|
Commie NedFlanders posted:It's like, I trust my Swedish friend when she gives her opinions as a Swede in America, but if someone born in Mexico decided they wanted to identify with Swedish identity, would it be wrong of me or my Swedish friend to reject their thoughts of America from a Swedish perspective? You're allowed to reject the perspective of the Mexican-to-Swedish person, but said person is still allowed to express themself as such, and more importantly, they are allowed to identify themself as such. What you're arguing is that by identifying as such, the societal perspective of "Swedish American" is now muddied. As true as this is, it completely ignores the perspective of "Mexican who wanted to be Swedish", dismisses that life of experience altogether, and claims it as bunk. Nobody is saying that growing up as a woman is or was easy; and the experience contributes to an individual's perspective. But have you applied this same consideration to the transgendered? To a person who grew up in a society telling them to live the opposite of what society says they think they are? To such, it's as though a guy was brought up as a girl, taught to be a girl, everything as a girl. Your position is that because they lack the expected anatomy, their psychological and emotional whole means nothing. Women are free to call out their objection to another person's experience, but it's all subjective experience; "a transgender identifying as a woman is not a real woman" is the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, and the status quo of society is the "Bandwagon" fallacy that is the gatekeeper to changing the former. Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:Was that kid on Youtube who ate a consecrated host appropriating Catholic culture? He most certainly did that without permission from the Catholic church. The Catholic consecrated host is two millenia of purestrain 
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 22:58 |
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Hey now, watch your individual thought there, it doesn't matter what you consider! If they manage to kill and/or intimidate everyone who'd try to stop them, they've earned the right to decide what's right, right? Actually what matters is that the general society supports you. Then actual change happens. Your thoughts mean nothing if the other people in society do not hold them. If you cannot get them to see your way you might as well look for a society that holds your views then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Dissembrained is actually a very cromulent word to describe the phenomena he's talking about. Or someone who doesn't understand what words are. Do you think that someone who adorns simple arguments in unusual wording would fit the definition of "disembrained"? Maybe "pedant" would be more fitting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Actually what matters is that the general society supports you. Then actual change happens. Your thoughts mean nothing if the other people in society do not hold them. If you cannot get them to see your way you might as well look for a society that holds your views then. Just cut everyone who doesn't support you out of the kingdom of man. Turns out society didn't grant them a right to live after all. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 04:08
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Just cut everyone who doesn't support you out of the kingdom of man. Turns out society didn't grant them a right to live after all. Yes suggesting people who cannot find the society they live in to be bearable consider leaving that society for an alternative. Means I want them dead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
Having looked up the suicide rates among trans people on a lark (It's one of the highest by percentage in the nation. Especially if you start narrowing it down to considerations like if they were denied/unable to get treatment when they were young. Then it's something like nearly 50% attempted suicide last I checked.) it's pretty obvious that being trans isn't a "fad" or a way of being a "deviant" as so many people seem to claim and try to use as a dog whistle. Given that and that gender pronoun entitlement is societally a big element of defining gender to most people i'd say they're entitled to be called the gender they want to be. gently caress the people that make light of that poo poo or try to inject their personal, religious, or political beliefs into the situation. That means Crowsbeak in particular, by the way. Crowsbeak posted:Only if the society as a whole allows it. If it doesn't well tough poo poo. Mob rule is apparently the best rule. I mean, what's a few lynchings and destroyed lives compared to what the majority of people want? Archonex fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
Here's an idea re: bathrooms. If you're in a bathroom and you're doing something which makes people uncomfortable or worried for their safety, we kick you out of the bathroom no matter what you identify as or what kind of equipment you're packing. Not to mention, if you can tell what genitals a person has when you're with them in the bathroom, you're the creepy one who's not fit to be in a public washroom. Stop looking for gently caress sake!
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Remember everyone lynchings are exactly like not everyone using the exact pronouns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:That's fair, it was a bad example. The logical conclusion of this kind of thinking would lead one to assert that a biological girl who happened to be raised as a boy, was not a women when she came of age (and identified as female). People do not have uniform life experiences, so someone who tries to define gender identity as being explicitly tied to biological sex is either being disingenuous or is accounting for such a wide set of possibilities that it doesn't really matter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Remember everyone lynchings are exactly like not everyone using the exact pronouns. No, some of the poo poo you've been saying and implying is the same sort of poo poo that people have used to excuse ignoring and not dealing with actual civil rights issues in the past. It's literally one early move out of a long playbook to avoid first examining an issue with honesty, then once it's been examined to avoid actually dealing with it. I just called out one of the most egregiously stupid and fallacious things you said. Because honestly, on the off chance you're not trolling then you're a human shaped shitbag that doesn't understand that the US and many other countries don't work off of mob rule. We have provisions in place like the Supreme Court to keep the issue of society at large from oppressing other minorities easily. Because unfortunately society tends to be full of assholes that need to be managed for the good, safety, or comfort of everyone else. Since it came up, while i'm on the topic of the bullshit claims and fallacious arguments people use to deny other people their rights: waitwhatno posted:OK, here is my horrible take on the subject. Ready? It's a catch 22 to say that someone who is trans/genderfluid/whatever has to be registered as their legal sex before they can go into the bathroom of their identified gender simply because many people don't see why they should get the right to change their gender to begin with. More to the point, those people are advantaged enough compared to someone who is trans that they can push their agenda on others while also attaching malicious consequences to trying to fight back against what they want. Couple this with the fact that the act of being trans itself is still stigmatized to the point of being potentially literally life ruining and you're opening up a can of worms by having to force them to fight (And deal with the scorn and potential financially ruinous consequences therein.) to get a legal definition changed just so they can take a crap in public. And that's setting aside the fact that it's a ridiculous argument to say they have to meet some arbitrary standard like that to begin with. Nothing is stopping an actual pervert from going into a bathroom and molesting someone right now. And no one's going to be able to use the argument that they're trans in court as a defense since, hey, it has a lot of traits and requirements attached to it that make it obvious whether or not someone is trans when they're put under that level of scrutiny. The idea that trans people have to fight for basic poo poo like being called what they want and being allowed to safely go to the bathroom in public is vaguely absurd to begin with. It shouldn't even be a question. The bathroom issue in particular is just a vague attempt that has it's roots in pandering to morality and an appeal to safety. One that's no different than saying "Oh! Won't someone think of the children?" at it's heart. And it's one that goes back for more than half a century. People who were gay had the same sops to safety and morality used against them at one point. Hell, african american's pushing for equal rights and desegregation had the same poo poo used against them during the civil rights movement ("It's the whim of what we say is the majority of society, so we just shouldn't consider it!" "Why don't they just leave the country if they feel so oppressed then?" "Would you want one of those people in the same bathroom with your wife/child/you?") by out and out 100% racists. It's the same goddamn smear tactics, just repurposed to target a new minority. Which is generally a good way to tell when someone is bigoted as hell in one direction or another. Archonex fucked around with this message at 07:56 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
ban all bathrooms and we can just piss outside in nature like god intended
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
XMNN posted:ban all bathrooms and we can just piss outside in nature like god intended No gods, no masters, no bathrooms. All shall find equality in a lack of public health and hygiene. 
Archonex fucked around with this message at 08:10 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 08:01
|
|
|
hmmm 111 new posts what the gently caress, now we're discussing cultural appropriation and capital T Trans-national people, i.e. two first world problems only first worlders ever talk about 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 08:13
|
|
|
Whole lot of cowardly crustaceans of men itt
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 08:19
|
|
|
Archonex posted:Having looked up the suicide rates among trans people on a lark (It's one of the highest by percentage in the nation. Especially if you start narrowing it down to considerations like if they were denied/unable to get treatment when they were young. Then it's something like nearly 50% attempted suicide last I checked.) it's pretty obvious that being trans isn't a "fad" or a way of being a "deviant" as so many people seem to claim and try to use as a dog whistle. Isn't there also a huge % of people who commit suicide/continue to have the same depression issues post-treatment because they changed their mind or the sex change didn't actually make them feel any better? Rakosi fucked around with this message at 08:42 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 08:36
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Isn't there also a huge % of people who commit suicide/continue to have the same depression issues post-treatment because they changed their mind or the sex change didn't actually make them feel any better? Going to be a lot of  here again:There can be issues with the effectiveness of current treatment (Namely that depending on your current body that if you start transitioning after puberty you could very well be hosed when it comes to passing since it can't modify skeletal structure. A 6'2 guy with the skeletal structure of a linebacker is going to have a hard time passing as a woman assuming that's their personal priority for doing it. Which puts you under a lot of scrutiny out in public, among other issues.) that can contribute to continuing depression, yeah. There's also the issue that it can be extremely expensive all while society keeps just dumping truck loads of poo poo on you at every level. But i'd say that for people who that has to do more with the fact that they weren't allowed to do it when it would give them the results they wanted. Which is why the motto for transitioning seems to be to temper your hopes when it comes to the outcome. Since for most people it's technically too late to get the best outcome and there seems to be a lot of hopes and dreams going into the process. Granted all of that is subjective experience from talking to people I know. Complicating things is that research on the issue only really became fairly ethical and accurate in recent years too (Look up some of the pseudo-science arguments used against people who are transgender. They're hilariously disingenuous and circuitous. There's even been attempts to bullshit the number of people who regretted it to be much higher. Usually for religious or political purposes.) so it's hard to pin down the exact amount of people that end up regretting the process of transitioning . Before then there were a lot of issues with gatekeeping and even getting people willing to talk about it due to the certainty that if someone figured out your identity your life could very well end up hosed beyond all hope of repair. The 41% attempted suicide rate for trans people is really loving terrible though and is a pretty good case that all the arguments against transgender people being "legitimate" in their beliefs are bullshit. It's being shown to be corroborated in similar reports as well. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/08/16/transgender-individuals-face-high-rates--suicide-attempts/31626633/ posted:Suicide attempts are alarmingly common among transgender individuals such as Lampe; 41% try to kill themselves at some point in their lives, compared with 4.6% of the general public. The numbers come from a study by the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and the Williams Institute, which analyzed results from the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. Researchers are preparing to launch another version of the online survey on Wednesday. Archonex fucked around with this message at 09:09 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 08:58
|
|
|
I'm kind of uncomfortable with offering young people a say in what body parts they want, due to issues of the required mental maturity for such decisions. For me, the waiting till the person is older and wiser is unfortunate but necessary to minimize mistakes. There also are more people than is widely reported who go on to regret the change, some of whom change back again. This study was interesting, though it doesn't point at any causation: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21364939 quote:"CONCLUSIONS:
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 09:09
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:I'm kind of uncomfortable with offering young people a say in what body parts they want, due to issues of the required mental maturity for such decisions. For me, the waiting till the person is older and wiser is unfortunate but necessary to minimize mistakes. There also are more people than is widely reported who go on to regret the change, some of whom change back again. Assuming i'm reading that right part of their methodology of looking at the issue is kind of hosed up, to say the least. They're comparing the mental and overall health of people who had the surgical treatment to people who aren't transgendered at all. That's kind of like comparing the health of a person who had a heart transplant to someone who's never had health related issues with their heart at all. Typically for studies like that you want to evaluate the rate of success (or lack, if that's the issue) of a particular group of people within that group of people that are affected. IE: Did having a sex change/whatever increase the quality of life compared to the people who never, don't, or can't have the operation? Assessing quality of life compared to before the operation is more important than trying to assess the health of the afflicted group against the general population. That's like saying that heart transplants are bad since someone might have future health issues due to having a replacement heart transplanted into them. They also don't seem to be accounting for issues like stigmatization of the condition itself, instead assuming that gender reassignment surgery is the predicating factor that ends up being the end all be all determiner of whether a person will be happy or not. Nor did they track whether or not they had had personal experience with that issue prior to the study taking place. If people keep crapping all over you even after you have gone through with all the currently possible medical "requirements" of transitioning then it ought to be no surprise that issues like suicidal ideation or regret might crop up. Edit: Haha, yeah. Okay, they are comparing it to the general population. I checked the chart at the bottom that was listed. That's messed up. What sort of result did they expect to get? They predisposed themselves to getting those results by opting out of tracking certain statistics they could have tried to check for. That's kind of what I meant by the lovely science being conducted on the condition. Even if it is well intentioned. Edit: The heart transplant comparison is probably bad. But that's just because I can't think of a good comparison off hand. Not sure what else would properly substitute there. The underlying argument kind of still makes sense, I hope. Trying to compare it to the general population is just dumb though since you're predisposing yourself to finding a negative outcome. The hormone and surgical treatments for dealing with gender dysphoria that we currently have available aren't universally perfect in the results they deliver as well, obviously. You're not just going to go under the knife and start taking hormones and magically be guaranteed to come out looking the way you want. And societal factors really do count and weren't tracked at all from what I can tell from what i've read. Though the article was cautious enough to point out that there's no real causation between SRS and what they found. All that being said i'm glad I know about it. I'll have to keep an eye out for people posting excerpts from it. I can't see that study as being used as anything but right wing click bait and anti-transgender propaganda as it was conducted. Like, holy poo poo. That's a gold mine for anyone with a flair for deception and cherry picking statements and studies. Archonex fucked around with this message at 09:44 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 09:20
|
|
|
I think considering that Trans people go into this thing wanting to come out the other end feeling like a normal, functional, eponymous member of the general population, i think comparisons of their mental health with the general population, after the fact, isn't entirely without merit. The ongoing lifelong health effects of a heart transplant are very well researched and documented, so I don't see it as a good analogy. Also, there's another article about this: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/jul/30/health.mentalhealth
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 09:31
|
|
|
Archonex posted:Edit: Haha, yeah. Okay, they are comparing it to the general population. I checked the chart at the bottom that was listed. That's messed up. What sort of result did they expect to get? They predisposed themselves to getting those results by opting out of tracking certain statistics they could have tried to check for. My understanding was that the authors were trying to determine if after sex-reassignment surgery a trans-person was done with needing treatment and their outcomes would match an equivalent cis-person's. Their conclusion was that SRS is not the end of treatment, and that further support and treatment were necessary. Oddly enough, every time I've seen this particular study brought up in public (this is the third time, I've seen it, I think), it's always to argue that SRS isn't all that good, and never ever to argue the point the authors were trying to make.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 09:36
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Also, there's another article about this: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/jul/30/health.mentalhealth Since we're sharing articles i'll just post this one I googled instead of spamming up the page with some of the faults it has. It goes into the issues with both the Arif study (Which was actually an attempt to parse the existing studies into understanding what the consensus was in parts of the medical community.) and the Guardian article itself being somewhat deceptive without having to type up an essay. http://www.cakeworld.info/news/2014-08-02acommentaryonthe2004arifstudyandtheguardianarticlesexchangesarenoteffectivesayresearchers Also now I want to find this study that was mentioned in that article: quote:The outcomes have been hugely positive. One criticism ARIF made (the drop-out rate) has been addressed in newer studies, as transsexuals receive better comprehensive treatment and are less discriminated against by health care providers. As an example, Dhejne, Öberg, Arver and Landén (2014) studied all applications for sex reassignment surgery in Sweden from 1960 to 2010 and found an average regret rate of 2.2 % – with the regret rate declining significantly over time. Two of those names listed appear to be the same names listed in the study that got posted above. The original study was posted in 2011, so apparently they got different results when they concluded a similar study later? Archonex fucked around with this message at 10:06 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 09:56
|
|
|
So I think it's important to get a couple of things straight: First, all social standards are by necessity culturally imperialistic. All standards assume a certain set of what constitutes a 'good life', and the limits of the individual, and their responsibility, all of which are embedded in the collection of assumptions you can call culture. The act of cultural imperialism is the fundamental function of society, and its' something that human beings crave - both the outwards exertion onto society as an projection of will, and the inwards adoption of 'fitting in' as seeking comfort & security - give & take. That doesn't mean that they're all morally equivalent, I have my own preferences, which I want to enforce on the society I live in, and I have sometimes fairly practical arguments as to why they're good, and so long as that conversation can take place, it's pointless to talk about 'cultural imperalism' as a dodge away from discussing those standards. Second, individualism and individual expression as goal is absolutely a western concept, and a fairly recent one. The political philosophy it was created to support (liberalism) is modern + western. That's not to say that the idea of an 'individual' didn't exist, it did, but a philosophy based on the value of a human being ispo facto is not historically that common. Which is something to be proud of, I think. Now, with that out of the way: I don't think it's right to just dismiss inter-subjective bonding, the issue is that this requirement currently conflicts with trans individuals and their self-expression. I believe these two things can be reconciled, but we've got to approach this seriously. First things first: what you look like has consequences. If you're making a choice to transition, and it's unlikely you'll 'pass' as the gender your transitioning into, you've made the wrong choice. What you feel you really are 'deep inside' is pointless, if you can't look like the gender you're aiming for, then you effectively have not actually transitioned. That may be a problem of technology, so in the future maybe it will work better, but gender is absolutely a performance you do. In order to perform, you need to not just want to perform, but actually technically perform. So I disagree that bathroom/pronouns/other poo poo should necessarily be legal-sex-based, but it absolutely should be perception-based. The correct designation for you is 100% what you superficially look like. I think this is the best reconciliation between these two points. People get to feel comfortable in a familiar environment, and the people who can, uh, 'cheat' the rules a bit get to self-express. Eventually technology will get to the point where you can look like what you want, which I think will be great, but we're not there yet, so you deal with what you have. rudatron fucked around with this message at 10:31 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 10:20
|
|
|
blowfish posted:What about genderfluid hipsters? In particular, genderfluid dragonkin/flowerkin transspecies hipsters who refer to themselves as "bloomself"? It's ridiculous for someone to expect people to restructure the English language to accomodate them. Pronouns in English are a "closed category," you can't just add new ones for yourself without fundamentally changing the way English grammar works. This is completely different from "I'm a 'she,' stop referring to me as a 'he.'"
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 14:16
|
|
|
Aye, beaufe Ynglishe hath notte altered ye Form it taketh since the LORD himsellf putte it upon thys Earthe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Aye, beaufe Ynglishe hath notte altered ye Form it taketh since the LORD himsellf putte it upon thys Earthe. English changes. That doesn't mean you can insist that other people use changes to it that you yourself made up on the spot. Insisting that other people use some new pronoun you've artificially made up is just as dumb and unreasonable as creating a new verb ending for third-person plurals and insisting that everyone use that, or trying to introduce gendered articles into the language. "I don't want to be called 'a woman,' I want to be called "ana woman" with a feminine conjugation on the article such as they do in Spanish." You see how stupid and unreasonable that would be? The made-up pronouns are just as unreasonable. Sucrose fucked around with this message at 14:34 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:English changes. That doesn't mean you can insist that other people use changes to it that you yourself made up on the spot. Unlikely to gain traction but not even remotely onerous?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:English changes. That doesn't mean you can insist that other people use changes to it that you yourself made up on the spot. How, exactly, do you think language changes?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Unlikely to gain traction but not even remotely onerous? I would say that expecting someone to memorize a new pronoun with three different conjugations depending on the subject of the sentence that refers to you and you only is extremely onerous. Who What Now posted:How, exactly, do you think language changes? It doesn't change by making up a new grammar rule yourself and then insisting other people use it. If you want to do that, stick to conlangs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:"I don't want to be called 'a woman,' I want to be called "ana woman" with a feminine conjugation on the article such as they do in Spanish." It sounds daft but I don't see why it's unreasonable. You're not asking me to do anything difficult and presumably if I give even the remotest poo poo about you I can afford to devote an iota of brainpower to adding an extra syllable to your mode of address. I would politely address you as "madam" after all instead of "oi, you".
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:I would say that expecting someone to memorize a new pronoun with three different conjugations depending on the subject of the sentence that refers to you and you only is extremely onerous. My god you're right, I mean, when Hercules was sent to kill the Nemean lion at least he didn't have to call it xir in the process, otherwise he wouldn't have been able to do it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It sounds daft but I don't see why it's unreasonable. You're not asking me to do anything difficult and presumably if I give even the remotest poo poo about you I can afford to devote an iota of brainpower to adding an extra syllable to your mode of address. I would politely address you as "madam" after all instead of "oi, you". And if someone insisted upon being addressed as "your bloomfulness" in place of "you" in every sentence, would you find that acceptable, or would you find them an unreasonable prick?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:And if someone insisted upon being addressed as "your bloomfulness" in place of "you" in every sentence, would you find that acceptable, or would they be being an unreasonable prick? Depends on how much I like them and how much of a knobhead they're being about it? I might object to it out of spite. But the act of just changing the mode of address is really not difficult so I think it comes down to whether you want to be spiteful or not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Depends on how much I like them and how much of a knobhead they're being about it? I might object to it out of spite. We're just going to have to agree to disagree, I can't wrap my head around your viewpoint where you think it's reasonable for someone to demand that people change the very grammar of the language when speaking to them. If they want to use odd, self-constructed grammar, they can feel free, but it's ridiculous for them to demand or even ask that others join them in the insanity when in their presence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:It doesn't change by making up a new grammar rule yourself and then insisting other people use it. Are you sure? Because making a new rule and insisting people use it until people start using it sounds exactly like how language changes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
gently caress prescriptivism
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Are you sure? Because making a new rule and insisting people use it until people start using it sounds exactly like how language changes. No, it isn't. Sorry. You're not going to be able to name a counter-example, because there isn't one. Even the most prescriptivist don't have the balls to insist people use forms of grammar that they themselves intentionally coined. TheQat posted:gently caress prescriptivism I agree, which is why I think insisting that others use your new grammar when engaging you in conversation is dumb as hell. Sucrose fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
Archonex posted:No, some of the poo poo you've been saying and implying is the same sort of poo poo that people have used to excuse ignoring and not dealing with actual civil rights issues in the past. It's literally one early move out of a long playbook to avoid first examining an issue with honesty, then once it's been examined to avoid actually dealing with it. Nope it telling you that society has to change perception ans that takes time Because that is what defines us all. rudatron posted:So I think it's important to get a couple of things straight:
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Anything more than "they" is unnecessary and attention seeking. I mean, I don't believe you're genderfluid/queer or that that's even a real concept, but calling someone "they" is pretty inoffensive and harmless. Calling someone "xir/xe" or whatever is nonsense. You don't have to believe someone's weird beliefs to treat them kindly. I don't think God punishes people for eating pork but I wouldn't feed a Jewish or Muslim person something that wasn't kosher/halal. Having said that, use whatever washroom. Ideally use the family/handicapped washroom, but not everywhere has that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
loving lol at complaints about pronouns in English, of all languages.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 22:58 |
|
|
I have zero interest in remembering the 500 pronouns Tumblr can come up with. Don't like it? Get bent, I have better things to spend effort on. He, she, they it is. Pick one.Frosted Flake posted:Anything more than "they" is unnecessary and attention seeking. I mean, I don't believe you're genderfluid/queer or that that's even a real concept, but calling someone "they" is pretty inoffensive and harmless. Calling someone "xir/xe" or whatever is nonsense. You don't have to believe someone's weird beliefs to treat them kindly. I don't think God punishes people for eating pork but I wouldn't feed a Jewish or Muslim person something that wasn't kosher/halal. I'm convinced that transgender identity or being queer are more real than God but I just know I will never understand them, like, at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 16:09
|
|