Can you justify political correctness?

[3uGH7D4MLj]

I foresee a lot of seat-up/seat-down confrontation.

If that's the sum total of what you are able to foresee then it's not too difficult to figure out why you cannot fully comprehend the issue at hand.

I'm not quite sure why you bother to continue posting here if you think it's a non-issue and/or are unable to comprehend the concept.

Can you offer anything substantive or relevant to the topic?

Sorry, just joking.

But what "massive range of major problems that are imminent" do you see?

and please don't just say that "if I can't see it then I'm uneducated, without foresight or reasonable understanding, cannot see the forest for the trees," etc. What problems do you see?

[Spiral Out]

I have in mind a number of examples of potentially serious issues that could arise from such a situation but I'd rather hear what your mind's eye is able to offer first.

[3uGH7D4MLj]

I have in mind a number of examples of potentially serious issues that could arise from such a situation but I'd rather hear what your mind's eye is able to offer first.

Sorry, I got nuthin. It's your "massive range of major problems that are imminent".

[Steve3007]

Is this massive range of major problems specifically related to the prospect of the relaxation of toilet facility usage rules? Or is it going to be a result of the wider application of political correctness gone mad?

If so, I would anticipate that the attempted use of urinals by people who don't possess the necessary bodily protuberance could potentially be much more problematic than the seat up/seat down issue.

[Spiral Out]

I got nuthin.

Well that's quite apparent. I had simply asked for something requiring at least a minimum level of intellectual, imaginative and/or philosophical quality and that's what I received as a response. So explain to me why I should engage in philosophical discussion with someone who's "got nuthin" intellectually, imaginatively or philosophically.

>>>

Is this massive range of major problems specifically related to the prospect of the relaxation of toilet facility usage rules?

Is that supposed to be a serious question? It has a "got nuthin" feel to it.

If so, I would anticipate that the attempted use of urinals by people who don't possess the necessary bodily protuberance could potentially be much more problematic than the seat up/seat down issue.

Sorry but this also has a "got nuthin" feel to it. Is the comedy helping you or anyone else in any way? Why should I engage in discussion with comedians in a philosophy forum?

I wouldn't think that the emotionally and intellectually immature children whom my real-life example would directly affect would be able to form any cognitively substantive opinions as to the potential problems either, that's why they need intelligent adults to foresee these potential problems that are statistically very probable in certain circumstances such as the one I had outlined.

One must have at least a modicum of intelligence and understanding in order to address issues such as this.

[Subatomic God]

I have in mind a number of examples of potentially serious issues that could arise from such a situation but I'd rather hear what your mind's eye is able to offer first.

Wait... If males - that are convinced they are females inside - or vice versa, want to take their gender-issue to a superfluous level of which they believe being in a male/female lavatory matters, then how is it a problem whether it's a male/female group sharing a bathroom, or a male living as a female/female living as a male group sharing a bathroom, or any sort of mix between the aforementioned groups?

I'm not sure if you're regarding the part where the male starts using the female lavatory, vice versa, or the part where unnecessary arguments are made so they can use a lavatory based on their more relevant gender.

If anything, the latter would demonstrate a possibility that being a transvestite, or gender-confused, is not natural, but a sickness that does not recognize how bathrooms do not have genders - that only are a point of interest because of the "atmosphere", and the social normalization behind it.

Spiral, please stop with the riddles. If you're not going to answer yourself, at least ask questions that allow those like me to analyze it without you spoiling the chance to catch people's red herrings.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Spiral Out, wasn't it Wuhliheron who said that philosophy is comedy?

To help keep this thread on track, I think we should keep our minds out of the toilet because, realistically, it isn't going to happen (but it might be a suitable discussion for another thread). Try to focus on the serious implications of PC.

PhilX

[Spiral Out]

I think we should keep our minds out of the toilet because, realistically, it isn't going to happen

But it is happening. See California's Assembly Bill 1266 (signed into law) among others. Of course, nothing bad could ever come of that, right? If you don't see the potential for problems then there can be no problems, is that the logic? Shall we call that "ostrich logic"? Just hide one's head in the sand and all the problems magically disappear!

By what logic should the rights of the few outweigh the rights of the many?

Try to focus on the serious implications of PC.

Do you find that allowing emotionally and intellectually immature children free access to any sex-segregated facility or locker room is not a serious implication of PC absurdity? Do you think the legal and financial liabilities of the institutions forced to allow it is not a major factor in such cases? Why do you think those types of facilities are segregated in the first place?

Ignorance of potentially serious consequences doesn't make an issue non-problematic. That's why children do stupid things. They just can't understand the potential consequences. There are probably hundreds of situations arising from this law and similar laws that could, and probably will generate unnecessary instances of litigation, job losses, financial hardships, increased tax burdens, wasted time, money and other resources, increased social conflict, increased school dropout rates, sexual assaults and false accusations, transposed bullying, emotional trauma, suicides, etc., just to name a few.

Is anyone claiming that any of those are unlikely to happen amongst a group of adolescents?

I find the overall lack of insight and dismissive attitude by some posters quite irresponsible and disturbing.

[Subatomic God]

keep this thread on track,

Politics, like science, is unable to pursue correctness, as it pertains to a trait it can not practice itself: human nature

As it stands now, science and politics work with existing structures, mechanically - both can not deal with human nature, thus demonstrating there can not be a PC world, lest the impossibility remains unknown to our attention.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Spiral Out wrote:

"But it is happening. See California's Assembly Bill 1266 (signed into law) among others."

You would make a good lawyer. Can you give us a summary of that law?

PhilX

[Spiral Out]

The basic gist of it is that all school districts in California are required by law to allow any student in any grade K-12 to have access to any sex-segregated activity or facility (including showers and locker rooms) regardless of their actual physical gender.

Currently, this is assumed to apply only within that student's grade, but that will soon change as well by the same principle.

The main reason for this law is to avoid future lawsuits from families of transgender students (according to news reports).

It's basically a "gateway" law. So why would they stop there? (and they won't stop there)

In order to avoid lawsuits of age discrimination (such as the AB1266 law's essential function to avoid lawsuits of sex discrimination) why not let high school students (transgender or not) shower with elementary school students (transgender or not)? Also why not let the teachers shower with middle school students? What if the teacher "age-identifies" as a teenager? Age identity is of the same exact principle as gender-identity.

But why stop there? If we are to accommodate gender identity, then we must also accommodate age-identity and every other self-identifying property that anyone claims to have. If anyone disagrees then what is your logic?

Ending sex-segregation will lead to ending age-segregation and all other segregation (like racial segregation) since "segregation" is now a naughty word (and no, I'm not a segregationist). So if racial segregation and sex segregation are wrong then why isn't age segregation or any other segregation?

Think it won't happen? Get enough people of similar mind, especially if those people have funding, political connections, representative numbers, and thus a voice, then it will happen. It's only a matter of time.

People are generally opportunistic and will seek to gain every advantage they can get, especially when the door has been opened to 'opportunity' based on the precedents of other similar concepts.

Also, if you pay close attention to the wording associated with these bills, they invariably use terms like "opportunity", "equality", "community" and "success" in order to psychologically manipulate the general public by pandering to their emotional need for helping those perceived as "downtrodden".

They must think nobody is paying attention.

[Stormcloud]

And therein lies just ONE example of PC going/gone mad.

[3uGH7D4MLj]

I got nuthin.

Well that's quite apparent. I had simply asked for something requiring at least a minimum level of intellectual, imaginative and/or philosophical quality and that's what I received as a response. So explain to me why I should engage in philosophical discussion with someone who's "got nuthin" intellectually, imaginatively or philosophically.

This is funny. You say, "I don't think people realize the massive range of major problems that are imminent," because of new school bathroom laws in California. I say, "What do you mean?" "What problems do you see?"

You say "You first, what do you see in your mind's eye?" Well, I think the kids will do just fine, I don't see any problems, so I say, "I got nuthin'."

It's not my idea, it's YOUR idea, "the massive range of major problems that are imminent" is your idea, but you ask me what problems do I see. Well, I got nuthin'.

I still got nuthin', except the paragraph of insults above, hilarious and pathetic.

-- Updated May 26th, 2014, 8:05 am to add the following --

People are generally opportunistic and will seek to gain every advantage they can get, especially when the door has been opened to 'opportunity' based on the precedents of other similar concepts.

I'm guessing that the opportunity these people seek is the opportunity to not get beat up in the boy's room.

[Spiral Out]

You say, "I don't think people realize the massive range of major problems that are imminent," because of new school bathroom laws in California. I say, "What do you mean?" "What problems do you see?"

I simply tried to get you to use your brain a little, that's all.

However, you have provided no real arguments to support your position but only dismissive snippets of derision. For example, you've referred to them as "bathroom laws" which they obviously aren't. Calling them "bathroom laws" would even offend those you, at least questionably, appear to defend. If you can only understand these laws as "bathroom laws" then your arguments will consequently be intellectually deficient.

So if you still "got nuthin" after all the potential and probable issues I've cited in detail that may come from this backward, unnecessary and ultimately hypocritical law, then how could I have insulted you? If you cannot respond with intelligent and insightful arguments then why just toss irrelevant comments around that have about as much usefulness and appeal as a used tampon?

I'm guessing that the opportunity these people seek is the opportunity to not get beat up in the boy's room.

Right, I'll challenge that stereotype. All the poor little "innocent and pure" transgenders want is a warm and comfy hug and to be loved. That stereotype is a lazy adherence to a unjustified presumption of some "ubiquitous and infinite plight" of minority groups. A few "outliers" (remember?) are not a sufficient cause for supporting such a claim.

I'll not presume myself that there is any existent "hardship" with an anatomical male participating in the use of male locker rooms, male showers, male sports teams, etc. I'll invite you to prove otherwise, if you can.

The reality of Human life is that sometimes people have to live within a set of rules that are existent for good reason and they just have to deal with it instead of whining and complaining until people are so tired of hearing it that they're given what they want just to shut them up. Is that a genuine "victory"? People without honor and who are opportunistic will take everything they can get.

So do you have the ability to argue intelligently against the arguments that I have provided in support of my position, or have you still "got nuthin"?

Can you justify the political correctness you seem to support or not?

Put up some arguments already. "I don't see the problem" is not a sufficient argument. And if that is all you have to offer, or simply cannot understand the issue, then perhaps you should just move along and let those with real thoughts and insights on this issue discuss it intelligently.

[3uGH7D4MLj]

Put up some arguments already. "I don't see the problem" is not a sufficient argument. And if that is all you have to offer, or simply cannot understand the issue, then perhaps you should just move along and let those with real thoughts and insights on this issue discuss it intelligently.

Gonna take your advice here, too toxic. See ya around.