|
You're setting a precedent for self-declarations to override group concerns, that's not going to end well. It's not about the burden, it's about why it should be accepted at all.
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 04:01 |
|
|
rudatron posted:You're setting a precedent for self-declarations to override group concerns, that's not going to end well. Yes I am setting that precedent. It's me, the first person to suggest that maybe humans are not ants.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted: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". That is a rather personal definition and it would make your future arguments less frustrating for everyone involved if you switched to the commonly accepted neutral definition of what a social system is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
Lichy posted:That is a rather personal definition and it would make your future arguments less frustrating for everyone involved if you switched to the commonly accepted neutral definition of what a social system is. I dunno I would have thought "manifestly harms a majority of people" would be a pretty commonly understood definition of "doesn't work".
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Traditional gender roles are actively detrimental to the majority of society, though. So it's not at all like that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
rudatron posted:You're setting a precedent for self-declarations to override group concerns, that's not going to end well. Basic good manners are not going to bring about the end of society as we know it, you sperg of spergs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:I doubt very much that even a significant minority of society views the gender binary as oppressive unto itself. Whether it is aware of it or not not does not alter whether or not it is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I dunno I would have thought "manifestly harms a majority of people" would be a pretty commonly understood definition of "doesn't work". Please do not be offended by my suggestion. Nonetheless, the term social system encompasses the structure of any human society. This includes societies that do not conform to your personal definition of "promoting human welfare", such as societies that evolved to benefit only a certain class, ethnicity or other group of people. In these cases, social systems work unless they collapse or otherwise evolve into different structures.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
Well yes some people are obscenely morally bankrupt but I am charitably assuming that most of the people reading what I'm writing don't fall into that category.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well yes some people are obscenely morally bankrupt but I am charitably assuming that most of the people reading what I'm writing don't fall into that category. Again it will benefit your message and readers greatly in the future if you minimise the amount of assumptions you make such as this. Always try to simplify your writing and use appropriate and accepted terminology. Additionally, focusing on a single point at a time would be beneficial. Hope this helps.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
I know how to argue, i've just spent the entire thread arguing with people who are making zero sense and/or seem to be of the belief that individual third person pronouns are both an unbearable imposition and will will destroy society. So I'm sort of moderating my effort commensurate to the arguments I'm being presented with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
What if I meet a French person and they say "bon soir" but actually it's not a good night at all!
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
Lichy posted:Please do not be offended by my suggestion. This is the pigeon making GBS threads on the goddamn table again. Every single social system that has ever existed exists to provide some sort of increase in welfare. The difference comes in whom a given society extends that welfare too, and those who live underneath governments and societies whose origins profess to be derived from the sovereignty of the individual, do regularly condemn systems that enrich the welfare of one group or person at the expense of another. The legitimacy of the system is derived from the individuals who are a part of it, which is why democracy and free speech is a thing. The west isn't perfect in that regard, what with massive wealth inequality, but it's a matter of degree. None of what Owlfancier said is wrong, because their definition of society is pretty much foundational to most first-world nations. Next up on the pigeon making GBS threads on the table list - individual sovereignty! a neurotic ai fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Mar 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
Any social system that can perpetuate itself is one that works, even of if it is one that is bad. Of course, the ability to perpetuate itself will also depend on external factors, such as if the people involved are aware of a better system and see no point in continuing the current one, but this seems like a fairly rigorous way to look at societies. Semantics aside, if you want to replace current social norms around gender, you have to apply yourself to understanding why it is able to perpetuate itself - why it continued despite its flaws - and then design something that address those flaws, without giving up the conveniences afforded by the way things were done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
main takeaway for everyone from this thread: the other guys are beyond saving, gently caress them, and forwards unto my own brave new world 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 11:40
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Lets all of us just agree that it doesn't matter what door you walk thru to sit down and poo poo in public, separating the sexes while they piss and poo poo as something fundamental to society is just loving lol.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 12:31
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It demonstrably makes trans people less likely to kill themselves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 12:44
|
|
|
It's threads like this that make me miss having a cock, though I suppose I could squat and firehose all over this thread and it'd accomplish the same thing. Truly this thread made me think about trans issues... or at least reminded me that lovely Internet neckbeards are still utterly clueless about trans poo poo and should be spanked with a copy of Atlas Shrugged or the katana on the mantle whenever they try to talk about us and our lives.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
Kaleidoscopic Gaze posted:It's threads like this that make me miss having a cock, though I suppose I could squat and firehose all over this thread and it'd accomplish the same thing. Would you say that you identify as a binary or nonbinary individual? Do you feel that making blithe statements about "neckbeards" is any more or less acceptable than "neckbeards" making blithe statements about transgendered or nonbinary individuals. Sulphuric Asshole fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Mar 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
Let's not defend the feelings of neckbeards, although there's something ironic about a trans person scoffing at a philosophical system that prizes rational self-interest and individual rights above all else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:Do you feel that making blithe statements about "neckbeards" is any more or less acceptable than "neckbeards" making blithe statements about transgendered or nonbinary individuals. Are any "neckbeards" worrying about using public bathrooms to the extent that they're giving themselves UTIs because they can't find one they feel safe using?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
I havn't chopped off my dick so UTIs aren't really a concern.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:Would you say that you identify as a binary or nonbinary individual? I'm addressing you and your "discussion" with all due respect. It's pretty transparent that you don't know poo poo about trans people or our lives; so to address this discussion on the terms you're presenting it would be a farce, at best.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Lyesh posted:Ooo, rhetorical questions. I can play that game!! I don't believe that the question is rhetorical. As far as the UTI thing: Are there a lot of men's rooms that don't have regular toilets? Sulphuric Asshole fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Mar 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Then my answer is found in the answer to my own rhetorical question. "Neckbeards" do not have issues with access to employment, safe bathroom facilities, or medical care at levels any higher than the general population. So no, it's not as big of a deal because blithe statements about them don't reinforce attitudes or policies or potential policies that directly hurt them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
I think you will find that neckbeards typically do have troubles maintaining steady employment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Lyesh posted:Then my answer is found in the answer to my own rhetorical question. "Neckbeards" do not have issues with access to employment, safe bathroom facilities, or medical care at levels any higher than the general population. The oppressed status of a segment of the population does not afford them extra privileges, only protections.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
blowfish posted:The oppressed status of a segment of the population does not afford them extra privileges, only protections. Nothing trans people are requesting is "extra."
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Okay, gonna freely admit here that I read Page 1 and then Page 23 of this thread, so if there's any major talking points in there I really should see that occurred in the interim, please PM them to me. I'm gonna address OPs point first of all: Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:Are nonbinary people entitled the platitude of correct gender pronouns or bathroom privileges based on their personal identity, any more or less than extremely religious people might feel entitled to their sensibilities not being offended, based on their personal religious identity? 1) pronouns are entirely language and social constructs. If someone who (to your eyes) looks masculine tells you that they use feminine pronouns, or someone tells you that they are nonbinary and prefer to use a singular "they" as their pronoun, the only reason someone wouldn't abide by that is to deliberately be an rear end. It costs absolutely nothing to use the proper pronoun for someone; it is no different than calling someone by their proper name. 2) bathroom privileges: there is absolutely no reason why trans individuals should not be allowed access to a bathroom in which they feel comfortable. So much of the legislation trying to be forced through the system right now is built on this weird premise that trans people in public bathrooms somehow puts cis people at an increased level of risk. There are several things wrong with this premise. Firstly, there is not some kind of magical force field that keeps predators or assaulters out of restrooms that would suddenly get broken if trans people are allowed in. Secondly, to imply that the trans community is somehow a greater risk to bathroom goers is grossly offensive; on the level of implying that the black community presets a great risk of muggings or the Muslim community presents a greater risk of suicide bombings. Thirdly; allowing trans people to use the appropriate restrooms does not legalize assaulting people. That remains illegal. 3) religious privilege: in America, people are entitled to both freedom of and freedom from religion. People are allowed to worship whoever they want and attend whatever sort of church they want, etc. However, this free exercise of religion cannot be used to infringe on the rights of other people. As Kim Davis so thoughtfully demonstrated to us all, one cannot use one's religious convictions to withhold civil rights. Now, as a private citizen, one can go right ahead and just privately believe that two dudes getting married is sinful and immoral or whatever, but that shouldn't spill over into public policy. (As an aside; I actually support the right of private businesses to refuse to serve whomever they want, if they own the establishment, they have the right to choose their clientele. That said, any business that actively discriminates against someone on basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is not going to see any of my dollars. I view it as a self-correcting system) rudatron posted:You're setting a precedent for self-declarations to override group concerns, that's not going to end well. If self-declarations are actively harmful or detrimental; then you have a case...someone can't just declare "I am the one true human being, all others must be purged" and expect to get away with murder. Otherwise, you seem to be arguing that someone having a gender identity that doesn't match their biological sex is somehow harmful to society at large; which is pretty indefensible. Turtle Sandbox posted:Lets all of us just agree that it doesn't matter what door you walk thru to sit down and poo poo in public, separating the sexes while they piss and poo poo as something fundamental to society is just loving lol. This is a bit more colorful that I would have put it...but this really is the core of the issue. Bathrooms are used for evacuating waste from the body and cleaning up afterwards. There's no real reason why we can't just have one giant bathroom full of stalls for any and all people to use at will. Again, it comes down to making trans people the boogey monster just waiting to commit dastardly deeds in the bathroom; deeds which remain illegal. blowfish posted:The oppressed status of a segment of the population does not afford them extra privileges, only protections. Exactly. Nobody serious is asking for any sort of special privilege. The trans community just wants the same rights, privileges, and protections that the cis community currently has.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Men's public toilets are grim and really horribly dirty and covered in piss and I can't imagine someone wanting to use them if they have any alternative at all especially if they have to come into contact with any surface once inside.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Lichy posted:Men's public toilets are grim and really horribly dirty and covered in piss and I can't imagine someone wanting to use them if they have any alternative at all especially if they have to come into contact with any surface once inside. This isn't universally true; the men's room at my place of employment; open to the public; is actually cleaned fairly close to the "every 3 hours" posted schedule and is usually perfectly usable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Lichy posted:Men's public toilets are grim and really horribly dirty and covered in piss and I can't imagine someone wanting to use them if they have any alternative at all especially if they have to come into contact with any surface once inside.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
It's pretty rude to blow smoke up someone's rear end by pretending xir isn't stupid and wasn't beaten to the punch by they. IMHO.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:It's pretty rude to blow smoke up someone's rear end by pretending xir isn't stupid and wasn't beaten to the punch by they. IMHO. "New" pronouns are only a problem because a word needs to hit some manner of critical mass before it gets accepted. Look at the word blog for example. You are correct that a singular 'they' is way easier to use; but some people have grammar rules beaten so far into their skulls that they refuse to accept 'they' as singular and instead seek to invent some other manner of pronoun on the same footing as 'he' and 'she'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
jivjov posted:"New" pronouns are only a problem because a word needs to hit some manner of critical mass before it gets accepted. Look at the word blog for example. You are correct that a singular 'they' is way easier to use; but some people have grammar rules beaten so far into their skulls that they refuse to accept 'they' as singular and instead seek to invent some other manner of pronoun on the same footing as 'he' and 'she'. Better replace it with something ridiculous than instead of just insisting on a neutral they.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Lichy posted:Men's public toilets are grim and really horribly dirty and covered in piss and I can't imagine someone wanting to use them if they have any alternative at all especially if they have to come into contact with any surface once inside. I've cleaned a lot of toilets working at an amusement park; I've seen and heard it both ways. I'd be interestested in some sort of source that confirms that men's public restrooms are worse, or vice versa if such exists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Or god forbid a word that doesn't start with x so it's more immediately obvious how to pronounce it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Blog was a compound word that actually covered a new thing though? If I started calling it a webog when blog already existed would anyone bother? Also this thread is regularly confusing transgender with genderqueer/fluid. You can be one or both. There's certainly some overlap between the two sets but if you're solely trans there's no automatic reason to assume you're going to want to be called anything but he or she.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
I have enough trouble with people's first names, I'm trying to imagine meeting someone and remembering unique neopronouns along with their conjugations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 04:01 |
|
|
EXTREME INSERTION posted:I have enough trouble with people's first names, I'm trying to imagine meeting someone and remembering unique neopronouns along with their conjugations. No see, you have to expend this effort for any and all human beings because you may hurt their feeling if you don't, god forbid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 19:53
|
|