• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Argumemnon said:
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.
Click to expand...

This would really go faster if you stopped dishonestly claiming I'm saying the opposite of what I actually said. I'd ask you to quote me saying the word offends no one, but judging by past experience you'll quote me saying something entirely different and claim it counts.

I gave you 2 examples of word descriptions that work the same way the adjective "offensive" does. You keep ignoring them. Why, other than to feign confusion?
 
Dessi said:
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.
Click to expand...

Right, delusion would be if their internal model was understood to reflect what their body actually looks like rather than what they want it to look like. It's not delusion to want something different than what is.
 
Pup said:
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.
Click to expand...

And i don't think what Argumemnon has described can be assumed to be crossing the line - so "intolerance" is not an accurate descriptor.
 
luchog said:
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?
Click to expand...

No, I don't believe I even know what thread you're talking about. The idea that people treat gender dysphoria as a mental illness is not one I would question - that is how I see it.
 
Argumemnon said:
Beign scientifically-accurate is dickish? What would YOU call a deleterious genetic mutation, then?
Click to expand...
If I'm not saying it to their face, I can be as scientifically accurate as I want. You appear to want to call people defective to their face. That's dickish.

Argumemnon said:
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?
Click to expand...
What makes you think feelings aren't important? Here's that Spock again - trying to claim that rationality is devoid of emotion and that everyone who feels emotion about a subject can't possibly have anything reasonable to say about it. As though it were even possible to remove emotion from a discussion, which it absolutely is not.

This is an emotional subject and people will respond with emotion. That doesn't mean that they're being irrational and it doesn't mean that they're wrong.
 
arthwollipot said:
If I'm not saying it to their face, I can be as scientifically accurate as I want. You appear to want to call people defective to their face. That's dickish.

What makes you think feelings aren't important? Here's that Spock again - trying to claim that rationality is devoid of emotion and that everyone who feels emotion about a subject can't possibly have anything reasonable to say about it. As though it were even possible to remove emotion from a discussion, which it absolutely is not.

This is an emotional subject and people will respond with emotion. That doesn't mean that they're being irrational and it doesn't mean that they're wrong.
Click to expand...

Including the high school girls wanting privacy from males
 
wareyin said:
This would really go faster if you stopped dishonestly claiming I'm saying the opposite of what I actually said. I'd ask you to quote me saying the word offends no one, but judging by past experience you'll quote me saying something entirely different and claim it counts.
Click to expand...

You are amazing. So it doesn't offend anyone, but it doesn't offend no one. You've become a master of evasion, apparently afraid to commit to any opinion.

What a joke.
 
arthwollipot said:
If I'm not saying it to their face, I can be as scientifically accurate as I want. You appear to want to call people defective to their face. That's dickish.
Click to expand...

Once again: all this is due to your silly notion that having a genetic defect makes someone defective as a person.

What makes you think feelings aren't important?
Click to expand...

Who the **** said they weren't? Is there no option between "all feeling" and "no feeling"?

Here's that Spock again - trying to claim that rationality is devoid of emotion and that everyone who feels emotion about a subject can't possibly have anything reasonable to say about it.
Click to expand...

No one said that. Do you have some sort of condition that prevents you from reading English properly? Where do you get those crazy ideas? Certainly not from my posts.

As I said earlier, this is crazy: we're ALL on the same side, but you vilify me more than those posters who say that transgender people pretend to be transgender or are mentally ill, and only because you don't like my tone.
 
Last edited:
Argumemnon said:
You are amazing. So it doesn't offend anyone, but it doesn't offend no one. You've become a master of evasion, apparently afraid to commit to any opinion.

What a joke.
Click to expand...

Speaking of amazing, why must you keep pretending that I've made statements that I haven't? This highlight, like the last several times I've highlighted one of your posts, is something you added in that I did not say.
 
wareyin said:
Speaking of amazing, why must you keep pretending that I've made statements that I haven't?
Click to expand...

Well, two reasons: first of all because you refuse to clear up the confusion; and second because you keep saying that that's now what you said, leaving nothing.

So basically you have made no contribution to this topic expect to disagree with me for no reason. Nice going.
 
Argumemnon said:
Well, two reasons: first of all because you refuse to clear up the confusion; and second because you keep saying that that's now what you said, leaving nothing.

So basically you have made no contribution to this topic expect to disagree with me for no reason. Nice going.
Click to expand...

If you wish to pretend to be confused by basic language, go right ahead. You've been given explanations and examples which help to make the point even more clear, yet your only response has been to ignore them and snip them out of quotes in order to complain that I refuse to clear up confusion.

I obviously cannot clear up feigned confusion.
 
Argumemnon said:
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.
Click to expand...


You either keep contradicting yourself, or you are really confused and unclear in what you are saying. "Gender Identity" is the relationship between physical, biological sex and internal body image. Yet for some reason you tried to make a distinction between them when you quoted me in that post, trying to say that I was saying something different. They're the same thing.

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.
Click to expand...


Nice attempt at deflection, but the fact is that you made the distinction in that post, and there is no distinction. You are either confused about what you are actually discussing, or intentionally obtuse.

You edited my post to change the wording, insisting there was a distinction between the two terms. There isn't. Either you're confused, or obfuscating.

I know exactly what it means.
Click to expand...


That is not evident from your post.
 
Argumemnon said:
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.
Click to expand...


Nope, you're distorting again. I've deliberately avoided using the term "offensive", because I find that to be an unhelpful emotional response*. I've stuck with dealing with language that is exclusionary and marginalizing, because that is the issue at hand. Marginalizing transpeople and excluding them from being considered fully equal members of society with the same rights as all other members.

*I may have used the term once or twice, most likely by accident, so I apologize if that was confusing; but have generally made it clear that I'm not talking about offensiveness.

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.
Click to expand...


That is utter nonsense, and the distinction has been repeatedly explained.

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.
Click to expand...


Are you a native English speaker, because this is self-contradictory, and needlessly inflammatory language.
 
Argumemnon said:
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.
Click to expand...


Nos this is beyond disingenuous. You're being outright dishonest here. Particularly in snidely attributing to me things I did not say. Editing someone else's comments to change the wording and meaning, while continuing to attribute them (even in the bizarrely distorted way you did) is bad form.

This thread is and always has been about gender identity. The fact that you insist on conflating gender and sex is your own error, and one that has been repeatedly pointed out. And you're still deliberately excluding non-transexual transgender people in an attempt to continue to enforce a strict binary.

At this point, there is clearly no way to continue this discussion with you, since you outright deny the existence of non-binary transgenders, and persist on erroneously equating gender with sex. They are not the same thing, your idiosyncratic assertions otherwise.

And your constant appeal to "culture" is just another obfuscatory red-herring. Culture affects gender roles, not gender identity; those are two separate things; although there are some overlapping issues involving both.
 
Argumemnon said:
Beign scientifically-accurate is dickish? What would YOU call a deleterious genetic mutation, then?
Click to expand...


Provide evidence that transgenderism is a "deleterious genetic mutation". You're claiming that you're being scientific, so you should be able to provide a study that supports this bald assertion. I recall several people have posted actual scientific studies that refute it, which you seem to have steadfastly ignored.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom