Are you Politically Correct?

[Gorbles]

@Zardnaar

So not being able to have kids is a dealbreaker, but if she doesn't want them it's . . . not a dealbreaker? You do realise some people don't want kids anyway, regardless of their ability to have them? You do understand that this is a completely self-defeating set of claims?

@TheMeInTeam

You clarified Akka's intentions in absence of a reply from him to me on counterarguments I was making (against them). That's speaking for them! Well, typing, I guess. You're literally making arguments instead of Akka making them.

Regardless, this is now turning into a "you did X", "no I didn't" again, with written evidence to suit, so if you don't want to accept it please continue with whatever justification you believe appropriate (even not replying, whatever, entirely your thing).

 

[red_elk]

Well, you didn't give any particulars beyond that, so I'm stuck to assumptions again.

Well, it's kind of strange to explain what sexual relationships means, to adult person.
Flirtation, romance, dating, sex... stuff like that.
We can ask in this thread how many people would like to know whether their <possible> partner is a cis- or a transperson. And how many consider it unimportant.

 

[Gorbles]

Well, it's kind of strange to explain what sexual relationships means, to adult person.
Flirtation, romance, dating, sex... stuff like that.
We can ask in this thread how many people would like to know whether their partner is a cis- or a transperson. And how many consider it unimportant.

Moving the goalposts again

The point was how important the differences between a trans woman and a woman are. I maintain that there are no important differences. You said there are, but are completely refusing to give details for any actual detail, the reason for which I already said I put down to fear of being given a label. You haven't proven otherwise, up til now.

"sex stuff" is not an important difference because it varies massively across both cis and trans women, and is not something you can simply assume because they're trans without being transphobic.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I'd say the fact that one side seems to be unable to actually address a point without misrepresenting it, is pretty revealing in itself.

I'm under no obligation to treat someone who is justifying misgendering transpeople, with any sort of decorum.

The groundwork you lay functionally harms transpeople but you don't even have the courage to at least acknowledge as such.

So go do what you like.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Although I am sure others will tell me how it isn't, but I frankly couldn't care what they think because they don't have to endure the dysphoria that is made worse by misgendering and deadnaming, they don't have to live in a state of anxiety because someone might clock them and reveal who you are to others.

You mean deny who you are surely?!

 

[red_elk]

The point was how important the differences between a trans woman and a woman are. I maintain that there are no important differences. You said there are, but are completely refusing to give details

What kind of details you need? I consider the fact that the person is transsexual important enough to exclude him/her from potential sexual partners. And I believe it's true for many other people, probably vast majority.
Is that not a difference to you?

put down to fear of being given a label.

Your sense of self-importance is staggering
Give me any label and put it in your signature, if you want.

 

[Lexicus]

Your sense of self-importance is staggering

You're the one who is apparently hung up on being able to say transphobic stuff without being called transphobic

 

[Manfred Belheim]

IOC policy has been in place since 2015 and other sports like cricket, ice hockey and Australian Football are following on similar lines, which is that a period of hormone therapy (12 months I think) brings teams brings transwomen to equivalent ciswoman norms as long as said therapy is maintained from that point.

Does that include female basketball teams?

 

[Zardnaar]

@Zardnaar

So not being able to have kids is a dealbreaker, but if she doesn't want them it's . . . not a dealbreaker? You do realise some people don't want kids anyway, regardless of their ability to have them? You do understand that this is a completely self-defeating set of claims?

@TheMeInTeam

You clarified Akka's intentions in absence of a reply from him to me on counterarguments I was making (against them). That's speaking for them! Well, typing, I guess. You're literally making arguments instead of Akka making them.

Regardless, this is now turning into a "you did X", "no I didn't" again, with written evidence to suit, so if you don't want to accept it please continue with whatever justification you believe appropriate (even not replying, whatever, entirely your thing).

I want the option there. Most women change their minds, I think something like 90% have kids here.

I'm not going to try and pressure someone into having kids, it's her choice I have no real preference either way but if it happens it happens. I want the option/possibility though.

Relationship s are hard, waste if time if people have diametrically opposed viewpoints. If someone wants kids and the other person can't/won't it's a problem.

At 19 years I've outlasted by siblings, parents and contemporaries in relationship length. Well it's 19 years in November, not sure on the exact date.

 

[Lexicus]

I want the option there. Most women change their minds, I think something like 90% have kids here.

I'm not going to try and pressure someone into having kids, it's her choice I have no real preference either way but if it happens it happens.

I mean, at least if you admitted you just have an aversion to trans people you'd be honest. This reaching to find some "acceptable" reason to be wary of them or whatever is just pathetic.

 

[red_elk]

You're the one who is apparently hung up on being able to say transphobic stuff without being called transphobic

That depends on who is calling. Some people are very generous to give out labels like racist or transphobic so that being labeled by them doesn't mean much.

 

[rah]

Aversion is a much softer word. Good choice. It doesn't sound quite so hate filled.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I also invite others who believe that merely being "objectively correct" is somehow an excuse for punching down on minorities to try my little experiment and see how well that "reason" works in real life because here's a hint:

It doesn't. It wouldn't work on the street, at your place of work and at a work tribunal, it wouldn't work in a court, but go ahead and try it, let us see you put your words into actions, put your money where your mouth is, to have faith in your convictions.

Aversion is a much softer word. Good choice. It doesn't sound quite so hate filled.

Aversion literally means "A strong dislike". If someone says "Chuck has an aversion to African-Americans" that's a pretty telltale sign that chuck is a racist.

Why the insistance on handling people who display varying forms of intolerance with kids gloves? And why should the onus be on the victims of their abuse to treat the offenders with any degree of decency, even as they were denied it?

 

[Lexicus]

That depends on who is calling. Some people are very generous to give out labels like racist or transphobic so that being labeled by them doesn't mean much.

Cool story bro

Why the insistance on handling people who display varying forms of intolerance with kids gloves? And why should the onus be on the victims of their abuse to treat the offenders with any degree of decency, even as they were denied it?

Why indeed. It's funny because it's like a lot of the same people who are like "there's nothing offensive about stating biological facts" will suddenly get all into hyper-specific semantic games when someone calls them a transphobe like "um EXCUSE ME i identify as trans-averse not transphobic so please RESPECT that"

 

[Manfred Belheim]

When the important part is the feeling of that feeling (as per the impact on mental and physical health as described in this thread, repeatedly), then there is no salient difference between feeling that your existence is being invalidated, and your existence in some measurable way being invalidated.

That isn't the part that's important when determining whether a statement is factually correct or not though, which is all I am or ever have been arguing about. No matter how emotionally invested you are in your gender identity, or how hurtful it may be to have it questioned, it should still be possible to separate how a statement makes you feel from what a statement is objectively doing shouldn't it? Unless your argument is that such people are beyond the point of being able to even recognise that difference, but surely then that would be opening up a whole "mental illness" can of worms that you probably don't want to do.

How would you measure such a thing in a way that would satisfy what you're asking for, here? What are the metrics? This might help explain why you consider this to be such an impossibility.

I'm not sure what the "such a thing" you're referring to here is, or what needs to be measured, or what you think I'm asking for. I'm simply saying, I would hope unambiguously by this point, that declining to agree with someone's stated opinion about the nature of their existence, is not equivalent to denying the fact of their existence, no matter how emotionally invested the person is in their statement nor how hurtful they find disagreement. There isn't a level of emotional investment or hurt that can make this proposition true, nor make it impossible for person to accept that if they are of a sound mind.

Your only argument seems to be that it's less hurtful to deny that someone is the Pope than it is to deny they are a man/woman if they are trans. But "less hurtful" and "more truthful" are not equivalent (and in any case surely it entirely depends on how convinced the person is that they are the Pope, and how much their self-identity hinges on that).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I also invite others who believe that merely being "objectively correct" is somehow an excuse for punching down on minorities to try my little experiment and see how well that "reason" works in real life because here's a hint:

It doesn't. It wouldn't work on the street, at your place of work and at a work tribunal, it wouldn't work in a court.

I don't think most courts of law would reject the statement "humans are apes" actually. And pointing this out to people on the street would be odd in the same way that pointing out that people are wearing clothing would be odd. It's self-evident.

The only one who seems to insist on "punching down on minorities" in this capacity is you, who insists on trying your "experiment" on minorities specifically as if they're different in this regard.

Why the insistance on handling people who display varying forms of intolerance with kids gloves? And why should the onus be on the victims of their abuse to treat the offenders with any degree of decency, even as they were denied it?

If you set everyone as "offender" regardless of what they've done and/or just decide people are offenders arbitrarily w/o standards, the intolerance is yours, not theirs. We know some people are jerks. That doesn't make most people who "stay quiet" and mostly don't care about any of this "offenders".

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Why indeed. It's funny because it's like a lot of the same people who are like "there's nothing offensive about stating biological facts" will suddenly get all into hyper-specific semantic games when someone calls them a transphobe like "um EXCUSE ME i identify as trans-averse not transphobic so please RESPECT that"

They will provide bigots with the rhetorical arguments, ammunition and justifications but scoff when you point out that fact and i'm really tired of supposedly good people letting them go unchecked and spout their rhetoric that is indistinguishable from the bile i have been subjected too, I've literally had pastors recycle the same stuff from this thread as they ranted at me about how actually I'm "this" not "that". It's a joke.

 

[rah]

Aversion literally means "A strong dislike". If someone says "Chuck has an aversion to African-Americans" that's a pretty telltale sign that chuck is a racist.

Ok, I'll take that back. At the time it sounded less hateful than some of the other things I've heard.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I don't think most courts of law would reject the statement "humans are apes" actually. And pointing this out to people on the street would be odd in the same way that pointing out that people are wearing clothing would be odd. It's self-evident.

The only one who seems to insist on "punching down on minorities" in this capacity seems to be you, who insists on trying your "experiment" on minorities specifically as if they're different in this regard.

If you set everyone as "offender" regardless of what they've done and/or just decide people are offenders arbitrarily w/o standards, the intolerance is yours, not theirs. We know some people are jerks. That doesn't make most people who "stay quiet" and mostly don't care about any of this "offenders".

When are you going to put your money where your mouth is and go out there and do your shtick of claiming to merely be "objectively correct" but applying that to say... racial minorities?

I know why you won't, you know why and the thread knows why, everyone reading knows why.

But you won't, because you know damn well how that would be taken and that your "reasoning" wouldn't matter at all, just like how i don't believe your reasoning or Akka's reasoning matters at all, but you wouldn't dare say to a black person that they shouldn't be offended at being compared to an ape or a monkey.

 

[Zardnaar]

I mean, at least if you admitted you just have an aversion to trans people you'd be honest. This reaching to find some "acceptable" reason to be wary of them or whatever is just pathetic.

I don't have an aversion to them, if Cloud was over here I would have no problem socialising with her.

I have certain tastes though that I'm 90% sure are incompatible trans women. And yes I have read about transitioning no matter how good the surgery is it's not gonna be the same.