|
Commie NedFlanders posted:That's fair, it was a bad example. The logical conclusion of this kind of thinking would lead one to assert that a biological girl who happened to be raised as a boy, was not a women when she came of age (and identified as female). People do not have uniform life experiences, so someone who tries to define gender identity as being explicitly tied to biological sex is either being disingenuous or is accounting for such a wide set of possibilities that it doesn't really matter.
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 05:26 |
|
|
I love the term 'special snowflake'. I have a friend who has a Welsh name, with a Welsh pronunciation, but people often incorrectly pronounce it with English pronunciation. She often gently corrects them, because it's her name and it's important to her, and after a few tries they get it. Nobody thinks it's a big deal; she's not acting like a 'special snowflake' by demanding extra attention, she just wants people to call her by her name. Not once has anybody become upset about this state of affairs. The same applies to trans people. The only ones making a 'big deal' out of it are the people who react in such a way to elevate the subject beyond what's necessary. You don't like 'special snowflakiness'? Stop making it an issue and just say 'OK', maybe have a laugh about it as you take a bit of time to adjust (and overcome some of your preconceptions in the process), and continue to socialise with the other person as you would any other human being. (And no, it's not the same as religious entitlement.)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
rudatron posted:It's also rude to demand people to accept something they cannot believe, especially when it's something outside the social norm. Well gee gadzooks mr, that's a mighty fine is-ought fallacy you got goin on there. quote:'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. Generally being atleast modestly courteous to someone else is the default mode of civil society. We rightly call people who don't extend this sort of courtesy 'assholes' and 'dickheads', or in my native tongue 'bellends' works too. My friend once misgendered another trans friend of mine, because she displays a lot of traditionally male physical characteristics (pre-op, was wearing gender neutral clothing). She referred to her as he several times before we had to explain to her the situation, because my trans friend obviously didn't announce to everyone her gender as she entered the room. Situations like this will happen in a society which still holds a lot of strong ideas what a man and a women ought to look like, but I think everyone understands that. Nobody was angry with the mistake my friend made, it was an honest one and she took steps to correct it. Nobody here is proposing setting up loving gestapos and legal consequences for people who either make mistakes and genuinely try to correct them (which is fine), or even if you are intentionally an rear end in a top hat (in which case you'll just be socially ostracised like the scumbag you are). If you want some help with this, it's often good to remember that trans people are human beings with red blood and favourite foods and that one memory which makes you smile and cringe in equal measures, just like you. They are people whose gender identity makes up only a fraction of their existence as a person, and if you took some time to get to know one or two of them, you'd appreciate that they really aren't that different from anyone else. And that's the point. They aren't trying to be different, they are trying to be themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
rudatron posted: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. Kim Davis had a legal duty which she didn't fulfill. It is not illegal for her to believe that gay people aren't people deserving of equal treatment anymore than its illegal for me to believe that 2+2=5. For interpersonal relationships, courtesy is usually held as the standard. You can be a massive rear end in a top hat by not calling a trans person their preferred pronouns, just like you can be a massive rear end in a top hat for calling gay people fags. You will hopefully be punished for it socially, because society doesn't like assholes, they don't tend to be conducive to your 'big picture', but you aren't going to be thrown in jail unless what you do constitutes a threat of violence or infringes on their rights as an individual citizen. Religiosity is also different because it constitutes an extended and continued choice, whereas gender dysphoria is emphatically not a similar case. Religion therefore deserves a lower tier on the 'things that ought to be respected' pole, as one has a degree more influence over that. As for people 'pushing others around until they get what they want'. I mean, what they want is to be referred to in their preferred manner, it's not particularly onerous. And if by 'pushing others around' you mean 'people who don't feel as inconvenienced by acknowledging a transpersons identity calling you a massive baby/evil watermelon fucker (depending on your objection)' for not doing this one little thing to make someone else's life much better, then yeah, you betcha, the same way civilised company ought to react to racism and homophobia. Like, again, meet some trans people. You've got this mythical idea that there are some abusive fuckers out there who are going to use this reliance on courtesy to wreak havoc on society. Here's what's going to happen, a trans person who doesn't pass may occasionally have to point out the gender they identify as. If they happen to be loud obnoxious dickbags, that doesn't invalidate their identities, it just makes them assholes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:But how do I make sure that somebody doesn't trick me by saying "you're welcome" when I'm not welcome? Those goddamn doormats and their cheery disposition! It's entitlement I tell you! 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
Imagine I've jammed a little chip into that head of yours rudatron. This chip, when activated, can interfere with your brain in such a way as to induce anxiety, depression and even thoughts of suicide if it has been activated enough. Said chip activates when people don't refer to you by a specific pronoun. Outwardly, you do not appear to look like what society traditionally perceived as belonging to the category of people to which that pronoun refers, so people often make the mistake of referring to you by the incorrect pronoun. Usually this first mistake is fine, but continued exposure will ramp up these problems. So how do you deal with it? I imagine you politely ask people to try to refer to you as the specific pronoun, and rely on their goodwill to do so. If enough people continue to do it, particularly with either apathy or malevolence, the chip ramps up its effects and you suffer significantly more. This 'chip' is a bit like 'gender dysphoria', and it's existence is not what we are discussing here, we are taking it as true. Would you not agree that someone who tries to ignore the existence of this situation and, in doing so, causes someone else distress is an rear end in a top hat (and is subject to the social penalties of being an acknowledged rear end in a top hat)? To be clear, I doubt most trans people care if some random fuckhead intentionally misgenders them constantly, they'll just call them pricks and avoid interaction with them. It's when a critical mass of enough individuals do it consistently that it becomes an issue.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
Jesus Christ my last few posts have EACH explained thoroughly why this same thing doesn't apply to Kim Davis. It seems everything that's been said sails right past your head. Either you aren't reading or you're arguing disingenuously, either way, gently caress you.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2016 09:02
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Why? What if they are acting like idiots? If someone is an rear end in a top hat, they are an rear end in a top hat independent of their gender identity. Assholes can be found everywhere. Somebody isn't an rear end in a top hat if they politely request that you atleast verbally acknowledge the identity that doesn't end up causing them distress. You are however an rear end in a top hat if you deny this simple, unobtrusive request.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
The 'chip' example I gave was an allegory for an actual condition, gender dysphoria, for which the best currently known cure is, shock horror, to be treated as the gender one feels one is, irrespective of physical appearance (which could be a problem for a number of people). My trans friend cannot pass right now because she fears what her intolerant rear end parents would say, it doesn't stop us treating her how she wants to be treated when we are around her. Gender dysphoria isn't voluntary, they don't have a choice in the matter. Countless studies have demonstrated links to depression, anxiety, and yes, suicide. Do we want to avoid these things in our fellow citizens? Yes. How do we do our part to help people in this unenviable situation? We aren't dicks who say 'I only recognise X, Y, Z, your emotional states are wrong and you shouldn't feel the way you do', we acknowledge them by their chosen pronoun and either don't speak to them again (if it seriously is a barrier to your relationship ships for some bizarre reason), or, we get to know them as a person which is usually jolly good fun. It's like people who tell others who have clinical depression, 'why don't you just cheer up?'. I wonder what their response would be if they got hit by a car and ended up wheelchair bound and I told them, 'why don't you just get up and walk?'
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
Embrace your inner Kierkegaard.. Revel in the 'absurd'. Its why I'm still here
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted: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? You're saying these words but... I'm not sure you know what they mean. Calling trans people by their preferred pronouns can be argued as valuable in both a utilitarian sense and a deontological sense. Within those branches there is an entire myriad array of systems of morality that are compatible with it. I think there are examples of both relativistic and absolutist systems that can accommodate it too. I mentioned Kierkegaard earlier for a reason. The concept of gender, binary or otherwise, is absurd in the philosophical sense of the word. Embracing this reality and not clinging to it in some twisted is-ought fallacy that Hume would have a field-day with, is the best policy imho. Essentialists are the philosophical equivalent of the tea party 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:What are the limits of this? 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.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted: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. That is a dumb moral rule to govern society with because it assumes a pretty uniform psychology between its members (unless you mean 'ye have done' in terms of particular harm done to a person from their subjective point of view).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
Lichy posted:Please do not be offended by my suggestion. This is the pigeon making GBS threads on the goddamn table again. Every single social system that has ever existed exists to provide some sort of increase in welfare. The difference comes in whom a given society extends that welfare too, and those who live underneath governments and societies whose origins profess to be derived from the sovereignty of the individual, do regularly condemn systems that enrich the welfare of one group or person at the expense of another. The legitimacy of the system is derived from the individuals who are a part of it, which is why democracy and free speech is a thing. The west isn't perfect in that regard, what with massive wealth inequality, but it's a matter of degree. None of what Owlfancier said is wrong, because their definition of society is pretty much foundational to most first-world nations. Next up on the pigeon making GBS threads on the table list - individual sovereignty! a neurotic ai fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Mar 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 05:26 |
|
|
Coolwhoami posted:Identity is an extremely broad term whose broadness is abused extensively in that particular debate to justify either part of the arguement. If you take extreme positions on either end, the former implies it is reasonable to suggest gender reassignment surgery is not necessary ("the linkage between gender and sex organs is entirely socially fabricated and thus there can't be a" true" mismatch between them"), which is obviously a rather strong claim. Meanwhile, the latter implies that the plethora of gender terms (see: http://mogai-lexicon.tumblr.com) might not be infinite in scope, much to the ire of some. I endorse neither of these positions, but when taken to this level they become quite incompatible. Frankly I am of the opinion that the linkage between gender and sex organs is socially constructed. Historically, that social construction served a purpose (male sexual organs provide testosterone which in turn equips them to hunt and defend, ditto for females), but in industrial/post-industrial societies, that distinction basically doesn't matter and therefore the old gender roles are obsolete. I am no expert, but I imagine dysphoria comes from A: the cultural inertia that continues to maintain these distinct 'male' and 'female' identities, and feeling you do not fit into that category because you lack the sex characteristics erroneously assigned to those identities, and B: you feel a strong emotional response to the sex characteristics themselves, irrespective of the identities traditionally assigned to them. It is not uncommon for trans people to hate the sex characteristics that they're born with, even if gender roles were eliminated.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2016 12:08
|
|