|
LGB and especially T rights aren't going so well currently though, is the problem. We got same sex marriage, but there's still people fighting against it and trying to dismantle it. We still don't get half the rights that cis and straight people are afforded. Laws are being written against us. Laws are currently passing that say it's legal and lawful to discriminate against LGBT people.
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 03:02 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:This is incompatible with respectability politics, you gibbering halfwit. What makes you so hosed-up and broken?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:It causes cognitive dissonance in bigots. Respectable public figures and personal acquaintances gave pause to individuals who would never have supported gay rights if they didn't have these experiences. No it doesn't. These bigots are the same people who would dump their own family on the street. A nice stranger isn't going to make them rethink that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Atasnaya Vaflja posted:LGB and especially T rights aren't going so well currently though, is the problem. We got same sex marriage, but there's still people fighting against it and trying to dismantle it. We still don't get half the rights that cis and straight people are afforded. Laws are being written against us. Laws are currently passing that say it's legal and lawful to discriminate against LGBT people. It's a drat shame. A law to end discrimination against LGBT people was just shelved without vote in the unicameral. I called and wrote my senator about it but he's a coward who is likely glad that he won't have to take sides.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
You can achieve that just as well without doing it in the spotlight. Everyone who comes out to a friend helps normalize it to that friend, that friend then carries that knowledge on to their peers. Creating small groups willing to support each other through coming out to their close acquaintences is more helpful, it doesn't require a favorable public voice. Our wellbeing is not to be graciously granted by a compassionate media. It will be taken by the action of all of us.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Atasnaya Vaflja posted:No it doesn't. These bigots are the same people who would dump their own family on the street. A nice stranger isn't going to make them rethink that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 21:51
|
|
The Kingfish posted:What makes you so hosed-up and broken? There is a light that shines in the darkness, and the darkness perceives it not. Anyways, encountering respectable minorities isn't dissonant for bigots. Were you not such an abject and pitiful waste of human life you'd understand that this is what the phrase "one of the good ones" means.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:encountering respectable minorities isn't dissonant for bigots. Sometimes it is  (you piece of poo poo.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Having to deal with bigots day in and out just to try and gently coerce them into supporting basic human right is part of what turns "one of the good ones" into one of the "uppity" ones, too. It's exhausting to deal with being resented for who you are. It's especially exhausting to act polite in the fact of that bigotry as to not "sully your cause" when paradoxically, no one else has that burden. It'd be ridiculous for me to say that people like Kingfish or Commie NedFlanders are representing cis people very poorly and they should consider acting nicer if they want people to support their cause, but only because they're in the majority and their "cause" is already supported.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:There is a light that shines in the darkness, and the darkness perceives it not. Can you just say what you mean instead of being a tryhard faux-intellectual with tourettes?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 22:02
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:Can you just say what you mean instead of being a tryhard faux-intellectual with tourettes? no war but the race war, i think
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Atasnaya Vaflja posted:It'd be ridiculous for me to say that people like Kingfish or Commie NedFlanders are representing cis people very poorly and they should consider acting nicer if they want people to support their cause, but only because they're in the majority and their "cause" is already supported.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 22:21
|
|
blowfish posted:Can you just say what you mean instead of being a tryhard faux-intellectual with tourettes? I don't think it's good to take a serious disorder that is painful for the people afflicted and use it for cheap shots against someone you disapprove of, you syphilitic, AIDS-ridden, narcoleptic jackass. Furthermore, it's really not hard. Even you should be able to figure out that the phrase "one of the good ones" exists to distinguish respectable minorities from disreputable ones, especially on the individual level, allowing people to feel positive about minorities without challenging the prevailing discriminatory understanding.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
I love the term 'special snowflake'. I have a friend who has a Welsh name, with a Welsh pronunciation, but people often incorrectly pronounce it with English pronunciation. She often gently corrects them, because it's her name and it's important to her, and after a few tries they get it. Nobody thinks it's a big deal; she's not acting like a 'special snowflake' by demanding extra attention, she just wants people to call her by her name. Not once has anybody become upset about this state of affairs. The same applies to trans people. The only ones making a 'big deal' out of it are the people who react in such a way to elevate the subject beyond what's necessary. You don't like 'special snowflakiness'? Stop making it an issue and just say 'OK', maybe have a laugh about it as you take a bit of time to adjust (and overcome some of your preconceptions in the process), and continue to socialise with the other person as you would any other human being. (And no, it's not the same as religious entitlement.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Ocrassus posted:I love the term 'special snowflake'. I have a friend who has a Welsh name, with a Welsh pronunciation, but people often incorrectly pronounce it with English pronunciation. She often gently corrects them, because it's her name and it's important to her, and after a few tries they get it. Nobody thinks it's a big deal; she's not acting like a 'special snowflake' by demanding extra attention, she just wants people to call her by her name. Not once has anybody become upset about this state of affairs. My last name has a Scot-Irish origin, and people generally mispronounce it. Because it truly does not matter, I let it slide. Hell, I will probably be referred to by five different names today...so what if someone says it differently than I do?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
And you are welcome to not care about that. It remains polite to spare a moment of care for those who do, however.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 01:04
|
|
The_Book_Of_Harry posted:My last name has a Scot-Irish origin, and people generally mispronounce it. Why should people be forbidden from caring about it?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
"I don't care about my identity, why should anyone else?" Classic. But if people came up to you and called you the wrong gender, I wonder if that studied indifference would hold up?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
The_Book_Of_Harry posted:My last name has a Scot-Irish origin, and people generally mispronounce it. Because it's rude to pronounce somebody's name incorrectly on purpose, which you would know if you had not been brought up in a barn.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
It's also rude to demand people to accept something they cannot believe, especially when it's something outside the social norm. 'Niceness' is optional, it's something granted at the discretion of the giver. 'Respect' is what you are due, which when denied, means the denier has wronged. Denying 'niceness' is totally normal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
rudatron posted:It's also rude to demand people to accept something they cannot believe, especially when it's something outside the social norm. 'Niceness' is optional, it's something granted at the discretion of the giver. 'Respect' is what you are due, which when denied, means the denier has wronged. Denying 'niceness' is totally normal. No, it's not normal to deliberately offend people. This is obvious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
rudatron posted:It's also rude to demand people to accept something they cannot believe, especially when it's something outside the social norm. 'Niceness' is optional, it's something granted at the discretion of the giver. 'Respect' is what you are due, which when denied, means the denier has wronged. Denying 'niceness' is totally normal. I bet you're a real charmer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
rudatron posted:It's also rude to demand people to accept something they cannot believe, especially when it's something outside the social norm. Well gee gadzooks mr, that's a mighty fine is-ought fallacy you got goin on there. quote:'Niceness' is optional, it's something granted at the discretion of the giver. 'Respect' is what you are due, which when denied, means the denier has wronged. Denying 'niceness' is totally normal. Generally being atleast modestly courteous to someone else is the default mode of civil society. We rightly call people who don't extend this sort of courtesy 'assholes' and 'dickheads', or in my native tongue 'bellends' works too. My friend once misgendered another trans friend of mine, because she displays a lot of traditionally male physical characteristics (pre-op, was wearing gender neutral clothing). She referred to her as he several times before we had to explain to her the situation, because my trans friend obviously didn't announce to everyone her gender as she entered the room. Situations like this will happen in a society which still holds a lot of strong ideas what a man and a women ought to look like, but I think everyone understands that. Nobody was angry with the mistake my friend made, it was an honest one and she took steps to correct it. Nobody here is proposing setting up loving gestapos and legal consequences for people who either make mistakes and genuinely try to correct them (which is fine), or even if you are intentionally an rear end in a top hat (in which case you'll just be socially ostracised like the scumbag you are). If you want some help with this, it's often good to remember that trans people are human beings with red blood and favourite foods and that one memory which makes you smile and cringe in equal measures, just like you. They are people whose gender identity makes up only a fraction of their existence as a person, and if you took some time to get to know one or two of them, you'd appreciate that they really aren't that different from anyone else. And that's the point. They aren't trying to be different, they are trying to be themselves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
I keep making this point, and I don't think it's really getting through: There are so many people, some nice and not nice, that are able to be offended about anything. The fact that Kim Davis had to do her job offended her. Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. There's also no ability for me, as another person outside your head, to verify how offended you are, and on what grounds. So if you take 'offense' as the basis for interpersonal relationships, you're setting up a system that's open to be abused by the loudest, most obnoxious people. They'll claim offense, and you'll have no way of disproving it. Then they'll push people around until they get what they want. If you push back, you're not being 'nice', because you're not taking their offense into account. Ironically, the people you're hoping this will help, the ones who are suffering and just want a little break, a reprieve, they'll get nothing. This is also why I'm taking 'presentation' as the be-all-end-all of identity here. I mean, I have philosophical reasons for it, but practically, it's obvious and open. You could extend it beyond presentation, but it's not necessary to, and it's okay to deny based on a lack of presentation. In conclusion, look at the big picture, don't lose the forest for the trees.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I keep making this point, and I don't think it's really getting through: There are so many people, some nice and not nice, that are able to be offended about anything. The fact that Kim Davis had to do her job offended her. Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. There's also no ability for me, as another person outside your head, to verify how offended you are, and on what grounds. so butch lesbians should have to use male restrooms and drag queens should have to use female restrooms? that's dumb.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
Nobody thinks butch lesbos are men and nobody thinks drag queens are women..
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Nobody thinks butch lesbos are men and nobody thinks drag queens are women.. plenty of butch lesbians get mistaken for men and "fishy" drag queens pass as women pretty easily.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I keep making this point, and I don't think it's really getting through: There are so many people, some nice and not nice, that are able to be offended about anything. The fact that Kim Davis had to do her job offended her. Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. There's also no ability for me, as another person outside your head, to verify how offended you are, and on what grounds. What does any of this have with the proposition that it's not nice to offend people on purpose?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I keep making this point, and I don't think it's really getting through: There are so many people, some nice and not nice, that are able to be offended about anything. The fact that Kim Davis had to do her job offended her. Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. There's also no ability for me, as another person outside your head, to verify how offended you are, and on what grounds. Kim Davis had a legal duty which she didn't fulfill. It is not illegal for her to believe that gay people aren't people deserving of equal treatment anymore than its illegal for me to believe that 2+2=5. For interpersonal relationships, courtesy is usually held as the standard. You can be a massive rear end in a top hat by not calling a trans person their preferred pronouns, just like you can be a massive rear end in a top hat for calling gay people fags. You will hopefully be punished for it socially, because society doesn't like assholes, they don't tend to be conducive to your 'big picture', but you aren't going to be thrown in jail unless what you do constitutes a threat of violence or infringes on their rights as an individual citizen. Religiosity is also different because it constitutes an extended and continued choice, whereas gender dysphoria is emphatically not a similar case. Religion therefore deserves a lower tier on the 'things that ought to be respected' pole, as one has a degree more influence over that. As for people 'pushing others around until they get what they want'. I mean, what they want is to be referred to in their preferred manner, it's not particularly onerous. And if by 'pushing others around' you mean 'people who don't feel as inconvenienced by acknowledging a transpersons identity calling you a massive baby/evil watermelon fucker (depending on your objection)' for not doing this one little thing to make someone else's life much better, then yeah, you betcha, the same way civilised company ought to react to racism and homophobia. Like, again, meet some trans people. You've got this mythical idea that there are some abusive fuckers out there who are going to use this reliance on courtesy to wreak havoc on society. Here's what's going to happen, a trans person who doesn't pass may occasionally have to point out the gender they identify as. If they happen to be loud obnoxious dickbags, that doesn't invalidate their identities, it just makes them assholes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
Or you could use your loving brain and be nice to people in the overhwhelming majority of cases because you have gently caress all reason to be deliberately rude to them you enormous autist. You're not a loving robot, you don't need some ludicrous blanket-case rule for human interaction, just don't be a knobhead if you can very easily avoid it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Or you could use your loving brain and be nice to people in the overhwhelming majority of cases because you have gently caress all reason to be deliberately rude to them you enormous autist. But how do I make sure that somebody doesn't trick me by saying "you're welcome" when I'm not welcome?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:But how do I make sure that somebody doesn't trick me by saying "you're welcome" when I'm not welcome? Those goddamn doormats and their cheery disposition! It's entitlement I tell you! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
It's totally okay to offend people sometimes, it just depends strongly on the person, and what they're offended about. If someone is offended over something trivial, regressive or impractical, they're in the wrong. "But we're not suggesting otherwise", then why are you using 'offense' as your justification? Social norms, like law, has precedent, when you set precedent, you can create unintended consequences. If you're applying standards before you get to 'offense', you may as well talk about those standards. I've got no problem believing that 95+% of trans people just want people things, and if they're putting in the effort, I'm happy to say they deserve they want. But I'm not happy granting that on the grounds of offense, or based on a claim that I can't verify, because I don't like what either of those imply. I'd much prefer a standard that doesn't do either of those things. But the drag queen objection is interesting...hm...okay, let's try 'natural presentation'. Your presentation when you feel no one is looking, or that you default into. I feel that's still verifiable in a way "I feel like X' is not, and doesn't really upset anything else I've said. So I guess we've all learned something now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
rudatron posted:despite all my rage, i'm still just a rat in a cage (of good manners) Dude, three year olds can understand the concepts of "politeness", "good manners", and "basic civility".
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
rudatron posted:It's totally okay to offend people sometimes, it just depends strongly on the person, and what they're offended about. If someone is offended over something trivial, regressive or impractical, they're in the wrong. "But we're not suggesting otherwise", then why are you using 'offense' as your justification? Social norms, like law, has precedent, when you set precedent, you can create unintended consequences. If you're applying standards before you get to 'offense', you may as well talk about those standards. what does this even mean? do you realize a lot of women wear sweats and no makeup around the house when "no one is looking" and generally don't present themselves in a manner society sees feminine (hence why many of them put on makeup and dress up when leaving the house)? what are you talking about
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
Imagine I've jammed a little chip into that head of yours rudatron. This chip, when activated, can interfere with your brain in such a way as to induce anxiety, depression and even thoughts of suicide if it has been activated enough. Said chip activates when people don't refer to you by a specific pronoun. Outwardly, you do not appear to look like what society traditionally perceived as belonging to the category of people to which that pronoun refers, so people often make the mistake of referring to you by the incorrect pronoun. Usually this first mistake is fine, but continued exposure will ramp up these problems. So how do you deal with it? I imagine you politely ask people to try to refer to you as the specific pronoun, and rely on their goodwill to do so. If enough people continue to do it, particularly with either apathy or malevolence, the chip ramps up its effects and you suffer significantly more. This 'chip' is a bit like 'gender dysphoria', and it's existence is not what we are discussing here, we are taking it as true. Would you not agree that someone who tries to ignore the existence of this situation and, in doing so, causes someone else distress is an rear end in a top hat (and is subject to the social penalties of being an acknowledged rear end in a top hat)? To be clear, I doubt most trans people care if some random fuckhead intentionally misgenders them constantly, they'll just call them pricks and avoid interaction with them. It's when a critical mass of enough individuals do it consistently that it becomes an issue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
I'm not discounting gender dysphoria, I'm suggesting that it's the onus of the individual to fit into society. We don't have a society otherwise. If you put in obvious effort, if you present, sure you deserve it. I'm also suggesting that a system of social standards dominated by declared personal feelings is a system that will be abused. Do you acknowledge, or challenge, either claim? I don't know, because you spent the best part of your posts rephrasing the same lines, 'think of how they must feel' and 'it's not good to be an rear end in a top hat'. Did you stop and think that, perhaps, the exact same arguments will be used by people like Kim Davis? If that's upsetting to you, good - you must now realize that they're not sufficient ways of talking about this topic. They're not wrong, it's important to be empathetic, always, and it's important to help others. It's natural and good to not want others to suffer. But it's not enough. I've no doubt that the person who started this thread started it basically to stir poo poo. But the only reason it does is because there's a contradiction, that has to be reconciled.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I'm not discounting gender dysphoria, I'm suggesting that it's the onus of the individual to fit into society. We don't have a society otherwise. If you put in obvious effort, if you present, sure you deserve it. I'm also suggesting that a system of social standards dominated by declared personal feelings is a system that will be abused. I don't really understand why you have spent so many words to try and justify not having good manners.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
Jesus Christ my last few posts have EACH explained thoroughly why this same thing doesn't apply to Kim Davis. It seems everything that's been said sails right past your head. Either you aren't reading or you're arguing disingenuously, either way, gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 09:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 03:02 |
|
|
Troposphere posted:what does this even mean? do you realize a lot of women wear sweats and no makeup around the house when "no one is looking" and generally don't present themselves in a manner society sees feminine (hence why many of them put on makeup and dress up when leaving the house)? what are you talking about Dude. This is the same thread (And I think the same poster. Though maybe that was Flanders.) where people have said that they don't think a woman that looks sufficiently feminine in their eyes deserves to be called a woman. This is on top of referring to a definitive female experience that all women fit into within society at one point. You're fighting an uphill battle here. In order to convince people like that of anything you have to unfuck their screwed up perception of what each gender is first. And that's even if they're willing to listen. Edit: Ahaha, it was Rudatron alright: quote:First, I repeat: there is no such thing as an authentic identity. You are under the mistaken belief that performance is a precondition for identity acceptance - your identity (what you feel) isn't accepted until it matches your performance (expression of that identity). That's not what I'm saying, I saying the performance is the identity, that they are logically equivalent. To say that one identity is 'authentic' is to assume a hidden cause before the performance. 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. If they're offended by that, well that's their problem. Communication is more than just words, if you're communicating one thing with your dress+presentation, yet saying another, you're the one who's out of line. You heard it here! Stay in a dress and keep that make-up on, you uppity sluts. You shouldn't be acting outside of your traditonal societally established identity if you don't want Rudatron to start calling you things you aren't. Archonex fucked around with this message at 11:30 on Mar 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 11:23
|
|
