LogFAQs > #980201428

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

By continuing to call him transphobic you assert that his feelings about trans people are a primary motivation for him.

No. By calling him transphobic, I assert that he considers the well-being of trans people to be a lower priority than whatever reasons he has for deliberately misgendering them. This is what I mean by saying that there are varying degrees of transphobia: "I want to hurt trans people" is different from "I don't care that I'm hurting trans." They are, however, both transphobia, regardless of how strongly the person in question wants trans people to be hurt.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

To support the claim of transphobia it would be necessary to demonstrate that this is the intended outcome.

If you know that a given outcome is likely to follow a given action, and you take that action, that means you're intentionally causing that outcome. It may not specifically be your goal, but you've accepted its association with your actions and decided whatever good your actions can achieve outweighs whatever harm might be associated with the outcome. You are responsible for the consequences of that decision and must justify the harms with the good you believe your actions can bring.

Again, it doesn't matter how smart or important you think you are, nothing about what you think, say, or do will ever justify doubling somebody's risk of suicide. If you think otherwise, that is devaluing that person's life to a degree that cannot be described as anything less than hateful. Ergo, transphobia.

But hey, you seem to think you (or Peterson) have a point. So I ask you: In what situations is deliberately misgendering a trans person so important that it justifies doubling their risk of suicide? What answer can you provide to this question without admitting that you (or Peterson) care more about your own worthless ego than the well-being of trans people at a conceptual level?