|
jivjov posted: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. At the end of the day, if that's not objectively verifiable, why should anyone need to care.
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 15:29
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
jivjov posted:To doubt someone's sincere self identity is to tell them they are lesser than those you believe. This is putting words in people's mouths.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:This is putting words in people's mouths. No; its identifying the end result of their attitude. They may not even mean to be saying "you are lesser", but that is what's being communicated. It's like the old adage about "you cannot decide that you did not offend someone." You can defend your intent all day long, but the end result is the same.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
blowfish posted:At the end of the day, if that's not objectively verifiable, why should anyone need to care. Because the world isn't made up exclusively of sociopaths who only care about their own feelings. ]Even if you can't objectively verify it for yourself, a person's own gender identity is unarguable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
jivjov posted:No; its identifying the end result of their attitude. They may not even mean to be saying "you are lesser", but that is what's being communicated. Then perhaps some people should feel lesser for being oversensitive about things. People don't have the right to not be offended.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:Then perhaps some people should feel lesser for being oversensitive about things. People don't have the right to not be offended. People also have to justify their reason for giving offence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
jivjov posted: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. Gender terms do not have this level of first person/third person asymmetry, precisely because of what you said in your first paragraph (that there can possibly be evidence to the contrary). I'm not really sure what you mean by definitively prove if you are claiming that gender terms are asymmetrical in this fashion, because the sort of evidence upon which their employment would rest would necessarily be internal and unattached to performance (e.g. that someone claims they are a man is not attached to behaviours that we associate with being one). Since that is not the case of typical gender terms (if it were, concerns about body image would not be a problem for some), what makes it so of non-typical ones?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:People also have to justify their reason for giving offence. I don't believe that justification is always necessary. Some folks will be offended, and try to make others walk on eggshells, regardless of how much you justify yourself or coddle them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:Then perhaps some people should feel lesser for being oversensitive about things. People don't have the right to not be offended. Are you seriously playing the "stop being so sensitive and getting offended about your personal identity" card? Really?? I thought I was having a rational discussion, not posting in the comments section of some trashy conservative Facebook page.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:I don't believe that justification is always necessary. Some folks will be offended, and try to make others walk on eggshells, regardless of how much you justify yourself or coddle them. No you must always justify it, in giving offence you have done something wrong, it may be the lesser wrong but it's still wrong. If all you can come up with is "I don't have to justify myself to you" in response then I think that illustrates who the one with the problem is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No you must always justify it, in giving offence you have done something wrong, it may be the lesser wrong but it's still wrong. If all you can come up with is "I don't have to justify myself to you" in response then I think that illustrates who the one with the problem is. Sometimes the justification will be "I did not mean to cause offense" and that's okay...but it should be followed up with "how can I avoid causing further offense"
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
Offense itself is not wrong. There will always be someone, somewhere offended about whatever you are saying. If what you are saying causes nobody offense, it is trivial and uninteresting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No you must always justify it, in giving offence you have done something wrong I don't believe this to be true. Some people are just obtuse and controlling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Offense itself is not wrong. There will always be someone, somewhere offended about whatever you are saying. If what you are saying causes nobody offense, it is trivial and uninteresting. No offence is always wrong, because if what you are saying causes offence and informs nobody, then it is of negative value to the world. Offence may sometimes be necessary in disagreement, but you must justify it by having a purpose in causing it beyond simply wishing to cause it. Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:I don't believe this to always be true. Some people are just obtuse. Obtuse they may be but you should be capable of recognizing this as a limitation of your ability to communicate. They remain human with a human's capacity for reasoning behind their position, you simply lack the tools to express yourself to them in a way they understand. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Offence may sometimes be necessary in disagreement, but you must justify it by having a purpose in causing it beyond simply wishing to cause it. Can this get put in a sticky at the top of D&D please? So many people need to understand this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No offence is always wrong, because if what you are saying causes offence and informs nobody, then it is of negative value to the world. A Christian woman was once offended at a discussion a college friend of mine was having about his sexuality, and she interjected that we were offending her. Was my friend being a homosexual a negative value of the world?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No offence is always wrong, because if what you are saying causes offence and informs nobody, then it is of negative value to the world. quote:Offence may sometimes be necessary in disagreement, but you must justify it by having a purpose in causing it beyond simply wishing to cause it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:A Christian woman was once offended at a discussion a college friend of mine was having about his sexuality, and she interjected that we were offending her. Was my friend being a homosexual a negative value of the world? Sounds like the lady could do with listening to what he was saying so I don't think so. blowfish posted:Everything that meaningfully informs (i.e. things where positions besides "don't know" and "agree" exist) necessarily causes offence or is trivial. Perhaps, but everything that offends does not meaningfully inform. e.g "your identity is stupid lol" blowfish posted:But if you don't, offense itself doesn't really meet the threshold of "bad thing we should bother to do something about". "I am an offensive person but I shouldn't do anything about this" Hmm. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
Generally speaking, people are wrong all the time about their identity. Personal intuitions are really bad and basically never authoritative. Example: I have often heard that many poorer Americans consider themselves, and actually act in many ways congruent with being, temporally inconvenienced millionaires. Now I am not saying this is somehow a great analogy for gender identity - the point is simply that people can in principle be very wrong about what they are, by very reasonable standards. Now treating someone with respect probably always requires somehow acknowledging their self identity, and I guess it's very often absolutely essential to treating someone with basic human decency. But that is a normative statement, about what people morally deserve - not about what gives us an informed insight into what they are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Can this get put in a sticky at the top of D&D please? So many people need to understand this. Why? It's complete nonsense. Offense is subjective and internal, it's not up to every individual to justify every action that they take that could offend someone. Sometimes there are justifications for taking offense, which is probably the distinction you're looking for.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Offense itself is not wrong. There will always be someone, somewhere offended about whatever you are saying. If what you are saying causes nobody offense, it is trivial and uninteresting. It's totally important to be able to offend those in comfortable positions - the established, the mighty. But that doesn't necessarily extend to offending those who're already constantly abused.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Generally speaking, people are wrong all the time about their identity. Personal intuitions are really bad and basically never authoritative. You're correct, that is a very poor analogy. Because the response to it is "this identity is causing you to harm yourself and there are other ones available to you which fulfil your desire for self-value" which, despite much effort attempting to discover an alternative, has not been found to be true for trans people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
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. Could someone answer this? I think it would help a lot with my understanding. I get very confused when it's said that gender is an individually asserted part of identity, but other elements of identity do/don't deserve the same consideration by others.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Personal intuitions are really bad and basically never authoritative. Can this get put in a sticky at the top of D&D please? So many people need to understand this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
Nostalgic Cashew posted:Could someone answer this? I think it would help a lot with my understanding. I get very confused when it's said that gender is an individually asserted part of identity, but other elements of identity do/don't deserve the same consideration by others. IMO it's very good you're asking for clarification on something you don't yet see though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:Then perhaps some people should feel lesser for being oversensitive about things. Stop being over sensitive about the way strangers live their peaceful lives.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
Nostalgic Cashew posted:Could someone answer this? I think it would help a lot with my understanding. I get very confused when it's said that gender is an individually asserted part of identity, but other elements of identity do/don't deserve the same consideration by others. The answer is because if donald trump says he wants to be addressed as lordsir it's not because he has an identity crisis causing him severe distress it's because he's a knobhead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Krysmphoenix posted:Stop being over sensitive about the way strangers live their peaceful lives. I do what I want, when I want 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You're correct, that is a very poor analogy. Because the response to it is "this identity is causing you to harm yourself and there are other ones available to you which fulfil your desire for self-value" which, despite much effort attempting to discover an alternative, has not been found to be true for trans people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The answer is because if donald trump says he wants to be addressed as lordsir it's not because he has an identity crisis causing him severe distress it's because he's a knobhead. But I don't actually know that? I mean it's not unreasonable that he is distressed? Clearly being called "short-fingered" has caused him distress, so maybe?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Why did you waste the time to write this even? Because it's a poor analogy and equivocating the two is disingenuous. Nostalgic Cashew posted:But I don't actually know that? I mean it's not unreasonable that he is distressed? Clearly being called "short-fingered" has caused him distress, so maybe? I think you can see a difference between the two and are possibly arguing in bad faith.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The answer is because if donald trump says he wants to be addressed as lordsir it's not because he has an identity crisis causing him severe distress it's because he's a knobhead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:So if a religious person is severely distressed by being forced to interact with and validate trans people, are they allowed to hang a "Cis People Only" sign on their store front? If not, then why should some people's distress be privileged above others? Because segregation is a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because it's a poor analogy and equivocating the two is disingenuous. I am asking because I don't actually see the difference. Maybe I'm an idiot, but I would like nothing more than a clear logical difference laid out. I'd be happy with a link to something if you don't want to type it out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:So if a religious person is severely distressed by being forced to interact with and validate trans people, are they allowed to hang a "Cis People Only" sign on their store front? If not, then why should some people's distress be privileged above others? A private business can do whatever it pleases. But a "cis people only" sign should, in a just world, be the same message as a "going out of business" sign.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because segregation is a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
Nostalgic Cashew posted:I am asking because I don't actually see the difference. Maybe I'm an idiot, but I would like nothing more than a clear logical difference laid out. I'd be happy with a link to something if you don't want to type it out. Do you actually think that there is no real difference between donald trump not being addressed as lordsir at all times and a trans person not being identified as their actual gender? Do you genuinely believe each of these complaints is equally legitimate and worthy of concern? That each is suffering equally as a result of their situation? the trump tutelage posted:So to be clear, there are social concerns more important than an individual's distress, however intensely felt, and an individual's distress should not solely determine public policy? In that desegregation is a necessary part of creating a better society. Enforcing the gender binary is not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:In that desegregation is a necessary part of creating a better society. Enforcing the gender binary is not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:Doesn't that entirely depend on what you mean by "better" society? Yes, if you think that segregation is good and gender binaries are good, you are wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:So to be clear, there are social concerns more important than an individual's distress, however intensely felt, and an individual's distress should not solely determine public policy? The distress of a religious person who interacts with gay or trans people is internal to the religious person and their indoctrination, and tends to manifest as discriminatory behavior against trans or gay people. The distress of a trans person who is deliberate misgendered is external to the trans person; it is being caused by a decision and action not of their own making.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:31
|
|