|
OwlFancier posted: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? I'm asking because I'm struggling to find a logical distinction. It is not obvious to me. Is it an appeal to oppression of marginalized groups? Is gender identity more relevant than other elements of identity? I honestly don't know. If there is an easy/obvious difference please let me know, it would be great. I mean, it certainly feels like I should use individual and pronouns (and I would), but I don't actually see the difference in respecting other peoples identity, but that leads to 'lordsir' . So I am asking for the difference.
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:15 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yes, if you think that segregation is good and gender binaries are good, you are wrong. Or if you don't care to explain that, maybe you could expand on the ethics you are endorsing by smashing the binary and normalizing non-binary identities. What is the broader aim or goal of this? Or to put it another way, if someone doesn't care about any one individual's happiness or distress, why might they still want to endorse the queering of the gender binary? jivjov posted: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. Why does it matter if it's internal or external? If a religious person has been indoctrinated as you say, how is their conflict any less internalized than a trans person who believes their body doesn't match their identity? unlimited shrimp fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:
Did you make a choice to be cisgender? (Assuming you are; please correct me if I'm wrong!) Someone "presenting" as the gender they were born as is not the same as choosing to discriminate against someone due to a voluntarily religious affiliation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Nostalgic Cashew posted:I'm asking because I'm struggling to find a logical distinction. It is not obvious to me. Is it an appeal to oppression of marginalized groups? Is gender identity more relevant than other elements of identity? I honestly don't know. If there is an easy/obvious difference please let me know, it would be great. I mean, it certainly feels like I should use individual and pronouns (and I would), but I don't actually see the difference in respecting other peoples identity, but that leads to 'lordsir' . So I am asking for the difference. All of the above. Look I'm assuming you have an intuitive feeling that indulging donald trump's egotism is probably not a thing you need to do, while your friend who happens to be trans maybe you should be a bit nicer to. That intuitive feeling is there for a reason and just about any post-hoc rationalization you can come up with will probably be correct. There are an abundance of small reasons which individually perhaps don't mean much but taken as a whole should lead you to the conclusion that donald trump is already very privileged and doesn't need indulging, whereas the average trans person is probably in a lot of pain as a result of their condition and you should do what you can to make their life easier and accept them as a person. the trump tutelage posted:Why? We've been through this. If you don't care about any one individual's happiness or distress, and if you need me to explain why segregation is bad, then the basis of your morality is crap and I don't have the ability to fix it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because it's a poor analogy and equivocating the two is disingenuous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
jivjov posted: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"? Amused to Death posted:Yes. At best one could argue trans and intersexed people occupy an outsider place on the binary, but that's because of an unusual life experience and/or mixture of male and female physical characteristics. Like being androgynous and breaking gender roles doesn't make you non binary, or Xir or whatever gender variant Amused to Death posted:Whatever you say, Xir 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. ^ At least someone here isn't nuts. This is what I want to know, how do neopronouns/personalized pronouns actually work in real life, how are they not just trying to be a special snowflake. Like how does Xir or a litany of others work(Xir, are you really too dense to figure out I'm not calling you Xir to misgender you, I'm doing it because you defended neopronouns and I find them absurd) off the internet and in a larger social sense? What are the biological and cultural characteristics often associated with Xir? How do I perceive a Xir? What can one do to make it more likely that they will be perceived as Xir? And aren't many of these things like demigirl or people identifying as non binary not because they have any severe qualms about their gender/have factually a non binary biological existence, but because in fact identify with a couple of masculine/feminine traits of the opposite gender just essentially placing gender roles on steroids?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:^ You perceive a Xir when someone tells you that their preferred pronoun is Xir. There is no reason to expect anyone to be able to gender someone on sight without interacting with them at all. It's no different than learning someone's name.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
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 that in the social justice ideology there exists a cosmic scale of oppression of various social groups. Those who are at the top of the cosmic scale of oppression (most oppressed) get their concerns listened to and society is to kowtow to their demands. Those who are at the bottom's demands (least oppressed) are trumped by the those who are higher on the scale. Christians are lower on the cosmic scale of oppression than transexuals, so we that's why we kowtow to the transexuals and not the Christians. The problem is that it's not totally clear how to rank on the cosmic scale of oppression which group is the most oppressed. Not surprisingly, each marginalized group views itself as being the most oppressed and it isn't clear how to resolve conflicts when social justice proponents can't agree on which group's concerns should trump the other. The fact that determining the cosmic scale of oppression isn't straightforward is a major source of headache in the social justice community and this issue is granted the fancy term of 'intersectionality'. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Did you make a choice to be cisgender? (Assuming you are; please correct me if I'm wrong!) Also I am cis, yes. OwlFancier posted:We've been through this. If you don't care about any one individual's happiness or distress, and if you need me to explain why segregation is bad, then the basis of your morality is crap and I don't have the ability to fix it. Is it your contention that the maximizing of individual happiness ought to be a society's goal? If so, what are the limits of this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:^ As the pronoun is a novel one what it means is up to the individual. It doesn't need a universal meaning as it isn't for your benefit that it exists. If you want to take issue with people trying to understand their gender identity using the gestalt concepts of gender that already exist then I think it makes very little sense to also complain about nonstandard pronouns. Do you want people to express things in terms of existing common use or do you want them to make up new ones? Either way it is entirely understandable that people would feel best able to express their identity as a composite of existing ideas rather than trying to articulate entirely novel ones. It also makes sense that people would feel comfortable in existing identities because that is entirely the reason why cisgendered individuals exist. Complaining that people identify with fragments of other genders is rather silly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:You haven't answered the question. We haven't been through anything. Yes we have, I've already explained to you that the wellbeing of the whole is contingent on the wellbeing of the individuals comprising the whole, and also that there is no reason why gender binaries need to exist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yes we have, I've already explained to you that the wellbeing of the whole is contingent on the wellbeing of the individuals comprising the whole, and also that there is no reason why gender binaries need to exist. Is maximizing wellbeing also maximizing happiness?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:I wasn't reading closely enough and it was a dumb reply. However, I don't think religious convictions are as wishy-washy as you're implying here. You yourself referred to "indoctrination" in the earlier post. Indoctrination can be broken. In early childhood religion wasn't a part of my life at all. Around age 8 or 9 my family started to go to church and I drank the kool-aid haaaaaard. Gay people were sinners against God, marriage was a holy covenant, etc. I was sometimes uncomfortable around my best friend in the world because he was an atheist. But then I actually saw how my attitudes affected others. I saw gay people in tears because a religious family disowned them, I was present for a trans person being told to "act natural and godly and stop pretending to be a boy". And (beyond the scope of this thread) I applied some rational thought to religious dogma of creation and other science and found religion lacking. I came up against the paradox of "If everything is god's will, why pray for change?" And "if god could stop war and famine and death, but doesn't...why do we consider god to be good" and that's about the point I realized that a religious belief was way more harm to those around me than it was worth to make me feel better about an afterlife or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Also I don't care to dig back but someone last night asked me what I think the limits of refusing to accommodate are, and I think it's when refusing to accommodate destabilizes or threatens the welfare of the wider community.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:Is maximizing wellbeing also maximizing happiness? Happiness is a component of wellbeing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
So why would anyone think there is a difference between those two cases: - Donald Trump, having lost the election, with a very bruised ego, demands that from now on, everyone writing and talking to and about him must respect his personal identity, what he feels himself to be, by referring to him as lordsir. - a person with severe and clinical gender dysphoria requests to be adressed as she or as xhir although they were born with XY chromosomes, has a penis, and is legally recognized as a male. Now to a lot of people, this is a ridiculous proposition - possibly even insulting to trans people. To them, it is obviously clear where the difference is. Well, there is zero gain in yelling at people who do not see a difference here that they are wrong wrong wrong. This is not going to give anyone a proper reason for seeing a difference. But I think a reasonable cause can be made. I'm not saying this is a really well thought out position, or even that it's necessarily mine. I'm also not particularly inclined to argue or defend it, I just want to present that it's totally possible to simply present one's reasons on this issue. First, I will address a few possible reasons that I think are distractions. - Trump is actually truly upset, and he does hate not being addressed as lordsir. In fact, Trump has been diagnosed with depression resulting from severe narcissistic injury. - Correlations with reality. By all possible measures, Trump is just as much or more of a lordsir than our transgender example is a she or xhir. He even got a nobility title from somewhere, and a faux medieval castle, whereas "she" generally refers to people with two Xs and no penis, and "xhir" doesn't even exist. We don't have any strong, replicable evidence that transsexuality has a clear biological base yet, and Trump's personal delusion may well have been caused by an undiagnosed biological constellation. - The intersection of these: personal choice. Trump decides he wants to be addressed so just as much as our trans person decides for themselves. Here is the major difference I see. Donald Trump does not stand in a long and ongoing tradition of being injured over his identity. In fact, Trump stands in a long tradition of being rewarded for his identity. (Criminals also stand in a long tradition of being persecuted over their identities; but we think it only just to persecute them precisely to the degree with which the cause others harm, and our trans person does not cause anyone harm by asking for a specific pronoun.) This aspect does in fact make a gigantic difference. It's the most important difference in the world. Consider free speech, or freedom of religion, or any other liberty. They're not important in themselves, as an abstract good, they're important in what they are for. The point of defending free speech is not to keep it legal to call Black people niggers, it is to keep it legal to criticize the government and not be tortured to death by the king's personal guard over it. The point of freedom of religion is not to allow schools to not teach evolution if it makes being a fundamentalist Christian a bit harder, but to prevent pogroms against Jews. The point of freedom of the press is not to instigate hatred of immigrants, but to keep venture capitalists and lobbyists at least a bit accountable instead of allowing them to sue you into oblivion and shut down your newspaper. The point of respecting a trans person's wishes regarding their pronouns is to not stand in a long tradition of dismembering and defenestrating gay men and raping lesbian women. And it's a tradition - the Worst Tradition, in fact. If you call them a she, that's not somehow taking away an important, unique voice from the marketplace of ideas. Everyone else is still calling them a he or an it. Joining that chorus reinforces a tradition of violent intolerance. Disagreeing with it is taking a very minor stance against the Worst Tradition, or at least not joining this tradition. Because if you join in in the chorus, that's being part of all of society bearing down on that person. If you insult Trump, he has all of society his money can by to prop him up. Corollary: what if Donald Trump turns out to be trans, and wishes to be addressed as a she? He still has his money and social support, right? Yes, but when you come down on that part of society which disrespects trans people, that part is not selectively calling Trump a he against his wishes, it's making it clear that the tradition of violating trans people's concerns is generally still going on. So even if Trump/Hitler/whoever were to turn out trans, we should still grudgingly respect his (her) wishes - not for his sake, but because the Worst Tradition really doesn't need even more support. It already has a hundred million people on its side. The day persecution of trans people has become ancient history may be the day where it's cool to make a joke about them and we can all just laugh at it. (This may already be somewhere on the horizon with gays and Jews in some parts of the world.) Conversely, if people actually started being oppressed (that is, attacked not by individuals, but by society) for being Christians by the atheist mainstream, theirs would become a position deserving respect and protection. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
jivjov posted:You perceive a Xir when someone tells you that their preferred pronoun is Xir. There is no reason to expect anyone to be able to gender someone on sight without interacting with them at all. Counterpoint: human existence and/or reality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Counterpoint: human existence and/or reality. You should read the straight marriage is illegal thread, there's some lovely pictures of people who may break that assumption for you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yes we have, I've already explained to you that the wellbeing of the whole is contingent on the wellbeing of the individuals comprising the whole, and also that there is no reason why gender binaries need to exist. What if I believe that society as a whole would be happier if there was less celebration of individuality and less weight placed on individual experience and subjective truth?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:Do you believe that society is only as happy as it's unhappiest individual, then? Where does the happiness and wellbeing of 0.5% factor in to the wellbeing of society as a whole? I believe that there is always room for improvement, a society should not be stagnant, it should always change where obvious improvements can be made. the trump tutelage posted:What if I believe that society as a whole would be happier if there was less celebration of individuality and less weight placed on individual experience and subjective truth? Then again, you're wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:Do you believe that society is only as happy as it's unhappiest individual, then? Where does the happiness and wellbeing of 0.5% factor in to the wellbeing of society as a whole?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You should read the straight marriage is illegal thread, there's some lovely pictures of people who may break that assumption for you. lol you actually think these things are the same. I suppose then marijuana legalization is also on par with people not instinctively judging someone as male or female in the near future too
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:lol you actually think these things are the same. I suppose then marijuana legalization is also on par with people not instinctively judging someone as male or female in the near future too Unless you believe that some magical thing happened at some point and those people flipped from being 100% male to 100% female, then the idea that you should be able to gender people on sight is palpably false.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
The biological factors used in sexing humans are either casually invisible or defined in such a way as to create many nonbinary people with regards to sex, so they actually work against the line of argument you're using, Amused to Death.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Counterpoint: human existence and/or reality. So now you're saying non-binary people don't exist? What the gently caress are you on about, really? I have some news that may come as a shock to you: TRANS PEOPLE ARE REAL; THEY EXIST; YOU LIKELY INTERACT WITH THEM EVERY SINGLE DAY, AND NOT ALL OF THEM IDENTIFY AS STRICTLY MALE OR FEMALE
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Although it may be a great stress relief, ultimately, nobody is served well by yelling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Although it may be a great stress relief, ultimately, nobody is served well by yelling. Given than Amused to Death so far has not responded well to rational discourse, I figured that all caps might penetrate the thick wall of marginalization and bigotry that seems to serve them for a skull. If nothing else, it serves to ensure that the argument cannot be made that my position was not seen or heard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Yelling is how I assert the validity of the individual over the collective.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Given than Amused to Death so far has not responded well to rational discourse, I figured that all caps might penetrate the thick wall of marginalization and bigotry that seems to serve them for a skull.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
The idiotic Trump comparison, like all other idiotic comparisons, has no body of clinical research behind it. You picked an example to deliberately show your willful and ongoing ignorance of trans issues.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:The idiotic Trump comparison, like all other idiotic comparisons, has no body of clinical research behind it. You picked an example to deliberately show your willful and ongoing ignorance of trans issues. Also you didn't read the trump comparison posts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:What research specifically is behind your position, whatever it may be? You'll never know. I am the seal preventing you from attaining this knowledge. I'm drunk with power now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
This thread could have never handled my 1997 English Class when I learned 'Cis' 'Zhe' and 'Xir'. Were any of you even loving born yet? Talk about special snowflake. So the Trans person has a better syntax than you - grow the gently caress up. Edit: this whole thread needs to go get coffee. How anyone gets mad over made-up Operation Lollipop ideas on living, breathing people (while completely ignoring social responsibilities to other humans) seems way more delusional and deviant. Armani fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Although it may be a great stress relief, ultimately, nobody is served well by yelling. Nobody is served by you making patronizing tone arguments, either. So please stop. the trump tutelage posted:What if I believe that society as a whole would be happier if there was less celebration of individuality and less weight placed on individual experience and subjective truth? What if the moon is made cheese and childrens' toys come to life when you aren't looking? Do you actually believe this to be true, and if so on what basis do you believe it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Armani posted:Operation Lollipop This sums it up doesn't it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
If you're convinced trans people should be addressed with pronouns of their choosing, the Trump analogy is not for you. It's for those who're not. If you think it's bad, you could try doing a better one though. Or keep yelling I guess. SedanChair posted:You'll never know. I am the seal preventing you from attaining this knowledge. I'm drunk with power now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Nobody is served by you making patronizing tone arguments, either. So please stop. If someone is being turd, then "tone policing" them is reasonable, in my subjective opinion. I'm not meaning to imply that you're being a turd. Sulphuric Asshole fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
^^^^^ It's the smug, patronizing way it's being done I take issue with. Cingulate posted:Or keep yelling I guess. What does this add to the conversation? If your analogy was bad and/or people aren't responding to it the way you want it's your responsibility to come up with a new or better approach, not everyone else's. Don't get pissy because you failed at getting through to people. Armani posted:This thread could have never handled my 1997 English Class when I learned 'Cis' 'Zhe' and 'Xir'. Were any of you even loving born yet? I was 9. Have those terms really been around that long? That'd certainly take some wind out of the "words that were just recently made up" argument if they were.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Is there any way we can talk about cultural appropriation and "transracial" identities as a (very) rough analogy for transgender identities, without being banned or probated for triggering emotions? I get that using the extreme example of "blackface" is offensive, but I literally knew someone in real life, a homosexual gender-fluid "white male" who loved to act sassy and attitude like  and claimed he was a black woman on the insideI would love to get some perspective on this conundrum and how it is viewed through the viewpoints of identity politics, but if this question is too triggering please let me know and I will edit it to make it more sensitive or delete it if that's necessary I think this is a valid point because it's real and happened and maybe I'm stupid as hell but I can't figure out if and how that sort of "cultural appropriation" is acceptable or not if the person is still subverting traditional gender roles Help me out please, and if this post is offensive help me figure out how to frame it because I'm a lefty in the deep red south and I lack the privilege of knowing how to articulate these thoughts in a politically correct manner
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:15 |
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:Is there any way we can talk about cultural appropriation and "transracial" identities as a (very) rough analogy for transgender identities, without being banned or probated for triggering emotions? No, no, there isn't. Or at least, if you actually believe them being a black woman on the inside has anything to do with being trans or genderfluid it isn't. Archonex fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 19:01
|
|
