Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 160

Thread: Men wearing dresses

  1. Top | #91
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    7,054
    Rep Power
    22
    Long hair, airings, pierced noses and tongues. Men have came far. What is the big deal with dresses? Women wear pants and dresses, in the interest of social balance and fatness men should also wear both pants and dresses. Then of course men would be shaving their legs.

    Is there a sarcasm emoji?

  2. Top | #92
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    298
    Archived
    66
    Total Posts
    364
    Rep Power
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruth Harris View Post
    In my opinion, this is a conversation that should include everyone as it will impact all of us. Do you think that only those who are non binary should have input on this?

    Ruth
    I seem to recall that you are male, and use the user name Ruth. Am I mistaken in this?
    You are recalling incorrectly. I am female. I have made no secret of that but rarely point out my gender in conversations unless it is pertinent to the subject (like in this post).

    I have been mistakenly called a male before, and typically I just find it amusing. Sometimes I will correct them if it seems important to the conversation and sometimes I just let it pass if it doesn’t matter. In this case, I answered because you asked a direct question of me about it.

    Ruth

  3. Top | #93
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    298
    Archived
    66
    Total Posts
    364
    Rep Power
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by Angry Floof View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruth Harris View Post
    I see no point in replying to your responses, as it is obvious to me that we will never agree. That is fine; I did not expect complete agreement from anyone. I will say, however, that you don’t know me and your opinion of what causes me true emotional pain is just that – your opinion.

    But THIS statement gives me pause:
    Quote Originally Posted by Angry Floof View Post
    As for finding a solution that works, you do not have the background or experience to contribute meaningfully to that conversation, and chances are good that you don't want to.
    I am seriously curious. Why do you flatly state that I cannot or do not want to contribute meaningfully to the conversation? In my opinion, this is a conversation that should include everyone as it will impact all of us. Do you think that only those who are non binary should have input on this?

    Ruth
    I suggest you take a deep look at that question yourself, especially the part about "include everyone," for several reasons but mostly because it does not impact most of us at all, unless you think hearing voices you're not used to hearing saying things you don't like or even suggesting you use "they" in the singular as you already know how to do equates to anything like impacting your life.

    I think the opinions of non binary people are the most important to the conversation, which has been my whole point from the beginning though a lot of sub points inevitably come out of that when you're talking to people who have no interest in those non binary people's opinions beyond the most fleeting and superficial glance while asserting their own.

    So I'll talk to you and others here all day long about these things, but I do not talk to non binary people about things that non binary people experience or give them my opinions beyond those things I do have a background in, such as language and grammar, and also empathy.

    Humility is needed, but very few people who are not excluded from the status quo are going to be bothered with that. I mean, how dare they tell us we need to humble ourselves? Who do they think they are?

    But you're on the right track if you do have the courage and humility to reflect honestly on that "included" thing, and maybe about how you're not really being excluded from anything that actually impacts your life by shutting up and listening first and foremost when it comes to the voices and perspectives of marginalized, historically excluded people.
    I think we are coming at this from very different viewpoints. Maybe this will clarify how I came to my personal ideas on this subject.

    Over much of my working life, I have held jobs that are historically considered to be the domain of males. I worked a few years in residential construction. When I was in the field working, I never saw another female in our area doing anything similar at that time.

    After a period where I worked in construction offices doing management and accounting for firms, I changed careers again to the IT field. Once again, I didn’t know of another female in our area doing this when I started.

    In both of those fields, I was often denigrated by men who made it very clear that they thought women had no business doing those jobs, and many of them did their best to make me feel unwelcome or incompetent. Yes, I found it very annoying and still do to this day when it happens. But it never had the slightest impact on my self worth; I firmly believe that the problem is theirs, not mine. I did not and do not spend time demanding that they change their point of view immediately simply because it affects me personally. I did not and do not demand that everyone take offense at their attitude simply because it affects me personally. As time passes, the attitude of society changes by simply being more familiar with that particular situation. There were many, many discussions over the years about this change, and those discussions included people who were not in any way involved in either field.

    That is why I think that widespread conversation is essential. Yes, we should listen to those who are impacted personally – but the conversation itself must be society wide to effect change. Each of us should be willing to listen to the other side respectfully. If no one is willing to participate in discussions, the minority will be marginalized by default.

    We also cannot expect societal change when the only opinion considered valid is that of the group asking for that change. There must be an understanding on all sides of how this change will impact all people, not just one side or the other. And the only way to get to that point is for all people to be willing and able to state their personal views respectfully without being ignored or invalidated by someone who does not agree.

    Ruth

  4. Top | #94
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    12,086
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    15,741
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruth Harris View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    I hear what you are saying and I have a question: Is it painful for you that you might use incorrect grammar or is it difficult to know which grammar/words to correctly use for someone?

    I strongly doubt that you would intentionally hurt someone's feelings. But if you say something that hurts someone else, whose pain is more important? Yours, because you are upset that you made a mistake? Or the person whose feelings you hurt?

    I personally have zero problem with they/them but then I have used they/them whenever I was writing or speaking about someone whose gender I didn't know or was unknown or immaterial to whoever I was speaking to. Will I get it right always? Sometimes? when I find myself in that situation? Probably not and if I make a mistake, and it upsets the other person, I will also feel upset--because I hurt someone else. And their pain is more important than mine.

    If I drop a rock on your toe and break your toe, and then feel really sorry about it, which pain is more important?: Your pain because of your broken toe which now must be x-rayed, buddy taped and will cause you to limp for weeks? Or mine because I feel bad that I accidentally broke your toe? Obviously, your pain with your broken toe is much more important. However bad I feel is on me 100%.
    It is painful for me to use incorrect grammar. I am completely mortified when it happens by accident. But if I understand correctly what non binary people usually request for pronouns, I don't think it is that difficult to know what to use (they, theirs, them).

    I deliberately did not rank the emotional pain on either side. There is no way to know who suffers more emotionally as that is specific to each individual. I am simply stating that the pain on both sides is real, for the circumstances mentioned, and it is just plain wrong to say that one side's pain is valid and the other side's pain is not.

    As far as the broken toe incident, I was not contemplating comparing physical pain to emotional pain. But I can tell you that if you accidentally broke my toe, I would feel very bad for you if I saw you suffering emotionally because of the consequences of the accident. This has actually happened in my life; a friend accidentally shut a car door on my finger and broke it, and seeing her suffer emotionally over that made me feel very bad for her. Both of us suffered emotionally for a few days over that.

    Ruth
    Fictional scenario:
    Suppose you and I knew each other IRL for years. since I was a newlywed bride. I am recently divorced from a 20 year marriage which had become increasingly abusive--hence the divorce. We still belong to the same club/social group, whatever and still see each other and are on the same friendly terms as always. I have reverted to my own name after the divorce. You mistakenly refer to me by my former married name, which I find very painful, given the years of abuse and all that it took me to finally muster up the courage to divorce my abuser, and the risk to my personal safety prior to, during and since the divorce. My pain registers, you apologize and also feel empathy for me. But you continue to use my former married name. Not out of malice but out of habit: that's how we first knew each other. The first few times are easily a mistake. It can be difficult to remember a name change. But after a while, it seems as though you don't care very much about how much pain it gives me to be called by a name I prefer to put behind me, along with all of the abuse. I get that it's hard for you. Maybe it was your brother or cousin that I was married to and you have a hard time letting go a symbol of a family connection. I recognize that whatever loss has happened because of a change in legal status is painful for you, as well as your distress when you realize your mistake or it is pointed out to you. But that is in no way comparable to the pain I feel over the constant reminder of an abusive relationship and the role I was forced to assume in a very unhappy marriage. And after a while, with repeated accidents, it seems less like accident than like a statement of opinion: I’m the person that it was ok to abuse and who had to put on a public face to make others feel better. To protect my abuser. And it’s my fault for not being willing to keep up the charade, for insisting that I wanted to ve free to ve who and what I am, not someone’s punching bag. Whenever someone-/whenever you call me by that despised married name, it’s like you’re telling me that you know better than I do who and what I really am.

    IRL, I can’t imagine you doing such a thing to a now divorced friend. But by refusing to use the pronouns someone prefers—because it makes them feel better—what you’re really saying is that your discomfort with unfamiliar language usage is more important than their feelings. And I don’t think that’s how you feel. I think that it is just hard adapt to new rules that better reflect the way other people understand themselves.

    And I will note further: It really can be hard to remember to use a different name for someone when they've undergone a life changing event. But it is almost never hard to remember to call a newly married woman by her husband's name. Or at least in my observation.

    I also love language and am interested in how language changes and evolves. Some newer usages really grate on me but I restrain myself when someone uses what I consider poor grammar but is simply the common usage today. One of the things I like about languages is that each language or dialect tells you something about the world view of the users. For myself, I'd prefer that my own language choices reveal that I care about people more than that I care about rules written by people long, long ago, that have changed over the years. And I especially prefer not to hurt people if I can help it.
    Last edited by Toni; 06-21-2021 at 02:35 AM.

  5. Top | #95
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,408
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    15,154
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Angry Floof View Post
    This is relevant here:

    So what? You are taking away all responsibility from the person who is affected more to regulate their emotions and think ahead, and not put themselves in these kinds of situations or understanding this about themselves and can take steps to manage their own emotions.

    If we act on this and refrain from being fully honest when debating, because of the feelings of others, we're treating them as children who don't know better. How isn't that MORE insulting?

    It's this kind of thinking which makes everybody hate Millennials.

    It's just feelings. Getting ones feelings hurt isn't a disaster nor a big deal. In debates I think we should always gun for full honesty, no matter what.

    And if we can't handle our own emotions in the conversation we can always bow out from the conversation. This is what sets children apart from adults. It's not that adults don't have feelings. They just have learned how to manage them.

  6. Top | #96
    Tricksy Leftits Angry Floof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lancre
    Posts
    12,942
    Archived
    14,435
    Total Posts
    27,377
    Rep Power
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post

    So what? You are taking away all responsibility from the person who is affected more to regulate their emotions and think ahead, and not put themselves in these kinds of situations or understanding this about themselves and can take steps to manage their own emotions.

    If we act on this and refrain from being fully honest when debating, because of the feelings of others, we're treating them as children who don't know better. How isn't that MORE insulting?

    It's this kind of thinking which makes everybody hate Millennials.

    It's just feelings. Getting ones feelings hurt isn't a disaster nor a big deal. In debates I think we should always gun for full honesty, no matter what.

    And if we can't handle our own emotions in the conversation we can always bow out from the conversation. This is what sets children apart from adults. It's not that adults don't have feelings. They just have learned how to manage them.
    No you haven't. Having the privilege to be unfeeling toward others without consequence isn't maturity.

    At this point in history there is no one more childish and unable to manage their emotions than white men being told they are not as important as they have been led to believe.

    Cry, bluster, stamp your feet, blame made up enemies like "millennials" and "cancel culture," but you are being challenged and called out for your hubris, immaturity, and callousness like it or not. Your opinions about people and experiences you know nothing about are not useful or required, and your lack of humanity is your responsibility to handle if you don't want it called out. Die mad about it.

  7. Top | #97
    Might be a replicant Emily Lake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Northern Hemisphere, Bordering the Pacific
    Posts
    3,270
    Rep Power
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post

    Back in post #14 I wrote:
    I have no problem with the singular use of "they" when the context describes a situation when the gender is unknown. By default there is an uncertainty about the particulars of the person in question. Typically that means it might be a man or a women. So that means the context is some group that cannot be defined as him or her but includes both. The plural form is therefore appropriate and carries some meaning. But in the case where the context concerns one individual there is no rational basis to use the plural "they", or "their". So who it concerns is everyone who uses the English language and follows rules of proper diction. Using "they" to refer to an individual who neither identifies as male or female is dehumanizing simply because it doesn't acknowledge that person's individuality.
    Let me try to rephrase my question, since it seems that we're talking at cross-purposes.

    Why do you think it's necessary to redefine pronouns from referring to a person's apparent sex (with a singular they when unknown), to referring to a person's self-perception of their internal identity?

  8. Top | #98
    Might be a replicant Emily Lake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Northern Hemisphere, Bordering the Pacific
    Posts
    3,270
    Rep Power
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    I'm just going to step in here to write that I am prejudiced about a lot of things. I hope that I am conscious of my various prejudices and that none of them are against any people. But I am certain that is not really the case.

    Somewhat relevant to this discussion, it appears that now some federal documents call mothers 'birthing persons' which I find offensive and extremely upsetting.
    Here's a link to an article, reprinted from the Chicago Tribune which only allows paid subscribers to read the column there: https://www.startribune.com/theres-n...ine/600068973/

    I am happy to celebrate all individuals who help give rise to a human being by egg donation, gestation, or childbirth the word mother, and to add context where necessary for clarification: An egg donor is only the genetic mother. A gestational surrogate carried the child but is not usually genetically related to the child. Transmen who retain a uterus and choose to carry a child act as the child's mother during gestation, whatever they prefer to be called during the pregnancy or after. And if, after giving birth, they see themselves as the child's father or simply parent, no problem. But biologically, they are the mother, even if that is never mentioned again. Even if they are married to a woman who becomes the mother. Nonbinary persons who choose to carry a child are the child's mother during gestation, and often from conception onward, whatever they choose to call themselves. Those who give birth and then give the child up for adoption are still the birth mother, even if they never laid eyes on the child. Women who adopt children, be they cis or trans, are mother to the adopted child. Women who raise children, even temporarily in foster situations are nonetheless mother to those children, however fleetingly. It's more than possible to have two or more mothers! Ask any child raised in part or wholely by a stepmother or foster mother! Heck, when they were growing up, some of my kids' friends called me mom. So did some of the exchange students who lived with us. Frankly, some single fathers also act as mother to their children and that, too, should be honored just as women who act as both mother and father should be honored for assuming the paternal role.

    THAT term: birthing person, has kind of broken me.

    I also struggle with watching transmen who break into new public positions as the first trans woman being celebrated when so few, or no cis women have ever held that role. This is an individual who, no matter what her private struggles, benefited from all of society's benefits conferred on boys and men until she decided to act on her innermost understanding and awareness of herself and dress and present herself as the woman she is, or even have gender confirmation surgery. Ideologically, I have no problem with transgender women being as successful in their careers and lives as they can be. It just grates sometimes when a transwoman breaks a barrier that so few or no ciswomen have been able to break in a chosen career.

    I fully acknowledge that I might be wrong, that it might be prejudice or even bigotry on my part.
    I think they're perfectly reasonable concerns and frustrations, and that you're not at all bigoted.

    For the record, I no longer use Always pads, and I won't be using Midol in the future, because both of those companies have embraced this sort of language. Always got rid of the female symbol on their packaging... even though only females use their product. Midol released a whole series of internet ads referring to their customers as "menstruators". It's insulting and dehumanizing.

  9. Top | #99
    Might be a replicant Emily Lake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Northern Hemisphere, Bordering the Pacific
    Posts
    3,270
    Rep Power
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Emily Lake View Post
    YEs, I am 100% certain. "Intersex" doesn't actually mean that they're in-between the sexes. They may have ambiguous genitalia, but each individual is still ONLY male or female. There is LITERALLY no alternative among humans - a single individual cannot produce both egg cells and sperm cells. It's not possible.
    I don't think it's actually impossible--the key being your statement "a single individual". What if it isn't a single individual? What if the person is actually a chimera? One part is male, the other is testosterone-insensitive, could be either XX or XY. Get just the right blend and you could end up with two functional sets of anatomy downstairs.

    Horrendously unlikely but I see no reason to think it's impossible. Chimeras certainly exist and I seriously doubt we even know how common it might be as most of them will not be detected. (I'm thinking of a woman arrested for welfare fraud because the DNA test came back saying the kid wasn't hers. Turns out her reproductive apparatus wasn't hers, either.)
    A chimera is an amalgam of two gene sets, but is still a single individual. You'd have to have duplicate organs in order to produce both sperm and ova. You'd have to have duplicate organs in order to have both a penis and a vagina. You don't get duplication in chimerism. It's possible for a chimeric person to have some chromosomes that are male and some that are female - absolutely. But unless they are literally duplicating organs, they can't end up with two functional sets of anatomy - not as a chimera.

    Maybe as conjoint twins?

  10. Top | #100
    Might be a replicant Emily Lake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Northern Hemisphere, Bordering the Pacific
    Posts
    3,270
    Rep Power
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Angry Floof View Post
    Again, I'm not convinced that your pain is really pain at all, much less pain that equates to the pain of marginalization by the only society you know.
    Wait, what? How do you square this? On what basis have you decided that you can dismiss Ruth's pain as invalid, but consider the pain of some other random stranger to be completely valid?

Posting Permissions

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