Why is homophobia tolerated here?

[Haven]

If a person were to join this forum making racist comments, using and implying racial slurs, and saying that racial minorities were disgusting, evil, and inherently inferior, they would certainly be swiftly banned (and rightly so!). This person could say the same things about women, people from certain countries, people with disabilities, and the reaction would be the same -- a swift ban.

However, on this forum -- which prides itself on civility -- people can make bigoted and untrue comments about lesbians, gays, and bisexuals with absolutely no consequences. Not so much as a warning. Certain members have been making blatantly homophobic statements for years without even a moderator comment.

Why the double standard? Why is racism banned, but homophobia and heterosexual supremacy tolerated? Are LGB people somehow a less-deserving minority?

[Haven]

[Replying to post 99 by Wootah]

In reality, you aren't a god. In reality, trans women are women (this has been objectively demonstrated by several scientific studies). That's the difference. Calling a trans woman by something other than her current name or using incorrect pronouns to misgender her isn't just a form of bullying and harassment, it's factually incorrect because she is not a man.

[Haven]

I don't consider referring to any biological male as being a male as being offensive. Just as they do at my job, if you want to claim to be another sex, go get checked out at your local Health Department, get the proper documentation, legal or otherwise, then we can go from there. Otherwise, you will have perverted males making the same excuse just to prey on women.

Only people who are actually born with gender dimorphic disorders have this exception, in my mind. For all others, it falls short in my opinion.

The term "biological male," when applied to trans people, is problematic. Many trans people take steps to transition biologically (surgery, hormones, etc.), and so calling them "biologically male" is obviously incorrect. Furthermore, studies show that trans people have brains that match their identified gender, not the sex assigned to them at birth. Brains are (largely) biologically determined.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 112317.htm

Second of all, gender and sex aren't the same thing. Pronouns, names, etc., have to do with gender, not sex. Regardless of a woman-identifying AMAB (assigned male at birth) person's biological sex, she is definitely a woman (her gender is woman) and so should not be referred to as a man. To do otherwise is not only disingenuous, but is a form of bullying and harassment.

[OpenYourEyes]

[Replying to post 99 by Wootah]

1. Do you mean "reality" like six-day creations, global floods, talking snakes, and magical resurrections? I think you should apply your "reality matters" standard to your own religious beliefs.

2. In reality, you aren't a god. In reality, trans women are women (this has been objectively demonstrated by several scientific studies). That's the difference. Calling a trans woman by something other than her current name or using incorrect pronouns to misgender her isn't just a form of bullying and harassment, it's factually incorrect because she is not a man.

Here is from your own source:

Different etiologies have been suggested as the cause of transgender identify however none have been proven definitively

[Haven]

[Replying to post 102 by OpenYourEyes]

There's a difference between "proven definitively" and "no evidence at all." There is strong scientific evidence pointing to a biological origin of transgender identities, even if there is no "definitive proof."

Also, why is bigotry the default? If someone says she is a woman, why go through the trouble of disputing that? Your religious beliefs have no official status in society and so can't be used to limit others' rights.

[OpenYourEyes]

[Replying to post 102 by OpenYourEyes]

There's a difference between "proven definitively" and "no evidence at all." There is strong scientific evidence pointing to a biological origin of transgender identities, even if there is no "definitive proof."

Also, why is bigotry the default? If someone says she is a woman, why go through the trouble of disputing that? Your religious beliefs have no official status in society and so can't be used to limit others' rights.

Yeah but you are claiming to be representing "reality". Uncertainty is not synonymous with reality.

Bigotry is irrelevant to me. Just facts.

[Haven]

[Replying to post 104 by OpenYourEyes]

Factually, what is wrong with recognizing someone as their identified gender? Even if (to grant your insinuation) it's totally a choice, why would anyone go out of their way (by using incorrect pronouns, old names, etc.) to disrespect that?

After all, religion is completely a choice and you don't see people going out of their way to disrespect that. Religious people--despite their choice to be religious (a choice that some would consider irrational and immoral)--are still protected from being fired or denied housing, don't face violence in the streets, aren't openly mocked by societal leaders, and are recognized as being part of the religion they claim to practice. Trans people have none of these privileges.

How would it be wrong to at least give trans identities the same respect afforded to religious identities?

[Divine Insight]

There's a difference between "proven definitively" and "no evidence at all." There is strong scientific evidence pointing to a biological origin of transgender identities, even if there is no "definitive proof."

I don't understand why this should even be important at all.

Do people who have transgender identities need a "biological excuse"?

What's the difference why they identify with being transgender? I don't see where a mere desire to be this orientation shouldn't be sufficient in and of itself.

It seems to me that the LGBT community is actually playing right into the hands of the religious bigots by trying to "justify" their sexual orientations by appealing to biological origins that they supposedly have no control over.

It's almost like they are saying to the religious people, "We see your point. If we did have a choice then of course we would be sinners for making that choice".

That's baloney right there.

I don't care if a gay person (or whatever label they use to identify themselves as) is what they are simply because its what they desire to be. Period.

It's only religious bigotry that wants to make something derogatory out of that.

So it doesn't matter what the "facts" are even. Religious bigotry is still religious bigotry no matter what.

These religions are nothing more than cults that use their Gods as an excuse to hate other people.

And as far as I can see there is no excuse for that. They are the ones who are without excuse.

[enviousintheeverafter]

Um, I think you need to review the definition/meaning of genetic fallacy.
I'm talking about the etymology of the word and its original meaning.

So you think I need to review the definition of a genetic fallacy... but you explicitly admit it is a genetic fallacy (in bold); what you're saying here is the etymological fallacy, a species of genetic fallacy, in a nutshell.

L.O.L.

Clearly this is a textbook case of the pot calling the kettle black.

homo (from homosexual) +‎ -phobia (morbid irrational fear)
Fear, dislike, or hatred of homosexuals.

Right. Genetic fallacy. This is not what "homophobia" means.

There's no dispute that a more recent, derogatory connotation has been developed as a means of labelling ANYONE who objects to homosexual behaviour, same-sex 'marriage, gay adoption, etc. - irrespective of the rational basis for holding such views.

What "homophobia" presently means, and has for some time, is opposition to, prejudice towards, fear/hatred/etc of, homosexuality. And lets be honest here, there is no rational basis for holding such views.

The tag 'hate speech' and use of the word homophobe as an epithet or abusive ad hominem against ones ideological opponent actually IS a form of logical fallacy.

Nope. A fallacy, such as ad hominem, consists of an (invalid) inference- as in, "X, therefore Y". An ad hominem is a fallacy because, for instance, the fact that someone is a Christian, or atheist, or whatever, doesn't imply that their argument or claim is wrong. But simply referring to opposition/prejudice/whatever towards homosexuality/homosexuals as "homophobia" is not an inference, and thus cannot be a fallacy. Its simply calling a spade "a spade"- since, again, that's just what the word "homophobia" means. But not only is it not an inference and therefore not a fallacy, there clearly cannot be anything fallacious about using a term consistent with its established meaning.

I accept that words change meaning over time. But calling people names doesn't make it so. Many gay people oppose SSM and yet they don't hate gay people.

No one said it did- homophobia doesn't necessarily involve hate, as noted it spans a range of negative valuations (from opposition, dislike, discomfort, to hate, fear, etc.). What tt does likely mean, of course, is that they are homophobic.

[enviousintheeverafter]

I don't consider referring to any biological male as being a male as being offensive.

But that's not relevant is it? If someone else says a certain class of pronouns or certain designations are offensive (i.e. to them), what you consider offensive is entirely beside the point. So why not just be courteous and respectful and oblige their preference, especially when its all the same to you? Good gravy.

[OpenYourEyes]

[Replying to post 104 by OpenYourEyes]

Factually, what is wrong with recognizing someone as their identified gender? Even if (to grant your insinuation) it's totally a choice, why would anyone go out of their way (by using incorrect pronouns, old names, etc.) to disrespect that?

The reason is because it is misleading. Biology matters and shapes how we interact with each other in various ways. For instance, if a man finds out that he cant get his wife pregnant who failed to disclose that she was formerly a he, then the whole marriage was based on a lie. If a pervert wants to watch women in the bathroom.or locker room then he can do so by claiming to be a woman.

If i am to accept a man who chooses to identify as a woman then by that standard i must accept a White or Black person who chooses to identify as a different race, or a kid who identifies as an adult, or a lycanthropic person who identifies as an animal - a wolf , etc, etc. Thats what the standard of choice gets you. And if gender dysphoria is not biological in origin and environment plays a role, then the condition would be no different than a treatable mental disorder.

I personally will not accept a transgender request unless i see evidence from brain scans, and physical and legal documentation from a government Health Department, etc.