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

[Belz...]

We are discussing social and current events, not science. Notice which forum header we're in?

OTHER. POSTERS. BROUGHT. IT. UP. HERE. SO. I. WAS. RESPONDING.

That's why I was discussing it. I'm well-aware that we're in the social issues section, but it doesn't mean we can't also discuss the scientific aspects. And when we do, we should be able to use scientific facts and terminology without fear of insulting people.

Thank you for your permission

It's hard to believe you misread that by accident. I was correcting your black-and white "Shouldn't vs must" nonsense.

I try to refrain from intentionally causing offense. In fact, that's been my point this whole time.

You can try to cause offense with me all you want. I'm a big boy, now. I can handle it.

 

[Belz...]

Looks like the typical misunderstanding of the term "bigot" is coming into play here.

You are entirely correct. I was using an incorrect definition. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Ah, the old 'if you aren't tolerant of my intolerance, you're the 'bigot' defense. I wonder if it will be effective this time?

And thank _you_ for completely missing the point of Adam's post.

 

[Belz...]

Do you think using words you know will cause offense to your target audience is being tolerant?

It may or may not, since it has absolutely nothing to do with tolerance.

Do you think that Arg has considered the feelings of others in any way,

'Arg' sounds so weird. Sounds like I stubbed a toe, or something. How about 'Memnon', for short?

Using insulting language is not tolerating the person you are trying to be offensive toward.

That does not follow.

 

[wareyin]

It may or may not, since it has absolutely nothing to do with tolerance.

It certainly does. Tolerance of a person's existence has everything to do with tolerance.

'Arg' sounds so weird. Sounds like I stubbed a toe, or something. How about 'Memnon', for short?

I've been sounding it in my head as something like Charlie Brown's groan of frustration: Arghhh

That does not follow.

Yes it does.

 

[Belz...]

It certainly does. Tolerance of a person's existence has everything to do with tolerance.

The second sentence is entirely true, but again, it has nothing to do with what you are discussing, which is me using language that may, at some point, offend someone, somewhere. Offending someone, intentionally or not, has nothing to do with intolerance, unless you subscribe to the social justice idea of 'validation'. Do you?

I've been sounding it in my head as something like Charlie Brown's groan of frustration: Arghhh

Yes, that was my take on it as well. I don't hate it, but it just sounds weird.

Yes it does.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong on this. Perhaps we should agree on a definition of "tolerate", here. Here's a good one, for me:

verb: allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

How does being offensive, deliberately or not, mean that you are not accepting another person's existence or views? For instance, I accept and allow creationists to both exist, preach and believe in their nonsense, but I call it nonsense and miss no opportunity to offend them. I tolerate them and their ideas, but I also actively seek to counter them with arguments. Even more so with trans people: I don't try to counter anything from them at all. I'm simply trying to describe their 'condition' in cold, factual terms.

 

[luchog]

Even more so with trans people: I don't try to counter anything from them at all. I'm simply trying to describe their 'condition' in cold, factual terms.

Except that's not what you're doing. You're using loaded language with profoundly negative connotations and history; refusing to acknowledge even the possibility of the language you're using being marginalizing and exclusionary in this context, even when others have demonstrated that it is; and flatly stated that you do not acknowledge any distinction between sex and gender, despite the fact that this is the core issue of transgenderism.

That's not "tolerance" by any accepted definition of the word.

 

[wareyin]

The second sentence is entirely true, but again, it has nothing to do with what you are discussing, which is me using language that may, at some point, offend someone, somewhere. Offending someone, intentionally or not, has nothing to do with intolerance, unless you subscribe to the social justice idea of 'validation'. Do you?

Sadly, you understood just this morning that "many" people saw your chosen phrase as offensive, yet not even 4 hours later, you are back to the hyperbolic straw man of 'may, at some point, offend someone, somewhere'.

Also, I have no idea what the social justice idea of 'validation' is, so I can't answer that.

Yes, that was my take on it as well. I don't hate it, but it just sounds weird.

Ok, I'll not use it.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong on this. Perhaps we should agree on a definition of "tolerate", here. Here's a good one, for me:

verb: allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

How does being offensive, deliberately or not, mean that you are not accepting another person's existence or views? For instance, I accept and allow creationists to both exist, preach and believe in their nonsense, but I call it nonsense and miss no opportunity to offend them. I tolerate them and their ideas, but I also actively seek to counter them with arguments. Even more so with trans people: I don't try to counter anything from them at all. I'm simply trying to describe their 'condition' in cold, factual terms.

How can you claim to actively seek creationists out, and miss no opportunity to offend them, yet also claim to allow their practice without interference? You do realize that seeking them out and offending them intentionally is interfering with them practicing their beliefs, right? (and do you realize that you claim to "miss no opportunity to offend" creationists, then go on to say "Even more so with trans people". I hate to misinterpret what you say, but that can easily be read as making more effort to offend trans people)

 

[AdamSK]

Except that's not what you're doing. You're using loaded language with profoundly negative connotations and history; refusing to acknowledge even the possibility of the language you're using being marginalizing and exclusionary in this context, even when others have demonstrated that it is; and flatly stated that you do not acknowledge any distinction between sex and gender, despite the fact that this is the core issue of transgenderism.

I missed where he refused to acknowledge a sex/gender distinction. That's pretty flatly demonstrable.

That's not "tolerance" by any accepted definition of the word.

Sure it is - a very common embodiment of tolerance is "I will listen to you and not interfere with you, but I may not like or respect you and I may strongly disagree with you." This is actually a pretty common attitude when strongly opposing religious or political groups manage to nonetheless converse and work together. It really is quite a large jump from "offensive" to "intolerant."

 

[Belz...]

Except that's not what you're doing. You're using loaded language with profoundly negative connotations and history

Well, that's the entire issue, isn't it? There is no unloaded language left. You have made sure of that. And now we can't even discuss the science behind transgenderism because of it.

refusing to acknowledge even the possibility of the language you're using being marginalizing and exclusionary in this context

Because it's not.

That's not "tolerance" by any accepted definition of the word.

I have given a definition of "tolerance" that is completely unrelated to what you are describing. How about you give me your "accepted" definition?

 

[Belz...]

Sadly, you understood just this morning that "many" people saw your chosen phrase as offensive

They claim it's offensive for other people. I don't put much weight on that.

How can you claim to actively seek creationists out, and miss no opportunity to offend them, yet also claim to allow their practice without interference?

Because debating someone's beliefs isn't intolerance.

Unless you think that anyone who debates anyone else's opinion is being intolerant.

You do realize that seeking them out and offending them intentionally is interfering with them practicing their beliefs, right?

No.

(and do you realize that you claim to "miss no opportunity to offend" creationists, then go on to say "Even more so with trans people". I hate to misinterpret what you say, but that can easily be read as making more effort to offend trans people)

Then I'll clarify: "Even more so" was about being tolerant, not being offensive.

 

[Belz...]

I missed where he refused to acknowledge a sex/gender distinction.

Oh no, luchog is right on that. I don't make the distinction, and have said so just a few days ago.

Now, there's a difference between sex and the social expectation of how a person of that sex should behave, but the latter isn't "gender".

 

[Beerina]

"Tone policing". A new term.


tone police : v to throw a thread off into the weeds

 

[AdamSK]

How can you claim to actively seek creationists out, and miss no opportunity to offend them, yet also claim to allow their practice without interference? You do realize that seeking them out and offending them intentionally is interfering with them practicing their beliefs, right?

I don't see how speaking against beliefs that you disagree with, even engaging and ridiculing beliefs you find ridiculous, interferes with anyone. Engaging with speech, even critical speech, even offensive speech, is well within the bounds of tolerating others. It still lets others speak their peace and practice their conscience. Do you believe that tolerance requires more than this?

 

[AdamSK]

Oh no, luchog is right on that. I don't make the distinction, and have said so just a few days ago.

Now, there's a difference between sex and the social expectation of how a person of that sex should behave, but the latter isn't "gender".

Yes, it is. That is exactly what the term means; the term was introduced in the middle of last century for exactly this reason - to differentiate social expectations of masculinity and femininity from biological sex.

Unless you have some strong factual basis for dismissing the existence of a distinction between biological sex and the social perception of masculinity and femininity, it does not seem reasonable to deny the use of the term "gender" for the latter.

 

[wareyin]

They claim it's offensive for other people. I don't put much weight on that.

Can you quote that claim? Or is this more hyperbole? Also, hasn't luchog claimed to be transgender?

Because debating someone's beliefs isn't intolerance.

Unless you think that anyone who debates anyone else's opinion is being intolerant.


No.

Again, context is key. If you debate someone's opinion or beliefs on a forum meant for debating (such as this), that's not intolerant. If you run into their church in the middle of worship to "debate" them, that's intolerant. You stated that you seek them out for debate, not just debated them. eta: misread that

Then I'll clarify: "Even more so" was about being tolerant, not being offensive.

 

[wareyin]

I don't see how speaking against beliefs that you disagree with, even engaging and ridiculing beliefs you find ridiculous, interferes with anyone. Engaging with speech, even critical speech, even offensive speech, is well within the bounds of tolerating others. It still lets others speak their peace and practice their conscience. Do you believe that tolerance requires more than this?

Yes, I do. Missing no opportunity to offend someone is not tolerating them.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, it is.

The term you're looking for is "culture".

 

[AdamSK]

The term you're looking for is "culture".

And there's a term for cultural roles and expectations that are separate for men and women - "gender." The term was introduced sixty years ago and consistently used in this way. Denying the clear and common usage is unreasonable.

 

[Belz...]

Can you quote that claim?

Well, let's take you, for example. Didn't you claim that is was offensive for other people? I mean, I could go back and quote you but I'm going to ask you first.

Also, hasn't luchog claimed to be transgender?

Perhaps, but I either am not aware of that or do not remember it.

Again, context is key. If you debate someone's opinion or beliefs on a forum meant for debating (such as this), that's not intolerant. If you run into their church in the middle of worship to "debate" them, that's intolerant.

Can you explain why?

 

[AdamSK]

Yes, I do. Missing no opportunity to offend someone is not tolerating them.

I think we have reached a deep-held disagreement about what tolerance entails.