Page 16 of 20 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 193

Thread: Transphobia in Miami

  1. Top | #151
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    3,957
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    14,931
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Except he didn't call you a liar or fuckwit. He made a comment about a hypothetical person and hypothetical beliefs. Your post here only assumes he was talking about you. He was making a purely hypothetical example. You assumed he was talking about him (hint: he doesn't believe only fuckwits post bad arguments), and you (I'm sure he does not believe you are a fuckwit).

    So the question is, why did you think he was talking about you? What beliefs do you hold about yourself that would lead you to the apparent conclusion that someone here sees you in such negative light?
    What? I didn't think he was talking about me at all. Why on earth would you think I thought that? Nobody called me a liar or fuckwit in this post. I was talking about the site rules that prevent certain behaviours, and I was pointing out that although I don't agree with them and I would have different rules if I controlled the rules for this site. But,
    1) the site rules don't force me to say things I don't believe (at least, not yet)
    2) even if they did, I could choose not to participate in the site if it bothered me that much
    3) being asked to say things I don't believe is worse than being asked to refrain from saying things I do believe (which is one of the places laughing dog's analogy falls down)
    4) no matter what I do with respect to obeying this site's rules, the State won't punish me for it (unless I've also violated rules of the State, but that would be because I'd violated those rules, not the site's)

  2. Top | #152
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    3,425
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    6,336
    Rep Power
    41
    You should probably read my post again.

    At any rate, he didn't post about anyone being called a fuckwit. He posted, quite specifically, about a hypothetical user who believes that certain people are fuckwits based on their arguments.

    Calling someone on these forums fuckwit would absolutely be against site rules.

    Further, calling someone "he" or "she" is not necessarily a statement of belief; it is certainly possible to be an insult (or other derogatory action), either through outing their external anatomy against their consent or through the violation of the general fact that most people who are not you use the term to describe gender and the sex of one's brain rather than what is in their pants.

    You are trying to insist society not value or refer to someone based on who someone is, but rather that they do so based on what is in their pants, which is as discussed ad nauseum in other threads to be an inaccurate and outdated way of perceiving others.

    Would you like it if there was a disparity of pronouns specific to penile length and character, and I then others sought to talk about you while making that information apparent about you in every exchange?

    You could, in fact, end up feeling quite awful for your private parts being brought up in every dicussion to, with, or about you rather than some aspect of the person you are.

  3. Top | #153
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    3,957
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    14,931
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Further, calling someone "he" or "she" is not necessarily a statement of belief; it is certainly possible to be an insult (or other derogatory action), either through outing their external anatomy against their consent or through the violation of the general fact that most people who are not you use the term to describe gender and the sex of one's brain rather than what is in their pants.
    I think you are confusing yourself with normies. Most people do not use pronouns to describe gender of humans as opposed to sex of humans, and indeed the concept would have been unheard of before the 1960s.

    You are trying to insist society not value or refer to someone based on who someone is, but rather that they do so based on what is in their pants, which is as discussed ad nauseum in other threads to be an inaccurate and outdated way of perceiving others.
    I'm not trying to insist 'society' do anything, nor do I believe that referring to somebody's sex is making a 'value' judgment (??) I'm insisting that society not dictate to me what I must believe about somebody else.

    Would you like it if there was a disparity of pronouns specific to penile length and character, and I then others sought to talk about you while making that information apparent about you in every exchange?

    You could, in fact, end up feeling quite awful for your private parts being brought up in every dicussion to, with, or about you rather than some aspect of the person you are.
    Someone's sex is not determined solely by external genitalia, and in fact normie judgment of someone's sex is rarely based on that anyway.

  4. Top | #154
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,469
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    10,057
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by krypton iodine sulfur
    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20
    Well, in the first place, define "misgender".
    To refer to a person by the incorrect gender.
    And by the "incorrect gender", you mean the gender that does not correspond to the person, or the gender the person believes does not correspond to herself or himself? Or something else?
    Last edited by Angra Mainyu; 02-04-2020 at 04:19 AM.

  5. Top | #155
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    16,024
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    57,967
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    This is a bizarre conclusion. You are arguing for additional cognitive effort for its own sake.
    Nope. It is amazing you could concoct such an erroneous straw man.
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor
    By this reasoning, you may as well add a rule like "any sentence with an even number of letters in the last word should also have an even number of words in the sentence". That sure as hell would force people to "think" about what they say.
    A stupendously inapt analogy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor
    It is significantly more difficult than that, and it beggars belief you think that that was an apt comparison.
    It beggsrs belief that anyone who thought about it before responding eould vome up with such a response.
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor
    Pronouns are not pejoratives and they are used dozens of times a day by everybody. Racist pejorative terms are not part of ordinary language and are not routinely used dozens of times a day in ordinary conversation.
    Racist terms were common in the US 50 to 60 years ago and part if common language.
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor
    It is absolutely disrespectful to force people to use terms they disagree with.
    So it is disrespectful to force racists to use non- pejorative trrms they disagree with.

  6. Top | #156
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    3,957
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    14,931
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Racist terms were common in the US 50 to 60 years ago and part if common language.
    No, they weren't. Racist pejoratives are not as ubiquitous in usage as pronouns, even in the most racist society you can think of. Pronouns are used dozens of times a day and almost never intended as a pejorative.

    So it is disrespectful to force racists to use non- pejorative trrms they disagree with.
    Your analogies get worse and worse. Asking somebody to not say 'nigger' at work is not the same as forcing them to say something they don't believe, unless you believe somebody who has anti-black prejudice doesn't believe black people are black, and that forcing her to acknowledge a black person's race as 'black' rather than 'nigger', is somehow violating her beliefs, since she almost certainly already believes black people are black.

    But here's the thing. I've never needed to refer to somebody's race at work, at least not in any context I can remember for work-related purposes. But I refer to the sex of my colleagues all the time, almost always implicitly via pronouns.

  7. Top | #157
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    16,024
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    57,967
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Racist terms were common in the US 50 to 60 years ago and part if common language.
    No, they weren't. Racist pejoratives are not as ubiquitous in usage as pronouns, even in the most racist society you can think of.
    I lived through that time, and you are wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor
    Pronouns are used dozens of times a day and almost never intended as a pejorative..
    For plenty of racists, those terms were used dozens times of day.
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor
    Your analogies get worse and worse. Asking somebody to not say 'nigger' at work is not the same as forcing them to say something they don't believe, unless you believe somebody who has anti-black prejudice doesn't believe black people are black, and that forcing her to acknowledge a black person's race as 'black' rather than 'nigger', is somehow violating her beliefs, since she almost certainly already believes black people are black.
    You really don’t have a clue about those people back then. They thought Black people were “niggers” or “coloreds” not “black”

    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor
    But here's the thing. I've never needed to refer to somebody's race at work, at least not in any context I can remember for work-related purposes. But I refer to the sex of my colleagues all the time, almost always implicitly via pronouns.
    Your stories get more and more irrelevant.

  8. Top | #158
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    3,957
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    14,931
    Rep Power
    51
    "Those people back then".

    Oy gevalt. You simply live in an alternate universe, laughing dog. Even rappers don't use 'nigga' as much as they use pronouns. Read the lyrics to "Niggas in Paris".

  9. Top | #159
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,852
    Archived
    4,797
    Total Posts
    8,649
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post
    It's extremely less work than using personal names or Internet identities. It's nearly the same work as using Internet identity genders.

    My name is Donald. Call me Don. Don2 on the Internet. You have to remember almost 100 names and nicknames for 100 people. You're already accepting their gender online. You call me a he/him. Maybe you or I were born with female genitalia. How would anyone know?
    The point is, we don't need to know. "Donald" is a common male name in English. ... This is how natural language works -- 99% of the decisions going on in speech production and comprehension flow effortlessly because they're on autopilot. ...
    Point over your head. Most people on here don't have names like mine, nor do you call me Don, but Don2 instead.
    Yes, but that's because this is a written discussion and we're missing all the visual disambiguation cues speakers rely on. I call you "Don2" instead of "Don" because SimpleDon posts here too.

    We call you male out of respect for your identity but your name is Bomb#20.
    My namesake is a neuter AI. If you call me "it" I'll take it as a sign that you're a fellow appreciator of the wonderfulness that is Dark Star.

    You say you're male and if we call you female, it'd be disrespect. That's how respect works. You don't even have to think about it once you learn what gender and name people in the forum go by. Respect and empathy are natural human traits.

    And if we don't know we can call you a "they" just like irl when you can't tell. Because it's simple.

    As far as invoking natural language, that is oversimplifying the situation. It makes it look like it's rational. No, we actually first follow social cues based on norms in order to determine gender. Things like clothing, hair length and style, colors, shoes, pant fit, shirt style, make up, shaved state of hairs on face or body, in addition to sexual chatacteristics if we can even see them. So, when you see a baby dressed in yellow, you don't know until you see something else. You need a social cue. If the mother tells you it's a girl, you call it a her. You follow rules of respect.
    So what? None of that supports your contention that being required to use people's "preferred pronouns" is nearly the same work as using internet identity genders.

    Our brains come wired with hardware support for picking up all those social cues our communities provide for making whichever distinctions our various languages evolved. The process of changing from speechless babies to English-speakers programmed us to pay attention to what mattered and ignore what didn't matter for understanding and making ourselves understood; that process included assembling a coprocessor that sets a male/female bit on people and then automatically references it whenever English calls for it. This coprocessor can handle the sort of examples you apparently have in mind -- it can help you call me "he" and it can help us call southernhybrid "she". But it can't handle the examples I have in mind. It can't help us call Taylor Mason "they". The English coprocessor only supplies one bit per person to store grammatical gender. When the government orders you to call Taylor Mason "they", and to call some other gender-nonconformist "ze" because "ze" is hir preferred pronoun, and so forth, you'll be doing it without the aid of the coprocessor you normally rely on to create and parse pronouns. If you wanted a two-bit coprocessor you should have been born into a different language community; if you wanted a seven-bit coprocessor to handle a hundred people's different preferred pronouns you should have been born into a different species. So when we let the government set up an Academie Anglaise authorized to impose whatever artificial language rules it pleases, we'll have to emulate in software whichever coprocessor the language police wish we all had. That is more work than using internet identity genders.

    You might as well point out on information-theoretical grounds that an integer divide is less computation than a floating-point divide and deduce that a program using the one will run faster than a program using the other -- never mind that your computer has a hardware floating-point coprocessor.

  10. Top | #160
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,852
    Archived
    4,797
    Total Posts
    8,649
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by krypton iodine sulfur View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    This is how natural language works -- 99% of the decisions going on in speech production and comprehension flow effortlessly because they're on autopilot. It's why we call competent speakers "fluent". The circumstance that the default algorithm has to do a hundred times more work under the hood than the exception handler performs consciously doesn't change the fact that when you force an operation out of the default algorithm into the exception handler you're imposing extra effort. You might as well order somebody to memorize a thousand new words and rationalize that your imposition on him hardly matters since he already knows a hundred thousand.
    What your factitious argument creates is something bizarrely subjective and conditional to the speaker rather than the referent.
    By "factitious" you mean "artificially created or developed"? All arguments are artificial. The natural way monkeys try to alter one another's thinking is by whacking them in the head. No, my argument doesn't create something bizarrely subjective and conditional to the speaker rather than the referent. Natural language is bizarrely subjective and conditional to the speaker rather than the referent. Freedom of speech is bizarrely subjective and conditional to the speaker rather than the referent.

    I worked in an office of several hundred people when I transitioned gender. When people referred to me with pronouns, autopilot led to different results. People who had known me for a long time were more likely to refer to me as 'he' out of habit or uncertainty; however, some made the switch rather fluidly and quickly. Conversely, those who met me post transition were more likely to refer to me as 'she' even without prompting,
    Congratulations on making the transition so successfully, Ma'am. I'm happy for you. Some people try but can't make it work well, and that's a tragedy.

    though a handful read me as male initially. A very small number of people referred to me by 'they' for reasons I can only guess.

    So autopilot split speakers into two different references for me. It can also be assumed some were unable to engage autopilot with reference to me, but that is not 'work' I asked them to do. I never asked anyone to call me 'they',
    Good for you.

    and generally was too tired to even get fussed about 'he' or other masculine terms despite its negative impact on me.

    But here is the strange thing. Had you worked with me, especially prior to my transition, we'd have had a bit of an impasse on my pronouns.
    That seems staggeringly unlikely to me, unless you deliberately tried to send inconsistent gender signals.

    By your standards, it's not fair of me to ask you to put in the 'work' of remapping the pronoun you apply to me.
    Not sure where you're getting that. Of course it's fair for you to ask it. It wouldn't be fair for you to try to get the government to command it; and it wouldn't be fair for you to ask it but make it hard to comply, say by choosing a plural pronoun or growing a beard, and then make a big deal out of it if I were to fail to put in the work of remapping the pronoun I apply to you. But that isn't most M-to-Fs; it sounds like that isn't you. So no, I think we'd have had no impasse on your pronouns.

    But autopilot works much the same for speakers as listeners. If you refer to me as 'he' to a listener who regards me as 'she', they will have to put in 'work' to resolve the inconsistency.
    I really can't see that happening. If I refer to you as 'he' it would be because you were making it hard to reset the bit in my mental model of you. If you were making it hard for me you'd be making it hard for my listener too. She'd have an ambiguous mental model bit too, and would be doing the inconsistency resolution work regardless.

    And it wouldn't be fair of you to ask that of them.
    What do you mean, "ask"? If I use a different pronoun from what someone else uses, that's not a request I'm making, any more than she is requesting something from me. If we consequently have a miscommunication, that's not a matter of fairness; it's simply a difficulty generated by our respective autonomic speech engines that we can put up with or try to overcome. It isn't unfair to talk in a way that's hard for someone else to follow; that's just the human condition in the Age of Mobility. I used to be in a workgroup where most of my colleagues spoke Russian to one another. It would have been unfair for me to demand that they speak only English in front of me.

    Hopefully you would remember to refer to me by name only in all conversations with others who don't use the same pronoun for me.
    That's nuts. That would be no easier than remembering to call you "they" -- both involve turning off the hardware assist.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •