|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
One of the few transgender people I know in my field is fine with being addressed as either 'she' or 'they'. In my view they look a bit androgynous, and for my 37 y/o brain - that's trained to distinguish by external features - making the switch to 'she' is difficult, because I'm conversing with her only infrequently. I have deadnamed her by accident. It was not a big deal to her, presumably because she knows I'm on her side. We're still on good terms.
She expressed years ago that, if all of society was 100% accepting and welcoming of her, that would not be enough to solve her issues. The main issue is the gender dysphoria, and it doesn't go away just because people refer to her by her preferred pronoun. But she also said that it does make her feel better when people are fully accepting of her.
So there are four aspects to this. Transgender people are troubled because of their gender dysphoria. They're also troubled because of the laws and the culture. They're also troubled because of hate groups. And they're also troubled because many other individuals aren't fully accepting.
I think it makes complete sense that the fourth issue (like misgendering for example) is of the lowest priority to some of them, especially as they grow to become older teens and adults. GD, laws and hate groups take top priority. Deadnaming eventually becomes relatively low priority.
So the way I see it, we should all relax a bit more about this issue in particular. It's ok to make mistakes, what matters is that we don't go out of our ways to be assholes. We should show respect and acceptance to transgender people, and they completely understand that we're not perfect, just like they're not perfect either.
|
On July 08 2023 17:12 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2023 16:53 BlackJack wrote:On July 08 2023 15:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 08 2023 14:54 BlackJack wrote:
I have no problem saying I’m NOT on team “trans women are women” even if that makes me a transphobic bigoted asshole or whatever. If transitioning were a 100% biologically indistinguishable process then I would be on team “trans women are women.” 1. Would you mind elaborating on precisely what criteria would need to match for trans women to be "100% biologically indistinguishable" from cis women? Would they need a vagina? Breasts? XX chromosomes? Wider hips? Shorter? Physically slower or weaker? Certain hormones within certain ranges? Other things? I'm wondering what makes a woman a woman, in your view. 2. What if they had all those things but still didn't look like / pass as a woman visually (where your brain assumed he/him)? Would that person still be a woman to you? 3. What if they didn't have all those things, yet still looked like / passed as a woman visually (where your brain assumed she/her). Would that person still not be a woman to you? 1. Yeah, XX chromosomes, vagina, uterus, fallopian tubes, ovaries, breasts, etc. sounds like a good start. What makes a woman a woman in your view? 2. Yeah. If a female bodybuilder takes testosterone and steroids to the point she takes on extremely masculine features I wouldn’t believe them to be less of a woman. That would be rather insulting as well 3. No, looking like a woman is not what makes someone a woman. Does a woman with XXX chromosomes, who had a histerectomy and double mastectomy cease to be a woman? I'm quite naive, though. I think someone is a woman if they say they are.
Does this person have a vagina? Do they have a proportionately larger pelvic girdle to make a suitable birthing canal?
What's the point of this exercise? So you can craft this 1 in a billion hypothetical woman to hold up and say "Aha, see your definition doesn't work! it's a bullshit!" Meanwhile your definition is just "a woman is anyone that says they are a woman" So basically there's zero difference difference between a man and a woman in your opinion?
|
I agree with what Magic Powers just said.
Hate is not acceptable - but we also better not call everyone who's not fully accepting (yet?) or comfortable hateful bigots.
The best way to grow these hate groups is to say - if you're not 100% accepting then you're 100% bigot and you should be ashamed. People won't be ashamed in this case, they will only become even less accepting as the result.
Just like in school, if teacher says "you're stupid idiot" to every struggling kid, this won't make them study better, this will make them think "why even bother, I hate this".
|
On July 08 2023 18:27 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2023 17:12 Acrofales wrote:On July 08 2023 16:53 BlackJack wrote:On July 08 2023 15:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 08 2023 14:54 BlackJack wrote:
I have no problem saying I’m NOT on team “trans women are women” even if that makes me a transphobic bigoted asshole or whatever. If transitioning were a 100% biologically indistinguishable process then I would be on team “trans women are women.” 1. Would you mind elaborating on precisely what criteria would need to match for trans women to be "100% biologically indistinguishable" from cis women? Would they need a vagina? Breasts? XX chromosomes? Wider hips? Shorter? Physically slower or weaker? Certain hormones within certain ranges? Other things? I'm wondering what makes a woman a woman, in your view. 2. What if they had all those things but still didn't look like / pass as a woman visually (where your brain assumed he/him)? Would that person still be a woman to you? 3. What if they didn't have all those things, yet still looked like / passed as a woman visually (where your brain assumed she/her). Would that person still not be a woman to you? 1. Yeah, XX chromosomes, vagina, uterus, fallopian tubes, ovaries, breasts, etc. sounds like a good start. What makes a woman a woman in your view? 2. Yeah. If a female bodybuilder takes testosterone and steroids to the point she takes on extremely masculine features I wouldn’t believe them to be less of a woman. That would be rather insulting as well 3. No, looking like a woman is not what makes someone a woman. Does a woman with XXX chromosomes, who had a histerectomy and double mastectomy cease to be a woman? I'm quite naive, though. I think someone is a woman if they say they are. Does this person have a vagina? Do they have a proportionately larger pelvic girdle to make a suitable birthing canal? What's the point of this exercise? So you can craft this 1 in a billion hypothetical woman to hold up and say "Aha, see your definition doesn't work! it's a bullshit!" Meanwhile your definition is just "a woman is anyone that says they are a woman" So basically there's zero difference difference between a man and a woman in your opinion?
No, there is a clear distinction. A man says he's a man. I am a man because I say I am. I am not a woman because I say I'm not.
Now, going into the biology is great for figuring out what is and isn't a dog, but there are 2 important categorical distinctions:
(1) we cannot just ask my pooch if she's a dog (or if she's a she, for that matter, despite having had a histerectomy). She doesn't have the capacity to answer that question. But she looks like a dog and she acts like a dog, so she's probably a dog. She might be a cat, though. A particularly large, barky cat, who likes to chase other cats up trees, but maybe we're all wrong about her. But that doesn't matter, because
(2) our dogs (and cats and absolutely everything non-human) don't care what labels we stick on them. Things that make my dog happy: finding food, going to the beach, playing with a ball, chasing pine cones, seeing my wife or me return home. Things that make my dog sad: leaving the beach, taking away her ball, seeing my wife or me leave the house without her, having to go for a car ride, going to the vet. What is notably absent from this list? Calling her a dog or a cat or a lamppost. She doesn't care! You know who care about that sort of thing? Humans! So it's a good thing we can ask them!
|
Right so your definitions are
A man is anyone that says they are a man
A woman is anyone that says they are a woman
It doesn't really tell us what they are saying they are though, does it?
|
On July 08 2023 18:42 Acrofales wrote:
I am a man because I say I am. I am not a woman because I say I'm not. If your country had mandatory military service for men only, and you'd say "I am a woman" to avoid it, something tells me just saying this wouldn't be enough.
Many nightclubs want to have ~50/50 men and women (it's good for business for obvious reasons), so they won't let men in if there are too many of them already - if you'd say you're a woman, this by itself would absolutely not be enough for them to let you in.
In sports this also wouldn't be enough.
So basically in every case where there's something's at stake, just saying this will not change the outcome.
And even truly believing this - as someone else mentioned above - usually won't be enough.
|
On July 08 2023 18:51 BlackJack wrote:
Right so your definitions are
A man is anyone that says they are a man
A woman is anyone that says they are a woman
It doesn't really tell us what they are saying they are though, does it?
Yes it does. Now if you want to know if I have a penis that is a different question. You can, and would be right in assuming that most people, but not all, who identify as men are penis-people. Just like most animals that we call dogs, but not all, have 4 legs.
|
On July 08 2023 19:01 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2023 18:51 BlackJack wrote:
Right so your definitions are
A man is anyone that says they are a man
A woman is anyone that says they are a woman
It doesn't really tell us what they are saying they are though, does it? Yes it does. Now if you want to know if I have a penis that is a different question. You can, and would be right in assuming that most people, but not all, who identify as men are penis-people. Just like most animals that we call dogs, but not all, have 4 legs.
No it doesn't. "A man is anyone that says they are a man" tells you literally nothing about what a man is. It's akin to saying "A dog is an animal that's a dog." What do you think it tells you?
|
On July 08 2023 19:06 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2023 19:01 Acrofales wrote:On July 08 2023 18:51 BlackJack wrote:
Right so your definitions are
A man is anyone that says they are a man
A woman is anyone that says they are a woman
It doesn't really tell us what they are saying they are though, does it? Yes it does. Now if you want to know if I have a penis that is a different question. You can, and would be right in assuming that most people, but not all, who identify as men are penis-people. Just like most animals that we call dogs, but not all, have 4 legs. No it doesn't. "A man is anyone that says they are a man" tells you literally nothing about what a man is. It's akin to saying "A dog is an animal that's a dog." What do you think it tells you?
Well, no, because there is an important difference there, which is the self-referral. You won't find a dog on this planet that says of itself that it is a dog. You will find a LOT of humans on this planet who will say of themselves if they are men or women. And that self-organization is important!
But maybe changing the words will make it clearer to you. Do you agree that someone who says they're a protestant is a protestant? And someone who says they're a muslim is a muslim?
|
On July 08 2023 18:52 ZeroByte13 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2023 18:42 Acrofales wrote:
I am a man because I say I am. I am not a woman because I say I'm not. If your country had mandatory military service for men only, and you'd say "I am a woman" to avoid it, something tells me just saying this wouldn't be enough. Many nightclubs want to have ~50/50 men and women (it's good for business for obvious reasons), so they won't let men in if there are too many of them already - if you'd say you're a woman, this by itself would absolutely not be enough for them to let you in. In sports this also wouldn't be enough. So basically in every case where there's something's at stake, just saying this will not change the outcome. And even truly believing this - as someone else mentioned above - usually won't be enough.
This is just another version of the bathroom discussion we have had over the past 100 pages or so. We should (1) question our assumptions about whether or not we actually want to make that discrimination, and (2) assuing that we do, or it's too much work to change the status quo, allow people to choose. Luckily we do already! Most western countries allow you to go to your local government office and request an official change of gender. The difficulty of doing this ranges from filling out some paperwork to requiring multiple doctors' statements, but overall it's possible. And I am assuming that the army and nightclubs abide by whatever it says in your ID document, right?
|
On July 08 2023 19:06 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2023 19:01 Acrofales wrote:On July 08 2023 18:51 BlackJack wrote:
Right so your definitions are
A man is anyone that says they are a man
A woman is anyone that says they are a woman
It doesn't really tell us what they are saying they are though, does it? Yes it does. Now if you want to know if I have a penis that is a different question. You can, and would be right in assuming that most people, but not all, who identify as men are penis-people. Just like most animals that we call dogs, but not all, have 4 legs. No it doesn't. "A man is anyone that says they are a man" tells you literally nothing about what a man is. It's akin to saying "A dog is an animal that's a dog." What do you think it tells you?
In everyday scenarios there's no need to think that a person who looks feminine but asks to be referred to as 'he' is not actually a man. We can and should simply go with it because chances are they are indeed a man, until proven otherwise. It's almost the same concept as innocent until proven guilty.
May I remind that transgender people experience GD in their brains, and we are only observers who can't judge that experience without psychological assessment. Laypeople (you and I) without the expertise strictly can't determine which gender people have, we can only make a guess based on their appearance. We will be wrong sometimes, but people are rarely if ever wrong about themselves.
The concept of 'passing' only becomes relevant in specific scenarios like athlete sports for example. In day-to-day life we don't require anyone to 'pass' as anything, because our perception of people doesn't matter. Our perception is wrong in many different ways.
For example I can believe a person is an idiot based on my first impression of them. It could be the case that this person is a math genius who won a nobel prize, and I may be fool for thinking otherwise.
Similarly, gender is also hidden from us. People can only know their own gender, and we cannot know theirs until we ask them. Why should we assume the worst, i.e. that they're lying to us? That doesn't make sense unless we have a very good reason to think otherwise.
|
On July 08 2023 19:27 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2023 19:06 BlackJack wrote:On July 08 2023 19:01 Acrofales wrote:On July 08 2023 18:51 BlackJack wrote:
Right so your definitions are
A man is anyone that says they are a man
A woman is anyone that says they are a woman
It doesn't really tell us what they are saying they are though, does it? Yes it does. Now if you want to know if I have a penis that is a different question. You can, and would be right in assuming that most people, but not all, who identify as men are penis-people. Just like most animals that we call dogs, but not all, have 4 legs. No it doesn't. "A man is anyone that says they are a man" tells you literally nothing about what a man is. It's akin to saying "A dog is an animal that's a dog." What do you think it tells you? Well, no, because there is an important difference there, which is the self-referral. You won't find a dog on this planet that says of itself that it is a dog. You will find a LOT of humans on this planet who will say of themselves if they are men or women. And that self-organization is important! But maybe changing the words will make it clearer to you. Do you agree that someone who says they're a protestant is a protestant? And someone who says they're a muslim is a muslim?
Sure, I believe anyone can declare themselves a follower of whatever theological bullshit they want.
|
On July 08 2023 18:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2023 17:56 Simberto wrote:On July 08 2023 17:54 BlackJack wrote:On July 08 2023 17:33 Simberto wrote:On July 08 2023 17:27 BlackJack wrote:On July 08 2023 16:59 ChristianS wrote:On July 08 2023 16:53 BlackJack wrote:On July 08 2023 15:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 08 2023 14:54 BlackJack wrote:
I have no problem saying I’m NOT on team “trans women are women” even if that makes me a transphobic bigoted asshole or whatever. If transitioning were a 100% biologically indistinguishable process then I would be on team “trans women are women.” 1. Would you mind elaborating on precisely what criteria would need to match for trans women to be "100% biologically indistinguishable" from cis women? Would they need a vagina? Breasts? XX chromosomes? Wider hips? Shorter? Physically slower or weaker? Certain hormones within certain ranges? Other things? I'm wondering what makes a woman a woman, in your view. 2. What if they had all those things but still didn't look like / pass as a woman visually (where your brain assumed he/him)? Would that person still be a woman to you? 3. What if they didn't have all those things, yet still looked like / passed as a woman visually (where your brain assumed she/her). Would that person still not be a woman to you? Yeah, XX chromosomes, vagina, uterus, fallopian tubes, ovaries, breasts, etc. sounds like a good start. What makes a woman a woman in your view? I’m pretty sure a person could be missing nearly every one of those criteria and you’d still consider them a woman. This is the problem with these definition questions, people tend to jump to things that are typical rather than things that are actually required elements. That’s kind of how definitions work though, they define what is typical, not every single genetic mutation imaginable. If we say dogs have 4 legs you wouldn’t argue that definition doesn’t work because you know a dog with 3 legs. No, they don't. Definitions define a thing. That means that they can be used to clearly differentiate if something is that thing, or not. A good definition does not give room for interpretation or wriggling. For example, in maths, a definition looks kinda like this: "A series is called a Cauchy series if and only if it fulfills the following criteria: It a) blablah b) blah" and so forth. "A series is typically called a Cauchy series if it does blah, but sometimes not, and sometimes other stuff is also called Cauchy" is not a good definition. (Unless you clearly deliniate what those other situations are in your definition, once again making it clear and decisive. Similarly, "A dog has 4 legs" is not a good definition of a dog. It isn't even part of a good definition for a dog for exactly the reason you mentioned. Dogs with 3 legs exist. A good definition means that you can clearly decide if something is or is not a dog. 4-leggedness doesn't help, because neither are all 4-legged animals dogs, nor do all dogs have 4 legs. Well when I google the definition of dog the first thing it offers me is this a domesticated carnivorous mammal that typically has a long snout, an acute sense of smell, nonretractable claws, and a barking, howling, or whining voice. Underline for emphasis. I'm quite certain that all of those attributes is not something that's present in every single dog Because you are not the only one who is bad at definitions. Or, conversely, because the definitions in a dictionary aren't actual definitions, but descriptions. I studied maths at university. I know what a definition is. That isn't. That is a description. I do think that most people and most dictionaries use "typical descriptions" when talking about "definitions". It's more practical in many cases. For example, it's less helpful and perhaps even circular to define "dog" as "canis lupus familiaris", when a person just wants to know what puppies tend to do and look like. Not everything is as well-defined as our beloved mathematical terms!
I think this is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. I just hate it when people or other fields steal the very useful terms from maths or physics, use them incorrectly, and then claim that that is what those terms actually mean. All the while there are perfectly fine words to describe what they actually mean.
Why does a dictionary use "definition" when they actually mean "description"? Why do people use terms such as energy, force, power, current, pressure, weight, mass as if there is some massive overlap in meaning between those? Each of those has a very clear and distinct meaning. Just because you can't be bothered to learn what a word means doesn't mean you get to redefine what that word means to your half-assed vague descriptor of a half-understood concept.
Just learn what the words you use mean, and use them correctly.
|
On July 08 2023 19:27 Acrofales wrote:
Do you agree that someone who says they're a protestant is a protestant? And someone who says they're a muslim is a muslim? It's very probable but not necessarily true. I might say I'm a protestant if this makes something more convenient for next 2 hours, for example. Does this make me one though? I can say all sort of things, doesn't mean any of them are true.
On July 08 2023 19:30 Acrofales wrote:
We should (1) question our assumptions about whether or not we actually want to make that discrimination, and (2) assuing that we do, or it's too much work to change the status quo, allow people to choose. "Allow people to choose" is not always wise.
For example, in sports there's already a lot of useful discrimination. In box you can't fight in light weight category if you're a heavyweight boxer and you can't participate in youth tournaments if you're an adult. Because this would not be fair or even safe.
Saying "I am a lightweight boxer" doesn't make you one if you're a 90 kg dude.
On July 08 2023 19:30 Acrofales wrote:
And I am assuming that the army and nightclubs abide by whatever it says in your ID document, right? Exactly, what your ID says, not what you say - as what you say maybe one thing today and different thing tomorrow.
ID were invented exactly as the way of confirmation by state/authorities - "they are indeed who they say they are".
So this is already quite different from "I am who I say I am".
|
On July 08 2023 19:34 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2023 19:27 Acrofales wrote:On July 08 2023 19:06 BlackJack wrote:On July 08 2023 19:01 Acrofales wrote:On July 08 2023 18:51 BlackJack wrote:
Right so your definitions are
A man is anyone that says they are a man
A woman is anyone that says they are a woman
It doesn't really tell us what they are saying they are though, does it? Yes it does. Now if you want to know if I have a penis that is a different question. You can, and would be right in assuming that most people, but not all, who identify as men are penis-people. Just like most animals that we call dogs, but not all, have 4 legs. No it doesn't. "A man is anyone that says they are a man" tells you literally nothing about what a man is. It's akin to saying "A dog is an animal that's a dog." What do you think it tells you? Well, no, because there is an important difference there, which is the self-referral. You won't find a dog on this planet that says of itself that it is a dog. You will find a LOT of humans on this planet who will say of themselves if they are men or women. And that self-organization is important! But maybe changing the words will make it clearer to you. Do you agree that someone who says they're a protestant is a protestant? And someone who says they're a muslim is a muslim? Sure, I believe anyone can declare themselves a follower of whatever theological bullshit they want.
You see what you did? You acknowledged that (1) the definitive way of knowing if someone is Protestant or a Muslim (or some other religion) is by asking them, and (2) declared that that means they are "a follower of whatever theological bullshit".
However, that means that people who self-identity as protestants share some characteristics, even though it is entirely due to self-identifying. And people who self-identity as muslims share some *other* characteristics. And we are able to describe what those characteristics are, in general. For instance, we know that Muslims generally don't eat pork. But just knowing that they're a Muslim is not enough to know they don't eat pork, because *some* Muslims do eat pork!
|
In general, whenever someone says "I am X" I don't automatically think "they are X", I think "they say/claim they are X". Are they really X (in my eyes/mind) depends on a lot of other factors that I maybe not always can even consciously understand.
As far as I can see, in 99% cases saying something is not enough when something's at stake, you need to prove it.
You can't just say - I work in your company, pay me salary. You need to actually be on the payroll.
You can't just say - I'm a veteran, provide me veteran's benefits. You need to have documents for this.
You can say "I'm a protestant" - and there's not need to prove it exactly because there's no practical difference, no one needs to do anything.
|
On July 08 2023 19:42 ZeroByte13 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2023 19:27 Acrofales wrote:
Do you agree that someone who says they're a protestant is a protestant? And someone who says they're a muslim is a muslim? It's very probable but not necessarily true. I might say I'm a protestant if this makes something more convenient for next 2 hours, for example. Does this make me one though? I can say all sort of things, doesn't mean any of them are true.
Sure, and lying is still bad. What's your point here?
Show nested quote +On July 08 2023 19:30 Acrofales wrote:
We should (1) question our assumptions about whether or not we actually want to make that discrimination, and (2) assuing that we do, or it's too much work to change the status quo, allow people to choose. "Allow people to choose" is not always wise. For example, in sports there's already a lot of useful discrimination. In box you can't fight in light weight category if you're a heavyweight boxer and you can't participate in youth tournaments if you're an adult. Because this would not be fair or even safe. Saying "I am a lightweight boxer" doesn't make you one if you're a 90 kg dude. Show nested quote +On July 08 2023 19:30 Acrofales wrote:
And I am assuming that the army and nightclubs abide by whatever it says in your ID document, right? Exactly, what your ID says, not what you say - as what you say maybe one thing today and different thing tomorrow. ID were invented exactly as the way of confirmation by state/authorities - "they are indeed who they say they are". So this is already quite different from "I am who I say I am".
Is it though? Isn't it just a fancier and more bureaucratic way of doing the exact same thing?
|
On July 08 2023 19:44 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2023 19:34 BlackJack wrote:On July 08 2023 19:27 Acrofales wrote:On July 08 2023 19:06 BlackJack wrote:On July 08 2023 19:01 Acrofales wrote:On July 08 2023 18:51 BlackJack wrote:
Right so your definitions are
A man is anyone that says they are a man
A woman is anyone that says they are a woman
It doesn't really tell us what they are saying they are though, does it? Yes it does. Now if you want to know if I have a penis that is a different question. You can, and would be right in assuming that most people, but not all, who identify as men are penis-people. Just like most animals that we call dogs, but not all, have 4 legs. No it doesn't. "A man is anyone that says they are a man" tells you literally nothing about what a man is. It's akin to saying "A dog is an animal that's a dog." What do you think it tells you? Well, no, because there is an important difference there, which is the self-referral. You won't find a dog on this planet that says of itself that it is a dog. You will find a LOT of humans on this planet who will say of themselves if they are men or women. And that self-organization is important! But maybe changing the words will make it clearer to you. Do you agree that someone who says they're a protestant is a protestant? And someone who says they're a muslim is a muslim? Sure, I believe anyone can declare themselves a follower of whatever theological bullshit they want. You see what you did? You acknowledged that (1) the definitive way of knowing if someone is Protestant or a Muslim (or some other religion) is by asking them, and (2) declared that that means they are "a follower of whatever theological bullshit". However, that means that people who self-identity as protestants share some characteristics, even though it is entirely due to self-identifying. And people who self-identity as muslims share some *other* characteristics. And we are able to describe what those characteristics are, in general. For instance, we know that Muslims generally don't eat pork. But just knowing that they're a Muslim is not enough to know they don't eat pork, because *some* Muslims do eat pork!
I see. By comparing this to the followers of religious doctrine, which to any rational outside observer constitutes nothing more than meaningless bullshit, I think you may have stumbled across the perfect example that helps me understand your argument.
|
On July 08 2023 17:55 ZeroByte13 wrote:
For me there are two different areas
1. What I do/say to trans-folks
2. What I think about trans-folks
I can easily adapt 1st, and it's hard to change 2nd.
That's completely normal, especially for adults who are being asked to reshape their worldview. It's not always easy, and consciously doing 1 (practicing and saying the right pronouns to trans-folk) can make 2 (what you think about them) easier to develop.
Most teenage students I teach are way more adept at understanding and accommodating LGBTQ+ terminology than their parents, because the teenagers are growing up in a world where their friends and classmates openly have those identities. It's the norm for them. It's just like how Millennials and Gen Z are better with social media and cell phones and other "recent" technology than their parents or grandparents.
|
On July 08 2023 19:54 Acrofales wrote:
Sure, and lying is still bad. What's your point here? The point is people can lie, be confused, etc. A child can say "I have a million dollars" and even believe it (e.g. monopoly money), doesn't mean they do.
The point is saying something absolutely doesn't mean it is true.
Of course, there's another thing - in some cases we cannot do anything else but to accept what is being said regardless of whether we believe it or not.
If I ask a girl out and she says no, it's not up to me to think "did she really mean it though", it's a no.
But in this case I'm approaching her and she says "please don't", and I must obey.
It's a negative right, to not have to do something. She doesn't want to go on a date with me, I can't force her.
It's another thing when someone's required to do something (i.e. positive rights) because someone else said something. I.e. when someone is entitled to something just because they say so.
I say I'm a veteran so I'm entitled to veteran's benefits - this doesn't work.
I say I'm a child even though I look 40 and my ID says "40yo", so I should be allowed to kindergarden - this doesn't work, right?
This is NOT to say that if someone tells me they are a woman, and they don't look (to me) like one, I'll tell them "ahaha, you're a man, stop lying". Of course not.
I'll tell them "ok, sure" and will do my best to not hurt/offend them in any way.
This doesn't necessarily mean I believe what they said just because they said it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
