|
jivjov posted:Oh; okay; so you do in fact believe that non-binary people don't exist. I feel very sorry for any trans individuals in your life that you marginalize with your toxic attitude, I know 3 trans people IRL, they're all of the same sentiment
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 08:15 |
|
|
Amused to Death posted:I know 3 trans people IRL, they're all of the same sentiment Well, guess what? They're wrong too. I know trans people as well, one of them is not only a very good friend of mine, but they're also non-binary, and has spent quite a lot of time in discussion about it. You, and your friends, do not get to dictate anyone else's gender.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
Anybody can identify with whatever they want. Or seek a role model or ideal to follow. It's excellent to accept the multitude of ways that people can identify themselves with and the goals they put to themselves. My friends could easily tell me they prefer to be called in some way and I'd gladly get used to doing so, it's about mutual respect. The problem is the callout culture, those that jump like vultures onto anyone who gets caught offguard by the pronouns, maybe because they didn't know the proper use, or were tired, or forgot. It could also be hard to notice. It might be a rich and complex introspection, but for other people it could be an unpredictable, or sometimes even unnoticeable change. It could also be hard to grasp the change even after understanding it. Also it is extremely ethno-centric: In Spanish, for example most of the new pronoun changes are almost impossible to translate. It's a discussion centered on privileged first world english speaking countries. This pronoun usage is meant to be an all inclusive move for empathy and understanding, but at the same time you are extremely exclusive and strict about it. Calling people evil, making fun of those who don't instantly grasp it, or of those who arent convinced right away. That conflictive, witch-hunt-ish way of doing things probably breeds more spite than empathy from others, it's more like how closed groups work. wiregrind fucked around with this message at 10:33 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:I know 3 trans people IRL, they're all of the same sentiment As someone who is trans and binary af, I don't get nb people in exactly the same way I'd hope that cis people don't really get trans binary people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Well, guess what? They're wrong too. Weirdly enough Xir, as a real life amnecdote you picked a person in one of the circumstances where identifying as non binary isn't dumb as hell. We're fixated on nonbimary though, let's discuss how neopronouns and an endless litany of genders like demiboy actually work out in real life
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:We're fixated on nonbimary though, let's discuss how neopronouns and an endless litany of genders like demiboy actually work out in real life Well for starters my demiboy friend seems to be doing well getting through a local IT school. wiregrind posted:The problem is the callout culture, those that jump like vultures onto anyone who gets caught offguard by the pronouns, maybe because they didn't know the proper use, or were tired, or forgot. It could also be hard to notice. It might be a rich and complex introspection, but for other people it could be an unpredictable, or sometimes even unreadable change. It could also be hard to grasp the change even after understanding it. Also it is extremely ethno-centric: In Spanish, for example most of the new pronoun changes are almost impossible to translate. It's a discussion centered on privileged first world english speaking countries. It's not just English. There was another language, I think Finnish?, that introduced a gender-neutral pronoun. Every language has their own unique hurdles when it comes to pronouns and gender. Some tend to be more inclusive than others. Some need some modification and new words/grammar to become inclusive. And the callout culture does have some issues with it. Calling out benign mistakes with absolute hostility does cause lots of problems, and can make people who might be sympathetic become hostile. I try to make sure that when it comes to pronouns an honest effort is all I ask and that when I correct people for accidental misgendering I'm not mad at them at all but trying to help them develop a good habit. That said... deliberate misgendering and deliberately using the wrong pronoun is absolutely worth calling out on their utterly lovely behavior.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:I know 3 trans people IRL, they're all of the same sentiment And there are gay people who say that bisexuals just need to pick a side. The LGBTQA community has plenty of infighting between the letters. I'm a nonbinary person who presents as female and I am fine with any pronouns aside from 'it'. If someone were to call me an 'it', I would correct them. Same should go for any misgendering directed at anyone. Respecting pronouns takes literally no effort, and intentionally misgendering someone shows that you think you know them better than they do and also that you don't respect them as a person. Portals fucked around with this message at 07:25 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
So does xir(doesn't need to be this one, but any non-typical pronoun) have a particular/agreed upon meaning? If not, what descriptive purpose does it serve differentially to they? What is it adding over and above a combination of they and the individual's name? If the claim is that the person has an individually unique gender identity, are these pronouns serving as generic placeholders for them? I assume the last part is true, because it seems to me that the issue of pronoun usage is an extension of correct gender ascription. However, if an individual is claiming to belong to a unique gender category, it is a non-trivial request to ask someone to learn the rules for correctly employing that gender's terms, because those rules are generally complicated, even in a binary system (hence the talk of a binary spectrum, which I would argue is an oversimplication of how gender terms are ascribed). That is of course assuming it is not a generic term, which if it is I am uncertain as to the value it offers above already established terms (this is what I see as a common point of contention, because if they are generic there is no end to the number of possible terms that could arise, simultaneously adding nothing to language while increasing the likelyhood of confusion). The natural followup to this will of course be "it's not difficult, just call them what they ask". If it were so simple to do this (to repeat, this is under the assumption that the pronoun does connote a particular gender), the requestee must either have a pre-exisiting understanding of proper use (which would make this whole chain irrelevant), or they somehow the usage of the gender is already manifest in the rules of other genders, which would then make the claim of uniqueness contestable. It might be that people feel that gender stereotyping is undesirable, but by establishing one yoh are directly asserting that there are certain prototypical elements to performance of the gender (or else it doesn't really fall into the gender domain). Handwaving this issue off by claiming the issue of pronoun is separate from that of gender is indirectly asserting that the selection/use of a pronoun token is arbitrary or not well linked to gender, which defeats the original contention that incorrect ascription is not (and as many have pointed out, there any many people for which this linkage is very important). So either the request is trivial, but not meaningful or useful (thus why some might be suspicious of the motivation behind the request being self-aggrandizing in nature), or non-trivial, which makes claims of it being "easy" questionable. I'm inclined to believe both occur, and that the ones of the former sort should not be entertained precisely because they make light of the ones of the latter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
Even if the request were trivial, it wouldn't undermine the idea that it's socially acceptable to refuse it, in much the same way as it is still acceptable to refuse something any random person asks you to do, even if it's minor. People deserve respect, niceness is optional. And to say it again, before someone else just jumps from the first to last page again and freaks out: I'm saying if you perform, you are due your title, that's respect, but if you don't perform, you don't get it. I am describing what I'm talking about (how gender should be conceptualized, in general). What I can't describe is the complex archetype that makes up gender (In a particular historical/social context), because that would take a lot of effort, a lot of testing (and fixing), and a wide exposure to ensure it was exhaustive. It also wouldn't actually help this discussion at all, and isn't really necessary - you have the idea, in your mind, I have the idea, we live in the same society, there's no way you haven't been exposed. No, you've thrown up some irrelevant objections about solipsism, that has nothing to do with it working or not on its own terms. Additionally, if you're not taking self-declaration as authoritative, and you're not taking performance as authoritative (because that's what I am), then on what grounds can you say that anyone is 'misgendering'? Surely, if there is no basis to come to any conclusion, if it's all impenetrable to you thanks to the issue of subjectivity, then there's no such thing as a right or wrong gendering, either by yourself or others and, consequently you can't hold anyone to account. Is that really what you want? Also, I want to challenge your use of 'oppression' here. Are you aware society is something that operates by rules, nay, must operate by rules? Surely you have to, but here you are, saying that having a standard that must be yielded to, any standard, is oppression. Do you actually want to be a part of society, to interact with other people? Well, get used to 'authoritative declarations', at least in the abstract. I think it's okay to debate fairness, you should debate fairness, but they are something that has to exist. No no no, I didn't use 'true nature', I said 'natural performance', which is bad terminology because of the word natural, so I guess I should use 'honest performance'. That's behavioral, that's verifiable, it's not the same as something's 'nature'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 07:56
|
|
|
rudatron posted:No, you've thrown up some irrelevant objections about solipsism, that has nothing to do with it working or not on its own terms. Additionally, if you're not taking self-declaration as authoritative, and you're not taking performance as authoritative (because that's what I am), then on what grounds can you say that anyone is 'misgendering'? Surely, if there is no basis to come to any conclusion, if it's all impenetrable to you thanks to the issue of subjectivity, then there's no such thing as a right or wrong gendering, either by yourself or others and, consequently you can't hold anyone to account. Is that really what you want? Libertarianism 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 09:22
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Amused to Death posted:Weirdly enough Xir, as a real life amnecdote you picked a person in one of the circumstances where identifying as non binary isn't dumb as hell. We're fixated on nonbimary though, let's discuss how neopronouns and an endless litany of genders like demiboy actually work out in real life Any particular reason why you keep misgendering me in particular? And while I'm at it, and I know I'm going to regret asking, why are you suddenly saying that it's not dumb for my friend to be non-binary? When up til now your stance was pretty hardline "unless they're intersex it's dumb"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 10:55
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Weirdly enough Xir, as a real life amnecdote you picked a person in one of the circumstances where identifying as non binary isn't dumb as hell. We're fixated on nonbimary though, let's discuss how neopronouns and an endless litany of genders like demiboy actually work out in real life One of my trans acquaintances believes that trans women need to present as ultrafeminine in order to be authentic, that only lipstick lesbianism with rigid masculinized and feminized roles is morally acceptable, and is intermittently a Stalinist when she's not a fascist or absolute monarchist. Your views are not obviously nutty, but they're also not obviously compelling either. Furthermore, her views are not all that different from the ones you're outlining. If I didn't emphasize her bad politics it would just be taking the rigidity of the gender binary to be something that also applies to sexual relationships, but otherwise would just be a natural extension of your stated beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 11:26
|
|
|
Krysmphoenix posted:There was another language, I think Finnish?, that introduced a gender-neutral pronoun. That was actually Swedish - they introduced the gender-neutral hen to go with han and hon. There's only one pronoun in Finnish, hän.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 11:30
|
|
|
rudatron posted:No, you've thrown up some irrelevant objections about solipsism, that has nothing to do with it working or not on its own terms. Additionally, if you're not taking self-declaration as authoritative, and you're not taking performance as authoritative (because that's what I am), then on what grounds can you say that anyone is 'misgendering'? Surely, if there is no basis to come to any conclusion, if it's all impenetrable to you thanks to the issue of subjectivity, then there's no such thing as a right or wrong gendering, either by yourself or others and, consequently you can't hold anyone to account. Is that really what you want? It's becoming increasingly obvious that you are not willing to concede the right of other people to have opinions that exist apart from you, because you consistently declare people mentally ill, tell them what they're actually thinking, etc. It seems more than a little pointless to attempt to communicate an idea that you reject the principles of in their entirety, and frankly you're disgusting in your voyeuristic desires and your hateful homophobia apart from the beliefs that have generated them. In any case, your proposed system fails to conclusively prove gender, is unethical to even attempt, and all your verbal slush is an attempt to get away from the massive torpedo-holes shot through your argument. What parts that aren't that are axiomatic statements about the need to submit which are apparently self-evident.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 11:46
|
|
|
I feel like this thread in a nutshell is: "Show people basic respect by calling them whatever pronouns they want to use." "LOL look at these zany words/weirdos  "On an endless loop.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 12:01
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:I feel like this thread in a nutshell is: A lot of people on that second side are taking it quite a bit further; either implying or outright stating that people using neopronouns (or identifying non-binary at all) are failing some societal duty or are being "excessively" deviant. This is an incredibly toxic and transphobic viewpoint to take, and just perpetuates the stigma that to be transgender is to somehow be lesser.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 12:06
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:I feel like this thread in a nutshell is: I'm not saying it's complicated, but it's not as simple as what you're saying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 12:08
|
|
|
jivjov posted:A lot of people on that second side are taking it quite a bit further; either implying or outright stating that people using neopronouns (or identifying non-binary at all) are failing some societal duty or are being "excessively" deviant. This is an incredibly toxic and transphobic viewpoint to take, and just perpetuates the stigma that to be transgender is to somehow be lesser. It could possibly be that oversensitive people rub others the wrong way, and discourages them from acquiescing to their requests. Sulphuric Asshole fucked around with this message at 12:22 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 12:19
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:It's not as simple - if Donald Trump demanded to be referred to as lordsir, pronoun wise, you'd flip him off. What is the difference between misgendering someone, and referring to Donald trump as "he" even after he has stated an explicit, and possibly even genuine, desire to be addressed as lordsir? There is one, but I hope this shows how it's not quite as simple as you're making it out to be. It is very simple: it's different depending on how much I identify with the 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 12:19
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:It could possibly be that oversensitive people rub others the wrong way, and turns them off of acquiescing to their reauests. You do rub me the wrong way, but if I were to mistreat you because of that, I would be doing the wrong thing, and compounding my immoral behavior if I blamed you for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 12:21
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:You do rub me the wrong way, but if I were to mistreat you because of that, I would be doing the wrong thing, and compounding my immoral behavior if I blamed you for it. i disagree your wrong
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 12:22
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:You do rub me the wrong way, but if I were to mistreat you because of that, I would be doing the wrong thing, and compounding my immoral behavior if I blamed you for it. If I was being a big baby about things, I wouldn't expect my sensibilities to be catered to, and I'd imagine that is the case for most people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 12:23
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:If I was being a big baby about things, I wouldn't expect my sensibilities to be catered to, and I'd imagine that is the case for most people. Okay, I won't cater to your sensibilities, then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 12:28
|
|
|
blowfish posted:It is very simple: it's different depending on how much I identify with the
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 12:29
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:This is probably true, but that's a cause, not a reason. What would a reason be? You're a smart person, you can probably imagine some reasons somebody in favor of "pronoun respect" would bring forward for why they'd treat the Trump case differently than the trans case. Since I don't consider any socially constructed identities real, I don't care beyond "people are stupid and do retarded poo poo".
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 12:50
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Since I don't consider any socially constructed identities real, I don't care beyond "people are stupid and do retarded poo poo".
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:But you'll also probably admit this is not because they have zero reason, but because you're unwilling to engage. Unless those people want to implement their dumb poo poo in badly thought out policy I really don't want to. Too bad we're now at that point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 12:58
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Unless those people want to implement their dumb poo poo in badly thought out policy I really don't want to. Too bad we're now at that point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 13:02
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I really believe it can be helpful for all involved to find commonalities and actual differences. This includes the reasons here for treating the hypothetical Trump and misgendering cases differently. Last I checked Trump didn't have a 50% suicide rate. But hey, keep equivocating folks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
Archonex posted:Last I checked Trump didn't have a 50% suicide rate. If something is supposed to be valid, it needs to be valid regardless of the suicide rate of people it applies to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 13:43
|
|
|
blowfish posted:If something is supposed to be valid, it needs to be valid regardless of the suicide rate of people it applies to. Archonex posted:Last I checked Trump didn't have a 50% suicide rate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 13:51
|
|
|
Archonex posted:Last I checked Trump didn't have a 50% suicide rate. We're doing the best we can 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 13:59
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:I feel like this thread in a nutshell is: There have been hints of that process, of legitimate debate and discussion, but unfortunately, too many are simply entering the thread with their baggage, of what they reckon is being said. No one wants to talk, they just want to yell, or scoff. jivjov posted:A lot of people on that second side are taking it quite a bit further; either implying or outright stating that people using neopronouns (or identifying non-binary at all) are failing some societal duty or are being "excessively" deviant. This is an incredibly toxic and transphobic viewpoint to take, and just perpetuates the stigma that to be transgender is to somehow be lesser. That's sad, I thought there was more to go. Dunno where you're getting voyeurism or homophobia from though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
rudatron posted:
Go read some of Amused to Death's posts about non-binary people. Full on dismissal of a non-binary person's self expression jivjov fucked around with this message at 14:20 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Your feelings are wrong. This sums up the entire anti-pronoun crowd in this thread, well done. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Go read some of Amused to Death's posts about non-binary people. Full on dismissal of a non-binary person's self expression Like how are you making the connection between - 'dismissing them' -> 'they are lesser'. You can hold two people to exactly the same standard, which may result in believing one and not believing the other, without regarding either of them as intrinsically lesser. In fact, it can be demeaning to hold people to different standards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Having the ability to self-express does not mean that other people have to take you seriously, and while I can't speak for Amused To Death, I don't think they were advocating denying that ability. Telling a non binary person "no; you are wrong about your own identity and are Doing It Wrong" is to tell them that they are lesser. That would be no different than telling a trans man "no, you're actually a woman, stop getting your own identity wrong, that's not a real thing" To doubt someone's sincere self identity is to tell them they are lesser than those you believe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Unless those people want to implement their dumb poo poo in badly thought out policy I really don't want to. Too bad we're now at that point. What's the badly thought out policy here? Nobody's looking for legal sanctions on anyone who misgenders people or whatever
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
I asked you how you made the connection, I did not ask you to simply restate your belief in that connection, with more filler words. If someone says something you cannot believe, and you inform them of this, do you necessarily think lesser of that person, that they are somehow of less value? Additionally, if you believe those two cases are necessarily equivalent, does the same apply to any of the 'zany' cases brought up before, like identifying as an animal? If not, you cannot make that equivalence, because you're admitting the existence of a set of standards that have to applied, first, before you get to 'doubting someone's sincere self-identity'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 08:15 |
|
|
rudatron posted:I asked you how you made the connection, I did not ask you to simply restate your belief in that connection, with more filler words. If someone says something you cannot believe, and you inform them of this, do you necessarily think lesser of that person, that they are somehow of less value? Additionally, if you believe those two cases are necessarily equivalent, does the same apply to any of the 'zany' cases brought up before, like identifying as an animal? If not, you cannot make that equivalence, because you're admitting the existence of a set of standards that have to applied, first, before you get to 'doubting someone's sincere self-identity'. I'm saying that if you have an actual case as for doubting someone, present it as such. Don't just say "nope you're wrong". Have a dialog. Discuss it. Present rational evidence. Don't just say "lololol wacky pronouns and singular theys? What a liar" Edit: and at the end of the day though; a person's self identity trumps pretty much any evidence you want to bring to bear. If someone says "I identify as androgynous and use a certain pronoun", there's no way for another person to definitively prove that wrong. jivjov fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 15:25
|
|