CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Has political correctness gone to far ?
Recently I read an article talking about gender neutral parenting where children wear gender neutral clothes , play with gender neutral toys and have gender neutral names ; what a pile of fucking nonsense has the world gone barking mad ?
this is an Absolutely Amazing article on this very subject. It shows both sides of the coin but has a general stance is of your opinion. We could be very greatly harming our children by pushing this idea of changing gender. I'm pretty sure anyone who looks back at their own childhood can say that they were young, dumb, and didn't understand themselves until they were older...why would we think children today are different?
You're absolutely right , and one man said his 5 year old picks his own clothes in stores and in one case picked a pink dress and boots ( which is what kids do ) the father and mother applauded it as a great choice ; this is how far this stupidity has gone .
For all the evidence shows, you could be harming them just as much by socializing them into gender as not. Why should you assume one way or the other if you don't have the evidence?
Raising a child in a gender neutral household doesn't push any gender identity, tautologically. That's the meaning of neutrality. There isn't any immediately obvious detriment to not making assumptions about a child's identity in this or elsewhere, so I don't see why parents raising their children this way if they see fit to do so is a concern for anyone else.
It isn't a matter of whether children are different, but whether our methods of raising children are as good as they could be. Attitudes toward raising children have changed drastically over the centuries, let alone across all human history. That isn't even to say that people before were "bad parents", but that our ideas about raising children do evolve.
Well if a new born is born as a girl it's a fair bet that this will remain their gender for life , why do you use such terms as ' push gender ' ?
It's absolute nonsense , one of the oddities of modern life is that polite society currently insists that you are “born this way” if you are homosexual or misgendered. But when it comes to boys who like to play with swords and build fighter jets? For some reason, this is viewed as a societal construct that should be eradicated so that they’ll want to play with dolls , hypocrisy at its worst .
Our ideas about everything evolve morality is ever changing and evolves with society and not always for the best .
Perhaps I was using an American turn of phrase, but that was my point. There really isn't any.
Why assume one way or another ?
That was also my point. Why assume one version of parenting is bad or another superior without evidence?
Well if a new born is born as a girl it's a fair bet that this will remain their gender for life
There is a tautological difference between sex and gender which predates the whole "queer movement" and its semantic game. They are not the same thing. The sex will always be what it is because that is simply biological. Gender, however, is an identity which is personally developed under the influence of social conditioning. Although female will generally correspond with woman and male with man, that isn't always the case and socialization does factor into the formation of this social identity as it does all the other identities we develop.
Raising a child under the expectation of non-variance when variance is empirically established is against the evidence. Raising them without an expectation is with the evidence, and isn't necessarily done with any further expectation that they be non-normative. It's a very simple act of non-presumption that some parents prefer. Not sure why people like you get so up in arms over it (actually, I've a fair idea it just doesn't seem coherent at all).
why do you use such terms as ' push gender ' ?
It wouldn't be my personal word choice, but that's the wording the OP chose whom I was responding to. So you'd have to ask the person who's agreeing with you. They seem to think it's relevant anyways.
It's absolute nonsense , one of the oddities of modern life is that polite society currently insists that you are “born this way” if you are homosexual or misgendered. But when it comes to boys who like to play with swords and build fighter jets? For some reason, this is viewed as a societal construct that should be eradicated so that they’ll want to play with dolls , hypocrisy at its worst .
I am entirely indifferent to whether someone is born as they are or becomes that way later by their own volition. The only reason "born this way" emerged as a social phenomenon was in response to pressure that homosexuals and other queers defend their existence against claims that they were unnatural. You can hardly fault them for responding to the original argument against their existence, whatever the actual origins of their orientations and identities.
I've seen exceptionally few instances of anyone calling for the eradication of boys playing with swords and fighter jets. Generally, they're sensationalist mouthpieces posturing for click bate; basically, the counterparts to whatever reactionary alarmists you've been swallowing. At any rate, they're a radical fringe group that is no more representative of the broader whole than the extremist Christians who blow up abortion clinics.
All of which is besides the point. The original example you gave was parents raising their children in a gender neutral household. That necessarily means that the toys they're given wouldn't be gendered in the first place, so a male child could still play with a sword and that'd be just fine.
You say there isn't really any evidence but yet you stated .....For all the evidence shows, you could be harming them just as much by socializing them into gender as not. ......
So you do claim you could be harming them based on what ?
You say ....
Why should you assume one way or the other if you don't have the evidence?
But you are making an assumption by claiming following the societal norm may be harming them ?
Non presumption is a bizzare position and frankly it smacks of attention seeking parents wanting to be different .
You were the one who claimed ...
Raising a child in a gender neutral household doesn't push any gender identity, tautologically......
but now you're saying the OP is the one you were addressing so why not do so instead af addressing me ?
What we have are people calling for gender neutral clothes , toys and now celebrities giving kids gender neutral names and there is no sign of this trend dying out
My point was for all that the evidence shows, it shows nothing conclusive at all either way. My statements are entirely consistent with that, because contrary to misrepresentation of my statements I've never claimed that following the societal norm is harmful. Nothing I said even suggests that.
Why is non-presumption a bizarre position? Generally speaking, it's considered quite rational to refrain from forming assumptions when there isn't evidence to support them.
Parents who opt for gendered households talk about their parenting publicly too. Are they also attention seeking? And if not, how is their expression fundamentally different?
If the OP ever addresses my original response to them, I will respond to them again. I am addressing you now because you responded to me. Would you prefer that I have ignored the comment which you directed at me?
No one is forcing you to buy the neutral clothes or toys, or to give your children neutral names. People are just asking for options, as consumers generally do. This is no different than lefties asking for scissors that fit their hands or disabled veterans asking for better VA services, really. You've yet to explain why any of this is actually a problem.
No , you actually stated what you claimed the evidence shows and you actually said the opposite of what you're saying now as you implied the evidence to the opposite was indeed quiet strong .
But what I'm saying is not an assumption I'm basing it on a societal trend which seems to be gaining popularity .
Yes parents do indeed talk about their parenting and are they appearing on chat shows supporting their parenting skills and setting up FB groups etc to inform the public about their experimental child rearing programmes ?
It's a problem because it's utter nonsense people are asking for options you say ?
They have options if you're a boy you do what boys do and likewise for girls these changes are just in case your child presents differently as they get older and it's typical over the top PC nonsense
1) You don't have to sterilize gender from kids lives. Just don't chastise a boy for playing with something pink or a doll, or chastise a girl for liking boy things.
2) Do you realize that even if something gets taken too far it's not a reason to wholly object to it? Political correctness is usually more about respecting other people's differences. You don't decide to ignore others' feelings just because some take it too far.
Do you realize that even if something gets taken too far it's not a reason to wholly object to it? Political correctness is usually more about respecting other people's differences. You don't decide to ignore others' feelings just because some take it too far....
Well I don't agree with that at all if something gets taken to far it can be indeed be a very valid reason to object to it otherwise lunacy prevails as in the long list of celebrities who now name their children with gender neutral names ; when celebrities join the bandwagon the sheep willingly follow and any objections are shouted down .
Political correctness is meant to be about respecting others feelings but a lot of it is just nonsensical and meaningless posturing by people who want to hear themselves .
Everything can be taken too far. Privacy taken too far threatens national security. National security too far hurts individual liberties. Liberty taken too far is anarchy and hurts society.
Objecting to political correctness because of extreme examples is like objecting to basic courtesy like please and thank you because a Miss Manors wrote a book of must do courtesy protocols.
Why are you saying extreme examples ? Gender neutral parenting is a growing phenomenon worldwide , and no it's like objecting to good manners as well you know
Gender neutral parenting is by far the exception instead of the rule. It is an extreme example. I live in metro Boston, which is a very liberal and forward thinking region, and have two kids in daycare, and I'm not witnessing anyone else going out of their way to utterly sterilize gender from their kids. The more likely thing is simply they're not forcing their kids into a gender role, meaning they're not forbidding their boys from traditional girl interests and vice versa. But no one is utterly sterilizing their experience into an androgenous one. And if it isn't happening where I live then truly your example is pretty extreme and rare.
No , you say it's extreme but yet the movement is still growing .
Even you're at it now by stating parents are not ' forcing ' their kids into a role , what do you expect the mother and father of a child to do if a child is born male for example ?
It looks like they're trying to create a whole new generation of pansies and cupcakes. I hope the new era being ushered in in January will help reverse this ridiculousness. Go Trump!
It's absolute horseshit from attention seeking parents one women refused to say in interview whether her child was male or female until pushed , the fuckwit said ' her gender is presenting as female designated '
I'm not a fan of guns or violence but I would gladly put a bullet in this idiotic creatures brain just to stop having to listen to her ridiculous rants
Speaking of ridiculous rants... What's it to you how someone else raises their child and talks about them? If you don't have evidence of outright abuse, I'd say it's not your concern. No one is forcing you to listen to her or anyone else. That's a choice you're making. Save yourself the aneurysm and the cost of a bullet by not obsessing over others' personal choices.
Political correctness that's taken to the limits has impications for everyone who is a part of society your attitude is exactly the one that nonsense such as this continues to infest our societies ; it's the usual you're better off saying nothing attitude .
The only thing I've suggested here is that when something doesn't concern you then you've no business butting in. That's not horribly novel or obviously offensive, and it's certainly not the same thing as never saying anything.
When actual excessive PC has affected others and I've had the opportunity to intercede, I've generally done so. My profession is replete with PC extremism, but I also make a point of actively countering it by creating environments that don't adopt or propagate that culture.
I just don't see that the private, non-abusive parenting choices of other people are any of my bloody business. Or yours for that matter. And your preoccupation with something that doesn't harm anyone or affect you in any way is just ridiculous. It's the same sort of over-sensitivity you're chastising PC radicals for.
But it does concern me and and I haven't butted in as in verbally attacking parents in public , but when this nonsense is is put out on public forums like TV , news media and talk shows I will indeed butt in and make my opinion known .
Why do you say I have a preoccupation ? I merely gave my opinion on this matter and what do you mean doesn't harm anyone or affect me ?
You seem to have a ' preoccupation ' with defending PC nonsense
No, you just said that you'd "gladly put a bullet in this idiotic creatures brain just to stop having to listen to her ridiculous rants". As though you lack the capacity to stop listening to things you don't want to hear, which I pointed out was really the more efficient solution. It's your choice to listen, but instead of accepting that responsibility you get outraged at people for talking as though them doing so forces you to listen (it doesn't). My guess is you like listening to PC folk because it gives you something to whine about on the internet, like the little SJW you are.
Asserting that it concerns you isn't elucidating. We already know that. You've made it abundantly clear. What I'm asking is why it should at all? It's not clear to me why care what individuals do with their private lives, or why them sharing it on a public forum evidently drives you postal. Unless you regularly respond with such vehement rhetoric to mere expressions of personal lifestyle choices, then assessing your response as preoccupied is hardly off the mark.
I haven't defended the PC position. Objecting to your stance on the issue from the perspective that people should be able to live their lives and talk about themselves freely isn't PC, it's just basic common sense. Or do you genuinely think people shouldn't have that basic autonomy over their own lives?
You do know I wouldn't actually put a bullet in her head don't you ?
Well there you bitch at me for answering a question on a debate site and accuse me of being a SJW , my guess is you like defending over the top PC nuts as it gives you something to bitch about , otherwise why do you also bother ?
Ha ,Ha , mere expressions of personal lifestyle choices ?
In your world it may be natural to give a child gender neutral toys , names and clothes and call it a lifestyle choice I call it PC bullshit no matter what way you dress it up
Political correctness that's taken to the limits has impications for everyone who is a part of society your attitude is exactly the one that nonsense such as this continues to infest our societies ; it's the usual you're better off saying nothing attitude .
Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960's and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. Cultural Marxism or Political Correctness says that all history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups.
Perfectly defines the Progressive / Leftist in America.
I'm a Brit currently living in the U.S. I just began a new job and during the first day of orientation classes, the longest class (over two bloody hours!) was spent on telling us how not to offend queers or dykes or trannies, and how they even deserve preferential treatment! I fancy the U.S.....but lads: your PC has gone bonkers! I felt a right bloody knob having to sit and listen to all that and me mates back home would have a good laugh.
You're correct and everyone that's different is now elevated to a pedestal where PC types whine and moan about how they have been victimised by cruel societies ; it's actually a societal advantage now to say you're a cross dressing , black , transgender , one legged asexual :)
How you didn't gag having to listen to this horsehit is beyond me :)
PC has gone too far, but this a poor demonstration of that. Gender neutrality doesn't have to be PC, and I wouldn't say that how others raise their children is of any concern to anyone else if they're not actually abusing them (which there's no evidence to suggest this is at all).
Political correctness serves a purpose for media, politicians and businesses. They benefit when including all people equally.
Political correctness goes too far when the public... you and me... implement it in our daily speech/work/thoughts/blah blah.
From what I've seen... people bitch about the media and politicians being politically correct, and they form their arguments into being that... because the media has to be politically correct... I have to be too?
I'd recommend you 'The Will to Power' by Nietzsche.
I've already read it, along with his other works and those by other nihilists and egoists. What you don't seem to understand is that Nietzsche and his philosophy are no friend to your position with its own moralizing sentiments. What you attempt to apply to a limited moral school applies equally to all of them under nihilism and egoism. Morality's function is to induce conformity by subsuming and overriding the will of the individual. It is categorically to be resisted, not just in this particular form.
In which case, of course, this is the most ethical thing to happen. (Considering the lack of uniqueness.)
I've already read it
It's a fine book, though.
Nietzsche and his philosophy are no friend to your position with its own moralizing sentiments.
Yeah, not strictly. It'd require quite some breaking and moulding to serve my purpose, but that is indeed possible.
Generally, it'd be rather hostile to either of our positions.
Though in the other debate, you used the categorical imperative to determine that making anyone conform is immoral. Can that be considered something you agree with?
In which case, of course, this is the most ethical thing to happen. (Considering the lack of uniqueness.)
How does that follow?
It's a fine book, though.
Meh.
Yeah, not strictly. It'd require quite some breaking and moulding to serve my purpose, but that is indeed possible.
You break and mold something enough, and you've just made something else.
Generally, it'd be rather hostile to either of our positions.
I really don't think you know what my position is.
Though in the other debate, you used the categorical imperative to determine that making anyone conform is immoral. Can that be considered something you agree with?
I was very clear at the time that I find the categorical imperative incredibly obtuse, and I explicitly used it only to demonstrate that it doesn't even withstand an application of itself. So, no, I in no way agree with it and nothing I said remotely suggests that I do.
Since, as you said, every system of morality is built for the purpose.
That's not what I said. My point was actually that this is how morality functions, but that doesn't mean that's what people design it or desire it to do (generally, it isn't). Nor have you demonstrated that PC morality functions in this way more than any other morality so you can't really claim that it's the best at it anyways.
It seems to be that morality ought to always be based on conformity.
Not in the slightest. I think that morality derives its power from conformist behavior, but that in no way suggests I think it should. I'm describing, not proscribing. I'm a value nihilist, and I find the whole idea of morality more than a little silly.
If it did, I wouldn't be asking.
You would if you had misunderstood my position, which you plainly have. I have explicitly and repeatedly told you I don't hold that view. How you could possibly keep misconstruing that to mean the opposite is beyond reason.
At any rate you still haven't demonstrated the validity or soundness of your original claim in this discussion. Can you?
You would if you had misunderstood my position, which you plainly have. I have explicitly and repeatedly told you I don't hold that view. How you could possibly keep misconstruing that to mean the opposite is beyond reason.
Okay, you don't hold that view. I don't think I've been pushing you to. You've answered that you don't.
Not in the slightest. I think that morality derives its power from conformist behavior, but that in no way suggests I think it should. I'm describing, not proscribing. I'm a value nihilist, and I find the whole idea of morality more than a little silly.
Morality is about what should (not) be done. But further, it comes to questioning what you consider it to be about for finding it silly, which I believe you'll be answering in the other debate. Though you can do it here if you find both to have different coverage.
My point was actually that this is how morality functions, but that doesn't mean that's what people design it or desire it to do (generally, it isn't). Nor have you demonstrated that PC morality functions in this way more than any other morality so you can't really claim that it's the best at it anyways.
I could have it any coherent way.
Since it isn't an inherent feature of morality to be built around it, while PC morality is based on it, there exists at least one system of morality that is not as good as that at it.
If there isn't, then it is an inherent feature of morality, so that's the most ethical thing to happen.
It isn't at all clear to me that conformity is more inherent to PC ethics than any other moral code. You haven't provided any reason to think that it would be, in part because you've never demonstrated that it actually is based on conformity.
The authority of all moralities is equally reliant upon conformity, but that doesn't mean that conformity is actually ethical. It could just as well mean that all moralities are oxymoronic as it would that PC morality is the most moral. I've already explained that too, though.
It is based on extreme neutrality, which equals to forced conformity.
In what way is it based on extreme neutrality?
How does extreme neutrality equate forced conformity?
That'd mean it being paradoxical. But as morality is about what you should do, It converts to What you should do is inconsistent and paradoxical. As that violates the rules of rationality, ethics are irrational and thus worthless.
Technically it would just be a contradiction, rather than a paradox. But at any rate, I don't disagree that ethics is irrational. That doesn't mean it's worthless since nothing says worth must derive from rationality, but I do personally find ethics to be worthless all the same. But what's your objection here?
It would be the most moral only by its own standards, and doing that would amount to circular reasoning.
You took my statement completely out of context. I was not stating that PC morality is the most moral. I was identifying that as your own remark to which I was responding in that full statement.
Nor, again, have you demonstrated that conformity is actually a moral standard in PC ethics. Nor, again, that this is unique in magnitude to PC ethics.
But it just follows what you called an essential feature of morality, so it's outcome can not be immoral.
What I actually said was that the authoritative power of morality is essentially dependent upon conformity. That has nothing to do with its substance, so even if you prove that the content of PC ethics includes conformity that doesn't automatically make it morally correct. You are confounding substance with function.
If it is, then the strongest of morality is only as worthy as unthinking bloodlust.
It isn't, but how on earth do you jump from conformity to unthinking bloodlust anyways.
As, you see, the example of gender neutrality was given in the debate to begin with, and that is consistent with other things you'd think about PC morality.
How does extreme neutrality equate forced conformity?
Because, under neutrality, there won't be any choices but to conform to a single thing.
You took my statement completely out of context.
I didn't pick just one of the conclusions. I just showed how either of them would lead to the same thing.
Nor, again, that this is unique in magnitude to PC ethics.
As I said, either it is the only moral thing, or some morality exists such that it manages it better (the better morality.) I could have it either way for now.
What I actually said was that the authoritative power of morality is essentially dependent upon conformity.
So, that'd mean that morality must contain it, thus it is an essential feature.
You are confounding substance with function.
Well, it isn't the old uncivilised times that we may not think it that way.
As a true morality must be entirely good, none of its constituents can be immoral. And if you say that to be an essential feature of every morality, then it must be morally good.
how on earth do you jump from conformity to unthinking bloodlust anyways.
That's simple. If nothing should be done (ie. morality is worthless), then nothing is more favourable than anything else.
But what's your objection here?
No objection there. I was just preparing the premises to lead to an unthinking bloodlust.