Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Remember Back When They Said We Were Overreacting?
When they wanted to allow closeted homosexuals in the military, we said, “Soon they’ll be wanting to force us to recognize homosexual marriages, they’ll force us to treat every perversion as normal, and then your daughter or wife will have perverts wanting to use the same bathroom as them.”
I remember those days; oh, how they mocked us. They said we were absurd, ridiculous, a bunch of secret pedophiles ourselves, worrying about imaginary stuff that no one would ever, ever, ever want to inflict on us.
Yeah. I remember. Funny, huh? There is not a hint of a smile on my face.
Just this evening at dinner, my 14-year-old daughter told me that acquaintances (distant, she says) from school are saying that it’s a hate crime to refuse to date a transgender person. Such people are called “super straight” and some, being stupid kids, were recommending draconian punishments for super straights, including the death penalty. Kids are stupid. Progressive politicians have no minority status to excuse them.
Joe Biden, automaton for the progressive movement (which doesn’t excuse his complicity) has issued an executive order requiring schools to allow men who identify as women to use girls’ restrooms.
As soon as I’m done writing this, I’ll be sending a letter to Governor Abbot and my state representative and Senator to pass a law forbidding this. Executive orders do not equal law, and we need to stop this. I will not allow my daughter to attend a school that would do such a thing.
Published in General
That is drawing a pretty fine line. A good thing can’t happen because of bad consequences vs a thing is bad because of its consequences.
Maybe it is at least partially in how the present their “gender” issue. I was born a boy but feel like I should have been a girl, is one thing, it is more honest.
I was born a boy but I am a girl, you must see me and treat me like a girl and you have the problem if, as a straight man you will not date me, is a different thing.
I don’t care who wears a dress. Just like I don’t care who wears an ugly shirt to a formal occasion. I will not call them out. That is where I see the line, I am willing to ignore the issue, as long as they allow me to ignore it and don’t make it a problem.
I don’t find that rude. He or she can do whatever he or she wants. No skin off my nose.
What’s rude is the demand that we have to buy into and respect said person’s mental illness. The demand that we treat said person as an actual member of the opposite sex of his or her birth. That’s what’s rude.
But they are. Especially if you’re talking about a court decision. Establishing precedent is the most powerful argument of all. All of this transgender stuff is being defended in court as a direct result of Obergefell v. Hodges.
I don’t see how I’m “on both sides of this issue.”
Yes, it is very rude, and also deceptive, for a man to pretend to be a woman. But two wrongs don’t make a right. If a man dresses like a woman but is otherwise minding their business and not bothering anyone, then leave them alone. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and if someone wants to be a pervert then they are free to be a pervert. The difference is when a pervert tries to enact laws to protect his perversion and grant himself protections he doesn’t deserve, then he is no longer minding his own business. If he is trying to use the girls’ shower then he’s no longer minding his own business.
If a man is walking down the street dressed as a woman, leave him alone. If a man is reading stories to children at a library or a school and then teaches them how to “twerk” or do other questionable practices, then he needs to be corrected and the children protected.
How is that “both sides?”
The only demand the person I referenced made was to be called by a new name. Otherwise, “she” dressed conservatively, behaved professionally, at least on the job, and caused no problems. There were many who got bent out of shape over it, but that was their problem to deal with. If she had ever asked my opinion, I’d have responded that she is a man with mutilated genitals, but that her life is hers to live, and then suggested we get back to the tasks at hand.
Many gays are quite content to just live their lives and leave others alone. The ones we need to worry about are detailed in Douglass Murray’s book. There is something in humanity that doesn’t like equality.
No, it is usually evoked to claim that tolerance of the present problem will lead to further problems of the same kind or lead to a degree of consequence that the tolerant will finally recognize as bad. A slippery slope is cited to encourage people to look at the present object as part of a larger issue; to address problems before they advance and splinter.
Crossdressing is as clear a line in the sand as will ever arise. If people are willing to deny their own eyes and throw out such basic concepts as “man” and “woman”, then there is no lie too bold and no standard too arbitrary. Gender ideology exploded into countless categories because it abandoned logic and truth entirely. There is nothing left but will and power. Protection against criticism of transsexuality is a bellweather of whimsical oppression stretching far beyond the topic of sexual identity.
It is a typical soviet tactic to force people to abandon norms of thought so that they must rely on the people in power to tell them what to think. The more ridiculous the claim, such as “men are not men*” then the more they are able to keep us guessing on what is allowed. It is the absurdity that they demand because they want us to abandon reason and thus easier to control. That’s what this is all about.
*Orwell wrote, “Sometimes, Winston. [Sometimes it is four fingers.] Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once”,
Right, but that was a poorly made decision to begin with. Bad logic leading to more bad logic. That’s different than the point I was trying to make. Gay marriage should have happened (or not happened) more organically than that. But a bad precedent leading to other bad consequences isn’t the same thing as a slippery slope argument. (At least as I understand it.)
I cannot agree with this post enough.
If you look like a lady, wear women’s clothing, and go into a women’s restroom, no one is going to stop you. Same with a male impersonator in a men’s room. Use a stall, and no one will care.
This is about getting validation, having the government say your beliefs are truth, not tolerance.
The whole transgender issue is madness and will get more insane. If I identify as a child, do I get to go to grade school? I have seen people online who identify as babies and wear diapers. If a 6’2″ guy shows up at preschool/daycare wearing a frilly sun dress and diaper, are they required to believe his claim to be a toddler girl? If someone identifies as a non-human, are we required to actually consider them an elf, alien, or dragon?
Yes.
I wouldn’t recommend changing his diaper.
I think this is a argument about semantics. Slippery slope is just another way of saying, give them an inch and they’ll take a mile, or the camel’s nose in the tent. The camel’s nose is bad, but not as bad as it’s going to be getting soon.
I would agree to call them by whatever name they choose, since that’s up to each individual. But their actual gender is not. So I’ll call him Loretta if he wants, but I would never refer to him as “her.”
If it doesn’t want to be called “he,” then I will honor its request. But I won’t call it “she.”
‘Militant’ in this case means they are telling me how to speak, and when a person does that they are no longer treating me with respect and dignity.
If there are data points then it’s not a slippery slope argument.
That seems fair. I was going to write that I would just use their preferred name, but not any reference to gender either way. But I forgot to include that part.
If you want people to be responsible for maintaining your illusions, you have to pay them a fair wage.
To my mind, the best position to take with a person who has a problem – and being unhappy when people don’t see you the way you wish to be seen is certainly a problem – is that it is your problem, not my problem.
Good move if you work in a large corporation concerned about legal issues. FWIW, when another male wanted to transition, legal called a department meeting to explain the situation to co-workers. For some reason, I was not invited to the meeting.
When someone in my company decided to change sexes, no one called any meetings. He simply changed his name (to something totally ridiculous and made-up), started wearing women’s clothes, and tried to grow his hair longer. The hair was absolutely impossible-as much as he tried, he simply could not look female. It made me laugh, but I avoided him as much as possible, because he simply made me feel very uncomfortable. He was let go shortly thereafter, so problem solved for me. I recently was on LinkedIn, and he does have a profile and picture-shows he still looks weird, trying to be a female and not really succeeding. It’s a shame.
I bet companies were just lining up to hire him/her…
Slippery slope according to wikipedia: The fallacious sense of “slippery slope” is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B.
From owl.excelsior.edu: A slippery slope fallacy occurs when someone makes a claim about a series of events that would lead to one major event, usually a bad event. In this fallacy, a person makes a claim that one event leads to another event and so on until we come to some awful conclusion.
No matter what the slippery slope is, it ignores the existence of a deliberate intelligent force incrementally organizing and urging the progression of series of events.
It hasn’t happened here yet that I know of, but a Canadian man got in legal or professional trouble because he referred to transgender people only by their chosen names and refused to use any pronouns. This was considered discriminatory and illegal.
Compelled speech, that’s the big problem.
But it brought the rise of Jordan Peterson.
I’m sure he could find other things to do, if things hadn’t gone off the rails like this.