Are you Politically Correct?

[Cloud_Strife]

Could you give specific examples Farm Boy, because depending on the actual words she refuses to use or does use, it may or may not make it reasonable to take some offense.

 

[Patine]

I specifically said "my left-wing circles", but sure, you do you. Quite a lot of folk in this subforum uses "left" and "right" as proper nouns, so it's kinda weird to see you going off on one here.

I typically refer to left-leaning and right-leaning, and I abhor ideologues who insist on the accurate naming of That Specific Brazilian Party In 1960 in order to have a valid discussion on ideologies. Generalisations are rarely helpful, but unless people are debating a specific named movement (or party) then there's really no point nitpicking. Unless you just wanted to sound pretentious

It's also a complete derail, hah.

No, terminology DOES matter. And it doesn't how many others do this ridiculous mistake. Whether 100 or 10 000 sheep follow an idiot off a cliff - they've all still walked off the cliff. "Right" and "left" are only valid terms, on their own and in their own right, as terms of subjective personal orientation by perception (left-hand/right-hand, left-show/right-shoe, turn left/turn right). Socio-political usages with those terms unqualified and standing on their own are "non-terms" and leave a hole and void in any statement using by definition and nature, and sabotages any message using those that way, and denegrades and corrupts the whole socio-political dialogue to utter detritus. Terms DO matter, and people have to THINK in this world. The anti-intellectualization and stupification of so much of the population is a far greater problem and destructive element in the world today than ANY single socio-political ideology, economic system, religion (even in their greatest extremes and corruption of original message and meaning), "terrorist" group, or national agenda.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'm literally talking about a person refusing to call a transwoman "she" or a transman "he".

Unless I'm told differently, I look at a person and decide whether they are a he or she. If they are introduced with a specific gender sounding name, I go with that too.

Were "Pat" segments on SNL offensive?

 

[Synobun]

Ah, well, so long as you decide...

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Unless I'm told differently, I look at a person and decide whether they are a he or she. If they are introduced with a specific gender sounding name, I go with that too.

Were "Pat" segments on SNL offensive?

Well it depends, if that person corrects you and you decide to keep calling them the gender you assumed them to be, then yes that would be offensive.

Would you push against that?

 

[AmazonQueen]

No. I’m talking about people taking offense when none is intended.

I do agree it’s wrong not to use a transgender person’s preferred pronoun unless the pronoun does not exist in the English language.

The English language is constantly changing. New words are added to dictionaries all the time. Meanings of words change as well.

I have a mixed cousin in law that seems to have nothing but exasperated exhaustion for people taking what, ultimately, is vicarious self-righteous indignation with his nonagenarian grandmother for not lingoing the way they feel is demanded. To use a slur requires intent. To take a slur requires offense. It's not the same thing.

And I wouldn't take my 80-year old mother to task in the same way I would someone of my generation or younger. I accept its harder for the old to change. Still my mothers attitudes have changed a lot even in the last few years.

 

[Birdjaguar]

No, terminology DOES matter. And it doesn't how many others do this ridiculous mistake. Whether 100 or 10 000 sheep follow an idiot off a cliff - they've all still walked off the cliff. "Right" and "left" are only valid terms, on their own and in their own right, as terms of subjective personal orientation by perception (left-hand/right-hand, left-show/right-shoe, turn left/turn right). Socio-political usages with those terms unqualified and standing on their own are "non-terms" and leave a hole and void in any statement using by definition and nature, and sabotages any message using those that way, and denegrades and corrupts the whole socio-political dialogue to utter detritus. Terms DO matter, and people have to THINK in this world. The anti-intellectualization and stupification of so much of the population is a far greater problem and destructive element in the world today than ANY single socio-political ideology, economic system, religion (even in their greatest extremes and corruption of original message and meaning), "terrorist" group, or national agenda.

Are you saying that in the past more people were smarter? I don't think so. The mere fact of more educated people would alone belie your statement. But I think the reality is pretty simple: more people, because of the internet, are capable of having a voice and are speaking their mind. You are perhaps an example of that.

 

[Gorbles]

No, terminology DOES matter. And it doesn't how many others do this ridiculous mistake. Whether 100 or 10 000 sheep follow an idiot off a cliff - they've all still walked off the cliff. "Right" and "left" are only valid terms, on their own and in their own right, as terms of subjective personal orientation by perception (left-hand/right-hand, left-show/right-shoe, turn left/turn right). Socio-political usages with those terms unqualified and standing on their own are "non-terms" and leave a hole and void in any statement using by definition and nature, and sabotages any message using those that way, and denegrades and corrupts the whole socio-political dialogue to utter detritus. Terms DO matter, and people have to THINK in this world. The anti-intellectualization and stupification of so much of the population is a far greater problem and destructive element in the world today than ANY single socio-political ideology, economic system, religion (even in their greatest extremes and corruption of original message and meaning), "terrorist" group, or national agenda.

It does matter when you selectively call people out for it, in a forum full of people making similar mistakes. If you want an actual discussion out of this, I recommend you PM me instead, because as far as I'm concerned, this is performative and I don't buy into it at all.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Well it depends, if that person corrects you and you decide to keep calling them the gender you assumed them to be, then yes that would be offensive.

Would you push against that?

If someone tells me their name is Anna, I'll go with that. If they are in the room and part of the conversation, then pronouns don't matter. "You" and "Anna" will usually suffice. If Anna leaves the room and I bring that person up in conversation, whether I use he or she cannot be offensive to Anna because they are not there.

 

[Gorbles]

If someone tells me their name is Anna, I'll go with that. If they are in the room and part of the conversation, then pronouns don't matter. "You" and "Anna" will usually suffice. If Anna leaves the room and I bring that person up in conversation, whether I use he or she cannot be offensive to Anna because they are not there.

Except that reinforces that to the people you talk to that she / her is an acceptable way to refer to Anna. Which is also problematic, assuming Anna's pronouns aren't she / her in this case.

This is like saying racial slurs aren't offensive if you don't use them towards people they're derogatory towards. It reinforces existing bias to whomever you're talking to.

 

[Farm Boy]

And I wouldn't take my 80-year old mother to task in the same way I would someone of my generation or younger. I accept its harder for the old to change. Still my mothers attitudes have changed a lot even in the last few years.

Therein lies the issue. She had a daughter and black son in law she loves in an era harder to do than now. She loves her grandson. The word I catch out of place on her the most is colored, but the interactions that I find interesting are him backing millennials off his grandma. Thier attitude is the one out of line frequently in this situation, and it's clothed in righteousness, likely well intentioned to done degree.

 

[Akka]

Except that reinforces that to the people you talk to that she / her is an acceptable way to refer to Anna. Which is also problematic, assuming Anna's pronouns aren't she / her in this case.

This is like saying racial slurs aren't offensive if you don't use them towards people they're derogatory towards. It reinforces existing bias to whomever you're talking to.

And we're back to the previous situation I pointed.

 

[Gorbles]

And we're back to the previous situation I pointed.

Not at all.

Like I said way back, being upset at someone on a forum isn't in the same league as calling people the wrong name. If I intentionally went around calling someone the wrong username on here, for a long enough time, that'd probably get me suspended. Definitely warned, at the very least. That's because the forum rules enforce an agreed-upon level of civility and respect (as all decent communities do).

There are no "opinions" on gender. I mean, there are on the surface level, but fundamentally we're talking about peoples' existences here. A poor opinion is basically invalidating someone's existence. It's a pretty weighted "opinion", by that point.

You're positing a lack of belief in someone's right as the person / body / gender they know themselves to be, the same as arguing over coffee. It's not a "difference in opinion". It's a failure of basic respect.

This is edging very close to the old, tired adage of "well it's just my opinion, it can't be an insult". Opinions can be both opinions and insulting. So can facts. They don't have to be, but they can be.

* multiple edits to get the grammar lining up and making sure my argument is clear, sorry

 

[Patine]

It does matter when you selectively call people out for it, in a forum full of people making similar mistakes. If you want an actual discussion out of this, I recommend you PM me instead, because as far as I'm concerned, this is performative and I don't buy into it at all.

You don't "buy into it" because it's not as easy as your lazy, sloppy, uneducated, counter-productive, and ruinous terminology that sabotages and KILLS your points and credence. A Neo-Manichaean over-simplification is not an "evolution," socio-politically - it is a regression, and it does more harm than you may think or admit. You may think, like so many, it's "alright" or it "doesn't matter," - but that's not at all true. You're just deceiving and deluding yourself so you don't have to change - a big problem self-help gurus speak in a much more general sense about.

Moderator Action: Patine, please tone down the name-calling. Thank you. --LM

Are you saying that in the past more people were smarter? I don't think so. The mere fact of more educated people would alone belie your statement. But I think the reality is pretty simple: more people, because of the internet, are capable of having a voice and are speaking their mind. You are perhaps an example of that.

That's not quite correct. People have more "education" because it's free and mandatory in a far greater amount of the world to far more people than before, and information is more readily available (a la, the Internet, though it's not entirely reliable, unless you weigh many different sources against each other). But it may shock you to know that children and adolescents today, and many 20-something adults when they were in school, are not receiving the same comprehensive degree of reasoning, constructive and critical thinking, and problem-solving skills being taught that I did as in school in the '80's/very early '90's, and I believe you've implied you're schools day even earlier. Also, when I was in school, cell phones, other than the immensely expensive and one-purpose (to make phonecalls) "the brick" didn't exist yet, and we only computers in two classes - a "computer" class and a typing class - they were not in ANY other classroom. An anthropologist working with a psychologist estimates, on average, a person of similar or analogous circumstances in the Victorian era had several points of IQ HIGHER - and several points HIGHER still over them by those living in Ancient Hellenic times. So, while "education" - in terms of the raw act of filling your brain with knowledge - has increased, yes, I believe how well and constructively people THINK is obviously declining.

 

[Truthy]

My first guess was evolutionary psychology. I haven't read much about it, but what I have read is pretty negative (at least in my left-wing circles) for how it can be used to reinforce existing power structures and more subtle worrying theories like genetic determinism (which goes towards eugenics and the like). I can see why Truthy would say it pisses off a lot of people

I'm not saying anything on its particular merits at this time, for sake of not derailing further!

Yep, evolutionary psychology. Sorry for assuming everyone would know that bit of jargon!

An example: very, very strong evidence supports the application of the parental investment theory to humans. I won't explain it, but the point is (1) it's overwhelmingly likely to be true and (2) it's not PC. I can even make (1) a weaker claim and just say instead that a reasonable person could believe it's true. Doesn't matter. My point isn't to turn this into an evo psyche discussion. But I could because a lot of PC disputes are absolutely not as simple as "be civil."

 

[rah]

Well it depends, if that person corrects you and you decide to keep calling them the gender you assumed them to be, then yes that would be offensive.

Would you push against that?

That is very reasonable.
If they tell me, I'll make every effort to remember. But if my original guess is wrong, no slur was intended, I just couldn't tell. Yet, I got pounced on a few times and I personally think that's being rude to me. If I error, correct me. It wasn't intentional. To me that's no different than when I get hit on by gay men. I don't yell at them, I quietly inform them that I play for the other team and they will know in the future.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

That is very reasonable.
If they tell me, I'll make every effort to remember. But if my original guess is wrong, no slur was intended, I just couldn't tell. Yet, I got pounced on a few times and I personally think that's being rude to me. If I error, correct me. It wasn't intentional. To me that's no different than when I get hit on by gay men. I don't yell at them, I quietly inform them that I play for the other team and they will know in the future.

Hey, i don't mind people occasionally forgetting, apologising/acknowledging their mistake and making a decent effort in trying to correctly name and gender people, the problem we have however is that there are a group of frankly malicious people, who don't want to even do the first part, they just want to be able to insult and hurt people because they view transpeople as fundamentally lesser.

I will say that your example doesn't fully encompass how important something as fundamental as gender/assumed gender, being misgender even unintentionally, can and does have negative effects on transpeople, far beyond just getting hit on. If society constantly misgenders you, that will have a big impact upon your personal mental, emotional and even physical well being.

 

[Berzerker]

many people are stubborn, its not so much about malice but a refusal to change habits

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That is very reasonable.
If they tell me, I'll make every effort to remember. But if my original guess is wrong, no slur was intended, I just couldn't tell. Yet, I got pounced on a few times and I personally think that's being rude to me. If I error, correct me. It wasn't intentional. To me that's no different than when I get hit on by gay men. I don't yell at them, I quietly inform them that I play for the other team and they will know in the future.

And if they were to keep hitting on you, perhaps even more aggressively?

Or, if they were to forget by the time they saw you again, even if it were just the next day, or even just a couple hours later?

Not saying you should yell at them then, just trying to illustrate that there may be a source to some of the frustrations.

Also, consider...

If you happened to operate in a part of the world where gay men were a wide majority, and were getting hit on and having to correct pretty much constantly, would you start to wonder if maybe there was something about you behind that? Maybe wonder if you lacked some "masculine air" that should be keeping that from happening? Again, not trying to suggest anything other than the merits of really seeing things from the other <persons> perspective.

 

[AdamCrock]

The English language is constantly changing. New words are added to dictionaries all the time. Meanings of words change as well.

Can You be more specific ? Have the meaning of offensive words changed as well ? Honestly I wish to learn more of it before (if ever but You never know) I undertake my journey to the great beyond (England). Speaking of correctness - once there I do not wish to be out of line - so to speak . Any knowledge about what words I can use and which I ought to avoid will be much appreciated.

oh and btw.

Spoiler TNETENNBA :