|
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. |
On August 19 2017 05:13 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 05:11 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 05:04 brian wrote:On August 19 2017 04:57 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 04:47 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 04:45 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 04:43 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 04:37 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 04:33 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 04:31 m4ini wrote:
For someone who has some trouble following this discussion, this is just about a man(-body) wanting to be called "she" and vice versa, correct?
A trans-woman (someone who identifies as female but was assigned male at birth) wanting to be treated as a woman (or the inverse), but yes. Bodies can be in various states of transition. You see, i was going to say that i don't understand the discussion because that should be simply normal, but the fact that you actively decide to be a dick about a very clear question makes me wonder if you're just out to argue whatever. :s I think you misread my post. I wasn't trying to be a dick at all. My bad then, must've misunderstood. 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). 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". 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. what?
Dude, you fucking quote me saying "maybe i should've said idiot", and then try to fight me on the base "but you said X"?
You drew an analogy not to a mental problem but an actual impairment, down syndrome is a medical condition, not a psychological one.
|
When the people who identity as angles come and graft cyber wings on their back, I think we can safely say they might need to find their own island a develop laws based on the code of heaven and sacrosanct pronouns.
Also, laws can be changed if they are not effective or have a loophole.
|
On August 19 2017 05:15 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 05:13 brian wrote:On August 19 2017 05:11 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 05:04 brian wrote:On August 19 2017 04:57 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 04:47 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 04:45 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 04:43 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 04:37 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 04:33 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
A trans-woman (someone who identifies as female but was assigned male at birth) wanting to be treated as a woman (or the inverse), but yes. Bodies can be in various states of transition. You see, i was going to say that i don't understand the discussion because that should be simply normal, but the fact that you actively decide to be a dick about a very clear question makes me wonder if you're just out to argue whatever. :s I think you misread my post. I wasn't trying to be a dick at all. My bad then, must've misunderstood. 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). 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". 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. what? Dude, you fucking quote me saying "maybe i should've said idiot", and then try to fight me on the base "but you said X"? You drew an analogy not to a mental problem but an actual impairment, down syndrome is a medical condition, not a psychological one.
apologies, i did edit my response and would appreciate your feedback.
the analogy still works for psychological conditions if you want to continue indulging the conversation. but before wasting our time i'd like you to consider what makes calling someone a retard objectionable and why that reasoning does or doesn't apply to everyone else.
your point about derogatory terms is not well taken. retard wasn't always considered as such, and i think that's at the heart of what we're talking about here.
|
On August 19 2017 05:16 Plansix wrote:
When the people who identity as angles come and graft cyber wings on their back, I think we can safely say they might need to find their own island a develop laws based on the code of heaven and sacrosanct pronouns.
Also, laws can be changed if they are not effective or have a loophole.
Again, i'm not arguing in regards to transpeople at all, that's fundamental stuff. You now make fun of people who say "well there's a limit though", while having already three pages of people arguing with Falling (and now me) about exactly that.
|
United States44394 Posts
On August 19 2017 05:16 Plansix wrote:
When the people who identity as angles come and graft cyber wings on their back, I think we can safely say they might need to find their own island a develop laws based on the code of heaven and sacrosanct pronouns.
Also, laws can be changed if they are not effective or have a loophole.
We could always just tell them not to be so obtuse.
|
On August 19 2017 05:16 Plansix wrote:
When the people who identity as angles come and graft cyber wings on their back, I think we can safely say they might need to find their own island a develop laws based on the code of heaven and sacrosanct pronouns.
Also, laws can be changed if they are not effective or have a loophole.
You take that back, I'm 100% acute.
Edit: god damnit KwarK yours is better.
|
On August 19 2017 05:18 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 05:15 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 05:13 brian wrote:On August 19 2017 05:11 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 05:04 brian wrote:On August 19 2017 04:57 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 04:47 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 04:45 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 04:43 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 04:37 m4ini wrote:
[quote]
You see, i was going to say that i don't understand the discussion because that should be simply normal, but the fact that you actively decide to be a dick about a very clear question makes me wonder if you're just out to argue whatever. :s I think you misread my post. I wasn't trying to be a dick at all. My bad then, must've misunderstood. 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). 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". 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. what? Dude, you fucking quote me saying "maybe i should've said idiot", and then try to fight me on the base "but you said X"? You drew an analogy not to a mental problem but an actual impairment, down syndrome is a medical condition, not a psychological one. apologies, i did edit my response and would appreciate your feedback. the analogy still works for psychological conditions if you want to continue indulging the conversation. but before wasting our time i'd like you to consider what makes calling someone a retard objectionable and why that reasoning does or doesn't apply to everyone else. your point about derogatory terms is not well taken. retard wasn't always considered as such, and i think that's at the heart of what we're talking about here.
That doesn't matter, speech changes. I can't give relevant english examples (only second language) - although i'm sure they exist - but for example in german, there's the word "Wichser". Which literally translates to wanker. Except, back in the day, Wichser was an actual job (polishing shoes). You can even buy "Schuhwichse" up to this day, which translates to shoepolish - but if you call someone a Wichser, he knows what that's supposed to mean.
Many words formerly not considered derogatory are now exactly that. Hell, i live in wales, and one of the national dishes here are faggots. Literally.
Maybe i'm misunderstanding you somewhere, if so, correct me.
|
On August 19 2017 04:57 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 04:47 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 04:45 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 04:43 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 04:37 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 04:33 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 04:31 m4ini wrote:
For someone who has some trouble following this discussion, this is just about a man(-body) wanting to be called "she" and vice versa, correct?
A trans-woman (someone who identifies as female but was assigned male at birth) wanting to be treated as a woman (or the inverse), but yes. Bodies can be in various states of transition. You see, i was going to say that i don't understand the discussion because that should be simply normal, but the fact that you actively decide to be a dick about a very clear question makes me wonder if you're just out to argue whatever. :s I think you misread my post. I wasn't trying to be a dick at all. My bad then, must've misunderstood. 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).
I have a controversial opinion about trans people adhering to and reinforcing gender norms and that it would be healthier for many if we just collectively worked toward a society where you can still be "he" and play with dolls, wear makeup, have long hair, paint their nails, talk how they want, walk how they want, dress how they want, etc... and vice versa for "she" (especially since, if you do it "right [GI Joes, rock band, etc..)" in today's society, you can do and not feel an overwhelming sense of body dysmorphia) .
There's a variety of folks this type of thought doesn't directly apply to like people with Klinefelter's or other circumstances where they may be surgically sexed at birth (this happens much less in the US now) and others.
Regardless of my opinion, I'm not a dick about it like it seems some people insist should be fine?
|
On August 19 2017 05:24 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 05:18 brian wrote:On August 19 2017 05:15 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 05:13 brian wrote:On August 19 2017 05:11 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 05:04 brian wrote:On August 19 2017 04:57 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 04:47 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 04:45 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 04:43 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
:s
I think you misread my post. I wasn't trying to be a dick at all. My bad then, must've misunderstood. 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). 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". 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. what? Dude, you fucking quote me saying "maybe i should've said idiot", and then try to fight me on the base "but you said X"? You drew an analogy not to a mental problem but an actual impairment, down syndrome is a medical condition, not a psychological one. apologies, i did edit my response and would appreciate your feedback. the analogy still works for psychological conditions if you want to continue indulging the conversation. but before wasting our time i'd like you to consider what makes calling someone a retard objectionable and why that reasoning does or doesn't apply to everyone else. your point about derogatory terms is not well taken. retard wasn't always considered as such, and i think that's at the heart of what we're talking about here. That doesn't matter, speech changes. I can't give relevant english examples (only second language) - although i'm sure they exist - but for example in german, there's the word "Wichser". Which literally translates to wanker. Except, back in the day, Wichser was an actual job (polishing shoes). You can even buy "Schuhwichse" up to this day, which translates to shoepolish - but if you call someone a Wichser, he knows what that's supposed to mean. Many words formerly not considered derogatory are now exactly that. Hell, i live in wales, and one of the national dishes here are faggots. Literally. Maybe i'm misunderstanding you somewhere, if so, correct me.
i'm fairly sure we're on the exact same page. i just don't understand how you wouldn't give the same benefit of the doubt to people who want to be called attack helicopters (which is an argument that started with people not wanting to be called 'he' or 'she') and your subsequent dismissal of them and refusing to support their idiocy.
i don't want to monopolize more thread space, so either way i appreciate the dialogue. thank you.
|
It's not really controversial, it's an opinion with some points that you got right.
Although GI Joe might be a bad example.
|
If we take a bird's eye view at what is going on, we see 2 key things:
1. Populists/loyalists out
2. Military in
A significant portion of Trump's original group have been eliminated and replaced by the military. To me, this looks a lot like a semi-coup. I think it is very likely that the military is taking its own steps to ensure Trump doesn't end American dominance.
|
Canada11607 Posts
@Kwark
Yes. On what grounds can you deny self-identification, if the basis of that is up to the individual themself? If the individual is the ultimate authority of saying what and who they are, how can you challenge that authority when it may seem 'absurd' or 'open to abuse' or 'very silly claims' or a 'ridiculous discussion'. On what basis can you make those judgements on another person?
Anyways, I need to leave to help a friend with dry wall. I'm sorrry for derailing this thread with what is actually Canadian law, but I wanted to reply to wolf's initial statement.
In conclusion: despite the rather heated responses I got, I think there's more agreement then you otherwise think. He/she flipping is straightforward. Most people seem to think my examples are absurd- alright. Why? That's where we get into the disagreement. I'm trying to find the foundation of thought that says yes to he/she flipping, but rules out the rest of the made up pronouns. (They literally say in that tumblr, if you don't like what you see, make one up.) I don't think the law properly deals with this- not if these people are being genuine and not disgenuine as most assume to refute my argument (or don't exist- denial of identity or personhood, isn't it?) Assume they are genuine (I see no reason not to). So now what? Is everything fair play, and if not, why not? And finally to repeat, yet again: I'm not arguing against people flipping on the binary- it's the wide open field of non-binary that I'm struggling to come to terms with.
|
On August 19 2017 05:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 05:16 Plansix wrote:
When the people who identity as angles come and graft cyber wings on their back, I think we can safely say they might need to find their own island a develop laws based on the code of heaven and sacrosanct pronouns.
Also, laws can be changed if they are not effective or have a loophole.
We could always just tell them not to be so obtuse.
Now all I can see is an island of polygon people flying around, talking about god.
|
On August 19 2017 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 04:57 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 04:47 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 04:45 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 04:43 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 04:37 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 04:33 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 04:31 m4ini wrote:
For someone who has some trouble following this discussion, this is just about a man(-body) wanting to be called "she" and vice versa, correct?
A trans-woman (someone who identifies as female but was assigned male at birth) wanting to be treated as a woman (or the inverse), but yes. Bodies can be in various states of transition. You see, i was going to say that i don't understand the discussion because that should be simply normal, but the fact that you actively decide to be a dick about a very clear question makes me wonder if you're just out to argue whatever. :s I think you misread my post. I wasn't trying to be a dick at all. My bad then, must've misunderstood. 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). I have a controversial opinion about trans people adhering to and reinforcing gender norms and that it would be healthier for many if we just collectively worked toward a society where you can still be "he" and play with dolls, wear makeup, have long hair, paint their nails, talk how they want, walk how they want, dress how they want, etc... and vice versa for "she" (especially since, if you do it "right [GI Joes, rock band, etc..)" in today's society, you can do and not feel an overwhelming sense of body dysmorphia) . There's a variety of folks this type of thought doesn't directly apply to like people with Klinefelter's or other circumstances where they may be surgically sexed at birth (this happens much less in the US now) and others. Regardless of my opinion, I'm not a dick about it like it seems some people insist should be fine?
Gender for transgendered people is generally not about "wanting act more effeminate", or the opposite. Lots of MtF who would still be butch (for lack of a better word), etc.
Exaggerating the gender stereotypes is more the process of associating everyone else's perception, than the actual solution.
|
On August 19 2017 05:18 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 05:16 Plansix wrote:
When the people who identity as angles come and graft cyber wings on their back, I think we can safely say they might need to find their own island a develop laws based on the code of heaven and sacrosanct pronouns.
Also, laws can be changed if they are not effective or have a loophole.
Again, i'm not arguing in regards to transpeople at all, that's fundamental stuff. You now make fun of people who say "well there's a limit though", while having already three pages of people arguing with Falling (and now me) about exactly that.
Here is the thing, law has vague language on purpose in a lot of cases. Because you can also make laws to specific and therefore ineffective. They are not math equation we pump numbers into. Judges review them and decide was is or is not reasonable based on a given case. This discussion reminds me of the gay marriage argument “what if people start marrying cats and dogs? Where does it stop?”.
|
On August 19 2017 01:38 KwarK wrote:
Part of it is just the moral hazard intrinsic to giving the government power to ban ideologies. Can anyone say with certainty that MLK's rallies wouldn't have been banned, if it were legal to do so?
That is a fairly good point.
And quite honestly I cannot come up with an answer that would satisfy me to an extend that would allow posting it.
For banning any stance, I, personally, would try and use a moral maxim to determine whether a certain ideology is contrary to moral standards.
Though as standards evolve and deviate from society to society as well as over time, it is really hard to determine the moral right and wrong.
Though continued civil disobedience can induce change of values as, I think, we have witnessed in India and south Africa (though I'm not 100%positive on these examples).
E: sorry for replying to a post from like 10 pages ago
|
United States44394 Posts
On August 19 2017 05:28 Falling wrote:
@Kwark
Yes. On what grounds can you deny self-identification, if the basis of that is up to the individual themself? If the individual is the ultimate authority of saying what and who they are, how can you challenge that authority when it may seem 'absurd' or 'open to abuse' or 'very silly claims' or a 'ridiculous discussion'. On what basis can you make those judgements on another person?
Anyways, I need to leave to help a friend with dry wall. I'm sorrry for derailing this thread with what is actually Canadian law, but I wanted to reply to wolf's initial statement.
In conclusion: despite the rather heated responses I got, I think there's more agreement then you otherwise think. He/she flipping is straightforward. Most people seem to think my examples are absurd- alright. Why? That's where we get into the disagreement. I'm trying to find the foundation of thought that says yes to he/she flipping, but rules out the rest of the made up pronouns. (They literally say in that tumblr, if you don't like what you see, make one up.) I don't think the law properly deals with this- not if these people are being genuine and not disgenuine as most assume to refute my argument (or don't exist- denial of identity or personhood, isn't it?) Assume they are genuine (I see no reason not to). So now what? Is everything fair play, and if not, why not? And finally to repeat, yet again: I'm not arguing against people flipping on the binary- it's the wide open field of non-binary that I'm struggling to come to terms with.
Laws are very rarely universal. There is statutory law, which is the law as written by the legislative. Acts of Parliament are statutory law. Then there is common law. Common law is the law as enforced by the judiciary. There are always gaps in statutory law because the world is not static and it's impossible to make laws that are universally applicable. Common law fills in the gaps.
The gap you are describing is a common law area. And that's okay. At some point in the future the crabpeople may come to the courts and demand their rights as crabpeople. And then the question of whether refusing to acknowledge their crabliness amounts to workplace hostility or whatever can be properly examined by the judiciary and we can get a ruling on it. Have faith in the system.
|
On August 19 2017 05:28 Falling wrote:
And finally to repeat, yet again: I'm not arguing against people flipping on the binary- it's the wide open field of non-binary that I'm struggling to come to terms with.
To repeat, if at some point this becomes a more common and accepted viewpoint, then yes it would probably be a thing. The law respects the currently publicly accepted view of gender (publicly as in most of the public, common vernacular), not what tumblr groups feel like pushing at a given minute.
|
On August 19 2017 05:26 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 05:24 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 05:18 brian wrote:On August 19 2017 05:15 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 05:13 brian wrote:On August 19 2017 05:11 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 05:04 brian wrote:On August 19 2017 04:57 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 04:47 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 04:45 m4ini wrote:
[quote]
My bad then, must've misunderstood. 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). 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". 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. what? Dude, you fucking quote me saying "maybe i should've said idiot", and then try to fight me on the base "but you said X"? You drew an analogy not to a mental problem but an actual impairment, down syndrome is a medical condition, not a psychological one. apologies, i did edit my response and would appreciate your feedback. the analogy still works for psychological conditions if you want to continue indulging the conversation. but before wasting our time i'd like you to consider what makes calling someone a retard objectionable and why that reasoning does or doesn't apply to everyone else. your point about derogatory terms is not well taken. retard wasn't always considered as such, and i think that's at the heart of what we're talking about here. That doesn't matter, speech changes. I can't give relevant english examples (only second language) - although i'm sure they exist - but for example in german, there's the word "Wichser". Which literally translates to wanker. Except, back in the day, Wichser was an actual job (polishing shoes). You can even buy "Schuhwichse" up to this day, which translates to shoepolish - but if you call someone a Wichser, he knows what that's supposed to mean. Many words formerly not considered derogatory are now exactly that. Hell, i live in wales, and one of the national dishes here are faggots. Literally. Maybe i'm misunderstanding you somewhere, if so, correct me. i'm fairly sure we're on the exact same page. i just don't understand how you wouldn't give the same benefit of the doubt to people who want to be called attack helicopters (which is an argument that started with people not wanting to be called 'he' or 'she') and your subsequent dismissal of them and refusing to support their idiocy. i don't want to monopolize more thread space, so either way i appreciate the dialogue. thank you.
I don't doubt someone who's feeling trapped in his own body/wanting to be a female/male. There's things connected to that, like sexuality, needs, et cetera. It's an entirely different thing to (lets stick with it) identify as an attackhelicopter (or any other inanimate object, but the heli is meme). There's no reason to do so. There's no "thing" that you feel like you should be. Sure, if you go ahead and guzzle aviation gas, i might be inclined to understand that you actually feel like an attack helicopter, but on the other hand, if you do, me not calling you MI-24 or something is the last of your problems.
What i'm trying to say is: there's a difference between feeling/being trapped in the wrong body (possible) and wanting to be an attackhelicopter.
Here is the thing, law has vague language on purpose in a lot of cases. Because you can also make laws to specific and therefore ineffective. They are not math equation we pump numbers into. Judges review them and decide was is or is not reasonable based on a given case. This discussion reminds me of the gay marriage argument “what if people start marrying cats and dogs? Where does it stop?”.
Oh, i know. So why are people arguing against calling attackhelicopters idiots then? I mean, it should be clear that law generally is "subjective" to some degree (don't know the correct english term, the judge has room to wiggle/decide). But that's not where we're at. People here argue as if being an attackhelicopter could or should be seen as a legitimate "condition", or why there's a difference between accepting trans people and attackhelicopters.
|
United Kingdom10014 Posts
Yeah the non binary - random identity + pronoun thing is kind of off to me too.
I wouldn't mind it except the rest of us are supposed to somehow keep in mind a totally separate and specific mode of behaviour because a few people want to act out (not always the case but sometimes).
The best analogy I can think of for this behaviour is the goth thing that was huge about 15-20 years ago. Everyone had goths at their school and most people thought they were a bit weird, but they didn't insist on full on fucking legal protection from disrespect. You could call someone a fucking stupid goth and not get accused of hate crime.
Everything now is so shrouded in sensitivity to this stuff that you can literally change your identity for attention at will and expect the world to bend itself around your newfound needs. I find it all just a bit pathetic to be honest.
Once again I completely understand binary switching but there's a whole world of attention seeking behaviour that to me seems psychologically unhealthy (not mentally ill) and its being reinforced by the law.
Maybe I'm just old and the world has moved on past the point where i can keep up with it though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
