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

[Belz...]

"Gender" means either Gender Identity, or Gender Role.

luchog, they are therefore not equivalent. You just admitted it again. Why is it so hard for you to see? If "gender" is a larger set than either of the other two, then they are not equivalent, contrary to what you claim.

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.

If I were interested in that, I wouldn't be trying to clarify terms or make a case.

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

Are you now retracting your claim that it is marginalising and so on?

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

Hint: that was an opportunity for you to actually SHOW ME where I've done what you accuse me of doing. It should be child's play to find the post and show me, so I can properly see where I've gone wrong and apologize, no?

It has been repeatedly demonstrated by multiple people how the language you use marginalizes transpeople.

A claim is not a demonstration. You keep saying that it has this effect, but I'm forced to conclude that you say it because it feels so to you. No offense meant, but that is not very convincing.

Albinism has distinct health effects, and can be traced to a particular gene mutation.

Yes, demonstratably it makes one more vulnerable to the sun, for instance, reducing one's survivability. It offers no advantage and a few disadvantages. Ergo it is deleterious. It reduces the chances of passing on one's genes. Of course, in the context of civilisation this doesn't necessarily mean much, but if we're talking about evolution it sure does.

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.

But doesn't that mean that you agree that it has a genetic cause? Transgender people don't choose to be transgender any more than I chose my hair colour. I fail to see where we disagree, here.

Remember what I was saying about context?

The context is evolutionary biology. That was the context of Ziggurat's post and mine. If you want to talk about context, then please stick to that.

You said your claims were supported by science

Quote me.

 

[Belz...]

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

It wouldn't, actually. That's what I've been saying: it doesn't matter, because no one is being offended. Therefore, telling me that someone can be offended is not a good reason to avoid a certain term, especially in an academic discussion about transgenderism itself.

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?

I'm of two minds on this one. If no one hears them, I would say their speech is not offensive. But since it probably would offend in other context, you could say that the language is offensive. Of course, I assume you meant the other n-word, here. That word is pretty much always meant to offend, mind you, in all contexts except black people talking to each other. As I keep getting told, unnecessarily, context is important.

*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.

Why? You're making an effort to clarify the issue now, which is exactly what I've been asking for. Why did you feel the need to continue to personalise this?

 

[Belz...]

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.

You are ignoring the context of the post, Arth. You keep talking about context and yet are ignoring this one's completely. It was about genetics, not about how we treat transgender people. As I've made clear numerous times, the two are not related.

 

[arthwollipot]

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.

If that's what you think the argument is about, then you're not in the ballpark either.

You are ignoring the context of the post, Arth. You keep talking about context and yet are ignoring this one's completely. It was about genetics, not about how we treat transgender people. As I've made clear numerous times, the two are not related.

See, here's the problem. You're talking about genetics. I'm not, and I never have been. I've been trying to make a point to you that isn't about genetics, but that referenced something that you said about genetics simply as an example.

You have consistently missed the point I have been trying to make, because you seem to think I'm talking about genetics. I'm not. Now will you shut up about genetics for a moment and try to understand the point that I am making?

 

[cullennz]

Putting aside the weird side tracks. I'm yet to hear why if I have to have a prefix (which I don't agree with)

What is wrong with "norm-"?

 

[arthwollipot]

Putting aside the weird side tracks. I'm yet to hear why if I have to have a prefix (which I don't agree with)

What is wrong with "norm-"?

I told you at least half a dozen times in the other thread, before I lost interest in telling you over and over again what is wrong with it.

 

[cullennz]

I told you at least half a dozen times in the other thread, before I lost interest in telling you over and over again what is wrong with it.

Ah in your opinion

 

[arthwollipot]

Ah in your opinion

Not just mine, mate.

 

[wareyin]

It wouldn't, actually. That's what I've been saying: it doesn't matter, because no one is being offended. Therefore, telling me that someone can be offended is not a good reason to avoid a certain term, especially in an academic discussion about transgenderism itself.

I'm of two minds on this one. If no one hears them, I would say their speech is not offensive. But since it probably would offend in other context, you could say that the language is offensive. Of course, I assume you meant the other n-word, here. That word is pretty much always meant to offend, mind you, in all contexts except black people talking to each other. As I keep getting told, unnecessarily, context is important.

Your second paragraph contradicts your first. How could a word be offensive if no one that hears it admits to being offended? Of course, for those of us not playing silly word games, we understand that words can be offensive, especially when they are "pretty much always meant to offend", or even only 'often meant to offend'. The "in theory only" is a fig leaf defense, apparently for a desire to use words that are offensive. You want to use offensive words, go right ahead, but to claim they aren't offensive because no one admits that you offended them is a transparent excuse.

Why? You're making an effort to clarify the issue now, which is exactly what I've been asking for. Why did you feel the need to continue to personalise this?

I've made repeated efforts to clarify the issue. You ignored them while claiming that I refused to clarify the issue. Why would I expect that to continue? Well, you've been doing it for pages/days.

 

[Belz...]

See, here's the problem. You're talking about genetics. I'm not, and I never have been.

How is that a problem? Just don't reply to my posts about genetics if you don't want to talk about it.

I've been trying to make a point to you that isn't about genetics, but that referenced something that you said about genetics simply as an example.

Alright, then. Let's try this again: what's your point that isn't about genetics?

 

[Belz...]

Your second paragraph contradicts your first. How could a word be offensive if no one that hears it admits to being offended?

It's not a contradiction: there are different considerations involved. See below.

Of course, for those of us not playing silly word games, we understand that words can be offensive, especially when they are "pretty much always meant to offend", or even only 'often meant to offend'.

I don't think "deleterious genetic mutation" is included in that list.

The "in theory only" is a fig leaf defense

Oh, stop it. I'm describing what I read and understand. If you disagree with me, fine. Stop trying to make more of this disagreement than there is.

 

[AdamSK]

We can't ignore posters on only selected threads, can we?

That would be a useful feature when certain posters carry on for pages dissecting each others' words without contributing to the base discussion anymore.

 

[wareyin]

We can't ignore posters on only selected threads, can we?

That would be a useful feature when certain posters carry on for pages dissecting each others' words without contributing to the base discussion anymore.

The scroll wheel on my mouse works pretty well for me when this becomes an issue.

 

[wareyin]

It's not a contradiction: there are different considerations involved. See below.



I don't think "deleterious genetic mutation" is included in that list.



Oh, stop it. I'm describing what I read and understand. If you disagree with me, fine. Stop trying to make more of this disagreement than there is.

You appear to have lost track of which terms we were discussing, and why.

 

[Belz...]

You appear to have lost track of which terms we were discussing, and why.

That's entirely possible, but usually you should follow that up with the term you're discussing.

The terms I've used that have caused a bit of a outrage were "wrong setting" and "genetic defect". I'd really like you to explain to me how those terms have any offensive history or connotation, especially when used specifically to refer to genetics.

 

[wareyin]

That's entirely possible, but usually you should follow that up with the term you're discussing.

The terms I've used that have caused a bit of a outrage were "wrong setting" and "genetic defect". I'd really like you to explain to me how those terms have any offensive history or connotation, especially when used specifically to refer to genetics.

Why follow up? You've now remembered that we weren't discussing "deleterious genetic mutation", as you apparently thought in your last post.

Also, you know this conversation has never been limited to genetics, so why try to imply that it has?

 

[TomB]

I think I've pointed this out before, but I think there are differing views on what the context of this thread is. Or maybe its multiple threads. It seems like there are several threads going on that are basically about the same thing.

Some see it as a scientific discussion, in which case Argumemnon's language is appropriate. (And by the way, as a biologist, I would say that his definition of evolutionary fitness is pretty much textbook.)

Others see this as a social discussion, in which case his language is not appropriate and can be offensive to some.

In other words, everyone is right within the context of the discussion they THINK they are having.

That said, on a single discussion, switching context doesn't really work. This thread pretty much started in a social context discussing politics. Making a scientific point does not change the context of the discussion as a whole. These are group discussions. While in the real world, those who want to get more in depth in a different context can go aside and have a conversation in a different context, that doesn't really work here because every post is presented as part of the main topic.

Perhaps there needs to be a thread on the scientific basis of gender identity where the issue can be discussed in a scientific context. On that thread, Luchog and others would have no basis for offense because the context would be correct from the start.

 

[wareyin]

I think I've pointed this out before, but I think there are differing views on what the context of this thread is. Or maybe its multiple threads. It seems like there are several threads going on that are basically about the same thing.

Some see it as a scientific discussion, in which case Argumemnon's language is appropriate. (And by the way, as a biologist, I would say that his definition of evolutionary fitness is pretty much textbook.)

Others see this as a social discussion, in which case his language is not appropriate and can be offensive to some.

In other words, everyone is right within the context of the discussion they THINK they are having.

That said, on a single discussion, switching context doesn't really work. This thread pretty much started in a social context discussing politics. Making a scientific point does not change the context of the discussion as a whole. These are group discussions. While in the real world, those who want to get more in depth in a different context can go aside and have a conversation in a different context, that doesn't really work here because every post is presented as part of the main topic.

Perhaps there needs to be a thread on the scientific basis of gender identity where the issue can be discussed in a scientific context. On that thread, Luchog and others would have no basis for offense because the context would be correct from the start.

Well stated.

 

[Belz...]

Why follow up? You've now remembered that we weren't discussing "deleterious genetic mutation", as you apparently thought in your last post.

What? It's the only thing you and I have been discussing!

Also, you know this conversation has never been limited to genetics, so why try to imply that it has?

I didn't say it was. My comments about "genetic defects" was.

 

[xjx388]

You appear to have lost track of which terms we were discussing, and why.

I think that applies to everyone...