sidviscous posted:

And on a less physical note, have you had a job offer and then seriously had to think "poo poo, I'd better tell my employer about my genital configuration, just in case they freak out and fire me after I've moved halfway around the world". Do you seriously think "poo poo, there's large sections of the world where my existence is literally criminalised and I can't visit". Do you get very nervous when you have to use public toilets - even if you live in a state that protects your rights to use them?

Having people who are in this situation tell you that you're being an rear end in a top hat does not constitute oppression.

Commie NedFlanders posted:

i like how you are using "existence" the same way the zionist government of Israel does when they defend their right to exist


very clever

Commie NedFlanders posted:

i like how you are using "existence" the same way the zionist government of Israel does when they defend their right to exist


very clever

Commie NedFlanders posted:

i may disagree with some aspects of gender politics but i do agree with the basic idea that people should treat each other with respect and dignity and unfortunately the kind of behaviors demonstrated in this thread have become the public image of the movement in the minds of people who are unfamiliar with it.

as someone who wants to reduce bullying and harassment, it pains me to see this because you guys are making the politics of tolerance absolutely intolerable

Pththya-lyi posted:

Commie NedFlanders, it sounds to me like you're arguing that your right to not get yelled at is as important, if not more important, than transpeople's right to live without fear. Am I off-base?


Remember that time when a bunch of transpeople got together and bulldozed a cis neighborhood?

Me neither

sidviscous posted:

You mean how being transgendered is literally illegal in a number of countries around the world? Please. Go ahead, tell me your preferred choice of wording for this.

Deified Data posted:

The point Atasnaya Vaflja and I are making is that anyone who views the public face of tolerance as aggressive, belligerent, and hateful already held that opinion before entering a thread like this.

quote:

The basis of the whole conversation is "Some people would like to referred to as X - it's no great sacrifice on my part to refer to them as X". When someone responds "No, you're not worthy of that", the mood of the conversation has already been decided.

quote:

You can't enter a conversation and tell someone they're not worthy of respect and then ask where the civility in public discourse went. Civility is reserved for those that engage in good faith. A few pissed-off trans advocates in this thread aren't changing anyone's mind.

Commie NedFlanders posted:

you have no way of knowing what everyone thinks

you have no place to assume the mind state of everyone in this thread

Who What Now posted:

Then why are you arguing so hard that making a slightly different sound with your mouth is some sort of impossible burden?


So I take it that you won't be asking a genderqueer person, then? No, of course not, why actually try and understand something and possibly lose one of the last things your allowed to poo poo on and hate and not feel bad about it? Gotta have someone beneath you to feel good about yourself, after all.

DeusExMachinima posted:

I've never known or met anyone who is trangender or genderfluid IRL who uses anything besides he/she/they or who doesn't also think it's retarded.

GreyjoyBastard posted:

This may have been covered in various pages,, but here's my take:

- "They" comes across as a tad impersonal in some ways, which may have driven the search for a Bonus Pronoun.
- The use of xir etc, relatedly, at present places a particular emphasis on "I wish to not be a shithead and acknowledge the uncomfortable position of those few people who like the novel third-person pronoun". There are probably horrid ways of putting this that involve words like "special snowflake" or more contemptuous ones.

I have no particular opinion on the topic of introducing a new third-person singular into the language to replace the very impromptu singular-they, although I'd be quite willing to politely use one if requested.

I do have strong feelings about the need for a second-person plural, but "y'all" clearly fills that niche.

DeusExMachinima posted:

I await the inevitable retort that I must not have spent time around more than a handful of trans or fluid folk.


This Is A Good Post.

I can see the dehumanizing perspective on "them" because we're so used to it being used as a collective plural pronoun, but like I said I like the singular "them" because it brings back a totally ignored and legit gender-neutral pronoun to English. Tons of other languages have common neutral singular pronouns after all.

I agree with using "ya'll" though as I'm originally from the South. For fun, sometimes I'd troll New Yorkers when I lived there with it. I'd tell them not to say "you guys" because it was patriarchal, whereas "ya'll" was gender-inclusive. I can confirm that heads metaphorically exploded after hearing that.

Commie NedFlanders posted:

lol bless your heart

rudatron posted:

So I think it goes without saying that all human beings deserve respect by default, they have dignity by default, and that human life is a precious, maybe the most precious thing in the universe. But whether or not using a pronoun that you have chosen for yourself constitutes disrespect is a little doubtful. Others could choose to do it because you don't want to offend them, but you don't have a right not to be offended, you have a right to be treated with respect. A good boundary line between the two, I feel, is respect is something everyone could sympathize with in the same position, with honesty. From my view, if you're asking someone to address you as a certain pronoun, and you don't match what that pronoun looks like, or you've invented an entirely new pronoun, you are absolutely being disrespectful yourself by making that demand, that goes beyond what you should be able to ask. Because you're not asking to be treated with respect, you're asking others to indulge you. It is then socially acceptable for them to refuse to do that. So if you don't (reasonably) present like a woman, yet you ask to be addressed as one, you are out of line, period. If you ask to be referred to as 'xir' or whatever, let's be frank, that's not a pronoun in circulation, so what you're asking is not something that could be seen as socially acceptable.

And I think this comes back to the original topic of the thread - gender entitlement versus religious entitlement. Entitlements are not granted on the basis of offense, there is a kind of 'logic' behind them that has to be satisfied, first, before your offense can actually be taken seriously. So if you're offended at doing your job, because part of your job means serving people who you don't like because of religious reasons, well tough poo poo, stop being a massive cry-baby. If you're asking people to conform to your self-summoned pronouns, because that makes you feel special, well too bad, the world doesn't revolve around you. But if you're someone who feels gender dysphoric, puts a lot of effort into expressing that and genuinely looks a lot like the the gender you're aiming for, well I think you've done everything you reasonable could, so you are entitled to be addressed in the way you want.

rudatron posted:

So I think it goes without saying that all human beings deserve respect by default, they have dignity by default, and that human life is a precious, maybe the most precious thing in the universe. But whether or not using a pronoun that you have chosen for yourself constitutes disrespect is a little doubtful. Others could choose to do it because you don't want to offend them, but you don't have a right not to be offended, you have a right to be treated with respect. A good boundary line between the two, I feel, is respect is something everyone could sympathize with in the same position, with honesty. From my view, if you're asking someone to address you as a certain pronoun, and you don't match what that pronoun looks like, or you've invented an entirely new pronoun, you are absolutely being disrespectful yourself by making that demand, that goes beyond what you should be able to ask. Because you're not asking to be treated with respect, you're asking others to indulge you. It is then socially acceptable for them to refuse to do that. So if you don't (reasonably) present like a woman, yet you ask to be addressed as one, you are out of line, period. If you ask to be referred to as 'xir' or whatever, let's be frank, that's not a pronoun in circulation, so what you're asking is not something that could be seen as socially acceptable.

And I think this comes back to the original topic of the thread - gender entitlement versus religious entitlement. Entitlements are not granted on the basis of offense, there is a kind of 'logic' behind them that has to be satisfied, first, before your offense can actually be taken seriously. So if you're offended at doing your job, because part of your job means serving people who you don't like because of religious reasons, well tough poo poo, stop being a massive cry-baby. If you're asking people to conform to your self-summoned pronouns, because that makes you feel special, well too bad, the world doesn't revolve around you. But if you're someone who feels gender dysphoric, puts a lot of effort into expressing that and genuinely looks a lot like the the gender you're aiming for, well I think you've done everything you reasonable could, so you are entitled to be addressed in the way you want.

Effectronica posted:

This is, like every single post on the subject disagreeing with basic human decency, just babble attempting to deflect people from the core belief; that there are certain identities that are authentic and certain ones that are not, and authentic people deserve respect and inauthentic people deserve contempt.

Effectronica posted:

This is, like every single post on the subject disagreeing with basic human decency,

Effectronica posted:

Commie NedFlanders posted:

"transitioning from one gender to another" is a far more honest and accurate description of what is deemed illegal in those countries than is the term "existing"

sidviscous posted:

I'll take your focus on this as agreement with my substantive point - that having someone in this position tell you you're an rear end in a top hat does not constitute oppression.

rudatron posted:

Are you ready for the twist? There's no such thing as an authentic identity, gender or otherwise. It's an assumption TERFS, traditionalist-transphobes, and you, seem to make, you just differ on its limits. For traditionalists, it's biotruths. For terfs, it's early experience, which means that transwomen are secretly men (and therefore predatory, like all men). For you it's everyone is valid because only they can say what they feel. What if that's not the case, what if there is no 'center', no seed, no essence? What if 'woman' is just a set of stereotypes and relations in your mind, ala Jungian archetypes, that you either match or don't? From that perspective, what you are is what you are seen as, not what you feel. That's my position. I'm not really deifying anything, I'm just being very practical, following from that assumption. People want both conformity, for safety, but also the chance to challenge, because that's how you self-express. So you need both, to make people happy, you can't ignore one at the expense of the other.

The Kingfish posted:

Self identity is a myth because there is no such thing as the self.

Effectronica posted:

You pack the fewest ideas into the most words of anyone in this thread. All you've got is "conformity good" and "ur a transphobe".

the trump tutelage posted:

Get this: conformity is good.

Frosted Flake posted:

I don't have any problem with trans people. Throughout I've been consistent with my answer to the OP's question. I wouldn't wear religious garb or eat halal to placate the sensibility of religious people. I similarity respect but don't share the view of gender non-binary people have.

Frosted Flake posted:

Using a common English word versus a made up word is not bigotry. I respectfully disagree with a certain conception of gender, privately. Ultimately people can do whatever they want and I don't want to get in the way. What I think has no bearing on their lives, and as long as I'm polite and tolerant it won't.

Commie NedFlanders posted:

Cis identities are taught to individuals by society, not the other way around


It's strange that trans ethics seem grounded in respecting and tolerating that other people have different views, yet all I ever see is a constant stream of vitriol and brutal name calling and accusing people of being full of hatred because they hold relatively traditional views on gender.

Calling people "stupid loving hate filled bigots who are so condescending and wrong" because they disagree with your gender politics seems rather abusive and oppressive.

You catch more flies with honey, my friends

Commie NedFlanders posted:

In your mind, did you assume that I'm a wealthy white male? lol

good job proving your point bud

Effectronica posted:

I'm deeply appreciative of your desire to exterminate gays with our nonconforming sexuality, and of the necessity of converting you to the Gay Agenda. I could use a new toaster.

Commie NedFlanders posted:

pure speculative prejudice. you have no way of knowing what everyone thinks, and your assumption that you do is rather condescending.


i did a search couldn't find anyone who said "no, you're not worthy of that". please help me find it or just stop being so disingenuous and try arguing in good faith.


you have no place to assume the mind state of everyone in this thread, you could just ask people, but you insist on misquoting people which is very disrespectful

the trump tutelage posted:

I don't want to exterminate gays with nonconforming sexualities, though. You are, as with so many other things, completely mistaken.

Effectronica posted:

But you just said that conformity was good. Were you making a totally irrelevant comment, or are you willing to admit that nonconformity is OK? Not that this will stop me from getting my free toaster, breeder.

the trump tutelage posted:

Nonconformity is okay (permissible), and conformity is good (moral).

the trump tutelage posted:

Nonconformity is okay (permissible), and conformity is good (moral).

the trump tutelage posted:

Nonconformity is okay (permissible), and conformity is good (moral).

Effectronica posted:

So the immorality of my existence as a dicksucking homo is "permissible". Thanks pal. Mind elaborating?

Effectronica posted:

Care to put this to the test, O avatar of GBS and the GBS mentality? Transmit a thought to my mind, since there is no subjectivity, and thus you will be justified.

The Kingfish posted:

Self identity is a myth because there is no such thing as the self.

The Kingfish posted:

Does referring to someone with the pronoun "they" instead of "xe" constitute oppression?

The Kingfish posted:

I'm not here educate you. Why don't you make a fricken effort post if you wanna debate and discuss?

Atasnaya Vaflja posted:

Earlier in this very thread you claimed that there's a difference in how people self identify though. It's sort of like saying there's a difference between the Washington Bigfoot and the Virginia Bigfoot, but then shrugging and saying neither of them exist so it doesn't matter.

If you're not actually willing to discuss the topic, why do you continue posting at all? All you do is take petty potshots and bandy about transphobic rhetoric without even having the gall to defend it.

e: