Usual straw men and ad hominem from the usual suspects

your comments serve to show that you cannot back up what you say and you are just dribbling out insults.Everything you have said has been untrue and rather childish insults
Emoticons to show how witty I find myself go here

too well for Cathy Newman that is for sure

That falls into the category of “damning with faint praise” considering you are talking about Tory Girl Newman.

That falls into the category of “damning with faint praise” considering you are talking about Tory Girl Newman.

I always thought Cathy Newman’s politics were if anything more left than right but the only thing I would say with any certainty about her own political views is that she’s a Feminist. I watch Channel 4 News regularly and she’s never struck me as being biased towards either the left or the right though.

I’m done here.

That’s was a good read Nick, well written enough to make me think perhaps I haven’t understood the C-16 bill and the resistance against it as well as I thought.

So, based on your explanation here, are you saying that if a transgender individual at a university asked a tutor to use ‘x’ personal pronouns and they refused to do so, but were polite and considerate in every other way, that wouldn’t constitute a crime? Because this is how I had understood it; that the law ostensibly compelled you to do so. If i’ve misunderstood that then honestly and sincerely I think you have a point and thank you for making it.

It’s an interesting debate and one that I’m fortunate enough to have someone who is transgender to discuss with. FWIW, she thinks the idea of compelling poeple by law to use ‘x’ personal pronouns for any reason other than good manners and respect for that person’s humanity, is abhorent and wrong (and JBP himself has always said that he has no problem using the preferred pronouns when it’s his choice).

Of course, he haven’t touched on the issues of gender so far in this thread, which is the larger part of his debate with Ms. Newman.

Some people aren’t capable good manners and respect for a person’s humanity and will harass, bully, intimidate and belittle people that’s why we have laws.

So, based on your explanation here, are you saying that if a transgender individual at a university asked a tutor to use ‘x’ personal pronouns and they refused to do so, but were polite and considerate in every other way, that wouldn’t constitute a crime?

You’d be, as that student, entitled to think your professor of clinical psychology was an asshole, but no, neither of those people in that scenario is committing a crime. But likewise, JP doesn’t have the moral authority to decide on what he gets to call trans-people either. Or for that matter lesbians or black or Asian people, despite his claims that it’s “intellectual genocide” to do so, and no matter how sincere or deeply felt his philosophical view of the matter.

like I said, it’s weird unless you realise that he’s using it for propaganda, which of course, was the purpose of his outburst on C16 originally.

thought experiment for you.

Suppose I am a professor of some scientifically dubious field like, say, clinical psychology. Suppose it is my radical, counter-cultural view that black people are not truly human. I’ve read books that seem to show that black people are more stupid than white people.

Now, there is a student in my class who is black. I am not disrepectful to this student. I don’t treat the student any differently than I do the others. However, the student insists on having me refer to it as “Michael.” It also takes offence when I refer to it as “it,” even though this is the pronoun I use when I encounter animals in other circumstances. I find it silly to imagine that an animal should be able to choose its name and pronoun. Instead, I call it Barnabas

So every class, this student comes and sits in my lecture and I wave and say, “Hello Barnabas!” And when Barnabas complains and says, “My name is Michael,” I say to it: “It is my sincere, reasoned, philosophical belief that you are not capable of determining your own name. I do not accept that your name is Michael. To me you are, and will always be, Barnabas. I will continue to call you Barnabas, as is my preference, and I resent your attempts to correct me.

what would you make of that professor? should he remain in post?

You’d be, as that student, entitled to think your professor of clinical psychology was an ass-hole, but no, neither of those people in that scenario is committing a crime.

OK I understand better now, thank you for explaining. I think it’s likely that his protests are less about the intentions of the Bill and more about what he perceives to be the intentions of the lobby groups behind it. That’s where his arguments do transcend empirical data and move into the political arena. I don’t think he makes any secret of that fact though.

But likewise, JP doesn’t have the moral authority to decide on what he gets to call trans-people either.

That’s a really interesting statement (and I don’t mean that in either a patronising or challenging way!) I think it’s said with sincerity and good intention, but I also think that it’s a hugely complex statement, so much so, that while I want to agree with you, I realise I can’t unless we pick apart the nuance it contains.

I think the tricky part is where you equate ‘moral authority’ with ‘individual choice’, or perhaps where you link those two concepts. You could for example argue, that ‘moral authority’ is irrelevant in deciding how you choose to behave when that choice doesn’t break any laws. Of course, it will have consequences, as everything does and you as an individual have to bear those consequences. But the concept of ‘moral authority’ itself suggests that there is both an absolute right and wrong and tehre exists a power to enact sanction that overides all others by virtue of the authority position from which it was made.

In essence, I am questioning the very existence of ‘moral authority’; there is certainly quite broad agreement on what we see as being positive morals and that agreement extends to this being the preferred way of behaving. If that agreement constitutes authority, then I agree it (moral authority) can exist, I’m just not sure it does.

I would be happier concluding that JBP or indeed anyone else has the right to be an asshole if they wish and we have the right to not like them as a result.

But the concept of ‘moral authority’ itself suggests that there is both an absolute right and wrong

True it does suggest some truths are always true immutable – you should not sexually assault someone being one, its always bad to be a sexist, its bad to be a racist – or the positive all people should be treated equally – care to give an account of when its actually ok to do this ?

IMHO you over think things My experience of teaching philosophy is there is no issue or point that one can apply reductionist points and/or either ask why
Sometimes you just have to accept you get what they mean whilst accepting you can define it perfectly. intelligence is one example – we all know* what we mean though we cannot scientifically define it
* may be fallacy if equivocation here but lets overlook that please.

I think you would benefit from reading the wiki page as you have slighty misconstrued what it means
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_authority

Suppose I am a professor of some scientifically dubious field like, say, clinical psychology.

Chuckles but there are far worse areas in Psychology – your critique is fair though as I found aspects of it to be like apply science to alchemy

I think the tricky part is where you equate ‘moral authority’ with ‘individual choice’,

I haven’t done that, You have, and I used “Moral authority” specifically, understanding it’s meaning, as opposed to “personal choice” as these concepts are not equivalents. JP argues that to use a personal pronoun chosen by some-one he doesn’t recognise as allowed that pronoun is “intellectual genocide”, to him it’s precisely NOT a personal choice, it an imperative that he must adhere to because of his philosophical views.

by all means let’s have a debate. Don’t however, put words in my mouth or insert meanings in my posts where there is none.

That just looked like every other journalistic attempt to get an expert to say something they didn’t really mean, but he was too clever and precise to be trapped.

you should not sexually assault someone being one, its always bad to be a sexist, its bad to be a racist

Hang on, one of those things is illegal and the other two are just repugnant.

I read the wiki page on ‘moral authority’. It clearly states:

As such, moral authority necessitates the existence of and adherence to truth.

So I think I understood it perfectly well. The problem is we cannot all agree on what is ‘truth’, which was the point I was making.

IMHO you over think things

Yes possibly. In my opinion you tend to be very weak at remaining objective in discussion about politically sensitive subjects. But I don’t think these observations are helpful or conducive to our understanding of things.

I think there are two separate laws, the relatively new Federal law C18 and the more long standing state law Ontario Human Rights Code and the original issue arose under the latter. It is also clear that whatever the rights or wrongs in law, that some people including Ontario Human Rights Commissioner believe that using the wrong pronouns can give rise to fines under the law.

Refusing to address a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, is discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code (employment, housing, and services like education).

See here

Hang on, one of those things is illegal and the other two are just repugnant

whilst your point is obviously true it has nothing to do with my point? Is it always true that those things are bad? Is there is “an absolute right and wrong”. I think you are going to struggle to find someone who argues sexual contact without consent is not always wrong. That is there is an absolute. Very few i can think off to be fair

you tend to be very weak at remaining objective in discussion about politically sensitive subjects

I have no idea what that means but none of us are without flaws.

Junky, interesting example, I think we could agree on that one, but of course what constitutes “consent” has been remarkably flexible (eg. marital rape only being outlawed in 1991)

Slept in this morning. Sat down to pee rather than turning the toilet light on.
Have I slipped in a gender neutral zone ?

Good to see that Ninfan, enfht etc support logical, rational discourse from “experts” when it supports their own worldview. It makes a change from some of them accusing experts of being part of the “liberal elite”, eg scientists, economists, lawyers and just about anyone who disagrees with them.