|
The Kingfish posted:Its the "identity" part of their gender identity that isn't valid. The traditional genders are rammed down our throats by culture and society until they are internalized as an essential parts of our personalities. Personal genders are invented by their.. adherents(?) as a form of self-expression. How does this criticism not apply to the concept of being transgender itself?
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 23:26 |
|
|
# ? Jun 3, 2024 21:43 |
|
Cingulate posted:I think that's maybe kind of rude, but I personally don't think it's really bad. Morphology is really hard and people are loving poo poo at learning it quickly, so if somebody is putting a non-significant effort into not misgendering you hard, that to me seems not wrong, even if they're not going with the particular form you've personally chosen. Its only rude because xe people are looking to feel special. You could use neutral "they" all day long in every conversation you have and nobody would even notice. Unless, that is, they were looking to be upset about it.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 23:27 |
|
The Kingfish posted:Its only rude because xe people are looking to feel special. Actually, I don't think this is credible, judging by the nonbinary people I know.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 23:29 |
|
The Kingfish posted:Its only rude because xe people are looking to feel special.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 23:30 |
|
The Kingfish posted:Its only rude because xe people are looking to feel special. People with "xe" as their pronoun are looking to feel normal.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 23:30 |
|
jivjov posted:People with "xe" as their pronoun are looking to feel normal. Definitely not.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 23:31 |
|
The Kingfish posted:Definitely not. It's no different than a trans man wanting to use "he" as their pronoun of choice.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 23:34 |
|
jivjov posted:It's no different than a trans man wanting to use "he" as their pronoun of choice. Its entirely different.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 23:34 |
|
The Kingfish posted:Its entirely different. Why?
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 23:35 |
|
The Kingfish posted:Its entirely different. No. It really isn't. You want to make it different, because you don't like it. But it is no different.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 23:35 |
|
Its different because transmen adopt he/his in order to better perform their new gender in a society that has preconceived notions about sex and gender.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 23:43 |
|
Kingfish:Cingulate posted:Let's say I am just a naturally skeptical person. (I am.) I am skeptical about your explanation for the personal motivation of these people's actions. What evidence do you have that their motivation is truly wanting to feel "special", whatever that means?
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 23:45 |
|
The Kingfish posted:Its different because transmen adopt he/his in order to better perform their new gender in a society that has preconceived notions about sex and gender. This doesn't explain anything because this applies to someone adopting Spivak pronouns just as well- they are doing it in order to better perform their new gender in a society that has preconceived notions about sex and gender.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 23:49 |
|
The Kingfish posted:Its different because transmen adopt he/his in order to better perform their new gender in a society that has preconceived notions about sex and gender. So choosing to use a more comfortable pronoun is undesirable solely because society says so? Did you know that talk of, say, abolishing segregation, was at one point undesirable? Should we have kept "No Coloreds" signs around because to remove them would make white society uncomfortable?
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 23:50 |
|
Cingulate posted:Let's say I am just a naturally skeptical person. (I am.) I am skeptical about your explanation for the personal motivation of these people's actions. What evidence do you have that their motivation is truly wanting to feel "special", whatever that means? My evidence is that they chose to use a pronoun they made up for themselves instead of the non-binary pronoun we already have.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 23:51 |
|
If you apply that same skepticism to trans people themselves, you end up having top reject pure self identification as valid - you don't need a water right case, you just need a reasonable doubt, which that frankly is. All of these problems can be avoided by my perspective on this topic, which is that natural performance is gender, meaning your born sex is irrelevant, but your presentation is absolutely critical.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 23:51 |
|
rudatron posted:If you apply that same skepticism to trans people themselves, you end up having top reject pure self identification as valid - you don't need a water right case, you just need a reasonable doubt, which that frankly is. How do you determine "natural performance"?
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 23:53 |
|
The Kingfish posted:My evidence is that they chose to use a pronoun they made up for themselves instead of the non-binary pronoun we already have.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 23:54 |
|
Brainiac Five posted:How do you determine "natural performance"?
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 23:58 |
|
Brainiac Five posted:This doesn't explain anything because this applies to someone adopting Spivak pronouns just as well- they are doing it in order to better perform their new gender in a society that has preconceived notions about sex and gender. No it doesn't apply to personal pronouns because non-binary people aren't performing gender the same way that trans and cis people are.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 23:58 |
|
Cingulate posted:Okay, that's not specific evidence. It doesn't match my epistemic standards - it doesn't satisfy my skepticism. Is that truly what you build your belief on in this situation? Cause it seems to me very weak evidence to build anything on. I honestly wish you good luck finding strong evidence for any of this non-binary stuff. I can assure you that you won't find any for xe people one way or another.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2016 00:01 |
|
rudatron posted:Your behaviors that you default into, when you no one is looking ie- you're not being deceptive. Socially however, the onus is on you to present correctly, because what you communicate is more than what you say, but also how you look. But, there's no way for anyone to determine how you behave when no one is looking, because you have to look and destroy the status of being alone in order to determine what natural performance is. You are back to it being a personal form of identity. Furthermore, this assumes society is unchangeable and that is closer to being outright wrong than questionable. The Kingfish posted:No it doesn't apply to personal pronouns because non-binary people aren't performing gender the same way that trans and cis people are. Why aren't they?
|
# ? Mar 29, 2016 00:02 |
|
The Kingfish posted:No it doesn't apply to personal pronouns because non-binary people aren't performing gender the same way that trans and cis people are. Non-binary is a form of being transgender. You literally just said "transgender people aren't performing gender the same way trans[...]people are" And what difference does it make if a segment of the trans population prefers non "standard" pronouns? How in any way, shape, or form does it make their gender less valid than anyone else's? "Because it's different" doesn't count.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2016 00:05 |
|
rudatron posted:Your behaviors that you default into, when you no one is looking ie- you're not being deceptive. Socially however, the onus is on you to present correctly, because what you communicate is more than what you say, but also how you look. please explain in words what the default behavior is for women and the default behavior is for men because I still don't understand what you're talking about, at all.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2016 00:16 |
|
like is the natural behavior for women having long hair and short haired women are just being deceptive? are women just naturally drawn to wearing skirts instead of pants? do you not understand how idiotic and misogynist that sounds?
|
# ? Mar 29, 2016 00:18 |
|
Human behavior is in part a function of the societies that they live in. It's impossible to conceive of a human being's behavior who does not live in some kind of society. Anyway how do you observe something that only exists when it's being unobserved? I remember a funny monster description I ran into once with friends in D&D: the monster is invisible until seen. What?
|
# ? Mar 29, 2016 00:23 |
|
SHISHKABOB posted:Human behavior is in part a function of the societies that they live in. It's impossible to conceive of a human being's behavior who does not live in some kind of society. Sure, the full-blown psychotic or sociopath may be physically interacting with society, but they're not living in it. The Kingfish posted:I honestly wish you good luck finding strong evidence for any of this non-binary stuff. I can assure you that you won't find any for xe people one way or another.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2016 00:27 |
|
Not at all, behaviors are verifiable in a way in which feelings are not. So for example, the usual ring of tests you are required to do before your legal sex change, are designed to weed out people who are not committed, or mistaken. Yet functionally all it is measuring is your behavior. Additionally, it is both conceivably measurable, if you're asking to use deception and spend resources, but also a standard which can be relaxed because of practical concerns, the trade off being reliability. No such equivalence exists for your phenomenological feelings. I also make no assumption of society being unchangeable. The argument there is one of standards and individual responsibility, not one of how dynamic those standards are.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2016 00:28 |
|
rudatron posted:Not at all, behaviors are verifiable in a way in which feelings are not. So for example, the usual ring of tests you are required to do before your legal sex change, are designed to weed out people who are not committed, or mistaken. Yet functionally all it is measuring is your behavior. Additionally, it is both conceivably measurable, if you're asking to use deception and spend resources, but also a standard which can be relaxed because of practical concerns, the trade off being reliability. No such equivalence exists for your phenomenological feelings. please answer my questions.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2016 00:30 |
|
rudatron posted:Not at all, behaviors are verifiable in a way in which feelings are not. So for example, the usual ring of tests you are required to do before your legal sex change, are designed to weed out people who are not committed, or mistaken. Yet functionally all it is measuring is your behavior. Additionally, it is both conceivably measurable, if you're asking to use deception and spend resources, but also a standard which can be relaxed because of practical concerns, the trade off being reliability. No such equivalence exists for your phenomenological feelings. Those are not natural behaviors as you have outlined them, they are performed behaviors. So they are irrelevant to what you have suggested should be the standard, and you are unable to measure behaviors without observing them and making them unnatural. In order to ensure that the people you are surveilling are unaware of your surveillance, you actually do need to peek inside people's heads, meaning you cannot do it and cannot be assured that behaviors are truly natural without telepathy. That is, "natural behaviors" as you outline them are inherently phenomenological. You can say that all we need is a reasonable standard, but that also means that social behaviors are totally unnatural, which is a disturbing conclusion to come to. Basically, what this sounds like is you coming up with something that sounds good without thinking through how it would work at all.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2016 00:33 |
|
I have not made, nor believe, the claims you are attributing to me here. 'Natural' in the way I used or meant 'honest', not 'intrinsic'. I am anti-essentialist. Gender is not intrinsic, it is performative, subject to already existing social norms, which change with place and time. Do not place these beliefs into a category they do not belong in, read them as they are, and place you preconceived notions aside.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2016 00:36 |
|
The Kingfish posted:Its only rude because xe people are looking to feel special. And you know this how?
|
# ? Mar 29, 2016 00:36 |
|
rudatron posted:I have not made, nor believe, the claims you are attributing to me here. 'Natural' in the way I used or meant 'honest', not 'intrinsic'. I am anti-essentialist. Gender is not intrinsic, it is performative, subject to already existing social norms, which change with place and time. This is smug and doesn't actually answer the question. If we don't know what "natural" behaviors are for women or men, the entire line of argumentation is moot because it's over something meaningless in the first place! So you do need to answer, at least tentatively, what a "natural" woman or man would behave like.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2016 00:38 |
|
If there is one thing people in this thread aren't very good at its answering each other's questions.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2016 00:41 |
|
Brainiac Five posted:This is smug and doesn't actually answer the question. If we don't know what "natural" behaviors are for women or men, the entire line of argumentation is moot because it's over something meaningless in the first place! So you do need to answer, at least tentatively, what a "natural" woman or man would behave like.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2016 00:41 |
|
rudatron posted:I have not made, nor believe, the claims you are attributing to me here. 'Natural' in the way I used or meant 'honest', not 'intrinsic'. I am anti-essentialist. Gender is not intrinsic, it is performative, subject to already existing social norms, which change with place and time. okay so you don't have any answers, cool.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2016 00:42 |
|
This thread is a never-ending cycle of cis people making statements about trans people, trans people explaining to the cis people why they're wrong and the cis people ignoring them and then saying the same thing they said before. No one uses neo-pronouns to "feel special", at least not in the way goons tend to mean it (there's a lt to unpack there, but let's leave that for another time). They use them because those pronouns feel right for those individual people. It's not a feeling that can be quantified but its there and it's valid.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2016 00:42 |
|
Cingulate posted:That's a reasonable definition of some form of insanity. I guess that would depend on the reasons for why they are not "living in" society. Those reasons could be related to the societies themselves, or they could be "natural" or physical reasons (brain tumor?).
|
# ? Mar 29, 2016 00:43 |
|
Brainiac Five posted:Those are not natural behaviors as you have outlined them, they are performed behaviors. So they are irrelevant to what you have suggested should be the standard, and you are unable to measure behaviors without observing them and making them unnatural. In order to ensure that the people you are surveilling are unaware of your surveillance, you actually do need to peek inside people's heads, meaning you cannot do it and cannot be assured that behaviors are truly natural without telepathy. That is, "natural behaviors" as you outline them are inherently phenomenological. You can say that all we need is a reasonable standard, but that also means that social behaviors are totally unnatural, which is a disturbing conclusion to come to. Basically, what this sounds like is you coming up with something that sounds good without thinking through how it would work at all.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2016 00:43 |
|
|
# ? Jun 3, 2024 21:43 |
|
SwimmingSpider posted:This thread is a never-ending cycle of cis people making statements about trans people, trans people explaining to the cis people why they're wrong and the cis people ignoring them and then saying the same thing they said before. SHISHKABOB posted:I guess that would depend on the reasons for why they are not "living in" society. Those reasons could be related to the societies themselves, or they could be "natural" or physical reasons (brain tumor?).
|
# ? Mar 29, 2016 00:45 |