Are you Politically Correct?

[Gorbles]

@TheMeInTeam

That's a fliimsy justification for deciding what other people should be offended by. I suggest maybe sticking to what you yourself are offended by - even if that list is short. You can't force other to not people not be offended by things regardless of how well-formulated you personally define your arguments for coherence to be.

To that end, you're also not going to understand, so like I said: not something that can be debated. I've provided links on deadnaming and misgendering; if you're don't feel like doing the research, then that's entirely your choice.

It's a similar logical process to Akka's arguments. Intentionally or unintentionally, you have decided that because the outrage doesn't apply to something like lying about your height, it shouldn't have to apply to misgendering.

If this is intentional, I'm obviously changing no minds. And if it's unintentional, well, I'm always open to a private message, but naturally people are more likely to listen to people they know than vaguely-known others. I understand that, and expect nothing of it.

 

[Akka]

Besides, there's no debate when there's an outright refusal to meet with the actual topic, instead of imposing what is essentially their own philosophical interpretation to another person's arguments.

Wow, it takes some nerves to throw that when that's basically what YOU have done. Especially striking as the original point was "The problem with such reasoning is that it tries to merge the very idea of not sharing your opinion on what is gender with an insult and an intent to harm and basically being a jerk", and basically everything you did was just exactly that.

You never actually answered the actual topic (as you simply stated "gender is not an opinion" and "self-identity is without limit", but never defined what it is, never answered when I pointed that there were quite a bit of debate about it, never provided any actual argumentation why both your affirmation were true, and when shown that your affirmation were inconsistent, simply ducked behind a "you fail at context" cop-out), and yet you manage to simply claim it's the other side who does this. That's nearly impressive in its shamelessness.

And I definitely don't have a way to change someone's mind if they keep repeating that intentionally getting someones' pronouns wrong is some kind of simple opinion.

As said above :
- You never even tried to show how it's "wrong", simply stated so.
- You also never even tried to show how it's not an opinion, simply stated so.
- You can't even manage to put accurate accusation, as you claim "intentionally using the 'wrong' pronouns" when I actually said that there was the possibility of simply not using gendered pronouns.

So you make a lot of unsupported statements and then blame people when they don't simply buy them. Remind me of "you either agree or are a jerk", so I guess it was pretty spot-on.

 

[Gorbles]

Akka, if you want something that isn't grandstanding, I'm happy to take a PM. I really don't like dragging threads down a "no you" kind of route. I tried to argue my point, I provided actual links on the subject, and now I'm getting you being upset because apparently I didn't meet with the topic.

No. Folks who react to articles about the impact of misgendering people with "but what if I lied about my height" are refusing to meet what I was discussing. You responded to me, specifically talking about misgendering people. The notion about "political correctness" is moderate things taken to extreme absurdity ("they're going to arrest me for saying a racist joke", as a contrived example), which is ironically exactly what turning a discussion into misgendering into a discussion about someone's height is.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You come across like a judge determining whether someone has "standing" to be offended rather than as a person empathizing with other people whose feelings are hurt.

SHOULD someone receive such empathy? It depends. On what depends on who you ask.

Usually when I see a combination of someone being a jerk and someone overreacting to it I think less of both, but this requires a subjective evaluation of both "jerk" and "over-reaction". In many cases only one of those things is true.

Who are you to decide that misgendering or deadnaming someone is not offensive

Who are you to decide it? Who is *anybody* to decide it? If we hold that there are > 2 genders, or that people can decide their genders, that becomes a personal defining. Two people might not even mean the same thing despite saying the same word in this context. I see no reason your interpretation of the word should be better or worse than someone else's.

I had to look up "deadnaming". If someone legally changes their name isn't this just a refusal by the "deadnamer" to accept reality? Even for arbitrary reasons like Chad Johnson --> Chad Ochocinco, that really was his last name, equally factual to any other name. In this case the dead-namer is not only being disrespectful, they're also doing something that should be disrespected (ignoring reality). But is this something to be offended over? I suppose Chad decides that. But it'd be silly for me to get offended on Chad's behalf.

Your take is laughable and is equivalent to a white person openly asserting that racial slurs aren't offensive and that racial minorities should shut up.

Resorting to ad hominem is a bad look. Usually in argumentation this is done when one's reasoning can't suffice.

A white person asserting that racial slurs aren't offensive is no more or less credible than a racial minority asserting that racial slurs aren't offensive. Asserting otherwise is itself indicative of racism.

That's a fliimsy justification for deciding what other people should be offended by. I suggest maybe sticking to what you yourself are offended by - even if that list is short. You can't force other to not people not be offended by things regardless of how well-formulated you personally define your arguments for coherence to be.

People can take offense to whatever they want. Even if it isn't coherent (look up any youtube comment section involving "waifu wars" for an example of this in practice). However, for *other people* to take someone's offense seriously there needs to be some method to filter between "offenses we should care about" and "X is best girl". I'm pretty sure we're capable of making this distinction. If not, there are some problems.

Calling misgendering/deadnaming "violence" is objectively incorrect, however. I've seen people try to claim the former and the latter came up as one of the first 5 search results. Inane.

It's a similar logical process to Akka's arguments. Intentionally or unintentionally, you have decided that because the outrage doesn't apply to something like lying about your height, it shouldn't have to apply to misgendering.

If I'm to be convinced that others' outrage is non-arbitrary, I need to see self-consistent standards for it. THAT I will apply even in social settings, even if I might not be inclined to voice it.

 

[Akka]

I don't use the "like" option as a matter of principle, but I certainly subscribe to everything that @TheMeInTeam just posted.

 

[Gorbles]

If I'm to be convinced that others' outrage is non-arbitrary, I need to see self-consistent standards for it. THAT I will apply even in social settings, even if I might not be inclined to voice it.

And that there is the crux of the matter. You keep talking about empiricism, and things that are objectively incorrect. Your opinion, and ability to be convinced by data presented to you, is neither of those things.

"who is anyone to decide if misgendering is offensive", well, the default answer is the people being offended. But you, personally, don't want to recognise that. You then claim ad hominem, when you're literally debating peoples' lives as though it's some kind of neutral thing. You're denying them the basic validation that (as per the actual links I've provided) impact their mental health and wellbeing.

And what's funnier is the use of ad hominem, here. Your entire point is being convinced of others' outrage, and how we can't really know if something is actually worthy of offense or not. Except when . . . . it's aimed at you?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Weird how you ignored the fact that in general, the trans community considers intentionally the act of deadnaming and misgendering to be offensive, this isn't a minority view either nor is it even considered fringe in the medical community.

Your opinion is a joke because you fail to realise that deadnaming and misgendering are weaponized against trans people as a way of bullying, harming and stigmatising them and then you have the gall to claim that somehow I shouldn't be offended by it or that my offense is unreasonable or unjustifiable

The fact we have a cisperson here claiming that the aforementioned behaviours aren't insulting even as transpeople explain to them how and why verges on gaslighting.

 

[Berzerker]

I'm offended by calling people cisperson

cis - cess - cessperson - cesspool

 

[Gorbles]

Cis is the inverse of trans; it's Latin. Hope that clears up the etmyology for you @Berzerker.

 

[Broken_Erika]

I'm offended by calling people cisperson

So, you don't like being linked to the Confederacy of Independent Systems?

 

[red_elk]

Cis is the inverse of trans; it's Latin. Hope that clears up the etmyology for you @Berzerker.

The term creates negative associations for Berzerker, you should stop using it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The term creates negative associations for Berzerker, you should stop using it.

Well, I might go for a "stop calling HIM that." But, no, he doesn't get to randomly ban words from usage.

 

[Patine]

No. My objection is about "passing moral judgement", not "made to feel bad".

Of course, this statement is a catch 22. The only people who NEVER pass moral judgements on others are those who have no morals and do not pretend to have morals - such as sociopaths, psychopaths, nihilists, unrestrained hedonists, and Frankfurt-school deconstructionists, for instance.

 

[Gorbles]

The term creates negative associations for Berzerker, you should stop using it.

They explained their logic, which is based on an incorrect etmyology of the term. I pointed out what it actually stands for. I can't stop it from offending them, but I can explain where it comes from. It's a relatively modern prefix in the context of gender at least, and maintains its described meaning.

 

[red_elk]

No problem, I was just worried you might hurt their feelings.

 

[rah]

I would definitely be confused by it. Don't think offended, but then I don't offended easily.

 

[Berzerker]

Cis is the inverse of trans; it's Latin. Hope that clears up the etmyology for you @Berzerker.

not really...but I prefer person

cis - cissy

cissy person sounds pejorative, almost like the person who came up with it was trying to offend

or being ironic in that a cissy is a man who aint manning up

 

[Synobun]

not really...but I prefer person

cis - cissy

cissy person sounds pejorative, almost like the person who came up with it was trying to offend

or being ironic in that a cissy is a man who aint manning up

This is a stretch.

But also: it's sissy.

 

[Broken_Erika]

But also: it's sissy.

Yes, B1 battle droids were quite sissy.

 

[Berzerker]

This is a stretch.

But also: it's sissy.

damn, my unfamiliarity with the proper term has exposed my phony outrage