LGBT Rights and Gender Equality Thread - Page 125

Plansix

United States60190 Posts

August 05 2013 21:19 GMT

#2481

On August 06 2013 05:55 farvacola wrote:

Plansix hit on it nicely; not everyone who is unsure of these things considers trans folk "a lie" nor are they devoid of sympathy or empathy. To argue exclusively from that vantage point and to accordingly pile on guilt does the entire dialogue a great disservice.

Yes, guilting people for something they might not have done intentionally is not helpful to discussion or even productive. People will just get defensive, because that is what people do when that happens and then not listen to your point. There are better ways of making people aware that they could be hurtful and attempting to make them feel bad only makes you feel better, and does not address the problem.

It’s the old phrase I keep using “We don’t want to beat the, we want to win”. If you want to change people, what is the most effective way to do that.

On August 06 2013 06:15 Zaragon wrote:
Yes, farvacola's response is very true. And yet, the only point of friction and pain that keeps looping is a careless word like a knife here or there, a lack of an understanding word like foundation there, undercutting all of the reason that points could have had, or any constructive exchange there could have been. I feel like people are forgetting the unimaginable depths of pain that form the foundation of the entire discussion, and heatedly arguing logic--with emotion, without empathic emotion. Forgetting so many vital things.

And no, not a one way street, but from reading it on the sidelines I am starting to feel it's time to advise care and empathy above all else, because that is what can make this discussion healthy again.

Empthy is a two way street as well. Both sides need to understand where the other is comming from. It can't be one side telling people how hard their life is and the other side accepting that. That being said, one side can jump up and down on the other head either.

Ghostcom

Denmark4781 Posts

August 05 2013 21:23 GMT

#2482

Ironically enough I think you are right - which was why I initially caused this havoc by calling out fugs when he/she made a one-liner guilttrip post with no tie-in to the discussion. The rest is history. Talk about back-firing. I feel like we could all take a lesson from lyerbeth and darkwhite - who despite disagreeing and some misunderstanding at least have managed to not resort to baseless one-line personal insults.

Darkwhite

Norway348 Posts

August 05 2013 23:06 GMT

#2483

On August 05 2013 23:23 Iyerbeth wrote:

Show nested quote +

Before you give 'final warnings' it might be worth checking your own guidelines. If you'd like I can show how I counted to 6 out of 8? I already stated I made them sound intentionally negative and that in the count I was talking about the principle rather than the exact wording. If you'd rather I didn't or consider it irrelevant/misinformed (as I think is the case) I won't do so, but don't call me a liar for reading your previous posts in a way you don't like without a good reason or you're doing exactly what you're accusing me of (see point 3 of your guidelines).

I will give the direct quote again:

First, I'd like to point out that you agreed with 6 out of 8 (presuming you disagree with the one you don't understand) so it's not like I wasn't saying things you don't agree with in principle, though granted I intentionally placed a negative slant on them in an attempt to show you why advocating for anyone to have the right to say I'm not a woman at any time is harmful.

This comes in the direct reply to where I made the following request:

If you want to extrapolate something beyond what I write, then ask a question and I will tell you my opinion myself.

I literally don't care how you counted to six out of eight, because I know the only way to do this is to add extremely generous amounts of interpretation to my post. At this point, you are free to talk about your understanding of my post, or call me a bigoted idiot if you want, but not to pretend to point out that I agreed in principle. I still consider your list an extreme misrepresentation of my opinions, beyond what the weasel wording in principle can salvage. All this would have been unnecessary if you didn't try putting words into my mouth in the first place. It is ridiculous that I have to spend all this text disassociating myself from opinions you try to pin on me.

Show nested quote +

This is your private conjecture, which I disagree with. I think that telling people what distinctions they are allowed to make or what preferences are indecent because they are irrational and need to be changed is what's really harmful. If you follow the context backwards through posts, you will see that I particularly responded to someone thinking his patchwork argument for calling not wanting to have sex with transsexuals irrational was a good enough reason to condemn it.

I have never argued for people's right to call you a man - that is nonsense you pretend I said by quoting it to my name. I have argued for people's right to draw a distinction between natural born women and male to female transsexuals. I can use any readily understandable, non-euphemistic term you pick to draw this distinction.

Show nested quote +

I am sorry about not giving a straight answer here, but I think you might have put in one negative too many in don't believe that anyone doesn't? I find it difficult to parse.

I don't think people should call a [male to female transsexual who self-identifies as a woman] a man, when he can instead use the unambiguous and hopefully inoffensive term male to female transsexual. It seems very hard to argue that man is more accurate, and it seems very hard to argue that it is less offensive.

I would make an exception for the cases where it honestly makes more sense to think of these people as men. That is, a scientist discussing the heredity of hemophilia, which is an X-chromosome disorder, would have a right to lump XY male to female transsexuals with men, for the purposes of his research.

I think calling people transphobes is as misguided and meaningless as calling homosexuals perverts or regular people anorexophobes. I think it is a underhanded tactic to smear an entirely legitimate preference. I think it would be equally pointless for me to accuse you of totalitarianism for labeling a preference as a phobia.

I think the cultural explanations for so-called transphobia are largely wrong; this point is discussed in further detail further down.

Show nested quote +

Sorry for the screwed up formatting, as I say I was in a rush.

It appears to me that you're saying that you should have the right to call me a male to female transsexual at your discretion so long as it's not wrong. Is that correct?

I'm unsure how the section regarding Russia got in there, it was supposed to be deleted. I usually draft my posts in to small points or sentences and then heavily edit them in to a format which makes sense, so it was probably just as I was in such a rush (didn't expect to take as long as I had to reply). That part was supposed to be a section of a larger explanation of how a behaviour which it seems to me like you were advocating could lead to a social third-class, as well as making it more challenging to have a legislature without those same feelings that could enact laws in the same way as their anti gay laws.

No problem about the formatting, I simply left it as a reminder to explain why some text was missing.

I do think I have and should have a right to call you a male to female transsexual - with the usual qualifiers about disclosing private information, et cetera. Again, I can use a different term as long as it is readily understandable. I similarly do think I have a right to call a Taiwanese girl Asian or call a man whose appearance I find pleasant beautiful.

I have not advocated needlessly making any of these three distinction at every possible opportunity. This would make people think I'm an idiot and not want to spend time with me, which would be their right too. Most forms of troublesome behavior are regulated, not by law and explicit rights, but by people wanting to be liked.

I have, however, spoken against the notion that censoring language is a solution. The usual tactic seems to be:
- identify groups which are discriminated against (i.e. the black minority in the US)
- label any term which can be used single out these groups offensive (i.e. negro)
- invent new, euphemistic terms to refer to these groups; this serves the dual purpose of making language impenetrable and excluding people without specific knowledge of the correct terminology from the debate
- as the new terms come into common parlance, repeatedly tag them as offensive (negro->black->colored->Afrian-American->???)
- as the distinction becomes increasingly impossible to even indirectly refer to in civil society, hope that people also lose their ability to even think about it
- once the distinction is erased from language and thought, nobody is even able to discriminate any more, and equality is achieved

The one problem with this approach is that language is a product of our minds, not the other way around. As far as I can tell, homosexuals in Norway today are generally satisfied with their situation, without ever having purged Norwegian of descriptive terms. Interestingly, the exact same words which once used to be slurs seem to have transformed into a neutral descriptor, i.e. gay.

Show nested quote +

- Prop up bigotry in society by arguing that you aren't a woman, despite all evidence to the contrary : propping up bigotry is to fuzzy for me to hold any opinions on; pretending all evidence demands that I lump born women and male to female transsexuals in the same category is outright false

Propping up bigotry would be such things as arguing that women and other women fall in to one group while other women sharing qualities as both of the previous groups should be treated as an outside group by society so long as they're not legally treated differently.

It is in my right to distinguish between natural born women and male to female transsexuals. You cannot strip me of that right by showing to other people who aren't me violating your rights, maybe because of my propping and supporting which are uselessly vague terms which allow you to accuse anybody of anything.

These terms aren't vague terms to allow me to accuse you of anything, there needs to be a causal link. In arguing that everyone has the right to differentiate trans women whenever they want you are supporting those who use that right to be more offensive. I'm not saying you don't have that right, but given earlier in the discussion you said (heavily cut but context in tact):

On August 04 2013 22:12 Darkwhite wrote:

On August 04 2013 12:02 fugs wrote:

On August 04 2013 11:54 Darkwhite wrote:

On August 04 2013 10:36 fugs wrote:
It's a medical issue that's been well documented and studied so yes, just as rational as taking care of a cleft palate as it's unsightly and causes emotional distress. The surgery isn't necessary to everyone but it will make the person's life better which is why it's rational.

I really can not wrap my head around why people can't see trans women as just women and it confuses me as to why it's such a big problem.

The second part where there's a problem, is where you try to dictate what sort of distinctions I am allowed to care about and demand that I use the same word for two things I consider conceptually different. I reserve the right to draw a distinction between natural born women and male to female transsexuals if this seems meaningful to me, regardless of how meaningless you might find it.

You can think whatever you want, if you want to think that all people are really carrots then by all means do so; but I don't think that gives you the right to deny someone's identity based on your own personal beliefs.

There is a difference between being wrong about facts, i.e. people being carrots, and making a distinction some people consider irrelevant, i.e. transsexuality.

which is extremely difficult to read without seeing "it is a fact you aren't a carrot. It is a distinction you're not a woman".

Show nested quote +

On the note of who you are obligated to have sex with, I have never claimed you must with anyone - again, it might be worth considering your objections to my posts before making such claims.

You seem to say that no one can claim that people should be aware of internal transphobia (even if, as I think is often the case, they aren't actually transphobic) because that somehow is hurtful and is a right I don't have? There are plenty of good reasons to not want a trans partner, but pointing out when someone's reasons are based on internalised, probably cultural, transphobia then I don't see how you can claim it is some violation to point it out and suggest the world would be a better place if people worked on it. It is in no way forcing you to have sex with anyone, policing your sex life or otherwise interfering with your rights.

A few quotes upstream, you will find this snippet:

There is a difference between being wrong about facts, i.e. people being carrots, and making a distinction some people consider irrelevant, i.e. transsexuality.

which is extremely difficult to read without seeing "it is a fact you aren't a carrot. It is a distinction you're not a woman"

Seeing as you find it extremely difficult to understand that distinguishing between a natural born woman and a male to female transsexual is possible without simultaneously seeing somebody (presumably myself?) calling them non-women, I felt obliged to give an example of one use of the distinction.

You might not yourself have instructed me about my sexual obligations, but again, if you follow the context backwards through posts, one of the reasons I am defending the distinction between natural born women and male to female transsexuals is because some people have made claims along the lines of:
(a) - You might not have wanted to have sex with a transsexual, but if you consent to sex without knowing this then it's not my problem.
(b) - The difference between a male to female transsexual and a natural born woman can only be made with a time machine, and thus any preferences along this dimension is inherently irrational and (b1) can be ignored at will, (b2) it is not my job to inform when obtaining consent or (b3) makes you an indecent human being who needs to change your preferences.
(c) - The risks involved in disclosing your transsexual identity trumps the rights of sexual partners to informed consent.
Thus, it's natural to focus on how this distinction might enter into sexual preferences.

Finally, the same point about internalized transphobia is mentioned above. In particular, I am extremely suspect of the multiple layers of speculation which try to make some sort of tenuous connection between lacking sexual attraction to transsexuals to failing to make the world a better place.

This argument seems to me to require that:
- not wanting sexual contact with transsexuals is linked to more general transphobic attitudes in a wider scope than just sexual preferences
- these transphobic attitudes permeate and self-reinforce throughout culture, thus spreading between individuals like a disease would
- by transcending the individual mind, the responsibility for discrimination towards transsexuals is not limited to those directly discriminating, but can be pinned on anyone for thoughtcrimes and speechcrimes such as drawing distinctions between natural born women and male to female transsexuals

I have never seen any of these assumptions satisfactorily explained, let alone proved, yet the mechanism is paraded around like truth. What I do see, time and time again, is that the terminology is always uselessly vague, such that accusations can be leveled without facts entering in at any point. The same sort of nonsense argument pins some part of the responsibility for heinous crimes like rape, through the absurdity of rape culture, on this sort of comic strip:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/8/11/

I could similarly conjecture that people's homosexuality is a product of internalized misogyny or an incestous rejection of women because of an overly close connection to their mothers while growing up. I could tell them that their homosexuality is a cultural product and harmful to society. I could tell them to work on changing their preferences by implying that they have some degree of control and thus responsibility for their preferences.

I would (a) be completely wrong about the nature vs nurture aspects of homosexuality, and (b) be making extremely pseudoscientific claims about the cultural dimensions of it and (c) be trying to police or moralize parts of people's private lives where I have no business sticking my nose. I think you are making all those three mistakes, just about this so-called transphobia.

Though I do wish you would be very careful about moralizing about preferences, you have, of course, every right in the world to make these claims, just as I have every right to think you're wrong.

Show nested quote +

- Support bullying in the same regard as above : too fuzzy, I find any sort of bullying unacceptable, but I don't take much responsibility for what others might take as support for their own bullying

When you attempt to argue that one group of women should be denied their identity at your discretion and treated as a third or fourth gender, that is bullying. Supporting others do the same so long as it's not in a professional role is supporting bullying.

This is mostly a repeat of the above. I would defend people's rights to discriminate against people, for the purposes of friendship, on basis of perceived unpleasantness. I would defend people's rights to discriminate against people, for the purposes of playing bridge, on basis of perceived stupidity. I see no reason why I am not allowed to defend people's rights to discriminate against people, for the purposes of sexual contact, on the basis of perceived transsexuality.

I would stand by that statement, however you shifted the different purposes around to different perceived characteristics.

I find it ironic that allowing people to act on whatever preferences they might happen to have in their personal lives, as long as they respect other people's rights, is supposedly bullying, unlike trying to dictate what other people are allowed to do in private and what preferences they need to try to change lest they be indecent.

I think I've already covered this.

- Spread your medical information to others : I am honestly not certain what private details about others you have a right to disclose to third parties, somebody else will have to clear this up

You stated you're allowed to say anything about anyone even if they find it unpleasant so long as it's true. This sounded a lot like "I'll tell others you're trans if I find out and am asked or otherwise feel like sharing the gossip". Considering this is such a wide spread problem already, I found it particularly disturbing to actually see it written somewhere.

Your reading comprehension really tried my patience. I talked about your positive right to not have people spread falsehoods about you. The reason you are misinterpreting me is that you very crudely tried to invert a non-exhaustive list about positive rights to pretend everything which didn't show up on the original list is endorsed by me, and that you didn't give me any benefit of doubt when the results were absurd.

Here's an instructive example:
- if Brad Pitt moves in next door, I am allowed to tell my brother That's the guy who starred in Fight Club, even if Brad Pitt is embarrassed about his role in this movie; here, I am passing on public information
- if Brad Pitt visits me and I diagnose him with syphilis, I am not allowed to tell my brother about it; here, I am making confidential information public

I am not sure what the law says about something you tell me in private and instruct me to keep secret, and I suspect this varies based on jurisdiction, but passing it on would regardless be a violation of trust, which I personally don't find acceptable. This is fairly orthogonal to whether I am obligated to call male to female transsexuals women always and in all contexts when doing so does not disclose anything confidential.

I think I've already covered why your posts led me to misinterpret it. Everything on the list I wrote, I intended to be in line with your posts in that discussion as I read them, which I'm trying to explain here.

I can't see any problem with that, as long as people are individually allowed to decide when they want to make the distinction without being under the scrutiny of the offensiveness police. Furthermore, this isn't a permissible loophole for people to deliberately misinform by hiding under a wider umbrella term or a different interpretation: see Bill Clinton's I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

Unfortuantely I'm out of time so I can't continue responding, but I think I've explained the core of my point. I just wanted to add, that when I tell someone I'm a woman I'm not misinforming them. My birth certificate says female and I'm an adult.

Edit: Literally just about to leave, I didn't mean to dodge the 'offensive' discussion bit, really have to be at college in 23 mins.

I have literally never tried to dictate whether a transsexual is man or woman. This is explicitly mentioned in the post you quote:

I neither want to nor need to dictate what gender a transsexual belongs to, that's a matter of semantics and perceptions which will go nowhere.

I have disagreed, at length, with the notion that no distinction can ever be made between a male to female transsexual and a natural born woman and that I have an obligation to view male to female transsexuals as just women in my private life.

I have also argued that it would be prudent to disclose that you are a male to female transsexual to sexual partners who can be expected to care about this distinction.

And I have said explicitly that you may not be trying to dictate whether a transsexual is a man or a woman, but that your posts appear to support anyone who does want to make that distinction, because they consider it relevant and true. Do you disagree?

Only insofar as speaking plainly and honestly about what rights people do and do not have is to provide support for them to abuse their rights however they see fit to hurt others. I condone neither malice, egotism, idiocy nor insensitivity, but I don't think mixing rights and decency into a single smokescreen is the way to solve these problems.

Orangered

289 Posts

August 05 2013 23:56 GMT

#2484

On August 06 2013 06:23 Ghostcom wrote:

Show nested quote +

The problem is that no one seems to pay attention to this things anymore

RaspberrySC2

United States168 Posts

August 06 2013 06:08 GMT

#2485

Just came across this today and thought of this thread again:

Link potentially NSFW depending on standards (watercolor nudity)
+ Show Spoiler +

http://imgur.com/a/oUpJt#qNn57ua

Sometimes I wonder if the "average" male (hetero-normative cisgendered etc) understands why assertions like these are made by women.

xM(Z

Romania5275 Posts

August 06 2013 07:32 GMT

#2486

On August 06 2013 15:08 RaspberrySC2 wrote:
Just came across this today and thought of this thread again:

Link potentially NSFW depending on standards (watercolor nudity)
+ Show Spoiler +

http://imgur.com/a/oUpJt#qNn57ua

Sometimes I wonder if the "average" male (hetero-normative cisgendered etc) understands why assertions like these are made by women.

nope, they don't understand why those assertions are made only for women.

WombaT

Northern Ireland23759 Posts

August 07 2013 03:11 GMT

#2487

Can't say I mind the message, just find the tone a bit lame and smacking of self-help lingo

QuanticHawk

United States32027 Posts

August 07 2013 15:28 GMT

#2488

it's lame. all the copy, short of the one part about women not being judged by other's standard of beauty, is extremely generic and can be applied to anyone. the only feminist thing about that is there's a bunch of naked women of all body types.

KwarK

United States41956 Posts

August 07 2013 18:14 GMT

#2489

It's literally nonsense. It goes "a woman is not defined by the following..." and then rather than concluding that perhaps we shouldn't be telling women what being a woman is it then goes on to add its own definition of what a woman is. It's what happens when someone correctly identifies that the media pressure for a woman not to have stretch marks etc (as exercised by airbrushing) is wrong but then concludes that pressure in the opposite direction is the solution rather than just leaving women the fuck alone so they can just do whatever the fuck they like. That's not feminism, that's just a bunch of people telling women "don't be that, be this". Couldn't be further from the point.

ComaDose

Canada10352 Posts

August 07 2013 18:24 GMT

#2490

On August 08 2013 03:14 KwarK wrote:
It's literally nonsense. It goes "a woman is not defined by the following..." and then rather than concluding that perhaps we shouldn't be telling women what being a woman is it then goes on to add its own definition of what a woman is. It's what happens when someone correctly identifies that the media pressure for a woman not to have stretch marks etc (as exercised by airbrushing) is wrong but then concludes that pressure in the opposite direction is the solution rather than just leaving women the fuck alone so they can just do whatever the fuck they like. That's not feminism, that's just a bunch of people telling women "don't be that, be this". Couldn't be further from the point.

yeah its like "strong is the new thin" great now there is pressure to be ripped instead of super slender.
how bout "healthy is the new thin" or "w/e you already are is the new thin"

QuanticHawk

United States32027 Posts

August 07 2013 18:28 GMT

#2491

this is put way better than i would have done myself

Plansix

United States60190 Posts

August 07 2013 18:30 GMT

#2492

On August 08 2013 03:24 ComaDose wrote:

Show nested quote +

yeah its like "strong is the new thin" great now there is pressure to be ripped instead of super slender.
how bout "healthy is the new thin" or "w/e you already are is the new thin"

I like, "Who fucking cares if you're thin, just be healthy," but that just me.

farvacola

United States18818 Posts

August 07 2013 18:31 GMT

#2493

Yeah I'm thinking that the male version of that turns out pretty hilarious, complete with requisite Ron Jeremy photo.

Ghostcom

Denmark4781 Posts

August 07 2013 18:37 GMT

#2494

On August 08 2013 03:30 Plansix wrote:

Show nested quote +

I like, "Who fucking cares if you're thin, just be healthy," but that just me.

Such an empty and nonsense statement though. It requires a definition of being "healthy" which I doubt you are really able to provide. Consider for instance that the group with the biggest life expectancy are for those with a BMI from 26-29 (i.e. slightly overweight) - despite having a higher incidence of comorbidity than those in the "normal" BMI range. So despite living longer they have more disease. Which of the 2 groups do you think of as more healthy?

Crushinator

Netherlands2138 Posts

August 07 2013 18:44 GMT

#2495

On August 08 2013 03:37 Ghostcom wrote:

Show nested quote +

My BMI is 29.5 at 10-12% body fat. I dont think BMI is a very reliable indicator of who is overweight anyway

farvacola

United States18818 Posts

August 07 2013 18:45 GMT

#2496

Yeah I was gonna say, BMI is an outdated metric, so why go off that at all?

Plansix

United States60190 Posts

August 07 2013 18:51 GMT

#2497

On August 08 2013 03:37 Ghostcom wrote:

Show nested quote +

Well Ghostcom, if I were referring to the words, "thin" and "healthy" using their strict medical definitions, your response is totally correct. However, in this case we are mostly talking about the ideas of body image in relation to media influence and the pressures associated with that. Since most images of women are heavily photo shopped and do not reflect reality, the ideas of “thin” and “healthy” are greatly distorted in that context and do not reflect any medical definitation of those terms.

So I suppose if I wanted to craft my statement to meet your very literal of approval process, I would say “Who the fuck cares if you look like some photoshopped model, as long as your trying to be healthy.” But that statement did not flow quite as neatly.

QuanticHawk

United States32027 Posts

August 07 2013 18:54 GMT

#2498

yeah the value of bmi is pretty limited. if you are big into lifting, you can very easily get into overweight territory

then again, the people who love to mention this as why bmi sucks are usually people who are huge because they fat, not because theyre athletes who are built like a house

Ghostcom

Denmark4781 Posts

August 07 2013 18:58 GMT

#2499

On August 08 2013 03:45 farvacola wrote:
Yeah I was gonna say, BMI is an outdated metric, so why go off that at all?

It is still the best correlated metric and commonly accepted in the scientific community. Of course you need to account for other stuff as well, but for it to be completely misleading is not exactly the norm.

EDIT: You know what? Nevermind, this is getting too far off-topic in here and TI3 is starting.

Crushinator

Netherlands2138 Posts

August 07 2013 19:24 GMT

#2500

On August 08 2013 03:58 Ghostcom wrote:

Show nested quote +

I don't think this is true. Body fat % is simply superior. The reason BMI is accepted scientifically is because in larger samples, individuals with unusual body compositions dont really matter that much, so they dont bother doing the more difficult measurements.

Prev 1 123 124 125 126 127 149 Next

Please or register to reply.

LGBT Rights and Gender Equality Thread - Page 125

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming