|
On August 09 2013 00:20 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 00:17 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:12 shinosai wrote:On August 09 2013 00:08 Killscreen wrote:On August 08 2013 23:56 shinosai wrote:On August 08 2013 23:45 Killscreen wrote:On August 08 2013 23:43 ComaDose wrote:On August 08 2013 23:40 Killscreen wrote:On August 08 2013 23:38 Plansix wrote:On August 08 2013 23:34 marvellosity wrote:
[quote]
But you didn't achieve anything, this isn't a points scoring exercise. Getting people to go away and stop saying jerky things is its own reward. So guess what, you convinced me to stay! :D Everything I said is factually correct. You're really arguing with the oxford dictionary? alright lets move on to the next thing you said that was wrong the girl knew I would be pissed ( or she would tell me ) there are many reasons someone wouldn't disclose other than knowing you would be pissed Sure.. It's still deceptive and wrong though, regardless of her reason not to disclose it. Hey, stop ignoring me. You're deceptive, too. Why aren't you disclosing? I bet that sounded like a rational argument in your head. So you don't have a response, then? Don't I have a right to know? Transphobic people are a legitimate danger to my safety. You don't get to have a ridiculous hangup about trans people and then call me irrational for not wanting to sleep with transphobes. I dont recall saying you are irrational for not wanting to sleep with transphobes. I think what you are saying is that you would rather sleep with a transphobe than be beaten up by him, but I'm not sure. she disagrees with your point that "most guys" would be mad if they found out they slept with a trans person. also negro is not a slur because context and history. remember when you recommended using dictionaries?
Negro is not a slur because context and history.. Ok, you lost me.
|
On August 09 2013 00:26 Killscreen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 00:22 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:14 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:11 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:06 Killscreen wrote:On August 08 2013 23:55 Plansix wrote:On August 08 2013 23:54 Killscreen wrote:On August 08 2013 23:53 Plansix wrote:On August 08 2013 23:50 Killscreen wrote:
If its not derogatory, why shouldnt I call a black person negro then? Because they will fucking punch you? Are you kidding? You don't break that out ever, its a word that has been twisted over time. So its a derogatory term then. Yes, when used to discribe a black person in the modern context. So using "man" to describe a transgender woman is exactly the same. Unless you don't respect the transgender woman, which then you are a jerk. No, it isnt the same thing. A word like "faggot" or maybe "tranny" or something along those lines would be the same. I get your point though, but please try to understand mine; you cannot just alter words' meanings to be what you would like them to be, and it's not fair to scold me for using the English language correctly. Once again, the word "cool" and "bad" disagree with you. Also the word "wicked" and "sick". Meaning change over time. Those are slang words, and lets stick with what the words mean right now shall we? This is where a dictionary is useful. Right, I have work to do and explaining the evolution of language is something you need to learn on your own. Words change over time to mean different things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EtymologyIt is fact. Citing the oxford english dictionary does nothing, because the word "Etymology" is also in there. If you look it up, it will inform you word can change over time. So since words change, we can just redefine words as we see fit. I hereby redefine idiot to mean "nice person". You're an idiot.
Sorry. I know facts are hard to understand and the idea that the words you use meant different things in the past is a new concept. But it doesn't make it less true.
|
On August 09 2013 00:26 Killscreen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 00:22 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:14 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:11 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:06 Killscreen wrote:On August 08 2013 23:55 Plansix wrote:On August 08 2013 23:54 Killscreen wrote:On August 08 2013 23:53 Plansix wrote:On August 08 2013 23:50 Killscreen wrote:
If its not derogatory, why shouldnt I call a black person negro then? Because they will fucking punch you? Are you kidding? You don't break that out ever, its a word that has been twisted over time. So its a derogatory term then. Yes, when used to discribe a black person in the modern context. So using "man" to describe a transgender woman is exactly the same. Unless you don't respect the transgender woman, which then you are a jerk. No, it isnt the same thing. A word like "faggot" or maybe "tranny" or something along those lines would be the same. I get your point though, but please try to understand mine; you cannot just alter words' meanings to be what you would like them to be, and it's not fair to scold me for using the English language correctly. Once again, the word "cool" and "bad" disagree with you. Also the word "wicked" and "sick". Meaning change over time. Those are slang words, and lets stick with what the words mean right now shall we? This is where a dictionary is useful. Right, I have work to do and explaining the evolution of language is something you need to learn on your own. Words change over time to mean different things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EtymologyIt is fact. Citing the oxford english dictionary does nothing, because the word "Etymology" is also in there. If you look it up, it will inform you word can change over time. So since words change, we can just redefine words as we see fit. I hereby redefine "idiot" to mean "nice person". You're an idiot.
the definition we are using is also in the dictionary you are referencing and in the context of this thread is much more appropriate
|
On August 08 2013 13:46 Mercy13 wrote:
I promised myself that I would stop posting on this subject because I found myself getting pretty frustrated, but I couldn't resist. KwarK's argument is essentially that the value of fully informed consent is more important than any other conceivable value, and that anything less than fully informed consent is the same as no consent at all, provided that one party has reason to believe that the consent was not fully informed.
This argument does not work unless you can demonstrate that the value of fully informed consent is objectively better than every other important value. Otherwise, it is just one of many ways to ethically resolve a complicated issue.
I PM'd Kwark with what I think is a superior resolution to this dilemma. I am pasting the note below (sorry that it's long) and I would dearly appreciate it if you guys could (1) demonstrate where my thinking is flawed; or (2) stop acting like everyone who has different values from your own is a rapist.
I will un-nest the second quote to I can reply to individual paragraphs without having to wrestle the formatting.
Sorry for taking so long to reply, it's been a busy weekend.
In case you are interested I thought I'd summarize my view point one more time, because it may have gotten lost in thread. Or maybe you just think it's bad, in which case I would appreciate it if you could point out where you think the flaws are : )
First off, I think I have a very clear idea of what your standard for disclosure is: In order for consent to be valid when Person A is considering a sexual encounter with Person B, Person A must disclose all information about Person A that Person A has reason to believe would affect Person B's decision to have sex with Person A.
As I mentioned before, I believe this is an internally consistent and coherent standard, that provides relatively clear guidelines for behavior. Also, I am quite sure that it is in no way transphobic because it applies to everyone equally.
Not quite - Person A must disclose all information, regardless of who or what it might pertain to - even if it happened to be information about Person B which he himself is not aware of, for some strange reason.
Regardless of whether the standard is consistent or not, the important thing is how it very directly works towards making sure everyone has a positive sexual experience.
I have two problems with it however.
Problem 1 - Asymmetric Disclosure Obligations
One of the implications of your standard is that when two people are considering a sexual encounter, and neither of them would want to sleep with the other if the other disclosed certain information, only the one with reason to believe the information would have this effect has a moral obligation to disclose. I tend to highly (over?) value fairness, and this seems grossly unfair to me.
I don't find this unfair at all. Inequality and unfairness are not the same. It seems that you are trying to say that the person who is married or has herpes or has repulsive burn scars all over his body - undisclosed information the other party is expected to care about - should have an equal obligation as the person who has dyed hair or breast implants - undisclosed information which I imagine people in general feel less strongly about. It is unfair only in the sense that the person with more undesirably qualities is in a weaker bargaining position.
Problem 2 - Effect of Consent
I think many people who were posting in the thread had an unrealistic and impractical view of consent, where they believed that consent has to be 100% fully informed in order to be valid, and this is simply not the case. For example, say a person just bought some new software, and when he gets to the EULA he doesn't read it but just clicks on "I consent to be bound by the terms of this EULA." He then goes merrily on his way, making copies of the software and selling them to all his friends and family. If the software company sues him for IP infringement based on his acceptance of the EULA, he can't say "but I didn't know there was a provision in there about IP infringement, so I didn't really consent to be bound by the license!"
Similarly, if a person consents to a one night stand, he is accepting the risk that there might be something about his partner that had he known about it, would have prevented him from consenting. He can't go back after the fact and say "I didn't know you were a trans person when I consented, therefore there is no consent and you're a rapist!"
I guess you could argue that this would be a case of ineffective consent, or misinformed consent, or consent by deception or something like that (to be clear I wouldn't argue this), but it would be wrong to say that there was no consent.
I think you are misrepresenting many people's views. I haven't seen anybody suggesting that every minor detail always needs to be disclosed - feel free to name anybody championing this view. Because exchanging information takes time, people will ultimately have to make their decisions without perfect knowledge. People will have to choose what information they disclose voluntarily, and what questions they ask.
Your EULA-analogy desperately tries to compare someone closing their eyes when information is disclosed and then going on to do something practically everyone knows is criminal, to someone who is never told about his partner being a transsexual.
Again, people do accept that they do not have complete information about their partners before a one-night stand. They still expect to be told about things which obviously are non-trivial. You can not hide behind the it's just a one-night stand, you don't get to think it's a big deal, I couldn't possibly have known you would care when you either:
- withhold the fact that you are married
- withhold the fact that you are videotaping the sex
- withhold the fact that you are transsexual
- withhold the fact that you have herpes
In sum, I think individuals should be responsible for making informed consent, and if they consent without bothering to become informed, they can't say consent was invalid after the fact, just because they didn't get exactly what they were expecting.
See list above. Their only way to obtain this information, if you are free to not disclose anything on a whim, is to give you a two-hour questionnaire written by a lawyer. That is why you are expected to cooperate.
My Standard for When there is a Moral Obligation to Disclose
As a result of the problems outlined above, I think the following standard works better, at least for a person like me who highly values personal responsibility and fairness.
In order for consent to be valid when Person A is considering a sexual encounter with Person B, Person A must disclose all information about Person A that Person A *knows* would affect Person B's decision to have sex with Person A.
I found zero problems above, short of transsexuals being upset that they can't write out details they find uncomfortable to improve their bargaining position. Knows? So any .1% doubt about whether it is relevant frees me from an obligation to inform? Should I feel free to start videotaping my one-night stands? Or is videotaped sex something which doesn't fall under consent to sex, whereas transsexual sex does?
I believe that this standard addresses the two problems outlined above, as well as being internally consistent. It also puts the onus on Person B to protect himself by either making his preferences known, or by getting to know Person A before consenting to sex.
This standard just leaves the gates wide open. Any theoretical shred of doubt allows you to withhold information. It puts the onus on Person B to explicitly ask about any number of theoretical possibilities because Person A is not going to tell. It means my partner can be on birth control for six months, then suddenly stop without letting me know and get pregnant, and blame me for not making my preferences known.
People seemed to think that the First Cousins Analogy and the Twins Analogy brought to light internal inconsistencies in this standard, but I disagree.
First Cousins Analogy - I do not believe that this analogy was directly applicable, because it included an additional variable: the male cousin was aware of personal information about the female cousin that she was not aware of, which could possibly effect her decision to sleep with him. I would say that in this unusual situation, there is a moral obligation separate from the one addressed by my standard to disclose the personal information before engaging in sex.
Your moral standard is allegedly internally consistent, yet it breaks down already in this simple case. Instead of focusing on the important part - where both cases involve people having sex they wouldn't have consented to, if informed about something it is reasonable to assume matters - you seem to think the technical distinction of whom the information is about makes this different.
Twins Analogy - In this case, the husband's twin wouldn't just have reason to know that the wife wasn't consenting to sex with him, he would have actual knowledge. Knowledge doesn't just have to come from explicit statements, it can also come from context. When he knows that he is identical to his twin, and that he is entering the wife's room in the same manner that his twin might, and he knows that the wife would have no reason to suspect that he was any other person besides his twin, I think it is pretty clear that he had "knowledge" that she was consenting to sex with his twin, and not with him.
I think it's a bit less clear, but not by much, that an undisclosed transsexual is taking advantage of functionally identical misunderstandings. You seem to chalk up the difference to degree of certainty? What about the possibility that the couple are swingers who are perfectly fine with twin-swap sex?
I appreciate it if you bothered to read through all this, and I would appreciate it even more if you could tell me whether you think that my standard is internally consistent, even if you still think yours is better for whatever reason. Also, on the slight chance that you do think my standard is internally consistent, I would appreciate it if you could acknowledge in the thread (if the topic comes up again) that reasonable minds can differ about what circumstances give rise to a moral obligation to disclose.
I think your standard is an absurd hodgepodge, specifically tailored to give transsexuals a loophole where you admit first-cousins none. I think the only way to arrive at this nonsense is to write the bottom-line first and then work your way backwards.
|
On August 09 2013 00:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 00:26 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:22 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:14 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:11 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:06 Killscreen wrote:On August 08 2013 23:55 Plansix wrote:On August 08 2013 23:54 Killscreen wrote:On August 08 2013 23:53 Plansix wrote:On August 08 2013 23:50 Killscreen wrote:
If its not derogatory, why shouldnt I call a black person negro then? Because they will fucking punch you? Are you kidding? You don't break that out ever, its a word that has been twisted over time. So its a derogatory term then. Yes, when used to discribe a black person in the modern context. So using "man" to describe a transgender woman is exactly the same. Unless you don't respect the transgender woman, which then you are a jerk. No, it isnt the same thing. A word like "faggot" or maybe "tranny" or something along those lines would be the same. I get your point though, but please try to understand mine; you cannot just alter words' meanings to be what you would like them to be, and it's not fair to scold me for using the English language correctly. Once again, the word "cool" and "bad" disagree with you. Also the word "wicked" and "sick". Meaning change over time. Those are slang words, and lets stick with what the words mean right now shall we? This is where a dictionary is useful. Right, I have work to do and explaining the evolution of language is something you need to learn on your own. Words change over time to mean different things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EtymologyIt is fact. Citing the oxford english dictionary does nothing, because the word "Etymology" is also in there. If you look it up, it will inform you word can change over time. So since words change, we can just redefine words as we see fit. I hereby redefine idiot to mean "nice person". You're an idiot. Sorry. I know facts are hard to understand and the idea that the words you use meant different things in the past is a new concept. But it doesn't make it less true.
Yeah.. "Man" still hasn't changed since I posted the defenition 20 mins ago though..
|
On August 09 2013 00:32 Killscreen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 00:30 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:26 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:22 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:14 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:11 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:06 Killscreen wrote:On August 08 2013 23:55 Plansix wrote:On August 08 2013 23:54 Killscreen wrote:On August 08 2013 23:53 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Because they will fucking punch you? Are you kidding? You don't break that out ever, its a word that has been twisted over time. So its a derogatory term then. Yes, when used to discribe a black person in the modern context. So using "man" to describe a transgender woman is exactly the same. Unless you don't respect the transgender woman, which then you are a jerk. No, it isnt the same thing. A word like "faggot" or maybe "tranny" or something along those lines would be the same. I get your point though, but please try to understand mine; you cannot just alter words' meanings to be what you would like them to be, and it's not fair to scold me for using the English language correctly. Once again, the word "cool" and "bad" disagree with you. Also the word "wicked" and "sick". Meaning change over time. Those are slang words, and lets stick with what the words mean right now shall we? This is where a dictionary is useful. Right, I have work to do and explaining the evolution of language is something you need to learn on your own. Words change over time to mean different things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EtymologyIt is fact. Citing the oxford english dictionary does nothing, because the word "Etymology" is also in there. If you look it up, it will inform you word can change over time. So since words change, we can just redefine words as we see fit. I hereby redefine idiot to mean "nice person". You're an idiot. Sorry. I know facts are hard to understand and the idea that the words you use meant different things in the past is a new concept. But it doesn't make it less true. Yeah.. "Man" still hasn't changed since I posted the defenition 20 mins ago though..
Exactly, I means a person who identifies their gender as male, which does not have to correspond with their sex. Denying it doesn't make it less true.
|
On August 09 2013 00:35 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 00:32 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:30 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:26 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:22 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:14 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:11 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:06 Killscreen wrote:On August 08 2013 23:55 Plansix wrote:On August 08 2013 23:54 Killscreen wrote:
[quote]
So its a derogatory term then. Yes, when used to discribe a black person in the modern context. So using "man" to describe a transgender woman is exactly the same. Unless you don't respect the transgender woman, which then you are a jerk. No, it isnt the same thing. A word like "faggot" or maybe "tranny" or something along those lines would be the same. I get your point though, but please try to understand mine; you cannot just alter words' meanings to be what you would like them to be, and it's not fair to scold me for using the English language correctly. Once again, the word "cool" and "bad" disagree with you. Also the word "wicked" and "sick". Meaning change over time. Those are slang words, and lets stick with what the words mean right now shall we? This is where a dictionary is useful. Right, I have work to do and explaining the evolution of language is something you need to learn on your own. Words change over time to mean different things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EtymologyIt is fact. Citing the oxford english dictionary does nothing, because the word "Etymology" is also in there. If you look it up, it will inform you word can change over time. So since words change, we can just redefine words as we see fit. I hereby redefine idiot to mean "nice person". You're an idiot. Sorry. I know facts are hard to understand and the idea that the words you use meant different things in the past is a new concept. But it doesn't make it less true. Yeah.. "Man" still hasn't changed since I posted the defenition 20 mins ago though.. Exactly, I means a person who identifies their gender as male, which does not have to correspond with their sex. Denying it doesn't make it less true.
Jesus Christ... No, it doesnt. It means human male. Do I need to quote the dictionary again?
|
United States41958 Posts
On August 09 2013 00:18 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 00:15 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 23:56 shinosai wrote:On August 08 2013 23:45 Killscreen wrote:On August 08 2013 23:43 ComaDose wrote:On August 08 2013 23:40 Killscreen wrote:On August 08 2013 23:38 Plansix wrote:On August 08 2013 23:34 marvellosity wrote:On August 08 2013 23:34 ComaDose wrote:
that was easyer than usual But you didn't achieve anything, this isn't a points scoring exercise. Getting people to go away and stop saying jerky things is its own reward. So guess what, you convinced me to stay! :D Everything I said is factually correct. You're really arguing with the oxford dictionary? alright lets move on to the next thing you said that was wrong the girl knew I would be pissed ( or she would tell me ) there are many reasons someone wouldn't disclose other than knowing you would be pissed Sure.. It's still deceptive and wrong though, regardless of her reason not to disclose it. Hey, stop ignoring me. You're deceptive, too. Why aren't you disclosing? If it was reasonable to assume that transphobic status was a dealbreaker for the other party and that being transphobic was so unlikely that they had no reason to ask if you were transphobic you should absolutely disclose. Come up with a hypothetical in which that is the case and I'll back you up on a moral obligation to disclose transphobic status. I don't think it's based in reality though. I think transphobic status is something that the other person can reasonably anticipate, unlike trans status which is really, really rare. Look, neither of us actually have any evidence on the percentage of people where people are transphobic is a deal breaker, or being trans is a deal breaker. However, I do have a hypothetical for you. Suppose that from now on, with every woman you dated, you at some point went into an anecdote about how your brother is dating a completely passable post-op trans woman. Let's presume you interject this story tactfully, so that it does not seem absurdly out of place. Make sure to let her know that you would never date "him" because you think that "he" is a man, no matter what "he" does to "his" body. Do you think that a reasonable amount of women would be turned off by this? If so, then it is reasonable that transphobia is a dealbreaker and you should disclose.
Anecdotal evidence from this topic would seem to suggest that for a lot of people trans status is a dealbreaker. There might be actual numbers on it, although as I'm not trans I've never had to look them up. That said, if everyone a trans person met was fine with it and they didn't know people were transphobic I'd argue they did nothing morally wrong, it's knowingly exploiting the lack of information for sex you suspect they would not want if they knew that I take issue with. Statistical occurrence rates for trans people is, I believe, around 0.01% so we do have numbers on that. I would argue that that rate is so low that the assumption that a given person is not trans is reasonable and that lack of asking "are you trans?" cannot be taken as an acceptance of their trans status.
You are not seeming to understand that transphobia is sufficiently common for it to be a reasonable assumption that a given partner could be transphobic. The entire issue here is based on a massive disparity of information, the trans person knows they are an extreme outlier which the other party would have no reason to suspect them of being. In your hypothetical you keep proposing disclosure of common statuses, common statuses are reasonable for the other person to specifically ask about and exclude.
There are two relevant numbers here. How common the hangup is and how rare the status is. I'll explain it for you in terms of the four potential situations.
Hangup is common, status is common, person with hangup can anticipate the status, should ask. Failure to ask can be interpreted as not having an issue with the status.
Hangup is rare, status is common, person with hangup can anticipate the status, should ask. Failure to ask can be interpreted as not having an issue with the status.
Hangup is common, status is rare, person with hangup cannot anticipate the status, has no reason to ask. Failure to ask cannot be interpreted as not having an issue with the status. Person with the status can however anticipate the hangup, should disclose.
Hangup is rare, status is rare, person with a hangup cannot anticipate the status, has no reason to ask. However person with the status cannot anticipate the hangup, has no reason to disclose.
Only in the common hangup, status rare does the disparity in information create a moral obligation. In the first two the other party can be reasonably expected to look after their own interests, in the fourth one their interests are not known to the trans person so there is no obligation, in the third one however, the trans person suspects there might be a consent issue which their partner is unaware of. At that point they disclose.
|
United States41958 Posts
On August 09 2013 00:36 Killscreen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 00:35 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:32 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:30 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:26 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:22 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:14 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:11 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:06 Killscreen wrote:On August 08 2013 23:55 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Yes, when used to discribe a black person in the modern context. So using "man" to describe a transgender woman is exactly the same. Unless you don't respect the transgender woman, which then you are a jerk. No, it isnt the same thing. A word like "faggot" or maybe "tranny" or something along those lines would be the same. I get your point though, but please try to understand mine; you cannot just alter words' meanings to be what you would like them to be, and it's not fair to scold me for using the English language correctly. Once again, the word "cool" and "bad" disagree with you. Also the word "wicked" and "sick". Meaning change over time. Those are slang words, and lets stick with what the words mean right now shall we? This is where a dictionary is useful. Right, I have work to do and explaining the evolution of language is something you need to learn on your own. Words change over time to mean different things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EtymologyIt is fact. Citing the oxford english dictionary does nothing, because the word "Etymology" is also in there. If you look it up, it will inform you word can change over time. So since words change, we can just redefine words as we see fit. I hereby redefine idiot to mean "nice person". You're an idiot. Sorry. I know facts are hard to understand and the idea that the words you use meant different things in the past is a new concept. But it doesn't make it less true. Yeah.. "Man" still hasn't changed since I posted the defenition 20 mins ago though.. Exactly, I means a person who identifies their gender as male, which does not have to correspond with their sex. Denying it doesn't make it less true. Jesus Christ... No, it doesnt. It means human male. Do I need to quote the dictionary again?
I'm not sure you understand how trans people work. Even if you believe wholeheartedly in what you're saying you're getting nowhere by arguing in a different language to the rest of the topic. Stop this line. Consider this a mod instruction.
|
On August 09 2013 00:36 Killscreen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 00:35 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:32 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:30 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:26 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:22 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:14 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:11 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:06 Killscreen wrote:On August 08 2013 23:55 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Yes, when used to discribe a black person in the modern context. So using "man" to describe a transgender woman is exactly the same. Unless you don't respect the transgender woman, which then you are a jerk. No, it isnt the same thing. A word like "faggot" or maybe "tranny" or something along those lines would be the same. I get your point though, but please try to understand mine; you cannot just alter words' meanings to be what you would like them to be, and it's not fair to scold me for using the English language correctly. Once again, the word "cool" and "bad" disagree with you. Also the word "wicked" and "sick". Meaning change over time. Those are slang words, and lets stick with what the words mean right now shall we? This is where a dictionary is useful. Right, I have work to do and explaining the evolution of language is something you need to learn on your own. Words change over time to mean different things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EtymologyIt is fact. Citing the oxford english dictionary does nothing, because the word "Etymology" is also in there. If you look it up, it will inform you word can change over time. So since words change, we can just redefine words as we see fit. I hereby redefine idiot to mean "nice person". You're an idiot. Sorry. I know facts are hard to understand and the idea that the words you use meant different things in the past is a new concept. But it doesn't make it less true. Yeah.. "Man" still hasn't changed since I posted the defenition 20 mins ago though.. Exactly, I means a person who identifies their gender as male, which does not have to correspond with their sex. Denying it doesn't make it less true. Jesus Christ... No, it doesnt. It means human male. Do I need to quote the dictionary again?
Why would you need to do that, I cited the correct meaning for the word? It can mean both a human male and someone who identifies their gender as male. It is flexable like that.
|
On August 09 2013 00:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 00:36 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:35 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:32 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:30 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:26 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:22 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:14 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:11 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:06 Killscreen wrote:
[quote]
No, it isnt the same thing. A word like "faggot" or maybe "tranny" or something along those lines would be the same.
I get your point though, but please try to understand mine; you cannot just alter words' meanings to be what you would like them to be, and it's not fair to scold me for using the English language correctly. Once again, the word "cool" and "bad" disagree with you. Also the word "wicked" and "sick". Meaning change over time. Those are slang words, and lets stick with what the words mean right now shall we? This is where a dictionary is useful. Right, I have work to do and explaining the evolution of language is something you need to learn on your own. Words change over time to mean different things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EtymologyIt is fact. Citing the oxford english dictionary does nothing, because the word "Etymology" is also in there. If you look it up, it will inform you word can change over time. So since words change, we can just redefine words as we see fit. I hereby redefine idiot to mean "nice person". You're an idiot. Sorry. I know facts are hard to understand and the idea that the words you use meant different things in the past is a new concept. But it doesn't make it less true. Yeah.. "Man" still hasn't changed since I posted the defenition 20 mins ago though.. Exactly, I means a person who identifies their gender as male, which does not have to correspond with their sex. Denying it doesn't make it less true. Jesus Christ... No, it doesnt. It means human male. Do I need to quote the dictionary again? Why would you need to do that, I cited the correct meaning for the word? It can mean both a human male and someone who identifies their gender as male. It is flexable like that.
No, it isn't flexible like that. It means human male.
edit: fine I'll stop. I might be speaking a different language than others here, but for the record, the language I am speaking is English.
|
|
|
On August 09 2013 00:39 Killscreen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 00:38 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:36 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:35 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:32 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:30 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:26 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:22 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:14 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:11 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Once again, the word "cool" and "bad" disagree with you. Also the word "wicked" and "sick". Meaning change over time. Those are slang words, and lets stick with what the words mean right now shall we? This is where a dictionary is useful. Right, I have work to do and explaining the evolution of language is something you need to learn on your own. Words change over time to mean different things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EtymologyIt is fact. Citing the oxford english dictionary does nothing, because the word "Etymology" is also in there. If you look it up, it will inform you word can change over time. So since words change, we can just redefine words as we see fit. I hereby redefine idiot to mean "nice person". You're an idiot. Sorry. I know facts are hard to understand and the idea that the words you use meant different things in the past is a new concept. But it doesn't make it less true. Yeah.. "Man" still hasn't changed since I posted the defenition 20 mins ago though.. Exactly, I means a person who identifies their gender as male, which does not have to correspond with their sex. Denying it doesn't make it less true. Jesus Christ... No, it doesnt. It means human male. Do I need to quote the dictionary again? Why would you need to do that, I cited the correct meaning for the word? It can mean both a human male and someone who identifies their gender as male. It is flexable like that. No, it isn't flexible like that. It means human male.
I think you need to look at this again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology
The word has evolved beyond that has has a larger meaning: It can mean both a human male and someone who identifies their gender as male.
Woops. I guess he skipped over that part.
|
On August 09 2013 00:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 00:39 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:38 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:36 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:35 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:32 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:30 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:26 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:22 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:14 Killscreen wrote:
[quote]
Those are slang words, and lets stick with what the words mean right now shall we? This is where a dictionary is useful. Right, I have work to do and explaining the evolution of language is something you need to learn on your own. Words change over time to mean different things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EtymologyIt is fact. Citing the oxford english dictionary does nothing, because the word "Etymology" is also in there. If you look it up, it will inform you word can change over time. So since words change, we can just redefine words as we see fit. I hereby redefine idiot to mean "nice person". You're an idiot. Sorry. I know facts are hard to understand and the idea that the words you use meant different things in the past is a new concept. But it doesn't make it less true. Yeah.. "Man" still hasn't changed since I posted the defenition 20 mins ago though.. Exactly, I means a person who identifies their gender as male, which does not have to correspond with their sex. Denying it doesn't make it less true. Jesus Christ... No, it doesnt. It means human male. Do I need to quote the dictionary again? Why would you need to do that, I cited the correct meaning for the word? It can mean both a human male and someone who identifies their gender as male. It is flexable like that. No, it isn't flexible like that. It means human male. I think you need to look at this again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EtymologyThe word has evolved beyond that has has a larger meaning: It can mean both a human male and someone who identifies their gender as male. Woops. I guess he skipped over that part.
Yeah, just to clarify, here is that particular entry in its ENTIRETY, not just selectively quoted:
a person with the qualities associated with males, such as bravery, spirit, or toughness:
she was more of a man than any of them
And a word has evolved when the dictionary, the authority on words' meaning, says it has, not when you do.
|
On August 09 2013 00:48 Killscreen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 00:42 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:39 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:38 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:36 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:35 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:32 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:30 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:26 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:22 Plansix wrote:[quote] Right, I have work to do and explaining the evolution of language is something you need to learn on your own. Words change over time to mean different things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EtymologyIt is fact. Citing the oxford english dictionary does nothing, because the word "Etymology" is also in there. If you look it up, it will inform you word can change over time. So since words change, we can just redefine words as we see fit. I hereby redefine idiot to mean "nice person". You're an idiot. Sorry. I know facts are hard to understand and the idea that the words you use meant different things in the past is a new concept. But it doesn't make it less true. Yeah.. "Man" still hasn't changed since I posted the defenition 20 mins ago though.. Exactly, I means a person who identifies their gender as male, which does not have to correspond with their sex. Denying it doesn't make it less true. Jesus Christ... No, it doesnt. It means human male. Do I need to quote the dictionary again? Why would you need to do that, I cited the correct meaning for the word? It can mean both a human male and someone who identifies their gender as male. It is flexable like that. No, it isn't flexible like that. It means human male. I think you need to look at this again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EtymologyThe word has evolved beyond that has has a larger meaning: It can mean both a human male and someone who identifies their gender as male. Woops. I guess he skipped over that part. Yeah, just to clarify, here is that particular entry in its ENTIRETY, not just selectively quoted: Show nested quote +
a person with the qualities associated with males, such as bravery, spirit, or toughness:
she was more of a man than any of them
Right, so so It can mean both a human male and someone who identifies their gender as male and has qualities associated with males. Easy enough. Glad you agree.
|
On August 09 2013 00:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 00:18 shinosai wrote:On August 09 2013 00:15 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 23:56 shinosai wrote:On August 08 2013 23:45 Killscreen wrote:On August 08 2013 23:43 ComaDose wrote:On August 08 2013 23:40 Killscreen wrote:On August 08 2013 23:38 Plansix wrote:On August 08 2013 23:34 marvellosity wrote:On August 08 2013 23:34 ComaDose wrote:
that was easyer than usual But you didn't achieve anything, this isn't a points scoring exercise. Getting people to go away and stop saying jerky things is its own reward. So guess what, you convinced me to stay! :D Everything I said is factually correct. You're really arguing with the oxford dictionary? alright lets move on to the next thing you said that was wrong the girl knew I would be pissed ( or she would tell me ) there are many reasons someone wouldn't disclose other than knowing you would be pissed Sure.. It's still deceptive and wrong though, regardless of her reason not to disclose it. Hey, stop ignoring me. You're deceptive, too. Why aren't you disclosing? If it was reasonable to assume that transphobic status was a dealbreaker for the other party and that being transphobic was so unlikely that they had no reason to ask if you were transphobic you should absolutely disclose. Come up with a hypothetical in which that is the case and I'll back you up on a moral obligation to disclose transphobic status. I don't think it's based in reality though. I think transphobic status is something that the other person can reasonably anticipate, unlike trans status which is really, really rare. Look, neither of us actually have any evidence on the percentage of people where people are transphobic is a deal breaker, or being trans is a deal breaker. However, I do have a hypothetical for you. Suppose that from now on, with every woman you dated, you at some point went into an anecdote about how your brother is dating a completely passable post-op trans woman. Let's presume you interject this story tactfully, so that it does not seem absurdly out of place. Make sure to let her know that you would never date "him" because you think that "he" is a man, no matter what "he" does to "his" body. Do you think that a reasonable amount of women would be turned off by this? If so, then it is reasonable that transphobia is a dealbreaker and you should disclose. Anecdotal evidence from this topic would seem to suggest that for a lot of people trans status is a dealbreaker. There might be actual numbers on it, although as I'm not trans I've never had to look them up. That said, if everyone a trans person met was fine with it and they didn't know people were transphobic I'd argue they did nothing morally wrong, it's knowingly exploiting the lack of information for sex you suspect they would not want if they knew that I take issue with. Statistical occurrence rates for trans people is, I believe, around 0.01% so we do have numbers on that. I would argue that that rate is so low that the assumption that a given person is not trans is reasonable and that lack of asking "are you trans?" cannot be taken as an acceptance of their trans status. You are not seeming to understand that transphobia is sufficiently common for it to be a reasonable assumption that a given partner could be transphobic. The entire issue here is based on a massive disparity of information, the trans person knows they are an extreme outlier which the other party would have no reason to suspect them of being. In your hypothetical you keep proposing disclosure of common statuses, common statuses are reasonable for the other person to specifically ask about and exclude. There are two relevant numbers here. How common the hangup is and how rare the status is. I'll explain it for you in terms of the four potential situations. Hangup is common, status is common, person with hangup can anticipate the status, should ask. Failure to ask can be interpreted as not having an issue with the status. Hangup is rare, status is common, person with hangup can anticipate the status, should ask. Failure to ask can be interpreted as not having an issue with the status. Hangup is common, status is rare, person with hangup cannot anticipate the status, has no reason to ask. Failure to ask cannot be interpreted as not having an issue with the status. Person with the status can however anticipate the hangup, should disclose. Hangup is rare, status is rare, person with a hangup cannot anticipate the status, has no reason to ask. However person with the status cannot anticipate the hangup, has no reason to disclose. Only in the common hangup, status rare does the disparity in information create a moral obligation. In the first two the other party can be reasonably expected to look after their own interests, in the fourth one their interests are not known to the trans person so there is no obligation, in the third one however, the trans person suspects there might be a consent issue which their partner is unaware of. At that point they disclose.
You know what. You're right. I concede the point.
|
On August 09 2013 00:48 Killscreen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 00:42 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:39 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:38 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:36 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:35 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:32 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:30 Plansix wrote:On August 09 2013 00:26 Killscreen wrote:On August 09 2013 00:22 Plansix wrote:[quote] Right, I have work to do and explaining the evolution of language is something you need to learn on your own. Words change over time to mean different things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EtymologyIt is fact. Citing the oxford english dictionary does nothing, because the word "Etymology" is also in there. If you look it up, it will inform you word can change over time. So since words change, we can just redefine words as we see fit. I hereby redefine idiot to mean "nice person". You're an idiot. Sorry. I know facts are hard to understand and the idea that the words you use meant different things in the past is a new concept. But it doesn't make it less true. Yeah.. "Man" still hasn't changed since I posted the defenition 20 mins ago though.. Exactly, I means a person who identifies their gender as male, which does not have to correspond with their sex. Denying it doesn't make it less true. Jesus Christ... No, it doesnt. It means human male. Do I need to quote the dictionary again? Why would you need to do that, I cited the correct meaning for the word? It can mean both a human male and someone who identifies their gender as male. It is flexable like that. No, it isn't flexible like that. It means human male. I think you need to look at this again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EtymologyThe word has evolved beyond that has has a larger meaning: It can mean both a human male and someone who identifies their gender as male. Woops. I guess he skipped over that part. Yeah, just to clarify, here is that particular entry in its ENTIRETY, not just selectively quoted: Show nested quote +
a person with the qualities associated with males, such as bravery, spirit, or toughness:
she was more of a man than any of them
And a word has evolved when the dictionary, the authority on words' meaning, says it has, not when you do.
dude you just quoted a dictionary where it is used the way we are using it
the whole quote doesn't make it less prove my point
|
I think we need a new topic here haha. We've gone no where with the whole "Trap/consent" discussion in the last like 50 pages.
So with that in mind, does anyone else find it odd gay, bisexual and trans are all lumped together? I mean being gay or bisexual is your sexual preference, like being straight, however trans isn't a sexual preference, it's a state of a being. You can be trans AND be straight/gay/bi.
I've just always thought it was odd they were all kind of put together when talking about the subject of sexuality.
|
I'm sorry mods, but I cant resist replying.
You're deliberately misinterpreting it. I dont think you're that stupid. It does "make it less prove your point". If it didnt, why cut it? If you were right it would read "he was more of a man than any of them", because the person in question would be, by defenition, a man. What it actually means is you can use the word as an aggregation of traditional male qualitites.
User was warned for this post
|
On August 09 2013 00:57 Killscreen wrote:
I'm sorry mods, but I cant resist replying.
You're deliberately misinterpreting it. I dont think you're that stupid. It does "make it less prove your point". If it didnt, why cut it?
i have a thing for formatting and i was trying to make our two posts look similar (i even snipped your post! :O)
i am not deliberately misinterpreting it. its pretty not up for interpretation. i thought the dictionary was the grail for language according to you how are you arguing with your own source.
EDIT: stop ninja editing -_-
If you were right it would read "he was more of a man than any of them", because the person in question would be, by defenition, a man.
no the example given does not change the definition and your example sentence is equally correct.
i also never said that having the qualities of a man makes you a man so i'm not sure where your going with how it doesn't line up with my definition
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
