Live data from Hacker News

Why Stephen Fry is arguing against political correctness (2018)

cbc.ca

91–100 of 101 posts

Re: Why Stephen Fry is arguing against political correctness (2018)

#91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me it seems clear that GP wrote without hate. A charitable reading is that they just don't have the experience to understand transgender experience. In the context of a discussion about the motivations for and arguments against political correctness it seems to me that we should try to create a safe space for folks (like deltasevennine) to express their perspectives evidently offered in good faith. (Even, and espe…

>Things that seemed like bedrock (i.e. "There are only two genders") crash up against reality where that "rule" is just not applicable (i.e. there are human cultures with more than two genders, and biologically there are e.g. hermaphrodites, etc.) Have you heard of BIID? The term body integrity identity disorder (BIID) describes the extremely rare phenomenon of persons who desire the amputation of one or more healthy…

I don't have the answers either, but I can throw out some ideas and maybe there'll be something constructive in it, eh?

I was brought up with the general idea that what consenting adults get up to is pretty much their own business. E.g. if a guy wants to wear a dress or two women want to get married or Tilda Swinton is just over the whole gender thing or whatever, it ain't no skin off my nose, eh?

But in practice "there are limits", for me I get uncomfortable with autophagy and cannibalism. There have been a few cases of voluntary cannibalism!? That's where I draw the line personally. To each his own, but you can't eat each other, or yourself. BIID too for that matter falls into the "beyond the pale" category for me. (But even then, if the otherwise healthy limb is causing serious distress somehow? And we can't operate on the brain to fix the cause? Maybe you do remove the limb? What if you take it off and the problem remains!? Phantom BIID?)

Really, though, this is between the person and their doctor. It's none of our business. That should be emphasized IMO: if this is a medical condition we're talking about then it's just deeply inappropriate for other people to meddle, IMO.

Next, the thought occurs that there's at least one very obvious difference between BIID and gender change: having a limb off is generally bad, whereas being a woman (or man) is generally A-Ok.

It's fine to be a man, it's fine to be a woman, but changing from one to the other is not fine? "Where's the fun in that?" as John Cleese often says.

Also, people don't typically beat up or murder folks for having BIID. When we're discussing things like societal acceptance of transgender folks, you have to keep in mind the historical (and in many places still current) violence that they have had to put up with. It's not an armchair discussion for these folks. They are fighting for their lives. (E.g. talking in code: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polari )

I grew up reading sci-fi stories where e.g. a man might take a pill before bed and wake up a woman. To me the future would obviously and naturally have gender change as a normal thing (though perhaps uncommon) along with things like new synthetic genders, or body changes like fur or tails, or even becoming "transhuman" entirely though mutation or "uploading". What gender is a disembodied consciousness in a cybernetic matrix anyway, eh?

Last but not least, speaking as someone who has dedicated much of his life to logic, the world is trans-logical. You're talking about "grasping the logic" or crystallizing the logic, which is a good thing to do: logic is better than illogic. I'm pointing out that the real world is not fully covered by logic, in fact only a tiny minuscule portion of the real world is susceptible to logical comprehension. This doesn't mean a descent into irrationality, rather it leads to a new higher-order rationality that can take into account contradictory models and yet still function.

Well met! Cheers

Re: Why Stephen Fry is arguing against political correctness (2018)

#92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Things that seemed like bedrock (i.e. "There are only two genders") crash up against reality where that "rule" is just not applicable (i.e. there are human cultures with more than two genders, and biologically there are e.g. hermaphrodites, etc.) Have you heard of BIID? The term body integrity identity disorder (BIID) describes the extremely rare phenomenon of persons who desire the amputation of one or more healthy…

I don't have the answers either, but I can throw out some ideas and maybe there'll be something constructive in it, eh? I was brought up with the general idea that what consenting adults get up to is pretty much their own business. E.g. if a guy wants to wear a dress or two women want to get married or Tilda Swinton is just over the whole gender thing or whatever, it ain't no skin off my nose, eh? But in practice "th…

>When we're discussing things like societal acceptance of transgender folks.

This is a separate discussion and it often conflates with the the discussion of truth and fiction. Yes we should accept both people with BIID and transgender people into our society with respect and empathy. But the main question is how should we interpret their place in society? Do we interpret BIID as normal or a disorder? Do we interpret transgenderism as a disorder or totally and completely normal?

>Next, the thought occurs that there's at least one very obvious difference between BIID and gender change: having a limb off is generally bad, whereas being a woman (or man) is generally A-Ok.

It's debatable whether it's ok. The line is blurry here. A genital sex change does involve mutilation of genitals and re-sculpting of flesh in the genitalia area and breast area. It also involves experimental treatment with certain hormones that were previously used to chemically castrate male sex offenders. Some of these treatments are being recommended to kids before puberty and before 18. It is borderline similar to BIID as it is involves desires to physically carve into flesh and make irreversible modifications.

It's even arguable that BIID involves similar brain chemistry mechanisms as transgenderism as it is arguably an abnormal/ interpretation of "self", meaning that if BIID is classified as a disease it's not to far off to call transgenderism a disease as well. The big question here is, if cures for BIID existed in pill form, is it moral to offer them to BIID patients? If so if the same pills existed for transgenderism... is it moral to offer them too? Maybe given no cures for either the best path is to acknowledge both people with BIID or transgenderism as completely normal.

>BIID too for that matter falls into the "beyond the pale" category for me.

Me too. And for many... transgenderism also falls beyond the pale. It's understandable why. Both BIID and transgender people exist in nature. But for both they are statistical anomalies. Fewer then 1% of the population across occupy a gender category other then the traditional binary roles they were born with.

So what is beyond the pale? If personally, for yo,u Gender isn't beyond the pale But BIID is... why is your opinion more valid then someone else who thinks that Gender is beyond the pale?

> I'm pointing out that the real world is not fully covered by logic, in fact only a tiny minuscule portion of the real world is susceptible to logical comprehension.

I don't. Logic is the domain of mathematics. Interpretation of the world is based off of opinion, not logic.

However, such interpretations of the world should remain logically consistent. Meaning if you should believe racism is wrong but black people are all criminals then something is wrong with your belief system. Everyone agrees that things should remain consistent.

That is the problem here with transgenderism. There is an inconsistency within it. It fits every criteria of what we would classify as a psychological disorder no different then BIID. But what is more important here? The correct categorization of BIID or transgenderism? Or respecting peoples rights to cut off their own limbs/genitalia? Our biased emotions pull us in 3 directions here. Transgender people deserve respect, limbs/genitalia should not be cut off, truth and correct categorization of things should be followed. You cannot follow all 3 tenets at the same time even if you feel they are all right because they are contradictory.

>I grew up reading sci-fi stories where e.g. a man might take a pill before bed and wake up a woman. To me the future would obviously and naturally have gender change as a normal thing (though perhaps uncommon) along with things like new synthetic genders, or body changes like fur or tails, or even becoming "transhuman" entirely though mutation or "uploading". What gender is a disembodied consciousness in a cybernetic matrix anyway, eh?

I mean sure. What if the sci if story talked about a future where people can painlessly cut off their limbs and feed them to other people? We also have technology where people can eat a pill and instantly regrow the lost limb. So people regularly cut off their limbs and feed each other for fun? This might seem cool to someone with BIID. And logically there's nothing wrong with this future as well. But as you said logic doesn't fully cover the real world.

Why is it that you and I feel that my sci fi universe is strange, while your sci-description of the future is more normal? And what right do we have to enforce our belief that your sci-fi world is more normal then the one I describe? It's totally understandable that many will find the first story just as weird, especially if that person lived in a culture that hasn't been bombarded with media imagery that normalizes transgenderism.

Re: Why Stephen Fry is arguing against political correctness (2018)

#93
post #7

Are there any examples of discussions or arguments having to do with political correctness that are actually thought-provoking? Seems like it's always the same ideas that come up whether the people involved are for it or not.

Yes. It's rather interesting from my perspective. There are actually three sides. Not two. Three. The first side is those who support political correctness. This side is singular. Simple. The other two sides are those who don't. This is where it gets interesting. One side that doesn't support it actually has hatred for marginalized groups. They aren't politically correct because of actual raw hatred. These people inc…

> We'd all be happier if everyone was politically correct.

That's not really clear. Language is for communication. Political correctness makes language a constantly shifting landscape, far more so than it is now, which I think is the primary reason why there's resistance to it.

If everyone bought into that project, then any marginalized group, no matter how small, would be able to dictate a global shift in language. This would dramatically impede effective communication.

Re: Why Stephen Fry is arguing against political correctness (2018)

#94
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> wildly hateful To be clear, the bit where they mention biology exists, or the bit where they say they won't conform to other people's preferred language?

Both and neither? The language itself isn’t the core issue, it’s the overt repudiation of someone’s identity. The biology bit is just an excuse, made worse by it being wrong: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony...

> The language itself isn’t the core issue, it’s the overt repudiation of someone’s identity.

If gender is a social construct then it doesn't really exist except as a cultural artifact. If your identity is based on any kind of social construct, I don't see how it follows that anyone has to agree with or affirm that such claims ought to be a cultural norm.

Furthermore, disagreeing with such claims are cultural disagreements rather than moral disagreements. Cultural disagreements are not innately hateful. Therefore it doesn't seem to follow that affirming gender identity has any moral force, or that not affirming it is innately hateful.

That said, this obviously doesn't justify harassing trans people in any way, shape or form because of such disagreements.

Re: Why Stephen Fry is arguing against political correctness (2018)

#95
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One man's immaturity is another man's "having a spine to stand up for oneself". Spite is awesome, I wish people had more spite in them, without spite you're just a chicken following whatever the nest is crying about, which is the sorry state of most of humanity most of the time. Your delusions of a monolithic 'younger generation' on the 'right side of history' inevitably triumphing are pathetic. Not how history works…

I started this thread with an honest personal observation. Your responses are really inappropriate and based on flawed reasoning. You say I'm generalizing because I only observed a small cohort of kids and yet your counterexample is just yourself? And that we should resist change because it's good to be spiteful? You've basically set the goal posts as being "whatever feels right to me" which makes for a pretty pointl…

My counterexample list is not just myself, that's just the first and most obvious element. There is no point to listing all the people that hate your newfound religion despite being from the 'younger generation', almost everybody hates this shit, probably including your kids as well.

A free man should resist anything, whether it's a change or the status quo, if it's pushed by self-serving bullies and pathetic status seekers. The dominant religion where I live is 1400+ years old, it's a moral and intellectual disease embraced only by the scum and the naive.

I'm not being extra hard on your religion because it's good to be spiteful, this is just how I treat most religions. It's good to be spiteful to religions and their followers because that's what they deserve most.

Re: Why Stephen Fry is arguing against political correctness (2018)

#96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you bought into the new age pro noun thing the SAME way you already buy into the pointless formalities we use like "please" and "thank you" there would be no argument. "If you met the conditions that proved me right, then I'd be right". Well I don't, hence you're wrong, as I said

I said this: We'd all be happier if everyone was politically correct. Which is saying if you "met the conditions" of being politically correct. I did not say if you were forced to act politically correct. Two different things. So literally I did say: "If you met the conditions that proved me right, then I'd be right" and you responded by completely ignoring that and introducing your own conditions. You misunderstood.…

> We'd all be happier if everyone was politically correct

Me 'being' politically correct doesn't mean me 'supporting' or 'enjoying' being politically correct. I don't, and 'being' politically correct makes me unhappy. I don't know how I can simplify further, but it does seem to be a semantic point.

Re: Why Stephen Fry is arguing against political correctness (2018)

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said this: We'd all be happier if everyone was politically correct. Which is saying if you "met the conditions" of being politically correct. I did not say if you were forced to act politically correct. Two different things. So literally I did say: "If you met the conditions that proved me right, then I'd be right" and you responded by completely ignoring that and introducing your own conditions. You misunderstood.…

> We'd all be happier if everyone was politically correct Me 'being' politically correct doesn't mean me 'supporting' or 'enjoying' being politically correct. I don't, and 'being' politically correct makes me unhappy. I don't know how I can simplify further, but it does seem to be a semantic point.

I never said this. I don't know how you can keep misinterpreting it. You can't simplify further because your off on a tangent trying to simplify something that is not the point.

You are already being "politically correct" in your own way. You don't refer to me as an idiot, that's a rule you follow. Thus you are already obeying your own "political rules." If your rules were identical to everyone else's, they they wouldn't be be pissed off and neither would you.

That is what I mean when I'm saying "everyone is politically correct" that's it.

Re: Why Stephen Fry is arguing against political correctness (2018)

#98
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's counter productive" is the argument he's making. It's not why he's making the argument. A lot of people are making this grammar error. The headline isn't saying " What Stephen Fry is arguing"... it's stating " Why Stephen Fry is arguing"...

The phrase "because he feels it's counter-productive to achieving the goal of a more inclusive society", holds "and he wants a more inclusive society" implicitly. He even says that _explicitly_. Or are you suggesting his motivations are something else? More to the point, who cares for the sake of the argument? Are you trolling?

I'm just irritated that people didn't read my original post, where I specifically laid out why I think he's making the argument. Everyone keeps replying with a misinterpretation of the headline as "the question why" rather than "why the question".

Re: Why Stephen Fry is arguing against political correctness (2018)

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I agree with you, up to the line of participation in beliefs I do not share. It would be awful to go out of my way to harass someone with religious dietary requirements, but lacking belief I would refuse to refrain from beef, or go along with fasting during Ramadan.

Calling someone by their preferred nickname or pronouns does not require you to participate in anything. Nobody's asking you to change your own name or fast during Ramadan if you don't want to. Using another analogy, I have vegetarian friends and acquaintances, and when they come visit, I serve us all veg-friendly food because... I'm not an asshole! Doing this small act does not require me to adopt their religion or…

I don't disagree with you on any of this, I think that's a fairly non-controversial opinion. What about things like letting males into female only spaces? Do we have a moral obligation to affirm their identity? Several religions present a duty for women not to expose themselves to men so we have a conflict.

Re: Why Stephen Fry is arguing against political correctness (2018)

#100
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I started this thread with an honest personal observation. Your responses are really inappropriate and based on flawed reasoning. You say I'm generalizing because I only observed a small cohort of kids and yet your counterexample is just yourself? And that we should resist change because it's good to be spiteful? You've basically set the goal posts as being "whatever feels right to me" which makes for a pretty pointl…

My counterexample list is not just myself, that's just the first and most obvious element. There is no point to listing all the people that hate your newfound religion despite being from the 'younger generation', almost everybody hates this shit, probably including your kids as well. A free man should resist anything, whether it's a change or the status quo, if it's pushed by self-serving bullies and pathetic status…

That's still just personal attacks. Any movement is going to have noisy attention seekers getting attention. If you watch cable news have a debate about a social issue you're guaranteed to get the worst, loudest people who like having debates on TV. I've never yelled at anyone for misgendering or anything like that, but I absolutely understand and support it. And absolutely not because it's a popular movement, but because I agree with it on an intellectual level as the right thing to do. Something you haven't even addressed. I'm assuming your 1400 year old religion is based on dogma, mythology, rituals and is of course based on 1400 year old sensibility that hasn't evolved. I don't follow any ancient religion because there's no rational basis for 99% of what they teach. Speaking to people with respect whether they demand it or not seems like a perfectly rational thing to do that doesn't require a leap of faith.
Post reply on HN