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

[Belz...]

his point is to use offensive language while pretending that it's not offensive.

You ASSUME that it's offensive, and then concoct a contradiction out of that.

Offense is, apparently, the only thing you care about. Being accurate or dispassionate, or trying to discuss the issue in any way, in fact, is not only secondary, it's labeled as offensive, and thus off-limit everywhere.

Body of work, my friend, body of work.

In other words, you intend to continue to ignore the substance my points in order to focus on the style.

 

[wareyin]

You ASSUME that it's offensive, and then concoct a contradiction out of that.

Offense is, apparently, the only thing you care about. Being accurate or dispassionate, or trying to discuss the issue in any way, in fact, is not only secondary, it's labeled as offensive, and thus off-limit everywhere.



In other words, you intend to continue to ignore the substance my points in order to focus on the style.

Even your allies appear to understand that:

You can't just proclaim it's not a problem when many others have said it's a problem.

But before I wade back in to providing you with definitions of basic words, how about you provide definitions for "dispassionate" and "everywhere". Obviously these 2 words, among others, are not being used as they are defined in standard dictionaries.

 

[cullennz]

I've seen calls for transgender people to be allowed to change in the room they identify as, but no calls for unisex changing rooms.

You might want to re read the thread.

Either way a dick in a teenage chicks changing room (unless agreed otherwise by the chicks) is pandering

 

[wareyin]

You might want to re read the thread.

Either way a dick in a teenage chicks changing room (unless agreed otherwise by the chicks) is pandering

I think Argumemnon is doing this with a tiny amount of plausible deniability (define plausible ), while over the top stuff like "a dick" is just a bit too obvious.

 

[Belz...]

Even your allies appear to understand that:

I don't have "allies" here. I'm on no one's "side".

But before I wade back in to providing you with definitions of basic words, how about you provide definitions for "dispassionate" and "everywhere". Obviously these 2 words, among others, are not being used as they are defined in standard dictionaries.

Yes, dispassionate: it's not about finding that some words offend you, but about ignoring the emotional and dealing with the facts. But I wouldn't expect someone who cares for nothing but feelings to understand that.

I think Argumemnon is doing this with a tiny amount of plausible deniability

Given how you've danced around, trying to avoid geting pinned down on any sort of position, that is quite ironic.

 

[wareyin]

Yes, dispassionate: it's not about finding that some words offend you, but about ignoring the emotional and dealing with the facts. But I wouldn't expect someone who cares for nothing but feelings to understand that.

To make sure I'm following, the Argumemnon definition of "dispassionate" is: Uses as many offensive terms as one can to get a rise out of people. That doesn't jive with dispassionate^dict definitions that I'm aware of.

Given how you've danced around, trying to avoid geting pinned down on any sort of position, that is quite ironic.

Define "position".

 

[AdamSK]

I think Argumemnon is doing this with a tiny amount of plausible deniability

And, again, more time trying to pin the "bigot" label rather than addressing any of the issues.

 

[wareyin]

And, again, more time trying to pin the "bigot" label rather than addressing any of the issues.

Bigotry is one of the issues, and covering for it doesn't help. Bigotry is the entire reason that states are trying to pass the laws the feds are having to fight, here.

 

[Belz...]

To make sure I'm following, the Argumemnon definition of "dispassionate" is: Uses as many offensive terms as one can to get a rise out of people.

Again, you are ASSUMING that they are offensive.

And now I notice you are clearly accusing me of being a troll. I would advise you against it.

 

[Belz...]

Bigotry is one of the issues, and covering for it doesn't help. Bigotry is the entire reason that states are trying to pass the laws the feds are having to fight, here.

You might have noticed that I am against those laws, if you weren't so busy finding things to disagree with.

 

[wareyin]

Again, you are ASSUMING that they are offensive.

Nope. As with the sexist terms you used and defended using, you've been given ample evidence that these words are offensive. Rather, you are PRETENDING that they are NOT offensive.

And now I notice you are clearly accusing me of being a troll. I would advise you against it.

Oh, no, I didn't accuse you of being a troll, I merely described your actions.

 

[AdamSK]

Bigotry is the entire reason that states are trying to pass the laws the feds are having to fight, here.

The entire reason? You really think so?

As I've pointed out earlier, some of the opposition to these laws comes from people who accept transgenders but simply believe the majority of women should be able to exclude a small group, or from people who would rather not exclude transgenders specifically but see the law as necessary to keep perverts out of open changing areas. For these people, I genuinely don't think bigotry is the problem. Ignorance may be, or just an unwillingness to consider whether deep-held fears are rational or emotional - but I don't see intolerance of transgenders as the only factor here. I'm not even convinced it's the primary factor.

 

[Belz...]

Nope.

Absolutely. The 'evidence' you provided was only partly relevant, and wasn't relevant at all to an academic discussion on a web forum.

I don't 'want to pretend' that it isn't offensive. Everything is offensive in the right context. Hell, I've seen people getting offended at "hello". What I'm saying, as you well know, is that it isn't offensive in this context.

Furthermore, I really don't give a toss if someone reading this thread finds it offensive.

Oh, no, I didn't accuse you of being a troll, I merely described your actions.

Who was it who talked about plausible deniability, again?

 

[AdamSK]

Oh, no, I didn't accuse you of being a troll, I merely described your actions.

You described his motivations as wanting to get a rise out of people. That is, by definition, what a troll is. In describing his motivations in this way, you are accusing him of being a troll.

 

[wareyin]

The entire reason? You really think so?

As I've pointed out earlier, some of the opposition to these laws comes from people who accept transgenders but simply believe the majority of women should be able to exclude a small group, or from people who would rather not exclude transgenders specifically but see the law as necessary to keep perverts out of open changing areas. For these people, I genuinely don't think bigotry is the problem. Ignorance may be, or just an unwillingness to consider whether deep-held fears are rational or emotional - but I don't see intolerance of transgenders as the only factor here. I'm not even convinced it's the primary factor.

The people that can't tell the difference between a pervert and a transgender aren't bigoted? Further, a large part of the social cry against allowing transgender people to use the rooms they prefer has been directly and explicitly about "bathrooms", not changing rooms.

 

[Belz...]

The people that can't tell the difference between a pervert and a transgender aren't bigoted?

I don't know about bigoted but they sure aren't very informed. I doubt transgender people are more likely than the general population to be perverts or rapists or whatever.

 

[wareyin]

Absolutely. The 'evidence' you provided was only partly relevant, and wasn't relevant at all to an academic discussion on a web forum.

Right, dictionary definitions, popular usage, and mental health professionals all describing a term as offensive or problematic have no bearing on whether it is offensive in an "academic discussion" on a web forum about social issues.

I don't 'want to pretend' that it isn't offensive. Everything is offensive in the right context. Hell, I've seen people getting offended at "hello". What I'm saying, as you well know, is that it isn't offensive in this context.

Furthermore, I really don't give a toss if someone reading this thread finds it offensive.

Huh, if everything being offensive means we get to use whatever offensive language we want without giving a toss, perhaps this forum should just drop rule 0, and probably rule 12 as well?

Who was it who talked about plausible deniability, again?

You described his motivations as wanting to get a rise out of people. That is, by definition, what a troll is. In describing his motivations in this way, you are accusing him of being a troll.

No, that's not how it works on this forum. Perhaps you should poke around the FMF threads on "trolls" and "trolling".

 

[AdamSK]

The people that can't tell the difference between a pervert and a transgender aren't bigoted?

I think you're misunderstanding what they are saying.

The issue is not that there's no conceptual distinction between a trans woman and a cis-male pervert. The issue is that a trans-friendly bathroom policy cannot distinguish between a trans woman and a cis-male pervert. So, for at least some who are in support of the bathroom bill or in opposition to Target's policy, they acknowledge that transgendered individuals exist but they believe a restrictive restroom policy is necessary to defend against the cis-male perverts - NOT the trans women.

The people I have spoken with who hold this position are generally comfortable with post-op trans individuals using the new bathroom because we can distinguish between these people and cis-male perverts. But allowing biological males that only "claim to be" trans women opens the door to the perverts and is "too dangerous" for the other women and girls.

I don't agree with this position, but I don't think it's a bigoted position. It is, at worst, misprioritizing the comfort of the rest of us over the trans individuals' rights/needs, and misunderstanding the relative magnitude of the two effects in being willing to allow one to prevent the other.

 

[wareyin]

I don't know about bigoted but they sure aren't very informed. I doubt transgender people are more likely than the general population to be perverts or rapists or whatever.

I actually think that the likelihood of a transgender person to be a rapist/pervert after your kids is lower than that of the general population, based on the social insecurities of those that I know. Then again, that's just anecdotal, so the odds (low even in the general pop) could be equal, or higher.

 

[AdamSK]

No, that's not how it works on this forum.

Are you saying that you disagree that intentionally provoking offense is trolling?