Gender pronoun entitlement vs religious entitlement

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

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

rudatron posted:

Now, with that out of the way: I don't think it's right to just dismiss inter-subjective bonding, the issue is that this requirement currently conflicts with trans individuals and their self-expression. I believe these two things can be reconciled, but we've got to approach this seriously. First things first: what you look like has consequences. If you're making a choice to transition, and it's unlikely you'll 'pass' as the gender your transitioning into, you've made the wrong choice. What you feel you really are 'deep inside' is pointless, if you can't look like the gender you're aiming for, then you effectively have not actually transitioned. That may be a problem of technology, so in the future maybe it will work better, but gender is absolutely a performance you do. In order to perform, you need to not just want to perform, but actually technically perform. So I disagree that bathroom/pronouns/other poo poo should necessarily be legal-sex-based, but it absolutely should be perception-based. The correct designation for you is 100% what you superficially look like.

I think this is the best reconciliation between these two points. People get to feel comfortable in a familiar environment, and the people who can, uh, 'cheat' the rules a bit get to self-express. Eventually technology will get to the point where you can look like what you want, which I think will be great, but we're not there yet, so you deal with what you have.

Is there a coherent school of thought that says the inner life is totally irrelevant in the social sphere?

You see it come up here and there in philosophy, e.g.,

quote:

Observe yourselves thus in your actions, and you will find of what sect you are. You will find that most of you are Epicureans; a few are Peripatetics, and those but loose ones. For by what action will you prove that you think virtue equal, and even superior, to all other things? Show me a Stoic, if you have one. Where? Or how should you? You can show, indeed, a thousand who repeat the Stoic reasonings. But do they repeat the Epicurean less well? Are they not just as perfect in the Peripatetic? Who then is a Stoic? As we call that a Phidian statue which is formed according to the art of Phidias, so show me some one person formed according to the principles which he professes.

and theology, e.g.,

quote:

If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 18:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 13:43

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

Who What Now posted:

Why not? You're already "violating 10,000 years of sexuality and gender" by not assigning them a gender (which for some reason is... bad?), so what makes slightly changing one singular syllable such an onerous burden?

It's funny you refer to "xe", "zir" and/or "ve" as words of an incantation because what those pronouns mean - and especially because you cannot anticipate when they are used - is that someone gets to unilaterally decide how they are categorized, at their leisure, and it is hateful or discriminatory not to indulge them. They really are supposed to be like magic words in that respect.

I think what most people are recoiling against with regards to new or personalized pronouns specifically is the raw egotism of expecting someone to simply subordinate themselves to your idiosyncrasies before interaction even takes place. This isn't a kathoey/two spirit thing either, where there is a culturally accepted third gender or otherwise a pigeonhole to put the person in outside the typical male/female binary. It's someone saying "You will use new pronouns for me because I said so." It's the gender politics equivalent of a band's onerous backstage demands.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 18:54

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

Who What Now posted:

So you think that basic decency to another human being = actual magic. Well that certainly explains a lot about your position.

I don't think it's basic decency. Basic decency is not expecting people to accommodate your special snowflakeisms. Is it basic human decency to accommodate your goth friend when they insist their name is now Raven?

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 20:20

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

I guess we just have fundamentally opposed perspectives on the place and role of the individual in society.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 20:43

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

Effectronica posted:

This is, like every single post on the subject disagreeing with basic human decency,

Maybe you should define what you think basic human decency entails, generally.

# ¿ Mar 24, 2016 13:29

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

Effectronica posted:

You pack the fewest ideas into the most words of anyone in this thread. All you've got is "conformity good" and "ur a transphobe".

Get this: conformity is good.

# ¿ Mar 24, 2016 17:01

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

Effectronica posted:

I'm deeply appreciative of your desire to exterminate gays with our nonconforming sexuality, and of the necessity of converting you to the Gay Agenda. I could use a new toaster.

I don't want to exterminate gays with nonconforming sexualities, though. You are, as with so many other things, completely mistaken.

# ¿ Mar 24, 2016 17:11

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

Effectronica posted:

But you just said that conformity was good. Were you making a totally irrelevant comment, or are you willing to admit that nonconformity is OK? Not that this will stop me from getting my free toaster, breeder.

Nonconformity is okay (permissible), and conformity is good (moral).

# ¿ Mar 24, 2016 17:17

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

Effectronica posted:

So the immorality of my existence as a dicksucking homo is "permissible". Thanks pal. Mind elaborating?

Not everything is about you and your sexual proclivities, Effectronica

# ¿ Mar 24, 2016 17:29

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

Given that I have no way of understanding, knowing or evaluating the internal life of other people, how do I know when to accommodate someone or when to roll my eyes and scoff? Or do I just indulge otherkins and people with "headmates" for fear of being rude?

# ¿ Mar 28, 2016 01:16

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

OwlFancier posted:

Take a guess and we'll be sure to correct you when you get it wrong.

This doesn't provide me any guidance and leaves me at square one. Even if I am corrected, I have no way of knowing if I should put any stock in that correction.

# ¿ Mar 28, 2016 01:22

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

Troposphere posted:

how often do you run into otherkin and headmates people or have to refer to them in conversation? I went to art school and I didn't even have that happen, so maybe don't worry about outlandish hypotheticals.

I knew a girl who claimed to have headmates so it isn't a hypothetical for me.

e.
They were all anime characters or something and it sounded outlandish but so does a non-binary gendlr, frankly.

e2.
I also know a guy who ~~claimed~~ earnestly believed he had schizophrenia that manifested as three different 'people' in his head.

unlimited shrimp fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Mar 28, 2016

# ¿ Mar 28, 2016 01:24

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

Troposphere posted:

maybe just don't talk to that person again if it's something that really bothers you? I really don't understand this. I met a ton of obnoxious people in college and if they bothered me I just avoided them and took myself out of the situation instead of being rude to their faces. and headmates and otherkin really have nothing to do with gender identity...

I get that and frankly I am not so righteous in my indignation that I would ever hurt someone's feelings over this poo poo in the real world, but this is a forum where I can play with ideas so whatever, here I am being a jerk.

And I get that otherkin and headmates don't have anything to do with gender identity, and I get that the psychological distress that often haunts those with non-conforming gender identities gives gender identity issues a weight tumblrina nonsense doesn't have.

But the question remains, given that I have no way of truly understanding, knowing or evaluating the internal life of other people, how do I know when someone's nonbinary identity is valid (i.e. a genderqueer person with unconventional pronouns) or is invalid or even problematic (ie. otherkins)?

unlimited shrimp fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Mar 28, 2016

# ¿ Mar 28, 2016 01:35

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

What is the broader "goal" (for lack of a better word) of accommodating idiosyncratic gender expressions? What values are being promoted or reinforced?

# ¿ Mar 28, 2016 03:22

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

OwlFancier posted:

It demonstrably makes trans people less likely to kill themselves. That's pretty important.

Also it serves to help destroy gender as a binary and prescriptive construct, same as gay acceptance seems to be destroying sexuality as a binary and prescriptive construct.

Let's set trans rights aside because they seem categorically different from things like genderqueer-ness or other non-trans, non-binary identities. In a binary system, a 1 saying they are a 0 is a lot different than a 1 saying they are a 3.

If I was going to slot nonbinary identities in to a broader ethical framework, where would it go? Egoist anarchism? Subjectivism? Or to put it another way, how do you accommodate nonbinary identities into (for example) a collectivist morality?

# ¿ Mar 28, 2016 03:46

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

SwimmingSpider posted:

It's a pretty simple one : to help people feel comfortable in their own skin.

What are the limits of this?

OwlFancier posted:

I don't understand your second question, you accept it the same way you do any other gender identity? However you do that is presumably up to you?

Why is expanding or destroying the concept of gender preferable to a binary system? On what grounds is the former justified?

If it's because it "demonstrably makes trans [individuals] less likely to kill themselves," what if you don't think the(/any) individual is all that sacred to begin with?

# ¿ Mar 28, 2016 04:12

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

Ocrassus posted:

Oh I think I know this one.. It's where the pigeon shits all over the chessboard and flies off.

If you disagree with the maxim 'we as a society should be willing to take considerable steps to prevent suicides', then I don't think there is anything further to discuss.

I guess that's where it breaks down, then. Whether or not you think "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me," should be an ordering force in society.

# ¿ Mar 28, 2016 04:20

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

SwimmingSpider posted:

I would say up the point where such accomodations infringe on your or someone else's safety or well-being. So if someone's pronouns were a slur, or if you had a bomb strapped to your body that was wired to detonate if you said "xe", then sure, that seems like an appropriate situation to ignore their request, but outside of extreme circumstances like that, I can't think of any realistic limits.

Libertarianism is bad.

OwlFancier posted:

Seriously how can you not value the individual but somehow magically value the collective? The collective is a collective of individuals and the wellbeing of the collective is comprised of the wellbeing of its components.

Is this the same thinking that leads to an idealist thinking they can change The System all on their lonesome, or activists thinking shaming an individual jackass will do anything about structural inequalities?

We're not a small tribe wherein every person counts. Trends matter, not individuals.

# ¿ Mar 28, 2016 04:40

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

OwlFancier posted:

Trends are made up of individuals you pillock. You might as well say that we don't need to care about healthcare because only individuals can actually die.

No, it's like saying we shouldn't care about funding hyper-expensive niche pharmaceuticals even if it means a fraction of the population might die. It's a tragedy for them and their families; society in general carries on as usual.

# ¿ Mar 28, 2016 04:50

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

OwlFancier posted:

Traditional gender roles are actively detrimental to the majority of society, though. So it's not at all like that?

I doubt very much that even a significant minority of society views the gender binary as oppressive unto itself.

# ¿ Mar 28, 2016 05:08

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

Let's not defend the feelings of neckbeards, although there's something ironic about a trans person scoffing at a philosophical system that prizes rational self-interest and individual rights above all else.

# ¿ Mar 28, 2016 15:58

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

jivjov posted:

Because it costs literally nothing to do so. It harms no-one.

If you believe that individualism is too dominant an ethos in Western culture, then it follows that you may not want to indulge someone with a de facto narcissistic concern with being perceived "correctly" regardless of how they actually appear, or someone who arrogantly insists that society reshape itself to accommodate them when is they who should accommodate society.

SwimmingSpider posted:

how does having a gender outside of the binary reinforce the binary.

A ternary system is one better than a binary system, I guess.

# ¿ Mar 29, 2016 03:13

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

Brainiac Five posted:

What is the limit of the violence that can be used to make someone accommodate society?

How violent is internet eye rolling?

# ¿ Mar 29, 2016 03:25

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

Brainiac Five posted:

So in other words, people should accommodate society, but nothing be done to ensure that this happens. This seems like a really interesting morality, where you uphold it by refusing to uphold it. Did you get it from Zen Buddhism? The Three Stooges?

How violent is thinking society at large does not have an ethical obligation to accommodate atypical expressions of identity?

SHISHKABOB posted:

"shut up and accommodate" would be ok if these conflicts about identity weren't a representation of a struggle against oppression.

I mean like, not everyone is treated by society-at-large the way you are. You're arguing as if everyone was you. But that's not the case!

No, I'm aware that not everyone is me. From my privileged position, I can see that an individual's feelings aren't automatically sacrosanct just because they are felt intensely.

# ¿ Mar 29, 2016 03:39

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

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.

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?

# ¿ Mar 29, 2016 16:22

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

OwlFancier posted:

Because segregation is a bad thing.

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?

# ¿ Mar 29, 2016 16:25

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

OwlFancier posted:

In that desegregation is a necessary part of creating a better society. Enforcing the gender binary is not.

Doesn't that entirely depend on what you mean by "better" society?

# ¿ Mar 29, 2016 16:29

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

OwlFancier posted:

Yes, if you think that segregation is good and gender binaries are good, you are wrong.

Why?

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.

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.

~~Didn't they make a choice when they decided to present as trans?~~

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

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

jivjov 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.

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.

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.

You haven't answered the question. We haven't been through anything.

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

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

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

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

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.

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?

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

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

Who What Now posted:

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?

For years I dealt with a destructive alcoholic, who ended up in jail over a second DUI after almost running down a construction crew; who insisted throughout that they were very serious about wanting to get better and knew in the heart that their behavior was wrong, but who hedged every admission of there being a problem with the assertion that they had been failed by everyone around them. That person made me extremely wary of anyone who claims that there is something socially meaningful about a secret inner world that doesn't jive with how they behave. You are what you do, and only a broken, unwell and/or dangerous individual can generate such a yawning chasm between what they claim (with all their heart!), and how they present. I can't help but sneer at anyone who insists their feelings trump their community's perceptions, or that they are anything more than how they are perceived by others.

If you want to be perceived as other than you are, then do it. If you can't do it then that is your failure.

# ¿ Mar 29, 2016 19:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 13:43

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

Who What Now posted:

I'm confused by the bolded sentence. Was the alcoholic saying that they wanted to change but couldn't because the people around them were failing (to keep them away from alcohol, I'm assuming?), or did the alcoholic not believe that the people around them were failing them (again I'm assuming by keeping them away from booze?)?

Regardless, that seems like a very poor reason to take such a position considering that alcoholism is a disease that literally affects the brain in ways that make it extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to work against. Your position also assumes that people always behave completely rationally at all times, which just isn't the case.

"If only for X, then I would get healthy and be better."
"I know I have a problem, but I can't get better unless everyone does X."
"What I'm asking you to do isn't enabling, it's helping me to get better."

I don't assume everyone behaves rationally at all times. Most people, most of the time, are not methodically cognizing their behavior. However, most people are capable of rational thinking at some point. If you are consistently making negative, destructive decisions, despite constant warnings, despite constant offers of help, and you're taking no steps to get better, then it really doesn't matter how much you feel you want to get better 'inside'. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck then it's irrelevant if it thinks its a tiger and wants to be seen as such.

# ¿ Mar 29, 2016 20:12

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