|
The law still applies to trans people if that's what you were wondering OP. They don't get to have special trans courts and I don't believe they're asking for them either.
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 23:50 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:There is nothing stopping someone from putting drag on and doing this right now. There will never be a way of fully stopping this without totalitarian brutality, single-person restrooms, or unisex restrooms. Furthermore, there's no magic test to determine an authentic trans person, so I fail to see why you're specifying "genderfluid," here. I would like to add also that he doesn't even need drag to do gross stuff. There is no boobs-only forcefield keeping gross men out of women's restrooms. If a woman born female went into the bathroom and started jacking off to all the women, the women are sti fully justified in saying, "get the gently caress out of our bathroom you perv."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
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 The origin of gender was for the sake of division of labor. The woman jobs in hunter-gatherer tribes were the ones that could be done while holding a baby so that they were never interrupted. Now that we have other ways of holding babies and procreating and so forth, genders no longer determine jobs and their social role is more vestigial and mostly relegated to sex (we've also managed to separate sex from its original role, or are trying to, Texas). Cultures that faced a decline in megafauna also saw an increase in the value of the woman job, and so there was more motivation to have a way for men to become women. One way, IIRC, was that during a rite of passage coming-of-age ritual type thing, they put the kid on a vision quest where they're supposed to see either a woven basket or a bow and arrow, and the one they choose determines their job aka gender. I'm seeing a lot of "is (so far), therefore ought" going on here. It used to be people who didn't want to go with the gender their crotch gave them could only cross dress and try to perform it as best they could, and passing was difficult. Most people, I believe, would . Now people who can afford it (I think it should be covered by medicare for all) can get sex reassignment surgery after a long process of social transition, hormone therapy, and counseling. That's really neat, I think, and makes the futuretopia we live in more fun and novel (sorry if this comes off as treating trans people like mere spectacles, I just mean there are multiple angles for why transsexuality should be seen as innocuous). Like, even if there weren't a medical consensus on gender dysphoria, I'd still be for letting anyone have reassignment surgery. If you perform woman gender, woman bathroom. If you perform man gender, man bathroom. If you perform androgyny (and I think calling that "third gender" is misleading because it's still predicated on a binary spectrum), then just do whatever is least likely to weird everyone out, or maybe you found the secret middle road that lets you go in both bathrooms without anyone being surprised. I think people often forget that the bell curves of "men" and "women" for any given trait have a ton of overlap, so that 'neither' is also 'both.' Very auspicious. Ethnic identities do not determine social roles (such as jobs), or where they do, we consider that inappropriate (e.g. it shouldn't be that landscaping is considered a "Mexican job" in America).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Murdered pedestrians and mildly hurt feelings: literally the same thing. I was actually spitting the opposite of  You see, when I was a freshman in college, I was adamant that gender was a fundamental aspect of a person's biology, driven by hormones. Then I went and learned about how gender was constructed, and was reminded in the context of the issue that there are intersex people, which helped me not think of sexual dimorphism as a hard-and-fast set-in-stone Natural Law, and that was how I realized that people should, indeed, be allowed to determine their own gender roles. I shared the path I took in the hope that someone in the far-too-reductionist position I held back then, would see the limits of their own Sorry if it wasn't clear—I did have difficulty organizing the post in a satisfactory order. Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Well then something got messed up during these peoples' socialisation because if "oh no I got mistaken for the wrong See: most 13-year-old males
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Trans people are what 0.05% of the population? 'Non-binary' people less than that? Short of sharing classes, attending LGBT events, or being introduced through mutual friends, I will never encounter a person like that in more than passing. I don't worry about the gender of my barista or barber, I make smalltalk, tip and go about my day. Yeah, and it's never the case that you go up to a barista and say "hey, that other barista, is she--oh I didn't recognize you from behind! Oh, you go by he, whoops," so what's the fuss? Trans people don't start every conversation with "I was not born with a vag but I am trying to pass so please call me she," because the objective is for nobody to realize she wasn't born with a vag. You could say there's no fuss, but you sure seem invested enough in this issue to keep posting about it. When people don't care about something, they tend not to go out of their way to tell everyone how little they care about it over and over again. It's like if a guy went "oh man I really hate My Little Pony porn. Look at all this porn of My Little Pony I found, to show how bad it is! I hate it so much! Here, let me shut the door real quick and spend 5 minutes hating this one brb" OwlFancier posted:I'd definitely put money on the fraction identifying as trans increasing significantly as time goes on. Same here. Also, the smallest valid estimate still leaves us with more trans people in America than goons in the world, so that's a nice way to put it in perspective.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:I don't have any problem with trans people. Throughout I've been consistent with my answer to the OP's question. I wouldn't wear religious garb or eat halal to placate the sensibility of religious people. I similarity respect but don't share the view of gender non-binary people have. We are in D&D and this is like saying "I similarly respect but don't share the view of the economic non-rational actor model" Frosted Flake posted:Using a common English word versus a made up word is not bigotry. I respectfully disagree with a certain conception of gender, privately. Ultimately people can do whatever they want and I don't want to get in the way. What I think has no bearing on their lives, and as long as I'm polite and tolerant it won't. Here you are disagreeing with it publicly on a forum Commie NedFlanders posted:Cis identities are taught to individuals by society, not the other way around This is straight-up "because we hold relatively traditional views on marriage" back when there was still anti-miscegenation going on. It's 2016, wake up grandpa! Anyone can be whatever, no rules! Also, don't use quotation marks when you're not using anyone's words. You catch more flies with honey that isn't dripping with smugness Also, when does anyone refer to the person they're talking to, in the third person? Here's a wild idea: calling people by their name. Commie NedFlanders posted:In your mind, did you assume that I'm a wealthy white male? lol Same here. I'm merely well-to-do and have negative wealth but my student debt is easy to manage because I had few distractions from my day-to-day studies in a STEM field  However, I do think it is disingenuous to equate someone's hypothetical yet confounding need to refer to someone within earshot using a disputed third-person pronoun, as them not wanting to respect or let the person be their gender role except as I type it out it does feel like that's the reason they don't want to consider them their gender actually. Why are xou worried axout xomeone axing for an unexpexted name, Xed? What would feel xeird axout it? Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Mar 24, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:pure speculative prejudice. you have no way of knowing what everyone thinks, and your assumption that you do is rather condescending. Oh lol and right after I post about how you shouldn't use quotation marks unless you're using someone else's words, I continue catching up to see xou chiding xomeone for the xame xing!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:Nonconformity is okay (permissible), and conformity is good (moral). How come conformity is moral? I think it is immoral because it makes us vulnerable as a society whereas variety makes us robust. Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Mar 24, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
I agree with rudatron, but rudatron's post did not adequately hand-hold the reader to explicitly state that nobody actually asks to be called "xir" anyway so it doesn't matter, and also trans people practically by definition satisfy the criteria for pronouns being a simple matter of respect and human decency (as opposed to someone like Xommie Xed Xanders invented to ask for a name like Master, who simply doesn't exist and wouldn't be taken seriously for reasons rudatron has stated), so I can see how some might mistake it as "gender binary is set in stone and you have to pick one or giiiiiiit out." As it stands, what distinguishes the genders "woman" and "man" is what the society deems, and we are talking about what society ought to deem, via the interplay of culture and law. Across history, the struggles for justice have been to erode distinctions between the genders, such as economic function, function within child rearing, reproductive agency, and of course the genitalia someone was born with. 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?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Like there is an image in people's mind of what constitutes 'woman', and the further you are away from that, the less able you are to really identity as that. So beyond simple attire and mannerisms, we also talking stuff like facial hair + body shape. I mean there's just some people who may want to make that transition, but effectively can't because they're unable to technically approach that image/archetype. I don't think that's fair, but it is the way it is. Which is why I think technology can play a role, but you've got to be realistic about what it can and can't do I'm impressed by the Eurovision lady with a beard who is still clearly performing 'woman.'  I feel like some people would fit in well in both bathrooms, and so it's up to them which one they want to use. Like hey, you escaped the binary, congrats! You now get to choose the bathroom without a line. I wonder if anyone knows of someone who wouldn't fit in well in either bathroom. That would suck, and I think that's what rudatron means by the benefit fitting into a cookie-cutter far end of the spectrum. I just think that the variance within genders is greater than the distance between them. Rudatron, I think you mean "a sense of belonging" when you say "conformity," and your point is more along the lines of "nobody can truly be themselves unless they're alone," because even with a life partner we have to mold our behavior to signal with regard to the expectations of others, which includes signalling that you respect who a person is and what they're signalling by using the right words to describe them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbkOXCAZDrI
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
Imagine you're a 13-year-old boy. You start growing breasts and people are constantly calling you by a girl's name. You tell them to stop but they just do it more to taunt you. Imagine how loving mortifying that would be. That is a taste of what it's like to be trans, as far as I can tell. If you find yourself thinking "what's the big deal with them wanting me to play along with this," try to ruminate on that. This isn't some tumblr profile poo poo people do on a whim. As for grammar chat, here's a test case: boats are somehow one of the last remaining gendered inanimate nouns in English, and are called "she." BUT what if you took a male horse and transformed him into a boat, creating an aquatic equestrian hybrid. The horse is a "he" but the boat is a "she." What do you call the horse transitioning to boat? She, even though she is still shaped like a male horse.  The computers agree. Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Mar 26, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
rudatron posted:You seem a little confused by my point though. Like if they 'pass', then they automatically succeed. That's kind of my point. 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. blowfish posted:You are projecting. Everyone who doesn't already live in your own little world and makes arguments that offend you is obviously out to oppress you, consciously or unconsciously, without considering cause and effect when it comes to things that offend you and things that oppress you and without realising that the average person has never knowingly dealt with your issue. After a few rounds of this everyone who didn't already agree with you beforehand goes "I don't want to listen to this poo poo anymore, just shut the gently caress up" and stops caring about your problems. The reason some people in this thread are upset is because when someone frames it like "well sure, some trans people are beaten up or killed for being trans, or are afraid someone will go off on them in either bathroom, are made homeless by being disowned by their support network, or risk being fired or denied jobs just for being different, but what really matters is why a grip of hypothetical people are asking me to use made up pronouns," it shows an unwillingness to look at the big picture and focus your thoughts around reality. Cugel the Clever posted:Any assertion of individual identity is violence against the State. I agree, sister in Statehood. #SmashTheIndividual rudatron posted:They're social groups, and your inclusion is conditional on everyone else's approval. So here we are, looking at how we can ease out some people's criteria for approval. The thing is that you are implying that there are a grip of trans people who are putting in no effort, shopping in the men's section, looking like Sal from Futurama, and asking to be called something other than 'he.' It's just not part of the picture. Too many people see this  When they should see this  Link to more on this subject lite frisk posted:If a friend asks you not to take the lord's name in vain, because she finds it very emotionally painful and uncomfortable to hear it, do you comply? You're not talking about that person so it doesn't really concern them. I mean if I've got a job to do with someone, I'll work around their quirks but in general you just don't have to hang out with people who make you uncomfortable. Where trans people tend to get shat on is in those circumstances where nobody's there by (unconstrained) choice. Effectronica posted:I kind of enjoy the thought that having sex with someone is morally neutral, and forming your hand into a fist and swinging it repeatedly is morally neutral, rudatron. Not as much as I'll enjoy your continued refusal to explain why conformity being inevitable doesn't apply to stuffing gays back into the closet or inducing vitiligo on nonwhites, but does apply to nonbinary and trans fellows and making them use approved words for themselves. I wish revitiligo were real. There'd be dudes who grew up white who then see the difference that being black makes in how people perceive you and would be able to explain it to white people form their own perspective. That said, isn't sex with melons morally neutral? I mean, it's not like the supermarket was going to give the melon to a homeless person if the practitioner didn't buy it. I mean, it's more moral to buy a melon to give to a homeless person, but not immoral to do something else with it, unless we're making the case that it is immoral to idly benefit from a corrupt oppressive society. TheWhiteNightmare posted:They're going to write about this tragedy in the history books. Pictures of wailing mothers holding their ash-covered children and everything. But now I can see this thread is devolving into the classic rhetorical backbone of "you're overblowing the problem," "no you're going crazy over my request for a costless solution to a regular problem," "no you're throwing a huge bitch fit for me not going along with a small thing," "no you accusing me of throwing a bitch fit is a bitch fit in itself" etc. Can we try to bring this back to reality? If you are someone who is anticipating a scenario where someone asks for you to call them something unreasonable, let's hear the details of that scenario, and see if it really is something to expect. And if it is something to expect, what bothers or worries you most about that scenario, without comparing it to some other scenario with a different context? Then we can talk about the issue more earnestly. Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I disagree that the people I'm implying don't exist though, they do, but they're of course a small minority, and it's of course unfair to call them representative. I've never encountered this. Is this from personal experience? Something documented? Venomous posted:I agree with a lot of what you're saying but please stop doing this because the asterisk erases non-binary people, the term is just trans Doesn't "transgendered" just refer to transcending the typical genders? Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Venomous posted:the term for that is 'transgender' without the suffix Ah okay, because it implies a completed process from the past. I can jive with that
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Well it's not really hard to Find examples. So what did this person ask to be called?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Do you realize the '*' was to denote a 'wildcard' character, and meant to include all appropriate endings? Well, all contextually appropriate ones anyway. In that case it should be trans.*
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Oh he is absolutely prepared to say that. And has, in fact, already done so! I'm struggling to find the part where rudatron gave attractiveness as a bar to pass. He's basically just saying that if you're a woman who for some reason goes our of her way to perform the "man" gender, then calling her a man should be the default action of an observer. It's just a moot point because it doesn't correspond with any scenario we can anticipate. Yet another goon on D&D trying to make an esoteric point that doesn't create or refine actual information, and just connotes antagonism in actual circumstances, because we all make the good-faith assumption that people are talking about real things. I'm reminded of fishmech with the calorie talk.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Hyperbole for the purpose of comedy? On these, the something awful dot com comedy forums?! Someone notify the president of this scandal immediately! Usually when something is for the purpose of comedy, it's like, funny. This seems more like hyperbole for the sake of reinforcing a motivated view of someone, sort of like when someone acts like the real problem is all these people asking for xir Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Certain posters in this thread do have a nasty habit of putting words in the mouths of others, but for the most part I try to excuse that as the product of years of frustration and even abuse IRL, and focus on how I can help bridge the divide. I agree with OwlFancier, Xommie XedXanders, that the "you'll never win people over with that attitude"-style rhetoric is itself an exhibition of that attitude—it takes no steps to bridge the gap. I think that you are a good person who truly does want to understand this stuff, who feels unilaterally attacked for having the wrong opinions rather than being taught what makes the opinions wrong in a way you can understand. I've tried to help you gain perspective(s) on the matter, but it's hard to identify what the gaps in your knowledge and understanding are from your recent posts. I think you are confused when you hear that people know they are a woman in a man's body and it's obvious and should never be denied, but then also that some people don't "realize" they're a woman until the time a cis woman would be experiencing menopause, and that's a valid confusion. I'm not sure how to address it right now, but we can come back to it. When you're asking people who have been spat on by society to help you understand them, it takes more effort on your part to not come off like "hey, this is inconsistent, I found the contradiction that proves you wrong!" Because within the subcommunity called this thread, it is harder to distinguish someone in the "against trans" role from someone in the "doesn't have sufficient concepts to clearly see the whats and whys" role, without the latter going out of their way to perform the role. "Evil prevails when good men do nothing"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
I contend that the "Ghandi trap," as it's called in the book linked in the authoritarian thread's OP, is the only known way to sway right-wing authoritarians against the status quo or their leaders, and that King's approach was vital to the movement, which isn't to say that Huey Newton's approach was not also vital. But ignorant white people at least can't get away with saying King was bad. The underlying point is, the only person whose mannerisms you can control is yourself, and trying to tell someone to stop being angry in a thread is never going to help, because it will always look condescending, particularly to whoever seems angry. If you think someone is mad, figure out why without their help and lead by example. Otherwise your goal is just to feel right, not to learn from the perspective of others. There's too much talk trying to secure moral high ground within the context of the thread, and it's exhausting. Effectronica, I thought the way you quoted Cugel made it seem like you thought Cugel meant that nobody in America outside the south was racist, because that's how you phrased it. That said, I forget why MLK was originally brought up, but I think someone like Flanders brought it up to tell someone to stop acting mad, which again is an ill-considered idea. I think it's obfuscative, however, to frame this issue in terms of "it's just acknowledging someone is human," because that leads someone to say "yes this person belongs to species Homo sapiens sapiens I would never doubt that  ," but the real matter at hand is that we take it for granted that you refer to people by the names to which they are accustomed, but we suddenly stop taking it for granted when the person is trans. It's a basic day-to-day aspect of humanity that we don't even notice until we find someone disputing a trans person's gender, and it's never not been a jerk who can only tell from things the person can't control, even though what they're going for is obvious. Yes there are hypothetical edge cases where a guy that looks and acts like Ted Cruz says "I'm a lady call me Diane," but the amount of focus I've seen on it here is comparable to making a vaccine thread be about "well what if I got a vaccine and then I broke out in herpes? What then?" It's drivel.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Why? What if they are acting like idiots? You can handle people who act like idiots without being rude
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:I'm serious, I had several classes with this person and nobody knew how to refer to this person as a he or a she, and one of my cisgender cisethnic black female friends told me she found it offensive but didn't want to cause a fuss by saying anything but every time they would talk like that I felt like she was humiliated and nobody knew what to say, if anything It sounded like the person in your example was making a light-hearted joke, and you live in a region where it's more commonly acceptable for someone to play fast and loose with stereotypes that are considered pretty regressive elsewhere. An equivalent would be if someone says they're Asian on the inside because they drive recklessly. Anyone can enjoy and participate in a culture that they weren't socialized under by their family and local community, and there are no people who feel like they can't be truly actualized for who they are without changing their skin color, because ethnicity is not a 'social role' that's performed passively the way gender is.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:What is the fundamental difference in your opinion? E.g., what is the difference between a sexual or identity condition (e.g. being cis or trans or whatever), and being mentally ill (e.g. believing one is some sort of wolf, spiritually speaking)? I don't think tumblrites claiming to be demi-wolves are mentally ill, they're just doing what people have done on the Internet in one way or another since it began, which is role play, and taking it to a new level because the Internet affords an escapist means of self-identification for people who still live under their parents' house and rules. If Tumblr were around when I was growing up, I'd probably have identified as part Sneasel from Pokemon.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 23:50 |
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:Couldn't it be argued that all identities are fundamentally just role play? If you're just dying to have a nice discrete taxonomy, maybe, but because the social impacts are so different (we can say with pretty strong certainty that 'demi-wolves' are not feeling denied their place in society by teachers who don't call them by their wolf name), that categorizing that way won't be very useful. Some aspects of identity are more tightly bound to a person than others, and gender is the only one that seems to come up as far as people disputing someone's identity, entirely because it's the only aspect of social identity that has, let's say, "audience participation." I don't really understand what it means when someone "discovers" they're a woman after 50 years performing "man," but I'll give the benefit of the doubt, as it could be that the concept wasn't available to them for a long time, the social climate caused them to attribute symptoms of gender dysphoria to other things, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 21:55
|
|