EPTAll good. It's difficult sometimes because language isn't really up to the task. A trans-woman wouldn't say that they're a man wanting to be called a woman, even if they still have a penis. They'd say that they're a woman asking to be called a woman. That's why identifying and assigned at birth are better descriptors than man or woman.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8488
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
KwarK
United States44394 Posts
All good. It's difficult sometimes because language isn't really up to the task. A trans-woman wouldn't say that they're a man wanting to be called a woman, even if they still have a penis. They'd say that they're a woman asking to be called a woman. That's why identifying and assigned at birth are better descriptors than man or woman. | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6223 Posts
There's a trans employee at my workplace. She switched from male to female after a year or so of hormone therapy, and changed first name as well, and HR supported her by sending an email out when she decided to make the change (to everyone outside her immediate team). There were a few weeks afterwards where incorrect pronouns, or wrong name were used when talking about/to her but everyone adjusted eventually. It's not as big of a deal as everyone's making it out to be.We respected her decision to make the change, and we'll move on. It literally does not affect us other than a short learning curve. As long as you're around reasonable people - She understood that others would make mistakes, use the wrong pronoun, name etc, we made an effort to call her by her new name/use correct pronouns - this works without issues. If you're seriously enough of an asshole to not be okay with this, you deserve to be canned by HR, because common sense dictates that you respect other people in the workplace and act professionally, and really, this should apply outside the workplace too. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On August 19 2017 04:42 Falling wrote: But Wolf "gender identity or expression" I haven't lost the thread at all. Once you delve into non-binary with no limitation, there's a whole branch that identifies their gender as anything but human. You'll find that the law is very much on the side of common vocabulary, not tumblr. Now, this may be something that will need to be more explicitly addressed by case law, but in general if your thought process is "how absurd can I push this", the courts themselves will typically have the attitude of "go away". | ||
|
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
On August 19 2017 04:49 WolfintheSheep wrote: You'll find that the law is very much on the side of common vocabulary, not tumblr. Now, this may be something that will need to be more explicitly addressed by case law, but in general if your thought process is "how absurd can I push this", the courts themselves will typically have the attitude of "go away". But that's not the way the law was written. My being an a-hole according to Kwark notwithstanding, this isn't about flipping he/ she. That's easy to work with. But who are you to say my other examples are being 'absurd'- they are collection from real people. How can the courts tell these people to go away if they genuinely believe it to be true? How are the courts not the a-holes and showing disrespect for a historically oppressed and highly suicidal group? | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On August 19 2017 04:47 KwarK wrote: All good. It's difficult sometimes because language isn't really up to the task. A trans-woman wouldn't say that they're a man wanting to be called a woman, even if they still have a penis. They'd say that they're a woman asking to be called a woman. That's why identifying and assigned at birth are better descriptors than man or woman. Actually, a trans would simply say "i've got the wrong body" or "i'm trapped in the wrong body". They usually don't go into lengths as to why, and personally i don't see the need to. Gib me some time to adjust, mistakes will happen at first, but as long as you respect me trying rather than blasting me for the first time i got it wrong (not saying that happens, just saying that in case that happens), all good, ima try. The reason i phrased the question like that was simple, simplicity. There's no need to go into huge discussions with big words for something (to me) rather fundamental. Although i will say, attackhelicopters, wolves, witches, wizards, fogs, and the like can fuck off. That's a mental illness. To me anyway. No need to support that, and i won't if i'd ever happen to meet one (which i doubt). | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 19 2017 04:56 Falling wrote: But that's not the way the law was written. My being an a-hole according to Kwark notwithstanding, this isn't about flipping he/ she. That's easy to work with. But who are you to say my other examples are being 'absurd'- they are collection from real people. How can the courts tell these people to go away if they genuinely believe it to be true? How are they not the a-holes and showing disrespect for a historically oppressed and highly suicidal group? The court system will decided what is reasonable very quickly if people bring claims that their preferred pronoun is “plant matter” or “FFFFFFFFub”. Maybe we don’t need to hold off providing people with legal protections because of the slight possibility that people will file very silly claims. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On August 19 2017 05:00 Plansix wrote: The court system will decided what is reasonable very quickly if people bring claims that their preferred pronoun is “plant matter” or “FFFFFFFFub” I'd like to be addressed by Wubbalubbadubdub, your honour. Show me what you got. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44394 Posts
On August 19 2017 04:56 Falling wrote: But that's not the way the law was written. My being an a-hole according to Kwark notwithstanding, this isn't about flipping he/ she. That's easy to work with. But who are you to say my other examples are being 'absurd'- they are collection from real people. How can the courts tell these people to go away if they genuinely believe it to be true? How are they not the a-holes and showing disrespect for a historically oppressed and highly suicidal group? That argument comes down to "if we accept that female exists as a gender identity beyond pure biological physical traits then how can we know that attack helicopter doesn't exist as a gender identity?" as if the two are equally reasonable propositions. It's a hysterical internet issue where people seem to think that if they stop being an asshole to trans people then there will be a slippery slope and soon people will get upset if they're an asshole to furries or something. I'm not entirely sold on why it's so important to be an asshole to furries in the first place but I'm pretty sure that if it becomes an issue we'll be able to negotiate it without going "God, I wish we could have just averted this crisis by misgendering trans people more". But by all means tell yourself that you're in the right here. Say it out loud. Say "it's important that I misgender trans people so that I'll be ready when the people who identify as dolphins want me to call them Flipper". Write it down. Turn it into a manifesto. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On August 19 2017 04:56 Falling wrote: But that's not the way the law was written. My being an a-hole according to Kwark notwithstanding, this isn't about flipping he/ she. That's easy to work with. But who are you to say my other examples are being 'absurd'- they are collection from real people. How can the courts tell people to go away if they genuinely believe it to be true? How are they not the a-holes and showing disrespect for a historically oppressed and highly suicidal group? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_meaning_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischief_rule There are several all encompassing aspects of (British) law that are, for the most part, included to stop people from fucking around with the courts in such ways. One is the "plain meaning rule" which applies common meaning of terms and phrases, not obscure ones (aka the "only your tumblr followers have a clue what you're talking about" rule), the other is the "mischief rule" which is to find the intent of the law (aka the "I know you think you've found a dumb loophole to abuse" rule). | ||
|
brian
United States9643 Posts
On August 19 2017 04:57 m4ini wrote: Actually, a trans would simply say "i've got the wrong body" or "i'm trapped in the wrong body". They usually don't go into lengths as to why, and personally i don't see the need to. Gib me some time to adjust, mistakes will happen at first, but as long as you respect me trying rather than blasting me for the first time i got it wrong (not saying that happens, just saying that in case that happens), all good, ima try. The reason i phrased the question like that was simple, simplicity. There's no need to go into huge discussions with big words for something (to me) rather fundamental. Although i will say, attackhelicopters, wolves, witches, wizards, fogs, and the like can fuck off. That's a mental illness. To me anyway. No need to support that, and i won't if i'd ever happen to meet one (which i doubt). see it's that last part i think that ruffles some feathers. let's say it is a mental illness. lets make an analogy. let's say they have down's syndrome. they prefer to be called differently abled. but fuck what they want, i won't play into their game. my parents called them retards and so will i. doesn't that strike you as wrong? so the endgame here is maybe we can be flexible here. i don't think we need to go so far as to be calling people witches. but at the very least certainly we don't need to be prodding them and making them feel worse. i imagine we can agree here. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
Doesn't the mischief rule, rather imply that the person is trying to cause mischief with the law, or find a loophole? But who is the court to say that they are not being genuine- the court is not the person, so how can they over-rule self-identification if the person is genuine? | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5232 Posts
Was that a jab at my writing skills in English? Why did I deserve that?  And no, I can't learn more grammar, I fucking hate that shit lol, it's TOO MUCH. But I'm not talking about me, per se. What about people with lesser grasps on even their native language. It's making things more complex in a needless way almost. We should all just have 1 pronoun for EVERYONE and have everyone go to the same bathrooms and stop this division of identity. I'm tellin you, it's tearin us apart! But yeah, you're probably right. I could manage with 20 extra pronouns. Also, I know what body dysmorphia is. You're talking about gender dysphoria, though, which is quite different. The former ends up with fat, anorexic, boulemic and overly fit (bodybuilders, non-stop workouters) people. The latter is where you feel like you're trapped in the wrong body. And yes, absolutely accepting someone for how they feel should happen. But I think that gender dysphoria isn't solved by just calling someone their preferred pronoun and them transitioning. It's an incredibly difficult and complex problem to pin down, actually. Let me ask you this question (not just to you): if there was a cure for getting rid of gender dysphoria, would you recommend people take it? Is it right to let people accept their bodies with a pill (or brain surgery)? Or is getting as comfortable in your own skin by transitioning in the most supportive environment the absolute best option? There are no clear answers here. I personally feel like it's a mental health issue that is rooted deeply in (developmental) physiology, which may even have implications in (permanent) anatomical features (like inherent brain structure, not like female versus male brain, but more like certain neurological links and neuromolecular pathways). We're just at the cusp of understanding why people feel like they're trapped in the wrong body and if transitioning gives them a higher chance of becoming content with life, than I'd be glad to help if they need it. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44394 Posts
On August 19 2017 05:04 Falling wrote: On what grounds? The whole premise is that they do not identify with the body that they were born with, therefore it is up to the person to self-identify and then share what pronouns seems suitable to them. Using that as a premise, how can someone else come in and say, 'No. You are wrong. You cannot be what you think you are"? And so logically the correct way to head off the inevitable disaster of the crabpeople insisting you call them by their desired crab names is, in your opinion, to misgender trans people? | ||
|
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States44394 Posts
On August 19 2017 05:05 Uldridge wrote: @Kwark Was that a jab at my writing skills in English? Why did I deserve that? And no, I can't learn more grammar, I fucking hate that shit lol, it's TOO MUCH. But I'm not talking about me, per se. What about people with lesser grasps on even their native language. It's making things more complex in a needless way almost. We should all just have 1 pronoun for EVERYONE and have everyone go to the same bathrooms and stop this division of identity. I'm tellin you, it's tearin us apart! But yeah, you're probably right. I could manage with 20 extra pronouns. Also, I know what body dysmorphia is. You're talking about gender dysphoria, though, which is quite different. The former ends up with fat, anorexic, boulemic and overly fit (bodybuilders, non-stop workouters) people. The latter is where you feel like you're trapped in the wrong body. And yes, absolutely accepting someone for how they feel should happen. But I think that gender dysphoria isn't solved by just calling someone their preferred pronoun and them transitioning. It's an incredibly difficult and complex problem to pin down, actually. Let me ask you this question (not just to you): if there was a cure for getting rid of gender dysphoria, would you recommend people take it? Is it right to let people accept their bodies with a pill (or brain surgery)? Or is getting as comfortable in your own skin by transitioning in the most supportive environment the absolute best option? There are no clear answers here. I personally feel like it's a mental health issue that is rooted deeply in (developmental) physiology, which may even have implications in (permanent) anatomical features (like inherent brain structure, not like female versus male brain, but more like certain neurological links and neuromolecular pathways). We're just at the cusp of understanding why people feel like they're trapped in the wrong body and if transitioning gives them a higher chance of becoming content with life, than I'd be glad to help if they need it. It wasn't a jab at your writing skills, it was the opposite. You're fluent in an entire second language, words are clearly no hardship for you. You're right, I mixed up my dysmorphias. RIP. As for would I recommend a pill that changed who they were to better match their bodies. That is so far beyond anything I could or should be recommending that I have no fucking clue. On the one hand, it'd fix the problem. On the other, it'd fix it by changing something which is a fundamental component to who they are. Not touching that. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44394 Posts
On August 19 2017 05:09 Falling wrote: Have you been reading what I've wrote? I said flipping he/ she is not so hard. That's relatively easy to work with. I have a problem in that the way the law is worded there seems to be no proper grounding to create a limitation. You disagree with the law because you think they left their reasoning open to abuse by the crab people? | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On August 19 2017 05:04 brian wrote: see it's that last part i think that ruffles some feathers. let's say it is a mental illness. lets make an analogy. let's say they have down's syndrome. they prefer to be called differently abled. but fuck what they want, i won't play into their game. my parents called them retards and so will i. doesn't that strike you as wrong? so the endgame here is maybe we can be flexible here. i don't think we need to go so far as to be calling people witches. but at the very least certainly we don't need to be prodding them and making them feel worse. i imagine we can agree here. That really doesn't play into the he/she issue, does it. If someone has down syndrome, he's mentally impaired. If you chose the word that has the negative sound to it/derogatory term, you're an asshole. If that down syndrom person wants to be called "master of the universe", sure. But that's a very different reason, so i'm not entirely sure why you chose that example - you chose a literally mentally impaired person (as a sidenote, my aunt had down syndrome). They're for all intents and purposes "kids". edit: my aunt liked when we called her Pipi, as in Pipi Langstrumpf (Pipi Longsocks?). I don't know, that comparison/analogy doesn't work for me. Comparing down syndrome to someone who "identifies as an attackhelicopter" is a long stretch though, let me say that. Fair enough, i should've said "idiot" rather than mentally ill. | ||
|
brian
United States9643 Posts
On August 19 2017 05:11 m4ini wrote: That really doesn't play into the he/she issue, does it. If someone has down syndrome, he's mentally impaired. If you chose the word that has the negative sound to it/derogatory term, you're an asshole. If that down syndrom person wants to be called "master of the universe", sure. But that's a very different reason, so i'm not entirely sure why you chose that example - you chose a literally mentally impaired person (as a sidenote, my aunt had down syndrome). They're for all intents and purposes "kids". Comparing down syndrome to someone who "identifies as an attackhelicopter" is a long stretch though, let me say that. Fair enough, i should've said "idiot" rather than mentally ill. you said being an attack helicopter was a mental problem and that you wouldn't support that. i drew an analogy to another mental problem and how you might choose not to support it by calling them something they preferred not to. off the top of my head i cannot think of a better analogy for not supporting someone's choice of what they like to be called and calling them whatever you'd like. what? you surprisingly didn't say so, but given the familial connection i imagine you'd not tolerate someone calling a person with down's syndrome retarded for obvious reasons. do these same reasons not apply to other people? | ||
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
On August 19 2017 05:09 Falling wrote: Have you been reading what I've wrote? I said flipping he/ she is not so hard. That's relatively easy to work with. I have a problem in that the way the law is worded there seems to be no proper grounding to create a limitation. So we can keep an eye on it. If it becomes a serious problem then we address it. It sounds more like you're looking for a line so you know just how much of an asshole you're 'allowed' to be. And for what it's worth, I personally find the "I identify as an x-kin" to be fairly ridiculous as well. But I've never seen it be a point of contention in real life interactions. If people want to band together on forums and call each other "fuzzy-kin" or "centipedes" or whatever, that's well within their rights. If it comes down to them being belligerent and making people uncomfortable in the workplace because of it, then they're the asshole. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On August 19 2017 05:09 Falling wrote: Have you been reading what I've wrote? I said flipping he/ she is not so hard. That's relatively easy to work with. I have a problem in that the way the law is worded, there seems to be no proper grounding to create a limitation. See what I posted on the Plain Meaning Rule and Mischief Rule. The same argument could be applied to a lot of laws, because of the constant shifting of language over the years. That's why the legal system already takes this into account. | ||
| ||
