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

[wareyin]

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.

I did not make that claim. That's why I asked for a quote.

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



Can you explain why?

Probably not to your understanding.

 

[Pup]

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?

That seems pretty straightforward. It hinges on the other party's consent. If they come to a debating forum, one can expect them to want to debate. If they're in a church service, one can expect them to want to enjoy their experience uninterrupted by outsiders.

It's intolerant to actively prevent others from going about their lives. That's not necessarily a bad thing, depending on whom one has chosen to be intolerant toward. Interrupting Klan meetings would generally be considered a positive. Westboro Baptist trying to interrupt funerals, not so much.

 

[luchog]

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.

Er, no, gender identity is rather more than adherence to social expectations. It's about the difference between one's internal body image, and one's existing physical body. That is what Argumemnon refused to make a distinction for. From his previous posts, he doesn't seem to believe that it's possible for one's internal body image to be different from one's physical sex, and claims otherwise are either falsehoods or delusional.

 

[Belz...]

That seems pretty straightforward. It hinges on the other party's consent.

If someone broadcasts their opinions, they have to expect that those opinions are going to be challenged. I'm not going to enter a church to debate with them, as that is private property, but if someone posts a stupid opinion on a blog, I might just comment, and that's not intolerance.

It's intolerant to actively prevent others from going about their lives.

How is stating your opinion preventing anyone from doing that?

 

[Belz...]

From his previous posts, he doesn't seem to believe that it's possible for one's internal body image to be different from one's physical sex, and claims otherwise are either falsehoods or delusional.

That's not true at all. I'm very well aware that those can be different. Otherwise I'd be denying that trans people exist, which you know isn't the case.

 

[Belz...]

I did not make that claim.

Well, let's take you at your word, then. Are you therefore saying that it's not offensive, or that you have no opinion on the matter?

Furthermore, this part, here:

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

...seems to indicate that it's offensive _to someone_. Otherwise why say that it _can_ be offensive.

Probably not to your understanding.

I wonder if that's a claim that I'm not smart enough or not honest enough to understand, or that you can't make the case for your claim.

 

[luchog]

That's not true at all. I'm very well aware that those can be different. Otherwise I'd be denying that trans people exist, which you know isn't the case.

Then I think you are decidedly confused. You deny a distinction between gender and sex, then deny that you are denying it. I am beginning to think that either you're not a native English speaker, or you're being deliberately idiosyncratic and obtuse in your use of language.

 

[wareyin]

Then I think you are decidedly confused. You deny a distinction between gender and sex, then deny that you are denying it. I am beginning to think that either you're not a native English speaker, or you're being deliberately idiosyncratic and obtuse in your use of language.

I think it is the latter.

 

[wareyin]

Well, let's take you at your word, then. Are you therefore saying that it's not offensive, or that you have no opinion on the matter?

I am saying that you have claimed that others are making a claim. So far you have not been able to support that.

Furthermore, this part, here:



...seems to indicate that it's offensive _to someone_. Otherwise why say that it _can_ be offensive.



I wonder if that's a claim that I'm not smart enough or not honest enough to understand, or that you can't make the case for your claim.

The most charitable way I can phrase it is in a way I have already done in this thread. You could not explain red to a colorblind person like me, similarly I cannot explain how disrupting someone's worship to offend them is the opposite of 'allowing the practice of worship without interference'* to you.


*which was the definition you provided of tolerant.

 

[Belz...]

Then I think you are decidedly confused. You deny a distinction between gender and sex, then deny that you are denying it.

No. You said this:

From his previous posts, he doesn't seem to believe that it's possible for one's internal body image to be different from one's physical sex, and claims otherwise are either falsehoods or delusional.

You didn't say:

From his previous posts, he doesn't seem to believe that it's possible for one's gender to be different from one's sex, and claims otherwise are either falsehoods or delusional.

I answered what you wrote, and now you act as if I answered what you didn't.

I am beginning to think that either you're not a native English speaker, or you're being deliberately idiosyncratic and obtuse in your use of language.

You know, for someone who is arguing for people to be mindful of not offending people, you're not bad at not minding it, yourself.

I think it is the latter.

See above.

I am saying that you have claimed that others are making a claim. So far you have not been able to support that.

It's not that I have "not been able", but I have so far not done so because I want you to tell me exactly what you are claiming, since you disagree with my conclusion.

 

[Pup]

If someone broadcasts their opinions, they have to expect that those opinions are going to be challenged. I'm not going to enter a church to debate with them, as that is private property, but if someone posts a stupid opinion on a blog, I might just comment, and that's not intolerance.



How is stating your opinion preventing anyone from doing that?

Bloggers that allow comments are expecting debate. It seems you intrinsically understand the difference if you wouldn't interrupt a church service. But it seems odd, then, that you can't figure out why, for example, following someone around, debating them on public property when they don't want debated, would be actively preventing them from going about their lives?

 

[wareyin]

See above.

How is claiming that I think you are "being deliberately idiosyncratic and obtuse in your use of language" an attempt to cause offense?

It's not that I have "not been able", but I have so far not done so because I want you to tell me exactly what you are claiming, since you disagree with my conclusion.

You made the claim, you support it. Or not, doesn't matter. It was your claim about what others are claiming, though, not a conclusion, that I challenged.

 

[AdamSK]

From his previous posts, he doesn't seem to believe that it's possible for one's internal body image to be different from one's physical sex, and claims otherwise are either falsehoods or delusional.

If one's internal body image doesn't match one's physical body image, "delusion" would seem to be an appropriate term. Do you not agree?

In any event, it does seem like if one is talking about having a body with different genitals and different secondary sexual characteristics, "sex" would be the more appropriate term - but I see that common usage still calls this "gender identity" rather than "sex identity." Since "gender" really was added to the lexicon in order to distinguish cultural roles from biological sex, this usage is a bit confounding.

 

[AdamSK]

Bloggers that allow comments are expecting debate. It seems you intrinsically understand the difference if you wouldn't interrupt a church service. But it seems odd, then, that you can't figure out why, for example, following someone around, debating them on public property when they don't want debated, would be actively preventing them from going about their lives?

I presume Argumemnon is not taking this to the point where it would be actual harassment. And, again, short of that point, how is the active disagreement inconsistent with tolerance? Are protesters, by their nature, intolerant of the ideology they protest against?

 

[luchog]

No. You said this:
You didn't say:
I answered what you wrote, and now you act as if I answered what you didn't.

WTF? They're the same thing. Have you been arguing all this time without having the slightest clue what gender identity is?

Holy crap, that's telling.

Seriously, you've been through three different threads on the same exact subject, and you still have no clue what "gender identity" means? I find that very difficult to believe, but I'll have to assume that, since the alternative is that this is the most bizarre troll I've ever seen.


You know, for someone who is arguing for people to be mindful of not offending people, you're not bad at not minding it, yourself.

It's not that I have "not been able", but I have so far not done so because I want you to tell me exactly what you are claiming, since you disagree with my conclusion.

I can't agree or disagree with anything you've said now, since it turns out it's all been meaningless gibberish.

Gender Identity = internal body image. It is the gender that one experiences mentally, on a spectrum that encompasses "male" and "female" but also incorporates androgyny and hermaphroditism. As distinct from physical sex, which also exists on a spectrum that includes male and female, and various flavours of intersex, and does not always have a 1:1 correspondence to gender identity.

 

[Dessi]

If one's internal body image doesn't match one's physical body image, "delusion" would seem to be an appropriate term. Do you not agree?

I wouldn't. A "delusion" would imply some error of fact, as if trans people were persistently mistaking their anatomy for other body parts. However, virtually all trans people are fully aware and grasp the reality of their biological anatomy. "Delusional" is incorrect descriptor and does not accurately describe trans people.

 

[luchog]

If one's internal body image doesn't match one's physical body image, "delusion" would seem to be an appropriate term. Do you not agree?

Weren't you the one arguing in another thread about how my assertion that transgender people being treated as "mentally ill at best" by the majority of mainstream culture was extremist nonsense?

Thank you for so definitively demonstrating my point.

 

[Pup]

I presume Argumemnon is not taking this to the point where it would be actual harassment. And, again, short of that point, how is the active disagreement inconsistent with tolerance? Are protesters, by their nature, intolerant of the ideology they protest against?

There's a tautology: if one doesn't harass others to the point of intolerance, then one isn't being intolerant. I could agree with that.

There's still some common sense involved. Protesting something by shouting at funeral-goers, ala Westboro Baptist, is different than counter-protesting a gay pride rally, because mourners are just trying to go about their lives, but gay pride ralliers are out there in public expressing an opinion.

But again, I think most people know where the line is.

 

[xjx388]

I wouldn't. A "delusion" would imply some error of fact, as if trans people were persistently mistaking their anatomy for other body parts. However, virtually all trans people are fully aware and grasp the reality of their biological anatomy. "Delusional" is incorrect descriptor and does not accurately describe trans people.

The delusion is not in "mistaking their anatomy for other body parts," but in the persistent belief that they have the wrong body parts.

If a biological man thought he was a duck, we would have no problem saying that the man is deluded. I'm not sure why he would not be deluded if he thought he was a woman.

None of this is to say that this delusion is harmful, evil, immoral or any other bad thing. I have no problem with a person who thinks they are the wrong sex and I agree that the best treatment we currently have for them is to transition to the sex they feel comfortable with. I have issues with starting treatment before adulthood, but that's a topic for another debate.

 

[Belz...]

Bloggers that allow comments are expecting debate. It seems you intrinsically understand the difference if you wouldn't interrupt a church service. But it seems odd, then, that you can't figure out why, for example, following someone around, debating them on public property when they don't want debated, would be actively preventing them from going about their lives?

Who says I can't figure it out? You guys keep conflating things and moving them around.

The point is that it's not intolerance.