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

[Belz...]

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

The important word here is: can. I have a few genetic defects myself, and it doesn't bother me one bit (except, for example, when I need to go out in the sun).

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.

I'm all for it.

 

[Belz...]

Well stated.

Wareyin, it seems we can agree on something!

I'll break out the champagne.

 

[xjx388]

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.

For me, the overarching context is the forum itself. We are ostensibly trying to discuss social, political and other issues in a skeptical context which means that we should try to inject facts and a scientific outlook in our discussions. I know this isn't always the case but it should be what we strive towards. In the larger context, seeking offense where clearly none was intended is not appropriate and distracting from the larger discussion.

 

[wareyin]

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

No. We have not been discussing whether or not the term "deleterious genetic mutations" is offensive. See below for an example of the terms we have discussed:

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

And, as TomB pointed out (and I have repeatedly pointed out as well), your comments are taking place in a discussion about social issues, politics, and cultural reactions to transgender bathroom access in schools, not in a strictly scientific setting.

 

[wareyin]

For me, the overarching context is the forum itself. We are ostensibly trying to discuss social, political and other issues in a skeptical context which means that we should try to inject facts and a scientific outlook in our discussions. I know this isn't always the case but it should be what we strive towards. In the larger context, seeking offense where clearly none was intended is not appropriate and distracting from the larger discussion.

No one here is seeking offense. Plenty of people are pointing out that loaded language and terms are a bad choice to use if one wants to take emotional responses out of the discussion. They are perfect to use, however, if one is attempting to get an emotional response rather than a rational one.

 

[xjx388]

Double post, sorry.

 

[Belz...]

No. We have not been discussing whether or not the term "deleterious genetic mutations" is offensive. See below for an example of the terms we have discussed:

Those are synonyms. I introduced the longer term to see if it was less offensive, but of course it didn't work out. What's the difference, then?

And, as TomB pointed out (and I have repeatedly pointed out as well), your comments are taking place in a discussion about social issues, politics, and cultural reactions to transgender bathroom access in schools, not in a strictly scientific setting.

The thread isn't in science, but the original comment I was responding to was about the scientific aspect. As suggested, I'd be glad to move this part of the discussion to another thread if you want to do so.

 

[Belz...]

No one here is seeking offense. Plenty of people are pointing out that loaded language and terms are a bad choice to use if one wants to take emotional responses out of the discussion.

Pray tell, then: what are the words we should use to take the emotions out of the discussion?

Second, why would we want to take emotion out of the discussion if we're not to discuss the scientific aspects here?

 

[wareyin]

Pray tell, then: what are the words we should use to take the emotions out of the discussion?

Second, why would we want to take emotion out of the discussion if we're not to discuss the scientific aspects here?

I would suggest using words which don't carry value judgments (anomaly vs defect was already suggested in this thread but rejected by you).

Second, ah, there's the rub. You are the one who claims "emotionally charging this issue doesn't help", yet you are also the (main) proponent here of using emotionally charged language to make your "scientific" point in a social discussion.

 

[luchog]

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.

As long as you're going to blatantly ignore context, and resort to constant redefinition, then there is no rational debate possible. At this point, you're just preaching, and if I wanted to hear preaching, I'd go to church.

 

[luchog]

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);

​

Hrm. Looks like I"m a little out of date on the literature. Hardly conclusive, but a strong indicator that there's at least a genetic factor involved. Doesn't look like the most critical factor, though. I'm still betting epigenetics are going to be far more important, and that there may be other factors still not fully understood.

 

[luchog]

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.

No. If this was a scientific discussion, it would be in the science and medicine forum. This is and always has been about the social issues involved with transgender bathroom access, and society's treatment of transpeople in general. Science has been brought in a few times to clarify or evade the points being made, but it's not the actual topic of the thread.

 

[Belz...]

I would suggest using words which don't carry value judgments (anomaly vs defect was already suggested in this thread but rejected by you).

I didn't reject it. I pointed out that it can be just as offensive for the exact same reason.

Second, ah, there's the rub. You are the one who claims "emotionally charging this issue doesn't help", yet you are also the (main) proponent here of using emotionally charged language to make your "scientific" point in a social discussion.

Everything is emotionally charged, according to this thread. What I was arguing for is to not TAKE things emotionally.

As long as you're going to blatantly ignore context, and resort to constant redefinition, then there is no rational debate possible. At this point, you're just preaching, and if I wanted to hear preaching, I'd go to church.

Preaching? Ironic, since you're the one telling me what I should or should not say on a web forum. I've already addressed the issue of context, and you ignored it. That is YOU ignoring context, and projecting your behaviour on me.

 

[wareyin]

I didn't reject it. I pointed out that it can be just as offensive for the exact same reason.

No. "Anomaly" does not carry the same value judgement as "defect".

Everything is emotionally charged, according to this thread. What I was arguing for is to not TAKE things emotionally.

No. No one has made the claim that everything is emotionally charged other than you, in an attempt to defend your use of emotionally charged language. This is made worse when you put the onus on others to not respond emotionally to the emotionally charged language you insist on using. If you do not want people to take things emotionally, stop using emotionally charged language.

 

[AdamSK]

As long as you're going to blatantly ignore context, and resort to constant redefinition, then there is no rational debate possible.

Rational debate was already thrown out the window the moment the discussion stopped being about what he was saying and started being about calling him a bigot.

 

[Belz...]

No. "Anomaly" does not carry the same value judgement as "defect".

Well, I suppose it depends on who you ask.

No. No one has made the claim that everything is emotionally charged other than you, in an attempt to defend your use of emotionally charged language.

No one's "defending" anything. You say it's "emotionally charged", and I say that it's accurate instead, and that the emotion is from the reader, not the writer.

 

[wareyin]

Well, I suppose it depends on who you ask.

Suppose all you wish. Your same criteria has 'uppity negro' (or worse) also not bad, depending on who you ask. Of course, if you can support your claim that "anomaly" has negative connotations, I may change my mind.

No one's "defending" anything. You say it's "emotionally charged", and I say that it's accurate instead, and that the emotion is from the reader, not the writer.

Which is a defense of using emotionally charged language, and a poor one at that.

 

[Meadmaker]

Things get really tough when you have to start making definitions and trying to figure out which one is the right one. How do you define words like "offensive" and "defective"? We should start with something easier.

Like -- "girl". (grrr. Can't find "duck" smiley.)

 

[Belz...]

Of course, if you can support your claim that "anomaly" has negative connotations, I may change my mind.

You first. Why would "genetic defect" carry a negative connotation? That was your claim, after all.

Which is a defense of using emotionally charged language, and a poor one at that.

Your claim that it is emotionally charged is unproven.

In fact, your use of "defense" here is somewhat charged, itself. Your entire argument is based on emotion. I've already indicated earlier on that emotional argument are not very effective, and yet you continue to use them.

 

[wareyin]

You first. Why would "genetic defect" carry a negative connotation? That was your claim, after all.



Your claim that it is emotionally charged is unproven.

In fact, your use of "defense" here is somewhat charged, itself. Your entire argument is based on emotion. I've already indicated earlier on that emotional argument are not very effective, and yet you continue to use them.

And this is why this argument has gone on for so long. You need basic, standard use of language explained to you, and you revert back to already debunked claims (argument based on emotion) after enough pages have passed.

I think it's obvious to all that you wish to use emotionally charged language in spite of, or because of, the emotional responses that language causes.