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

[Belz...]

The tone policing is strong in this thread.

What do you mean?

 

[wareyin]

Now you're descending into plain lying. I am not doing this. If anyone is ignoring something, it is you ignoring my question.

The highlighted part should have given you a hint about what I saw saying: that it isn't ALL that matters.

As no one claimed that it is all that matters other than you (sarcastically, I assume), you are either claiming that this is what *I* believe, or what *you* believe. Regardless, you brought the claim into this discussion.

Why do you keep dodging this? Is Down Syndrome a genetic defect or not?

Flesh out your hypothetical a bit more, please. Am I a geneticist discussing it with colleagues, or possibly an academic writing a paper on Down Syndrome? Or am I hanging out at the pub, talking to people with Down Syndrome, their friends, and their family? These sorts of distinctions usually matter.

I won't ignore it. I will address it: it doesn't say what you claimed that it said. I said:



I was saying that I was NOT asking you if you would avoid it. How do you interpret it to mean that I would avoid it myself? Do you not see that those are two completely different things?

Speaking of terrible reading comprehension: This statement does not say that you would avoid it, it says that you recognize that it can be offensive. I'll hilite the relevant phrase for you. Please note that nowhere in this statement do I say that you would avoid it:

You recognize that calling a person with Down Syndrome a "defect" when talking to their parents might be offensive, yet have no problem calling a person who is transgender a "defect" when talking to their family, friends, and even to their face. Are you sure you're applying the same concept to both?

 

[wareyin]

Except you didn't. None of your quotes are Arg saying that emotional baggage doesn't matter at all, or otherwise implying a false dichotomy.

All or nothing is a false dichotomy. I claimed that it did matter, Arg then introduced the idea that it was "all that mattered", with the implication that this was my stance. As I have repeatedly stated, other things do matter when using terminology (i.e. whether you are in an academic or social setting), therefore there is no way to interpret my statement as "all that matters".

You know, I really shouldn't have to explain this.

 

[Belz...]

As no one claimed that it is all that matters other than you (sarcastically, I assume), you are either claiming that this is what *I* believe, or what *you* believe.

I'm saying that my perception is that it's the most important thing, for some people here ("All that matters" might have been a bit of a hyperbole, but it's nice to know that you demand ultra-precise language while twisting language around, yourself).

Flesh out your hypothetical a bit more, please. Am I a geneticist discussing it with colleagues, or possibly an academic writing a paper on Down Syndrome? Or am I hanging out at the pub, talking to people with Down Syndrome, their friends, and their family? These sorts of distinctions usually matter.

I'm asking you for a statement of fact. That is not context-dependant.

This statement does not say that you would avoid it, it says that you recognize that it can be offensive.

Yes, my mistake. Since you cannot apparently bother to respond to the actual point, I'll rephrase:

I was saying that I was NOT asking you if you would avoid it. How do you interpret it to mean that I recognize that it can be offensive? Do you not see that those are two completely different things?

 

[wareyin]

I'm saying that my perception is that it's the most important thing, for some people here ("All that matters" might have been a bit of a hyperbole, but it's nice to know that you demand ultra-precise language while twisting language around, yourself).

Your perception is at odds with the written statements by those people. It may be another reading-comprehension issue.

I'm asking you for a statement of fact. That is not context-dependant.

And there's the rub. The language used is context-dependant. You may not want it to be, but it is.

Yes, my mistake. Since you cannot apparently bother to respond to the actual point, I'll rephrase:

I was saying that I was NOT asking you if you would avoid it. How do you interpret it to mean that I recognize that it can be offensive? Do you not see that those are two completely different things?

I see I may have misinterpreted you. Are you saying you can't recognize that it can be offensive? Even after all these people have told you that these sorts of things can be? I suppose that if one totally lacks the ability to understand or recognize that they are causing offense, this may be a confusing issue.

 

[Belz...]

The language used is context-dependant. You may not want it to be, but it is.

Then would you agree that the speed of light in vaccuum is context-dependant? I'd think you would disagree, as I do, so you'll have to explain to me how whether something is genetic defect or not is context dependant. Please note that I'm not asking you whether it's a good idea to call it that in certain contexts. I'm asking you whether or not it IS a defect.

Are you saying you can't recognize that it can be offensive?

Nope. My statement had nothing to do with that. It had everything to do with the question I keep asking you.

 

[wareyin]

Then would you agree that the speed of light in vaccuum is context-dependant? I'd think you would disagree, as I do, so you'll have to explain to me how whether something is genetic defect or not is context dependant. Please note that I'm not asking you whether it's a good idea to call it that in certain contexts. I'm asking you whether or not it IS a defect.



Nope. My statement had nothing to do with that. It had everything to do with the question I keep asking you.

Based on the comparison to the (inoffensive to everyone) speed of light, I'm thinking perhaps there is an inability to recognize that one is causing offense.

 

[Belz...]

Based on the comparison to the (inoffensive to everyone) speed of light, I'm thinking perhaps there is an inability to recognize that one is causing offense.

I'm not surprised that you stopped reading at the speed of light thing. Given your dogged refusal to answer my question, which I can only conclude is due to the unfortunate implications of the answer you would have to give in order to be honest about the topic, it's entirely understandable that you took that way out.

However the request stands:

Explain to me how whether something is genetic defect or not is context dependant. Please note that I'm not asking you whether it's a good idea to call it that in certain contexts. I'm asking you whether or not it IS a defect.

 

[wareyin]

I'm not surprised that you stopped reading at the speed of light thing. Given your dogged refusal to answer my question, which I can only conclude is due to the unfortunate implications of the answer you would have to give in order to be honest about the topic, it's entirely understandable that you took that way out.

However the request stands:

Explain to me how whether something is genetic defect or not is context dependant. Please note that I'm not asking you whether it's a good idea to call it that in certain contexts. I'm asking you whether or not it IS a defect.

I've been attempting to explain this to you the whole time, but I'm beginning to understand that it's like trying to explain red to a colorblind person (note, I am colorblind).

Once more, though, in the hopes that you may understand: There are different, but equally accurate ways to describe things, using different terminology (anomaly vs defect, for instance). Some terminology is offensive in some situations. As it is equally accurate to use a different term, the choice to use an offensive term in certain contexts gives the people you are communicating with the impression that you intend to give offense.

 

[Belz...]

There are different, but equally accurate ways to describe things, using different terminology (anomaly vs defect, for instance). Some terminology is offensive in some situations. As it is equally accurate to use a different term, the choice to use an offensive term in certain contexts gives the people you are communicating with the impression that you intend to give offense.

That's very nice, and accurate, but it doesn't answer my question for the following reason: you are responding to a question I didn't ask, after I twice clarified that this wasn't the question I was asking. Here's the clarification in question:

Explain to me how whether something is genetic defect or not is context dependant. Please note that I'm not asking you whether it's a good idea to call it that in certain contexts. I'm asking you whether or not it IS a defect.

It's the bolded part, not the highlighted part, that I want you to answer.

 

[wareyin]

That's very nice, and accurate, but it doesn't answer my question for the following reason: you are responding to a question I didn't ask, after I twice clarified that this wasn't the question I was asking. Here's the clarification in question:

Explain to me how whether something is genetic defect or not is context dependant. Please note that I'm not asking you whether it's a good idea to call it that in certain contexts. I'm asking you whether or not it IS a defect.

It's the bolded part, not the highlighted part, that I want you to answer.

Sigh. Yeah, I don't think I'm going to be able to give you an explanation you will understand. I mean, I could turn it around and use extra offensive terms in another analogy, but if you can't see red, you can't really grok the explanation.

I suppose I'll try, though. The term "retard" or "retarded" was used in scientific literature to describe people with Down Syndrome. This term, however, is offensive. It may be scientifically accurate to state that a person with Down Syndrome is "retarded", or has retarded development, but using that terminology is going to be offensive. Similarly, using the term "defect" to refer to a transgender person may be scientifically accurate in a purely clinical sense, but outside of that, it's going to be offensive. Using language you know to be offensive gives the impression you intend to cause offense.

And if you still can't see this, I really don't have any other way to help you.

 

[Belz...]

The term "retard" or "retarded" was used in scientific literature to describe people with Down Syndrome. This term, however, is offensive. It may be scientifically accurate to state that a person with Down Syndrome is "retarded", or has retarded development, but using that terminology is going to be offensive.

You're entirely right that it is seen as offensive, but as you note, it's scientifically accurate, which was the question I asked, and the (Zig's) comment I was responding to originally.

Similarly, using the term "defect" to refer to a transgender person may be scientifically accurate in a purely clinical sense

And that is EXACTLY what I meant. Your answer is, therefore, "yes". It IS accurate, but it may not be nice to say it. IS that right?

 

[Lithrael]

No, excuse me. I guess in the heat of all this I may have misinterpreted your meaning. Sorry about that. Your summary above is somewhat accurate.

However, you are wrong that no manner of arguing will change my mind.

Thank you. And yes, that was hyperbole, but what I meant was that you aren't going to be just talked into that point of view, and I don't have any longitudinal peer reviewed studies showing that people don't actually tend to become oversensitive jellies because of an environment that goes out of its way to be sensitive to them.

I feel like the impression of 'sensitivity creep' is more like a 'give them an inch and they'll want a mile' kind of thing, in the same kind of way that a lesbian looking for media representation first tells you they want some shows where the lesbian love interests don't get killed, and then if they get shows where the lesbian love interests don't get killed, they'll move on to complaining about how the lesbians are written.

That is to say, people aren't getting more sensitive so much as they are now confident enough to complain about more of the things that were bothering them the whole time.

 

[wareyin]

You're entirely right that it is seen as offensive, but as you note, it's scientifically accurate, which was the question I asked, and the (Zig's) comment I was responding to originally.



And that is EXACTLY what I meant. Your answer is, therefore, "yes". It IS accurate, but it may not be nice to say it. IS that right?

I don't want to misread you here. Are you now admitting that you can recognize that things are offensive? Because this really minimizes potential excuses for choosing to use the language that you admit is seen as offensive.

 

[Belz...]

Are you now admitting that you can recognize that things are offensive?

This is such a weird conversation. Why are you asking this question as if I at some point indicated that I couldn't?

Of course I can. This doesn't contradict anything I've said, ever.

 

[arthwollipot]

The tone policing is strong in this thread.

"Tone policing" is a retort used by people who merely want license to be ********.

 

[wareyin]

"Tone policing" is a retort used by people who merely want license to be ********.

Exactly.

 

[Belz...]

"Tone policing" is a retort used by people who merely want license to be ********.

Exactly.

When you guys are done virtue signaling, let us know.

 

[AdamSK]

"Tone policing" is a retort used by people who merely want license to be ********.

Not always, and not in this case.

Tone policing is a tactic used by individuals to vilify and dismiss others without having to address the substance of their arguments. Hence why we now have several pages discussing whether Arg's use of terminology should be condemned as offensive rather than addressing the substance of Arg's posts.

If anything, I would say this is as close to a textbook example of where tone policing usurps legitimate discussion as I have seen recently.

 

[wareyin]

Not always, and not in this case.

Tone policing is a tactic used by individuals to vilify and dismiss others without having to address the substance of their arguments. Hence why we now have several pages discussing whether Arg's use of terminology should be condemned as offensive rather than addressing the substance of Arg's posts.

If anything, I would say this is as close to a textbook example of where tone policing usurps legitimate discussion as I have seen recently.

This is an interesting way of looking at the issue. Of course, some people can recognize that an intent to offend actually can be the subject of some people's posts. Of course, any calling out of that offense garners cries of Tone Police, or virtue-signalling, as though we should all just roll over and let those intent on causing offense continue without any pushback.