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

[Belz...]

If you wish to pretend to be confused by basic language, go right ahead.

You're the one who's telling me that none of my interpretations are correct. Obviously telling me to try again isn't going to work. So man up and tell us all what you mean so no confusion remains.

Oh my god, you're really not getting it, are you?

I do, actually. Your logic is stupid.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Read it again: I used "gender", not "gender identity". That's the distinction, unless somehow you are now claiming that "gender" and "gender identity" are the same thing. They're not. Not even by your definition.

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.

Which is nonsense, since I've argued for nothing but considering them fully equal members of society with the same rights as all other members. You're stuck on _one_ word that I used and that applies to a whole bunch of cis-people, myself included, and because that word bothers you, now you are knowingly, dishonestly treating me as a member of the opposing camp.

Are you a native English speaker, because this is self-contradictory, and needlessly inflammatory language.

First of all, no, it's not contradictory. It's only contradictory if you cannot tell the difference between two uses of the same word ("genetic defect" vs "defective person"; "wrong setting" vs "wrong person"). Second, how is it inflammatory? Again, because it might offend someone, somewhere?

Particularly in snidely attributing to me things I did not say.

I am quoting you directly from your own post. How is that attributing anything to you that you haven't said?

And your constant appeal to "culture" is just another obfuscatory red-herring.

What? What "appeal" to culture? What are you talking about now?

you outright deny the existence of non-binary transgenders

WHAT?

WHERE have I done this? You have a lot of balls asking me if English is my second language when you are utterly unable to understand it when it's written plainly. I've done NOTHING but argue IN FAVOUR of trans people rights. How do you figure I'm denying their existence?

Say, what do YOU think causes transgenderism? Would you even dare say it, I wonder?

Provide evidence that transgenderism is a "deleterious genetic mutation".

Well, let's agree on what "deleterious" means in the context of evolutionary genetics, shall we? Would you agree that it means "reduced chances of passing on one's genes"?

I ask because I can see your ironically dishonest tricks for getting out of this one a mile away.

 

[Belz...]

It's a good thing I'm not a total moron, because the sort of nonsense I see in this thread might be enough for another person to turn _against_ transgender rights in response to the incredible idiocy displayed by their so-called supporters here.

 

[wareyin]

You're the one who's telling me that none of my interpretations are correct. Obviously telling me to try again isn't going to work. So man up and tell us all what you mean so no confusion remains.

Nope. You're the one who pretends to not understand the terms he is using, and refuses to read the explanations or examples given. Obviously expecting you to stop feigning confusion isn't going to work. Man up and look up the definitions of the words you pretend are confusing you. Here, I'll even help with this one:

Do you even know what "offensive" means?

offensive^dict
1. causing resentful displeasure; highly irritating, angering, or annoying:
offensive television commercials.
2. unpleasant or disagreeable to the sense:
an offensive odor.
3. repugnant to the moral sense, good taste, or the like; insulting:
an offensive remark; an offensive joke.
4. pertaining to offense or attack:
the offensive movements of their troops.
5. characterized by attack; aggressive:
offensive warfare.

Which part requires me to have personally taken offense?

 

[wareyin]

It's a good thing I'm not a total moron, because the sort of nonsense I see in this thread might be enough for another person to turn _against_ transgender rights in response to the incredible idiocy displayed by their so-called supporters here.

Yes, it is a good thing you understand basic english, and are capable of looking up the words you claim to not understand. Oh...wait a sec

 

[Belz...]

Nope. You're the one who pretends to not understand the terms he is using

Hilarious. You keep telling me that what I think you are saying is wrong, and then refuse to tell me what it is that you think, and now you say that I _pretend_ to not understand.

Which part requires me to have personally taken offense?

How did you go from "it offends someone other than you" to "it offends you personally"? Did you lose track of the conversation, now?

 

[wareyin]

Hilarious. You keep telling me that what I think you are saying is wrong, and then refuse to tell me what it is that you think, and now you say that I _pretend_ to not understand.

As you stated, you aren't a moron. Yet, basic words that are easly looked up are somehow confusing to only you. Therefore, I must conclude that you are pretending to not know what I am saying.

How did you go from "it offends someone other than you" to "it offends you personally"? Did you lose track of the conversation, now?

You know, it's easy to follow the conversation if you don't pretend to not know what words mean. Here's 2 posts of yours, in our conversation, talking about whether or not those of us telling you your choice of words is offensive are personally offended:

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

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.

 

[luchog]

Read it again: I used "gender", not "gender identity". That's the distinction, unless somehow you are now claiming that "gender" and "gender identity" are the same thing. They're not. Not even by your definition.

Well, yes, they are. That is, Gender is a supercategory that incorporates Gender Identity; which is what this entire thread is about.

Which is nonsense, since I've argued for nothing but considering them fully equal members of society with the same rights as all other members. You're stuck on _one_ word that I used and that applies to a whole bunch of cis-people, myself included, and because that word bothers you, now you are knowingly, dishonestly treating me as a member of the opposing camp.

Sorry, you don't get to redefine words and then claim to be dishonestly treated. Especially when you've flatly said that you consider "gender" identical with "sex" despite the fact that they describe two completely different (though related) phenomena.

First of all, no, it's not contradictory. It's only contradictory if you cannot tell the difference between two uses of the same word ("genetic defect" vs "defective person"; "wrong setting" vs "wrong person"). Second, how is it inflammatory? Again, because it might offend someone, somewhere?

Distorting again. Quote anywhere I've talked about being offended.

I am quoting you directly from your own post. How is that attributing anything to you that you haven't said?

You have two quotes ostensibly from me in that post, one is the original, one is edited to change wording, but still attributed to me. Did you forget you did that? Do you need me to provide a screenshot of where you did that?

What? What "appeal" to culture? What are you talking about now?

You're repeated used the word "culture" with reference to gender. Did you forget you did that?

WHERE have I done this? You have a lot of balls asking me if English is my second language when you are utterly unable to understand it when it's written plainly. I've done NOTHING but argue IN FAVOUR of trans people rights. How do you figure I'm denying their existence?

And yet you defend to the death the use of marginalizing and exclusionary language with regard to trangenderism, insist that gender is the same as sex, and that a non-cis gender identity is delusional. Either you simply don't understand the language, or you are being deliberately obtuse.

Say, what do YOU think causes transgenderism? Would you even dare say it, I wonder?

Sorry, doesn't work that way. You are claiming to have science on your side, the onus is on you to provide the science you claim supports your position. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

For the record, according to the science that has been done, and which was linked to in at least one of the three threads that you've contributed to on the subject, trangenderism, like homosexuality, appears to be due to

Well, let's agree on what "deleterious" means in the context of evolutionary genetics, shall we? Would you agree that it means "reduced chances of passing on one's genes"?

No, because it doesn't. Sorry, you don't get to re-define words to mean whatever you want. If you insist on using idiosyncratic language, then you have no place arguing that you've being misunderstood, or that other people are confusing you. Evolutionary genetics encompasses a far broader field than the mere survival of one narrow fragment of a species' genetic lineage. If you're basing your entire argument on reductionist oversimplification, then there really isn't any basis for continuing.

In fact, research indicates that variations in sexuality and sexual identity have a strong indication of being beneficial to the survival of the species.

I ask because I can see your ironically dishonest tricks for getting out of this one a mile away.

Says the person who has been consistently using idiosyncratic language and denying the existence of more contextually appropriate language.

You're claiming that the science supports your claim that trangenderism is a "deleterious genetic mutation". That means it's up to you to provide the science to support your claim, or retract it. That's how science and skepticism works.

Asking for scientific support for a scientific claim is not dishonest. Making the claim then refusing to provide evidence is.

 

[Belz...]

As you stated, you aren't a moron. Yet, basic words that are easly looked up are somehow confusing to only you. Therefore, I must conclude that you are pretending to not know what I am saying.

One cannot be not a moron and also not understand you?

Try me: clarify your meaning.

Here's 2 posts of yours, in our conversation, talking about whether or not those of us telling you your choice of words is offensive are personally offended:

In both cases I say that it isn't offensive to the people making the argument (e.g. you), so how is that me saying that you're personally offended?

 

[wareyin]

One cannot be not a moron and also not understand you?

Try me: clarify your meaning.



In both cases I say that it isn't offensive to the people making the argument (e.g. you), so how is that me saying that you're personally offended?

Why does it matter who is offended?

If a word is "pleasant", does it matter to whom it is pleasant?

 

[Belz...]

Well, yes, they are. That is, Gender is a supercategory that incorporates Gender Identity

"Animal" is a supercategory that incorporates "pterodactyl", but the two aren't the same, luchog. You have just admitted that they are NOT the same thing, even if one, according to you, encompasses the other.

Sorry, you don't get to redefine words

But I get to define the words I use, just like everybody else. Notice how we often ask each other how the other defines a certain word in order to clarify the conversation?

Distorting again. Quote anywhere I've talked about being offended.

Oh, I'm sorry. You're not offended. Someone, somewhere may, at some point, get offended because I brought up genetics.

You have two quotes ostensibly from me in that post, one is the original, one is edited to change wording, but still attributed to me.

Where? I always make it very clear when I alter what someone posts. If you think I've done otherwise, then you should report it to the moderation, because it would be against the rules.

You're repeated used the word "culture" with reference to gender. Did you forget you did that?

You said that I "appealed" to culture. What do you mean by that? "Appeal" doesn't mean "bring up". I brought up culture to distinguish how a specific society expects a particular sex to behave. It wasn't an appeal, I was just being thorough.

And yet you defend to the death the use of marginalizing and exclusionary language

No: I DISAGREE that it is marginalising. You are assuming your conclusion.

Sorry, doesn't work that way.

Yes, double-sided conversations are so boring. I asked you a question.

You are claiming to have science on your side, the onus is on you to provide the science you claim supports your position.

Where have I made that claim? About the "genetic defect"? It is one by definition. Just like albinism which, also, does not make someone "defective" or "wrong".

For the record, according to the science that has been done, and which was linked to in at least one of the three threads that you've contributed to on the subject, trangenderism, like homosexuality, appears to be due to

I think you cut off your sentence, there. Due to what?

No, because it doesn't. Sorry, you don't get to re-define words to mean whatever you want.

It's amazing how you accuse me of redefining words without ever commiting to a definition yourself.

However, according to Encyclopedia.com:

deleterious mutation: A mutation that lowers the fitness of its carriers.

And:

Fitness: The fitness of an individual animal is a measure of its ability, relative to others, to leave viable offspring.

So how was I redefining words, exactly?

In fact, research indicates that variations in sexuality and sexual identity have a strong indication of being beneficial to the survival of the species.

Source?

Asking for scientific support for a scientific claim is not dishonest.

Making an ice-cream cone isn't, either, but then neither are what I was refering to.

 

[Belz...]

Why does it matter who is offended?

It seems to matter to you quite a bit.

If a word is "pleasant", does it matter to whom it is pleasant?

If it's pleasant in theory only then yes, it sure does matter.

 

[wareyin]

It seems to matter to you quite a bit.

Amazingly, your mind reading skills appear less accurate than your actual reading skills.

If it's pleasant in theory only then yes, it sure does matter.

Who said "in theory only"?

 

[luchog]

"Animal" is a supercategory that incorporates "pterodactyl", but the two aren't the same, luchog. You have just admitted that they are NOT the same thing, even if one, according to you, encompasses the other.

Nope, you're distorting the issue.

"Gender" means either Gender Identity, or Gender Role. It does not mean "sex", and never has, despite your claim. This entire thread, and the two related threads, are clearly and explicitly about Gender Identity. Your refusal to accept that is just more indication that you're not interested in clear and honest debate, but only in scoring Internet points.

But I get to define the words I use, just like everybody else. Notice how we often ask each other how the other defines a certain word in order to clarify the conversation?

The English language, like most languages, have commonly-accepted meanings for words, many of which are dependent on context. In order to promulgate clear and effective communication, we have things called "dictionaries" that standardize the accepted meanings of words in their proper contexts. Requests for clarification are done when the context is unclear, or when a word is being used in a way that does not conform to any standard definition applicable to the context.

In this context, applicable definitions are clear. The accepted response to using a word or definition that does not conform to it's context is to use a different word or definition that is applicable.

Re-defining words to have non-conventional meanings as part of a debate indicates either ignorance of the language, or is a logical fallacy used in an attempt to support a position that cannot be defended using evidence and logic.

Oh, I'm sorry. You're not offended. Someone, somewhere may, at some point, get offended because I brought up genetics.

And I would care about this why, exactly? Are you confusing me with someone else again?

Where? I always make it very clear when I alter what someone posts. If you think I've done otherwise, then you should report it to the moderation, because it would be against the rules.

Fine, from now on I will do so without giving you the opportunity to correct or retract.

No: I DISAGREE that it is marginalising. You are assuming your conclusion.

And you're wrong. It has been repeatedly demonstrated by multiple people how the language you use marginalizes transpeople. You attempt to evade that fact by redefining the language rather than admit error. Again, words have commonly accepted, context-dependent meanings. Your consistent refusal to acknowledge that is rather odd.

Where have I made that claim? About the "genetic defect"? It is one by definition. Just like albinism which, also, does not make someone "defective" or "wrong".

Albinism has distinct health effects, and can be traced to a particular gene mutation. That is not what is being discussed, and doesn't work even as an analogy. You're resorting to non-sequitors again.

I think you cut off your sentence, there. Due to what?

Due to natural variation in human development; which may be genetic, epigenetic, or some other factor not fully understood yet. The science, which has been linked to already, indicates it's most likely a combination of the latter two, as twin studies do not show a distinct genetic propensity toward transgenderism.

It's amazing how you accuse me of redefining words without ever commiting to a definition yourself.

I have, your refusal to acknowledge standard definitions and context is not my problem.

However, according to Encyclopedia.com:
And:
So how was I redefining words, exactly?

Remember what I was saying about context?

Source?

Already posted multiple times. You're refusal to acknowledge them has been noted. You post your sources, and I'll post mine. And by sources, I mean actual science, not random, out-of-context encyclopedia entries.

Making an ice-cream cone isn't, either, but then neither are what I was refering to.

Wait, what? You said your claims were supported by science, now you're claiming that science is not what you're referring to? I think you're seriously confused here. How does this non-sequitor even come up? I'm kind of curious what bizarre logic makes that make sense in your mind.

 

[wareyin]

If it's pleasant in theory only then yes, it sure does matter.

Let's try this another way. Why would it matter if it was pleasant or offensive in theory only?

To tease it out more*:If two white supremacists are talking to each other, using language about 'those uppity negroes', but they are the only ones to hear that language, is it still offensive? I think so, don't you?

If another white guy who is not racist hears them, is it offensive even though it wasn't about him? I think so, don't you?

If a black guy hears the language, but isn't bothered by it, is it still offensive language? I think so, don't you?

Or is it only offensive language if it is heard by a person it is directed at who is upset by it? I think that is a ridiculously narrow definition of offensive language, unsupported by dictionaries or colloquial usage of the term "offensive".






*not that I expect you to respond to this, or even keep it in if you quote me. Rather, I expect more feigned confusion, more claims that I refused to be clear, and ever more demands for another explanation.

 

[arthwollipot]

I do, actually. Your logic is stupid.

You really don't. You are so far from getting it that you don't even realise you're not even remotely in the right ballpark. The ballpark you are in doesn't even resemble the right ballpark. It's not even the same ball game. In fact, you're not even in a ballpark, you're in an office building, with grey emotionless walls wearing a grey emotionless suit doing grey emotionless drone work while the rest of us are playing games in ballparks.

It is not about whether transgenderism is a "deleterious genetic mutation" or not. It's not even about whether that is actually a true fact or not (btw, it isn't but whatever).

It's about how you refer to people. It's about how you talk about people. It's about how you talk to people. It's about pretending that words don't have an emotional context, then complaining when people react to the emotional context of your words.

Get out of your office building and into the ballpark and we might be able to have a conversation about this.

 

[xjx388]

If I were speaking to someone with albinism and directly told them they had a "deleterious genetic mutation," they may indeed be offended even if I was only trying to be scientifically correct.

But on this forum, we are not supposed to directly address each other in arguments and in many many threads, people argue using scientifically accurate terms. So, no one should take offense when we are dispassionately arguing about the causes and nature of transgenderism and terms like "defect," or "problem" are used because no one is directing those terms at anyone in particular. I can see that Argumemnon was only trying to have a discussion in a dispassionate way, in the spirit of the forum.

I can't believe this argument about offense, which no one on here has actually claimed to have taken and exists only in theory, has gone on for so many pages. Jesus, give it a rest already.

 

[arthwollipot]

Another one who doesn't get it.

 

[xjx388]

Another one who doesn't get it.

You are right! I don't get why this argument, which is basically a couple of people who think Argumemnon is a big meanie who doesn't recognize his own inherent meanness, has gone on for so long. You all disagree so give it a rest already so maybe a discussion relevant to the topic can still be salvaged in this thread.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Due to natural variation in human development; which may be genetic, epigenetic, or some other factor not fully understood yet. The science, which has been linked to already, indicates it's most likely a combination of the latter two, as twin studies do not show a distinct genetic propensity toward transgenderism.
<snip>

Well, actually, they do. At least to some degree.

I've posted a link to the actual paper referred to in this Wiki article in at least one of these threads, but the Wiki summary does a good job (and also footnotes the source);

A 2013 twin study examined pairs of twins where either one or both of the twins had undergone, or had plans and had received medical approval to undergo, gender transition (both types of people were classified as trans in the study). The study combined a survey of such twins, with a literature review of published reports mentioning transgender twins. The study found that one third of identical twin pairs in the sample were both transgender, whereas among the non-identical twin pairs, there were almost no pairs where both were transgender.[33] This suggests that genes are a contributory factor in transgenderism in many cases.