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

[AdamSK]

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.

My conjecture is that the rate would likely be moderately higher for those who have successfully transitioned. But since that's such a small fraction of the population, the numbers are really nominal. If you pick out a pervert at random, odds are that person is not going to be transgender - and if you pick a transgender person out at random, odds are that person is not going to be a pervert.

 

[Belz...]

Right, dictionary definitions, popular usage, and mental health professionals all describing a term as offensive or problematic

I really love that word, "problematic". It means nothing and everything at the same time.

have no bearing on whether it is offensive in an "academic discussion" on a web forum about social issues.

Indeed it doesn't.

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?

The point of rules 0 and 12 is to avoid bickering festivals, and provide an incentive to discuss the issues, instead. As far as I'm concerned, it's not about protecting each other's feelings.

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

Maybe not in terms of rules violations but it sure doesn't fool anyone.

 

[Belz...]

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

I think that's too wide a definition, though. A good example of trolling would be a video about a female guitar player who has very good playing skills and the top comment in the comments section being : "Get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich." Obviously the guy posting it is just fishing for reactions. Calling someone an idiot, which would also be interpreted as intentionally provoke offense, is not necessarily trolling.

/derail

 

[Belz...]

My conjecture is that the rate would likely be moderately higher for those who have successfully transitioned.

May I ask why?

 

[wareyin]

I really love that word, "problematic". It means nothing and everything at the same time.



Indeed it doesn't.

And you are back to being Humpty-Dumpty, redefining words as you want. Does this merry-go-round ever make you dizzy?

The point of rules 0 and 12 is to avoid bickering festivals, and provide an incentive to discuss the issues, instead. As far as I'm concerned, it's not about protecting each other's feelings.

Do you think using offensive terms aligns with avoiding bickering festivals? Judging by this thread, it appears that intentionally using offensive terms provides an incentive to bicker, rather than discuss the issues.

Maybe not in terms of rules violations but it sure doesn't fool anyone.

My bad, judging by your posts, I didn't realize the intent was to fool anyone.

 

[Belz...]

And you are back to being Humpty-Dumpty, redefining words as you want. Does this merry-go-round ever make you dizzy?

Where have I redefined a word anywhere in that post?

Do you think using offensive terms aligns with avoiding bickering festivals?

THEY ARE NOT OFFENSIVE.

Did you see it, this time?

Besides, it appears you have missed my point about not TAKING the word as offensive in order to be able to discuss. This dance of avoiding words that may be offensive leads to no discussion at all, as you've so masterfully proved in this thread.

My bad, judging by your posts, I didn't realize the intent was to fool anyone.

"I know you are, but what am I"! What are you, ten years old?

 

[AdamSK]

May I ask why?

New urges without a childhood of discipline to learn to control them.

 

[AdamSK]

Even if you feel the terms are not offensive -- even if they objectively can be proven to be not offensive -- avoiding their use could have allowed actual discussion of the OP topic, instead of a 600+ post semantic debate.

Note, again, that the semantic debate was the result of Argumemnon being explicitly accused of marginalizing trans people and being a bigot. So it could also have been avoided by, y'know, not doing that.

 

[Belz...]

Even if you feel the terms are not offensive -- even if they objectively can be proven to be not offensive -- avoiding their use could have allowed actual discussion of the OP topic

How? Anything that's seen as offensive by other posters effectively shuts down the discussion. The reason why we've been quibbling for so long is precisely because no word (we've tried "defect", "wrong setting" and "deleterious mutation" and none of that has worked) will be accepted.

I'm quite aware that people don't appreciate my posting style, but I'm not the one actively trying to prevent discussion. "Well, that may be a tad offensive to some people, but it's probably accurate in the scientific context" would have been a lot more useful than the response I got.

 

[wareyin]

Where have I redefined a word anywhere in that post?

How about when you ignored the dictionary, popular understanding, and mental health professionals all to declare:

THEY ARE NOT OFFENSIVE.

Did you see it, this time?

Yep, but I saw it every other time you claimed it, as well. Your problem is that you don't get to declare whether or not they are.

Besides, it appears you have missed my point about not TAKING the word as offensive in order to be able to discuss. This dance of avoiding words that may be offensive leads to no discussion at all, as you've so masterfully proved in this thread.

Nah, it's the insistence on using offensive words that leads to no discussion at all.

"I know you are, but what am I"! What are you, ten years old?

Nice rule 12.

I'm quite aware that people don't appreciate my posting style, but I'm not the one actively trying to prevent discussion. "Well, that may be a tad offensive to some people, but it's probably accurate in the scientific context" would have been a lot more useful than the response I got.

Alternatively, "Thanks for letting me know that term was offensive. I didn't realize that, so I'll use one that isn't" would have been a pretty good way to keep a discussion on track.

 

[Belz...]

Yep, but I saw it every other time you claimed it, as well. Your problem is that you don't get to declare whether or not they are.

Neither do you.

Nah, it's the insistence on using offensive words that leads to no discussion at all.

They are not offensive in context. Also, grow a thicker skin. Finally, I don't care if you think they are offensive. What I said was either accurate or it wasn't. The rest is irrelevant.

"Thanks for letting me know that term was offensive. I didn't realize that, so I'll use one that isn't" would have been a pretty good way to keep a discussion on track.

Which would, of course, prevent me from discussing what I was discussing.

 

[wareyin]

Neither do you.

Good thing I brought evidence that it's not just me, but the dictionary, popular understanding, and mental health professionals. You've provided....a personal declaration that your definition supersedes all that.

They are not offensive in context. Also, grow a thicker skin. Finally, I don't care if you think they are offensive. What I said was either accurate or it wasn't. The rest is irrelevant.

Somehow, I doubt that you don't care. Otherwise, you wouldn't be so adamant on using offensive terms.

Which would, of course, prevent me from discussing what I was discussing.

Is this an admission that your point was the use of that exact (offensive) term, and only that (offensive) term, rather than the idea behind it expressed in a non offensive way?

 

[Belz...]

Good thing I brought evidence that it's not just me, but the dictionary, popular understanding, and mental health professionals.

Which is, as you noted, irrelevant to this thread.

Somehow, I doubt that you don't care. Otherwise, you wouldn't be so adamant on using offensive terms.

You fail logic. If I don't recognise that they are offensive, I cannot be adamang on using offensive terms. But in addition to that, I don't care if it offends you or anyone here.

Is this an admission that your point was the use of that exact (offensive) term, and only that (offensive) term, rather than the idea behind it expressed in a non offensive way?

The only idea behind it is that the mutation is naturally deleterious. If you think that is some sort of moral judgment, then you are the one emotionally charging the term.

 

[wareyin]

Which is, as you noted, irrelevant to this thread.

Nope, the only one claiming so was you. I actually mocked that claim.

You fail logic. If I don't recognise that they are offensive, I cannot be adamang on using offensive terms. But in addition to that, I don't care if it offends you or anyone here.

Right, that's why you insist on using terms that you know are offensive. Logic has nothing to do with that sort of behavior.

The only idea behind it is that the mutation is naturally deleterious. If you think that is some sort of moral judgment, then you are the one emotionally charging the term.

Good thing you chose to not use that phrase, and stuck with the offensive one, then!

 

[Belz...]

Nope, the only one claiming so was you. I actually mocked that claim.

Well, I'm right and you're wrong, so there's that.

If I don't recognise that they are offensive, I cannot be adamang on using offensive terms.

Right, that's why you insist on using terms that you know are offensive.

What part of "If I don't recognise that they are offensive, I cannot be adamang on using offensive terms." did you fail to understand?

Good thing you chose to not use that phrase, and stuck with the offensive one, then!

No, that is exactly what I said, and when I suggested the alternate "deleterious", somehow that still wasn't accepted, showing what I've been saying all along: it's not about whether the words are offensive or not. You simply don't want to have the discussion.

Really, stop lying about this.

 

[wareyin]

Well, I'm right and you're wrong, so there's that.

Pffft

What part of "If I don't recognise that they are offensive, I cannot be adamang on using offensive terms." did you fail to understand?

Well, "adamang" is a little confusing. Assuming it's a typo for adamant, your phrase is a logical non sequitur. You are adamant on using this term. This term is offensive. Your pretense to not recognize that the term is offensive has no bearing on whether or not it's offensive, or the obvious fact that you are adamant about using it.

No, that is exactly what I said, and when I suggested the alternate "deleterious", somehow that still wasn't accepted, showing what I've been saying all along: it's not about whether the words are offensive or not. You simply don't want to have the discussion.

Really, stop lying about this.

You wanna quote me claiming "deleterious" is offensive? Or will you retract that lie?

 

[Matthew Best]

How much of this thread is about a directive that the government has issued on bathroom access in schools? Doesn't seem like much, but I'm not going to read back through the whole thing to find out.

It seems to me that this thread has been derailed somehow and a lot of it should have been split off to a new thread, or AAH.

 

[Belz...]

Well, "adamang" is a little confusing. Assuming it's a typo for adamant, your phrase is a logical non sequitur.

Yes, it was a typo. Glad to see that it didn't confuse you too much.

You are adamant on using this term. This term is offensive.

I disagree that it's offensive, thus I'm not adamant about using an offensive term. It's really simple, but I might have given you too much credit.

You wanna quote me claiming "deleterious" is offensive?

I never said that you claimed that.

 

[quadraginta]

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.

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

It was just a dispassionate observation. No offense intended, I'm sure.

 

[wareyin]

It was just a dispassionate observation. No offense intended, I'm sure.

Exactly