between a political argument that opposes a specific policy or philosophy, and public abuse that's aimed at all trans people. And nowhere on this thread is there any specific example of a trans activist actually doing anything - you refer to them as an abstract enemy, a boogeyman, and rely on the existence of this enemy as justification for abuse that impacts all ordinary trans people, making society more hostile towards them. It has echos of the way Trump talks about Muslims, or George W Bush talked about "terror". The enemy in the other needed to fill the political role of the object of righteous hatred. If you read the right wing press, that's  what they feed you, and I can't see you putting up any resistance.

It weakens your position and makes you appear disingenuous when you refuse to see that anyone on "your side" of this simplistic binary can do anything wrong - no matter how stupid or how abusive what they say is, you consistently frame them as victims who are under attack from the trans activist/gender studies boogeyman. This whole way of viewing politics and the world just isn't for me.

Post edited at 22:12
1
 RomTheBear 22 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Well it's now apparent that he is a Quillete reader. Tells you everything you need to know. He's too far gone, give up.

1
OP Jon Stewart 22 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

We don't need to argue about whether the police should be involved in what people post on social media - there's a lot in Murray's stomach-churning sneering and misrepresentation that I take issue with (mainly because just the sight of his face gives me internal bleeding and organ failure, so I find it hard to read his work without a sick-bag handy). But the thrust of what he's saying I agree with.

As for that interview on youtube - well, that woman is thick as mince and I'll happily debate the absolute dogshit that unfortunately escaped from her mouth - but is it censored or not? I don't think it should be. And I can view it on youtube. Like Murray, it takes a strong stomach and a stiff drink to get through, but if I end up vomiting all over the carpet because I chose to listen to it, that's my choice and I'm glad to be able to make it myself.

The term "trigger warning" attracts a lot of ridicule, and I've rarely if ever seen it used in context. But maybe I get it, after watching a bit of that interview. I think it's fair to say, up front, "this video shows someone saying over and over again how much they hate trans women, so if you're not up for that, it's probably not for you". Surely the "trigger warning" is the friend of free speech, a way of allowing spewings of racism, homophobia etc, to go uncensored while letting the audience know what's coming so they can't get all pissy about it if they don't like it? Just like on TV, "contains scenes of blah". Can't see what's wrong with that...

Post edited at 23:59
Pan Ron 23 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

Ha! Quillette reading is a sign of being "too far gone"?  I rest my case for how bonkers the left has become.

1
OP Jon Stewart 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Ha! Quillette reading is a sign of being "too far gone"?  I rest my case for how bonkers the left has become.

What case? How is one comment on an internet forum representative of *half the entire political spectrum*? You're an idiot. I rest my case. 

1
 Coel Hellier 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Normal trans people, and the impact the media obsession with them has on them: do you have any thoughts about them?

Thoughts on trans people in general? Yes, my thoughts are that they should be treated with respect and helped to live the lives they wish to.

As for media obsession, that is largely being driven by the trans activists, and yes I do think that it can negative consequences for other trans people, and some trans people think that also and criticise the activist ideology.

> Can you see why it might be wiser to adopt a more nuanced position?

Are you referring to the trans activists or the critics?     Yes, I can, on both sides.  But my central interest here is the free-speech angle, especially speech countering ideology.  I'm very resistant to "your speech is not sufficiently nuanced, therefore it can be legitimately censored".     If you're just offering tactical advice to the critics then sure, go ahead.

>   Yet, the "political arguments" you support include:

Well hold on, I'm only supporting the right of someone to say those things (on their personal twitter feed) without it being a police matter, and without them being in danger of losing their job.

> I wouldn't be suspicious of your motivation if you could actually see the difference between a political argument that opposes a specific policy or philosophy, and public abuse that's aimed at all trans people.

But the point is I'm hugely wary of allowing the labeling of  something as being "abuse aimed at all trans people" as a tactic for shutting down political discussion. 

 Coel Hellier 23 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Well it's now apparent that he is a Quillete reader. Tells you everything you need to know. He's too far gone, give up.

Yep, I am indeed a Quillette reader.  It posts a lot of interesting, thoughtful and provocative articles, with the most common writers being centre-left-ish. 

The problem with too much of the far-woke left is that it can't accept criticism even from left-leaning writers who are broadly sympathetic to many of their aims.     Such people are "too far gone" are they? 

 RomTheBear 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Yep, I am indeed a Quillette reader.

Seems to explain why you are so disturbingly obsessed.

>  It posts a lot of interesting, thoughtful and provocative articles, with the most common writers being centre-left-ish. 

Most of the contributions are intellectual masturbations written by psycholophasters and other “academics”.  Claims to be about freedom of speech but really just is a cover for a sinister Neo-Nazi “scientific” eugenist and “race realism” agenda.

BTW, I’m not left wing, I don’t like identity politics or politics, so please don’t project your pet obsessions on me, I just have an aversion to BS.

Post edited at 12:06
3
OP Jon Stewart 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Thoughts on trans people in general? Yes, my thoughts are that they should be treated with respect and helped to live the lives they wish to.

I don't think that's consistent with excusing public ridicule of all trans people as "legitimate political debate". I'm not asking you to support any particular position on censorship or sanctions, just making the observation that to treat trans people with respect is, at the very minimum, to acknowledge when they're being publicly humiliated.

> As for media obsession, that is largely being driven by the trans activists

Is it? I think the right-wing press' desire for an enemy in people who aren't white and straight, coupled with total indifference to the abuse of minorities is a large factor. They sell papers (advertising) by stirring up fear and hatred - that's their job.

> Are you referring to the trans activists or the critics?

I'm referring to you personally.

> I'm very resistant to "your speech is not sufficiently nuanced, therefore it can be legitimately censored". 

Then you misunderstand. I don't think you should be censored. We can take specific examples of bad arguments (like yours) or abuse (like Germaine Greer's) on their merits, and I can give you a view on what I think an appropriate response might be. I've never suggested that your simplistic viewpoint can be legitimately censored.

> Well hold on, I'm only supporting the right of someone to say those things (on their personal twitter feed) without it being a police matter, and without them being in danger of losing their job.

My understanding of your position was that further, these comments are not abusive and should be specifically protected because they are legitimate political comment, i.e. Twitter should not be allowed to remove them in response to complaints. Are you stepping back from that?

> But the point is I'm hugely wary of allowing the labeling of  something as being "abuse aimed at all trans people" as a tactic for shutting down political discussion. 

If you show me a case where someone uses that tactic where the comment *isn't* abuse aimed at all trans people, then I'll agree with you *in that case*. The examples I give above *are* abuse aimed at all trans people, because that's who they refer to. If I had something to about to say about gangs in Hounslow but I made comments about "blacks", that wouldn't be good, and my comments would probably get me in trouble for coming across as a little bit racist. Can you see how this principle applies to not posting abuse aimed at all trans people?

2
 Coel Hellier 23 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Claims to be about freedom of speech but really just is a cover for a sinister Neo-Nazi “scientific” eugenist ...

I would say "support your claim with a few actual examples of actual articles", but that's not your style, is it?

 Coel Hellier 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

>  ... to treat trans people with respect is, at the very minimum, to acknowledge when they're being publicly humiliated.

First, I would distinguish between how one treats someone in an  in-person interaction, and public debate in the public square.

Secondly, "respecting" someone -- regarding them as equal citizens who are entitled to civil rights, and equal treatment by government, businesses, etc -- is not the same as saying they should exempted from the sort of commentary that is normal in society (by which I mean the sort of commentary, in tone and content, that Labour versus Tories or Brexiters versus Remainers might level at each other).

> My understanding of your position was that further, these comments are not abusive and should be specifically protected because they are legitimate political comment,

No, I do not say they should be "specifically" protected.  I say that such speech should be regarded as normal, and so not need "protection".  And that applies whether or not it is "abusive".   

I'm just not interested in whether or not it is "abusive". Saying that speech should not be uttered if it is "abusive" enables anyone to shut down opponents by claiming to be offended, 

To me, things that are over the limit are: advocating violence towards a group; advocating hatred towards a group; advocating that a group be treated as second class citizens with fewer basic rights. 

> i.e. Twitter should not be allowed to remove them in response to complaints. Are you stepping back from that?

I think that Twitter (and Facebook and Youtube), being near monopolies in their niche, should be regulated to ensure free speech, which means that, no, they should not be allowed to censor content that is merely, in someone's opinion, "abusive".

> The examples I give above *are* abuse aimed at all trans people, because that's who they refer to.

You're entitled to your interpretation of the tweets.  I don't fully share your opinion on that.  But, more to the point, I don't think anything should turn on whether or not they are "abusive" -- other than how you personally you might react and respond to it.  Obviously you're entitled to think what you like of the speaker and say so. 

Post edited at 13:02
 marsbar 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

The public square includes trans people.  Therefore it is no different and nor should it be to an in person conversation.  Unless you are a hypocrite?  Although the unpleasantness seen here on occasion could be why they aren't active posters here.  I know that several people wont post due to the Islamaphobic nonsense spouted at times.  

 Coel Hellier 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

One of the big problems with the doctrine of "it is abusive towards Group A, therefore it shouldn't be said", is that it treats all members of Group A as though they had identical opinions. 

If I can find one trans person who is ok with Germaine Greer's comments, and consider that they are allowable as normal speech, does that make them ok?   If not, how many such people would I need? Ten?  Ten percent? Thirty percent?    

Or is it the case that if even one trans person considers it "abusive" then it's a no-no?  If one is not sufficient, then how many? Ten? Ten percent? Thirty percent?

Ditto about using the word "nigga" in rap lyrics, or a copy of Huck Finn referring to "Nigger Jim".    If one can find one black person who objects, is that then a no-no?  Or does one black person who is ok with it then make it acceptable?  If somewhere in-between, then exactly where? 

OP Jon Stewart 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> First, I would distinguish between how one treats someone in an  in-person interaction, and public debate in the public square

I don't know what you mean. Are we having an in-person interaction, or is this public debate? It's both.

> Secondly, "respecting" someone -- regarding them as equal citizens who are entitled to civil rights, and equal treatment by government, businesses, etc -- is not the same as saying they should exempted from the sort of commentary that is normal in society (by which I mean the sort of commentary, in tone and content, that Labour versus Tories or Brexiters versus Remainers might level at each other).

I agree. But since the vast majority of people *cannot* be abused for characteristics they didn't choose and which put them at risk of abuse, you are factually incorrect in asserting that the type of comment I object to is "normal in society". It isn't normal, and it cannot be normal.

> No, I do not say they should be "specifically" protected.  I say that such speech should be regarded as normal, and so not need "protection".  And that applies whether or not it is "abusive".   

I obviously haven't understood exactly what you want, because all I can see is inconsistency. You argue strongly that there should be "freedom" to publicly abuse trans people, but you've got nothing to say about policies that ban racist abuse from the public square. It's always a call for "freedom" for the people you agree with, and screw everyone else. If we implemented what you say you want, we'd just have a free-for-all for racists and homophobes, and there is no way that anyone in a minority could have a voice. Minorities would just be bullied out of public spaces - is this a price you want to pay for your "freedom" (for people like me, but not you)?

> I'm just not interested in whether or not it is "abusive"

You want a free-for-all, short of incitement, yes? Youtube full of racist propoganda. "God lets faggots die of AIDS" is an acceptable tweet from a headteacher who should not be sanctioned as that would infringe their freedom. I don't believe that you understand what you're promoting. Controlling abuse is the mark of a civilised society.

Is there a social-darwinist philosophy underlying this (as there generally is with right-wing politics)? That, yeah, people will suffer, but they're the weak and the strong will prevail? Maximise freedom to allow the natural order to be restored. My objections to this philosophy run pretty deep!

> To me, things that are over the limit are: advocating violence towards a group; advocating hatred towards a group; advocating that a group be treated as second class citizens with fewer basic rights...I don't think anything should turn on whether or not they are "abusive"

So "abuse" is within bounds, but "advocating hatred" is over the line? Just explain how this works. Racist abuse is in, but advocating hatred of other races is out. I don't believe you have consistent position - I think you're talking bollocks.

OP Jon Stewart 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> One of the big problems with the doctrine of "it is abusive towards Group A, therefore it shouldn't be said"

I think you have a real misunderstanding of the substance of this issue.

There is no authority that decides whether speech is acceptable or unacceptable, there should not be, and cannot be. There is speech, and there is response to speech; there are context-dependent social norms about speech; and in some limited circumstances there are rules, policies and laws that prohibit speech. There's no clarity about whether we're discussing social norms and responses to speech, or whether we're talking about policies and laws, there's just constant conflation of the whole lot.

Both those who seek to use the infrastructure of law enforcement to control speech, and their opposition, display total confusion about how these mechanics of our society work, and in my view, should work. When there is a response to some speech to the effect of "that transgresses a social norm in this context", there are cries from the "free speech warriors" of "how dare you infringe my rights to free speech", as if they had been arrested for the content of a private communication. You live in a society with social norms, and when you contravene them, you get stick for it. That's not an infringement of rights!

 Pefa 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> One of the big problems with the doctrine of "it is abusive towards Group A, therefore it shouldn't be said", is that it treats all members of Group A as though they had identical opinions. 

> If I can find one trans person who is ok with Germaine Greer's comments, and consider that they are allowable as normal speech, does that make them ok?   If not, how many such people would I need? Ten?  Ten percent? Thirty percent?    

> Or is it the case that if even one trans person considers it "abusive" then it's a no-no?  If one is not sufficient, then how many? Ten? Ten percent? Thirty percent?

It would be a general consensus and i do know it would be massive majority with a few if any who didn't see how deliberately hurtful Greer's comments are. I think any emotionally mature adult could see this very easily. 

> Ditto about using the word "nigga" in rap lyrics, or a copy of Huck Finn referring to "Nigger Jim".    If one can find one black person who objects, is that then a no-no?  Or does one black person who is ok with it then make it acceptable?  If somewhere in-between, then exactly where? 

> I'm just not interested in whether or not it is "abusive". Saying that speech should not be uttered if it is "abusive" enables anyone to shut down opponents by claiming to be offended. 

So you think it is good for society to verbally or write abuse toward minorities of people that causes much pain, why would that be a positive progression of humanity? I would seriously like to know. 

You also use the word "Claiming", when you write on minorities being offended as if they are not really offended but just pretend to be. I'm not sure if you are conscious of that or not but if you are is that what you believe? 

Post edited at 16:53
1
 Coel Hellier 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I don't know what you mean. Are we having an in-person interaction, or is this public debate? It's both.

It's the latter.  OK, I didn't phrase that very well.   What I intended was:

People should not be abused going about their daily business, walking down the street, standing at a bus stop, taking a train, going into a shop or a dentist.  If have not invited a discussion about such issues it would be rude to involve them in one by starting one.  It would be totally out of order for someone to make a "your vagina goes nowhere" comment to a fellow customer in a shop. 

But society should be able to debate such things. Which means that, on websites such as this, set up specifically to have such conversations, on Twitter, or Youtube videos, on current-affairs TV programs, it should be normal to encounter such views, even comments that some might regard as offensive or abusive.    People can not read or not view or walk away as they see fit.   That's a big difference.  

> But since the vast majority of people *cannot* be abused for characteristics they didn't choose and which put them at risk of abuse, you are factually incorrect in asserting that the type of comment I object to is "normal in society".

The differences between us is that you make a big distinction between innate versus chosen characteristics, and between "punching up" and "punching down".     I just don't see those distinctions as mattering nearly as much as you do .  Yes, they matter somewhat, at the margins, but not enough -- as I see it -- to affect the basic principle.  I'd much prefer to move towards same-rules for everything and everyone.

> You argue strongly that there should be "freedom" to publicly abuse trans people, but you've got nothing to say about policies that ban racist abuse from the public square.

I'd want the same rules for both.   (Noting again my distinction between "on the street" versus "public debate:.)

> If we implemented what you say you want, we'd just have a free-for-all for racists and homophobes, and there is no way that anyone in a minority could have a voice. Minorities would just be bullied out of public spaces

I'm not convinced they would.  I do think that racists and homophobes should be allowed to post their views on the internet (up to limits set out above), but I don't think that they would drown out other voices.  I'd suggest that most people would not support them.  

> You want a free-for-all, short of incitement, yes? Youtube full of racist propoganda.

Youtube *containing* racist propaganda. Yes, I'd allow it, on free-speech grounds.   (It wouldn't be "full" of it, given the number of cat videos. )

> "God lets faggots die of AIDS" is an acceptable tweet from a headteacher who should not be sanctioned as that would infringe their freedom.

No, I'd draw the line where the views are directly relevant to someone's job, and directly affect their ability to do their job.  So a headmaster saying that, no.  A plumber, ok.   (Though customers could, of course, make their own decision on hiring him.)

> So "abuse" is within bounds, but "advocating hatred" is over the line? Just explain how this works. Racist abuse is in, but advocating hatred of other races is out.

Advocating "hatred" is a much higher threshold, "abuse" is very subjective.  

 Coel Hellier 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> There's no clarity about whether we're discussing social norms and responses to speech, or whether we're talking about policies and laws, there's just constant conflation of the whole lot.

Yes, there is some conflation. 

I'm not limiting people's personal responses or their counter-speech. 

I am against such speech being: (1) a police matter; (2) or something that can get one sacked (if not directly relevant to the job); (3) or something that should be censored by internet monopolies operating the infrastructure of today's world; or (4) banned from venues that the public can normally hire for events, and which should be politically neutral. 

> When there is a response to some speech to the effect of "that transgresses a social norm in this context", there are cries from the "free speech warriors" ...

I honestly don't think that's fair.  It is the above four responses that elicit cries from the "free speech warriors", not mere disagreement or counter-speech along your lines.

Post edited at 17:19
 Coel Hellier 23 Nov 2019
In reply to marsbar:

> I know that several people wont post due to the Islamaphobic nonsense spouted at times.  

Sorry, but I have zero sympathy or guilt.  Islam is one of the most powerful, oppressive and harmful ideologies in the world today.   It is legitimate and necessary to criticise it, including using normal rhetorical tactics such as ridicule and derision. 

If people don't like having their religion criticised then maybe they should get themselves a better, less harmful, less oppressive religion.  

I have every bit as much sympathy as I would have for a Trump supporter who found a forum hostile owing to derision aimed at Trump.  Which is a big, fat, diddly squat. 

 Pefa 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> It would be totally out of order for someone to make a "your vagina goes nowhere" comment to a fellow customer in a shop. 

> But society should be able to debate such things.

How is that debating rather than just insulting?

Are you are happy to see disabled people or others who cannot help the way they are be insulted because of their disability, race etc even though by doing so it creates much pain and suffering? 

1
 Coel Hellier 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> How is that debating rather than just insulting?

What happens if one side tries to debate, and the other then claims that what is said is insulting? Who gets to decide?

A) "Trans women are women, so of course they should be in women's sports teams."

B) "Respectfully, I disagree, such people often still have male bodies, and so I can't see them simply as "women". 

A) "Transphobe! You're denying our very existence, you're denying our basic human rights, how can we debate under these circumstances?? Shut down this debate now!"

(The above is not a satirical take, it is exactly the tactic adopted by some activists.)

[And the "vagina goes nowhere" comment is just pointing out one difference between trans women and natal women, and is thus part of the dissent from "trans women are women".   Do you agree that it is acceptable and legitimate, as part of a debate, to dissent from "trans women are women"?]

> Are you are happy to see disabled people or others who cannot help the way they are be insulted because of their disability, race etc even though by doing so it creates much pain and suffering? 

As they go about their daily life, no, they should not be insulted.   (See above for the distinction.) But if there is some stuff insulting the disabled somewhere on the internet, well, ok, ignore and tolerate it, that's a necessary evil, there are arseholes out there. 

Post edited at 17:52
 Pefa 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

You think people who insult disabilities in disabled people are arseholes but people who insult trans are not? I have not seen you once say people who slag off trans people are arseholes but as soon as I point to disabled people then you use that word. 

> And the "vagina goes nowhere" comment is just pointing out one difference between trans women and natal women, and is thus part of the dissent from "trans women are women".   Do you agree that it is acceptable and legitimate, as part of a debate, to dissent from "trans women are women"?]

For me it depends on getting medical treatments and SRS. If that is what you know you must do then yes I say you are a form of intersex where your brain is the sex you know you are and given the fact that  we cannot cure this by changing the brain then we must do it by changing the body. So you can then debate what sex an intersex person that has characteristics of both sexes is and whether it is helpful to deny them what they know they are.

Telling a trans person they are not the sex they know they are in their brain is like telling a depressed person they are not depressed. Would you do that? If not then why is it OK to do it to trans people?

Making a comment worded in that way about a vagina going nowhere is like saying to a disabled person your amputated arm goes nowhere. Yet you think this is civilised debate rather than just deliberately insulting someone to make them feel bad and hurt them? Or is this another one where it is OK to attack trans people with but not others? 

As I stated before how is society to improve to be more caring, unified and happier using your model where there is no sanction on people who deliberately spread hurt and pain on certain minorities who cannot help being the way they are?

Also you never addressed my question on your use of "claiming". So do you think minorities pretend to get hurt when insulted? I mean it is as if people who are seen as less than get victimised and then the perpetrators deny that the victims get hurt at all.

Forgive me but I really struggle to understand you at times and I am tempted to analyse why you think the way you do. You seem incredibly cynical toward other people's feelings to the point where you seem determined to want to deny they have genuine feelings whilst protecting the rights of abusive people to continue their abuse. 

Post edited at 19:33
 Tom Valentine 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

I wish it was all as simple as your second paragraph makes out....

 Coel Hellier 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> You think people who insult disabilities in disabled people are arseholes but people who insult trans are not?

They may well be, it really depends on what was said and the context.  I don't see disabled activists making unreasonable ideological claims in the same way that some trans activists are.

> If that is what you know you must do then yes I say you are a form of intersex where your brain is the sex you know you are ...

I don't agree with your analysis.  I don't agree that a trans person is someone born with the brain of one sex and the body of the other sex.  To me there are a person of one sex who strongly dislikes being that sex and would prefer to be the other sex. 

> Also you never addressed my question on your use of "claiming". So do you think minorities pretend to get hurt when insulted?

The context in which I used the word "claiming" was: "Saying that speech should not be uttered if it is "abusive" enables anyone to shut down opponents by claiming to be offended".  People can and do use that tactic to disallow discussion. 

The emphasis in that sentence was on the disallowing of discussion, not on whether they are genuinely offended or not -- maybe they are, maybe there aren't. Either way, it is not sufficient to disallow debate.

Plenty of religious people will be genuinely offended by criticism of their religion -- to me, that does not disallow criticism of that religion.   It's irrelevant to me whether they are genuinely offended or just claiming offence as a tactic; either way we should still be able to voice the criticism.

> You seem incredibly cynical toward other people's feelings to the point where you seem determined to want to deny they have genuine feelings ...

I have never denied that the feelings are genuine.   But, as I see it, that should not disallow debate.  How far would we get if we weren't allowed to debate Brexit because one little old lady who supports Brexit is offended by some of the commentary about Brexiters?

> ... whilst protecting the rights of abusive people to continue their abuse. 

Yep, I see free speech and the right to critically examine ideas -- even if that means tolerating thoughtless abuse as a side-product -- as important.

2
OP Jon Stewart 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> People should not be abused going about their daily business

We agree that harassment is undesirable.

> But society should be able to debate such things. Which means that, on websites such as this, set up specifically to have such conversations, on Twitter, or Youtube videos, on current-affairs TV programs, it should be normal to encounter such views, even comments that some might regard as offensive or abusive.

We should be able to debate, and we can. What I'm arguing in favour of is an environment which encourages genuine debate and values integrity. Because I want to hear what reasonable people have to say, and don't want to have to hear abuse and nonsense, it matters to me *how* people express their views. 

You seem to be making a deliberate effort to be polite to me; but believe me, I'm also making an effort. I said above, "I think you're talking bollocks", because your arguments seem inconsistent and fishy to me. I didn't say "you're full of shit, you motherf*cker", because that's abusive. If I want to have a seat at the table, I've got to offer the people I'm speaking to a certain minimum level of respect. The fact that you and I are both willing to do this means that the discussion goes on forever. And ever.

When Germaine Greer says "just because you lop your dick off..." or someone posts "your vagina goes nowhere", then they're falling below a minimum standard that I think can be reasonably required in order to maintain a seat at the table. Start getting abusive, you get chucked out. That's how a lot of society works, and people who can't deal with that have got some work to do on their interpersonal skills.

> The differences between us is that you make a big distinction between innate versus chosen characteristics, and between "punching up" and "punching down".

Yes, and that's from empirical experience of social norms and policies being rigged against gay people and knowing what that results in; and then what's achieved when policies and social norms are changed so that being treated like shit because of an innate characteristic becomes taboo. I don't think like this for no reason, I believe, on the basis of experience that my reasons are sound. I believe that your reasoning is naive and lacks insight.

> I do think that racists and homophobes should be allowed to post their views on the internet...I'd draw the line where the views are directly relevant to someone's job, and directly affect their ability to do their job.  So a headmaster saying that, no.  A plumber, ok...Advocating "hatred" is a much higher threshold, "abuse" is very subjective.  

This is where I'm accusing you of talking bollocks. There are all kinds of subjective judgements mixed up in here, when your argument rests (I think) on such subjective judgements being the problem! A headteacher can't be openly homophobic, but who else can't be? A family doctor? A pop idol or sports star? What criteria have you got in mind to distinguish your threshold of "advocating hatred" (which I think is precisely what the anti-trans abusive rhyme was doing) from "abuse"? You're agreeing that there should be a minimum standard of politeness before you get chucked out, you're just saying you think that it's some unspecified "higher threshold" with no indication of what might meet it. You're falling foul of your own objection: who decides? There's no consistent idea here of what you actually want to see, (except "freedom of speech" for people who spew abuse about trans people).

1
OP Jon Stewart 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> I don't agree that a trans person is someone born with the brain of one sex and the body of the other sex. 

Yes, "male brain in female body" or vice versa is a strong scientific claim that can't be justified (although I can see why that metaphor has been used).

> To me there are a person of one sex who strongly dislikes being that sex and would prefer to be the other sex. 

From what I understand about the experience of trans people, I don't think this language adequately describes what we're talking about. I would suggest this is because while you seem very interested in policy issues affecting trans people, you haven't bothered to listen to what trans people have to say - all you've heard is the demands about policies, which you disagree with. Being transsexual is an internal, psychological experience that only transsexual people have; so the only way to know anything about what being transsexual means is to listen to people's experience. Unless you've got access to some third-person data about human gender identity, you've got nothing else to go on. 

I suggest that if you had a better understanding of what being trans is, which you could easily gain by listening seriously to what trans people have to say, you would describe that trait quite differently.

Post edited at 20:52
1
 Coel Hellier 23 Nov 2019
In reply to the thread:

It appears that the Labour Party is pretty split on the trans self-ID vs women's rights issue.  For anyone interested:

https://janeclarejones.com/2019/11/22/whos-removing-whose-rights-anyway/

 Coel Hellier 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

>> To me they are a person of one sex who strongly dislikes being that sex and would prefer to be the other sex. 

> From what I understand about the experience of trans people, I don't think this language adequately describes what we're talking about.

The rest of your comment doesn't really explain why my above assessment is wrong, so feel free to do so.

By the way, I really am not in the slightest denying the reality or the sincerity of the feelings that such people have. They really do feel that their body is "wrong", and do strongly want to identify with the other sex. 

1
 Coel Hellier 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> You seem to be making a deliberate effort to be polite to me; but believe me, I'm also making an effort.

Or rather, this is more my default setting, to anyone (such as yourself) who is genuinely interested in discussion.  

(I do make an effort to be deliberately abusive towards those who deserve it, such as Offwidth. )

PS. Yes, I do believe you!

> When Germaine Greer says "just because you lop your dick off..." or someone posts "your vagina goes nowhere", then they're falling below a minimum standard that I think can be reasonably required in order to maintain a seat at the table.

Again, I'd distinguish between contexts.   If you're round a table, discussing policy with others, you do indeed talk  differently from how you might writing a blog post. 

If you found yourself seated next to Douglas Murray or Jacob R-M on a flight to New York, you're likely to discuss things with a different tone than your remarks on this forum.

> What criteria have you got in mind to distinguish your threshold of "advocating hatred" (which I think is precisely what the anti-trans abusive rhyme was doing) from "abuse"?

I guess I'd say that "hatred" = violence or loss of civil rights.  Hatred = You really don't want those people as members of society, and want action to effect that. 

The stance: "I'm ok with trans women living however they wish to live, but I don't think they should be accepted into women-only spaces because I don't regard them as women" does not, to me, come anywhere near the threshold of "hatred".

1
OP Jon Stewart 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> The rest of your comment doesn't really explain why my above assessment is wrong, so feel free to do so.

> By the way, I really am not in the slightest denying the reality or the sincerity of the feelings that such people have.

This is pretty subtle, and I'm in no position to get it right on behalf of some theoretical "average trans person", so you'll have to bear with me making an analogy:

I don't "prefer" to have sex with men and "strongly dislike" sex with women - which is why the term "sexual orientation" has fared better than "sexual preference". I "prefer" to drink whisky rather than vodka, because of changeable social and personal factors that I could choose to alter. In contrast, I simply *am* sexually attracted to men and not women, as a matter of brute fact, and completely in absence of any preference, any social or personal factor that I experience any feeling of control over. I'm quite convinced that there will be much larger scale brain differences in the innate trait (sexual orientation: the neuroendocrinology of sexual arousal) to the changeable trait (preference in alcoholic beverage: some pattern of synapses or other, which will be repurposed if you don't have access to vodka or whisky for a while). These are distinct categories of traits which are different in both their neural underpinnings in the brain, and the subjective experience that results from these brain structures. 

This is why I think your language of "disliking" and "preferring" is inadequate.

This point relates directly to the thread title: when a characteristic is innate and unchangeable by choice, like being black or gay or trans, abusing people because of that trait is totally unacceptable in a decent society. That's why I feel such a strong, visceral moral disgust when I hear something like that abusive rhyme, and why I think your judgement as characterising it as "legitimate political comment" is miles wide of the mark and totally fails to see the impact.

> They really do feel that their body is "wrong", and do strongly want to identify with the other sex. 

Did you choose those words carefully or carelessly? Trans people just *do* identify as the opposite sex to the one they were born; I can't see why they *want* to.

I don't know if that's going to get across what I'm trying to say. Seems to me, if you have some innate trait that is at odds with social expectation, it's screamingly obvious that it's different to the traits that are changeable according to social influence. But if none of your innate traits result in dissonance with your social environment, it might be unobvious what the hell it is that I'm going on about.

Post edited at 22:45
OP Jon Stewart 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Again, I'd distinguish between contexts.   If you're round a table, discussing policy with others, you do indeed talk  differently from how you might writing a blog post.  If you found yourself seated next to Douglas Murray or Jacob R-M on a flight to New York, you're likely to discuss things with a different tone than your remarks on this forum.

Only out of cowardice. I think the right thing to do would be to tell Douglas Murray that I often confuse him with Satan himself, and that the sight of his face is so revolting that it unfailingly makes me vomit and shit myself simultaneously.

> I guess I'd say that "hatred" = violence or loss of civil rights.  Hatred = You really don't want those people as members of society, and want action to effect that. 

I maybe get where you're coming from, but I see that option as so much worse than an online environment in which abuse is strongly discouraged. As I've said, Germain Greer and the others could have made perfectly legitimate political comments about the conflict of needs between cis and trans women in specific contexts - a totally legitimate issue in my view - without the abuse. I see no benefit in relaxing the requirement that one should refrain from abuse, when that will obviously improve the quality of debate. I can manage it, just about, so why can't that f*cking bitch Germaine cock-face Greer. Whoops. 

> The stance: "I'm ok with trans women living however they wish to live, but I don't think they should be accepted into women-only spaces because I don't regard them as women" does not, to me, come anywhere near the threshold of "hatred".

No, nor to me. If you take the abuse out of the comments, they're legitimate political comments! That's been my point from the start. As it happens I think they're one-sided and lack compassion because they ignore what the excluded trans woman is going to do if she needs those services. The upshot is, you're second-class, now f*ck off. But that doesn't mean the view should be excluded from debate, it's the abuse that should be excluded.

Post edited at 23:17
1
 Pefa 23 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> They may well be, it really depends on what was said and the context.  I don't see disabled activists making unreasonable ideological claims in the same way that some trans activists are.

Yes well Tories just tell them they are fit to work then sit back and watch the suicides increase. Ideological claims like what? The same freedoms as everyone else. 

> I don't agree with your analysis.  I don't agree that a trans person is someone born with the brain of one sex and the body of the other sex.  To me there are a person of one sex who strongly dislikes being that sex and would prefer to be the other sex. 

To you, says it all. And what do you know about it? 

> The context in which I used the word "claiming" was: "Saying that speech should not be uttered if it is "abusive" enables anyone to shut down opponents by claiming to be offended".  People can and do use that tactic to disallow discussion. 

> The emphasis in that sentence was on the disallowing of discussion, not on whether they are genuinely offended or not -- maybe they are, maybe there aren't. Either way, it is not sufficient to disallow debate.

No you insinuate that the feelings are not genuine thereby denying their feelings. 

> Plenty of religious people will be genuinely offended by criticism of their religion -- to me, that does not disallow criticism of that religion.   It's irrelevant to me whether they are genuinely offended or just claiming offence as a tactic; either way we should still be able to voice the criticism.

Can trans people stop being trans? Can Christians or others stop believing in the religion of their culture? Its two different things. Can a disabled person stop being disabled? 

> I have never denied that the feelings are genuine.   But, as I see it, that should not disallow debate.  How far would we get if we weren't allowed to debate Brexit because one little old lady who supports Brexit is offended by some of the commentary about Brexiters?

Jesus! You know zero about it, its not feelings, it's what you know you are. Are your views on brexit as strong as your knowing you are male? It's BS.

> Yep, I see free speech and the right to critically examine ideas -- even if that means tolerating thoughtless abuse as a side-product -- as important.

Aw its like talking to someone who can't hear, I've stated before so I will repeat - can we not discuss without abuse? And treat each other with the respect we want others to treat us with? 

Post edited at 23:38
1
 Pefa 23 Nov 2019
In reply to the thread:

I transitioned 15 years ago and not one single cis woman where I work batted an eyelid about me using the female bathrooms in fact I was welcomed and that was 15 years ago.It never struck me at the time that it would bother any other women in the slightest and it didn't,anywhere I went. 

It is only when I come online that I experience various ideologically driven trolls and ignorant people who say it isn't right and other women don't want it. I certainly have never met any. 

As I pointed out before, the drive for equality for trans people has burst out of the dark ages and into the light lately but it has gone a bit too far too quickly without first looking at any potential impact on sports and prisons which need addressed. However some ideologically driven right wingers, terfs and Christian fundamentalists are using these hurried Ill thought out moves to demonise an entire community and take us back into the dark ages where abuse and ridicule is expected. 

Ps, I'm not going to indulge in some tit for tat attack or expose you for what I can clearly see is glaringly missing in your development Coel as that would just be my false ego fighting back against an attack from your ego and only love can turn hate into peace. Which needs a strong person to break and I am that strong person. 

Post edited at 00:24
1
 RomTheBear 24 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Yes, there is some conflation. 

> I'm not limiting people's personal responses or their counter-speech. 

> I am against such speech being: (1) a police matter;

Agree, within the limits as provided by the laws of the country you live in.

(2) or something that can get one sacked (if not directly relevant to the job);

It’s perfectly acceptable for companies to ban certain types of behaviour at work. Each company will have their policy which you agree to abide by when you sign your contract. If not happy go work somewhere else.

(3) or something that should be censored by internet monopolies operating the infrastructure of today's world; or

Again, wrong, their terms and conditions, their choice of what is allowed or not on their platform. Not happy then go join another platform.

(4) banned from venues that the public can normally hire for events, and which should be politically neutral. 

Again - their policy. Up to them what they do with their venues.

1
 marsbar 24 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

It's fine to criticise religion.  Any of them. I'm not a fan. But you don't stop there.  You play your nasty word games for your entertainment and wrap it up in a thin veneer of concern for free speech and for the world.  You've done it again here.  Taken a nasty insult against trans women and repeated it unnecessarily in the pretence of debate and what people might say.  

People choose to vote for Trump.  They don't choose their family and the religion they are born into.  People who have no extreme in them, who only ever visit a mosque for weddings and funerals, the same as I might a church, won't post here because you take it too far.  Always wrapped up and disguised, but I see it.     

1
 Coel Hellier 24 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Agree, within the limits as provided by the laws of the country you live in.

Though what the laws should be is exactly the topic under discussion. 

> It’s perfectly acceptable for companies to ban certain types of behaviour at work.

At work, yes, no disagreement there.  But I assert that we have a right to personal life, such that our employer could not sack us for comments on a personal Twitter feed.   (Again, unless the comments are directly relevant to work.) 

> Again, wrong, their terms and conditions, their choice of what is allowed or not on their platform. Not happy then go join another platform.

I disagree, in the case of "internet monopolies operating the infrastructure of today's world", which includes Twitter and Facebook.   Near-monopoly companies should be regulated for the public good.

Virgin Trains, BT, British Gas, etc, are all private companies but are near monopolies in their niche.  It would be wrong if they started declining customers on political grounds. 

It would be wrong for BT to monitor what you put on the internet, and then say "we're cutting off your broadband because we don't like you" (there are places where BT is the only supplier), and I'd want Twitter, Youtube etc held to the same. 

> Again - their policy. Up to them what they do with their venues.

Again, I don't agree, especially when it's a publicly funded, municipal venue. 

 Coel Hellier 24 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Did you choose those words carefully or carelessly? Trans people just *do* identify as the opposite sex to the one they were born; I can't see why they *want* to.

I may not have worded it ideally.  But I'm happy to affirm that, as I see it, trans people don't have a choice about how they are.  They're not putting it on or making a lifestyle choice, they are acting in accord with their innate nature and feelings, something that they had no say over. 

My worldview sees humans as much less "self made" and much more as acting out innate natures than popularly supposed.  This is in line with my view on strong genetic influence on all our personality traits.  So, to me, even things like political orientation are things we don't "choose", at least to quite an extent. 

The Schopenhauer (paraphrased by Einstein) quote: "Man can do as he wills, but not will what he wills" sums things up. 

Trans people (and gay people) are the way they are; they didn't ask to be that way, that was not a choice. 

 Coel Hellier 24 Nov 2019
In reply to marsbar:

> It's fine to criticise religion.  Any of them. I'm not a fan. But you don't stop there.  You play your nasty word games for your entertainment and wrap it up in a thin veneer of concern for free speech and for the world.

I don't accept the conditional: "It's fine to criticise religion, but we need to heavily tone-police how you do it, you must do it with deference and respect for religion".

It's fine to criticise religion, and it's fine to do that using all the usual rhetorical devices that humans use, including satire, cartoons, ridicule, derision, etc.

Religion is granted way, way too much automatic deference and respect in the world.  (Just for example, "promotion of religion" is sufficient to gain you charitable status; promoting religion is regarded as an automatic good.)  

People who think like me are deliberately disrespectful towards religion as a counter to that.  A healthy society needs to allow deliberate disrespect to anything that has a tendency towards being over-mighty -- including kings, prime ministers and religions.

There are lots of countries in the world where people are not free to be disrespectful to religion -- and they are generally oppressive and poorer societies  for it, lacking the freedoms we have in the West. 

So no, I'm not going to allow hurt feelings of religious people to tone-police how I criticise religion. 

Post edited at 09:06
 Coel Hellier 24 Nov 2019
In reply to marsbar:

> Taken a nasty insult against trans women and repeated it unnecessarily in the pretence of debate and what people might say.  

Which "nasty insult" was that?

OP Jon Stewart 24 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> My worldview sees humans as much less "self made" and much more as acting out innate natures than popularly supposed.  This is in line with my view on strong genetic influence on all our personality traits.  So, to me, even things like political orientation are things we don't "choose", at least to quite an extent. 

We share this views of how the world works, as a matter of third-person/objective description. However, you're missing the more relevant first-person/subjective description of what it is like to have some innate trait such as being gay or trans, and be abused for it; compared to some changeable trait (which can still have a genetic influence) which will alter easily depending on social and cognitive processes, such as political orientation or taste in music. As I've said, there is most likely a difference in objective terms in the brain, but that's not the point.

In all of these discussions, it seem not to make any difference how many times, or in how many different ways this description of the world in first-person subjective terms is presented to you. It's as if you literally can't see it. It's fine to ignore it when you're dealing with objects that aren't conscious and don't suffer. But when you're talking about policy or about people in general, the subjective first person experience is the cash value of every decision you make.

The best explanation is that you are either a philosophical zombie, or an AI which is having a jolly good go but is ultimately failing the Turing test. This isn't the first time I've said that, because it really is at the root of the things we disagree about. I'm always left wondering, "is it like something to be Coel?".

> The Schopenhauer (paraphrased by Einstein) quote: "Man can do as he wills, but not will what he wills" sums things up. 

Good quote.

Post edited at 09:48
1
OP Jon Stewart 24 Nov 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> To you, says it all. And what do you know about it? 

Exactly.

> Can trans people stop being trans? Can Christians or others stop believing in the religion of their culture? Its two different things. 

Exactly.

> Are your views on brexit as strong as your knowing you are male? It's BS.

Exactly.

> Aw its like talking to someone who can't hear, I've stated before so I will repeat - can we not discuss without abuse? And treat each other with the respect we want others to treat us with? 

Exactly.

> As I pointed out before, the drive for equality for trans people has burst out of the dark ages and into the light lately but it has gone a bit too far too quickly without first looking at any potential impact on sports and prisons which need addressed. However some ideologically driven right wingers, terfs and Christian fundamentalists are using these hurried Ill thought out moves to demonise an entire community and take us back into the dark ages where abuse and ridicule is expected. 

Exactly.

> Which needs a strong person to break and I am that strong person. 

I'm not!

1
OP Jon Stewart 24 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> It's fine to criticise religion, and it's fine to do that using all the usual rhetorical devices that humans use, including satire, cartoons, ridicule, derision, etc.

> Religion is granted way, way too much automatic deference and respect in the world...People who think like me are deliberately disrespectful towards religion as a counter to that.

Sounds fine in principle, but it's what you actually do in practice that's the problem.

On here, any criticism of Israeli policy gets labelled antisemitic and the thread is pulled, every time. If you want an example of faux-offence tactics used to disallow political discussion, that is, in my mind by far and away the clearest example. Your views on Islam, the religion, don't get censored, but because of the false accusations of antisemitism, criticism of Israel, the government, is censored. 

And yet you remain silent. Then you go back to saying that "Islam is a fascist ideology". It's fishy. How would you describe an ideology that gives one race of people superiority over another in a certain region? You don't say anything. The reasons you give for your criticism of Islam don't stack up convincingly in the context of your treatment of other religions.

Post edited at 10:17
 Coel Hellier 24 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> However, you're missing the more relevant first-person/subjective description of what it is like to have some innate trait such as being gay or trans, and be abused for it; compared to some changeable trait (which can still have a genetic influence) which will alter easily depending on social and cognitive processes, such as political orientation or taste in music.

Which one of these would insulting someone's religion fall under?  Are you sure that being insulted for being gay feels worse to you then an insult to Islam or Mohammed feels to a Muslim person? 

 Coel Hellier 24 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> On here, any criticism of Israeli policy gets labelled antisemitic and the thread is pulled, every time. [...] And yet you remain silent.

There are a lot of threads and topics on UKC that I don't much participate in.  To be honest, I'm not really that aware of what goes on in Israeli threads here.

(And, as an aside, while I see Twitter as a near-monopoly that should not censor, I don't see UKC as being anywhere near the same.)

> How would you describe an ideology that gives one race of people superiority over another in a certain region?

I believe in fully secular government that does not discriminate over religion.   As far as I'm aware -- and I'm not claiming to be an expert on Israel -- Arabs and Muslims within the state of Israel are treated pretty well, with civil rights.   Indeed, they may have more civil rights as Israelis than Arab/Muslims do in the surrounding countries. If we're talking about how Israel treats its citizens then its generally way better than in surrounding states. 

If you're instead referring to Israel treatment of Gaza, Palestinian West Bank, etc, then sure, there's a huge issue there.  There's also a huge amount of history and the fault is not all on one side.

Post edited at 10:37
 RomTheBear 24 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Though what the laws should be is exactly the topic under discussion. 

 

Again people will have different idea of what they should be.

Again the way to solve it is scale. Different rules for different jurisdictions. So that people with different preferences can each have what they want.

Neighbours have better relationships than roommates.

> At work, yes, no disagreement there.  But I assert that we have a right to personal life, such that our employer could not sack us for comments on a personal Twitter feed.   (Again, unless the comments are directly relevant to work.) 

No, no, no. It’s perfectly acceptable for a company to require its employees to limit what they say publicly, it simply is a contractual matter between employee and employer.

If you don’t like it don’t work for them, don’t sign the contract. It’s perfectly reasonable for a company to want to protect its reputation.

> I disagree, in the case of "internet monopolies operating the infrastructure of today's world", which includes Twitter and Facebook.   Near-monopoly companies should be regulated for the public good.

And here we are, under the false pretense of freedom of speech, what you want to do is control what these platforms chose to publish.

> Virgin Trains, BT, British Gas, etc, are all private companies but are near monopolies in their niche.  It would be wrong if they started declining customers on political grounds. 

The problem you need to fix is that indeed they are monopolies.

> It would be wrong for BT to monitor what you put on the internet, and then say "we're cutting off your broadband because we don't like you"

No, it would be fine if that’s agreed upon in contractual terms. Of course nobody would sign up to something like that.

> Again, I don't agree, especially when it's a publicly funded, municipal venue. 

Same thing, in that case, up to the public organisation to set the rules.

Post edited at 10:40
1
 Coel Hellier 24 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> The reasons you give for your criticism of Islam don't stack up convincingly in the context of your treatment of other religions.

By the way, I have regularly disagreed with Jewish posters here on topics where I see religion (including Judaism) as getting undue privilege.

For example, I would outlaw non-medical circumcision of minors (since they can't consent, and since lopping off live tissue without medical indication is against all medical ethics and against the whole ethos of informed consent and individual rights).

I would remove religious exemptions from animal-cruelty laws (why does it matter to the animal whether the person killing it is religious or not?).

I would disallow religious groups from running schools, and would end the status of taxpayer-funded schools being "faith" schools (and end coerced religious worship in schools).   Such schools are discriminatory and coercive on the kids; schools should be about education not indoctrination, and that means encouraging the kids to think for themselves, not reinforcing the views of the parents. 

None of these policies would endear me to religious Jews (though there are secular Jews who would support some or all of them). 

OP Jon Stewart 24 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Which one of these would insulting someone's religion fall under?  Are you sure that being insulted for being gay feels worse to you then an insult to Islam or Mohammed feels to a Muslim person? 

Fair question. I can't say how it feels to be insulted for being a Muslim, but since most Muslims would have been brought up that way and feel absolutely no choice in the matter, particularly in a young Muslim, it's probably quite similar at the first-person level to an innate trait.

So, very much like with the innate traits, there's a need to avoid abuse and not to promote hatred. I'm not sure you manage that. Just like with the innate traits, that doesn't mean you can't criticise beliefs or policies, it's doing it in a way that avoids abuse that's critical. But unlike the innate traits, since you can change your religion, it shouldn't be a protected characteristic which will affect things like employment rights (we don't need to make adjustments around people's religious beliefs).

In contrast, your view on Brexit isn't something you feel no choice over - it's a matter of what you read, who you believe, what your friends say, etc; and while it's preferable not to be abusive, anyone who can't cope with being called names because of their political views is just a cry-baby. If you get pissy about being called a "gammon" or a "remoaner" you're not being kept in your place as a second-class citizen, you're whining like an infant and you need to grow the f*ck up.

Post edited at 10:52
1
 marsbar 24 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

I'm not tone policing, I'm stating my opinion that you use free speech as an excuse to be unpleasant to and about certain groups of people while pretending to discuss the issues.  Policing would be telling you not to.  I fully respect your right to  be as unpleasant as you like within legal limits, and its not my place to police you in the unlikely highly unlikely event you cross the line instead of running alongside it. 

I won't be repeating your insults.  

2
OP Jon Stewart 24 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> If you're instead referring to Israel treatment of Gaza, Palestinian West Bank, etc, then sure, there's a huge issue there. 

Yes, that's what I'm referring to.

> There's also a huge amount of history and the fault is not all on one side.

Didn't say it was. I implied that there was an enormous ideological problem in Judaism which accounts for a minimum of half the problem. The ideological hatred of Jews by Muslims is not ignored nor excused.

I'm making the observation that the motivations of free speech and harmful religious ideology crop up very very prominently outside the realms of trans people and Islam, and yet it's trans people and Islam that you relentless focus on. I find it difficult to accept it as a coincidence that these groups are also the targets of hatred in the right-wing press.

 Coel Hellier 24 Nov 2019
In reply to marsbar:

> I'm not tone policing, I'm stating my opinion that you use free speech as an excuse to be unpleasant to and about certain groups of people while pretending to discuss the issues. 

Well you're wrong.   Even if you are entitled to your opinion on it! 

1
 Coel Hellier 24 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> and yet it's trans people and Islam that you relentless focus on.

I've ridden many other hobby-horses also.   The rap-lyrics conviction, for example, amongst many other free-speech examples.   Israel Folau is another (you likely remember those threads ). 

The predecessor thread to this one (" What they teach in college today") I started about "critical race studies", not trans and not Islam. 

The thread before that that I started was about "gender studies", the blind-auditions study, and sex ratios in different areas such as STEM (which was also the topic of several previous threads).

Before that there was a long thread about climate change and action. 

Then there's several threads about the general issue of relative influences of genes vs environment. (e.g. "criminals should feel terror" thread; and an education/schools thread).

The theme underlying all of this is not "trans and Islam" (those are just exemplars) it is free speech and post-modernist ideologies. 

PS, edit to add: in many threads it is other posters, not me, who steer the conversation to my views on Islam.  Marsbar above is an example.  Offwidth has done it multiple times, after being upset by derisive remarks I uttered on the topic. 

Post edited at 12:07
1
 RomTheBear 24 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> it is free speech and post-modernist ideologies. 

Maybe it would help you if you stopped seeing everything through the lens if of this particular pet obsession of yours.

1
 Coel Hellier 24 Nov 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Maybe it would help you if you stopped seeing everything through the lens if of this particular pet obsession of yours.

I like the lens, it's a good one; brings things into sharp focus.

2
OP Jon Stewart 24 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> I've ridden many other hobby-horses also.

Indeed you have, so let me take that back and be more accurate:

On the subject of Islam, you exaggerate the problem in such a way as to advocate hatred, e.g. by claiming that Islam is a fascist ideology, when we live in a society in which there are lots of Muslims but no fascist threat. While when it comes to Judaism you seek to minimise the problem, e.g. by pointing out that actually Israel treats gives some Arabs equal rights (while it's busy bulldozing the houses of others). So the motivation appears fishy.

On freedom of speech, I grant you that it's not just trans people who you're happy to defend the abuse of. The problem is that you follow the lead of the right-wing press in defending the speech of those who wish to take away the rights of minorities, but show no support for those seek to defend those rights. Again, it just looks fishy.

1
 Coel Hellier 24 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> On the subject of Islam, you exaggerate the problem in such a way as to advocate hatred, e.g. by claiming that Islam is a fascist ideology, when we live in a society in which there are lots of Muslims but no fascist threat.

I don't accept that I'm advocating hatred (as opposed to criticising an ideology).  Nor do I think that I am exaggerating the problem -- in many countries where Islam dominates its fascist and totalitarian nature is stark and apparent. 

In the UK, Islam is indeed held by too few to present a threat (so is communism, yet the totalitarian and fascist nature of communism is clear from where-ever it has been implemented; sorry Pefa!).  But note that, from the point of view of teenagers and young adults who grow up in Muslim communities in the UK, Islam **is** often experienced as an oppressive system.    Just ask the many ex-Muslims speaking up against Islam, and bewildered that "the left" won't even acknowledge them.

(One example is ex-Muslims wanting to join Pride marches with banners such as "Allah is gay", to protest against rampant homophobia within Islam.  Who do Pride support?  The rights of ex-Muslims to protest a homophopbic religion, or the supposed "rights" of Muslims not to have their religion criticised?)

Just because whites from post-Christian backgrounds aren't directly affected by this does not mean that it is not a real issue here in Britain.

> The problem is that you follow the lead of the right-wing press in defending the speech of those who wish to take away the rights of minorities, but show no support for those seek to defend those rights. Again, it just looks fishy.

Is the free speech of those defending those rights under threat?    If people are advocating for such rights, and being denied the ability to speak (de-platformed, visited by police, threats to their jobs, censored on Twitter, etc), then I'll vocally support their speech rights. 

Feel free to point me to examples of this.  I'm not psychic, and may be unaware of things.  (Offwidth also accuses me of silence on issues that I am literally unaware of; but seems rather coy in helping me out with examples.) 

Edit to add: If anyone is going to query the appropriateness of ex-Muslims, brought up in Muslim communities, displaying an "Allah is Gay" banner in protest against their ex-religion, then don't bother, you are part of the problem not the solution.

Post edited at 13:03
OP Jon Stewart 24 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> I don't accept that I'm advocating hatred (as opposed to criticising an ideology). 

The problem I raise is that your posts encourage distrust and fear of Muslims, and the line between that and advocating hatred isn't clear to me. Again, what you seem to be missing are the consequnces mediated through the first-person subjective experience of others.

> In the UK, Islam is indeed held by too few to present a threat 

We disagree about why it's not a threat. I've spent a lot of time surrounded by Muslims (e.g. in Bradford university) and it wasn't an experience of being surrounded by fascists, so I completely reject your analysis as fear-mongering gibberish.

> ("Allah is gay...)

Hilarious banner! But what a minefield...

> Is the free speech of those defending those rights under threat? 

Sorry I was unclear, that wasn't the point I was making. The observation was that e.g. in the Folau case, you're up in arms about poor Folau's "right" to free speech but when it comes to the "rights" of teenage rugby fans not to be told to burn in hell by thier idols, your answer: "f*ck'em". You fail to see that one person's rights often tread all over another's, and there's a pattern to whose rights you support.

 Coel Hellier 24 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I've spent a lot of time surrounded by Muslims (e.g. in Bradford university) and it wasn't an experience of being surrounded by fascists, ...

And yet, in nations where Muslims are the majority, the result is often fascism.    And young people growing up in Muslim communities in the UK, who want to reject Islam, often feel Islam to be pretty oppressive. 

> ... but when it comes to the "rights" of teenage rugby fans not to be told to burn in hell by thier idols, your answer: "f*ck'em".

Well, not quite that wording, but:

There is no right to not encounter opinions one finds insulting or disturbing.  If one of their idols really does think that, then the fans do not have a "right" to be kept in the dark about it. 

I'm not aware of any of the major declarations of human rights that would declare such a right.

OP Jon Stewart 24 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> And yet, in nations where Muslims are the majority, the result is often fascism.  

All other factors being equal of course. Crap argument!

> And young people growing up in Muslim communities in the UK, who want to reject Islam, often feel Islam to be pretty oppressive. 

Young people in all sorts of communities find them oppressive. Crap argument!

> There is no right to not encounter opinions one finds insulting or disturbing.  If one of their idols really does think that, then the fans do not have a "right" to be kept in the dark about it. 

> I'm not aware of any of the major declarations of human rights that would declare such a right.

And I am aware of no right to post whatever you like on Twitter. It's not a right I have for a start, my job role means I can't bring my profession into disrepute, and a lot less people care what I think than Folau. Crap argument!

1
 marsbar 24 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

It seems to me that Allah had many wives and he was in charge and could do what he wanted, so chances are he probably wasn't gay.  I fully support gay rights, Muslim or otherwise and have met a Gay Muslim group quite recently.  They didn't feel the need to have a banner saying Allah is gay for some reason.  Probably because it's a ridiculous idea. Did you dream that one up?  

If I did know a Gay Muslim who thought such a thing was a good idea I would be certain to explain to them my views on how it would wind up trouble and make acceptance harder.  But you know that. 

1
 Coel Hellier 24 Nov 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> And I am aware of no right to post whatever you like on Twitter.

The European Court has, in case law, held that "freedom of expression" is not only an in-principle right, but that it must be practically possible, de facto, for someone to propogate their opinions.   And it has ruled that monopolies that censor are not compatible with this right.       Thus, a government cannot declare: "you have a right to speak, but not to a platform in our newspaper, and by the way, we have a monopoly on who can publish newspapers".

Admittedly, Twitter is not quite that, and I know of no case law on social media, but the maxim that it must be practically possible for someone to speak using the "normal channels" of communication in society is clear in case law. 

If we go back to Mill's On Liberty, he again is not just concerned with theoretical declarations, but with what is, de facto, practically possible. 

 Coel Hellier 24 Nov 2019
In reply to marsbar:

> It seems to me that Allah had many wives and he was in charge and could do what he wanted, so chances are he probably wasn't gay. 

Are you confusing Allah with Mohammed?

> They didn't feel the need to have a banner saying Allah is gay for some reason.  Probably because it's a ridiculous idea. Did you dream that one up?  

Nope, it's a real example of an ex-Muslim group's banners at a Pride march, that caused quite a lot of controversy when Muslims found it upsetting, and Pride sided with the Muslims. 

> If I did know a Gay Muslim who thought such a thing was a good idea I would be certain to explain to them my views on how it would wind up trouble and make acceptance harder.  But you know that.

But then it was ex-Muslims, not gay Muslims, protesting against the religion.  No doubt you think they shouldn't do that, because it might upset Muslims? 

 Coel Hellier 24 Nov 2019
In reply to marsbar:

Imad Iddine Habib, Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain"

"I made “Allah is Gay” placards at Pride 2017 because I believe that LGBT people of Muslim heritage have to take the lead in tackling homophobia and hate in our respective Muslim communities and Muslim-majority countries. As an ex-Muslim bisexual man, I felt that “Allah is Gay” challenges both blasphemy/ apostasy laws as well as homophobic ones. There is also some truth to it. According to Islamic teachings, Allah has no gender and no partners. Allah is in fact, agender, non-binary and asexual!"

The police tried to remove the placards at Pride 2017 but eventually backed down. What did you think of the police accusation that it was “offensive”?

"The attempt to remove our “Allah is Gay” placards during Pride 2017 stems from the fact that Western societies frame our struggle from within their own perspective, like the BBC journalist who asked you if it was the right time for the #ExMuslimBecause hashtag as if only what happens in the west matters and we should only act accordingly. Anti-Muslim bigotry is a very valid issue; I myself have been a victim of anti-Muslim comments, however I think it is disgraceful for the police or anyone else to tell me, an ex-Muslim LGBT refugee, what I can and cannot say about the religion and the countries and the culture I grew up in. Also, I refuse to be lectured about racism and anti-Muslim bigotry from the London Pride team (who are not affected by these issues) or anyone else especially since I have been victim of both countless times.

What has Allah is Gay got to do with LGBT rights in countries under Islamic rule?

"I personally have gone to Pride every year since I came to this country solely to highlight the plight of dissenters in Muslim-majority countries where freedom is being eroded with the rise of human rights violations and attacks on fundamental human rights such as freedom of expression. The pictures of our protest went viral showing that it is possible to celebrate apostasy and homosexuality and at the same time stand up to racism and bigotry. As long as the only places where homosexuality as well as apostasy and blasphemy are punishable by death are Muslim-majority territories, we will attend Pride events and highlight the  plight of millions who are being denied their fundamental human rights."

https://www.ex-muslim.org.uk/2018/09/why-allah-is-gay-cemb-asked-imad-iddin...

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/07/14/east-london-mosque-demands-apology-fo...

 marsbar 24 Nov 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Yes, what a daft mistake to make.  Not paying attention.  As for the sign I don't know what our blasphemy laws are, but I think it should be treated exactly the same as if an ex Christian had a God is Gay banner, whatever that maybe. 

I believe the Americans locked Kurt Cobain up for spray painting God is gay.  I'm not clear if that was for graffiti or blasphemy.

Post edited at 17:10

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...