Gender pronoun entitlement vs religious entitlement

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Gender pronoun entitlement vs religious entitlement

Orange Fluffy Sheep: Jul 26, 2008; Bad EXP received

One is a person being able to define themselves. The other is a person being able to define others.

The first one is freedom, the second one is not freedom.

# ¿ Mar 22, 2016 17:29

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 00:43

Orange Fluffy Sheep: Jul 26, 2008; Bad EXP received

blowfish posted:

What about genderfluid hipsters? In particular, genderfluid dragonkin/flowerkin transspecies hipsters who refer to themselves as "bloomself"?

at some point it's not a legit identity anymore, just attention seeking by neglected tweens

Why are you equating these things? Why did you immediately go off the deep end to the most extreme possible option?

The fluid nature of gender identity is a bit removed from otherkin, because we tend to all be humans but we don't tend to all have the same sex and gender, and we throw a lot of social baggage on that.

And does it really affect you if someone else is doing these things? If someone legit starts lobbying for flowerkin rights then we can laugh bloom out of the room. But if it's on someone's tumblr profile you should really stop getting mad at children IMO.

# ¿ Mar 22, 2016 21:11

Orange Fluffy Sheep: Jul 26, 2008; Bad EXP received

Commie NedFlanders posted:

Isn't civil society fundamentally based on limiting the absolute freedom of the individual?

I don't understand the ethical justification for maximizing individual freedom, thst seems like a fundamentally anti-social attitude.

In the sense I can't kill you and/or steal your possessions without some kind of negative repercussions happening to me.

If I want to go by Bill instead of my current name that's entirely different. How I define myself has extremely little bearing on you and thus does not need to be limited, unless asking you to use a different name when referring to me is somehow that much of a burden.

quote:

The only people who can freely define themselves are total psychotics living outside of the social realm, they are free to believe they are whatever they please, up to and including Napoleon or Jesus.

Our identities are not, and have never been, our own. They are forged in the fires of society, cut by the limitations imposed by an Other, and only seen by us through the reflections in the eyes of our neighbors.

From the moment the toddler achieves the Mirror Stage and begins forming their own ego, their own sense of self as a complete and autonomous being, they begin relying on external cues to limit and determine the contours of their identity.

Children who fall down often look at the reaction of their parents before they begin (or don't) crying, as if they need e outside world, society as they know it, to inform them of their own subjective experience of pain. Children learn from others what to desire.

Our identity is formed by the millions of little interactions that someone has with the world, and as such, our identities are Social Constructs.

This doesn't mean, like some people think, thst we should be free to monopolize them if we please. My identity exists only in relation to other people in society, and is shaped by the symbolic boundaries and expectations that come from from others.

So if our social identities are communally formed, and negotiated between the subject and other people on society and the shape of the symbolic space that mediates these social relations.....where do these gender activists get the idea that their own private conception of themselves should trump everyone else's, amd why do they expect an ethical injunction to dictate that everyone else, the world, conform to their own imagination?

You're Jim and you're a fireman. Go put out fires.

By your logic, if enough people agree with me, you are now Jim the fireman and are obligated to put out fires.

That is, of course, ridiculous. You've gone too far in the other direction and give people no freedom to define themselves. While people are influenced by their environment, that influence is not as absolute as you make it sound. You treat people like empty shells rather than intelligent minds, like robots responding to programming and inputs instead of emotional and thinking creatures.

quote:

TLDR: I get the idea of just being nice and polite and humoring people, but >99.9% of people have no choice I'm their gender. I didn't choose my gender, and my gender hasn't always been peachy perfect for me, I haven't always felt like an ideal Platonic from of my gender, but I never got to choose it. Individuals are determined by society, they don't get to determine society, and trying to force society to conform to your own inner narrative seems authoritarian in nature

Sex is the biological trait. Gender is also a social construct. A female gets pregnant. A woman is expected to find a man who financially supports her and have children. The two have historically had a relationship, but it's not necessary that they do, once you get past the idea of limited gender roles determined by sex.

What is society besides a collection of individuals? Is society some sort of outside force, a wizard in a castle that says on the megaphone that disco is no longer popular? The individuals within society act, and those actions are what determines society. Without the individuals and their choices of action, there wouldn't be society.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 02:16

Orange Fluffy Sheep: Jul 26, 2008; Bad EXP received

Commie NedFlanders posted:

If I get a restraining order on you, should you be allowed to bypass it by changing your name?

Our identities carry crucial social functions outside of our own minds

Who said that I was transforming my identity into another person? I am merely defining me. I am the same physical, mental, and legal entity. Saying I'm Bill now doesn't change that I'm me, it merely refines that concept.

A transperson isn't a new creature, they're the same person as before, just with a new understanding of themselves.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 02:25

Orange Fluffy Sheep: Jul 26, 2008; Bad EXP received

Commie NedFlanders posted:

This is the reason certain social identities are protected. You cannot put on a police uniform and walk around pretending to be a police officer, even if it's just for your own amusement.

That's because being a police officer involves legally-granted authority beyond the average person, such as arresting and transport to prison etc. Mimicking a police officer is a threat to the social order because misrepresenting that authority threatens the stability in a variety of ways. Even if I personally do it for fun and don't abuse the authority, there are enough advantages for a person to exploit for nefarious purposes that it isn't allowed.

Saying I'm Bill now or a man saying she's a woman does not threaten stability unless we really are on the world's slipperiest slope. There is no legally-granted authority to Bills or to women that I could abuse. I cannot say my profession is whatever and expect the privileges that come with it, like police and the power of arrest. But what privileges are their to my name, or gender identity?

Commie NedFlanders posted:

The issue I disagree with is, is this idea that your identity is something private and that exists only in your own mind. It's just not, it's a social formation that exists only insofar as it is mediated by society.

There is no "you" outside of the symbolic supports of society, you need other people to validate and confirm your social identity and because of that, your identity is not entirely your own.

We disagree on a rather fundamental level, then, but I understand where you're coming from a bit better.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 02:44

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Gender pronoun entitlement vs religious entitlement