|
Are nonbinary people entitled the platitude of correct gender pronouns or bathroom privileges based on their personal identity, any more or less than extremely religious people might feel entitled to their sensibilities not being offended, based on their personal religious identity? (For example, that Amish community that wanted the police to not get involved on an Amish to Amish hate crime, or radical Muslims/Catholics that want Sharia/Papal law to trump Federal law.) I am interested in your opinions. Sulphuric Asshole fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Mar 22, 2016 |
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 21:58 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted: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. Was that kid on Youtube who ate a consecrated host appropriating Catholic culture? He most certainly did that without permission from the Catholic church.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No because the Catholic Church has more money than God and is not in any danger of being erased. Do you feel that cultural appropriation applies only to minority cultures?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yes? I mean I assume there's a reason they're your friend, you're a bit of a dickhead if you go off on one at the prospect of calling them a different name. Does refusing to address someone with a preferred pronoun prevent that person from expressing their idenitiy?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It is certainly rude to refuse to acknowledge that identity. If everyone does it then it can certainly have a rather deleterious effect on a person's mental wellbeing. Is external validation required for a person to properly identify as something?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:I'm not interested in writing an essay for you just to have it ignored or dismissed with a single sarcastic sentence - which is ultimately what would happen. Nobody in D&D would ever do that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
In my lovely opinion, "gender appropriation" and "cultural appropriation" would both be perfectly fine ways for people to put themselves in another person's shoes and expand ideas and art. Some people will be dicks and mock fun of others in the process, but you gotta ignore the haters.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
Troposphere posted:how often do you run into otherkin and headmates people or have to refer to them in conversation? I went to art school and I didn't even have that happen, so maybe don't worry about outlandish hypotheticals. I knew someone who thought/believed that she was a real life snow-leopard.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Kaleidoscopic Gaze posted:It's threads like this that make me miss having a cock, though I suppose I could squat and firehose all over this thread and it'd accomplish the same thing. Would you say that you identify as a binary or nonbinary individual? Do you feel that making blithe statements about "neckbeards" is any more or less acceptable than "neckbeards" making blithe statements about transgendered or nonbinary individuals. Sulphuric Asshole fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Mar 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
Lyesh posted:Ooo, rhetorical questions. I can play that game!! I don't believe that the question is rhetorical. As far as the UTI thing: Are there a lot of men's rooms that don't have regular toilets? Sulphuric Asshole fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Mar 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Lichy posted:Men's public toilets are grim and really horribly dirty and covered in piss and I can't imagine someone wanting to use them if they have any alternative at all especially if they have to come into contact with any surface once inside. I've cleaned a lot of toilets working at an amusement park; I've seen and heard it both ways. I'd be interestested in some sort of source that confirms that men's public restrooms are worse, or vice versa if such exists.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:If somebody in real life demands to be called "xir" please get back to us here in the thread. Make sure you measure the single horn coming out of their forehead, as well. I know somone who wanted to be referred to as a snow-leopard. It's not specifically a use of "xir," but I'd consider it enough of an analogue. Sulphuric Asshole fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Mar 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You're right, it isn't. Would you indulge a person who wanted to be called a snow leopard? Is a person believing and feeling that they are not human fundamentally different than a person believing and feeling that they are genderfluid? Sulphuric Asshole fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Mar 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Why can people not opt out of the human species? Gee I don't know. Humans do share a a substantial amount of identical DNA with other animals, and also share a common ancestor. If you take that viewpoint, it would be easy to see why a person might identify as species-fluid.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You do not sincerely believe this. Some people do sincerely believe that they are trans-species, however.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
blowfish posted:This is not how biology works. It is specifically not how species work. Science has always had some flexibility in what defines a species. Humans and Neanderthals could, for example, produce viable offspring, yet are classified as different species.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Keyword: some. Humans and big cats can't, for instance. It sounds like a person could at least identify as trans neanderthal, then.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
blowfish posted:You don't get to be a neanderthal by claiming you are. You need to be in the neanderthal gene pool at which point you don't get to be a modern human anymore. What if they're still transitioning? Who gets to police how someone identifies their species?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
blowfish posted:The gene pools weren't seperate at some point in the past, then barriers happened and they were. The earliest protozoa were sexless. Gender barriers happened at some point in the past, but the original biological intent of being able to produce viable genetic offspring has changed with the times as well. Sulphuric Asshole fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Mar 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Lichy posted:How quickly on average do you oscillate between biology and sociology in your arguments? There are sociology disciplines devoted to intersectionality.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:One of these is not like the other: Sounds like privilege to me.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Sorry, what are you saying? The entitling one group to extra respect, based on how they were born, over another. That sounds like someone is being granted privilege.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
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. It could possibly be that oversensitive people rub others the wrong way, and discourages them from acquiescing to their requests. Sulphuric Asshole fucked around with this message at 12:22 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 12:19
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:You do rub me the wrong way, but if I were to mistreat you because of that, I would be doing the wrong thing, and compounding my immoral behavior if I blamed you for it. If I was being a big baby about things, I wouldn't expect my sensibilities to be catered to, and I'd imagine that is the case for most people.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 12:23
|
|
|
jivjov posted:To doubt someone's sincere self identity is to tell them they are lesser than those you believe. This is putting words in people's mouths.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
jivjov posted:No; its identifying the end result of their attitude. They may not even mean to be saying "you are lesser", but that is what's being communicated. Then perhaps some people should feel lesser for being oversensitive about things. People don't have the right to not be offended.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:People also have to justify their reason for giving offence. I don't believe that justification is always necessary. Some folks will be offended, and try to make others walk on eggshells, regardless of how much you justify yourself or coddle them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No you must always justify it, in giving offence you have done something wrong I don't believe this to be true. Some people are just obtuse and controlling.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No offence is always wrong, because if what you are saying causes offence and informs nobody, then it is of negative value to the world. A Christian woman was once offended at a discussion a college friend of mine was having about his sexuality, and she interjected that we were offending her. Was my friend being a homosexual a negative value of the world?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
Krysmphoenix posted:Stop being over sensitive about the way strangers live their peaceful lives. I do what I want, when I want 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yes we have, I've already explained to you that the wellbeing of the whole is contingent on the wellbeing of the individuals comprising the whole, and also that there is no reason why gender binaries need to exist. Is maximizing wellbeing also maximizing happiness?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Nobody is served by you making patronizing tone arguments, either. So please stop. If someone is being turd, then "tone policing" them is reasonable, in my subjective opinion. I'm not meaning to imply that you're being a turd. Sulphuric Asshole fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:^^^^^ That sounds like it could be a tone argument as well. In what contexts would you say you agree or disagree with the use of tone policing?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
According to the scientific journal, "Jurassic Park" developing babies are all female until the introduction of certain hormones. I could see it reasonable that differing amounts of hormones in the mother could produce more feminine or masculine traits in a fetus of the opposite biological sex.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2016 12:25
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Saying that playing with construction vehicles is caused by hormones relies on the assumption that we are genetically programmed to understand what a backhoe is, if we are to use it as evidence that the relationship is "hormones cause masculine play" rather than "hormones cause an internal state that leads to masculine play". That is, what constitutes a masculine toy is so obviously culturally contingent that it's bullshit to use it as evidence that testosterone causes systematizing thinking over testosterone causing an internal state which we bind up with systematizing thinking in a cultural construction of masculinity and maleness. It could just be possible that things that break rocks, make loud, destructive noises, and move a lot of dirt, and set fire to stuff, appeal to a more primitive side of masculinity or aggressive behavior. The backhoe itself is not the important part of such a concept.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
SHISHKABOB posted:All those things are the same thing as the backhoe within the framework of the discussion. Those are ideas that we use to construct an idea like masculinity. Without complex machinery in the picture, you could still swing a stick or make loud noises and it would appeal to more primitive and possibly masculine traits.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 21:58 |
|
|
SHISHKABOB posted:Ok why is swinging a stick and loud noises primitive and possibly masculine traits. They're aggressive behaviors. I think that young boys, or tomboyish females, would be more attracted things that are just intrinsically more aggessive than young boys or girls with more feminine traits. Cingulate posted:Have you ever seen a female iguana do any of these things? I don't quite understand what you are saying. Sulphuric Asshole fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Apr 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2016 00:19
|
|