Read on Twitter
I share some of Malcolm’s concerns but I can’t really get too worried about definitions. This is coming up a lot lately & I know they relate to concepts & rights in material reality that matter much more, but I think we need to focus on the reality & give less energy to words. https://twitter.com/twisterfilm/status/1304354372550356993
This comes up a lot in relation to trans rights & women's rights & where they could conflict. It involves one hell of a power struggle over words & who owns them & who has the right to compel others to use some & not use others.
Warning: I am about to pontificate idealistically about liberalism again.
So, there are various ways in which groups of humans can resolve conflicts. Most popular seems to be the one where one groups utterly defeats the other & then sets all the rules.
However, this is frowned upon by many people today who see peaceful co-existence as preferable, at least in principle, even if they don't look very much like they are actually doing that.
There are three main ways in which groups of people with different beliefs & values can co-exist in a society. These are:
Relativism.
Compromise.
Pluralism.
Relativism.
Compromise.
Pluralism.
Relativism is attractive to some because everybody can be right even though their beliefs conflict. So, with the Abrahamic religions, rather than imposing one belief on everyone, Jesus would be the son of God, a revered human prophet & a false human prophet all at the same time.
This idea can be appealing to those who don't think objective truth matters very much or is obtainable or is less relevant that what cultural groups construct it as. However, believers in any of those religions generally think objective truth does matter & it's what they think.
Another option is compromise which would get seek to get rid of the contradictions by having everybody agree to sign up to a middle position & then we can all live in peace. However, this would be likely to be rejected by all three kinds of believers because of the truth thing.
So, the third position is pluralism. This is when people accept that other people believe different things & no one position is to be given more power in society than any other.
Sometimes people confuse pluralism with relativism because they share a feature of having people with different beliefs able to go around saying their own belief is right, but it is actually quite different.
Relativism: Lots of different beliefs exist & they are all equally right.
Pluralism: Lots of different beliefs exist & people are allowed to hold them whether they are right or not.
Pluralism: Lots of different beliefs exist & people are allowed to hold them whether they are right or not.
People who mistake pluralism for relativism are usually authoritarians by nature who have great difficulty in accepting that people can believe other people to have the right to be wrong & that if they protect this belief, it must be because they think it is correct.
All three of relativism, compromise & pluralism can be thought of as liberal because it looks, on the surface, as though, nobody is compelled to believe anything they don't. In fact, pluralism is the only one that enables this & so the one that is liberal.
If relativism or compromise becomes the regulation with which all must comply, everyone is compelled to pretend to believe things they don't think are true. If pluralism is the requirement, no-one has to pretend to believe this.
The only demand a pluralistic expectation with laws to protect it make on people is that they don't impose their own beliefs on anyone else. Therefore, it is authoritarian only to the extent necessary to prevent authoritarianism.
The Christian can be Christian, the Jew Jewish, the Muslim Muslim & they can all believe themselves to be right & the others to be wrong, but they commit to allowing the others to be wrong, in their own estimation, & not forcing them to hold the "right" belief.
Also productive conversation can come from this. It's unlikely to result in any of them convincing all the others of the rightness of their own beliefs, but they can, nevertheless, talk about how to run society while knowing the others' framework.
eg, the Christians do not have to share the Jews' & Muslims' position on pork, but they know what it is & that Jews & Muslims are part of society & so any society-wide happening cannot include the necessity to eat pork. Negotiations & compromise can then happen.
A compromise at this level is not a problem as it would be it were the overall structure
eg, some people want to eat pork & some do not. Therefore everyone must eat pork but only a little
Some people want to eat pork & some do not.
Therefore have options with & without pork
eg, some people want to eat pork & some do not. Therefore everyone must eat pork but only a little
Some people want to eat pork & some do not.
Therefore have options with & without pork
So, why am I going on about this when I started this thread on the debate between trans activists & gender critical feminists about trans rights & women's rights & how they could conflict?
Because we need an agreement of pluralism really urgently between those two groups so that negotiation & compromise can happen on that pluralistic level where no-one has to pretend to believe anything they don't.
What we currently have is the form of conflict resolution which doesn't want to co-exist at all. It's the one where both groups want to utterly defeat the other one & then set the rules. This battle is taking place largely in the realm of definitions & words.
Usual disclaimer about there being people of both groups who are willing to understand the other side's framework, believe it to be wrong but still discuss things & seek resolutions anyway. This is not what is dominating debate & stalling progress though.
Instead, we have 'trans women are women' and 'trans men are men' and these arguments taking the form of each side using their own definitions & reading the other through it in order to show that they insane, evil or both.
Thus the only way this conflict will resolve is if one side gets enough support for its own narratives & definitions that it is able to have a decisive victory & then dictate the rules for everybody. At the moment, trans activism is winning, but there's significant pushback.
This is a real problem because we really do need solutions that enable trans people to live their lives as feels right to them w/out discrimination or intimidation AND that protect women's spaces and sports.
We need advocates for women's spaces & sports & trans acceptance to get together, address each other's concerns as they really are (rather than insisting their motivations are transphobia & misogyny respectively) & find workable solutions which will realistically be compromise
This will not make everybody happy. Those who wish trans women to be accepted straightforwardly as women in every situation will likely have to accept that this will not be able to happen & special bathroom arrangements & sporting categories will need to be created for them.
Those who wish trans women to be accepted straightforwardly as men in every situation will likely have to accept that apart from some situations where distinctions must be made, this will not happen & trans women will live as women & be acknowledged as such by rules of society.
Both will have to accept that the other believes something very different to what they do & that they'll just have to live them talking about things in ways that indicate this. Because pluralism is the only way to resolve this without an outright war than ends up harming people.
The chances of this actually happening are currently hovering just above zero, I know.
But I make arguments for what I think needs to happen & not predictions that this will. Nor do I have many practical ideas for bringing it about. I just hope to convince people.
But I make arguments for what I think needs to happen & not predictions that this will. Nor do I have many practical ideas for bringing it about. I just hope to convince people.
I have been arguing this in one way or another for three years now and all it has achieved so far is gender critical feminists believing me to want to throw women's rights away & trans activists believing me to want to make vulnerable trans people commit suicide.
Please consider the option of making me empress of the world again. I will rule by imposing liberal pluralism on everybody & the first person to mention Popper gets tutted into oblivion. Thank you.
