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

[wareyin]

Look above your post

Sorry, that doesn't demonstrate someone taking offense. Do you have anything better?

Eta:In case there was honest confusion, explaining how terms can be offensive does not equate to taking offense.

 

[xjx388]

Thus implying that trans people are wrong.

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

In that context, there are no value judgements attached to the word "wrong." If a person is born with certain birth defects, it's a perfectly apt metaphor to say that some switches were in the wrong position chromosomally speaking. Also note that "birth defect" is an appropriate and inoffensive term despite that it has the word "defect" in it.

Let's suppose that the science leads us to understand that transgender people do indeed have the brain structure of the sex opposite that of the rest of their body. I think we shouldn't feel bad in saying that something went wrong in that person's development. That does not imply that the person is wrong or bad in any way.

 

[Noztradamus]

Sorry, that doesn't demonstrate someone taking offense. Do you have anything better?

Eta:In case there was honest confusion, explaining how terms can be offensive does not equate to taking offense.

So I'm either confused or dishonest? And seeking out a clearly not intended "offensive" interpretation, does equate to taking offense.

 

[HTTR]

Thus implying that trans people are wrong.

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

Take it up with luchog

For some of us, I would have to agree with that. Transexuality in particular can be likened to dealing with physical defects. Being born in the "wrong body" can be just a personally difficult, if not devastating, as being born with disfiguring or crippling physical deformities. There is simply no way to adequately explain to someone who hasn't experienced it just what that's like.

 

[Belz...]

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

How do they not? All of these quotes are talking about this term being offensive, and none of them are claiming that they are the ones to be offended.

Thus implying that trans people are wrong.

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

Absolutely not.

As I said before: the problem is that EVERYTHING to you has emotional baggage. Discussion on this issue in impossible unless I agree on everything.

My point is that, in the vast majority of cases, this "switch" is at the same setting as the other ones, which is entirely expected, but that in a few cases it is not. That I call it the "wrong" setting doesn't mean that the person is "wrong". That does not follow at all.

 

[wareyin]

So I'm either confused or dishonest? And seeking out a clearly not intended "offensive" interpretation, does equate to taking offense.

Nope, and nope. Understanding that terms are or can be offensive does not mean one is offended. And where did you get the opening false dichotomy?

 

[wareyin]

How do they not? All of these quotes are talking about this term being offensive, and none of them are claiming that they are the ones to be offended.

You don't understand that I can understand a term is or can be offensive without being personally offended or finding another person to be offended?


eta: similarly, can say words are pleasant, yet I wasn't personally pleased by them? Or am I claiming pleasure on behalf of others?
Can words be educational, even if they didn't educate me, or am I now claiming education on behalf of others?

 

[Belz...]

You don't understand that I can understand a term is or can be offensive without being personally offended or finding another person to be offended?

You're making a lot of effort to not make your point clear, here. It _can_ be offensive but it isn't? Then what's the problem?

There isn't one, is there? Of course there isn't.

 

[wareyin]

You're making a lot of effort to not make your point clear, here. It _can_ be offensive but it isn't? Then what's the problem?

There isn't one, is there? Of course there isn't.

Rather, you are making a lot of effort to not understand my point, even going so far as adding in the highlighted bit, in order to change what I said and feign confusion. Try reading it without dishonestly adding extra bits to complain about.

 

[ehcks]

You've spent quite a number of pages arguing words like disorder, delusion, illness, and problem don't have negative connotations outside of a medical context. This is an applause-worthy level of stalling and avoiding the point.

 

[Belz...]

Rather, you are making a lot of effort to not understand my point

I'm ASKING you to make your point but you refuse to do so. A little odd that you ask me to read it when it doesn't exist. Every time I try to pin it down, you pretend that this isn't what you mean. So say what you mean, then.

You've spent quite a number of pages arguing words like disorder, delusion, illness, and problem don't have negative connotations outside of a medical context. This is an applause-worthy level of stalling and avoiding the point.

You might have missed the fact that I _WAS_ discussing it in a medical context.

And I'm not the one who pretends that saying a gene has the "wrong" setting means the person is "wrong".


The funny thing about this thread is that my greatest opponents are the people who are on my side. That's right: I've had more pleasant conversations with those who are _against_ transgender rights. Why? Well, that's easy: I'm not ideologically pure enough.

 

[wareyin]

I'm ASKING you to make your point but you refuse to do so. A little odd that you ask me to read it when it doesn't exist. Every time I try to pin it down, you pretend that this isn't what you mean. So say what you mean, then.

I did say what I meant. You then added a phrase which contradicted my point to claim that I was being confusing. Read what I wrote, without adding in contradicting phrases which I did not write, and you will have my point.

 

[Belz...]

I did say what I meant.

Then what did you mean?

 

[Belz...]

Unholy mother of Hell!

I just realised something...

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.

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.

I almost didn't catch it. Took me a whole day for my brain to process this. I don't know if luchog just made a mistake, or if it was a ploy, but if it's the latter, it was pretty clever.

Here's what I missed: the highlighted part of the two versions of luchog's sentence above don't relate to the same thing. That was my mistake in typing. But luchog read "gender" in my post, which I take as synonymous with "sex" (unlike cultural expectations from each sex), and switched it with "gender identity", which is the gender you identify as. The two are _not_ the same. Transgender people, as some have indicated, believe that they have the wrong body: they identify as a different sex (i.e. gender); ergo: gender identity.

 

[wareyin]

Then what did you mean?

This.

Just as saying that words are educational isn't claiming education on behalf of others or that I was personally educated, just as saying words are pleasant isn't claiming I was personally pleased nor claiming pleasure on behalf of others, saying words are offensive is neither claiming offense on behalf of others nor claiming I was personally offended. Claiming that a word is offensive is...claiming that a word is offensive.

 

[arthwollipot]

In that context, there are no value judgements attached to the word "wrong."

There are always value judgements attached to the word "wrong" when you're using it to refer to a person and their self-identity.

As I said before: the problem is that EVERYTHING to you has emotional baggage. Discussion on this issue in impossible unless I agree on everything.

And once again the dickishness-defenders (whom I am from now on going to refer to as "DDs" for as long as they continue to refer to "SJWs") pull out the utterly spurious claim that communication is impossible unless they are allowed to be dickish.

Despite the fact that non-dickish communication occurs all the time.

 

[Belz...]

saying words are offensive is neither claiming offense on behalf of others nor claiming I was personally offended. Claiming that a word is offensive is...claiming that a word is offensive.

Do you even know what "offensive" means? You're beign ridiculous. If it's offensive, it offends someone. If you're now claiming that it offends no one, then it's not offensive.

And once again the dickishness-defenders (whom I am from now on going to refer to as "DDs" for as long as they continue to refer to "SJWs") pull out the utterly spurious claim that communication is impossible unless they are allowed to be dickish.

Beign scientifically-accurate is dickish? What would YOU call a deleterious genetic mutation, then?

And why does everything always circle back to people's feelings? When I said that it's all that matters to you guys I was told that this isn't true, but it does seem that way, doesn't it?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Mutation or not, it doesn't really matter. What conservatives need to do is prove that transgender behavior harms society, or that allowing them to use the bathroom that they identify to, harms society.
They won't because they can't. Pointing out that transgenders aren't "normal" has no practical value.

 

[cullennz]

Mutation or not, it doesn't really matter. What conservatives need to do is prove that transgender behavior harms society, or that allowing them to use the bathroom that they identify to, harms society.
They won't because they can't. Pointing out that transgenders aren't "normal" has no practical value.

Toilets or changing rooms?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Toilets or changing rooms?

Yes.