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

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

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).

Again with the conflating of good manners with human rights.

Stripped of the etiquette issue (that I'm pleased to see is such a concern for so many on here; I do hope it spills over to a general raising of manners on Big Footy) what inalienable right does any minority (defined by nothing more quantifiable than self-perception, I might add - LOL what could possibly go wrong?) have over the vocabulary choices of the majority?

Plus it's not like things are usually as blunt as the simply hypothetical I originally posited.

I would hazard a guess most people wouldn't say outright "I don't want to call you them/they". Most people are pretty decent.

No, they would just think it. And they would think it's all a bit silly, and definitely presumptuous, and so rather than be outright rude, probably just decide not to engage much with that person. Hardly a step forward for the human race.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

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.

No, that is a smart-arse simplification. What a surprise.

But I do think you and others need to take a step back and take a look at yourselves. And I do think you need to stop assuming good intentions on behalf of our enemies. You call them arseholes all the time, and yet your entire strategy on trans rights is predicated on just being nice to trans people, and then arseh*le right wingers, contrary to all the accumulated evidence, will magically stop being arseholes.

Else we'll be back here in a decade, still nothing will have been done about climate change or inequality, but you'll all still be whipping yourselves into butter over something which (and I know you find this extremely confronting, because although the stats seem to bear it out, it goes to the very quick of your self-identity as a progressive) barely concerns most people.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Those claiming "good manners" are the same that would scream at political opponents int he street, spit at those who opposed them, call people with basic political and philosophical differences fascists etc - and we've seen that in these and many other threads. They are to be ignored from their trojan high horse.

Well, I'm not sure I'd go that far.

Can't help noticing though, that what kicked off my participation in this particular jag was a poster saying "One side wants to be themselves, the other wants to deny them that", which is a perfectly reasonable assertion.

But then illustrated it with a cartoon depicting KKK members saying they "want to kill black people", as if that was a perfectly metaphor for what's being discussed.

This didn't raise an eyebrow. Not one.

But look at the reaction when I dared to suggest some people may prefer not to to be told how they are to address a tiny subset of society who request special treatment based on their perceptions of themselves.

 

[Chief]

View attachment 1736864

But they are saying it with LOVE!

 

[Chief]

But then illustrated it with a cartoon depicting KKK members saying they "want to kill black people", as if that was a perfectly metaphor for what's being discussed.

It kind of is when you look at the big-ticket speakers and the up and coming "talent" in the TERF field.

 

[Bloods86]

Again with the conflating of good manners with human rights.

Stripped of the etiquette issue (that I'm pleased to see is such a concern for so many on here; I do hope it spills over to a general raising of manners on Big Footy) what inalienable right does any minority (defined by nothing more quantifiable than self-perception, I might add - LOL what could possibly go wrong?) have over the vocabulary choices of the majority?

Plus it's not like things are usually as blunt as the simply hypothetical I originally posited.

I would hazard a guess most people wouldn't say outright "I don't want to call you them/they". Most people are pretty decent.

No, they would just think it. And they would think it's all a bit silly, and definitely presumptuous, and so rather than be outright rude, probably just decide not to engage much with that person. Hardly a step forward for the human race.

If someone who otherwise could and wants to engage with a trans person, but doesn't because they find it all a bit silly, I'd suggest they're the ones holding back the human race.

 

[Saint]

Again with the conflating of good manners with human rights.

Stripped of the etiquette issue (that I'm pleased to see is such a concern for so many on here; I do hope it spills over to a general raising of manners on Big Footy) what inalienable right does any minority (defined by nothing more quantifiable than self-perception, I might add - LOL what could possibly go wrong?) have over the vocabulary choices of the majority?

Plus it's not like things are usually as blunt as the simply hypothetical I originally posited.

I would hazard a guess most people wouldn't say outright "I don't want to call you them/they". Most people are pretty decent.

No, they would just think it. And they would think it's all a bit silly, and definitely presumptuous, and so rather than be outright rude, probably just decide not to engage much with that person. Hardly a step forward for the human race.

I don't understand. Nobody's trying to take away your rights to call people whatever you want to call them. Or for you to ask others to call you your preferred pronouns.

Not everyone is going to be called them/they. If you want to be called by different pronouns than the ones people are using, just let them know.

Not sure what the problem is.

 

[the_interloper]

I don't understand. Nobody's trying to take away your rights to call people whatever you want to call them. Or for you to ask others to call you your preferred pronouns.

Not everyone is going to be called them/they. If you want to be called by different pronouns than the ones people are using, just let them know.

Not sure what the problem is.

Not trying to put words in SBD Gonzalez 's mouth but I suspect he's saying the vast majority would use pronouns but many might think it's stupid. This may cause they to not engage with the "pronoun people" and cause more division. Yes yes they're bigots or whatever but it' a reasonable observation.

Personally I'd say it's more important to know the person's actual name and about their life, but also try to use their pronouns. It has to be said that if you're talking about a they/them you need to change a lot of language to achieve this, a lot of things would become plural instead of singular and pretty confusing by common English rules.

 

[Chief]

It's a reasonable observation of unreasonable behaviour.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Well, I'm not sure I'd go that far.

Can't help noticing though, that what kicked off my participation in this particular jag was a poster saying "One side wants to be themselves, the other wants to deny them that", which is a perfectly reasonable assertion.

But then illustrated it with a cartoon depicting KKK members saying they "want to kill black people", as if that was a perfectly metaphor for what's being discussed.

This didn't raise an eyebrow. Not one.

But look at the reaction when I dared to suggest some people may prefer not to to be told how they are to address a tiny subset of society who request special treatment based on their perceptions of themselves.

Exactly. These people are inherently evil. To be left wing, as they all are, you have to be evil. You have to want to steal the fruits of another mans labour. You have to support the expansion of the state over the individual to warrant the economic and social restrictions that their ideology demands. You cannot trust a modern left-wing individual. They will sooner scrape the flesh off your bones than provide anything of value to the world.

 

[faible]

Exactly. These people are inherently evil. To be left wing, as they all are, you have to be evil. You have to want to steal the fruits of another mans labour. You have to support the expansion of the state over the individual to warrant the economic and social restrictions that their ideology demands. You cannot trust a modern left-wing individual. They will sooner scrape the flesh off your bones than provide anything of value to the world.

Please, tell us more.

 

[Gethelred]

Again with the conflating of good manners with human rights.

Stripped of the etiquette issue (that I'm pleased to see is such a concern for so many on here; I do hope it spills over to a general raising of manners on Big Footy) what inalienable right does any minority (defined by nothing more quantifiable than self-perception, I might add - LOL what could possibly go wrong?) have over the vocabulary choices of the majority?

Plus it's not like things are usually as blunt as the simply hypothetical I originally posited.

Could you not then make the argument - along similar lines - that using the N word is likewise an etiquette issue?

We as a society have come to certain conclusions about the use of some words as they pertain to the law via the racial vilification. We could also - in future - seek to extend that into purely vilification by adding deadnaming or failure to acknowledge gender.

I would hazard a guess most people wouldn't say outright "I don't want to call you them/they". Most people are pretty decent.

... I really don't know what the issue is, then.

No, they would just think it. And they would think it's all a bit silly, and definitely presumptuous, and so rather than be outright rude, probably just decide not to engage much with that person. Hardly a step forward for the human race.

What you've just described is a baby step. People take these small steps in pursuit of progress all the time; I'm sure people originally thought it was a bit silly how they couldn't racially abuse people at footy matches anymore, and we're frequently told how 'silly' all the themed rounds are.

Those small steps - improvement by increment - lead to longlasting change. Civil rights were not won immediately; the vote was not won for women or others immediately. Peasants did not all of a sudden win freedoms back from their kings and we immediately sprung into 21st century capitalist models.

I think this line of reasoning - depicting society as is without historical context or the implication that it is constantly in a state of reluctant change - is a bit... lacking, to be honest. On one hand, you can isolate things much more easily to allow you to make more objective arguments; on the other, the things you're making objective arguments about are not static, nor ar they always as you depict them.

I also really don't like your majoritarian argument. It feels like tyranny of the masses writ large; it feels like a cynical depiction of democracy without the cynicism, as though it were an ideal worth striving towards or an objective reality that exists.

Were society so static, how on earth has change ever happened, SPD?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

If someone who otherwise could and wants to engage with a trans person, but doesn't because they find it all a bit silly, I'd suggest they're the ones holding back the human race.

News flash! Most people are flawed!

Possibly even people who post on here!

Even (gasp!) me!

Even (double gasp!) you!

Anyway, get away from the heady intoxications of the Big Footy SRP board, and I think you'll find a lot of people find trans politics all a bit OTT.

And you know what? People that think that way are VOTERS.

We progressives can critique people that think that way, of course. You are all welcome to critique my position, as you have.

But no-one else on here wants to confront the fact that people that think that way are many in number, and they vote. (And I'd be fascinated to hear everyone's theories on how exactly they envisage those people changing their attitudes anytime soon.)

And so the only people who could, and would, do anything about climate change or integrity in politics or obscene inequality, are consigned to a permanent maximum of maybe 12% of the primary vote. Woopty doo.

 

[Bloods86]

News flash! Most people are flawed!

Possibly even people who post on here!

Even (gasp!) me!

Even (double gasp!) you!

Anyway, get away from the heady intoxications of the Big Footy SRP board, and I think you'll find a lot of people find trans politics all a bit OTT.

And you know what? People that think that way are VOTERS.

We progressives can critique people that think that way, of course. You are all welcome to critique my position, as you have.

But no-one else on here wants to confront the fact that people that think that way are many in number, and they vote. (And I'd be fascinated to hear everyone's theories on how exactly they envisage those people changing their attitudes anytime soon.)

And so the only people who could, and would, do anything about climate change or integrity in politics or obscene inequality, are consigned to a permanent maximum of maybe 12% of the primary vote. Woopty doo.

Um, I think you're stating what we all realise. Yes, there's people who don't really understand trans people and think it's a bit weird, over the top etc. There's also people who don't really understand it, but believe it's wrong, harmful, against nature or God or whatever (including my past self and my family still). Then you have the people who do understand, or have no legitimate reason to be ignorant, but oppose it like the former group.

What you seem to be saying however is that there's an onus, or fault, on trans people for making a simple request about pronouns. I just don't agree that they should have to make that concession because people are ignorant or have malice towards trans people. Notwithstanding, that if after having it explained, if you still object to using preferred pronouns, then you are a) making a child-like decision to revolt against basic social respect because it's your right, or b) you actually object to the validity of the request and thus the validity of someone being trans.

As for how to educate people, it's via the education system introducing students to the idea that trans people exist and that they aren't to be feared. That it's ok to be trans. Similarly, media and news have a role in the way they present and platform trans people. The more people get exposed to and familiar with something, get to see positive representations, the less they fear it. This also goes for immigration, gay people etc. At a personal level, you just have to do the best you can in explaining the concepts, make analogies people can understand, try to elicit empathy even in the absence of personal experience. Some will refuse to accept it, but I don't think that means their views have to be respected or immune from criticism just because there's lots of those people.

 

[Gralin]

Um, I think you're stating what we all realise. Yes, there's people who don't really understand trans people and think it's a bit weird, over the top etc. There's also people who don't really understand it, but believe it's wrong, harmful, against nature or God or whatever (including my past self and my family still). Then you have the people who do understand, or have no legitimate reason to be ignorant, but oppose it like the former group.

What you seem to be saying however is that there's an onus, or fault, on trans people for making a simple request about pronouns. I just don't agree that they should have to make that concession because people are ignorant or have malice towards trans people. Notwithstanding, that if after having it explained, if you still object to using preferred pronouns, then you are a) making a child-like decision to revolt against basic social respect because it's your right, or b) you actually object to the validity of the request and thus the validity of someone being trans.

As for how to educate people, it's via the education system introducing students to the idea that trans people exist and that they aren't to be feared. That it's ok to be trans. Similarly, media and news have a role in the way they present and platform trans people. The more people get exposed to and familiar with something, get to see positive representations, the less they fear it. This also goes for immigration, gay people etc. At a personal level, you just have to do the best you can in explaining the concepts, make analogies people can understand, try to elicit empathy even in the absence of personal experience. Some will refuse to accept it, but I don't think that means their views have to be respected or immune from criticism just because there's lots of those people.

they've also managed to reduce the entire argument about trans rights down to just pronouns so they can argue it's not important enough to worry about

 

[Bloods86]

they've also managed to reduce the entire argument about trans rights down to just pronouns so they can argue it's not important enough to worry about

IDK It seems fairly obvious to me that if you are informed, but think preferred pronouns are over the top or silly or actually bad, then there is part of you that doesn't accept trans people being trans.

 

[Gralin]

IDK It seems fairly obvious to me that if you are informed, but think preferred pronouns are over the top or silly or actually bad, then there is part of you that doesn't accept trans people being trans.

im saying they chose that ground to argue on

they've been in this and other threads where trans rights have come up, like the greens thread

for months telling everyone how much of a non issue it is compared to climate change etc

not it an I support trans rights but we have bigger issues kind of way

in an, I don't care but here I am arguing against recognition of an issue and the need to support trans rights

they didn't want to talk about the larger problems facing trans people, they wanted something simple and small and "irrelevant" so they could run with climate change actually matters, this doesn't

 

[CM86]

Again with the conflating of good manners with human rights.

Stripped of the etiquette issue (that I'm pleased to see is such a concern for so many on here; I do hope it spills over to a general raising of manners on Big Footy) what inalienable right does any minority (defined by nothing more quantifiable than self-perception, I might add - LOL what could possibly go wrong?) have over the vocabulary choices of the majority?

Plus it's not like things are usually as blunt as the simply hypothetical I originally posited.

I would hazard a guess most people wouldn't say outright "I don't want to call you them/they". Most people are pretty decent.

No, they would just think it. And they would think it's all a bit silly, and definitely presumptuous, and so rather than be outright rude, probably just decide not to engage much with that person. Hardly a step forward for the human race.

You don't need to accept that there is any correlation between your quote and my following question.


Do you believe that everyone should have the right to call a 'black' person, the 'n-word'? (In places that 'black people' are a minority).
Because 'free-speech' is a human right, and insults are just a matter of manners.



Or do you accept that there are limitations on free-speech, in order to create a more inclusive society?
For example, intentionally and repeatedly calling someone by their incorrect pronouns.

 

[Crankyhawk]

On pronouns seeking guidance as to what she/they means (or he/they) I’ve seen in musical programs about performers
Does it mean they are ok with either?
Grammatically it would be more consistent as she/ them (them being similar in language to her/ him)

 

[Gralin]

On pronouns seeking guidance as to what she/they means (or he/they) I’ve seen in musical programs about performers
Does it mean they are ok with either?
Grammatically it would be more consistent as she/ them (them being similar in language to her/ him)

generally means they are ok with either

 

[Bloods86]

im saying they chose that ground to argue on

they've been in this and other threads where trans rights have come up, like the greens thread

for months telling everyone how much of a non issue it is compared to climate change etc

not it an I support trans rights but we have bigger issues kind of way

in an, I don't care but here I am arguing against recognition of an issue and the need to support trans rights

they didn't want to talk about the larger problems facing trans people, they wanted something simple and small and "irrelevant" so they could run with climate change actually matters, this doesn't

I find a lot to agree with SBD on, on the Swans board, including our own SRP thread, though trans rights, specifically pronouns, hasn't come up in any detail.

Does seem odd to come to a Transgender thread, argue at length, and say we should be focusing on climate change though.

 

[Gralin]

I find a lot to agree with SBD on, on the Swans board, including our own SRP thread, though trans rights, specifically pronouns, hasn't come up in any detail.

Does seem odd to come to a Transgender thread, argue at length, and say we should be focusing on climate change though.

I agree with a lot of SBD's posting on SRP, not his posting on this topic obviously

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Not sure what the problem is.

See this is the thing. One could just as easily say they don't see what trans people's problem is with being called he/him or she/her.

Your argument is that a tiny sliver of society feels they should be addressed differently, and that's the end of the discussion.

 

[Bloods86]

See this is the thing. One could just as easily say they don't see what trans people's problem is with being called he/him or she/her.

One can easily say it, but it's ignorance or malice. And it's effectively saying that the trans person isn't trans, or that being trans isn't a valid concept.

Like if someone is a trans woman, and I refuse to use she/her, their preferred pronouns, I'm effectively saying a) I don't think you are trans, you're lying/mistaken, or b) being trans isn't valid, you're a man, full stop.

 

[faible]

See this is the thing. One could just as easily say they don't see what trans people's problem is with being called he/him or she/her.

Your argument is that a tiny sliver of society feels they should be addressed differently, and that's the end of the discussion.

What if you're a bloke that looks like a shiela, or the other way around? You'd tell people they're using the wrong one, and that would be fine.