Cont: Trans Women are not Women II: The Bath Of Khan

Status
Not open for further replies.
BobTheCoward said:
The whole point is to treat people how they wish to be treated. I don't know how person X wants to be treated, so I can't tell you how to treat person X.
Click to expand...

I just don't understand in what way you would treat someone differently who is short from someone who is short but identifies as tall. Can you think of a possible example?
 
Ziggurat said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mx_(title)

The term offends me.
Click to expand...

…

b8edec4ec0efe32ecdb4b97205f5df42.jpg
 
Roboramma said:
I just don't understand in what way you would treat someone differently who is short from someone who is short but identifies as tall. Can you think of a possible example?
Click to expand...
You don't help the latter fellow get stuff off the high shelf.
 
d4m10n said:
You don't help the latter fellow get stuff off the high shelf.
Click to expand...

If you also mean "without being asked" then that's actually reasonable. On the other hand I found Ziggurat's response reasonable as well. Let's see if Bob's viewpoint is more toward what you are saying or the sorts of examples Zig offered.
 
Or to get back to the subject on the card, if it were the case that there were athletics events with height-restricted classes, would it be fine to allow someone over six feet tall to compete in the under-5'6" class just because he identifies as short?

There are indeed athletics events with weight-restricted classes. Would it be fine to allow someone weighing over 200 lb to compete as a featherweight because he identifies as being 120 lb? Because that's almost exactly analogous to what we have here.
 
Rolfe said:
Or to get back to the subject on the card, if it were the case that there were athletics events with height-restricted classes, would it be fine to allow someone over six feet tall to compete in the under-5'6" class just because he identifies as short?

There are indeed athletics events with weight-restricted classes. Would it be fine to allow someone weighing over 200 lb to compete as a featherweight because he identifies as being 120 lb? Because that's almost exactly analogous to what we have here.
Click to expand...

Yes
 
Rolfe said:
Or to get back to the subject on the card, if it were the case that there were athletics events with height-restricted classes, would it be fine to allow someone over six feet tall to compete in the under-5'6" class just because he identifies as short?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is going to argue against height-restricted classes in bodybuilding or weight-restricted classes in wrestling or age-restricted classes in distance running.
 
theprestige said:
Huh. I'd never made that kind of connection between drag and blackface before.

It seems that many of the same arguments could be made against the one as the other. It's offensive. It's stereotypical. It's appropriative.

My god, drag is appropriative! It's men, making a caricature of feminine appearance, for entertainment. That's pretty messed up, when you think about it.

---

Also when you think about it, white people dressing like gangstas is pretty much the new blackface. But you don't see people freaking out about it.
Click to expand...
'Drag' arguably goes back a looong way in lowbrow entertainment (yeh, I'm a snob), exemplified in the "Dames" of English panto[mime], to which untold numbers of impressionable children have been exposed for generations.

They could indeed be as easily construed as "offensive, stereotypical and appropriative" as any latter day drag act. Something must be done (and probably will be).
 
d4m10n said:
I don't think anyone is going to argue against height-restricted classes in bodybuilding or weight-restricted classes in wrestling or age-restricted classes in distance running.
Click to expand...


But they are arguing pretty hard against sex-restricted classes. Why ignore objective reality in that one instance only?
 
IsThisTheLife said:
'Drag' arguably goes back a looong way in lowbrow entertainment (yeh, I'm a snob), exemplified in the "Dames" of English panto[mime], to which untold numbers of impressionable children have been exposed for generations.

They could indeed be as easily construed as "offensive, stereotypical and appropriative" as any latter day drag act. Something must be done (and probably will be).
Click to expand...


As you say, probably will be. Offending people just isn't entertainment any more apparently. Even though the entire raison d'etre of certain comedy genres is offending the hell out of someone.
 
d4m10n said:
You don't help the latter fellow get stuff off the high shelf.
Click to expand...

I'm tall myself, so it's not uncommon for me to get stuff off high shelves for other people, including strangers. It's generally upon request, although I may ask a person if they would like help if I see them struggling. I wouldn't just grab the item for them without them saying they wanted help, though.

If a tall person asked me to get stuff off a high shelf, I would help them. People with shoulder mobility issues or even just frailty may have a hard time lifting things from up high, even if their arms are long enough to reach. I haven't had to do that, so far it's always been short people, but I wouldn't have a problem doing so for a tall person.
 
d4m10n said:
I don't think anyone is going to argue against height-restricted classes in bodybuilding or weight-restricted classes in wrestling or age-restricted classes in distance running.
Click to expand...

Oh, someone will. They may not get any real traction, but someone, somewhere, will eventually complain about it.
 
caveman1917 said:
Asking them to grab something from the top shelf?
Click to expand...

Good point. I'll help short or tall people get things from high shelves, but I'll ask the tall guy, not the short one, if I need help with something from a high shelf. Unless the short guy has a ladder/stool with him.

So if a short guy identifies as tall, he better have a ladder with him if he expects me to do so too.
 
Height was something I'd used as an example in one of these threads a while back (might even be this one). In the past when I was doing the online dating thing I'd run across women who listed (among other criteria) a minimum height. If I made a date with someone who said she wasn't interested in a man under 6'2" and my 5'9" self shows up at the restaurant would the excuse 'my height is 5'9", but my stature is 6'6", so respect my identity or you're a bigot' warrant anything other than a laugh? It's the sticking point I keep trying to wrap my head around but can't : if "gender" is now simple self-identification then it carries no useful information and doesn't really mean anything in the end other than 'how I wish I were'.

If 'woman' means nothing beyond 'anyone who identifies as a woman' then the word is circular and useless.
 
Ziggurat said:
Good point. I'll help short or tall people get things from high shelves, but I'll ask the tall guy, not the short one, if I need help with something from a high shelf. Unless the short guy has a ladder/stool with him.

So if a short guy identifies as tall, he better have a ladder with him if he expects me to do so too.
Click to expand...

But BobTheCoward would treat a short person who identified as a tall person as a tall person, presumably including asking for something from a high shelf. I'm interested in what BobTheCoward would do when this idea obviously comes to a standstill as the short person can't reach the top shelf.
 
Last edited:
caveman1917 said:
But BobTheCoward would treat a short person who identified as a tall person as a tall person, presumably including asking for something from a high shelf. I'm interested in what BobTheCoward would do when this idea obviously comes to a standstill as the short person can't reach the top shelf.
Click to expand...

No, I said I would treat them as they wish to be treated. How their perception of their own height manifests and should be treated is up to them....not me. Your post presumes they would want to be asked in situations like that, and I'm not going to foist my presumptions onto a community.
 
Joe Random said:
Height was something I'd used as an example in one of these threads a while back (might even be this one). In the past when I was doing the online dating thing I'd run across women who listed (among other criteria) a minimum height. If I made a date with someone who said she wasn't interested in a man under 6'2" and my 5'9" self shows up at the restaurant would the excuse 'my height is 5'9", but my stature is 6'6", so respect my identity or you're a bigot' warrant anything other than a laugh? It's the sticking point I keep trying to wrap my head around but can't : if "gender" is now simple self-identification then it carries no useful information and doesn't really mean anything in the end other than 'how I wish I were'.

If 'woman' means nothing beyond 'anyone who identifies as a woman' then the word is circular and useless.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with Joe here. Allowing unfettered self definition of whatever one is become another thing by the word alone is silly. It dilutes meanings and gone too far, hurts society.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom