Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??

[d4m10n]

It happened, mostly out of force of habit rather than insistence. IIRC, it felt exactly like being violently attacked.

If it wasn't persistent and insistent, then I'm not sure why you would anyone to feel attacked.

Everything after IIRC was supposed to be in sarcasm font. [emoji14]

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[arthwollipot]

Everything after IIRC was supposed to be in sarcasm font. [emoji14]

But that's the whole point. Occasional mistakes due to ignorance or forgetfulness are not violence. Repeatedly using the wrong name despite being made aware of the new one could be considered harassment.

Just like with pronouns.

 

[Sherkeu]

But that's the whole point. Occasional mistakes due to ignorance or forgetfulness are not violence. Repeatedly using the wrong name despite being made aware of the new one could be considered harassment. Just like with pronouns.

Not VIOLENCE surely. In any way, shape, or form

The posts I made here specifically are in relation to anyone trying to equate this sort of "a"hole harassment (e.g. you are a total co-unt beeeactch 1000x) as actual, physical, violence- Capital legal V, with a swift punch in the face....because of some special thing about a pronoun.

Or has everyone here lost the plot from the start?

 

[Samson]

But that's the whole point. Occasional mistakes due to ignorance or forgetfulness are not violence. Repeatedly using the wrong name despite being made aware of the new one could be considered harassment.

Just like with pronouns.

What do you think of the thesis that compulsory pronouns in schools leads to diagnosis of gender dysphoria when the correct diagnosis is same sex attraction?
If this thesis has credence the use of pronouns leads to "profound child abuse".
The phrase of Kellie Jay Keen-Minshul.
She has a vast following, whether people like it or not.

She may be wrong.
But imagine if she is right

In this thesis the wrong pronoun for a child is any pronoun not lining up with birth sex.
If this enables medicalisation before 18, it could be called violence by dint of wrong pronoun.

 

[varwoche]

...The phrase of Kellie Jay Keen-Minshul [sic]
She has a vast following, whether people like it or not.

You gush over these political activists in a way that's cringe-worthy.

Who in Dog's name cares about the size of her following in any case.

 

[tyr_13]

You gush over these political activists in a way that's cringe-worthy.

Who in Dog's name cares about the size of her following in any case.

It's important to note that she has called for the forced sterilization of trans men, violence against transgender people in general, is cozy with anti-semtic groups (even having a Nazi mentor), and of course has had her legal fees promised to be paid by JK Rowling.

She refuses to use the correct pronouns for any transgender people. Because of people like her and the literal Nazis, pointed and intentional misgendering is rightly a huge red flag for violence (physical attack).

But I know, I completely correctly tied being a nasty prick to transgender people over pronouns to the actions of literal Nazis, so I lose or something.

 

[arthwollipot]

Not VIOLENCE surely. In any way, shape, or form

The posts I made here specifically are in relation to anyone trying to equate this sort of "a"hole harassment (e.g. you are a total co-unt beeeactch 1000x) as actual, physical, violence- Capital legal V, with a swift punch in the face....because of some special thing about a pronoun.

Or has everyone here lost the plot from the start?

As has been pointed out from the start, the definition of the word "violence" incorporates more than the simply physical. Mental, emotional and social violence are all still violence.

What do you think of the thesis that compulsory pronouns in schools leads to diagnosis of gender dysphoria when the correct diagnosis is same sex attraction?

What do I think? I think it's absolute ********. I think there's no evidence for it that hasn't been manufactured by rightist anti-trans bigots in order to push their hateful agenda.

She may be wrong.
But imagine if she is right

Are we playing the "what if?" game now? What happened to evidence?

 

[theprestige]

"Your speech is violence" is a principle that predates this thread.

 

[dirtywick]

Not VIOLENCE surely. In any way, shape, or form

The posts I made here specifically are in relation to anyone trying to equate this sort of "a"hole harassment (e.g. you are a total co-unt beeeactch 1000x) as actual, physical, violence- Capital legal V, with a swift punch in the face....because of some special thing about a pronoun.

Or has everyone here lost the plot from the start?

it came from some goofball community college pamphlet asking students to be nice to each other

 

[Samson]

It's important to note that she has called for the forced sterilization of trans men, violence against transgender people in general, is cozy with anti-semtic groups (even having a Nazi mentor), and of course has had her legal fees promised to be paid by JK Rowling.

She refuses to use the correct pronouns for any transgender people. Because of people like her and the literal Nazis, pointed and intentional misgendering is rightly a huge red flag for violence (physical attack).

But I know, I completely correctly tied being a nasty prick to transgender people over pronouns to the actions of literal Nazis, so I lose or something.

You would need specific instances to cover those accusations. Yes she calls "transwomen" men in a flagrantly disrespectful way, and is called out accordingly.
I find it jarring but she would claim it is reclaiming her sex.

The rest of your diatribe is false.

 

[tyr_13]

You would need specific instances to cover those accusations. Yes she calls "transwomen" men in a flagrantly disrespectful way, and is called out accordingly.
I find it jarring but she would claim it is reclaiming her sex.

The rest of your diatribe is false.

I don't have time to pull out all the specific links, but as if it were made just for this there is a new Shaun video out yesterday that, while extremely long, is going to have impeccable research and citations.

Or one could just read her wikipedia entry. That probably has it in there too.

 

[d4m10n]

But that's the whole point. Occasional mistakes due to ignorance or forgetfulness are not violence. Repeatedly using the wrong name despite being made aware of the new one could be considered harassment.

It is not obvious to me how these two terms are supposed to be related here.

Is verbal harassment a kind of violence?

 

[arthwollipot]

It is not obvious to me how these two terms are supposed to be related here.

Is verbal harassment a kind of violence?

I've answered this question already, so I'm not sure why anybody is still having problems with it.

It can be, if the victim considers it to be. An appropriately empowered arbitration committee may also in the appropriate circumstances find it to be.

 

[Samson]

I don't have time to pull out all the specific links, but as if it were made just for this there is a new Shaun video out yesterday that, while extremely long, is going to have impeccable research and citations.

Or one could just read her wikipedia entry. That probably has it in there too.

Thankyou, yes I listened to the whole dissertation.
I cant figure whether he is a trans man or just a common or garden man. I note the comments all identify Kellie Jay as essence of evil. Maybe that is correct, and her followers are hood winked. He calls her out for deadnaming a lot, which is a kind of verbal violence his disciples lament.

Would you agree this is a language war we are fighting?

 

[Myriad]

"Using wrong pronouns is violence" is just one part of a general trend of excessive hyperbole in public discourse.

"There are downsides to keeping domestic animals as pets. Make sure before you take on a pet that you can not only care for its health but also give it a fulfilling life." But what we hear instead is "Pets are slaves."

"Sugary caffeinated soft drinks consumed in excess are bad for your long-term health." But what we hear instead is "Coca-Cola is poison." Substitute any food or drink whatsoever that someone disapproves of for any reason whatsoever; it's all described as "poison."

My purpose here isn't to discuss animal rights or proper diet, but to place "...is violence" in this larger context. Doing this is taking an aggressive stance that attempts to nullify all opposing points of view and force someone's preferences onto someone else. It can be successful ("abortion is murder" sure got a lot of mileage) or just annoying (think of how most people react when a militant vegan asks them how does their murder-burger taste?) or nearly comical ("taxation is theft").

There are two things wrong with it. One is, if the cola-is-poison viewpoint prevails in redefining "poison" to be "anything potentially harmful for your health if consumed excessively over a long period of time," what do we write on the label of the bottle of stuff that will kill you dead in a few minutes or hours if you consume an ounce of it? We can invent a new word that means actual-for-realz-poison, which the same hyperbolators will immediately appropriate as the new even-better word to describe their feelings about carbonated sugar water (or milk, or non-organic produce, or fast food...).

The second is, it contributes to the minmaxing on social positions that's stressing everyone out. Advice is phrased as demands. Correction is phrased as condemnation. People tune it out or respond in kind, so the purpose of the advice or correction is nullified. It's like a bad marriage where one spouse hesitates to ask "did you pay cable bill" because the other is sure to respond "you never trust me for anything!" But on a global scale.

For some reason we can't just agree "it's rude to disregard people's reasonable preferences in how they're addressed; and we can discuss what preferences are reasonable or not, and what is or is not a reasonable response to any such rudeness." Instead we have arguments between extremes. After all, if you've noticed, the real-world counter-argument to "using wrong pronouns is violence" hasn't really been "no it's not, don't be silly." Instead it's "gender affirmation is grooming." Being expected to pick which side is less stupid is stressful.

 

[d4m10n]

It can be, if the victim considers it to be.

Would such a victim be justified in using violence in self-defense?

 

[gnome]

"Using wrong pronouns is violence" is just one part of a general trend of excessive hyperbole in public discourse.

"There are downsides to keeping domestic animals as pets. Make sure before you take on a pet that you can not only care for its health but also give it a fulfilling life." But what we hear instead is "Pets are slaves."

"Sugary caffeinated soft drinks consumed in excess are bad for your long-term health." But what we hear instead is "Coca-Cola is poison." Substitute any food or drink whatsoever that someone disapproves of for any reason whatsoever; it's all described as "poison."

My purpose here isn't to discuss animal rights or proper diet, but to place "...is violence" in this larger context. Doing this is taking an aggressive stance that attempts to nullify all opposing points of view and force someone's preferences onto someone else. It can be successful ("abortion is murder" sure got a lot of mileage) or just annoying (think of how most people react when a militant vegan asks them how does their murder-burger taste?) or nearly comical ("taxation is theft").

There are two things wrong with it. One is, if the cola-is-poison viewpoint prevails in redefining "poison" to be "anything potentially harmful for your health if consumed excessively over a long period of time," what do we write on the label of the bottle of stuff that will kill you dead in a few minutes or hours if you consume an ounce of it? We can invent a new word that means actual-for-realz-poison, which the same hyperbolators will immediately appropriate as the new even-better word to describe their feelings about carbonated sugar water (or milk, or non-organic produce, or fast food...).

The second is, it contributes to the minmaxing on social positions that's stressing everyone out. Advice is phrased as demands. Correction is phrased as condemnation. People tune it out or respond in kind, so the purpose of the advice or correction is nullified. It's like a bad marriage where one spouse hesitates to ask "did you pay cable bill" because the other is sure to respond "you never trust me for anything!" But on a global scale.

For some reason we can't just agree "it's rude to disregard people's reasonable preferences in how they're addressed; and we can discuss what preferences are reasonable or not, and what is or is not a reasonable response to any such rudeness." Instead we have arguments between extremes. After all, if you've noticed, the real-world counter-argument to "using wrong pronouns is violence" hasn't really been "no it's not, don't be silly." Instead it's "gender affirmation is grooming." Being expected to pick which side is less stupid is stressful.

I appreciated this comment a lot.

 

[Matthew Best]

It's important to note that she has called for the forced sterilization of trans men, violence against transgender people in general, is cozy with anti-semtic groups (even having a Nazi mentor), and of course has had her legal fees promised to be paid by JK Rowling.

She refuses to use the correct pronouns for any transgender people. Because of people like her and the literal Nazis, pointed and intentional misgendering is rightly a huge red flag for violence (physical attack).

I looked at her Wikipedia article, as you suggested (I'm not watching Youtube videos I'm afraid - I have some self-respect left after all). There's no mention of sterilization, forced or otherwise, and no mention of a Nazi mentor.

 

[theprestige]

She refuses to use the correct pronouns for any transgender people.

Begs the question.

In fact, pronouns are third-party references to a person's apparent biological sex.

If preferred pronouns were the correct ones, the preference wouldn't need to be stated. The whole point of preferred pronouns is that a dude would prefer for you to think of him as a lady, even though he manifestly isn't and you don't actually think of him that way. His preferred pronouns might be the polite pronouns, but conventionally speaking they can't be the correct ones.

 

[arthwollipot]

I cant figure whether he is a trans man or just a common or garden man.

Putting aside for now the discriminatory phrasing, the great thing is that you don't have to. Just don't worry about it. Expend no mental effort on the question because it really doesn't matter.