Transgender

[Gralin]

Discussion continuing in Part 2 found here

Transgender - Part 2

Please be aware that the tolerance of anti-trans language on BF is at an all-time low. Jokes and insults that are trans-related, as well as anti-trans and bigoted rhetoric will be met with infractions, threadbans etc as required. It's a sensitive (and important) topic, so behave like...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Are you saying it isn't a psychological issue?

Lets flip this around. Is forcing people to confirm with a binary gender identity a form of psychological abuse?

 

[gouki88]

Neo-Nazo hate speech? Sure. But this isn't the same. As I said. Nuance is frustrating sometimes, I know. But it's also better than absolutism.

This is pretty much in line with the same thing. One side wants to be themselves, the other wants to deny them that.

 

[mcnulty]

Not a particularly useful contribution to the debate-too much anecdote. But I suppose it’s done for TV, so that’s to be expected. And they had to throw Trump in there…twice.

Would have been good to hear from medical experts from other areas about where they stand with it. As it was, the bloke from Queensland seemed about the most even handed.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Lets flip this around. Is forcing people to confirm with a binary gender identity a form of psychological abuse?

Yes it is, but that doesn’t nullify ShanDog’s question.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

This is pretty much in line with the same thing. One side wants to be themselves, the other wants to deny them that.

That cartoon’s very good, but also a rather extreme illustration of what you said in your post. (It’s quite the leap from wanting to deny someone something, to wanting to kill someone.)

Here’s a more moderate hypothetical:

Person I: I want to be called they/them

Person II: I don’t want to call you they/them.

Which one gives?

 

[Gough]

That’s very good, but also a very extreme hypothetical.

Here’s a more moderate hypothetical:

Person I: I want to be called they/them

Person II: I don’t want to call you they/them.

Which one gives?

Why the f*** would you not use someone's preferred pronouns?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Why the f*** would you not use someone's preferred pronouns?

That’s irrelevant.

 

[Gough]

That’s irrelevant.

How so? If you want to bring this back to first principles we're talking basic good manners here.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Yes it is, but that doesn’t nullify ShanDog’s question.

It’s kinda related. Chicken/egg situation.

What if forcing someone to suppress their identity is causing psychological issues?

 

[Gralin]

That cartoon’s very good, but also a rather extreme illustration of what you said in your post. (It’s quite the leap from wanting to deny someone something, to wanting to kill someone.)

Here’s a more moderate hypothetical:

Person I: I want to be called they/them

Person II: I don’t want to call you they/them.

Which one gives?

Person II is an arseh*le/bigot depending on their reason for not wanting to use correct pronouns

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

How so? If you want to bring this back to first principles we're talking basic good manners here.

Person II is an arseh*le/bigot depending on their reason for not wanting to use correct pronouns

So it’s ALL about good manners and not being an arseh*le?

You really think that’s the first principles at play here?

This extraordinary, worldwide phenomenon we’ve witnessed in the last few years is just about manners and not being an arseh*le? LOL.

Anyway, back to my question. Viewed entirely in the abstract, without introducing motives for either player, can you answer, who has to give?

 

[Gralin]

So it’s ALL about good manners and not being an a-hole?

You really think that’s the first principles at play here?

This extraordinary, worldwide phenomenon we’ve witnessed in the last few years is just about manners and not being an a-hole? LOL.

Anyway, back to my question. Viewed entirely in the abstract, without introducing motives for either player, can you answer, who has to give?

I said they're an arseh*le or a bigot depending on their reason for not respecting person one's pronouns.

What's your point here?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

It’s kinda related. Chicken/egg situation.

What if forcing someone to suppress their identity is causing psychological issues?

I don’t disagree. But are you saying gender questions shouldn’t ever be viewed as a psychological issue?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I said they're an arseh*le or a bigot depending on their reason for not respecting person one's pronouns.

Yes you’re repeating yourself. Can I get an answer to my question please?

What's your point here?

Come on, you’re a clever chap (May I assume gender?) Gralin. Don’t play dumb.

Clearly it’s a hypothetical on how far we go to address the rights of a given minority in a majoritarian democracy.

 

[Gralin]

Yes you’re repeating yourself. Can I get an answer to my question please?

I gave my answer.
If person II isn't respecting person one's pronouns the problem is with person 2

Come on, you’re a clever chap (May I assume gender?) Gralin. Don’t play dumb.

Don't be a dick

Clearly it’s a hypothetical on how far we go to address the rights of a given minority in a majoritarian democracy.

Yes I'm well aware you'll revert to this being such a minor issue that you don't care if you get pushed hard enough

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I gave my answer.
If person II isn't respecting person one's pronouns the problem is with person 2

See, immediately you’re colouring it with external factors.

You’d be a bust in ethics classes.

Try again without introducing external factors.

Don't be a dick

I assure you I’m not being a dick, but your right to call me a dick is respected. (LOL perhaps we might even apply that principle to personal pronouns! I PREFER to be called they/them, but I RESPECT your right to call me he/him. Just a thought.)

Yes I'm well aware you'll revert to this being such a minor issue that you don't care if you get pushed hard enough

Somewhat absurd logic. You hardly need to “push me hard” for me to express something I willingly describe as a minority issue, and therefore a “minor” issue, as you say here.

That - based on the immutable laws of arithmetic, as it happens - has been my clear position all along.

Now, if you’re done with your standard modus operandi of trying to ascribe hidden motives to me, let’s address the vexing ethical question of how far, in a majoritarian democracy, must the majority go to accede to the wishes of a given minority? You really don’t seem to want to answer this question but it’s Pol Science 101 stuff isn’t it?

 

[Gralin]

See, immediately you’re colouring it with external factors.

You’d be a bust in ethics classes.

Try again without introducing external factors.


I assure you I’m not being a dick, but your right to call me a dick is respected. (LOL perhaps we might even apply that principle to personal pronouns! I PREFER to be called they/them, but I RESPECT your right to call me he/him. Just a thought.)
Somewhat absurd logic. You hardly need to “push me hard” for me to express something I willingly describe as a minority issue, and therefore a “minor” issue, as you say here.

That - based on the immutable laws of arithmetic, as it happens - has been my clear position all along.

Now, if you’re done with your standard modus operandi of trying to ascribe hidden motives to me, let’s address the vexing ethical question of how far, in a majoritarian democracy, must the majority go to accede to the wishes of a given minority? You really don’t seem to want to answer this question but it’s Pol Science 101 stuff isn’t it?

Person 2 should call person 1 by the pronouns they prefer.

Majority or minority has nothing to do with it.

Why are you even arguing this like it's something it's not.

Again wtf is your point?

 

[ShanDog]

Lets flip this around. Is forcing people to confirm with a binary gender identity a form of psychological abuse?

Yes, people should never be forced to express themselves in a certain way. This is an example of the (ironically) false binaries I was talking about earlier.

 

[Engimal v3]

That cartoon’s very good, but also a rather extreme illustration of what you said in your post. (It’s quite the leap from wanting to deny someone something, to wanting to kill someone.)

Here’s a more moderate hypothetical:

Person I: I want to be called they/them

Person II: I don’t want to call you they/them.

Which one gives?

I don't think Person II has to be concerned with addressing Person I at all if they're going to continue to be a prick lol

 

[faible]

Person 2 should call person 1 by the pronouns they prefer.

Majority or minority has nothing to do with it.

Why are you even arguing this like it's something it's not.

Again wtf is your point?

I see it working something like this;

Person 1: "Hi my name is Gralin"
Person 2: "I'll call you Frank"
Person 1: "I'd really prefer you call me Gralin"
Person 2: "Nope, my freedoms, I'll call you Frank"

 

[ShanDog]

I see it working something like this;

Person 1: "Hi my name is Gralin"
Person 2: "I'll call you Frank"
Person 1: "I'd really prefer you call me Gralin"
Person 2: "Nope, my freedoms, I'll call you Frank"

And people are free to do that, but it just won't make you many friends.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Person 2 should call person 1 by the pronouns they prefer.

Beyond common courtesy (which I think is important), why?

What gives anyone the right to insist on being addressed a particular way? When did that become an inalienable right?

If enough people start insisting on being addressed as Spandle Blen-Torft, or Relax Perfect Ziplock, does no-one else get a say in that?

Let’s face it, the whole concept of insisting on particular personal pronouns was almost entirely unheard of a decade or so ago.

Now a very small but energised group of people are acting like anyone who finds it strange or presumptuous are the weird ones. LOL.

Majority or minority has nothing to do with it.

C’mon man, we’ve been over this several times before. Don’t play dumb.

In a majoritarian democracy, (assuming a reasonably corruption-free landscape) the ONLY thing that must be respected is the wishes of the majority.

The degree to which the wishes of any given minority are addressed is entirely at the sufferance of the majority.

That is not to say minorities are not entitled to rights; just that the tough fact of life is that those rights are unfortunately decided by the majority. Dare I suggest you’re so intoxicated by the heady possibilities of identity politics you’re momentarily forgetting some of these very basic realities?

Why are you even arguing this like it's something it's not.

Your interpretation. I’ve made myself perfectly clear. I’ll let others make up their own minds.

Again wtf is your point?

And again, it’s pretty clear, I would have thought. You just seem inordinately keen to say you don’t get it.

However, there is certainly a broader point I intended to get to.

When concerted, immediate, sustained focus on the climate crisis, and on inequality, are SO imperative, the right wing turds are just rubbing their hands with glee at lefties getting all hot under the collar about something that has next to zero relevance for the vast majority of people. They are playing you folk like a cheap violin.

I’m not confidently predicting we’re ever going to see meaningful action on climate change or inequality. I confess to being pretty glum about the prospects of anything getting done. But I will confidently predict we’re sure as shit not going to see it happen if we continue to let the right wing play us like fools on identity politics. We mustn’t DROP our concern for gender issues, but we need to compartmentalise and sequester them as a matter of urgency.

Secondly, specifically on gender identity, saying that one’s gender is entirely predicated on nothing but how one identifies is an effing license to the right wing to be arseholes, because they will (not unreasonably) conclude that all bets are off and ANYONE can do or say anything they feel like.

(Sheesh look at the way the right wing grabbed the “peace, love and freedom” of the 60s counter-culture and said “so you say there are no rules anymore? Do whatever you want? Great! I’ll be a complete arseh*le! I’ll oppress you and all the other people I hate! Coz YOU just said there are no rules, right?” And it’s happening all over again, and a lot of us are getting sucked into it yet again.)

 

[Saint]

There's never been any law against using people's correct pronouns. It's just that many people get awfully p'd off if you use the wrong pronoun. And that's if you do it by accident. (we've all done it at some point, mistaking a male for a female an vice versa).

What kind of an a-hole uses the wrong pronouns if they've already been corrected? A much worse a-hole than the accidental ones.

There's no laws about it, but when somebody tells you what their pronouns are, it's good manners to use them.

Anyone who thinks any different to that is probably an a-hole too.

Being rude like that in the workplace would be considered bullying. I cant imagine how long somebody would last at work if they insisted on using male pronouns for everyone even if they're talking to a female and have been corrected repeatedly (or vice versa).

 

[Gralin]

Beyond common courtesy (which I think is important), why?

What gives anyone the right to insist on being addressed a particular way? When did that become an inalienable right?

If enough people start insisting on being addressed as Spandle Blen-Torft, or Relax Perfect Ziplock, does no-one else get a say in that?

Let’s face it, the whole concept of insisting on particular personal pronouns was almost entirely unheard of a decade or so ago.

Now a very small but energised group of people are acting like anyone who finds it strange or presumptuous are the weird ones. LOL.

C’mon man, we’ve been over this several times before. Don’t play dumb.

In a majoritarian democracy, (assuming a reasonably corruption-free landscape) the ONLY thing that must be respected is the wishes of the majority.

The degree to which the wishes of any given minority are addressed is entirely at the sufferance of the majority.

That is not to say minorities are not entitled to rights; just that the tough fact of life is that those rights are unfortunately decided by the majority. Dare I suggest you’re so intoxicated by the heady possibilities of identity politics you’re momentarily forgetting some of these very basic realities?


Your interpretation. I’ve made myself perfectly clear. I’ll let others make up their own minds.


And again, it’s pretty clear, I would have thought. You just seem inordinately keen to say you don’t get it.

However, there is certainly a broader point I intended to get to.

When concerted, immediate, sustained focus on the climate crisis, and on inequality, are SO imperative, the right wing turds are just rubbing their hands with glee at lefties getting all hot under the collar about something that has next to zero relevance for the vast majority of people. They are playing you folk like a cheap violin.

I’m not confidently predicting we’re ever going to see meaningful action on climate change or inequality. I confess to being pretty glum about the prospects of anything getting done. But I will confidently predict we’re sure as s**t not going to see it happen if we continue to let the right wing play us like fools on identity politics. We mustn’t DROP our concern for gender issues, but we need to compartmentalise and sequester them as a matter of urgency.

Secondly, specifically on gender identity, saying that one’s gender is entirely predicated on nothing but how one identifies is an effing license to the right wing to be arseholes, because they will (not unreasonably) conclude that all bets are off and ANYONE can do or say anything they feel like.

(Sheesh look at the way the right wing grabbed the “peace, love and freedom” of the 60s counter-culture and said “so you say there are no rules anymore? Do whatever you want? Great! I’ll be a complete a-hole! I’ll oppress you and all the other people I hate! Coz YOU just said there are no rules, right?” And it’s happening all over again, and a lot of us are getting sucked into it yet again.)

So you're argument is you shouldn't have to use peoples preferred pronouns if they're in a minority group because right wingers are arseholes and it will stop action on climate change.

 

[faible]

What gives anyone the right to insist on being addressed a particular way? When did that become an inalienable right?

You mean by having say… a name?

I suppose you could just tattoo a barcode on everyone and save the trouble but, you know…