Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Trausti]

Bbbbut... these types of things are not happening any more, amirite!?

God bless 'Merica.

 

[smartcooky]

I am unaware of anyone on this forum, or off it for that matter, claiming these types of things are not happening any more. Whom are you referencing here?

Snark

There is no conscience so quick to respond to snark than a guilty one.

You have made several caustic references to me citing examples from 5 to 6 years ago, implying that things have changed and incidents like these are no longer likely to happen.... even though one of those examples only happened in April 2023, and was only resolved in March of this year... so yeah. I'm referencing YOU!

Now if you would like to withdraw your criticism of my use of historical examples that were only a few years old of people being arrested for expressing their views, I will be happy to withdraw my snarky comment. If not, it stands!


ETA: No response to my post #570 then?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Snark

There is no conscience so quick to respond to snark than a guilty one.

You have made several caustic references to me citing examples from 5 to 6 years ago, implying that things have changed

Yes, they have. Copious evidence has been provided to you to show this.

and incidents like these are no longer likely to happen....

And here you lost the plot again. No, I did not say that. I said that I hoped there would be fewer of these incidents in the future. At no point did I say they had stopped, as per your previous post, nor did I say 'no longer likely to happen', as per your most recent strawman.

even though one of those examples only happened in April 2023, and was only resolved in March of this year... so yeah. I'm referencing YOU!

So, once again I am forced to request you read my actual posts and stop using strawmen.

Now if you would like to withdraw your criticism of my use of historical examples that were only a few years old of people being arrested for expressing their views, I will be happy to withdraw my snarky comment. If not, it stands!

You seem confused by the idea that change can happen over a period of a few years. Let me dispel that confusion, if I can:
Change can happen over a period of a few years.
There. Simple, really, when you think about it.

ETA: No response to my post #570 then?

You first. So far, you have given no response to my posts 540 549, 558, 559, 561 & 562.

 

[smartcooky]

Yes, they have. Copious evidence has been provided to you to show this.

Non-sequitur your reply is unrelated to my post

And here you lost the plot again. No, I did not say that.

You implied it

So, once again I am forced to request you read my actual posts and stop using strawmen.

I did. That was what I considered your claims to imply.

You seem confused by the idea that change can happen over a period of a few years. Let me dispel that confusion, if I can:
Change can happen over a period of a few years.
There. Simple, really, when you think about it.

Another non-sequitur. Your reply does not relate to anything I posted.

You first.

Ah yes, the old dodge to avoid hard questions or handwave away replies you don't like

So far, you have given no response to my posts 540 549, 558, 559, 561 & 562.

540 and 561: Not addressed to me, and not replies to any of my posts, so I am not obliged to comment.

559: Is an opinion, not a claim. I'm not obliged to provide citations for opinions.

562: Is asking me for evidence of a claim I never made. I'm not obliged to support claims I never made.

549 and 558: Answered in 570 - which was an answer to YOUR QUESTION (an answer you refuse to address)

 

[Darat]

There's a case in the news today:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgwew5v4qyo

How woman with coconut placard was tracked down, taken to court - and acquitted

Another one that is inexplicable as to why CPS went ahead with a trial, there was zero chance of a conviction. The issue really seems the CPS not the police (can’t believe I’m not having to say the issue is the police) following its own primary guidelines.

 

[Darat]

Formally protected but not actually protected in practice, as in the several examples given above. Keep up.

Not my fault if you are unclear as to your meaning.

 

[Darat]

Non Crime Hate Incident?

Arrested but Not Charged?

That is still either protected or not.

 

[Samson]

That is still either protected or not.

The chilling effect pays no heed to semantics.

 

[HansMustermann]

Since the "misgendering" thread got folded in here, I'm going to ask again what makes pronouns the "correct" ones, assuming you're the sort of person who is prescriptive enough to correct other folk's language in these matters.

Suppose Alph & Beto are having an argument about how pronouns work. Alph says that pronouns are assigned to people in the same way they are assigned to cats and dogs and horses, that is, based on sex. Beto says pronouns must be assigned to people based on what those people affirm about themselves, even if that causes a certain amount of cognitive dissonance for folks like Alph.

A non-prescriptivist would likely say there is no correct answer here, only two different sets of ideas as to what role pronouns play in our language. That said, what arguments can be made to show Alph is doing language wrong and ought to change his ways to match those of Beto, or vice-versa?

I don't think the argument is whether it's doing language wrong. Otherwise, the biggest offender would be Shakespeare. English never walked the same, after what Shakespeare did to it

The root issue, way I see it, you've already nailed when you wrote, "even if that causes a certain amount of cognitive dissonance for folks like Alph." Except it applies to Beto too. Beto too can get some uncomfortable cognitive dissonance there.

And at some point it was apparently decided that Alph has some duty to give Beto everything Beto wants. (Within the domain under discussion) Because continuing to just say things like Alph always did, makes Beto upset and that makes Alph a nazi or something. Meanwhile Beto has no symmetrical duty to be nice to Alph.

Just because Beto declared himself a progressive. Which is apparently no different from being a spoiled brat.

 

[Darat]

I don't think the argument is whether it's doing language wrong. Otherwise, the biggest offender would be Shakespeare. English never walked the same, after what Shakespeare did to it

The root issue, way I see it, you've already nailed when you wrote, "even if that causes a certain amount of cognitive dissonance for folks like Alph." Except it applies to Beto too. Beto too can get some uncomfortable cognitive dissonance there.

And at some point it was apparently decided that Alph has some duty to give Beto everything Beto wants. (Within the domain under discussion) Because continuing to just say things like Alph always did, makes Beto upset and that makes Alph a nazi or something. Meanwhile Beto has no symmetrical duty to be nice to Alph.

Just because Beto declared himself a progressive. Which is apparently no different from being a spoiled brat.

Or one views the pronoun as a stand in for a name and we use the name people give as their name.

 

[HansMustermann]

Or one views the pronoun as a stand in for a name and we use the name people give as their name.

We've already been through that in the other thread, and the two don't have any common attributes for that analogy to work, other than that they can be put in the same places in a sentence.

But either way, that's already a change that Beto is asking Alph to do in the way Alph's model of the world works.

 

[d4m10n]

We've already been through that in the other thread, and the two don't have any common attributes for that analogy to work, other than that they can be put in the same places in a sentence.

I think it's even more disanalogous than that, much of the time.

Suppose someone goes by their birth name "Roberto" for their entire childhood, but when they matriculate after graduation, they tell everyone they meet to call them "Beto" which is a common enough nickname for people with that birth name. So far, so good. No one is going to seriously question a nickname known to match a forename; the mental machinery is already in place.

If, instead, Roberto told people to call him "Biggus Dickus," we'd have trouble taking him seriously, especially those of us who've showered with him after swim team and can easily see the irony. Other people might be uncomfortable with the new nickname for essentially puritanical reasons, much like the students who found those comically oversized prosthetic breasts distracting in class.

An inflexible moral rule that we must always defer to an individual's act of self-naming takes away the agency of those around that individual, making them into something more like puppets than autonomous human beings. I understand the motivations of those who would lay down such a rule, but I cannot share them.

 

[HansMustermann]

Ironic nicknames like calling a huge guy "Little John" are a thing though. Then again, maybe they did see him naked...

Plus someone could get their name legally changed, no matter how stupid the others think it is. Like a guy can probably get his name changed to Galadriel, even if his friends would get the giggles out of it. Or just go to a fantasy name generator and create a completely new name for themselves, like, say Lhorsan.

But that's unimportant. At the end of the day, pronouns don't have the same function or expectations attached as names, so whether one may change their name or not, is rather irrelevant to whether one may also invent a new set of pronouns and demand that everyone else use it.

 

[Aber]

That is still either protected or not.

Nope, because in many cases it depends on the exact circumstances, and the amount of time and effort people are willing to put into appeals.

 

[Darat]

Nope, because in many cases it depends on the exact circumstances, and the amount of time and effort people are willing to put into appeals.

Which makes not one iota of difference - it either is or it isn't, that's how the law works.

 

[d4m10n]

Which makes not one iota of difference - it either is or it isn't, that's how the law works.

Here in the U.S. we have an old saying "The Process Is the Punishment" and a book of the same name providing countless examples. We generally avoid putting people through the punishing process just for speech, though.

 

[Myriad]

Which makes not one iota of difference - it either is or it isn't, that's how the law works.

Rights can be, and often are, protected for one class (or sex, race, age group, neighborhood, etc.) but not for another. Protective written laws and precedents don’t leap off the page and enforce themselves. That’s left to fallible, biased, and often-self-interested people and organizations.

 

[Thermal]

Since the "misgendering" thread got folded in here, I'm going to ask again what makes pronouns the "correct" ones, assuming you're the sort of person who is prescriptive enough to correct other folk's language in these matters.

Suppose Alph & Beto are having an argument about how pronouns work. Alph says that pronouns are assigned to people in the same way they are assigned to cats and dogs and horses, that is, based on sex. Beto says pronouns must be assigned to people based on what those people affirm about themselves, even if that causes a certain amount of cognitive dissonance for folks like Alph.

A non-prescriptivist would likely say there is no correct answer here, only two different sets of ideas as to what role pronouns play in our language. That said, what arguments can be made to show Alph is doing language wrong and ought to change his ways to match those of Beto, or vice-versa?

Beto, to Alph: "We are higher and more complex animals than ******* poodles, who have no concept of presentation aligning with commonly accepted/understood gender roles. Since we are more nuanced than whether we have dicks or tits, our pronoun usage is, too."

 

[HansMustermann]

Which makes not one iota of difference - it either is or it isn't, that's how the law works.

On the other hand, you still seem to not understand how chilling effects work.

Let me give you an example. Under Stalin, if you were even suspected of talking against the regime, you'd be marched to GULAG or a firing squad. Under Nikita Khrushchev, hos successor, you wouldn't.

Yay, right?

No, not really.

What Nikita Khrushchev found to work better is chilling effect. Just the idea that the they know what you've said at any point, and you don't know when that's gonna bite you in the ass. Maybe they'll just harass you for a bit to make life hard and make a point that they're watching you. Maybe you'll be passed for promotion. Maybe you'll be denied a trip to the beaches of Bulgaria, because you're such an unreliable guy that they can't trust you to not try to skip over the border to Turkey. Maybe you will only find work in Novosibirsk, if at all. Or maybe your son will.

Turned out it's cheaper and people actually found it MORE scary to not even know if they're on some black list, and something you said to Anatoli while drunk, may cost you a promotion 20 years later, than finding out immediately from the NKVD.

Essentially he discovered cancel culture some 60 years early, really

 

[smartcooky]

I think it's even more disanalogous than that, much of the time.

Suppose someone goes by their birth name "Roberto" for their entire childhood, but when they matriculate after graduation, they tell everyone they meet to call them "Beto" which is a common enough nickname for people with that birth name. So far, so good. No one is going to seriously question a nickname known to match a forename; the mental machinery is already in place.

If, instead, Roberto told people to call him "Biggus Dickus," we'd have trouble taking him seriously, especially those of us who've showered with him after swim team and can easily see the irony. Other people might be uncomfortable with the new nickname for essentially puritanical reasons, much like the students who found those comically oversized prosthetic breasts distracting in class.

An inflexible moral rule that we must always defer to an individual's act of self-naming takes away the agency of those around that individual, making them into something more like puppets than autonomous human beings. I understand the motivations of those who would lay down such a rule, but I cannot share them.

Sounds like a load of Incontinentia Buttocks to me!

(Sorry, couldn't resist!)