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

[Belz...]

Have you been arguing all this time without having the slightest clue what gender identity is?

No.

Here's the conversation:

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.

It's pretty amazing that you lost track of this already.

Then you said:

You deny a distinction between gender and sex, then deny that you are denying it.

The thing that you consistently fail to understand is that it's how we determine sex that I think needs tweaking, assuming you're right about what transgenderism is. I'm convinced that "gender identity" is redundant because of that. But because you don't understand that, you keep thinking that I contradict myself.

Holy crap, that's telling.

Gee, here's that word again: telling, with a period and nothing following it. It's almost as if you're just telling me how superior to me you are. You can do that all day. I don't care.

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.

Ah, yes, that's the only other explanation. Seriously, you are simply incapable of even accepting the existence of differing perspectives. In your mind, only dishonest or stupid people can possibly disagree with you.

Gender Identity = internal body image.

I know exactly what it means.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Well, here's the thing: humans can't be ducks. They can be women, however. There is quite a bit of things that go into making a man or a woman, and that distinguishes them from the other. Is it not likely that, in some people, some of those "switches" may be set to the "wrong" setting, leading to a trans person?

 

[Belz...]

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

Calling someone obtuse isn't meant to cause offense? News to me.

You made the claim, you support it.

Very well. I would've wanted to know what you think now, but I guess you'd rather not say.

First, you'll remember that I said that people in this thread have said that my language was offensive to other people, correct? Well, here's Pup:

Clinically, one could say, "Being transgender is not normal, and even the best surgical intervention leaves the transgendered female sterile, with male DNA, and an inverted penis that superficially resembles a vagina."

Would you also say to a friend excited about starting transition: "You're not normal, and after surgery, you'll be sterile, still with male DNA, and only an inverted penis"? It's all true. If she gets upset, is it her fault for being upset that you reminded her of the truth?

And Arth:

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.

And here's luchog:

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 finally, yourself:

Obviously not. You did want to use that language. That language is intended to invoke negative feelings. Now, put them together, and we have you wanting to use language intended to invoke negative feelings. Note, I did not claim that you intended to invoke negative feelings, only that you wished to utilize the same words that are intended to invoke negative feelings. A minor distinction I know, but as I said, that figleaf isn't covering you very much.

Now, you go on to say "I didn't say that you intended to invoke negative feelings", but that I was using offensive language.

Now go ahead and tell me that these posts don't mean that I'm being offensive to other people.

 

[Pup]

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..

I think it's going to come down to whether the science shows there really is a physical brain difference. The science is getting there, but not to the point we can give a boy an MRI and say, looks like he's got a female brain.

If it does get to that point, I think the delusion label won't fit anymore. Now the duck analogy works because we believe (or did a short while ago) that it's as thoroughly impossible for a man to really be a woman as for him to be a duck.

In the future, it might be more like a man saying to his doctor, "I feel like there's something wrong with my stomach," the doctor doing some tests and saying "You have gallstones ." The tests would corroborate the feeling.

 

[wareyin]

Calling someone obtuse isn't meant to cause offense? News to me.

That was clearly stating that you are using obtuse language (I.e. difficult to comprehend*:* not clear or precise in thought or expression), not calling you obtuse. Nice attempt, though. Better luck next time?

Very well. I would've wanted to know what you think now, but I guess you'd rather not say.

First, you'll remember that I said that people in this thread have said that my language was offensive to other people, correct? Well, here's Pup:



And Arth:



And here's luchog:



And finally, yourself:



Now, you go on to say "I didn't say that you intended to invoke negative feelings", but that I was using offensive language.

Now go ahead and tell me that these posts don't mean that I'm being offensive to other people.

As I thought, you were unable to find a single quote that states what you claim others are claiming. Nice try, though. Better luck next time.

 

[quadraginta]

I think it's going to come down to whether the science shows there really is a physical brain difference. The science is getting there, but not to the point we can give a boy an MRI and say, looks like he's got a female brain.

It might not ever be that simple.

If it does get to that point, I think the delusion label won't fit anymore. Now the duck analogy works because we believe (or did a short while ago) that it's as thoroughly impossible for a man to really be a woman as for him to be a duck.

What if it gets to the point that we can see physical brain characteristics in cis-males which are similar or identical to birth females and these occur in trans-women but not in cis-males?

Because, to a certain degree we are already starting to be able to see that.

In the future, it might be more like a man saying to his doctor, "I feel like there's something wrong with my stomach," the doctor doing some tests and saying "You have gallstones ." The tests would corroborate the feeling.

[Link]

Is There Something Unique about the Transgender Brain?

Imaging studies and other research suggest that there is a biological basis for transgender identity

 

[Pup]

What if it gets to the point that we can see physical brain characteristics in cis-males which are similar or identical to birth females and these occur in trans-women but not in cis-males?

Because, to a certain degree we are already starting to be able to see that.

Yep, that's why I brought it up. It seems the science is trending that way.

 

[arthwollipot]

Not always, and not in this case.

Yes, always, and yes, in this case.

 

[Belz...]

That was clearly stating that you are using obtuse language (I.e. difficult to comprehend*:* not clear or precise in thought or expression), not calling you obtuse. Nice attempt, though. Better luck next time?

Well, that's the way I understood it.

As I thought, you were unable to find a single quote that states what you claim others are claiming. Nice try, though. Better luck next time.

Oh, no. HOW are they not saying that? They ALL say that the language is offensive, and not to them.

Are you playing this game where I have to quote someone saying "you are being offensive to other people"?

 

[arthwollipot]

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

Certainly. Thank you for making your preference known on this issue.

Earlier you insisted you weren't accusing Arg of intending offense. Have you changed your mind?

It's not that Memnon is intending offense. It is that he is causing offense by his choice of language, then denying it and turning the accusation back on the person who is being offended. It is that he is using emotionally-charged words as though they could be completely stripped of their emotional context. He is trying to argue that the stark, emotionless, technical definition is the only reasonable interpretation of those words, and that anyone who reacts to the contextual baggage that these words inherently carry are bringing their problems on themselves. He is, by any reasonable definition, blaming the victim.

And that's why I said that he is part of the problem. He's not just ignorantly using words unaware of the emotional context that they carry, he's deliberately using words in spite of the emotional context that they carry, because he believes that those are the most appropriate words to use. I don't think that by doing this he is intending to cause offense. But continuing to do so after being repeatedly told that he is being offensive definitely pushes that line.

 

[wareyin]

Well, that's the way I understood it.



Oh, no. HOW are they not saying that? They ALL say that the language is offensive, and not to them.

Are you playing this game where I have to quote someone saying "you are being offensive to other people"?

I'm playing the game where you have to support your claims. Your quotes did not demonstrate what you claim others are saying.

 

[wareyin]

Certainly. Thank you for making your preference known on this issue.

It's not that Memnon is intending offense. It is that he is causing offense by his choice of language, then denying it and turning the accusation back on the person who is being offended. It is that he is using emotionally-charged words as though they could be completely stripped of their emotional context. He is trying to argue that the stark, emotionless, technical definition is the only reasonable interpretation of those words, and that anyone who reacts to the contextual baggage that these words inherently carry are bringing their problems on themselves. He is, by any reasonable definition, blaming the victim.

And that's why I said that he is part of the problem. He's not just ignorantly using words unaware of the emotional context that they carry, he's deliberately using words in spite of the emotional context that they carry, because he believes that those are the most appropriate words to use. I don't think that by doing this he is intending to cause offense. But continuing to do so after being repeatedly told that he is being offensive definitely pushes that line.

That is how I see it, as well. Perhaps originally there was no intent to offend, but continuing to do so, even when there is other language that does not have that baggage that he can use, certainly gives the impression that offense is intended.

 

[Noztradamus]

On the other hand

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 [taking] offense continue without any pushback.

 

[arthwollipot]

Well, here's the thing: humans can't be ducks. They can be women, however. There is quite a bit of things that go into making a man or a woman, and that distinguishes them from the other. Is it not likely that, in some people, some of those "switches" may be set to the "wrong" setting, leading to a trans person?

Thus implying that trans people are wrong.

Another value-laden word that you are attempting to strip of its emotional context.

 

[wareyin]

On the other hand

That's one way of spinning it, I guess. Do you have any evidence of anyone taking offense in this thread?

 

[Fudbucker]

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".

I was agreeing with you until this point. Gender and sex are two different things, and should be regarded as two different things.

If Billy is born a man, and identifies as a woman, we should regard Billy's gender as "woman". She should be referred to as "she". Yes, Billy's chromosomes are still male, and scientifically speaking, Billy is still a male member of the species, but we should acknowledge the reality that Billy thinks of herself as a woman, and gender identifies as a woman. It does no good to call Billy "He", and humiliate her out of slavish devotion to scientific principles. Let Billy have her dignity. It doesn't cost you anything.

 

[arthwollipot]

I was agreeing with you until this point. Gender and sex are two different things, and should be regarded as two different things.

If Billy is born a man, and identifies as a woman, we should regard Billy's gender as "woman". She should be referred to as "she". Yes, Billy's chromosomes are still male, and scientifically speaking, Billy is still a male member of the species, but we should acknowledge the reality that Billy thinks of herself as a woman, and gender identifies as a woman. It does no good to call Billy "He", and humiliate her out of slavish devotion to scientific principles. Let Billy have her dignity. It doesn't cost you anything.

Anyway, how are you going to check Billy's chromosomes?

 

[quadraginta]

Anyway, how are you going to check Billy's chromosomes?

I was going to say that maybe NOz could tell us when she got back, since she kept talking about simple tests for bathrooms.

But now I'm not sure when that will be. I though she had gotten suspended, but there's no record of it in Public Notices. She hasn't posted for weeks.

Did she slip off quietly into the night?

 

[Fudbucker]

Anyway, how are you going to check Billy's chromosomes?

The same way you test anyone's chromosomes: with a blood test. Why do you ask?

 

[Noztradamus]

That's one way of spinning it, I guess. Do you have any evidence of anyone taking offense in this thread?

Look above your post