I think Poe is right about what really matters here: what transsexuality is? Personally, I'm not really sure. But I also know that the left-liberals pushing the issue aren't really sure either; yet they treat the issue as if it is settled and even as if dissent from their conclusions if a sign of both grave intellectual and moral failing.

I also think that, although there is a certain triteness in the concern over public toilets, which left-liberals exploit to its full, there is actually some validity in certain popular sentiments and prejudices on issues like these: we shouldn't always scorn instinctive unease. 

Whilst I am pessimistic about moral and cultural issues like these and where Western civilisation is going, I'm not quite so sure that there will be an unstoppable movement towards left-liberalism. I think there are a lot of deep seated beliefs, values, and even instincts to uproot. Even on issues like homosexual acts, where left-liberals think they have triumphed, I think there is more unease and possibility for reversal than is sometimes admitted. Even in Britain, there is the constant need still for left-liberals to hammer home their message about homosexuality and so called homophobia. I think there is a significant part of the population that quietly doesn't fully accept this message - it has just been beaten down horse, foot, and dragoons and lacks any sort of intelligent articulation or leadership. Whether this state of affairs will continue, I don't know. 

Besides, I don't know that left-liberalism itself will hold together into the future. Already it is a hotch-potch of liberal and radical elements. The tensions and contradictions seem to me to threaten the entire cultural movement. Even on the very issue of transsexuality, there has been a very public split between pro-transsexual activists and radical feminists. The former have certainly carried the majority of left-liberals, but the latter have been putting up a strong rearguard action.

Good. I hope it splits. Identity politics is a dead end from the start. It Is embarrassing as a leftist that what remains of the left is literally the only aspect that the rich will pay for.

To the OP, since the question of bathroom segregation doesn't appear to be an intrinsically moral issue it can be solved on pragmatic, Consequentialist lines. If the concern is sexual harrasment then maybe the solution is to divide bathrooms into unisex and female only with a bar on transexuals in the latter.

Timotheos wrote:

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

 I think Poe is right about what really matters here: what transsexuality is? Personally, I'm not really sure. But I also know that the left-liberals pushing the issue aren't really sure either; yet they treat the issue as if it is settled and even as if dissent from their conclusions if a sign of both grave intellectual and moral failing.

I also think that, although there is a certain triteness in the concern over public toilets, which left-liberals exploit to its full, there is actually some validity in certain popular sentiments and prejudices on issues like these: we shouldn't always scorn instinctive unease. 

Whilst I am pessimistic about moral and cultural issues like these and where Western civilisation is going, I'm not quite so sure that there will be an unstoppable movement towards left-liberalism. I think there are a lot of deep seated beliefs, values, and even instincts to uproot. Even on issues like homosexual acts, where left-liberals think they have triumphed, I think there is more unease and possibility for reversal than is sometimes admitted. Even in Britain, there is the constant need still for left-liberals to hammer home their message about homosexuality and so called homophobia. I think there is a significant part of the population that is quietly doesn't fully accept this message - it has just been beaten down horse, foot, and dragoons and lacks any sort of intelligent articulation or leadership. Whether this state of affairs will continue, I don't know. 

Besides, I don't know that left-liberalism itself will hold together into the future. Already it is a hotch-potch of liberal and radical elements. The tensions and contradictions seem to me to threaten the entire cultural movement. Even on the very issue of transsexuality, there has been a very public split between pro-transsexual activists and radical feminists. The former have certainly carried the majority of left-liberals, but not the latter have been putting up a strong rearguard action.

I've seen a lot of the New Atheists out there on YouTube starting to attack hyper-Feminism as well; one of their more articulate voices, relative to YouTube new atheists that is, has actually blamed the sluggishness of their movement in the years roughly since Hitchens's death on the infiltration of feminists/sexually-liberal members into many secularist groups, which is recasting the agenda in their own image..

I on the other hand view the new 'identity' Leftism, those who people pejoratively call SJWs, as having a very positive effect re the New Atheism. Intellectually it's little better* but then again the New Atheism is not an intellectual movement but a popular 'myth' in the Nietzschean sense - Social Justice just happens to be the more colorful 'myth' that superceeds it. For purposes of entertainment and malice however it is highly entertaining to watch persons who for years came out with all sorts of bullying rubbish about Christianity suddenly fall flat on their face when they turn their bullying towards Islam. Likewise SWJs are absolutely right to point out that the sort of Scientism endorsed by the New Atheists is dogmatic cultural imperialism par excellence - civilization began with Darwin and everyone before that was an unwashed tree worshiping savage.

It's also good because it targets on of pop-scientism's nasty little open secrets, that is its long-standing affiliation with eugenics. Cf Dawkins' 'final solution' to Downs Syndrome. If McX, the famous geneticist, says something to the effect 'There is no soul - humans are just fantastically complex biological machines', he will be ignored or even lionised, but now if goes on to add what he has a history of doing 'There is no soul - humans are just fantastically complex biological machines, and black have far lower quantified super sciencey worth measurements and thus are inferior machines' the Liberal press will smash him.

In fact I'm just praying for the day someone will shout 'Cultural Appropriation' and strip Sam Harris of his black, neuro-Buddhist vest.

Last edited by DanielCC (4/23/2016 4:26 am)

Well the positive result was the amusement of watching those who have lived by the sword (of Twitter and the Huffington Post) die by that sword.

I do think there is an actual benefit which is the accompanying observation that Western civilization has became increasingly technocratic (is eaten up by a lust for technological mastery over nature).

Last edited by DanielCC (4/23/2016 4:39 am)