Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[smartcooky]

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

Yup, and if the person was really useful, they would leave them alone for years, until it was hammer time. There are at least one or two good high profile examples of that... rocket scientist Sergei Korolev, and Soviet inorganic chemist Valery Legasov.

 

[d4m10n]

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."

We are more socially complex than other mammals, but our sexual differentiation is not. Beto thinks pronouns to refer to complex social phenomena, Alph thinks they point to sex.

 

[Thermal]

We are more socially complex than other mammals, but our sexual differentiation is not. Beto thinks pronouns to refer to complex social phenomena, Alph thinks they point to sex.

Beto to Alph: But we have no reason to limit our pronoun usage to sex only. For the last couple generations, we have expanded it to include self image within the social construct. Why cling to outdated usages? Language evolves and words take on new meanings."

 

[d4m10n]

Beto to Alph: But we have no reason to limit our pronoun usage to sex only."

Alph – "I'm not telling you to use pronouns the way I do, so I don't need a reason."

For the last couple generations, we have expanded it to include self image within the social construct.

"Good for you. Why should those of us who didn’t ask for the expansion play along now?"

 

[HansMustermann]

Yup, and if the person was really useful, they would leave them alone for years, until it was hammer time. There are at least one or two good high profile examples of that... rocket scientist Sergei Korolev, and Soviet inorganic chemist Valery Legasov.

The most perverse thing is actually that there might actually never be a "hammer time." Or it might. Realistically they didn't actually have enough NKVD agents to monitor EVERYONE or really way to even index all that on paper. BUT you never knew. Maybe they're actually compiling a dossier on you. Maybe your pal Anatoli will sell you for 30 roubles to the authorities, if you speak against the regime while sharing a vodka bottle. Or maybe not. Maybe someone will look into it when you apply for a job in Leningrad and they only give you one in Novosibirsk. Or maybe not.

The unknown is literally scarier than the known, as anyone who's read horror knows. KNOWING which ways are safe and exactly what monster will come for you if you step off the marked road, isn't NEARLY as scary as the uncertainty.

 

[HansMustermann]

Beto to Alph: But we have no reason to limit our pronoun usage to sex only. For the last couple generations, we have expanded it to include self image within the social construct. Why cling to outdated usages? Language evolves and words take on new meanings."

Maybe we don't. But there's still a difference between language evolving organically, and Beto thinking he can just demand what language should evolve to.

Even ignoring the gender issue, if I thought I could demand that everyone speaks in, dunno, say, valley girl speak, or I can call them nazis if they don't, then I'd be just a petulant man-child.

And yes, valley girl language is a thing that actually was made up as mockery in the '80s, but enough actual schoolgirls decided that it's cool, and started to talk that way. That's ok. That's how languages evolve. But if someone tried to force everyone else to use it, because they feel offended otherwise, I'd have a certain message for them. A certain intersection of french kissing and my ass, if you will

 

[Thermal]

Alph – "I'm not telling you to use pronouns the way I do, so I don't need a reason."

"Good for you. Why should those of us who didn’t ask for the expansion play along now?"

Beto: "Because you're not Humpty Dumpty. The language is common to us all, for communication with each other. If you are going to use archaic meanings, it is bound to cause needless confusion. And who could claim to understand your explanations, if you are making up word meanings or using meanings that are no longer applicable? Your explanations could mean almost anything that a word may or may not have meant in antiquity. You'd need to explain to any listener that you are not speaking in the English language, but a possibly entirely random collection of archaic word usages. Like literally Humpty Dumpty-esque."

 

[HansMustermann]

But again, that's not how language evolution works. If you have to demand that people use some newspeak, that itself is evidence that, no, language didn't actually evolve that way (yet,) you're just trying to force your fantasy to actually be reality.

Like, to take a fairly recent-ish example: at some point "gay" meant cheerful. Then over time it came to mean homosexual. But that was normal evolution where more and more people liked to use the cool new meaning, until almost everyone was using it that way. It wasn't someone telling you you're a nazi for not using the new meaning. If they had to, then that itself would mean that no, the language hasn't actually evolved that way yet, they're just trying to force it to.

 

[Thermal]

Ya and "gender" was barely used up till the 1970s. When it started gaining traction, it was in the modern sense. Doesn't make much sense to argue that a rarely used word not be reappropriated.

 

[HansMustermann]

Sorry, age has nothing to do with it, nor whether it COULD be reapropriated. Whether people actually use it that way does. And if you have to force them to use it that way, then no, it didn't evolve that way yet.

There is no guarantee that your cool new word or meaning will catch on. Most just fizzle and get forgotten.

Demanding that yours must have become mainstream, just because it's old, is just as flippin' stupid as demanding that everyone uses a meme (which is what such a new use is) like "all your base are belong to us", just because it's 25 years old by now. Well so flippin' WHAT? Not all memes catch on. Most get forgotten, ignored or outright rejected by most of the population in just a few years.

Sometimes even using an ancient meme, let alone insisting that everyone else uses it, is a "you" problem, not an "everyone else" problem. It's you who failed to keep up with the times, not everyone else who didn't stick with your favourite meme.

 

[Thermal]

But the gender brouhaha wasn't trendy slang working it's way into the lexicon. It was pioneered by social scientists. PhDs and ****, who described our use and understanding of gender as inadequate and inconsistent with observations.

Eta: while I accept the generations old "new" concept of gender, I admit that scrambling pronouns into it gets things mixed up bad and is the larger problem with this whole gig.

 

[HansMustermann]

But the gender brouhaha wasn't trendy slang working it's way into the lexicon. It was pioneered by social scientists. PhDs and ****, who described our use and understanding of gender as inadequate and inconsistent with observations.

Which already should tell you that that's not how language evolution works. Language evolution is really ALL about cool trendy new slang catching on. Forcing a new use because some scientists used it as jargon, is the dumbest argument ever. Usually that thing stays as jargon. Or sometimes it catches on.

But just expecting that every brain-fart will catch if it originated with some egg-heads (e.g., that everyone changes what they mean by something like a Java jar because some scientists at Sun used it that way,) is just stupid. And again, if you have to force it, that's your proof that it didn't catch on. If language had actually evolved to make it the new meaning, you wouldn't have to.

 

[Rolfe]

I remember a friend telling me that "enervating" now means "invigorating", because she read it used that way in a magazine article. My showing her the dictionary didn't count because "language evolves". Well guess what, that was some time in the 1980s, and enervating still doesn't mean invigorating.

Yes, "wrong" usage does become standard. "Hopefully" is one. I remember being told at school that the correct usage was "It is to be hoped that..." (The original usage, as in "to travel hopefully" still exists though.) Well, tough, English teacher. "A capella", which strictly speaking means accompanied only by a keyboard such as an organ, now seems to mean unaccompanied. There are other things that are a bit on the cusp. To me "I was sat there..." means someone else placed you there. If you did it by yourself, it's "I was sitting there..." But I see that cringe-making former use rather a lot. Oh yes, and "prevaricating" means lying. If you mean "putting it off till tomorrow, the word you're searching for is "procrastinating".

The point is, these things are organic. Exactly where the point is when something stops being a malapropism or a mistake and becomes standard usage, I'll leave to the linguists. But "me and my cool mates have decided to use the word this way therefore you must do so to on pain of being cancelled" is not organic.

The gendering of the third person singular pronoun is about the most hard-wired thing there is in language. Most people find it incredibly difficult to shift from the usage they learned in their mother tongue. People whose native language doesn't have gendered third person singular pronouns (like Finnish) find it extraordinarily difficult to remember when to use "he", "she" or "it" in English. People whose mother tongue doesn't have a neuter gender find it very hard not to use "she" or "he" accordingly for neuter nouns in English.

Pronouns are exceedingly difficult to change, and organic change is extremely slow. The only way you're going to win this one, gender-fans, is by getting to the point when most children pick up your preferred usage when they acquire language as infants. Good luck with that one.

 

[smartcooky]

I remember a friend telling me that "enervating" now means "invigorating", because she read it used that way in a magazine article. My showing her the dictionary didn't count because "language evolves". Well guess what, that was some time in the 1980s, and enervating still doesn't mean invigorating.

Yes, "wrong" usage does become standard. "Hopefully" is one. I remember being told at school that the correct usage was "It is to be hoped that..." (The original usage, as in "to travel hopefully" still exists though.) Well, tough, English teacher. "A capella", which strictly speaking means accompanied only by a keyboard such as an organ, now seems to mean unaccompanied. There are other things that are a bit on the cusp. To me "I was sat there..." means someone else placed you there. If you did it by yourself, it's "I was sitting there..." But I see that cringe-making former use rather a lot. Oh yes, and "prevaricating" means lying. If you mean "putting it off till tomorrow, the word you're searching for is "procrastinating".

The point is, these things are organic. Exactly where the point is when something stops being a malapropism or a mistake and becomes standard usage, I'll leave to the linguists. But "me and my cool mates have decided to use the word this way therefore you must do so to on pain of being cancelled" is not organic.

The gendering of the third person singular pronoun is about the most hard-wired thing there is in language. Most people find it incredibly difficult to shift from the usage they learned in their mother tongue. People whose native language doesn't have gendered third person singular pronouns (like Finnish) find it extraordinarily difficult to remember when to use "he", "she" or "it" in English. People whose mother tongue doesn't have a neuter gender find it very hard not to use "she" or "he" accordingly for neuter nouns in English.

Pronouns are exceedingly difficult to change, and organic change is extremely slow. The only way you're going to win this one, gender-fans, is by getting to the point when most children pick up your preferred usage when they acquire language as infants. Good luck with that one.

There is one particular use of language that really chaps my arse... when people use "begging the question" incorrectly. I see people using it to mean "asks the question" or "raises the question" which is NOT what it means. Apparently, this is now an accepted colloquialism

To paraphrase quote from David Mitchell "I want all the time I spent learning the difference back"

 

[Ron Obvious]

The one that annoys me the most is the Americanism "I could care less", meaning you could NOT care less. I get that language evolves organically and that e.g. awful and awesome were formerly synonymous and are now virtual opposites centuries later, but there's a limit to that or we can't communicate at all anymore.

"Gender", when I first came across the word around 1980 or so when I first moved to the States, was absolutely, 100% a synonym for (biological) sex (when not referring to nouns) for those too squeamish to say that word. I didn't come across this new definition until about the last 5 years or so.

 

[smartcooky]

Of course, the problem with the term "transphobic" is that it often includes those who do not believe a person can change their sex. It's sort of like calling someone Islamophobic for not believing that God spoke to Mohamed or Christophobic for not believing that Jesus rose from the dead. You can be nice to a trans identifying person all you want. But if you don't accept that Richard Levine is an actual women, well, you're that bad word they just made up. I'm okay with that.

Actually, Elaborate's little hissy-fit does bring up an interesting point... what do we expect a person who is "transphobic" to actually believe? What is their opinion of people who are transgender.

I have met a few in my time and I have found they have the following attributes. Unfortunately I have a couple of family members who meet these criteria as well).

1. They hate them - as far as to regard them as sub-human in some cases.
2. They consider transgender people to be freaks.
3. They are almost always racists and homophobes as well.
4. They are often (but not always) politically right-wing or far right-wing.
5. They are very often conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers.
6. They think transgender people should not even be allowed to exist.
7. They oppose protections over and above normal human rights.
8. They think being transgender is a lifestyle choice.

I am sure that, with one or two exceptions, those of us who have been accused of transphobia on this forum simply do not believe any of the above, yet some of us have still been labelled as transphobic. It seems that Trans Radical Activists consider expressing any view that that either runs counter to their gender ideology narrative, or that does not match their narrative in every detail, is transphobic... i.e., if you don't agree with what we say, you are the problem! I do not believe the following views can be held to be transphobic....

1. There are only two biological sexes
2. Biological sex is immutable and can never be changed
3. Woman = Biological Female and Man = Biological Male
4. Males should never be allowed to compete in Female sports, ever.
5. Males should never be given the right to enter female only safe spaces
6. Gender can be used to describe a social role, but cannot be bootstrapped to describe sex roles.
7. Personal pronouns should match biological sex not gender.

TRA's consider all of the above 1 to 7 to be transphobic.

 

[lionking]

I am sure that, with one or two exceptions, those of us who have been accused of transphobia on this forum simply do not believe any of the above, yet some of us have still been labelled as transphobic. It seems that Trans Radical Activists consider expressing any view that that either runs counter to their gender ideology narrative, or that does not match their narrative in every detail, is transphobic... i.e., if you don't agree with what we say, you are the problem! I do not believe the following views can be held to be transphobic....

1. There are only two biological sexes
2. Biological sex is immutable and can never be changed
3. Woman = Biological Female and Man = Biological Male
4. Males should never be allowed to compete in Female sports, ever.
5. Males should never be given the right to enter female only safe spaces
6. Gender can be used to describe a social role, but cannot be bootstrapped to describe sex roles.
7. Personal pronouns should match biological sex not gender.

TRA's consider all of the above 1 to 7 to be transphobic.

I agree with 1-6, however I have been introduced a number of transmen and transwomen and I had no problem using their preferred pronouns. Some random people on the internet though? I do not feel obliged to to use a pronoun of someone I haven’t met.

 

[Rolfe]

There is one particular use of language that really chaps my arse... when people use "begging the question" incorrectly. I see people using it to mean "asks the question" or "raises the question" which is NOT what it means. Apparently, this is now an accepted colloquialism

To paraphrase quote from David Mitchell "I want all the time I spent learning the difference back"

That too.

 

[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.

Non-sequitur your reply is unrelated to my post.

Say what? Is this the lamest dodge ever, or did you not bother to read my post again?
You quote me saying things have changed. I say that they have, and that evidence has been provided to you showing this. You reply by saying the evidence that change has happened has no relation to your post about change happening. This makes no sense to me at all.

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.

You implied it.

No, I did not. You put words in my mouth. Please don't. What I said was what I said, no more or less than that.

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.

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

Or, what is actually known as a strawman. Your opinion of what you thought I might have said, but didn't, an opinion you are using to criticise me for saying things I haven't said? Yeah, that's a strawman.

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.

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

Yes, it does. Read it again.
"Change can happen over a few years" directly relates to "examples that were only a few years old". I cannot see how these two quotes are completely unrelated, as you claim, without having to believe you are simply being dishonest.

 

[HansMustermann]

Yes, it does. Read it again.
"Change can happen over a few years" directly relates to "examples that were only a few years old". I cannot see how these two quotes are completely unrelated, as you claim, without having to believe you are simply being dishonest.

No it doesn't. You had to ignore that he already mention that one of his examples were only resolved this year. Not even a few years old.

Plus, saying that change CAN happen is a whole different thing than saying that change DID happen. I mean, something could have changed in Russia since two years ago, but in practice it didn't.