|
Things have been said but none that the other side of the argument considers a valid point.
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 15:31
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:44 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:I kind of enjoy the thought that having sex with someone is morally neutral, and forming your hand into a fist and swinging it repeatedly is morally neutral, rudatron. Not as much as I'll enjoy your continued refusal to explain why conformity being inevitable doesn't apply to stuffing gays back into the closet or inducing vitiligo on nonwhites, but does apply to nonbinary and trans fellows and making them use approved words for themselves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Things have been said but none that the other side of the argument considers a valid point. Yes, there appears to be an impassable gulf between the bigots and everyone else. Not exactly new.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:No it's that some people have 'em(also some people are them but that's another issue) and that happens to be kind of a v. big deal when it comes to gender and ignoring that leads to absurdities where stagings of The Vagina Monologues are protested as horrible reactionary TERF nonsense that possession of a uterus and the capacity to conceive and undergo parturition can be said to play a major role in shaping and defining the lives of women. Indeed it does, but you're getting very close to the claim that cis women who *can't* have children aren't really women either. And this is the fundamental problem. Other than making a circular argument - that trans women aren't women because the definition of a woman is not a trans woman, there's not one single attribute that you can choose that will exclude trans women that doesn't exclude at least some cis women from the definition of women. So, now we get to the stupid stage of "you're a woman if you cross some arbitrary proportion of boxes".
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
An impassible gulf between gender artists and functional adults.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Functional adults rendered apoplectic at the concept of individual third person identifiers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:An impassible gulf between gender artists and functional adults. Just as well that the vast weight of clinical research shows that people allowed to transition (particularly in a supporting environment) improve their personal and social functioning significantly. This is why the (very conservative) psychiatric profession is almost entirely behind this as a thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Your use of 'Their identity' has got me thinking of another way to frame this, to really put my point across - you, as a person, do not own your identity. Like I don't like the comparison to cultural appropriation, because I've had that conversation and it's not worth derailing this one, but the general idea is that inclusion into a group is not under your control, and that's the case for both gender and cultures. They're social groups, and your inclusion is conditional on everyone else's approval. FWIW, I actually agree that this is how things are - societally you're a woman or a man if people will accept you as a woman or a man, and that your appearance is important in that. What I'm arguing against is that this is particularly intellectually defensible - that if you happen to be 6'4" and look like a bricklayer then you're somehow less of a woman than if you're 5'5" and a bit feminine looking, with all other things being equal - effectively that the validity of your identity is related entirely to your appearance. I'm also arguing that these goalposts are continually moved because there's a belief amongst many (but a decreasing number) of people that trans people are their natally assigned gender rather than their asserted one. It's what Julia Serrano refers to as "conditional cis privilege" - if you're not so visibly trans people will grant you the privilege of being gendered as you identify, as long as they never find out what you were assigned at birth. Hilariously, I'm at that weird phase at the moment where I can claim I'm a trans man and people will instantly switch from "you're not really a woman" to "you're not really a man".
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
This has been bothering me since yesterday, but;Commie NedFlanders posted: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. Apparently Commie NedFlanders didn't look very hard, or couldn't be bothered to look back a mere two pages because then he would have found this: DeusExMachinima posted:TLDR you don't matter enough to deserve something besides he/she/they.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders asking people to explain the substantive difference between cultural appropriation and transgenderism that makes one bad and the other good did make some posters throw apoplectic fits. Honestly, that argument is more of an argument against cultural appropriation being bad than against transgenderism being good, in my opinion. We've had long threads arguing about cultural appropriation in this forum and it's kind of a vague and confusing concept full of contradictions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 15:59
|
|
The Kingfish posted:An impassible gulf between gender artists and functional adults. Translated: "Wiberawism and weftism awe incompatibew with being a functionaw aduwt. You must hate "gendew awtists" to not be a Petew Pan, babies." Articulate.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
^ yikes
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Commie NedFlanders asking people to explain the substantive difference between cultural appropriation and transgenderism that makes one bad and the other good did make some posters throw apoplectic fits. If anyone was "apoplectic" it's because it wasn't an argument made in good faith, but rather just another one of a long, long list of denigrating attacks against trans* people. Why should people take something like that seriously?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:If anyone was "apoplectic" it's because it wasn't an argument made in good faith They're going to write about this tragedy in the history books. Pictures of wailing mothers holding their ash-covered children and everything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
I'm amazed that people are seriously demanding a safe space from mean pro-trans people, and also that people stop hurting their feelings by not respecting their beliefs.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
rudatron posted:You seem a little confused by my point though. Like if they 'pass', then they automatically succeed. That's kind of my point. If a person struggles to pass, or passes with some people but not others, then it is good to reinforce what the person is going for to others if the person comes up in conversation. blowfish posted:You are projecting. Everyone who doesn't already live in your own little world and makes arguments that offend you is obviously out to oppress you, consciously or unconsciously, without considering cause and effect when it comes to things that offend you and things that oppress you and without realising that the average person has never knowingly dealt with your issue. After a few rounds of this everyone who didn't already agree with you beforehand goes "I don't want to listen to this poo poo anymore, just shut the gently caress up" and stops caring about your problems. The reason some people in this thread are upset is because when someone frames it like "well sure, some trans people are beaten up or killed for being trans, or are afraid someone will go off on them in either bathroom, are made homeless by being disowned by their support network, or risk being fired or denied jobs just for being different, but what really matters is why a grip of hypothetical people are asking me to use made up pronouns," it shows an unwillingness to look at the big picture and focus your thoughts around reality. Cugel the Clever posted:Any assertion of individual identity is violence against the State. I agree, sister in Statehood. #SmashTheIndividual rudatron posted:They're social groups, and your inclusion is conditional on everyone else's approval. So here we are, looking at how we can ease out some people's criteria for approval. The thing is that you are implying that there are a grip of trans people who are putting in no effort, shopping in the men's section, looking like Sal from Futurama, and asking to be called something other than 'he.' It's just not part of the picture. Too many people see this  When they should see this  Link to more on this subject lite frisk posted:If a friend asks you not to take the lord's name in vain, because she finds it very emotionally painful and uncomfortable to hear it, do you comply? You're not talking about that person so it doesn't really concern them. I mean if I've got a job to do with someone, I'll work around their quirks but in general you just don't have to hang out with people who make you uncomfortable. Where trans people tend to get shat on is in those circumstances where nobody's there by (unconstrained) choice. Effectronica posted:I kind of enjoy the thought that having sex with someone is morally neutral, and forming your hand into a fist and swinging it repeatedly is morally neutral, rudatron. Not as much as I'll enjoy your continued refusal to explain why conformity being inevitable doesn't apply to stuffing gays back into the closet or inducing vitiligo on nonwhites, but does apply to nonbinary and trans fellows and making them use approved words for themselves. I wish revitiligo were real. There'd be dudes who grew up white who then see the difference that being black makes in how people perceive you and would be able to explain it to white people form their own perspective. That said, isn't sex with melons morally neutral? I mean, it's not like the supermarket was going to give the melon to a homeless person if the practitioner didn't buy it. I mean, it's more moral to buy a melon to give to a homeless person, but not immoral to do something else with it, unless we're making the case that it is immoral to idly benefit from a corrupt oppressive society. TheWhiteNightmare posted:They're going to write about this tragedy in the history books. Pictures of wailing mothers holding their ash-covered children and everything. But now I can see this thread is devolving into the classic rhetorical backbone of "you're overblowing the problem," "no you're going crazy over my request for a costless solution to a regular problem," "no you're throwing a huge bitch fit for me not going along with a small thing," "no you accusing me of throwing a bitch fit is a bitch fit in itself" etc. Can we try to bring this back to reality? If you are someone who is anticipating a scenario where someone asks for you to call them something unreasonable, let's hear the details of that scenario, and see if it really is something to expect. And if it is something to expect, what bothers or worries you most about that scenario, without comparing it to some other scenario with a different context? Then we can talk about the issue more earnestly. Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
blowfish posted:You are arguing on the level of an angry teenager. turn on your monitor (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Well I don't know if you're that much of a prick, but your prick status comes mostly from what other people think of you, whether you choose to embrace that or not is irrelevant. Oh, also it's not a platonic ideal, a platonic ideal is unchangeable and external to people, I think it's entirely contingent and, of course, fictional, so more like a language if we're using metaphors.OwlFancier posted:Because it's actually very easy to do, it is merely not intuitive, and society already functions heavily on people doing things that are not intuitive, it simply then goes on to create new intuitive behaviours, some of which are neither necessary nor helpful. What do I care for your suffering? Oh please, the point was that morality is invoked with the social particulars of the things I mentioned, not the act itself: sex with dubious consent is problematic because the dubious consent, swinging your fist at someone is questionable because of the choice of target, conversely swinging your fist at empty air would be strange but not necessarily immoral (or moral). sidviscous posted:FWIW, I actually agree that this is how things are - societally you're a woman or a man if people will accept you as a woman or a man, and that your appearance is important in that. Stinky_Pete posted:If a person struggles to pass, or passes with some people but not others, then it is good to reinforce what the person is going for to others if the person comes up in conversation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Well I don't know if you're that much of a prick, but your prick status comes mostly from what other people think of you, whether you choose to embrace that or not is irrelevant. Oh, also it's not a platonic ideal, a very inplatonic ideal is unchangeable and external to people, I think it's entirely contingent and, of course, fictional, so more like a language if we're using metaphors. You're ignoring that you're completely baseless and wrong in your assertions. You say that people don't own their identities, which is flatly untrue and even just a few seconds of critical thought would reveal that to you. What your probably wanted to say, but couldn't, is that people don't have control over how their identities are perceived by others, which is true. Although what you actually meant behind your inept attempt at intellectual prose is that you believe you have the right to dictate a person's identity to them. If a woman isn't attractive enough for you then she should be considered a man. If a transwoman can't meet those same standards of your personal definition of womanhood then she is a failure who deserves no respect. You, personally, want to control other people's identities, you just won't admit it. That's what all your blathering boils down to. Of course you'll deny it and try to further obfuscate the truth, and you'll fail at it, because the fact of what you believe is plainly evident.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:trans* I agree with a lot of what you're saying but please stop doing this because the asterisk erases non-binary people, the term is just trans likewise to anyone else in this thread who has used the term 'transgendered', that implies that by being trans one must have transitioned (medically or otherwise) whereas a lot of trans folk (especially NB people) don't transition at all, so please don't use it thanks
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I disagree that the people I'm implying don't exist though, they do, but they're of course a small minority, and it's of course unfair to call them representative. I've never encountered this. Is this from personal experience? Something documented? Venomous posted:I agree with a lot of what you're saying but please stop doing this because the asterisk erases non-binary people, the term is just trans Doesn't "transgendered" just refer to transcending the typical genders? Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Will it? Serious question there. Now I've made a claim that there is no 'deep inside' at all, so to it's pointless to pretend, but okay you may not accept that. Here's the problem, I have no way of knowing or testing what your fundamental nature/identity/essence is. It's of no use. How exactly does that lead to a better society? Because whether or not you acknowledge the existence of others' internal natures, a great many people in the world profess to have one and its relationship to their outward self plays a very important part in their mental wellbeing. Part of that involves having that internal self feel validated by their community. Going around feeling like the inner you, the part you think of as being you, is not acceptable to the community of people you live in, can be extremely debilitating for a person. It reinforces the belief that the outer self is not truly the self, and creates a profound sense of disconnect between the outer self, which increasingly feels like something which is worn like a mask, affected solely for the benefit of others, and the inner self, which feels starved of contact with others because it cannot be shown. Thus, a society which is better able to avoid that problem where possible, is a better society. It is a society with healthier members, which is a good thing. In this instance, there have been many suggestions as to how trans people can be afforded that sense of acceptance, and the proponents of those suggestions find the opposition to them to be thoroughly incredible. I think for very good reasons. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:Doesn't "transgendered" just refer to transcending the typical genders? e: reread this and I'm pretty sure you're referring to being non-binary/genderqueer. regardless, the term is 'transgender' without the suffix Venomous fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Venomous posted:I agree with a lot of what you're saying but please stop doing this because the asterisk erases non-binary people, the term is just trans Aight, fair enough. I won't do that from now on. See how loving easy that was, people?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Venomous posted:the term for that is 'transgender' without the suffix Ah okay, because it implies a completed process from the past. I can jive with that
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
While "transgender" just feels grammatically incorrect and "transgendered" more suitable as an adjective, if you consider the tense implications of the -ed suffix it makes more sense. "Transgender" then becomes the state of transitioning or being inherently between genders while "transgendered" becomes the state of having transitioned in the past.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Venomous posted:I agree with a lot of what you're saying but please stop doing this because the asterisk erases non-binary people, the term is just trans What a mess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:What a mess. Yes, we know that you think anyone who isn't a straight white male is a mess, you've made that abundantly clear. Anything new to bring to the table today, or just more of the same old same old?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
And here I almost thought my previous post might be unnecessary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:While "transgender" just feels grammatically incorrect and "transgendered" more suitable as an adjective, if you consider the tense implications of the -ed suffix it makes more sense. "Transgender" then becomes the state of transitioning or being inherently between genders while "transgendered" becomes the state of having transitioned in the past. for all of Time's faults they have a pretty good article on this http://time.com/3630965/transgender-transgendered/ The Kingfish posted:What a mess. lmao
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
Well my point is that you identity is what is perceived, and I mean that in the sense of an equivalence relation, not a causal one.Stinky_Pete posted:I've never encountered this. Is this from personal experience? Something documented? Do you realize the '*' was to denote a 'wildcard' character, and meant to include all appropriate endings? Well, all contextually appropriate ones anyway. Problem is that this applies to almost anything. A great many people profess belief in a particular god, perhaps an esoteric god, yet they're not entitled to have that validated by the community. Furthermore, no one should have to care about what you are, because there are too many people for that to be feasible, nor do most people find many things interesting that doesn't involve themselves. That's just a fact, people are self-centered by default, so you have to acknowledge that and work around it. So what you 'are' is less important than what you look like, because that's what other people can actually see. Like I hate to break this to you: your 'inner self' will never, ever, ever be in contact with anyone else. It physically can't, even if you assume it does actually exist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Well my point is that you identity is what is perceived, and I mean that in the sense of an equivalence relation, not a causal one. That's what you think you're saying, but I'm talking about what you personally actually believe behind your bullshit, which is that you should have/do have control over other people's identities. If you, Rudatron, don't find a woman attractive then you believe she should not be treated as a woman. You've said this explicitly, even, that masculine women must be treated as men. Why? Because you say so. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
rudatron posted:But do you see the problem I had before then, when you + others were talking to Commie NedFlanders, where a lot of response to him boiled down to 'but I really am a woman'? It should be 'I believe I should be seen as', not 'I am'. Now go back to his arguments, substitutes that response in, and see how absurd they now seem. What I actually see is you eliding the substantive point of my argument, which is basically what others have said.. That yes this is how you may be perceived by society, but no that this is not intellectually or logically defensible. Butch lesbian cis women may be misgendered from time to time based on their appearance but there's usually a huge amount of apologia when they're corrected. Because there is a prejudiced belief that what the doctor wrote on your birth certificate when he pulled you out of the womb is the be all and end all of gender. If all you want to say is "I don't think trans women are women", then fine. But you're going to have a difficult time actually justifying it on any basis other than "nya nya nya nya", unless you're prepared to also say some cis women aren't women.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:That's what you think you're saying, but I'm talking about what you personally actually believe behind your bullshit, which is that you should have/do have control over other people's identities. If you, Rudatron, don't find a woman attractive then you believe she should not be treated as a woman. You've said this explicitly, even, that masculine women must be treated as men. Why? Because you say so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Well it's not really hard to Find examples. So what did this person ask to be called?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Please don't abbreviate Christian or Christmas as Xtian or Xmas as it erases Christ and devalues the religion and holiday. As a Christian, I find these abbreviations to be offensive. Thanks and God Bless.
silence_kit fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Do you realize the '*' was to denote a 'wildcard' character, and meant to include all appropriate endings? Well, all contextually appropriate ones anyway. In that case it should be trans.*
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Problem is that this applies to almost anything. A great many people profess belief in a particular god, perhaps an esoteric god, yet they're not entitled to have that validated by the community. Why not? You should absolutely not be rude to someone because of their religious beliefs as long as they aren't being rude to you. Not to mention that religion is almost by definition a communal activity which requires validation in order to exist. If people with religious beliefs didn't have them validated by the community they wouldn't be religious. rudatron posted:Furthermore, no one should have to care about what you are, because there are too many people for that to be feasible, nor do most people find many things interesting that doesn't involve themselves. That's just a fact, people are self-centered by default, so you have to acknowledge that and work around it. So what you 'are' is less important than what you look like, because that's what other people can actually see. Society functions because people do things that aren't natural to the human animal. They become natural because we are socialized constantly and humans are capable of learning and internalizing things. So, empathy is neither impossible for humans to cultivate nor is society immutably un-empathetic. I really don't get where you're going with this weird naturalistic argument because "natural" only makes sense as either "humans do it when raised completely in isolation, which is completely irrelevant because humans aren't raised in isolation, or in the sense that "it is done without really thinking about it" which is absolutely something which is subject to change. I can loving text on a smartphone without thinking about it, where the hell is that programmed into me from birth? So no, it's not remotely "just a fact" that people are the very specific kind of self-centered that allows them to form an orderly queue for something, but completely incapable of using "she" or "he" or even "xir" instead of the word that perhaps first enters their brain. Whether or not people actually can communicate to someone else's inner self is completely irrelevant because this particular delusion only requires that we feel a sense of validation. Much like the desire for safety, you don't actually have to be particularly safe, you just need to feel safe, and no matter how much you argue that it's completely irrational, it doesn't change the fact that this is a consistent and well understood psychological facet of humans. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
sidviscous posted:What I actually see is you eliding the substantive point of my argument, which is basically what others have said.. That yes this is how you may be perceived by society, but no that this is not intellectually or logically defensible. Oh he is absolutely prepared to say that. And has, in fact, already done so! rudatron posted:If, for whatever reason, you aren't able to technically perform that identity, you can't become that identity. And I'm quite happy to extend this to 'butch' women, if they look masculine enough (such that they're effectively cross-dressing), I feel it would be correct to refer to them as men. Sorry ladies, but if Rudatron doesn't get a boner looking at you then you're objectively a man. Thems just the breaks, according to him. Edit: rudatron posted:Well you're entitled to your opinions, but I feel I've demonstrated both rationality and conviction. If you're still sticking to that tack, there's not much else to say. It's not an opinion, and I just directly quoted you saying as such. And it's ironic you talk about arguing with conviction when your entire argument is that conviction is worthless. Really you should just accept my perception of your meaning as undeniable truth if you want to be the least bit consistent. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:44 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:Oh he is absolutely prepared to say that. And has, in fact, already done so! I'm struggling to find the part where rudatron gave attractiveness as a bar to pass. He's basically just saying that if you're a woman who for some reason goes our of her way to perform the "man" gender, then calling her a man should be the default action of an observer. It's just a moot point because it doesn't correspond with any scenario we can anticipate. Yet another goon on D&D trying to make an esoteric point that doesn't create or refine actual information, and just connotes antagonism in actual circumstances, because we all make the good-faith assumption that people are talking about real things. I'm reminded of fishmech with the calorie talk.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:29
|
|