Gender pronoun entitlement vs religious entitlement

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

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Ethically, the only purposes for which someone might refuse to address people how they wish to be addressed are cruelty and the will to dominate, which are unethical.

# ¿ Mar 22, 2016 17:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 13, 2024 21:54

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

blowfish posted:

Lol what kind of retarded society do you want to live in.

Idiots doing dumb poo poo and demanding everyone respect their dumb poo poo because of their self-declared special snowflake status can and should be called out as idiots. Explaining to every idiot in detail why they are an idiot is futile given the effectively unlimited supply of idiots, and nobody should be required to waste their time doing it.

And yet, if I were to simply dismiss your post as "dumb poo poo" and refuse to respect it, this would not be meekly accepted by you as the absolute truth. There's a moral in that, if you'd only avail yourself of it, as the Duchess said.

# ¿ Mar 22, 2016 22:49

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

I'm fascinated by the notion that we need to differentiate between authentic "trans" status and inauthentic "genderfluid" status, because the one is associated with a medical condition and the other is not. It merely reinforces the idea that, ideally, there would be no gender deviance beyond what is medically prescribed. A quaint and interesting notion.

# ¿ Mar 22, 2016 22:59

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

waitwhatno posted:

You are missing the point.

You can be whatever you want outside public toilets, it's a free country and I don't judge. But as far as public bathrooms are concerned, woman and men have a right to feel safe and free from creeps in them. The only way to do it in a fair way is to have some kind of formal, objective process to recognize a sex change. Self-gendering can't work with public bathrooms.

It's bad that some countries/states make this process unnecessarily complicated. It shouldn't be that way.

Lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and breeders aren't incapable of being creeps by virtue of cisgender status, mein freund. This line of reasoning, apart from "appeal-to-bigotry" special cases, leads inevitably to single-person bathrooms.

blowfish posted:

That would not be your problem and you could just ignore me if I get offended over it.

Why would that be so bad. Also, in general, gender should become less important rather than more important.

Why would it be bad if gender roles were tightly enforced? Well, bucko, that goes right against gender being less important. EQETA.

# ¿ Mar 22, 2016 23:23

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

blowfish posted:

More gender identities meeting some arbitrary standard of being valid expands the range of important gender things. People shutting up about things and being parked in one of the existing categories till people stop caring doesn't get in the way of making gender less important. Bucko. Words.

What should be the fine for crossdressing? Should we encourage women to stop wearing suits? Should being butch or fem be criminalized? Have you thought this out beyond a childish, "I don't feel comfortable with this so I'll encrust my gut feeling with blather?"

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 00:02

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

waitwhatno posted:

Same-sex sexual harassment and violence is almost non existent, compared to heterosexual harassment and violence.

Actually, not true. In terms of reported crimes, LGB people commit more sexual violence than straight women.

Also, a trans woman is going to fall under homosexual harassment and violence anyways.

Furthermore, assuming 0.1% of the population is trans, and 2% are LGB, both conservative numbers, trans women would have to be 20 times more likely to commit sexual assault merely to be as great of a threat to other women as lesbian and bi women in the same bathroom are. This is quite a bit higher than the known difference in reported assaults by straight men and women, so trans women would have to be monstrously obsessive rapists for the fear to be rational rather an example of hatred.

Additionally, the social consequences that suppress LGB harassment are also going to be working on T people as well.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 00:24

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

waitwhatno posted:

Holy poo poo, not a single person in this thread is against trans people using their desired bathroom. This is about a forty years old drunk hobo shouting that he is now genderfluid and quickly gonna rub one out in the woman bathroom.

There is nothing stopping someone from putting drag on and doing this right now. There will never be a way of fully stopping this without totalitarian brutality, single-person restrooms, or unisex restrooms. Furthermore, there's no magic test to determine an authentic trans person, so I fail to see why you're specifying "genderfluid," here.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 00:37

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

waitwhatno posted:

Except for laws, fear of consequences, social taboos, etc.

Actually, non-transgender people are pretty satisfied with the current arrangement. No need for totalitarianism at all.

No need for magic tests. Legally changing your sex is such a hassle that it is reasonable to assume that, for the most part, only people who genuinely want to live as a transman/transwoman are gonna do it.

There are no genderfluid bathrooms, you go into the man or woman bathroom. That's why I'm singling it out.

Okay, and what laws against public masturbation, social taboos about public masturbation, or consequences of public masturbation would be eliminated?

Please try to keep up. Actually preempting people from going into the wrong bathroom and being a creep requires one of those three options. Currently, all we can do is react, and that is what would be the case even if we don't have police smashing people's teeth out for being genderfluid.

How do you stop someone who hasn't legally had their birth certificate updated but passes from using the toilet that they visibly should be using? Do we have Potty Cops ^TM checking papers?

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 01:05

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

DeusExMachinima posted:

This is a pretty dumb question. If your behavior in a bathroom is questionable for whatever reason, the bathroom owner will tell you to get lost and if you refuse then the Real Cops^TM show up to collect a trespasser.

How do you stop people who pass from entering the bathroom, as waitwhatno is saying? Like, I get that your neural network looks like a pair of parallel lines, but please answer what is actually being written.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 01:17

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

waitwhatno posted:

Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, what the gently caress? Right now men don't go into woman bathrooms. If you create unisex bathrooms, man will go into the same bathrooms as woman. You do understand this, right? It doesn't matter why men don't go into woman bathrooms, be it a forcefield or magic or whatever, they just don't go in there.

What the gently caress are you talking about? You said, and I quote:

waitwhatno posted:

No need for magic tests. Legally changing your sex is such a hassle that it is reasonable to assume that, for the most part, only people who genuinely want to live as a transman/transwoman are gonna do it.

There are no genderfluid bathrooms, you go into the man or woman bathroom. That's why I'm singling it out.

That is, you are assuming that only people who have legally had their recognized sex updated can go into their appropriate bathroom. I am asking how this is to be enforced. If that's not what you meant, please retract it instead of acting incredulous when I respond to the words that you say.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 01:29

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

waitwhatno posted:

How do we currently enforce that men don't go into woman bathroom? Whatever it is, it works fantastic. Can you figure out what it is?

You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding the question.

1. You are proposing that the difference exists because it is a "huge effort to legally change your sex".

2. Therefore, it must be extremely difficult for someone who has not had their birth certificate updated but can still pass successfully to use their proper restroom.

3. Therefore, you should outline this mechanism.

Alternatively, you are saying that it is the fact of changing what's on the birth certificate which determines gender.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 01:42

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Kilroy posted:

Why should I need to explain myself to you? Why should anyone?

I don't care about this.

Why are you defensive about this?

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 01:47

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

waitwhatno posted:

OK, I can already see that you are not going to come up with the solution. Here is the answer:

For the most part, people follow social norms and rules willingly, without the need to enforce them through violence or intimidation.

Is there some sort of dread curse on you, preventing you from following the social norm of clarifying what you meant?

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 01:58

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Commie NedFlanders posted:

How would you respond to a woman who argues that having to call a transwoman a "woman", diminishes her own feminine identity which was formed through a lifetime of experiences as a girl, being treated by others as a girl, and learning first hand what it means to be a girl in a world dominated by men. If someone who grew up being treated as a male, who never had those formative experiences as a young girl, demands to be considered equivalent to a woman, would she be wrong to consider it another case of authentic feminine subjectivity being reduced to the male fantasy of femininity?

Yes, she would be wrong. First of all, because she is an imperialist, viewing her perception of femininity as the only true one, and determining all women outside of her culture, class, and circumstances to be fake plastic women. Second of all, because she's ignorant of the fact that feminine norms must necessarily be known by men so that they can know how to avoid acting like a woman, and so that they can properly police gender boundaries.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 02:06

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Kilroy posted:

"you should just sit and relax like normal people"

It's awfully presumptuous to tell me how I should urinate and downright stupid to call it abnormal when half the population does it.

Why are you so defensive about this? I read it too, and I didn't give a gently caress, so why do you give a gently caress? Are you feeling the ol' castration anxiety?

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 02:12

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Kilroy posted:

Just replying to a post? You seem to infer something that isn't there, like I'm getting the vapors or something. In fact I just read something dumb and thought to respond.

Funny, I also read something dumb and thought to respond. I genuinely want to know why you're taking that post seriously, instead of being a joke.

Commie NedFlanders posted:

I don't think you are in a position to tell someone how to value their self worth, but that's not even what I'm talking about.

It's not about self worth, it's about the qualitatively different subjective experience of growing up as a female in the eyes of society than growing up as a male and transitioning

Consider the phenomenon of "mansplaining". Why do women find it offensive ? Is it not because of the dominating privileged presumption that a man can speak for both genders? Can someone who grew up as a male really, truly understand how the Male Gaze affects women in the same way as a woman who has been subjected to it since puberty (and before)?

Can a woman growing up in the Mayan culture of Chiapas really understand what it's like to be an American woman? Do the two have much in common at all which isn't shared by a trans woman? Have you ever had an original thought in your life?

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 02:19

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Commie NedFlanders posted:

Deconstructing the symbolic relations that keep the social space consistent for your own satisfaction is selfish and anti-social

Our identities are not just for our own solipsistic naval gazing, they function as anchor points for other people to form their own identities.

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. A teacher at a school cannot have a side job as a porn star. There are reasons for this, and the reasons extend beyond the mind of that individual.

My Words to Victor Frankenstein Above the Village of Chamounix posted:

The attribution of monstrosity remains a palpable characteristic of most lesbian and gay representations
of transsexuality, displaying in unnerving detail the anxious, fearful underside of the current cultural
fascination with transgenderism. (2) Because transsexuality more than any other transgender practice or
identity represents the prospect of destabilizing the foundational presupposition of fixed genders upon
which a politics of personal identity depends, people who have invested their aspirations for social
justice in identitarian movements say things about us out of sheer panic that, if said of other minorities,
would see print only in the most hate-riddled, white supremacist, Christian fascist rags. To quote
extensively from one letter to the editor of a popular San Francisco gay/lesbian periodical:

I consider transsexualism to be a fraud, and the participants in it . . . perverted. The
transsexual [claims] he/she needs to change his/her body in order to be his/her "true self."

Because this "true self" requires another physical form in which to manifest itself, it must
therefore war with nature. One cannot change one's gender. What occurs is a cleverly
manipulated exterior: what has been done is mutation. What exists beneath the deformed
surface is the same person who was there prior to the deformity. People who break or
deform their bodies [act] out the sick farce of a deluded, patriarchal approach to nature,
alienated from true being.

Referring by name to one particular person, self-identified as a transsexual lesbian, whom she had
heard speak in a public forum at the San Francisco Women's Building, the letter-writer went on to say:

When an estrogenated man with breasts loves a woman, that is not lesbianism, that is
mutilated perversion. [This individual] is not a threat to the lesbian community, he is an
outrage to us. He is not a lesbian, he is a mutant man, a self-made freak, a deformity, an
insult. He deserves a slap in the face. After that, he deserves to have his body and mind
made well again. (3)

When such beings as these tell me I war with nature, I find no more reason to mourn my opposition to
them -- or to the order they claim to represent -- than Frankenstein's monster felt in its enmity to the
human race. I do not fall from the grace of their company -- I roar gleefully away from it like a Harleystraddling,
dildo-packing leatherdyke from hell.

Commie NedFlanders posted:

it would be inappropriate for an Americam woman to put on some Mayan clothing and walk around demanding thst they treat her just like one of their own.

Ah, dodging the question, I see.

My Words to Victor Frankenstein Above the Village of Chamounix posted:

The stigmatization fostered by this sort of pejorative labelling is not without consequence. Such words
have the power to destroy transsexual lives. On January 5, 1993, a 22-year-old pre-operative
transsexual woman from Seattle, Filisa Vistima, wrote in her journal, "I wish I was anatomically
'normal' so I could go swimming. . . . But no, I'm a mutant, Frankenstein's monster." Two months later
Filisa Vistima committed suicide. What drove her to such despair was the exclusion she experienced in
Seattle's queer community, some members of which opposed Filisa's participation because of her
transsexuality -- even though she identified as and lived as a bisexual woman. The Lesbian Resource
Center where she served as a volunteer conducted a survey of its constituency to determine whether it
should stop offering services to male-to-female transsexuals. Filisa did the data entry for tabulating the
survey results; she didn't have to imagine how people felt about her kind. The Seattle Bisexual
Women's Network announced that if it admitted transsexuals the SBWN would no longer be a
women's organization. "I'm sure," one member said in reference to the inclusion of bisexual transsexual
women, 4 6 the boys can take care of themselves." Filisa Vistima was not a boy, and she found it
impossible to take care of herself. Even in death she found no support from the community in which
she claimed membership. "Why didn't Filisa commit herself for psychiatric care?" asked a columnist in
the Seattle Gay News. "Why didn't Filisa demand her civil rights?" In this case, not only did the angry
villagers hound their monster to the edge of town, they reproached her for being vulnerable to the
torches. Did Filisa Vistima commit suicide, or did the queer community of Seattle kill her? (4)

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 02:28

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Commie NedFlanders posted:

Again, I have not once mentioned genitals, I have not once argued that ones body they are born with should be the absolute determinate factor I'm not trying to make that argument, it seems irrelevant

What I'm saying is that your identity is not your own. It's a socially formed construct that is determined by, and which also determines, external social relations with other people.

I'm saying your identity is produced by society and is therefore at least partially owned by society. Other people depend on your identity too, it's not all about you and your own satisfaction.

I'm arguing in favor of other people in society, and suggesting that this effort to monopolize one's social presence is selfish and authoritarian. You are demanding that everyone else adjust to the identity you came up with in your head.

it seems obvious that "cultural appropriation" is bad, like a suburban white kid dressing up and acting the way he imagines black people act. We can all see how thst might offend some people if he walked into black neighborhood and started talking to everyone about his thoughts on race relations, as a black man. Race is a social construct just as much as gender, why is this considered inappropriate though? So why is "gender appropriation" considered okay?

"Society", if it is sophontic, minded, hnau, whatever you wanna call it, does not interact on a personal level with us. So if your identity is owned by society, the owner is an absentee landlord. Since identity is owned by society and you, other people have no claim on it and your argument falls apart.

But if we mean by society that we are to conform to whatever the majority wants, I declare that this means that you would have cheerfully sent people to Auschwitz and I will not associate myself with such a craven person.

Crowsbeak posted:

No you see because you don't think everyone is a special little unique snowflake you are a fascist.

You cowardly crustacean of a man, crawl out from your shell and make a drat argument. This is the internet, and all that will happen is the mild sting of the possibility someone who you view with utter contempt anyways might laugh, or, worse, post earnestly at you. Say what you want to say, instead of merely hinting at it, you hermit crab in human guise.

Effectronica fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Mar 23, 2016

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 02:53

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Commie NedFlanders posted:

I love how you put this. That's brilliant.

I agree, the owner is absentee, but the other people in society are all renting, and we depend on each other to pay our dues to that absentee landlord, even if we are just stuffing money in a box and putting the box in a river.

Our social contract requires this, and our individual positions in society require all of us agreeing to more or less have some common understandings. I'm not gonna say we should go full Confucius and everyone's ultimate duty is to their role in society, but the problem is that if we weaken the inter-subjective network that holds us all together, you get people who are totally alienated from one another.

This is pure psychobabble.

quote:

I'm not speaking of society as some actuslly existing entity or agent. But more of the inter subjective space .

It's like Facebook, that's a contemporary analogy for society. We can forge our identities there and validate our sense of who we are, but in order for it to function it requires a relatively consistent and stable set of inter subjective rules.

The reason Facebook is so successful at allowing you to form your online identity is because of the inter subjective structure. You are free to out the content that you like, but it's the uniform structure that allows thst content to reliably function.

If everyone is freely allowed to make their own space the way they want, altering the structure as freely as the content, you end up with MySpace.

This is a lovely analogy.

quote:

Not at all

Why not? If society has agreed that all the Jews, Roma, gays, and disabled people are to die, won't disagreeing wreck the "inter subjective space"?

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 03:07

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Crowsbeak posted:

Society does own you. You are societies product. Also I see little reason to debate with someone who once whined about white people liking rap music and reggae.

Too bad society is a blind idiot god and can't compel anyone to do anything. Only people can do that, and if it is just to do the unspecific thing where we crush all trans people without getting any blood on our hands, it is also just for me, or any other person, to order you to be silent in the name of society, is it not? Surely, your own logic would compel you to agree that if society decided it, you would remain silent and speak no more!

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 03:09

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

The fun thing is that nobody applies this poo poo to argue that, say, tattoos should be illegalized as blasphemy against the holy inter subjective network. So it's not that being different is an offense unto this secular god, it's seeing gender as something which is not a restricting force. That is, jailers naturally hate the possibility of escape, and seek to stop it at every turn.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 03:18

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Crowsbeak posted:

How am I suggesting you be silent? I am more just pointing out that the individual really doesn't exist. You are the product of society.

So I should feel bad when playing GTA:SA as CJ and listening to radio Los Santos?

The individual does exist, because if I were to stub my toe you would not say ouch. You lose, kid.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 03:19

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Crowsbeak posted:

Not throughout the world. The individual is a rather recent creation of the west.

No. Why should I?

Wrong. This is Orientalist bullshit that relies on semantical confusion to seduce the disembrained. It actually is just the "Asian is an insectile entity" given new life, a shambling revenant racism.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 03:26

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Crowsbeak posted:

How is it orientalist to suggest the individual is a recent construction of the west, and throughout most of history that this idea of someone with absolute autonomy did not exist? You know that denial of absolute individualism that you espouse doesn't make one a collectivist right?

Like I said, semantical confusion to seduce the disembrained.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 03:46

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Crowsbeak posted:

Oh good now we are at the point where effectronica makes up words. I love this part.

I'm not the guy that confused subjectivity of perception with libertarian metaphysics just to sneer at trans people. Nor am I the guy who is unfamiliar with the word"semantics", showing himself to be bringing a pie to this intellectual gunfight. Ironically, I am also unconcerned with which exact person you are of the many who've sworn pitiful revenge oaths against me.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 03:51

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Something being a closed class doesn't mean it's literally unchangeable. It means that it shifts generationally. Why this is evil, insane, whatever slander is intended, God only knows.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 16:58

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Frosted Flake posted:

People wish "Merry Christmas" as a way of expressing their internal religious beliefs. I don't share the belief so I opt out of participating. People have their own invented identity, as is their right but I can choose not to indulge them as I don't share their belief. God is as real to the faithful as Genderfluidity is to it's adherents.

If I'm in a conversation with someone and they say "Actually my pronouns are xe/xir" I'd just say 'Okay'. I'm not out to change their minds or be an rear end in a top hat, and in a first person conversation I'd only need the call them "you". I'm not interested in talking to a stranger about their gender or sexuality anyways. The fact that I don't believe they really are a "xe" doesn't matter.

I think someone touched on this, when you meet a man or woman, gay or straight they don't put their identity on the forefront when you meet them.

Actually, anyone who doesn't dress and make themselves up completely androgynously is putting their gender identity on the forefront. Anyone who casually uses "wife/girlfriend" or "husband/boyfriend" is putting their sexual orientation on the forefront. Because these are normal and the alternatives are not, the next thing you'll do is deny any relationship between them.

I find it interesting that it's only the veneer of politeness that prevents you from screaming at quiltbag teens about how crazy they are, and that you think this makes you look moral rather than cowardly.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 22:28

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Cugel the Clever posted:

To add my (caucasian male) 2¢, gender identities and segregation of the sexes seem to be superfluous societal inventions that would all be better off dropping entirely rather than build ever more complex arbitrary hierarchies upon. Equality from the bathroom all the way up to the boardroom!

For the people attacking Frosted Flake for his/her/ofne#wo relatively level-headed counterpoints, you seem to be failing to recognize that the forcefulness with which you perceive your identities is just completely alien to some people.

Of course, my perception is probably influenced by my only identity-adjusting acquaintance being someone still struggling with serious abuse in their childhood and the non-negligible consequences that has had on their mental health.

Enforcing how people can act and dress at the point of a gun is hideously evil. I will gladly take any and all of the slanderous figures people bring up as totally unreasonable over the totalitarian desires expressed in this thread.

Calling transgenderism and gender deviance hierarchical is nonsensical. It's slander or stupidity, pick one.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 22:43

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Frosted Flake posted:

It's more of a thorough shellacking of civility than just a veneer. It must be hard being a snowflake in a world that doesn't bend to your whim, but I'm not out to harm anyone. I'm respectfully and courteously treating them as kindly as I can without indulging in their beliefs.

See, you're not actually being civil or respectful by squawking out "special snowflake! special snowflake!" like a meme-addled parrot. But even if you were, civility just means avoiding social consequences. You don't say what you really feel because you're afraid. Grow a spine.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 22:45

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Frosted Flake posted:

So I should confront people publically over our different perceptions of self-identity? I'd rather live and let live.

What's that line?

It's not my job to educate them.

You should admit you're a coward. Then you can decide whether you want to be courageous, since even though you're willing to let these people live, shining radical star that you are, you still take advantage of anonymity to safely say that you think they're all crazy, so it seems like this is at least mildly important to you.

Or you could change your mind, or wallow in fear.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 22:53

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Frosted Flake posted:

I'm glad it's so cut and dry. If I'm a coward for saying "They/Them" then it's fine by me. They occupy a radically different social sphere from me, I interact with them only in passing and for that level of interaction courtesy will do. They're not changing their minds, I'm a little more open with mine. I don't question their identity, they don't jump all over me for "toxic masculine heteronormativity" or the cause du jour.

People in polite society sometimes disagree on personal opinions.

Hey, bucko- people who aren't cowering and quaking at the thought that someone might be a bit miffed at them generally are able to cope with other people's opinions because they don't assume the other person is insane for having them. You do make this assumption, which is part of why your liver is lily in color.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 23:07

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

blowfish posted:

This is a perfectly reasonable response. Making other people invest in your own dumb poo poo does, in fact, make you the bigger rear end in a top hat.

It takes effort not to run down pedestrians crossing the road. Clearly, whoever walks is a bigger rear end in a top hat than the person who murders them with their car.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 23:18

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Frosted Flake posted:

The guy comes in supporting the triumphalist, end of history view you guys are spouting, adds socio-historical context and gets this:

Jaywalking is still a crime and pedestrians can be found at fault for collisions. It's your metaphor, make of that what you will.

Why do you post these word salads where you take things you've heard about from someone of average intelligence (thus at least twice as smart as you) and throw them into a big bowl and dress 'em with Thousand Smugness dressing?

Anyways, I'm glad you decided to come down firmly in favor of hit-and-runs, maintaining your moral batting average.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 23:25

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

blowfish posted:

Murdered pedestrians and mildly hurt feelings: literally the same thing.

are always bad, no matter whose opinions they are supposed to support

Blowfish, I know that you are of Deutscher persuasion and so unburdened by analytical thinking, but you see, the reasoning, the chain of logic, you use or plagiarized, when we apply it generally, it falls apart completely. So it is useless.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 23:28

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Somebody snickering about how only a total pussy would kill themselves is mentally incapable of treating other people decently, though it is valiant to try to educate them.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 23:41

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

blowfish posted:

nice strawman

That is what you said stripped of all the ornamentation. Just a gorgeous revelation of your failure to achieve basic humanity.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 23:44

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

What lies beneath all this poo poo about "victim complexes" is quite simply the desire that the trans individual, or the gender nonconforming individual, not exist, and only remain an individual who can be totally dismissed as insane or sick.

That is, the goal of such rhetoric is to, at first in the context of the conversation, and then generally, annihilate all trans people, all nonconformist people. And then they'll be coming for any gays who aren't masc, any lesbians that aren't lipstick. The ideology they seek to unleash is a hellish one.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 23:56

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Atasnaya Vaflja posted:

There's actually no formal information on it, and none that I can find by age. The best number I can find is 0.3%-0.5% between the ages of 18-64; So the 100x factor I said was wrong. [ New York Times ]

I do see people arguing the same thing Frosted Flake is waver anywhere from "well only 10% of the population is trans!" to "only 5%!" to Frosted Flake's incredible minimum of "0.05%" all saying the numbers were small enough to basically "ignore."

I personally think that the numbers are going to be off for a while because there's so much stigma involved even still. In a lot of places even across America it's a social and familial death sentence.

Even with the minimalist figures, there are still five times as many trans people as jewelers, and yet we have a huge vocabulary around jewelry which derives from jewelworking jargon. Basically, it's important to remember that specific numbers are very often a platform with which to posture about how unimportant the people you loathe are.

# ¿ Mar 24, 2016 00:07

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Commie NedFlanders posted:

If you don't identify as an rear end in a top hat and prefer to be called The Greatness

You are very funny, my man.

# ¿ Mar 24, 2016 00:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 13, 2024 21:54

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Sucrose posted:

I repeat that I will call a person the gender that they identify as (him, her, them) but I will not change the English system of grammar when speaking just to accomodate them, any more than I would stop using the words "the" or "a" when referring to them in favor of whatever special snowflake articles of speech they demand I memorize and comply with. I would refuse to refer to someone as "Your Greatness" or whatever in lieu of "You," too.

I don't know why you guys can't see the difference between simply correcting someone on which gender you are, and demanding that they comply with your whimsical language bullshit.

You still use the 2p familiar, Sucrose? Amazing.

# ¿ Mar 24, 2016 01:06

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

«‹›2 »