- Crowsbeak
- Oct 9, 2012
-
by Azathoth
-
Lipstick Apathy
|
Only if the society as a whole allows it. If it doesn't well tough poo poo.
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 17:31
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2024 19:56
|
|
- Crowsbeak
- Oct 9, 2012
-
by Azathoth
-
Lipstick Apathy
|
gently caress transpeople if society doesn't think they have a right to determine their own identity.
Sure is some distilled crowsbeak in this post.
I'm just telling it as it is. Sorry the world isn't exactly as you want it. But then the Rolling stones wrote this great song about this.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 21:20
|
|
- Crowsbeak
- Oct 9, 2012
-
by Azathoth
-
Lipstick Apathy
|
OK, here is my horrible take on the subject. Ready?
Trans people should only be allowed to use the type of bathroom that corresponds to their legal sex. At some point you gotta draw a line between the genderfluid dweebs and the real transgender people. Legal sex could be this line. If you went to all the trouble to change your legal sex, you are probably pretty serious about it.
If people ask nicely about using a specific pronoun, I will use it. Cause, why not? But i'm not going out of my way to learn new random pronouns of the day and try to "apply" them by myself. gently caress that, I'm way too old for that poo poo.
Why are you anti gender equality!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 22:44
|
|
- Crowsbeak
- Oct 9, 2012
-
by Azathoth
-
Lipstick Apathy
|
Might makes right, philosophy 101 yeah yeah we get it and knew it already. Thanks for your incredibly obvious, incredibly valuable contribution to a thread discussing what we should be doing with that might.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 22:56
|
|
- Crowsbeak
- Oct 9, 2012
-
by Azathoth
-
Lipstick Apathy
|
Is there some sort of dread curse on you, preventing you from following the social norm of clarifying what you meant?
Maybe he does. Who are you to judge?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 02:13
|
|
- Crowsbeak
- Oct 9, 2012
-
by Azathoth
-
Lipstick Apathy
|
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?
No you see because you don't think everyone is a special little unique snowflake you are a fascist.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 02:45
|
|
- Crowsbeak
- Oct 9, 2012
-
by Azathoth
-
Lipstick Apathy
|
"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.
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.
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.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 03:07
|
|
- Crowsbeak
- Oct 9, 2012
-
by Azathoth
-
Lipstick Apathy
|
I was wondering how long before Effectronica would resort to Nazi comparisons. Page 4 a new record.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 03:09
|
|
- Crowsbeak
- Oct 9, 2012
-
by Azathoth
-
Lipstick Apathy
|
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!
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?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 03:17
|
|
- Crowsbeak
- Oct 9, 2012
-
by Azathoth
-
Lipstick Apathy
|
The individual does exist, because if I were to stub my toe you would not say ouch. You lose, kid.
Not throughout the world. The individual is a rather recent creation of the west.
No. Why should I?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 03:23
|
|
- Crowsbeak
- Oct 9, 2012
-
by Azathoth
-
Lipstick Apathy
|
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.
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?
I dunno, I think you're very slightly contributing to the disenfranchisement of african americans from control over the portrayal of their cultural heritage. Though presumably you mostly did that when you bought the game so whether or not you play it afterwards doesn't really matter as much.
Oh lol. Yes I bought it so I could do that. Not because I like to play a game where I can do drivebys on a bike and blow up LSPD cars. I am really a cultural imperialist.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 03:31
|
|
- Crowsbeak
- Oct 9, 2012
-
by Azathoth
-
Lipstick Apathy
|
Like I said, semantical confusion to seduce the disembrained.
Oh good now we are at the point where effectronica makes up words. I love this part.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 03:47
|
|
- Crowsbeak
- Oct 9, 2012
-
by Azathoth
-
Lipstick Apathy
|
Crowsbeak is kinda weird in that what he's saying about society being able to force people to do whatever isn't inaccurate, but gently caress if that isn't an obvious statement to make. What's the point of saying that unless in some way you're endorsing it? I guess the response would be that if society just refuses to respect the boundaries of someone's identity then maybe in that case it's good for society's enforcers to be in fear of someone with an AR15 and a grudge. Might making right and all that.
Remember everyone, don't like a law. Shoot someone. That always gets people to consider your argument. Just imagine how far gay rights would be today if they had started to do armned take over court houses for refusing to marry them.
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.
LMFAO! I do this to make simple observations about reality, whether you can stand reality or not.
Dissembrained is actually a very cromulent word to describe the phenomena he's talking about. Or someone who doesn't understand what words are.
Really it just sounds like something I made up to sound intelligent when I was 14. And didn't understand the world.
Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 03:56 on Mar 23, 2016
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 03:51
|
|
- Crowsbeak
- Oct 9, 2012
-
by Azathoth
-
Lipstick Apathy
|
Hey now, watch your individual thought there, it doesn't matter what you consider! If they manage to kill and/or intimidate everyone who'd try to stop them, they've earned the right to decide what's right, right?
Actually what matters is that the general society supports you. Then actual change happens. Your thoughts mean nothing if the other people in society do not hold them. If you cannot get them to see your way you might as well look for a society that holds your views then.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 04:04
|
|
- Crowsbeak
- Oct 9, 2012
-
by Azathoth
-
Lipstick Apathy
|
Remember everyone lynchings are exactly like not everyone using the exact pronouns.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 05:41
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2024 19:56
|
|
- Crowsbeak
- Oct 9, 2012
-
by Azathoth
-
Lipstick Apathy
|
No, some of the poo poo you've been saying and implying is the same sort of poo poo that people have used to excuse ignoring and not dealing with actual civil rights issues in the past. It's literally one early move out of a long playbook to avoid first examining an issue with honesty, then once it's been examined to avoid actually dealing with it.
I just called out one of the most egregiously stupid and fallacious things you said. Because honestly, on the off chance you're not trolling then you're a human shaped shitbag that doesn't understand that the US and many other countries don't work off of mob rule. We have provisions in place like the Supreme Court to keep the issue of society at large from oppressing other minorities easily. Because unfortunately society tends to be full of assholes that need to be managed for the good, safety, or comfort of everyone else.
Since it came up, while i'm on the topic of the bullshit claims and fallacious arguments people use to deny other people their rights:
It's a catch 22 to say that someone who is trans/genderfluid/whatever has to be registered as their legal sex before they can go into the bathroom of their identified gender simply because many people don't see why they should get the right to change their gender to begin with. More to the point, those people are advantaged enough compared to someone who is trans that they can push their agenda on others while also attaching malicious consequences to trying to fight back against what they want.
Couple this with the fact that the act of being trans itself is still stigmatized to the point of being potentially literally life ruining and you're opening up a can of worms by having to force them to fight (And deal with the scorn and potential financially ruinous consequences therein.) to get a legal definition changed just so they can take a crap in public.
And that's setting aside the fact that it's a ridiculous argument to say they have to meet some arbitrary standard like that to begin with. Nothing is stopping an actual pervert from going into a bathroom and molesting someone right now. And no one's going to be able to use the argument that they're trans in court as a defense since, hey, it has a lot of traits and requirements attached to it that make it obvious whether or not someone is trans when they're put under that level of scrutiny.
The idea that trans people have to fight for basic poo poo like being called what they want and being allowed to safely go to the bathroom in public is vaguely absurd to begin with. It shouldn't even be a question. The bathroom issue in particular is just a vague attempt that has it's roots in pandering to morality and an appeal to safety. One that's no different than saying "Oh! Won't someone think of the children?" at it's heart. And it's one that goes back for more than half a century.
People who were gay had the same sops to safety and morality used against them at one point. Hell, african american's pushing for equal rights and desegregation had the same poo poo used against them during the civil rights movement ("It's the whim of what we say is the majority of society, so we just shouldn't consider it!" "Why don't they just leave the country if they feel so oppressed then?" "Would you want one of those people in the same bathroom with your wife/child/you?") by out and out 100% racists.
It's the same goddamn smear tactics, just repurposed to target a new minority. Which is generally a good way to tell when someone is bigoted as hell in one direction or another.
Nope it telling you that society has to change perception ans that takes time Because that is what defines us all.
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.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 15:17
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 17:31
