Trans-Amerika Express

[ters]

On 12/21/2024 at 5:24 PM, zoran59 said:

 

 

 

Edd, nikada ne bih pomislio da treba da branim Andju, pa jos od tebe... Mada se ne slazem s njom. Ali ako je neko "izjednacio" trans osobe sa invalidima, to sam ja uveo u pricu u svojem ranijem postu.

U jednom sirokom smislu. Ne mislim da smeju da parkiraju na mestima rezerviranima za invalide, ali treba da razumeju da im je ponegde sudelovanje nepozeljno. A s tim imam i licnog iskustva, jer sam i sam na neki nacin "socijalni invalid" - tj. ne uklapam se u "standard" i ponegde sam iskljucen.

Prihvatio sam to i ne zalim se. Opisacu par primera u nastavku.

 

Spadam u neke ljude koji imaju "hippie" mentaliteta iz '60-ih i pocetka '70-ih. Kao sto je pevala nezaboravna Janis Joplin, FREEDOM is another word for nothing left to lose. Ako nisam socijalni invalid, jesam ponekad socijalni otpadnik (izopstenik?).

Nemam odelo ni kravatu, nikada to nisam nosio ni necu. Imao sam kravatu samo na sopstvenom vencanju, preko qrtza udovoljivsi zahtevu u tom trenutku buduceg tasta koji nije mogao da smisli da se zena i ja vencamo u farmerkama. Ali odelo nisam imao, odenuo sam svoje crne kozne motociklisticke pantalone. A zena je imala crnu koznatu suknju, nista bele vencanice i gluposti po drustvenim standardima. I bilo nas je 8 - uz nas, roditelji i jedan par prijatelja za kumove/svedoke. Nikakva svadba i ludovanje, samo formalnost u opstinskom maticnom uredu i vecera posle.

 

Fast forward (izraz poznat onima koji se secaju kasetofona) nekih 20-ak godina. Bio sam aktivan u teniskoj sekciji sportskog kluba, jedan od organizatora nasih malih lokalnih amaterskih turnira. I ti moji cure i decki organizuju, povodom kraja sezone, nekakvu svecanu veceru. Zamisle to kao black-tie event, dakle za muskarce obavezan smoking a za zene vecernja haljina.

Nisam prisustvovao, odbio sam. Nisam hteo da im kvarim vece kao jedini u farmerkama, ali nisam hteo ni da me oni umesto u teniski dres trpaju u nekakvu skorojevicevsku uniformu.

 

Pre okruglo 3 meseca se udala moja cerka, 28-godisnjakinja. Malo vise sam napisao na topicu Gerijatrija. Bogtenejebo, u crkvi!? Odbio sam da odenem odelo. Prihvatio sam kompromis. Cerka mi je od svojih para (hahaha, to su moje pare - samo ih uplacujem u njen budzet za trosenje po njenom nahodjenju - tek je diplomirala) kupila pantalone, kosulju i cipele. Hteo sam da imam cipele sa svog vencanja (1986.), ali je rekla da su zastarele i ruzne. A kao nove su, obuo sam ih samo par puta...

Bio sam prisutan pre i posle crkvenog dela. Za vreme toga, usao sam sa svima, a kad su seli, izasao da popusim cigaretu - mada sam prestao da pusim pre par godina. Ni u ludilu da je "vodim do oltara" ili kako se to vec zove, necu da sudelujem u crkvenoj ceremoniji. A ona, sa svoje strane, ceni to da sam uopste dosao do crkve. Posteno, kompromis.

 

Kakve veze opisani incidenti imaju sa temom?

Imaju utoliko sto pokazuju da mi "drugaciji" treba da razumemo da nismo uvek i svuda dobrodosli i da prihvatimo realnost. Oni su "trans" a ja sam omatoreli hippie. OK, necete vi mene, necu ja vas pa se izbegavamo kad treba.

Sasvim mi je prihvatljivo da mi transrodna osoba promeni  ulje u kolima ako zna sta radi. A ni mene, radioloskog profesionalca, pacijenti nisu pitali kakvu odecu nosim kod kuce.

 

Ali da mi 2-metras od 110 kila mlati cerku na teniskom terenu jer se "oseca kao zena," to mi je vec neprihvatljivo.

 

 

Da uopste ne ulazimo u razlike izmedju licnog izbora i urodjene prirode, kompromis koji pominjes, sasvim sigurno nije nesto sto je univerzalno - mnostvo je primjera roditelja koji ne prisustvuju vjencanju u crkvi, ili odbijaju prisustvovati gradjanskom vjencanju svoje djece jer nije u skladu sa njihovim vjerovanjem... I bez obzira sta ti ili ja mislili o tome, to je potpuno u okviru njihovih prava koje im niko ne moze oduzeti. Tebi i meni  su nasa djeca na prvom mjestu, ovim drugima je vjera ili "nevjera" na prvom mjestu. Upitaj sebe kako bi reagovao da ti se kcerka sutra pojavi i kaze da je odlucila da promijeni pol? Ja znam kakva bi bila moja - bio bih veoma zabrinut radi medicinskih i socijalnih teskoca koje bi ih ocekivale, ali sasvim sigurno bih uradio sve da ja ne budem jedna od tih teskoca, i da im pomognem da se izbore sa svim drugim. To bi bio moj izbor (ali njihovo postupanje u skladu sa licnom prirodom).

 

 A o "mlacenju" na teniskom terenu - koliko je meceva tvoja kcerka odigala protiv trans teniserki u svojoj karijeri? I koliko je muskaraca nadigrala igrajuci van univerzitetskog takmicenja? 

Edited December 26, 2024 by ters

[Darko]

Ovo je problem o kojem sam govorio:

Quote

Well, that makes three of us. Steve Pinker, I, and now Richard Dawkins, have all decided independently to resign from the Honorary Board of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). The organization’s ideological capture, as instantiated in throwing in their lot with extreme gender activism and censoring any objection to their views—as well as in the increasing tendency of the FFRF to add Critical Social Justice to their mission alongside their original and admirable goal of keeping church and state separate, has motivated us in different degrees to part ways with the group. I emphasize again that the FFRF did and still does engage in important work on keeping religion from creeping into governmental activity.

 

Richard explains his decision in the email below, sent not long ago to the heads of the FFRF. I, for one, hope that these resignations might make the FFRF rethink its direction.

 

I reproduce Richard’s very civil resignation with his permission:

 

Dear Annie Laurie and Dan

 

It is with real sadness, because of my personal regard for you both, that I feel obliged to resign from the Honorary Board of FFRF. Publishing the silly and unscientific “What is a Woman” article by Kat Grant was a minor error of judgment, redeemed by the decision to publish a rebuttal by a distinguished scientist from the relevant field, namely Biology, Jerry Coyne. But alas, the sequel was an act of unseemly panic when you caved in to hysterical squeals from predictable quarters and retrospectively censored that excellent rebuttal. Moreover, to summarily take it down without even informing the author of your intention was an act of lamentable discourtesy to a member of your own Honorary Board. A Board which I now leave with regret.

 

Although I formally resign, I would like to remain on friendly terms with you, and I look forward to cooperating in the future. And to delightful musical evenings if the opportunity arises.

 

Yours sincerely,

Richard

 

Quote

From: Pinker, Steven

Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2024 11:49 AM

Subject: resignation

 

Dear Annie Laurie and Dan,

 

With sadness, I resign from my positions as Honorary President and member of the Honorary Board of the Freedom from Religion Foundation. The reason is obvious: your decision, announced yesterday, to censor an article by fellow Board member Jerry Coyne, and to slander him as an opponent of LGBTQIA+ rights.

 

My letter to you last November (reproduced below) explains why I think these are grave errors. With this action, the Foundation is no longer a defender of freedom from religion but the imposer of a new religion, complete with dogma, blasphemy, and heretics. It has turned its back on reason: if your readers “wrongfully perceive” the opposite of a clear statement that you support the expression of contesting opinions, the appropriate response is to stand by your statement, not ratify their error. It has turned the names Freethought Today and Freethought Now into sad jokes, inviting ridicule from its worse foes. And it has shown contempt for the reasoned advice of its own board members.

 

There are not the values of not the organization I have supported for twenty years, and I can no longer be associated with it.

 

Sincerely,

Steve

 

*************

 

As Steve notes above, this second letter was sent over a month ago to the same people, with copies to me and Richard Dawkins, as all of us were discussing the issue of “mission creep” with the FFRF.

 

From: Pinker, Steven

Sent: Monday, November 11, 2024 10:04 AM

Subject: RE: Comment for FFRF

 

Thanks, Annie Laurie. But I think it’s important to distinguish two things:

 

1. The right to bodily autonomy, an ethical issue.

 

2. The nature of sex in the living world, a scientific issue.

 

Some trans activists believe that the only way to ensure the first is to rewrite the second, imposing what we regard as fallacious and tendentious claims in defiance of our best scientific understanding. This is unfortunate for two reasons: it’s a conceptual error, confusing the moral and the empirical, and it’s counterproductive to force people to choose between trans rights and scientific reality. Those who favor scientific reality will be alienated from the cause of safeguarding trans rights.

 

I see FFRF as in the vanguard of separating key moral and political commitments from honest scientific inquiry (after all, a major impetus for enshrining religious doctrine such as creationism is that it is necessary for the preservation of moral values). Many people have noted that the radical factions of the trans movement have taken on some of the worst features of religion, such as the imposition of dogma and the excommunication and vilification of heretics. FFRF can be firmly on the side of trans rights without advancing tendentious (and almost certainly false) biological claims. Of course, it’s fine for views that we regard as tendentious to be expressed in FFRF forums, as long as respectful disagreements are allowed to be expressed as well.

 

Best,

Steve

 

Quote

Dear Annie Laurie and Dan,

 

As you probably expected, I am going resign my position on the honorary board of the FFRF. I do this with great sadness, for you know that I have been a big supporter of your organization for years, and was honored to receive not only your Emperor Has No Clothes Award, but also that position on your honorary board.

 

But because you took down my article that critiqued Kat Grant’s piece, which amounts to quashing discussion of a perfectly discuss-able issue, and in fact had previously agreed that I could publish that piece—not a small amount of work—and then put it up after a bit of editing, well, that is a censorious behavior I cannot abide. I was simply promoting a biological rather than a psychological definition of sex, and I do not understand why you would consider that “distressing” and also an attempt to hurt LGBTQIA+ people, which I would never do.

 

As I said, I think these folks should have moral and legal rights identical to those of other groups, except in the rare cases in which LGBTQIA+ rights conflict with the rights of other groups, in which case some kind of adjudication is necessary. But your announcement about the “mistake” of publishing my piece also implies that what I wrote was transphobic.

 

Further, when I emailed Annie Laurie asking why my piece had disappeared (before the “official announcement” of revocation was issued), I didn’t even get the civility of a response. Is that the way you treat a member of the honorary board?

 

I always wanted to be on the board so I could help steer the FFRF: I didn’t think of it as a job without any remit. The only actions I’ve taken have been to write to both of you—sometimes in conjunction with Steve, Dan (Dennett), or Richard—warning of the dangers of mission creep, of violating your stated goals to adhere to “progressive” political or ideological positions. Mission creep was surely instantiated in your decision to cancel my piece when its discussion of biology and its relationship to sex in humans violated “progressive” gender ideology. This was in fact the third time that I and others have tried to warn the FFRF about the dangers of expanding its mission into political territory. But it is now clear that this is exactly what you intend to do. Our efforts have been fruitless, and if there are bad consequences I don’t want to be connected with them.

 

I will add one more thing. The gender ideology which caused you to take down my article is itself quasi-religious, having many aspects of religions and cults, including dogma, blasphemy, belief in what is palpably untrue (“a woman is whoever she says she is”), apostasy, and a tendency to ignore science when it contradicts a preferred ideology.

 

I will continue to struggle for the separation of church and state, and wish you well in that endeavor, which I know you will continue. But I cannot be part of an organization whose mission creep has led it to actually remove my words from the internet—words that I cannot see as harmful to any rational person. I am not out to hurt LGBTQIA+ people, and I hope you know that. But you have implied otherwise, and that is both shameful for you and hurtful for me.

 

Cordially

Jerry

 

Edited Thursday at 12:09 PM by Darko

[Angelia]

2 hours ago, Darko said:

Ovo je problem o kojem sam govorio:

 

 

 

Uvek si bio u pravu, kao I oni, da je postalo kvazi-religija. Nadam se da je I ovo signal, da ce se takav aktivizam marginalizovati. 

[ters]

Zasto ne koristis jednake kriterije za sve  oblasti - ako svodis trans osobe iskljucivo na biologiju, onda to radi i za sve ostalo, pa posteno reci da su se tri kratkovide jedinke homo sapiensa, sa ispodprosjecnom plodnoscu  odrekla clanstva u odboru FFREF. Njihovo znanje i autoritet nisu bioloski. 

Edited Thursday at 11:27 PM by ters

[Darko]

8 minutes ago, ters said:

Zasto ne koristis jednake kriterije za sve  oblasti - ako svodis trans osobe iskljucivo na biologiju, onda to radi i za sve ostalo, pa posteno reci da su se tri kratkovide jedinke homo sapiensa, sa ispodprosjecnom plodnoscu  odrekla clanstva u odboru FFREF. Njihovo znanje i autoritet nisu bioloski. 

Babe i žabe. 

[Darko]

9 hours ago, Angelia said:

Uvek si bio u pravu, kao I oni, da je postalo kvazi-religija. Nadam se da je I ovo signal, da ce se takav aktivizam marginalizovati. 

Hvala. Trudio sam se da objasnim kako je trans ideologija otišla u ekstrem, a dobio drvlje i kamenje. Nadam se da će se pobornici iste bar malo preispitati kada vide da se svetsko-poznati biolozi kao Dawkins i Coyne ućutkuju. Štaviše, Pinker, Coyne i Dawkins su još poznati levičari.

Edited Thursday at 11:58 PM by Darko

[Angelia]

21 minutes ago, Darko said:

Hvala. Trudio sam se da objasnim kako je trans ideologija otišla u ekstrem, a dobio drvlje i kamenje. Nadam se da će se pobornici iste bar malo preispitati kada vide da se svetsko-poznati biolozi kao Dawkins i Coyne ućutkuju. Štaviše, Pinker, Coyne i Dawkins su još poznati levičari.

Pa da, nije bio problem dok nisu otisli u extrem. I reci da je otislo u extrem, ne treba da ti zaradi drvlje I kamenje. Ja sam I na forumu bila banovana za transfobiju, jer sam rekla nesto kao da gender dysphoriju treba leciti, ne secam se konkretnog citata. Odrasli ljudi koji odluce da tako hoce da zive, to je njihovo pravo, I ne treba da budu diskriminisani ili napadani. Ali ne pristajem da je neko promenio pol, samo zato sto kaze da je suprotan pol.

Kao sto ne bih prihvatila da mi neko kaze da je stolica. I definitivno ne prihvatam da zene budu izbrisane. Ili njihova prava. 

Biologija je nauka.

[Angelia]

Zene i muskarci su bioloske kategorije, 1000 godina od sada, kad neko nadje moj kostur, moci ce samo na osnovu biologije da zakljuci da li sam musko ili zensko, kako sam se ja osecala nece biti faktor.

i ako je gender osecaj, zasto trans ljudi imaju potrebu da rade operacije, da bi bolje delovali kao suprotan pol? Ako je samo osecaj, reproduktivni organi ne bi bili bitni.

[ters]

8 hours ago, Darko said:

Hvala. Trudio sam se da objasnim kako je trans ideologija otišla u ekstrem, a dobio drvlje i kamenje. Nadam se da će se pobornici iste bar malo preispitati kada vide da se svetsko-poznati biolozi kao Dawkins i Coyne ućutkuju. Štaviše, Pinker, Coyne i Dawkins su još poznati levičari.

 

Darko, nisam zelio karakterisati tvoje postove i pisanje pa sam upitao Elon-ov Grok kako to vidi iz ugla prosjecnog Amerikanca:

 

Prompt:

 

 

Give me summarized view on how would average American characterize a person that uses public forum to post multiple posts over longer period of time about transgender issues insisting that the only determining factor for sex is biology , opposes trans kids athletes participation in high school and university female sports, opposes trans women access to women toilets, opposes gender reassignment treatments, and on the topic of USA politics when someone mentions that they would move to Australia if they get fed up with US politics responds with statement "Nego kada smo kod Australije, ni ovde baš ne cvetaju ruže. Nekretnina je skočila svudge bar za 50% posle kovida dok plate nisu, a imaš i ovakve gluposti:" and links to the article about biological male claiming that he is female in Australia at URL https://quillette.com/2024/08/27/tickle-vs-giggle/

 

Response:

 

Here's how an average American might characterize such a person based on the described behavior:

 

• Transphobic: The consistent opposition to transgender rights, inclusion, and acknowledgment would likely be seen by many as transphobic, given the dismissive and negative tone towards transgender identity.
• Conservative or Traditionalist: Their views align with a more conservative or traditionalist perspective on gender, emphasizing biological determinism over gender identity.
• Anti-Trans Rights Advocate: They would be seen as actively working against the rights and acceptance of transgender individuals, using public platforms to spread their views.
• Selectively Informative/Misinformative: By linking to an article from Quillette, which is known for its controversial stances on social issues including transgender rights, this person might be perceived as selectively choosing information that supports their viewpoint, potentially misrepresenting or simplifying complex issues.
• Culturally or Politically Motivated: The response to the Australia comment with economic critiques plus a jab at transgender issues might be interpreted as an attempt to merge cultural or political criticism with transgender rights debates, possibly to discredit progressive policies or movements.
• Sarcastic or Dismissive: The tone of the statement about Australia, combined with the choice of article, could be taken as sarcastic or dismissive of transgender issues, further solidifying the view of transphobia.

 

In summary, an average American might characterize this person as:

 

• Transphobic and Conservative, who uses public forums to argue against transgender rights.
• Selectively Informative or Misleading, with a tendency to use specific sources to support their narrative.
• Politically or Culturally Motivated, intertwining transgender issues with other societal critiques in a way that might be seen as dismissive or sarcastic.

 

However, perceptions can vary widely, especially depending on one's own stance on transgender issues, political beliefs, and familiarity with the referenced sources or languages.

 

[Darko]

@ters, zato i postoji human oversight što se tiče generative AI. Takođe, zanimljivo je što nisi u prompt dodao šta mislim o trans pravima (gde sam lepo napisao da nemam ništa protiv tranzicije odraslih osoba i istog tretmana koliko je praktično moguće), nego si samo uzeo jednu stranu medalje. To više govori o tebi nego o meni.

 

P.S. I da, nemam ništa protiv da passable trans koriste ženski WC, ali imam sa pokazivanjem kite u istim. Al dobro, nastavi da podmećeš.

Edited Friday at 10:55 AM by Darko

[Angelia]

😀 pitao je Chat gpt kako bi prosecan amerikanac video...ne, ne, prosecan amerikanac se potpuno slaze sa Darkom. Ali stvarno, kad ne vidite nista pogresno u koriscenju nesavrsenog software kao argument autoriteta. Pogotovo sto AI koristi izvore sa interneta, gde su aktivisti najglasniji. Pocinjem da mislim da zivimo u matrixu ako se AI koristi kao argument sta ljudi misle.

[ters]

4 hours ago, Darko said:

@ters, zato i postoji human oversight što se tiče generative AI. Takođe, zanimljivo je što nisi u prompt dodao šta mislim o trans pravima (gde sam lepo napisao da nemam ništa protiv tranzicije odraslih osoba i istog tretmana koliko je praktično moguće), nego si samo uzeo jednu stranu medalje. To više govori o tebi nego o meni.

 

P.S. I da, nemam ništa protiv da passable trans koriste ženski WC, ali imam sa pokazivanjem kite u istim. Al dobro, nastavi da podmećeš.

 

Don't shoot the messenger.

Oversight negdje postoji a negdje ne. 

 

Prompt sam stavio takav, kakav je - ako zelis da probas sa dopunama koje nijsam navodio, mozes probati sam.

 

4 hours ago, Angelia said:

😀 pitao je Chat gpt kako bi prosecan amerikanac video...ne, ne, prosecan amerikanac se potpuno slaze sa Darkom. Ali stvarno, kad ne vidite nista pogresno u koriscenju nesavrsenog software kao argument autoriteta. Pogotovo sto AI koristi izvore sa interneta, gde su aktivisti najglasniji. Pocinjem da mislim da zivimo u matrixu ako se AI koristi kao argument sta ljudi misle.

 

Nisam pitao ChatGPT, nego Grok, koji je:

 

1) treniran na osnovi "najbalansiranijeg izvora informacija" - Twitter-a,

2) koji je po rijecima Elona Muska "truth seeking" i "more truthful" nego ChatGPT

3) koji nije opterecen sa "useless DEI hires" koji cenzurisu sadrzaj

 

I naravno - ne koristim ga kao autoritet, nego kao jednostavnu alatku koja mi je omogucila da se nasalim i malo bocnem sagovornika...

[Darko]

6 hours ago, ters said:

Prompt sam stavio takav, kakav je - ako zelis da probas sa dopunama koje nijsam navodio, mozes probati sam.

Ne bih da traćim vreme na gluposti. Jesu li best-selling autori Pinker i Dawkins isto transfobi pitam se? Lako je ići sa ad hominem napadima. 

[Angelia]

1 hour ago, Darko said:

Ne bih da traćim vreme na gluposti. Jesu li best-selling autori Pinker i Dawkins isto transfobi pitam se? Lako je ići sa ad hominem napadima. 

Mislim da je @ters objasnio na topiku Forumasi da je malo pod stresom ako sam pravilno razumela (izvinjavam se ako gresim), pa da mozda preteruje u izazivanju ne-istomisljenika. U svakom slucaju se nadam da se opusti I vrati na diskusije.

 

Definitivno smatram da gledamo zalazak trans-ideologije. Ljudi odbacuju extreme. Barem u US, ocigledno je da se preteralo, kad I poznati levicari, cak I extremni odustaju od price.