Gender pronoun entitlement vs religious entitlement

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

«‹›4 »

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Literally The Worst posted:

i sit down to pee and, hell, i like it

I would like a separate bathroom for men who want to sit down to pee so I don't have to sit on pissy toilets.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 01:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 15:56

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Couldn't you knock the center wall out of the bathrooms and then fill one wall with a bunch of disabled toilets and make it unisex? And also nicer?

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 01:19

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

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.

There isn't really a social norm for trans people and bathrooms.

Commie NedFlanders posted:

Isn't civil society fundamentally based on limiting the absolute freedom of the individual?

I don't understand the ethical justification for maximizing individual freedom, thst seems like a fundamentally anti-social attitude.

The only people who can freely define themselves are total psychotics living outside of the social realm, they are free to believe they are whatever they please, up to and including Napoleon or Jesus.

Our identities are not, and have never been, our own. They are forged in the fires of society, cut by the limitations imposed by an Other, and only seen by us through the reflections in the eyes of our neighbors.

From the moment the toddler achieves the Mirror Stage and begins forming their own ego, their own sense of self as a complete and autonomous being, they begin relying on external cues to limit and determine the contours of their identity.

Children who fall down often look at the reaction of their parents before they begin (or don't) crying, as if they need e outside world, society as they know it, to inform them of their own subjective experience of pain. Children learn from others what to desire.

Our identity is formed by the millions of little interactions that someone has with the world, and as such, our identities are Social Constructs.

This doesn't mean, like some people think, thst we should be free to monopolize them if we please. My identity exists only in relation to other people in society, and is shaped by the symbolic boundaries and expectations that come from from others.

So if our social identities are communally formed, and negotiated between the subject and other people on society and the shape of the symbolic space that mediates these social relations.....where do these gender activists get the idea that their own private conception of themselves should trump everyone else's, amd why do they expect an ethical injunction to dictate that everyone else, the world, conform to their own imagination?

TLDR: I get the idea of just being nice and polite and humoring people, but >99.9% of people have no choice I'm their gender. I didn't choose my gender, and my gender hasn't always been peachy perfect for me, I haven't always felt like an ideal Platonic from of my gender, but I never got to choose it. Individuals are determined by society, they don't get to determine society, and trying to force society to conform to your own inner narrative seems authoritarian in nature

TLDR because it doesn't really matter what you've got between your legs and people who think it does are dumb.

There's no actual need for you to define what is and isn't acceptable in the junk-having department so don't. This is not an issue where individual freedom needs to be curtailed for the good of society.

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

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 01:59

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

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?

That if her concept of her self worth is so damaged by other people having different conceptions of self worth then she needs to re-examine her concept of self worth.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 02:05

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Commie NedFlanders posted:

I didn't say anything at all about genitals or chromosomes or whatever, I'm speaking strictly in socio-symbolic terms.

Same is true for gender roles. They're dumb, and not required.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 02:12

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

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)?

She is welcome to not re-examine it but she will probably continue to feel very uncomfortable if she does not. Her discomfort does not afford her the right to tell other people how they can live, either, thus self-reflection would appear to be the most elegant solution.

I don't know why people find men being mouthy annoying, I imagine it could be for a variety of reasons, there are plenty of them. However I would suggest that there is a difference between men being mouthy at women because they're idiots and a person expressing their identity. As long as the trans person is not requiring all women in the world to share their sense of identity I fail to see why theirs should not be as legitimate as any other?

There is a difference between "I require my identity as a cis woman to be enforced on everyone else to feel validated" and "I require my identity as a trans woman to not be shat on by everyone else in the world to feel validated"

One is a desire for the individual liberty to be at least tolerated by your peers, the other is the desire for dissenting opinions to be exterminated so you can feel better about yourself.

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.

Demolishing everyone else's preferences to enforce your chosen identity on the world in order to validate it is selfish and antisocial. Having a dissenting opinion is absolutely not.

Your identity is entirely for your own solipsistic navel gazing, and the sooner you realize that the happier you will be.

The reason you cannot pretend to be a police officer is a very practical one. The reason a teacher cannot also be a porn star is entirely a construct of lovely attitudes about women and sex, and is a very good example of something which should be destroyed because it is indefensible.

OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Mar 23, 2016

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 02:25

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Commie NedFlanders posted:

So you are still the same legal entity? The law treats men and women differently in certain cases, like with public bathrooms. How does changing one's understanding of themselves supersede that?

You say you are changing "me", but maintaining that they are the same person as they were before.

If the transition is purely in their own understanding of themselves, why should there be any expectation of others to go along with that?

The issue I disagree with is, is this idea that your identity is something private and that exists only in your own mind. It's just not, it's a social formation that exists only insofar as it is mediated by society.

There is no "you" outside of the symbolic supports of society, you need other people to validate and confirm your social identity and because of that, your identity is not entirely your own.

Society should afford you as much leeway as it can to make decisions about who you want to be, because there is no justification for doing otherwise. Sex, sexuality, and gender are issues where there is 0 justification for not affording people more or less complete freedom to self determine.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 02:35

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

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?

You are arguing merely for the status quo, by your logic society should not change because doing so would require people to dissent from it, because from dissent comes change and from change comes a new society.

The fundamental basis of the argument for the acceptance of nonbinary sex, gender, and sexuality is that society can be remade to function better than it currently does.

Conservatism for its own sake on the basis that dissent is "authoritarian and selfish" is absurd.

Commie NedFlanders posted:

You don't see the irony of arguing thst people should have more liberty in perceiving things the way they want, while in the very next sentence brutally asserting that There. Is. Zero. Justification. for X?

But okay, if we accept your line of thinking here, why is cultural appropriation considered a bad thing?

Cultural appropriation is considered a bad thing because of the power imbalance involved. It is almost universally one way and done without the consent of the individuals concerned. It serves as a tool of oppression. There is nothing inherently wrong with dressing in clothes you don't understand, merely that doing so contributes to the wider cultural conquest and erasure of the culture with less money behind it.

OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Mar 23, 2016

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 02:46

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:

Was that kid on Youtube who ate a consecrated host appropriating Catholic culture? He most certainly did that without permission from the Catholic church.

No because the Catholic Church has more money than God and is not in any danger of being erased.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 03:08

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Trans people don't need the inter subjective network and if they do they should just grow some nuts of something furthermore *faaaaaaaart*

Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:

Do you feel that cultural appropriation applies only to minority cultures?

Basically yeah.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 03:13

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Atasnaya Vaflja posted:

You can't really appropriate from the cultures forcefully spreading and colonizing, can you?

Or at least while you can it doesn't take the power of determination away from the owners of that culture.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 03:15

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Crowsbeak posted:

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

I dunno, do you want to?

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 03:18

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:

How would one then deal with two members of a minority culture giving conflicting opinions on permission to appropriate something? I've certainly witnessed minority individuals divided on that subject.

Trial by combat.

Or gently caress it I dunno, the initial question was why do people think cultural appropriation is bad, not what's the absolute true solution to all the problems it presents.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 03:19

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Crowsbeak posted:

No. Why should I?

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.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 03:26

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

I'm pretty sure that one of the classical greek philosophers had something to say on the nature of the individual so "recent" may be pushing it.

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?

Isn't that more or less entirely the basis of stoicism? That the self is entirely independent and autonomous and happiness is achieved by bringing it consciously into harmony with nature?

OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Mar 23, 2016

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 03:32

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Crowsbeak posted:

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.

I mean I imagine you probably don't buy coke to support exploitation of central americans but you still do support that by buying it.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 03:34

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Crowsbeak posted:

Yes I am a bad person because I am a poor college student and do not buy everything local.

I didn't say you were a bad person, I said that your actions have consequences, whether you care about those and/or whether you want to view that as a personal failing or an inevitable result of the envrionment in which you live, is up to you.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 03:43

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Aye, beaufe Ynglishe hath notte altered ye Form it taketh since the LORD himsellf putte it upon thys Earthe.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 14:20

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Sucrose posted:

English changes. That doesn't mean you can insist that other people use changes to it that you yourself made up on the spot.

Insisting that other people use some new pronoun you've artificially made up is just as dumb and unreasonable as creating a new verb ending for third-person plurals and insisting that everyone use that.

Unlikely to gain traction but not even remotely onerous?

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 14:33

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Sucrose posted:

"I don't want to be called 'a woman,' I want to be called "ana woman" with a feminine conjugation on the article such as they do in Spanish."

You see how stupid and unreasonable that would be? The made-up pronouns are just as unreasonable.

It sounds daft but I don't see why it's unreasonable. You're not asking me to do anything difficult and presumably if I give even the remotest poo poo about you I can afford to devote an iota of brainpower to adding an extra syllable to your mode of address. I would politely address you as "madam" after all instead of "oi, you".

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 14:37

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Sucrose posted:

I would say that expecting someone to memorize a new pronoun with three different conjugations depending on the subject of the sentence that refers to you and you only is extremely onerous.

My god you're right, I mean, when Hercules was sent to kill the Nemean lion at least he didn't have to call it xir in the process, otherwise he wouldn't have been able to do it.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 14:39

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Sucrose posted:

And if someone insisted upon being addressed as "your bloomfulness" in place of "you" in every sentence, would you find that acceptable, or would they be being an unreasonable prick?

Depends on how much I like them and how much of a knobhead they're being about it? I might object to it out of spite.

But the act of just changing the mode of address is really not difficult so I think it comes down to whether you want to be spiteful or not.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 14:43

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Sucrose posted:

We're just going to have to agree to disagree, I can't wrap my head around your viewpoint where you think it's reasonable for someone to demand that people change the very grammar of the language when speaking to them. If they want to use odd, self-constructed grammar, they can feel free, but it's ridiculous for them to demand or even ask that others join them in the insanity when in their presence.

You say that when typing on a forum on the mysterious nonesense word internet using italics tags to illustrate your point.

Language changes, suggesting that the language we have right this minute is sacrosanct and cannot possibly be changed even voluntarily by the people using it, is kind of mental.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 17:03

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Frosted Flake posted:

If you think humanity is about to enter a golden age where we call people "xir/xe" and abandon 10 000 years of gender and sexuality I don't know what to tell you.

Language changes. Language is not going to change to accommodate the feelings of a fraction of a fraction of LGB people.

And I'm sure people are not going to stop calling gay people faggots but that doesn't make it right that they do so.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 17:13

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Well there's certainly a difference in that you seem pretty convinced that the latter group are not worthy of anything but derision and seem pretty happy about being able to make them feel bad without getting called out on it.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 17:23

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Two letters?

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 17:26

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Or we could use whatever the person we're talking to or about prefers because it's not difficult.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 17:30

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Frosted Flake posted:

Why?

He - Masculine
She - Feminine
They - Group or neutral
Xe - ???
Zir - ???
Ve - ???

See how there's functionally no difference?

There's functionally no difference if I start calling you Splorf instead of your name but you probably would find it a bit annoying if I persisted in doing so.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 17:35

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Frosted Flake posted:

I'm glad that you agree calling people Splorf is as absurd as calling people Xe.

In both cases, the fantasy doesn't change the underlying reality. Society agrees that my name is whatever is on my birth certificate and legal documents. My family agrees that it is whatever I was raised / baptized / confirmed as. My friends might agree on a preferred nickname. I call myself whatever I want, almost always in line with the previous three. If you call me Splorf, it doesn't make my name Splorf.

A 'Genderqueer' person with Female on 'their' birth certificate and a woman's name can change their gender to male on all government documents, or keep it the same. 'They' can use women's washrooms or men's. 'They' can ask people to address 'them' as a 'they'. It doesn't make them one, but polite society is willing to accommodate people on this. Asking people to use a made-up word to describe them only draws more attention to the fragility and artifice of their identity, something I thought the LGBT community was trying to avoid.

And you persisting in referring to a person as something other than what they are does not make them the thing you call them, though it is rather irritating.

Polite individuals respect the right of other individuals to assert some agency in their identity, and don't spit their dummies out over being asked not to use the words they like using.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 17:49

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Frosted Flake posted:

Other than what they are? If a person is not a "he" or a "she" they must be a "they". What is the difference between a "they" and a "xir"?

What is the difference between red, green, and "everything else"?

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 17:53

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Frosted Flake posted:

The difference is for 10 000 years society has agreed that red and green exist, and people would rather not have to go through a mental list of "everything else" to address a person in everyday conversation.

Then presumably we should ban names, and just refer to people by approximate hair colour, because who wants to go to the effort of remembering all those names when addressing people?

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 17:58

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Thank you for pointing out that people are intransigent, I wouldn't have known that if you hadn't.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 18:17

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

You still seem to have a strange habit of conflating the status quo with a moral imperative.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 18:30

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Commie NedFlanders posted:

Isn't it ironic that well-intentioned supporters of transgender politics will criticize people for being so darn hung up on gender concepts when their entire struggle is defined by Caring about That

The argument is that traditional gender roles are unnecessary and should not be assigned to people without their consent. Instead people should be free to choose their own role regardless of their gender and the idea that there are only two acceptable roles is dumb.

So, no it's not really very ironic.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 18:42

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Commie NedFlanders posted:

One of the basic constitutive features of gender is that it's imposed on individuals from the outside world, this argument seems to be an argument against th very idea of gender altogether

Do these same criticisms apply to ethnic identity? That is something people are just born into and they learn from society th meaning of that designation.

Should it be culturally acceptable for people to choose their ethnic identity and should individuals be expected to validate the chosen ethnic Identities of other people?

Also, if gender roles are "unnecessary", why are they a basic fundamental feature of all human societies across location and culture and time period?

Yes yes and yes.

I dunno, why is spiritualism a fundamental feature of almost all human societies? People believe some dumb stuff. Ideally they should try not to.

Frosted Flake posted:

Exactly. If you think that gender roles are irrelevant, you don't need extra pronouns.

The effeminate nurse that dates men and had a penis can still be a he. He can dress, act, gently caress and marry whoever while still being a man.

Maybe the effeminate nurse doesn't want to be a man, why should they have to be?

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 18:54

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Commie NedFlanders posted:

for many people, gender is a fundamental defining feature of their identity, isn't it condescending to tell other people what should or should not matter to them?

how can an intellectually honest liberal walk around dictating to people what is good or bad to believe in, in the name of inclusion?

You can believe whatever you want about yourself, if you really want to be whatever your perception of a traditional gender role is, go nuts. Nobody's going to stop you.

There is no reason however why you should expect everyone else to fit themselves into that role.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 18:57

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Commie NedFlanders posted:

If Donald Trump's son decided to put on black face and walk around black neighborhoods speaking in Ebonics, would you defend his right to choose his own identity?

Would you call a resident of that neighborhood stupid or close minded if they wer offended?

That depends, is he doing it to take the piss out of black people (probably) or does he genuinely think he's black (probably not). If he does, well, I guess he can do that if he wants to. Don't make fun of the unwell. I would expect if the case was the latter though he would probably not do that because he would understand why people might think he was just being a dickhead.

Commie NedFlanders posted:

That's a good question maybe do some honest good faith research into the subject

Or not.

See, I could just as easily say all of these ideas is liberal gender politics is just a result of "people believe some dumb stuff".

How can you claim any idea is better than any other when you take this attitude?

Because I can use my brain to assess whether or not I think a thing has value by judging its likelihood of being true, or by judging its utility as a tool for achieving what I consider the ideal state of human existence.

Commie NedFlanders posted:

You mean like demanding changes in language, which is inherently social?

Nobody is telling you you can't call yourself a he, they are merely requesting that you call them what they want to be called as well.

OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Mar 23, 2016

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 19:06

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Commie NedFlanders posted:

How is a gender blind society an ideal worth striving for?

Some people are proud of their gender

This is like going into the NAACP and giving hem crap because OVVIOUSLY they should be Not See Race

You can be proud of your gender if you want to. I think it's a bit of a silly thing to be proud of unless you're transgendered but there's nothing really wrong with you doing it if you want to.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 19:09

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Deriving your sense of self worth from the social inertia of the word used to describe your gender is suboptimal. It would be preferable if you adjusted your concept of self worth such that it does not rely on that, then you would have no complaint with people changing the social meaning of that word.

Your same argument can be used against all forms of feminism, really, because a housewife may not like having the meaning of woman changed from "property of her husband" to something else. The optimal society is one where people do not feel a need to derive personal value from the inertia of language.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 19:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 15:56

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Frosted Flake posted:

If gender is fluid and totally constructed, why transition anyways?

The Genderqueer and Trans elements of LGBT seem totally at odds with each other.

Are Drag Shows an essential part of Gay culture or modern day blackface minstrel shows?

Gender is arbitrary, that it is arbitrary does not necessitate complete conscious control over it. It is sometimes easier to change the body than the mind.

Some people want to be men, some people want to be women, some people want to be something else, some people want to be any and all of the above. There isn't really any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to be.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2016 20:05

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

«‹›4 »