|
As an aside, honestly unisex bathrooms seem like a legit idea, 'creeps' exist in the outside world that you have to deal with, the bathroom is not some kind of magical place, it's just another part of the public space. To answer your question op, I think 'entitlement' is the wrong way to think about it. You're not entitled to not get offended, that's not what's at stake here. It's the balance of taking offense (individual comfort) vs. social responsibility, and in that respect bathroom/pronoun poo poo is rather minor, while failing to do your job, or blocking police investigation is absolutely unacceptable. If you get offended by either, well tough poo poo, why should anyone else care? The world doesn't revolve around you. But bathroom/pronouns just don't matter, in the scheme of things. Now the what exactly transexuality means, and what the limits of it are, are a totally different debate for a totally different thread.
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 00:53 |
|
|
So I think it's important to get a couple of things straight: First, all social standards are by necessity culturally imperialistic. All standards assume a certain set of what constitutes a 'good life', and the limits of the individual, and their responsibility, all of which are embedded in the collection of assumptions you can call culture. The act of cultural imperialism is the fundamental function of society, and its' something that human beings crave - both the outwards exertion onto society as an projection of will, and the inwards adoption of 'fitting in' as seeking comfort & security - give & take. That doesn't mean that they're all morally equivalent, I have my own preferences, which I want to enforce on the society I live in, and I have sometimes fairly practical arguments as to why they're good, and so long as that conversation can take place, it's pointless to talk about 'cultural imperalism' as a dodge away from discussing those standards. Second, individualism and individual expression as goal is absolutely a western concept, and a fairly recent one. The political philosophy it was created to support (liberalism) is modern + western. That's not to say that the idea of an 'individual' didn't exist, it did, but a philosophy based on the value of a human being ispo facto is not historically that common. Which is something to be proud of, I think. 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. rudatron fucked around with this message at 10:31 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 10:20
|
|
|
So I think it goes without saying that all human beings deserve respect by default, they have dignity by default, and that human life is a precious, maybe the most precious thing in the universe. But whether or not using a pronoun that you have chosen for yourself constitutes disrespect is a little doubtful. Others could choose to do it because you don't want to offend them, but you don't have a right not to be offended, you have a right to be treated with respect. A good boundary line between the two, I feel, is respect is something everyone could sympathize with in the same position, with honesty. From my view, if you're asking someone to address you as a certain pronoun, and you don't match what that pronoun looks like, or you've invented an entirely new pronoun, you are absolutely being disrespectful yourself by making that demand, that goes beyond what you should be able to ask. Because you're not asking to be treated with respect, you're asking others to indulge you. It is then socially acceptable for them to refuse to do that. So if you don't (reasonably) present like a woman, yet you ask to be addressed as one, you are out of line, period. If you ask to be referred to as 'xir' or whatever, let's be frank, that's not a pronoun in circulation, so what you're asking is not something that could be seen as socially acceptable. And I think this comes back to the original topic of the thread - gender entitlement versus religious entitlement. Entitlements are not granted on the basis of offense, there is a kind of 'logic' behind them that has to be satisfied, first, before your offense can actually be taken seriously. So if you're offended at doing your job, because part of your job means serving people who you don't like because of religious reasons, well tough poo poo, stop being a massive cry-baby. If you're asking people to conform to your self-summoned pronouns, because that makes you feel special, well too bad, the world doesn't revolve around you. But if you're someone who feels gender dysphoric, puts a lot of effort into expressing that and genuinely looks a lot like the the gender you're aiming for, well I think you've done everything you reasonable could, so you are entitled to be addressed in the way you want.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
Are you ready for the twist? There's no such thing as an authentic identity, gender or otherwise. It's an assumption TERFS, traditionalist-transphobes, and you, seem to make, you just differ on its limits. For traditionalists, it's biotruths. For terfs, it's early experience, which means that transwomen are secretly men (and therefore predatory, like all men). For you it's everyone is valid because only they can say what they feel. What if that's not the case, what if there is no 'center', no seed, no essence? What if 'woman' is just a set of stereotypes and relations in your mind, ala Jungian archetypes, that you either match or don't? From that perspective, what you are is what you are seen as, not what you feel. That's my position. I'm not really deifying anything, I'm just being very practical, following from that assumption. People want both conformity, for safety, but also the chance to challenge, because that's how you self-express. So you need both, to make people happy, you can't ignore one at the expense of the other.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
I'm not sure it's right to say conformity is moral, it's something that people just need to feel comfortable from time to time. The perpetual debate is always "well conform to what", and I think that matters, and it's where you get to talk about morality.Atasnaya Vaflja posted:Almost all of your posts are single sentences, most of them are dismissive of other people, and some of them even contain childish name calling or strawmen.  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".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Actually I'd feel really comfortable if you went into your objections with detail, because I feel I have a good grasp on what you're saying and why it's wrong. Also, for the sake of readability, I'm not going to go through your posts quote-by-quote, because I know how quickly that can expand into a mess. But as you're reading, I want a favor from you: put aside what you think I'm saying. This beliefs and arguments of mine aren't conventional, don't treat them as such. First, I repeat: there is no such thing as an authentic identity. You are under the mistaken belief that performance is a precondition for identity acceptance - your identity (what you feel) isn't accepted until it matches your performance (expression of that identity). That's not what I'm saying, I saying the performance is the identity, that they are logically equivalent. To say that one identity is 'authentic' is to assume a hidden cause before the performance. If, for whatever reason, you aren't able to technically perform that identity, you can't become that identity. And I'm quite happy to extend this to 'butch' women, if they look masculine enough (such that they're effectively cross-dressing), I feel it would be correct to refer to them as men. If they're offended by that, well that's their problem. Communication is more than just words, if you're communicating one thing with your dress+presentation, yet saying another, you're the one who's out of line. Second, I'm not being the gatekeeper here. I don't have that power. I can say what I think and believe. But by the same token, you aren't not in a position that anyone who doesn't tow your line is being disrespectful. You can't declare that by fiat, you have to appeal to already existing notions of respect. So the issue with cis vs. trans and respect isn't one of denying one but granting to another, it's just the fact that you don't have to do much work if you're cis. You don't have to do anything to technically perform. It's the same standard, but the nature of reality means you can't just flip a switch and say 'okay I'm trans now'. Thirdly, no, bathrooms aren't important. They're just not, it's a place where you poo poo and piss, it's not loving consecrated earth. If you can't poo poo and piss in one, poo poo and piss in the other. Stinky_Pete posted:Am I correct in thinking that all that should ideally distinguish genders (as two ends of a continuous spectrum) is performance in attire and mannerism? Effectronica posted:Are you being pedantic, or do you genuinely see a world of difference between "conformity is necessary for people to feel good" and "conformity is good"? Because the latter is at least interesting enough to warrant explanation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
Well no, that's somewhat anti-social to believe that. It's acknowledging that society is something different from you, and that if you want acceptance in that society, you have to appeal to it in some way. "I believe I am this person, deep inside, different from what I look like" <- Why should anyone else care about this? Why should anyone else go out of their way to respect this?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
I think it's rather telling, that the only real justification for why NedFlanders has been insulting, is that he's misgendering, when whether or not this it's misgendering is the exact topic being discussed. Just something worth noting. Another thing worth noting, before I get to the responses to myself, is this:Atasnaya Vaflja posted:This is like saying "the idea that you might not be completely straight if you find some aspects of your sexuality to be unpleasant is deeply troubling." There's no reason it should be troubling. There's nothing wrong with exploring gender or sexuality, and there's no reason why straight or cis should be the unquestioned default. Everyone should be encouraged to explore aspects of self identity in healthy ways. It shouldn't be "troubling," it shouldn't be a stigma. Well she can definitely sing, though I think the facial hair works here because it's very, uh, 'linear' I guess., it's tries to look more like a discoloration than actual hair. Though maybe that too is just social standards, I hear Russia didn't like her. Well it depends on the effort they put in. Even then, sometimes you're just not going to be able to keep up that pretense, and it's insulting to others to expect them to do so. Courtesy is a finite resource. It is the same standard actually, it's just the starting points are different, so you end up with this (unfair, I'll grant you unfair) burden of having to reach it, rather than simply starting there. So, with skirts and dresses, a cis woman doesn't have to wear them and still fit into the archetype, but you're not starting from that point. You don't have that leeway. And don't doubt me for a second here, If some butch woman looked like a man, but refused to identify as one, I'm not giving a poo poo what they want, I'm referring to them as what they look like. Well, I guess that dependent on power, if I need them to do something then you indulge them, but if the situations are reversed I'm not extending that to him. I also think it's obvious that everyone deserves safety, both the physical safety and the psychological safety to be free from abuse. Obviously trans-people deserve that too, and the people that threaten that safety are in the wrong, and without excuse. But that's not particularly relevant to this topic, which is about pronouns, entitlements, and so on. That's not to minimize any abuse you may experience, you. do. no. deserve. that.Which ties itno bathrooms, well obviously if you can't use any bathroom, that's a real danger, but your risk of assault doesn't really have a legal solution, nor is this topic particularly relevant. If there's some real rear end in a top hat who's not letting you use any bathroom, or a set of assholes, that's not changed by what is discussed here, or really what the law says. I mean that's just harassment, plain and simple, don't really know if that's solved by anything less than policing. You seem a little confused by my point though. Like if they 'pass', then they automatically succeed. That's kind of my point. Effectronica posted:There are, in fact, a whole lot of schools of thought that argue that morality should be based around pleasure and pain. They go all the way back to Epicurus. rudatron fucked around with this message at 07:29 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
Your use of 'Their identity' has got me thinking of another way to frame this, to really put my point across - you, as a person, do not own your identity. Like I don't like the comparison to cultural appropriation, because I've had that conversation and it's not worth derailing this one, but the general idea is that inclusion into a group is not under your control, and that's the case for both gender and cultures. They're social groups, and your inclusion is conditional on everyone else's approval. As a statement of fact, you're not included until the majority sees you that way, or the group you want to be included into sees it that way. To simply assert that you are, without acknowledging that, is to treat other people like idiots. It's like walking up to a group of strangers, and pretending that you know them - it's disrespectful. This is a basic of human interaction. You are not a special snowflake, everyone else has their own poo poo to deal with. If you want to be accepted, you - you - have to appeal to them. That's not to say that any exclusion is necessarily in the right, even if that group has an abstract right to perform that exclusion. We can still talk about fairness with treating other people as people, giving them a chance, etc, that's a valid debate. What you can't do, is deny that they have that right. That they must accept you, without a choice, without a debate of fairness, and without their control - it's not gonna happen. You wouldn't accept it if the situations were reversed, treat other people the same way.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
Well I don't know if you're that much of a prick, but your prick status comes mostly from what other people think of you, whether you choose to embrace that or not is irrelevant. Oh, also it's not a platonic ideal, a platonic ideal is unchangeable and external to people, I think it's entirely contingent and, of course, fictional, so more like a language if we're using metaphors.OwlFancier posted:Because it's actually very easy to do, it is merely not intuitive, and society already functions heavily on people doing things that are not intuitive, it simply then goes on to create new intuitive behaviours, some of which are neither necessary nor helpful. What do I care for your suffering? Oh please, the point was that morality is invoked with the social particulars of the things I mentioned, not the act itself: sex with dubious consent is problematic because the dubious consent, swinging your fist at someone is questionable because of the choice of target, conversely swinging your fist at empty air would be strange but not necessarily immoral (or moral). sidviscous posted:FWIW, I actually agree that this is how things are - societally you're a woman or a man if people will accept you as a woman or a man, and that your appearance is important in that. Stinky_Pete posted:If a person struggles to pass, or passes with some people but not others, then it is good to reinforce what the person is going for to others if the person comes up in conversation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
Well my point is that you identity is what is perceived, and I mean that in the sense of an equivalence relation, not a causal one.Stinky_Pete posted:I've never encountered this. Is this from personal experience? Something documented? Do you realize the '*' was to denote a 'wildcard' character, and meant to include all appropriate endings? Well, all contextually appropriate ones anyway. Problem is that this applies to almost anything. A great many people profess belief in a particular god, perhaps an esoteric god, yet they're not entitled to have that validated by the community. Furthermore, no one should have to care about what you are, because there are too many people for that to be feasible, nor do most people find many things interesting that doesn't involve themselves. That's just a fact, people are self-centered by default, so you have to acknowledge that and work around it. So what you 'are' is less important than what you look like, because that's what other people can actually see. Like I hate to break this to you: your 'inner self' will never, ever, ever be in contact with anyone else. It physically can't, even if you assume it does actually exist.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:That's what you think you're saying, but I'm talking about what you personally actually believe behind your bullshit, which is that you should have/do have control over other people's identities. If you, Rudatron, don't find a woman attractive then you believe she should not be treated as a woman. You've said this explicitly, even, that masculine women must be treated as men. Why? Because you say so.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
The problem with 'make sure other people are comfortable' as a maxim is that is going to, and is, being abused. The most obvious case is what started this thread: comparisons to 'religious entitlement', with an obvious example being Kim Davis. She had a job to do, she didn't want to do it because it made her uncomfortable - well tough poo poo, it's was unreasonable of her to feel uncomfortable. Now we transition over to gender stuff, where the basis of the argument is 'well you should do it just to make people comfortable'. Is that a standard we should apply to the religious case as well? No? Then why are you asking it to be applied here? You need that consistency, and if you're not being consistent, people are going to notice that. People won't follow hypocrites, they won't believe hypocrites. So the arguments should not be 'well just do it to be nice', but whether or not it's reasonable. You don't deserve niceness, that's not something you get, what you get is 'respect'. It's a different standard. Well, with all due respect, the issue isn't just pronouns. The same ideas cover a lot of different areas - what should you expect from other people, what is 'respect' even, what is identity, what is inclusion and what are its limits, etc. I don't know about you, I prefer to be consistent, such that whatever answer I give on this issue, conforms to what I believe to be good answers to those questions. Maybe that's anal retentive, I prefer to see it as logical. But you don't deserve validation for that religious belief, get it? You could get it from others, of the same belief, by their choice, but you can't expect everyone, or society, or the legal system, to validate you. The world does not revolve around you. Now when I said that people are 'self-centered', I didn't want that to be interpreted as 'selfish'. I'm not a believer in homo economicus, that's not how people behave, and thank gently caress for that, because we wouldn't have society at all if people were 100% rational and selfish actors. Or love. But you are a single person, in a specific place and time. You are alone. Empathy is valuable, it's beautiful, but your feelings of empathy are not 100% accurate, they're mental projections of your own feelings onto others. So everything you think and do is going to be in relation to that perspective. So when you say 'well I feel uncomfortable unless other people do that', well what if other people feel more uncomfortable doing that then you feel comfortable? No one else can really know, for sure. So you can't use that as a basis for society. You've got to rely on a coherent set of standards, negotiated upon, and standards that are less able to be abused than 'well I just feel this way' is. So it's not so much a naturalistic argument as a, uh, phenomenological argument? Stinky_Pete posted:In that case it should be trans.*
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
It's also rude to demand people to accept something they cannot believe, especially when it's something outside the social norm. 'Niceness' is optional, it's something granted at the discretion of the giver. 'Respect' is what you are due, which when denied, means the denier has wronged. Denying 'niceness' is totally normal.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
I keep making this point, and I don't think it's really getting through: There are so many people, some nice and not nice, that are able to be offended about anything. The fact that Kim Davis had to do her job offended her. Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. There's also no ability for me, as another person outside your head, to verify how offended you are, and on what grounds. So if you take 'offense' as the basis for interpersonal relationships, you're setting up a system that's open to be abused by the loudest, most obnoxious people. They'll claim offense, and you'll have no way of disproving it. Then they'll push people around until they get what they want. If you push back, you're not being 'nice', because you're not taking their offense into account. Ironically, the people you're hoping this will help, the ones who are suffering and just want a little break, a reprieve, they'll get nothing. This is also why I'm taking 'presentation' as the be-all-end-all of identity here. I mean, I have philosophical reasons for it, but practically, it's obvious and open. You could extend it beyond presentation, but it's not necessary to, and it's okay to deny based on a lack of presentation. In conclusion, look at the big picture, don't lose the forest for the trees.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
It's totally okay to offend people sometimes, it just depends strongly on the person, and what they're offended about. If someone is offended over something trivial, regressive or impractical, they're in the wrong. "But we're not suggesting otherwise", then why are you using 'offense' as your justification? Social norms, like law, has precedent, when you set precedent, you can create unintended consequences. If you're applying standards before you get to 'offense', you may as well talk about those standards. I've got no problem believing that 95+% of trans people just want people things, and if they're putting in the effort, I'm happy to say they deserve they want. But I'm not happy granting that on the grounds of offense, or based on a claim that I can't verify, because I don't like what either of those imply. I'd much prefer a standard that doesn't do either of those things. But the drag queen objection is interesting...hm...okay, let's try 'natural presentation'. Your presentation when you feel no one is looking, or that you default into. I feel that's still verifiable in a way "I feel like X' is not, and doesn't really upset anything else I've said. So I guess we've all learned something now.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
I'm not discounting gender dysphoria, I'm suggesting that it's the onus of the individual to fit into society. We don't have a society otherwise. If you put in obvious effort, if you present, sure you deserve it. I'm also suggesting that a system of social standards dominated by declared personal feelings is a system that will be abused. Do you acknowledge, or challenge, either claim? I don't know, because you spent the best part of your posts rephrasing the same lines, 'think of how they must feel' and 'it's not good to be an rear end in a top hat'. Did you stop and think that, perhaps, the exact same arguments will be used by people like Kim Davis? If that's upsetting to you, good - you must now realize that they're not sufficient ways of talking about this topic. They're not wrong, it's important to be empathetic, always, and it's important to help others. It's natural and good to not want others to suffer. But it's not enough. I've no doubt that the person who started this thread started it basically to stir poo poo. But the only reason it does is because there's a contradiction, that has to be reconciled.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
Okay, sure, I shouldn't ignore your points Ocrassus. I'll fix that. Your objections were that 1) it was a legal duty, and 2) that since religion is a choice, it's less entitled, correct? The issue with the first is that, and I think you'll agree, it's not inconceivable to create a scenario without such a duty. A religious person declines something they don't legally have to do, at the expense of someone else, and justifies it on the grounds of offense. We're then back to where we started. The issue with the second is that it doesn't work with the logic you've already used: is the offense generated by a choice less intense then offense generated by something that is not? If not, then 'I feel' should be respected either way. Or what if the religious person simply didn't feel they had a choice, they had a dream or an intense experience that they feel means they're compelled to follow that particular maxim, are they then on equal footing? I'm personally not satisfied either way, I think there's no real escaping imposing a constraint on reasonable grounds, which means going back to saying that it is, in fact, okay to offend people, but it's not okay to disrespect them. That means negotiating when something is and is not granted, in a way that's hard to exploit, but protects the vulnerable, and gives them a space to live. Does that make sense? rudatron fucked around with this message at 11:28 on Mar 27, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2016 11:26
|
|
|
It is socially acceptable to be rude to 'assholes', and if it is possible to be handle them without being rude, then that would apply to both marginalized and non-marginalized people. What is respect cannot be declared by fiat of the 'injured' party. If they're presenting, I think it's fair to say they deserve it, but I don't thing being asked means it must be respected. It's interesting, no? What do you think about it?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted: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. By contrast, it's pretty easy to tell what makes someone gay.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and individuals operating without a common, logical framework are liable to work against each other, without necessarily meaning to. Creating special rules that can be exploited easily only undermines the trust that people need have in each other. If you desire an truly inclusive (and functional) society, that comes at a price, and that price is your ability to declare things on your own terms. I don't think that necessarily conflicts with limiting suicides of vulnerable individuals, but I am placing the responsibility to present on them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
You're setting a precedent for self-declarations to override group concerns, that's not going to end well. It's not about the burden, it's about why it should be accepted at all.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
Any social system that can perpetuate itself is one that works, even of if it is one that is bad. Of course, the ability to perpetuate itself will also depend on external factors, such as if the people involved are aware of a better system and see no point in continuing the current one, but this seems like a fairly rigorous way to look at societies. Semantics aside, if you want to replace current social norms around gender, you have to apply yourself to understanding why it is able to perpetuate itself - why it continued despite its flaws - and then design something that address those flaws, without giving up the conveniences afforded by the way things were done.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
If you apply that same skepticism to trans people themselves, you end up having top reject pure self identification as valid - you don't need a water right case, you just need a reasonable doubt, which that frankly is. All of these problems can be avoided by my perspective on this topic, which is that natural performance is gender, meaning your born sex is irrelevant, but your presentation is absolutely critical.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:How do you determine "natural performance"?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Not at all, behaviors are verifiable in a way in which feelings are not. So for example, the usual ring of tests you are required to do before your legal sex change, are designed to weed out people who are not committed, or mistaken. Yet functionally all it is measuring is your behavior. Additionally, it is both conceivably measurable, if you're asking to use deception and spend resources, but also a standard which can be relaxed because of practical concerns, the trade off being reliability. No such equivalence exists for your phenomenological feelings. I also make no assumption of society being unchangeable. The argument there is one of standards and individual responsibility, not one of how dynamic those standards are.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
I have not made, nor believe, the claims you are attributing to me here. 'Natural' in the way I used or meant 'honest', not 'intrinsic'. I am anti-essentialist. Gender is not intrinsic, it is performative, subject to already existing social norms, which change with place and time. Do not place these beliefs into a category they do not belong in, read them as they are, and place you preconceived notions aside.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Those are not natural behaviors as you have outlined them, they are performed behaviors. So they are irrelevant to what you have suggested should be the standard, and you are unable to measure behaviors without observing them and making them unnatural. In order to ensure that the people you are surveilling are unaware of your surveillance, you actually do need to peek inside people's heads, meaning you cannot do it and cannot be assured that behaviors are truly natural without telepathy. That is, "natural behaviors" as you outline them are inherently phenomenological. You can say that all we need is a reasonable standard, but that also means that social behaviors are totally unnatural, which is a disturbing conclusion to come to. Basically, what this sounds like is you coming up with something that sounds good without thinking through how it would work at all.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Okay, so interaction with other minds is inherently deceptive? This is, I think, not very tenable as anything other than an axiomatic statement that is no more convincing in and of itself than any alternative. Furthermore, you cannot actually rule out the possibility that the person has intuitively determined they are being observed and is thus adjusting their behaviors in response (and even if you observe a shift, you can't determine whether that the previous scenario is the case or not) without rooting around in their mind. So we are back to phenomenology because you are, like so many others, unable to solve the problem of subjectivity. None of which changes that your demanding a standard of my system that you are not applying to your own - why, if we are now introducing intuition/magic as an acceptable defense, are you then claiming that that must necessarily privilege self declaration as absolute? How does your system fare any better? It must do worse, since you don't even have a reasonable situation, however unethical, to verify it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
I cannot, nor am I interested in, creating an exhaustive list of the properties and behaviors that constitute a gender, both because it is irrelevant to my point, and only introduces more confusion. Suffice to say that it exists in the social consciousness, is what most people would conceive of it add being, and it's not a result of any kind of biological determinism, but it's instead the result of cultural pressures, that change with time. My system does not demand proof of inner state, it just accepts the possibility of that subjectivity problems, including deception, which yours does not. You are also, again, demanding a standard you do not satisfy - you neither attempt to disprove solipsism, or lucky guess, nor accept them as reasonable objections. You also ignore the differences I have pointed out - namely, that my standard is able to verify in a case yours cannot - a reasonable mind. Simply suing that since they both cannot deal with insanity, and are therefore equivalent, is deceptive. Additionally, in that context, I was claiming social interaction is not natural, as I'm deriving from nature, because I assumed that is the meaning you were using it in. If you meant that meaning here, then I cannot see your original statement I was responding to as anything but a non sequitur. Please elaborate on that original statement. I also apologize for confusion resulting.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
Effectronica, you may think you can hide behind a reregister, but you cannot. Your mistake was posting in dadchat, because no one sane would register for dadchat. I recognize your kind of thinking. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Because it performs better than your system, taking self declaration as authoritative. Do you dispute that?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Even if the request were trivial, it wouldn't undermine the idea that it's socially acceptable to refuse it, in much the same way as it is still acceptable to refuse something any random person asks you to do, even if it's minor. People deserve respect, niceness is optional. And to say it again, before someone else just jumps from the first to last page again and freaks out: I'm saying if you perform, you are due your title, that's respect, but if you don't perform, you don't get it. I am describing what I'm talking about (how gender should be conceptualized, in general). What I can't describe is the complex archetype that makes up gender (In a particular historical/social context), because that would take a lot of effort, a lot of testing (and fixing), and a wide exposure to ensure it was exhaustive. It also wouldn't actually help this discussion at all, and isn't really necessary - you have the idea, in your mind, I have the idea, we live in the same society, there's no way you haven't been exposed. No, you've thrown up some irrelevant objections about solipsism, that has nothing to do with it working or not on its own terms. Additionally, if you're not taking self-declaration as authoritative, and you're not taking performance as authoritative (because that's what I am), then on what grounds can you say that anyone is 'misgendering'? Surely, if there is no basis to come to any conclusion, if it's all impenetrable to you thanks to the issue of subjectivity, then there's no such thing as a right or wrong gendering, either by yourself or others and, consequently you can't hold anyone to account. Is that really what you want? Also, I want to challenge your use of 'oppression' here. Are you aware society is something that operates by rules, nay, must operate by rules? Surely you have to, but here you are, saying that having a standard that must be yielded to, any standard, is oppression. Do you actually want to be a part of society, to interact with other people? Well, get used to 'authoritative declarations', at least in the abstract. I think it's okay to debate fairness, you should debate fairness, but they are something that has to exist. No no no, I didn't use 'true nature', I said 'natural performance', which is bad terminology because of the word natural, so I guess I should use 'honest performance'. That's behavioral, that's verifiable, it's not the same as something's 'nature'.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 07:56
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:I feel like this thread in a nutshell is: There have been hints of that process, of legitimate debate and discussion, but unfortunately, too many are simply entering the thread with their baggage, of what they reckon is being said. No one wants to talk, they just want to yell, or scoff. jivjov posted:A lot of people on that second side are taking it quite a bit further; either implying or outright stating that people using neopronouns (or identifying non-binary at all) are failing some societal duty or are being "excessively" deviant. This is an incredibly toxic and transphobic viewpoint to take, and just perpetuates the stigma that to be transgender is to somehow be lesser. That's sad, I thought there was more to go. Dunno where you're getting voyeurism or homophobia from though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 14:11
|
|
"
|
jivjov posted:Go read some of Amused to Death's posts about non-binary people. Full on dismissal of a non-binary person's self expression Like how are you making the connection between - 'dismissing them' -> 'they are lesser'. You can hold two people to exactly the same standard, which may result in believing one and not believing the other, without regarding either of them as intrinsically lesser. In fact, it can be demeaning to hold people to different standards.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
I asked you how you made the connection, I did not ask you to simply restate your belief in that connection, with more filler words. If someone says something you cannot believe, and you inform them of this, do you necessarily think lesser of that person, that they are somehow of less value? Additionally, if you believe those two cases are necessarily equivalent, does the same apply to any of the 'zany' cases brought up before, like identifying as an animal? If not, you cannot make that equivalence, because you're admitting the existence of a set of standards that have to applied, first, before you get to 'doubting someone's sincere self-identity'.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 00:53 |
|
|
Brain structure is malleable eg- Becoming a london taxi drivers distorts the hippocampus. So a diagnostic brain scan wouldn't prove intrinsicness, but would be useful as a reliable basis. More generally, using brain scans to diagnose personality traits/dominant behaviors sounds really interesting, but also really scary. The best things tend to be both though! I think people just want to meet expectations (consciously and subconsciously), and with that concept alone, you can explain a lot. If you know you're seen one way, you'll act that out. The issue now is I think we're in this (necessary) transitional era, where you still have hold overs from the old ways, but they're in conflict with the new ways. These old ideas still exist, but we know they're wrong: it's okay for women to be dominant, but the dick is still seen as a symbol of power (see: pegging), it's okay for men to be less traditionally masculine, but if they are they're seen as lesser-value/need-to-man-up, etc. I think this conflict drives all the gender stuff we see today. But that's just a hypothesis. rudatron fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Apr 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2016 00:42
|
|