|
The Kingfish posted:That's how it already is. So your thing is, you're saying there's no gender police, but if someone has a definition of their gender you don't like, you're gonna police them and try to shame them to get them back in line.
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 23:59 |
|
|
They can do whatever they want. There might be social consequences though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Why? What if they are acting like idiots? (I'm not saying the two are equivalent, but they're similar.) That is, if you want to be rude, which you still probably shouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
People who use non-standard pronouns, no matter how esoteric, hurt absolutely no one by using them. Acknowledging those pronouns takes little to no effort and makes a world of difference to the people using them, so what's the point in refusing to?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
SwimmingSpider posted:People who use non-standard pronouns, no matter how esoteric, hurt absolutely no one by using them. Acknowledging those pronouns takes little to no effort and makes a world of difference to the people using them, so what's the point in refusing to? - a member of a historically and currently marginalized group who is trying to not abide by a language they experience to co-constitute this marginalization - a weird teenager who just wants to be special and insists on being called thyr I guess the difference is not always, but usually, obvious, and #2 should be really rate either way. I also, and I understand I'm saying this from a not particularly informed, and rather privileged, position, that pronouns aren't that important in the grand scheme of things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
SwimmingSpider posted:People who use non-standard pronouns, no matter how esoteric, hurt absolutely no one by using them. Acknowledging those pronouns takes little to no effort and makes a world of difference to the people using them, so what's the point in refusing to? I already answered this last page.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:I already answered this last page. And you don't think that by acknowledging only the commonly understood genders with all the problems they have, you're really just contributing to reinforcing their existence and their prescriptivist roles?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:And you don't think that by acknowledging only the commonly understood genders with all the problems they have, you're really just contributing to reinforcing their existence and their prescriptivist roles? Less so than purposefully legitimizing a prescriptivist conception of gender.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Less so than purposefully legitimizing a prescriptivist conception of gender. But, I think, far more than encouraging people to define their genders entirely individually, thus illustrating the inherent absurdity of the concept of gender as distinct from the individual.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
The 'chip' example I gave was an allegory for an actual condition, gender dysphoria, for which the best currently known cure is, shock horror, to be treated as the gender one feels one is, irrespective of physical appearance (which could be a problem for a number of people). My trans friend cannot pass right now because she fears what her intolerant rear end parents would say, it doesn't stop us treating her how she wants to be treated when we are around her. Gender dysphoria isn't voluntary, they don't have a choice in the matter. Countless studies have demonstrated links to depression, anxiety, and yes, suicide. Do we want to avoid these things in our fellow citizens? Yes. How do we do our part to help people in this unenviable situation? We aren't dicks who say 'I only recognise X, Y, Z, your emotional states are wrong and you shouldn't feel the way you do', we acknowledge them by their chosen pronoun and either don't speak to them again (if it seriously is a barrier to your relationship ships for some bizarre reason), or, we get to know them as a person which is usually jolly good fun. It's like people who tell others who have clinical depression, 'why don't you just cheer up?'. I wonder what their response would be if they got hit by a car and ended up wheelchair bound and I told them, 'why don't you just get up and walk?'
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:But, I think, far more than encouraging people to define their genders entirely individually, thus illustrating the inherent absurdity of the concept of gender as distinct from the individual. Absurdity that is obvious to everyone but must never be pointed out? What you are describing is exactly what's happening when I decide that xe/thyr/zher is too ridiculous to play along with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
Embrace your inner Kierkegaard.. Revel in the 'absurd'. Its why I'm still here
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Absurdity that is obvious to everyone but must never be pointed out? What you are describing is exactly what's happening when I decide that xe/thyr/zher is too ridiculous to play along with. No it isn't, what's happening there is you're saying anything other than traditional male/female is absurd, you're reinforcing gender as it currently exists. Either you ignore all gender and cease to function in society as a result, or you acknowledge that gender exist and consider that subversion of the commonly accepted roles and limits of it is the most powerful current force to destroy the concept as it currently exists. As it stands, action-wise you're doing neither.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:What you are describing is exactly what's happening when I decide that xe/thyr/zher is too ridiculous to play along with. You decide that xe/thyr/zher is too ridiculous to play along with, but you're okay with playing along with he/she. You're not illustrating the absurdity of the concept of gender as seperate from the individual, you're just reinforcing the current gender binary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
What is the broader "goal" (for lack of a better word) of accommodating idiosyncratic gender expressions? What values are being promoted or reinforced?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:What is the broader "goal" (for lack of a better word) of accommodating idiosyncratic gender expressions? What values are being promoted or reinforced? It demonstrably makes trans people less likely to kill themselves. That's pretty important. Also it serves to help destroy gender as a binary and prescriptive construct, same as gay acceptance seems to be destroying sexuality as a binary and prescriptive construct.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:What is the broader "goal" (for lack of a better word) of accommodating idiosyncratic gender expressions? What values are being promoted or reinforced? None
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It demonstrably makes trans people less likely to kill themselves. That's pretty important. If I was going to slot nonbinary identities in to a broader ethical framework, where would it go? Egoist anarchism? Subjectivism? Or to put it another way, how do you accommodate nonbinary identities into (for example) a collectivist morality?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:What is the broader "goal" (for lack of a better word) of accommodating idiosyncratic gender expressions? What values are being promoted or reinforced? It's a pretty simple one : to help people feel comfortable in their own skin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:Let's set trans rights aside because they seem categorically different from things like genderqueer-ness or other non-trans, non-binary identities. In a binary system, a 1 saying they are a 0 is a lot different than a 1 saying they are a 3. Trans rights necessarily include accepting nonbinary identities, or at least not doing it makes about as much sense as saying hetero and homosexuality exist but bisexuality doesn't, which while that does happen is pretty obviously stupid. I don't understand your second question, you accept it the same way you do any other gender identity? However you do that is presumably up to you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Also it serves to help destroy gender as a binary and prescriptive construct, same as gay acceptance seems to be destroying sexuality as a binary and prescriptive construct. By contrast, it's pretty easy to tell what makes someone gay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
The vast majority of people in this world can't be bothered to learn bullshit new words because some people think they're super special snowflakes, hope that helps. Furthermore, quite a few people would be hard pressed to define what a pronoun is if you asked them in the spur of the moment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:If I was going to slot nonbinary identities in to a broader ethical framework, where would it go? Egoist anarchism? Subjectivism? Or to put it another way, how do you accommodate nonbinary identities into (for example) a collectivist morality? You're saying these words but... I'm not sure you know what they mean. Calling trans people by their preferred pronouns can be argued as valuable in both a utilitarian sense and a deontological sense. Within those branches there is an entire myriad array of systems of morality that are compatible with it. I think there are examples of both relativistic and absolutist systems that can accommodate it too. I mentioned Kierkegaard earlier for a reason. The concept of gender, binary or otherwise, is absurd in the philosophical sense of the word. Embracing this reality and not clinging to it in some twisted is-ought fallacy that Hume would have a field-day with, is the best policy imho. Essentialists are the philosophical equivalent of the tea party 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
rudatron posted:That depends, adopting a mantra of declared feelings as dominant actually undermines any motion away from pure binary-traditionalist ideas of gender, because it is obviously absurd and exploitable. Uh, no it doesn't, because if you encourage everyone to view gender as something they 1. decide themselves and 2. is not limited to multiple choice you serve to eliminate the concept of gender traditionalism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
SwimmingSpider posted:It's a pretty simple one : to help people feel comfortable in their own skin. OwlFancier posted:I don't understand your second question, you accept it the same way you do any other gender identity? However you do that is presumably up to you? If it's because it "demonstrably makes trans [individuals] less likely to kill themselves," what if you don't think the(/any) individual is all that sacred to begin with?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:What are the limits of this? Oh I think I know this one.. It's where the pigeon shits all over the chessboard and flies off. If you disagree with the maxim 'we as a society should be willing to take considerable steps to prevent suicides', then I don't think there is anything further to discuss.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
Ocrassus posted:Oh I think I know this one.. It's where the pigeon shits all over the chessboard and flies off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
It would perhaps help convince lawmakers and people in general that they need to learn new words if we had some numbers telling us how many transgender people there are along with other demographic data such as median income. It is rather unfortunate that this is rendered fundamentally impossible by lack of agreement as to what transgender is. Thus, a large number of countries where minority rights are not elevated on a pedestal the government can simply shrug and say "It's not worth dismantling a system that works for the vast majority of people for the benefit of this minority, whom as far as we know there is no concrete data on, and who have little representation outside of the Internet."
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:I guess that's where it breaks down, then. Whether or not you think "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me," should be an ordering force in society. That is a dumb moral rule to govern society with because it assumes a pretty uniform psychology between its members (unless you mean 'ye have done' in terms of particular harm done to a person from their subjective point of view).
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:What are the limits of this? Then kill you are self because that's dumb? Seriously how can you not value the individual but somehow magically value the collective? The collective is a collective of individuals and the wellbeing of the collective is comprised of the wellbeing of its components. And the binary system model is dumb because it doesn't work in practice or rationally. Lichy posted:It would perhaps help convince lawmakers and people in general that they need to learn new words if we had some numbers telling us how many transgender people there are along with other demographic data such as median income. At least one in two hundred, apparently. Though precise numbers are somewhat irrelevant because to the mind inclined to think so, no amount is ever enough. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Mar 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:What are the limits of this? I would say up the point where such accomodations infringe on your or someone else's safety or well-being. So if someone's pronouns were a slur, or if you had a bomb strapped to your body that was wired to detonate if you said "xe", then sure, that seems like an appropriate situation to ignore their request, but outside of extreme circumstances like that, I can't think of any realistic limits.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Then kill you are self because that's dumb? But it could shield progressives such as yourself from accusations of acting purely on an ideological basis since there would be some statistics backing up your conclusions about gender identities. Additionally, I would like to point out that the "binary system" is very stable, having persisted for a few millennia and still going strong around the globe, which suggests that it does work in practice rather well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
SwimmingSpider posted:I would say up the point where such accomodations infringe on your or someone else's safety or well-being. So if someone's pronouns were a slur, or if you had a bomb strapped to your body that was wired to detonate if you said "xe", then sure, that seems like an appropriate situation to ignore their request, but outside of extreme circumstances like that, I can't think of any realistic limits. Trying to make people make the effort to learn something new, especially an idea this outlandish to most, is a formidable obstacle and limit in itself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
SwimmingSpider posted:I would say up the point where such accomodations infringe on your or someone else's safety or well-being. So if someone's pronouns were a slur, or if you had a bomb strapped to your body that was wired to detonate if you said "xe", then sure, that seems like an appropriate situation to ignore their request, but outside of extreme circumstances like that, I can't think of any realistic limits. OwlFancier posted:Seriously how can you not value the individual but somehow magically value the collective? The collective is a collective of individuals and the wellbeing of the collective is comprised of the wellbeing of its components. We're not a small tribe wherein every person counts. Trends matter, not individuals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
Lichy posted:Additionally, I would like to point out that the "binary system" is very stable, having persisted for a few millennia and still going strong around the globe, which suggests that it does work in practice rather well. In the sense that slavery also worked, by using human suffering as the lubricant. Traditionalist gender roles are stupid, they are opposed to human wellbeing and encourage oligarchy. the trump tutelage posted:Is this the same thinking that leads to an idealist thinking they can change The System all on their lonesome, or activists thinking shaming an individual jackass will do anything about structural inequalities? Trends are made up of individuals you pillock. You might as well say that we don't need to care about healthcare because only individuals can actually die.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:In the sense that slavery also worked, by using human suffering as the lubricant. I would like to point out that asserting that a system doesn't work in theory and practice and asserting that a system is inherently cruel are two differing propositions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Trends are made up of individuals you pillock. You might as well say that we don't need to care about healthcare because only individuals can actually die.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
Lichy posted:I would like to point out that asserting that a system doesn't work in theory and practice and asserting that a system is inherently cruel are two differing propositions. I would define "inherently cruel" as "not working" because the only valuable meaning of "working" as it applies to a social system is "promoting human welfare".
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and individuals operating without a common, logical framework are liable to work against each other, without necessarily meaning to. Creating special rules that can be exploited easily only undermines the trust that people need have in each other. If you desire an truly inclusive (and functional) society, that comes at a price, and that price is your ability to declare things on your own terms. I don't think that necessarily conflicts with limiting suicides of vulnerable individuals, but I am placing the responsibility to present on them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 23:59 |
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:No, it's like saying we shouldn't publicly fund hyper-expensive niche pharmaceuticals even if it means a fraction of the population might die. It's a tragedy for them and their families; society in general carries on as usual. Traditional gender roles are actively detrimental to the majority of society, though. So it's not at all like that? rudatron posted:The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and individuals operating without a common, logical framework are liable to work against each other, without necessarily meaning to. Creating special rules that can be exploited easily only undermines the trust that people need have in each other. If you desire an truly inclusive (and functional) society, that comes at a price, and that price is your ability to declare things on your own terms. Oh no someone might exploit me by getting me to call them xir. However will I bear this impossible burden.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:52
|
|