So you support intolerance if its religion based? You support every religion based practice or just against trans people?

PS: to Barney an especific law for this, I think it would be over reach, specifically because this is covered in the human right for identity and respect.

I don't think there is such a thing as a "human right for identity and respect" though.

The latter, especially, is absurd. Respect is a loaded term, at least in English. Respect is something earned. (if you meant respect FOR your rights, then no push back from me)

The former is also problematic, because that human right could be at odds with the human rights of other humans.

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universa ... man-rights

To be more specific, both of these articles below could easily contradict the idea of a right to identity (the ability to enforce your beliefs about your identity on someone else is very problematic, especially if that ability is enshrined or enforced by law):

Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

___________________________

I'm not trying to trivialize the discussion with the above. It's more about the contradiction.

Can you have basic a human right that is in direct contradiction to someone else's basic human right? I think no.

Its on kids rights.

Is there a link for that?

I’d like to read the language.

Note the language above. You have a right “of” not “from.”

I wish the laws in the US, for example, included a freedom from religion, but they don’t. There’s a huge difference in that distinction.

I read it to my kids so you can check it on my library any time you want

You should be able to check it out at Unicef.org

It depends what you mean by intolerance.

I don’t support every anti-trans law I’ve seen proposed by religious people. I think adults have a right to alter their own body if they choose and they shouldn’t face legal prohibition or penalties for it.

But I support ppls right to engage with reality as they perceive it. If a person refuses to address a trans person by the pronouns they wish, I “tolerate” that the same way as I “tolerate” the trans person calling them an ahole - as long as it’s not an issue of leveraging legal apparatus or physical violence to impose your will on other ppl I believe in having tolerance for different worldviews

I’m just wondering if that right, if it’s even on UNICEF, would extend to forcing your beliefs about your identity on other human beings.

That’s where people draw the line.

You can ask me to call you Clarice, you can identify as Clarice, but you should not have the right to force me to call you Clarice, and, even worse, you should not have the right to force me to believe that you are Clarice.

And to be clear, if you want me to call you Clarice, out of politeness I should do so. But you don’t have a human right to my politeness. That, like respect, is something given, or earned.

_______________

In a related subject. True story: My grandmother always believed we, my family, were related to a famous Greek poet. We weren’t, but she believed it, and it was certainly part of her identity. Nobody should have been forced to agree with her, that would be absurd.

My grandmother thought Montreal was built on a volcano. I told her it’s not a volcano and the family told me she’s believed that her entire life and it’s useless to « disagree. »

So out of politeness, in the same way I’ve addressed the pronoun thing, I don’t ever bring it up out of fear of causing disrespect

A law forcing me to acknowledge that Montreal is a volcano would be absolutely insane. You can’t force a person to say stuff

Btw congrats DJ on being related to a greek poet. Hope it’s one of the ghey ones

Aren’t they all?

That’s why I referenced dogs and kings. Depending on your worldview, believing a person can truly change their sex is as absurd as believing a dog can become a cat after a few cosmetic changes - and believing a person has an absolute right to control the way other people refer to them based on how they identify is as absurd as demanding you refer to me as your king and treat me as such just because I identify as one.

I think we must allow people to engage (excluding physical violence or legal persecution) with reality in the manner they see fit, or we must choose who is to be master and who is to be subservient. And mastery over others is beyond tolerance, in the realm of control

I don’t support laws that would prevent an adult from transitioning and I also don’t support laws that would dictate how a person must refer to another. But if a person believes and argues that it’s not heathy for an adult to transition or a person believes and argues it’s kind to refer to a person in the manner they identify, it’s all well and fine

Respect shouldn't have to be earned that is a stupid coloquialism. Respect should be the base line that we work with when we meet people. Respect can be lost easily, but we should all start with Respect for each other on a base level. Once lost respect is hard to earn back but I believe everyone deserves respect until they do something that causes you to lose respect for them. How **** of a world would it be if I just didn't have respect for any cultures or religions just as a default.

The opposite is disrespect and I'm sure none of us start with disrespect when we first meet someone. How **** of a world would that be.

Saying respect should be given is fine.

But you just stated that it can be lost, and I agree. So perhaps I'll grant that it doesn't have to be earned, but that still (at least to me) means it's not a basic human right.

I believe you're making some very flawed and ignorant parallels. Let's consider a situation involving your grandmother. Imagine she chooses to go by her husband's surname, and a group of people refuses to recognize that choice, insisting on calling her by her maiden name because "that's how she was born." They refuse to accept that identity can evolve. Now, imagine she becomes a widow and wishes to keep her married name out of respect for her late husband, but this same group believes that, with her husband gone, she should revert to her maiden name. Every time they encounter her, they deliberately disregard her wishes, causing her distress. Would you argue against her right to choose her identity in this situation?

Now, consider this scenario on a broader scale, where society is so diverse that some individuals don’t fit into traditional norms. Not only are they excluded, but they are also mocked, discriminated against, persecuted, and, in extreme cases, even murdered because of it. We're not discussing someone with delusions of grandeur, like claiming to be King Arthur, nor are we talking about secondary identity traits, such as a grandmother's decision to change her name. This is about people who feel they don't have a place in the world as it currently stands.

I agree that there has been negligence in how surgical procedures are normalized and in the social pressure for individuals to declare their identities prematurely, denying them the necessary time to explore and understand who they truly are. However, it's challenging to take arguments seriously when they aren't applied consistently. For instance, I don't see the same fervor for debating issues like maiden names or defending the right of white supremacists to use the N-word based on their worldview.

My stance is clear and consistent: respect people's right to pursue their identities. I admit that I have reasonable doubts about the long-term implications of some of these issues, but I believe it is far better to respect everyone's right to define themselves—not just trans people, but everyone. When it comes to trans individuals, this respect could significantly impact their survival rate.

Cucho, there's a huge difference between suggesting behavioral norms, and suggesting basic human rights - I don't think anyone is arguing against your proposed behavioral norms (at least not strongly). Those two are not equal in my eyes.

Your question about surnames, for example, is very on topic for me: my father comes from a country where they (MEN AND WOMEN) did NOT have the right to choose their own surnames until very recently, and where surnames are gendered... so my wife's surname is in fact never my surname, because it contains an ending that identifies her gender. The "ES" ending (male) becomes the "OU" ending (female). Things change over time, of course, but I find it extremely odd to consider these things basic human rights. In the case of my father's country, we're discussing laws, traditions, etc. You're, basically, suggesting that an entire language needs to change because of some notion of human rights - well, let's just call it what it is: very difficult. In fact, I'd posit that most of these discussions only make sense in English, because many other languages start to fall apart if you no longer allow for the gendering of places, people, and things. You speak Spanish, I speak French, I'm sure we both know exactly what I'm talking about here.

Your second paragraph is talking about a variety of things (not all of the things you mention, but many) that ARE protected human rights.

I have to ask: do you really equate calling a specific individual a She, to a white supremacist calling ALL black people the N-word? I don't think those two things are equivalent, at all. BUT, I should mention, you would be very hard pressed to find an instance where I would not defend a person's right to free speech, no matter how vile that speech may be.

You have the right to a name, and you have the right to change it as you wish, but you don't have the right to dictate someone else's choice of identity. And here I throw a bone at you, you have no right to change the language someone uses to address you. This part has been a bumpy road, to which I think there's no clear end at this stage.

While mandating by law that refusing to use someone's pronouns constitutes a violation of human rights might be an overstatement, it’s clear that prioritizing the right to be offensive over the right of a person to have and express their identity is fundamentally flawed. Respect for individual identity should take precedence over the freedom to act disrespectfully.

Regarding white supremacists, I think you are overlooking how this debate empowers extremist groups whose actions are akin to the discrimination, persecution, and other atrocities historically inflicted by institutions like the church on the LGBTQ+ community. I believe the legal frameworks that already exist to fight discrimination should be applied to protect trans people from similar behaviours. Respecting their right to identity should not be relativized, just as it is not relativized for anyone else.

There’s the rub. Up until recent times, believing a person could literally change their sex was considered delusional by basically everyone. In the blink of an eye in the timeline of human history western civilization went from “these people not be tolerated in society” to “these people should not only be tolerated they MUST be affirmed”. This was a swing from extreme marginalization to extreme privilege. So you have large numbers of people who see it as delusional being suddenly told they not only must tolerate the delusion (to which I say yes) but they must actively participate in the delusion (to which I say no)

—————

The talk here about respect, I think there are probably differences in what Respect means. If we’re talking about respecting a person’s right to live their life and respect their basic human dignity, I’d say ya I agree with that baseline. But if respect means to allow the other person to dictate the way you’re allowed to perceive reality no that’s not respect that’s subordination.

Oh I think you really missed the chance to say delulu in that last post.

Again so you agree white supremacist should have the right to use de N word, like that is freedom of speech right and how they perceive reality?

They should all have the right to say whatever they want and express their beliefs. It doesn’t matter if they are right or wrong

There are legally defined limits to that tho. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre.

I’m imagine there might be limits on hate speech too but I don’t know what those are

Preciselly on point Barney, this is all flirting with hate speech.

I don’t think it is at all. Not sure what the laws are on that anyway