Split Thread Issues around language and offense, with reference to transgenderism.

[thaiboxerken]

Don't kid yourself. The members of this board are very judgmental. They are merely jugmental about different things.

Yes. Many of us don't like bigots, for example.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm doing no such thing, and your appeal to emotion and shame will not work on me.

And you don't even realise it. Worse, you deny that it's happening at all. You're part of the problem.

 

[Belz...]

And you don't even realise it. Worse, you deny that it's happening at all.

No, it's your view of the world that's twisted by ideology. You are accusing me of bigotry because I don't classify in the same way you do. The existence of solar eclipses doesn't nullify the concept of the day/night dichotomy. No one's saying that transgender people don't exist or that they shouldn't have the same rights as everybody else or that they shouldn't be taken into consideration. But apparently, the mere suggestion that they are a statistically small exception to an overwhelming rule is bigotry.

Sheer insanity.

You're part of the problem.

Very nice application of the "us vs them" ideology, there. It seems that you are part of the problem, too.

 

[arthwollipot]

No, it's your view of the world that's twisted by ideology. You are accusing me of bigotry because I don't classify in the same way you do. The existence of solar eclipses doesn't nullify the concept of the day/night dichotomy. No one's saying that transgender people don't exist or that they shouldn't have the same rights as everybody else or that they shouldn't be taken into consideration. But apparently, the mere suggestion that they are a statistically small exception to an overwhelming rule is bigotry.

Sheer insanity.

I'm not arguing that you're not acknowledging their existence. I'm arguing that you're not treating them like you would everyone else.

You are marginalising everyone who doesn't conform to your definition of "normal". Language matters. It's the most important tool we have to shape culture.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not arguing that you're not acknowledging their existence. I'm arguing that you're not treating them like you would everyone else.

Nonsense. I tread them exactly like everyone else.

You are marginalising everyone who doesn't conform to your definition of "normal".

Ok, put your money where your keyboard is: demonstrate that I am marginalising anyone. Demonstrate that I am treating them differently. Stop just using rhetorical shaming tactics. And remember that, as a red-haired lefty, I'm a bit outside of 'normal', myself.

 

[arthwollipot]

Ok, put your money where your keyboard is: demonstrate that I am marginalising anyone. Demonstrate that I am treating them differently. Stop just using rhetorical shaming tactics. And remember that, as a red-haired lefty, I'm a bit outside of 'normal', myself.

Very well. Here's three examples where you used marginalising language, and one where you used the term "SJW".

But my post was about the biological issue. From an evolutionary standpoint and for a species like humans, it wouldn't make too much sense to have individuals incapable of passing on their genes (unlike, say, bees). It stands to reason that transgenderism (is that even a word?) is akin to a genetic defect, like being born blind or albino. Again, this isn't a value judgment but merely a descriptive one; and I'm sorry that some people can't tell the difference, but talking about one isn't talking about the other.

People who don't conform to binary notions of sex are "defective". Also, being transgender is a genetic abnormality. And defending those words as though they are devoid of implicit judgement.

Bad choide of words on my part. They _can_, of course, but their "condition" impairs their ability or choice to do so.

It is a "condition" that "impairs" their ability to function in a way that you deem appropriate.

Again, what about people born with no arms? Does that mean humans are not tetrapods anymore?

Exceptions DO NOT nullify the rule.

Equating being born transgender with a physical disability, as if the biological cause, the result, and the difficulties that they encounter, are somehow similar. Again, implying that being transgender is somehow defective and results in people with less of an ability to function.

Please stop that. You're sounding like an SJW. It IS a dichotomy. It's just that a very small number of individuals don't quite match; it's just one of so many potential genetic (I presume it's genetic) variations within the population.

The use of the term "SJW". Also, by supporting the perceived dichotomy you marginalise the exceptions. And again the assumption that being transgender is a genetic defect. Granted, you made an attempt at fairness by using the phrase "one of so many potential genetic variations", and I give you credit for that. If only it didn't contradict most of the rest of what you say.

 

[AdamSK]

Very well. Here's three examples where you used marginalising language, and one where you used the term "SJW".

People who don't conform to binary notions of sex are "defective". Also, being transgender is a genetic abnormality. And defending those words as though they are devoid of implicit judgement.

It is a "condition" that "impairs" their ability to function in a way that you deem appropriate.

Equating being born transgender with a physical disability, as if the biological cause, the result, and the difficulties that they encounter, are somehow similar. Again, implying that being transgender is somehow defective and results in people with less of an ability to function.

The use of the term "SJW". Also, by supporting the perceived dichotomy you marginalise the exceptions. And again the assumption that being transgender is a genetic defect. Granted, you made an attempt at fairness by using the phrase "one of so many potential genetic variations", and I give you credit for that. If only it didn't contradict most of the rest of what you say.

You're halfway there.

Now all you have to do is demonstrate that he treats blind people, albinos, or people with no arms different than he treats anyone else.

So please proceed.

 

[arthwollipot]

You're halfway there.

Now all you have to do is demonstrate that he treats blind people, albinos, or people with no arms different than he treats anyone else.

So please proceed.

I was referring to how he uses language, not to how he "treats" people - if by your use of that phrase you mean how he interacts with people he physically meets.

 

[Belz...]

People who don't conform to binary notions of sex are "defective". Also, being transgender is a genetic abnormality. And defending those words as though they are devoid of implicit judgement.

You're turning a purely descriptive statement of GENES into a moral value judgment of PEOPLE, when you know full well that this isn't what I was saying. That is dishonesty of the highest order.

It is a "condition" that "impairs" their ability to function in a way that you deem appropriate.

Only in the evolutive sense. Learn to read.

Equating being born transgender with a physical disability, as if the biological cause, the result, and the difficulties that they encounter, are somehow similar.

Once more, I invite you to actually read what I said.

No wonder you think people are bigoted. You think that any opinion that doesn't "listen and believe" on this issue is automatically bigoted. You turn any cold, fact-based statement into an emotional one, presumably because you are unable to look at this issue any other way.

The use of the term "SJW".

What does that have to do with transgender people?

I was referring to how he uses language, not to how he "treats" people - if by your use of that phrase you mean how he interacts with people he physically meets.

Both are the same. All you've demonstrated is that you think that you do not accept people talking about people in neutral, scientific ways.

As I've said before, I have a number of "defects" myself. Why should I find that marginalising or demeaning? Genetic defects doesn't mean that someone is less human. That is a silly position to take.

 

[arthwollipot]

As I've said before, I have a number of "defects" myself. Why should I find that marginalising or demeaning? Genetic defects doesn't mean that someone is less human. That is a silly position to take.

You are using emotionally charged words while denying that they are emotionally charged. Even Spock would recognise that calling someone "defective" would be a good way to piss them off.

 

[AdamSK]

I was referring to how he uses language, not to how he "treats" people - if by your use of that phrase you mean how he interacts with people he physically meets.

No, I understand what you mean. The problem is that all you have demonstrated is that he considers gender dysphoria to be a defect - not that his language marginalizes people based on the fact that they have defects.

You have properly pointed out that he equates gender dysphoria to blindness, but you haven't demonstrated that his speech is denigrating to people with either of those conditions. Believing a condition to constitute a "defect" from a biological point of view is not, itself, marginalizing or devaluing to people who have that condition.

 

[arthwollipot]

No, I understand what you mean. The problem is that all you have demonstrated is that he considers gender dysphoria to be a defect - not that his language marginalizes people based on the fact that they have defects.

You have properly pointed out that he equates gender dysphoria to blindness, but you haven't demonstrated that his speech is denigrating to people with either of those conditions. Believing a condition to constitute a "defect" from a biological point of view is not, itself, marginalizing or devaluing to people who have that condition.

How would you like to be referred to as "defective"?

 

[AdamSK]

How would you like to be referred to as "defective"?

You keep putting that word in quotes, but I don't see where he used it. He said gender dysphoria is, from an evolutionary standpoint, a genetic defect. He didn't actually call PEOPLE "defective." And he already pointed out the important distinction.

I have defects - and it doesn't bother me to be characterized as a person with a defect when discussing the defect. It's not marginalizing because it distinguishes between me and my traits.

 

[arthwollipot]

You keep putting that word in quotes, but I don't see where he used it. He said gender dysphoria is, from an evolutionary standpoint, a genetic defect. He didn't actually call PEOPLE "defective." And he already pointed out the important distinction.

I have defects - and it doesn't bother me to be characterized as a person with a defect when discussing the defect. It's not marginalizing because it distinguishes between me and my traits.

That is the worst form of grammatical nitpicking. If transgenderism is a defect, then the people with it are defective. You just can't strip away everything except the bare grammar from a word. It carries baggage. Like how referring to some people as "normal" implies that other people are "abnormal" even though you didn't use that word. That's part of the baggage that comes with using a word. English is like that.

 

[AdamSK]

That is the worst form of grammatical nitpicking. If transgenderism is a defect, then the people with it are defective.

If it's just grammatical nitpicking, then you should be able to make your point using the words he actually said and it shouldn't make a difference.

But I think you recognize you can't. Saying "How would you like to be told you have a defect?" doesn't have the emotion force of saying "How would you like to be called defective?" Right?

Which means you KNOW it's not just grammatical nitpicking. So stop claiming it is, and stop being dishonest in twisting his words.

 

[AdamSK]

Arth, do you recognize that you're arguing out of both sides of your mouth here?

On the one hand, you're saying that the emotional force of what someone says matters separately from the semantic meaning of their words - you're criticizing the guy not for the meaning behind what he's saying but also for the language he's using and the emotion behind it.

But now, separately, you're claiming that you are free to change his words to any other words which you claim have equivalent semantic meaning. You're saying that even though "X has a defect" and "X is defective" have different emotional impact, you can replace one with the other because one implies the other.

These two ideas are contradictory. If your argument is that we have to consider Arg's WORDS based on "how they sound" and not just their denotative meaning, then it is only reasonable to quote Arg's ACTUAL WORDS. You can't substitute based on semantic similarity and then evaluate based on emotional charge. You can't impugn Arg for the emotional charge of words and phrases he didn't say.

 

[arthwollipot]

What was that sound?

Oh, it was the sound of something going completely over your head. I'll try for a slightly lower altitude.

Arg was using words. Those words have meaning. They also carry baggage. Arg was using words as though they had only the meaning and not the baggage. The baggage these particular words carry is discriminatory and contributes to marginalisation. If Arg had chosen to use different words, then he might not be contributing to marginalisation, because those other words might not carry the same baggage as the words he did use.

See, I'm not criticising him for the words he didn't use, I'm criticising him for the words he did use.

I'm also criticising him for denying that the words he used even carry baggage at all, but that's a slightly different argument.

 

[AdamSK]

What was that sound?

The sound of you equivocating again?

Please, choose one of the two positions and stick to it. I know it completely annihilates your argument against Arg but it least it makes you less dishonest.

 

[Lithrael]

For the record Arth I agree with your argument, but these guys really do not give half a fig about that kind of language association and see it as a kind of six degrees of connotation BS thing. They feel that a statement like 'that guy has a defect' does not in any way imply 'that guy is defective' and that pointing out such an implication is literally just looking for something to be offended by. They really just feel it's total BS and no amount of arguing is gonna shift them.

She was gorgeous, she was charming
Yeah, she was perfect in every way

Except she was always using the word "infer"
When she obviously meant "imply"
And I know some guys would put up with that kind of thing
But frankly, I can't imagine why

 

[Belz...]

You are using emotionally charged words while denying that they are emotionally charged. Even Spock would recognise that calling someone "defective" would be a good way to piss them off.

I never did anything of the sort, and I just explained it to you. The only one emotionally charging anything is you.