"Oregon Judge Rules In Favor Of Transgender Students In Bathroom Case"
link
Q: Does anyone have (a) a right to privacy that (b) protects them from sex-integrated public restrooms and locker rooms?
A: I don't know.
As I've said many times, I can see this going either way, and can see us, ten or fifteen years from now, thinking of sex-segregated restrooms and locker rooms as we now think of sex-segregated beaches.
But, as I also keep saying: you can't make that decision on the basis of the magical, pseudoscientific nonsense about men become women and so forth. Well...you can...and they are...but it's nuts.
The other thing is how media like the NYT have completely accepted the left's way of talking about all of this. That terminology is a way of spinning the issue, and accepting the left's way of speaking allows the left-leaning media to simply adopt the left's theory of all this in a slightly concealed way. Notice that the girl in question is a "boy" (a "trans" "boy"); she is referred to as "he"; NYT uses the absurd phrase "gender assigned at birth," ("gender" is used by the left in a semantic shell game so that it means sex when that's convenient, and other things when they're convenient, and it's ambiguous when that's convenient. Also: gender has nothing to do with birth, and nothing is "assigned": the sex of the infant is observed or discerned); then, of course, there's "gender identity" which is just a terminological train wreck... At any rate, this is the left's Newspeak strategy: win the debate by creating custom terminology that presupposes your political position. Also: they've discovered that it's easy to badger people into altering how they speak by analogizing politically incorrect terminology to racial slurs.
Furthermore, to accept these theories is to, basically, accept a kind of relativism / a kind of antirealist metaphysics. By accepting these views, we accept that sometimes thinking that something is so makes it so. After that catastrophic admission is made, we're just quibbling about the details of who gets to say what the facts will be.
Q: Does anyone have (a) a right to privacy that (b) protects them from sex-integrated public restrooms and locker rooms?
A: I don't know.
As I've said many times, I can see this going either way, and can see us, ten or fifteen years from now, thinking of sex-segregated restrooms and locker rooms as we now think of sex-segregated beaches.
But, as I also keep saying: you can't make that decision on the basis of the magical, pseudoscientific nonsense about men become women and so forth. Well...you can...and they are...but it's nuts.
The other thing is how media like the NYT have completely accepted the left's way of talking about all of this. That terminology is a way of spinning the issue, and accepting the left's way of speaking allows the left-leaning media to simply adopt the left's theory of all this in a slightly concealed way. Notice that the girl in question is a "boy" (a "trans" "boy"); she is referred to as "he"; NYT uses the absurd phrase "gender assigned at birth," ("gender" is used by the left in a semantic shell game so that it means sex when that's convenient, and other things when they're convenient, and it's ambiguous when that's convenient. Also: gender has nothing to do with birth, and nothing is "assigned": the sex of the infant is observed or discerned); then, of course, there's "gender identity" which is just a terminological train wreck... At any rate, this is the left's Newspeak strategy: win the debate by creating custom terminology that presupposes your political position. Also: they've discovered that it's easy to badger people into altering how they speak by analogizing politically incorrect terminology to racial slurs.
Furthermore, to accept these theories is to, basically, accept a kind of relativism / a kind of antirealist metaphysics. By accepting these views, we accept that sometimes thinking that something is so makes it so. After that catastrophic admission is made, we're just quibbling about the details of who gets to say what the facts will be.
posted by Winston Smith at
12:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home