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

[luchog]

It's obviously not what 'nature intended', for lack of a better phrase, as it's excessively rare and pretty useless for reproduction or societal ties.

That does not indicate it's a genetic error, and the science is still far from confirming one way or another. As for whether it's useless, the science is still out on that too, but is pointing in the direction of it serving a particular beneficial role. Others have already linked to the actual studies for this.

If that's true then we should agree that all words can be neutral, positive or negative depending on the use and interpretation, and stop trying to paint some words as inherently negative. How about we do that?

So, it's perfectly all right to go and use racist epithets, and if people get upset, well, they just need to man up? All those whiny queers need to get their panties unbunched and not care if people insist on calling them fags and dykes?

That is pretty much the definition of "privilege" right there. "This language doesn't bother me, so there's no reason it should bother anyone else, and they're just crybabies if it does."

And would you at least admit that you were wrong about my stance on "cis"? It would be the least you could do.

I can't be arsed to go back and confirm one way or the other, since you've waffled on a few issues. If I was wrong, fine, I apologize.

They are both acceptable. I told you, you are proceding from a false premise.

Then I'm really not clear what you are arguing if you don't mind being labeled as cisgendered and are perfectly happy with the change in the language.

I'm aware of it but the point stands: some black people use it without negative connotations.

No, you're still wrong. Some black people use it despite the negative connotations; as an attempt to purge said negative connotations and reclaim the word, in order to rob it of the power it currently possesses. That's a huge and very important difference, and one you seem to have difficulty understanding. And incidentally, some black people still use it because of its negative connotations, in order to demean and insult other black people who they consider of lower social standing, because of the power that the word possesses (effectively using a racist term as a tool of class warfare). It's still very much an insult in much of its use. But because they're also black, there's a feeling that it's acceptable for them to use it as an insult within the group, while it isn't acceptable for others outside the group to use it. Like I said, there's still a lot of controversy.

 

[wareyin]

What's this "fig leaf" nonsense you keep talking about?

Fig Leaf: "A fig leaf is widely used figuratively to convey the covering up of an act or an object that is embarrassing or distasteful with something of innocuous appearance, a metaphorical reference to the Biblical Book of Genesis, in which Adam and Eve used fig leaves to cover their nudity after eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

In this instance, you are attempting to cover up the distasteful negative connotation of referring to a person as having a "defect" with the fig-leaf of "oh, I know it can be offensive, but I'm only using it in the strictly scientific way."

Perhaps you'd like to tell that to Ziggurat. He started this by saying this:



Then Craig_B asked if they are defective, which is why I brought up the genetics issue. Of course, Craig himself was conflating cold fact with value judgment. But it's no one's fault but your own if you can't distinguish between the two.

Ziggurat and Craig_B aren't here in Social Issues & Current Events discussing how it's other people's fault that they interpret a word in a social context rather than a scientific one.

Stop taking the piss.

Stop pretending that it's a stretch that telling someone they have a defect can be an offensive term.

 

[Belz...]

That does not indicate it's a genetic error, and the science is still far from confirming one way or another.

No, but it's a fair bet. People being born without arms are, I'm sure you'd agree, a genetic defect as well. However you and I would probably agree that this should have no bearing on their value as human beigns.

So, it's perfectly all right to go and use racist epithets, and if people get upset, well, they just need to man up?

Could you please answer specifically to what I said rather than reword it to say something that I didn't? That would be peachy.

That is pretty much the definition of "privilege" right there.

Actually, no, it's not the definition of "privilege" at all.

Then I'm really not clear what you are arguing if you don't mind being labeled as cisgendered and are perfectly happy with the change in the language.

At the moment, I'm arguing that calling transgenderism a genetic defect (even if it turns out to be wrong) is not a value judgment of transgender people. I'm also arguing that emotionally charging this issue doesn't help.

Some black people use it despite the negative connotations; as an attempt to purge said negative connotations and reclaim the word, in order to rob it of the power it currently possesses. That's a huge and very important difference, and one you seem to have difficulty understanding.

No, I understand it quite clearly, and it actually serves my point: not only can words be neutral, negative or positive depending on the circumstance, but that can change over time. These black people want to show that when you overuse a word, it loses its power and people stop caring. That agrees with what I've been saying: no word is inherently negative or positive. It's about how you interpret it; and if we're talking about science, the least we could do is not assume that the scientific terms are negative.

Do you know Milo Yiannopoulos? I'm not a huge fan of him, since he's quite to the right of me, but as a homosexual man he argues that the word "faggot" should be used and used by homosexuals precisely for this: to make it lose its power and its negative connotation.

 

[Belz...]

Fig Leaf

I see.

In this instance, you are attempting to cover up the distasteful negative connotation of referring to a person as having a "defect" with the fig-leaf of "oh, I know it can be offensive, but I'm only using it in the strictly scientific way."

That's because you ASSUME that it was in fact meant offensively. You are defaulting on the negative.

Ziggurat and Craig_B aren't here

Their posts are what started this. I linked to Zig's post! You asked me to follow as if I had lost the train of the conversation when in fact I was responding to a question in this very thread.

Stop pretending that it's a stretch that telling someone they have a defect can be an offensive term.

I didn't say it was a stretch or that it couldn't. Do you ever not misrepresent the people you are discussing with?

 

[AdamSK]

He's appealing to my empathy, Adam, rather than my intellect (for what little I may have).

No, I don't agree. He is appealing to your intellect on the basis of empathy-based morality. That is fundamentally different.

He is not attempting to get you to feel bad and then do what he wants motivated by your feelings. He is explaining why it is the ethically correct approach to have empathy for these people and to act on that empathy by behaving a certain way.

An analogy - seduction. An appeal to emotion would be to get you horny in order to cause you to respond a certain way due to your horniness. If, instead, I argue that a) sexual attraction is an appropriate response to the situation and b) a certain behavior is an appropriate and ethical response to being horny, then I am NOT making an appeal to emotion. I am making a rational argument. My argument simply uses emotion as a factual component.

 

[luchog]

At the moment, I'm arguing that calling transgenderism a genetic defect (even if it turns out to be wrong) is not a value judgment of transgender people. I'm also arguing that emotionally charging this issue doesn't help.

Except that's what you were arguing with wayerin about, not me. Do I now get to accuse you of being blinded by emotion and mixing up your opponents?

Hint, this was about "normal".

No, I understand it quite clearly, and it actually serves my point: not only can words be neutral, negative or positive depending on the circumstance, but that can change over time.

You're that close to the truth, and still manage to veer off at the last second.

And you missed the clarification I added, i'll quote it below:

No, you're still wrong. Some black people use it despite the negative connotations; as an attempt to purge said negative connotations and reclaim the word, in order to rob it of the power it currently possesses. That's a huge and very important difference, and one you seem to have difficulty understanding. And incidentally, some black people still use it because of its negative connotations, in order to demean and insult other black people who they consider of lower social standing, because of the power that the word possesses (effectively using a racist term as a tool of class warfare). It's still very much an insult in much of its use. But because they're also black, there's a feeling that it's acceptable for them to use it as an insult within the group, while it isn't acceptable for others outside the group to use it. Like I said, there's still a lot of controversy.

These black people want to show that when you overuse a word, it loses its power and people stop caring. That agrees with what I've been saying: no word is inherently negative or positive.

No, it shows that at this point in time, and in this context that word has a very negative meaning, and a power to convey that negative meaning; so some people are working to change that meaning to remove the power it already has, and prevent it from being an effective weapon of the bigots, which it currently is[/i]. The "redeeming" of a word with a strong negative meaning is something that takes a considerable amount of time and effort, and doesn't always work.

And it has to be done from within the group. If you're outside the group, you don't get to dictate to the group what and how to think about how they're treated and spoken to. That's beyond privilege, that's a form of bigotry all its own.

When you tell people in a marginalized group that they're being "oversensitive" about their view of derogatory language aimed at them, and that they need to get over it and "not give words so much power"; you're saying that your feelings and opinions as someone who is not the target of that marginalizing language and treatment is more valid than the feelings and opinions of people who are the target. You're not bothered, well bully for you, I guess the rest of the world just needs to live up to your shining example then?

What really irritates me reading a lot of this stuff from you and cullenz and others is that I hear too many of my own comments from when I was much younger coming back at me. I used to think and talk a whole lot like this. I used to complain about "political correctness" and people "giving language too much power". Fortunately, I grew up and learned better, and developed a bit of empathy in the process. Yes, there are instances where complaints about language being taken to unreasonable extremes; but those are very few and far between, and nothing like what is going on here.

 

[wareyin]

At the moment, I'm arguing that calling transgenderism a genetic defect (even if it turns out to be wrong) is not a value judgment of transgender people. I'm also arguing that emotionally charging this issue doesn't help.

The problem with your argument is that this issue is already emotionally charged. Choosing to use emotionally charged language that serves to fan the flames is harming your cause, even if that language could be used clinically in another setting.

 

[AdamSK]

"oversensitive"

Yet again, people are putting words in quotes that Arg never used.

Arg is claiming that his statements are not hateful and are not marginalizing or dehumanizing transgendered people. You appear to be arguing that they are.

Rather than putting words in his mouth, could you please be a little more careful about addressing what he has actually said when making this argument?

 

[wareyin]

I see.



That's because you ASSUME that it was in fact meant offensively. You are defaulting on the negative.

No, I did not say you meant it offensively. Please stop misrepresenting me.

Their posts are what started this. I linked to Zig's post! You asked me to follow as if I had lost the train of the conversation when in fact I was responding to a question in this very thread.

I am responding to the torch-bearer of the "I don't care if this term is offensive, I will use it anyway" stance. Right now, that is you, not Zig or Craig_B. Please follow along.

I didn't say it was a stretch or that it couldn't. Do you ever not misrepresent the people you are discussing with?

It's not a stretch? So it's a reasonable reaction? So using language that is reasonably going to be interpreted as offensive is how you keep from emotionally charging the issue?

 

[wareyin]

Yet again, people are putting words in quotes that Arg never used.

Arg is claiming that his statements are not hateful and are not marginalizing or dehumanizing transgendered people. You appear to be arguing that they are.

Rather than putting words in his mouth, could you please be a little more careful about addressing what he has actually said when making this argument?

Arg has a history of using sexist terms, yet claiming that when he says them, they aren't meant to be sexist. This is a similar argument: he knows the term can be offensive, in fact often is meant to be offensive in this situation, yet he didn't mean it that way.

You'll understand if I don't find that argument convincing, I hope?

 

[AdamSK]

Arg has a history of using sexist terms, yet claiming that when he says them, they aren't meant to be sexist. This is a similar argument: he knows the term can be offensive, in fact often is meant to be offensive in this situation, yet he didn't mean it that way.

You'll understand if I don't find that argument convincing, I hope?

How does that have anything whatsoever to do with what I said? Unless after referring to Clinton as a "screeching harpy" someone kept putting "ugly bitch" or something in quotes as though he had said that.

Or had you just stuck that old link down in your pocket and needed any flimsy excuse to pull it out against Arg?

 

[wareyin]

How does that have anything whatsoever to do with what I said? Unless after referring to Clinton as a "screeching harpy" someone kept putting "ugly bitch" or something in quotes as though he had said that.

Or had you just stuck that old link down in your pocket and needed any flimsy excuse to pull it out against Arg?

I was responding to this bit:

Arg is claiming that his statements are not hateful and are not marginalizing or dehumanizing transgendered people. You appear to be arguing that they are.

 

[Earthborn]

No, but it's a fair bet.

It would be if you could show that in identical twins, if one of the siblings identifies as the opposite sex, the other is also more likely to. If there is a strong genetic influence to transgenderism, you would expect the most likely outcome to be that both are transgender.

There have been cases of identical twins where only one transitions, but as far as I know no cases where both siblings wanted to change sex. Transgenders and identical twins are both pretty rare, so it is difficult to rule out whether there is any genetic influence, but if that influence was strong enough to be a primary cause we would have known about it now.

People being born without arms are, I'm sure you'd agree, a genetic defect as well.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

 

[luchog]

There have been cases of identical twins where only one transitions, but as far as I know no cases where both siblings wanted to change sex. Transgenders and identical twins are both pretty rare, so it is difficult to rule out whether there is any genetic influence, but if that influence was strong enough to be a primary cause we would have known about it now.

Not necessarily, as you noted, the sample size is just too small right now, and there is a lot of studying left to do. Like homosexuality, the chances are that it's going to be demonstrated to be a genetic component with an environmental/hormonal trigger. Human biology is generally too complex to have single end-all be-all causes for variations.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

It's rarely genetic. Most often, it's environmental. The result of exposure to a mutagenic substance (like thalidomide) or a pathogen (like Zika) that affects fetal development.

 

[Belz...]

Except that's what you were arguing with wayerin about, not me.

You and I were talking about something from another thread. I really thought you were asking me about this one.

You're that close to the truth

Translation: You think I'm close to agreeing with you. Your opinion does not constitute "the truth".

No, it shows that at this point in time, and in this context that word has a very negative meaning

In a lot of people's minds, yes. The word still does not inherently have that meaning.

And it has to be done from within the group. If you're outside the group, you don't get to dictate to the group what and how to think about how they're treated and spoken to. That's beyond privilege, that's a form of bigotry all its own.

And there you go again, calling me a privileged bigot. I'm sure you think it's going to somehow convince me.

When you tell people in a marginalized group that they're being "oversensitive" about their view of derogatory language aimed at them, and that they need to get over it and "not give words so much power"; you're saying that your feelings and opinions as someone who is not the target of that marginalizing language and treatment is more valid than the feelings and opinions of people who are the target.

First of all, I'm not telling transgender people anything. I am refering to the people around them -- the out group, which you so clearly said before could not determine what the in group should feel, but who are quite happy to say that they should be offended.

Second, "not giving words so much power" is a statement of fact. You find it offensive, but that doesn't make it so.

Third, I am not saying that "my feelings and opinions" are more valid than theirs. You are apparently incapable of grasping this because in your mind, disagreeing with someone IS bigotry. Furthermore, I'm talking about facts vs feelings, not feelings vs feelings.

Fourth, I reject your suggestion that people who are not the victim of marginalisation cannot understand of advise people who are. We are rational beigns and we can understand each other.

Fifth, and finally, I _have_ been marginalised. How does that square with your theory?

I guess the rest of the world just needs to live up to your shining example then?

Yes, that would certainly be a net positive.

What really irritates me reading a lot of this stuff from you and cullenz and others is that I hear too many of my own comments from when I was much younger coming back at me.

New doesn't mean better.

 

[Belz...]

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

I meant if genes are the cause, of course. So far no one has answered my question directly.

The problem with your argument is that this issue is already emotionally charged. Choosing to use emotionally charged language that serves to fan the flames is harming your cause, even if that language could be used clinically in another setting.

The major issue I have with this is that if we're to follow that logic, then any science on any sensitive topic shouldn't be discussed outside of the science itself. But the whole point of science is to benefit individuals and societies. How are we supposed to make that work if we can't discuss it outside of the lab? And what if there are scientists working on that right now who are trans? Can their cis collegues not discuss their findings with them?

No, I did not say you meant it offensively. Please stop misrepresenting me.

You said, and I quote:

You wish to utilize language that is intended to convey negative feelings

How can this possibly not mean that I meant it offensively?

I am responding to the torch-bearer of the "I don't care if this term is offensive, I will use it anyway" stance. Right now, that is you, not Zig or Craig_B.

Once again, I was responding to your implication that I was not following the thread of the conversation, by pointing out that I in fact was. That you forgot about Zig's post is not my concern.

Stop pretending that it's a stretch that telling someone they have a defect can be an offensive term.

I didn't say it was a stretch or that it couldn't.

It's not a stretch? So it's a reasonable reaction? So using language that is reasonably going to be interpreted as offensive is how you keep from emotionally charging the issue?

How about you stop changing what I say as you go along and address my actual posts and words?

 

[wareyin]

The major issue I have with this is that if we're to follow that logic, then any science on any sensitive topic shouldn't be discussed outside of the science itself. But the whole point of science is to benefit individuals and societies. How are we supposed to make that work if we can't discuss it outside of the lab? And what if there are scientists working on that right now who are trans? Can their cis collegues not discuss their findings with them?

You do realize that there are ways to discuss being transgender that don't require language along the lines of 'you are defective, you genetic defect', right? You keep going on about Down Syndrome, but I notice you are being careful to use the term 'Down Syndrome', rather than anything as emotionally charged as "defect", so I can't help but think you are capable of discussing things without using emotionally charged language. However, when one is capable of doing better, but chooses not to, how are we to interpret that refusal?

You said, and I quote:



How can this possibly not mean that I meant it offensively?

This is where that fig leaf is being used. You know it is used offensively. You know there are less offensive ways to make your point. You are choosing to use the offensive language despite that. Your fig leaf is that even if you intended to use that language that you know is offensive, you didn't intend to cause the offense that that word conveys. It is a subtle difference, but I have hope you can understand. Again, 'you want to use language that you know is used to cause offense' is different from 'you want to cause offense' when the fig leaf defense of 'When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ is used to deny common usage of language.

Once again, I was responding to your implication that I was not following the thread of the conversation, by pointing out that I in fact was. That you forgot about Zig's post is not my concern.

Once again, you are confused. I am discussing this with you, not Zig. I have not responded to Zig, so he is not part of my conversation. Please follow our conversation.

How about you stop changing what I say as you go along and address my actual posts and words?

I did not change what you said. I also did address what you wrote. If you don't understand your own words, or the logical implication of them, that's not really my problem.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

For the record, this is a MUCH worse example of what I was talking about than anything Arg said.

Well, I don't know what you were talking about, so, there's that...

 

[quadraginta]

It would be if you could show that in identical twins, if one of the siblings identifies as the opposite sex, the other is also more likely to. If there is a strong genetic influence to transgenderism, you would expect the most likely outcome to be that both are transgender.

There have been cases of identical twins where only one transitions, but as far as I know no cases where both siblings wanted to change sex. Transgenders and identical twins are both pretty rare, so it is difficult to rule out whether there is any genetic influence, but if that influence was strong enough to be a primary cause we would have known about it now.

<snip>

And to some degree we do.

Between the rarity of twins and the even greater rarity of TGs. there isn't a wealth of data to work with. But some work has been done.

Here is a study which is representative of what I have seen on the subject.
This sums up the portion of the study salient to the question;

Combining data from our independent findings with those from past research, 13 of 39 male MZ twin pairs (33.3%) were found to be concordant for transsexual identity and eight of 25 (22.8%) female MZ twins were found concordant. In comparison, concordance between either male or female DZ twins was low or zero (1/38 = 2.6%; Table 5).

Statistical analysis showed that there exists a significant association between concordance and zygosity among males (p = 0.022) and for both sexes (p = 0.001) when combining both bibliographic and survey data. More specifically, within this combined data pool there is a 33.33% concordance among monozygotic male twins compared with a 4.76% concordance among dizygotic male twins. In addition, there is a 28.38% concordance among monozygotic male and female twins compared to a 0.34% concordance among dizygotic male and female twins.

​

What they are saying here is that among the identical (monozygotic) and fraternal (dizygotic) twins they were able to include in their study there was a significant chance that both identical twins would be transgender, while this was not true for fraternal twins.

So there seems to be more of a genetic component than you imagined, based on exactly the logic you were using.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

However, you are wrong that no manner of arguing will change my mind. But the argument will have to be based on something that I can agree with

No doubt. We wouldn't expect to see you changing your mind about something you didn't agree with.

I just never thought I'd see you concede that.

(i.e. a rational argument)

Using your evaluation of what is "rational". Which brings it full circle.

rather than simply saying that some people may be offended and leave it at that, especially with the thinly-veiled accusation that I am in fact a bigot, and the no-veiled-at-all accusation that I'm part of the problem.

I thought you didn't let things like that bother you.

You seem bothered.