Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[kmortis]

I don't either. I don't see the world in terms of gender roles, and I can't imagine what feeling like any particular gender (or anywhere on the spectrum of gender) would feel like, because I don't know what it feels like to be anything other than me.

But I also recognise that not everybody in the world is the same as me, and that other people's thoughts and opinions can be important. It's no hardship on my part to be mindful of that fact when communicating.

Ok, I can see your point. It could very well be that part of my antipathy of the term is that I never heard of it before A+ came around. They just don't rate very highly on my sympathy scale. I do have a few LGBT friends who, had they raised this issue with me, I would have taken it more to heart. Anonymous ninnies on the internets? Not so much.

 

[RandFan]

What percentage of people are not this "cisgendered" thing? If it is not a majority, then they are abnormal. While I do understand that some see that as a negative thing, personally I see it as yet another piece of evidence that there is variation in biology.

If by "abnormal" you mean like minorities are "abnormal".

Yes. I wouldn't use the term "abnormal" though. They deviate from the norm but they are not deviants.

The description as "abnormal", however, is loaded with implications.

While I agree that people like A+ take language policing far too far and, indeed, that nobody has the right not to be offended, I also believe that it's simply good manners to avoid phrasing things in ways which you know could cause offence. It's not unreasonable, in my opinion, to take offence at being called abnormal, as one of the common definitions of "abnormal" is "dysfunctional".

It's little different from calling a homosexual a "deviant". Sure, you can point out that one of the definitions of "deviant" is "not typical" and that gay people are in a minority, so technically you're not being insulting. But the fact remains that the word also has negative connotations and it's not unreasonable to be offended by being called it.

I will defend anyone's right to call transsexuals "abnormal" and homosexuals "deviant", but I reserve my right to think that by doing so they're being an arse.

Good post. The LGBT community have some very real difficulties. They are human beings. I think there is nothing wrong with trying to understand them and the issues they face.

 

[RandFan]

Ok, I can see your point. It could very well be that part of my antipathy of the term is that I never heard of it before A+ came around. They just don't rate very highly on my sympathy scale. I do have a few LGBT friends who, had they raised this issue with me, I would have taken it more to heart. Anonymous ninnies on the internets? Not so much.

Fair enough. I know transgendered people. They want what anyone else wants. To be accepted and treated as human beings.

 

[kmortis]

If by "abnormal" you mean like minorities are "abnormal".

Yes. I wouldn't use the term "abnormal" though. They deviate from the norm but they are not deviants.

Good post. The LGBT community have some very real difficulties. They are human beings. I think there is nothing wrong with trying to understand them and the issues they face.

I agree. Understand their issues, don't make up terms to confuse those who would be your ally.

It's why I don't really like the social justice crowd. They're using language to build barriers, not tear them down. I'd think that people who were interested in equality for all would want to make all feel included, rather than make up jargon that only serves to drive the out-crowd away.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Ok, I can see your point. It could very well be that part of my antipathy of the term is that I never heard of it before A+ came around. They just don't rate very highly on my sympathy scale. I do have a few LGBT friends who, had they raised this issue with me, I would have taken it more to heart. Anonymous ninnies on the internets? Not so much.

FWIW, I never use and will never use the term. I'll use the far more cumbersome "people who were born the gender they feel themselves to be", should I ever have cause to actually use that in a sentence, and that's because I've only ever seen the terms "cisgendered" and "cis" used by people like those at A+ and, like you, I find their behaviour off-putting.

In my case, certainly, if their goal is in any way to promote their mode of communication, then they're having the opposite effect.

 

[Myriad]

I don't identify as cissexual and would not want to be called that. Cis and trans are based on the assumption of yet another gender binary. It erases those who identify as orthosexual (with an identity-biomorphology displacement angle of 60°) and metasexual (ditto 120°).

The problem of privilege theory is that having reminded someone of the obvious fact that your respective experiences are different, what's the follow up?

Your experiences are different, therefore I am right and you are wrong.

Your experiences are different, therefore you are not qualified to have an opinion on this matter.

Your experiences are different, therefore we cannot communicate on this subject.

The first two are aggressive fallacies, and are the implied import of just about every instance of the use of "check your privilege" in discourse on the A+ forums. The person you're speaking to is unlikely to agree, as you've done nothing to attempt to actually persuade them. It reads as, and is, mere bullying. At best, the person might charitably decide on the third interpretation, which simply means you've failed to provide a persuasive argument, let alone actually persuade. It succeeds only at removing them from the local conversation. (This being the Internet, that doesn't mean they disappear, it means they move to more neutral venues, possibly with increased opposition to your agenda -- exactly what you should not want to happen.)

How else could the sentence be filled in? Give it a try. Your experiences are different, therefore ________.

If you can find a way to fill it in that doesn't overbear or end the conversation, then perhaps that's what you should say, instead of "check your ******* privilege."

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[RandFan]

Personally I don't have a problem with words themselves. I don't mind using terms like "cis" or "cisgendered". I would have a problem with people demanding that others adopt the vernacular. To quote Carlin, there are no bad words. There are bad intentions. Perhaps people are using words like cisgendered to score some rhetorical point but I've read enough of the literature to know that the word has real meaning and real value to sociologists, therapists and the community.

I don't mind if other people have a problem with the word. Whatever.

 

[RandFan]

I don't identify as cissexual and would not want to be called that. Cis and trans are based on the assumption of yet another gender binary. It erases those who identify as orthosexual (with an identity-biomorphology displacement angle of 60°) and metasexual (ditto 120°).

I will concede that the terminology is imperfect and I will also concede your point about the language creating a binary view which is wrong. I don't think the problem is the result of PC police or anything malicious or ill intended. It's simply, IMO, an attempt to enlarge the vocabulary. It's imperfect I admit.

The problem of privilege theory is that having reminded someone of the obvious fact that your respective experiences are different, what's the follow up?

Your experiences are different, therefore I am right and you are wrong.

Your experiences are different, therefore you are not qualified to have an opinion on this matter.

Your experiences are different, therefore we cannot communicate on this subject.

The first two are aggressive fallacies, and are the implied import of just about every instance of the use of "check your privilege" in discourse on the A+ forums. The person you're speaking to is unlikely to agree, as you've done nothing to attempt to actually persuade them. It reads as, and is, mere bullying. At best, the person might charitably decide on the third interpretation, which simply means you've failed to provide a persuasive argument, let alone actually persuade. It succeeds only at removing them from the local conversation. (This being the Internet, that doesn't mean they disappear, it means they move to more neutral venues, possibly with increased opposition to your agenda -- exactly what you should not want to happen.)

How else could the sentence be filled in? Give it a try. Your experiences are different, therefore ________.

If you can find a way to fill it in that doesn't overbear or end the conversation, then perhaps that's what you should say, instead of "check your ******* privilege."

Respectfully,
Myriad

Excellent post. I couldn't agree more.

 

[Diogenes]

...I would have a problem with people demanding that others adopt the vernacular...

I think that's the key. The argument there was that if I'm not teaching my kids this then I'm essentially condoning transsexual bashing/marginalization. There was even an attempt to claim that stereochemistry terminology was more fair when I know bloody well that I don't bother with the "L" in L-amino acids as that's the more common form but I do mention the D as that's more rare.

 

[luchog]

I don't identify as cissexual and would not want to be called that. Cis and trans are based on the assumption of yet another gender binary. It erases those who identify as orthosexual (with an identity-biomorphology displacement angle of 60°) and metasexual (ditto 120°).

Faecetiousness aside, this ignores the fact that the overwhelming majority of the population does identify with the far ends of the gender spectrum, being effectively binary, and therefore cisgendered is a useful term in a sociological and medical setting as previous noted. It did not originate in the SJ community (it originated in the medical community, as a term to identify those whose gender identity corresponds to their manifest physical sex); but has been unfortunately co-opted and used in a derogatory manner by the more irrational activist types.

As far as "trans", you're misunderstanding that term. "Trans" can refer to "transsexual" or "transgender". The former implies a binary view of gender correlating with physical sex, and is used predominantly for those seeking to "transition" their physical sex to match their gender identity. Transgender, by contrast, refers strictly to gender identity, and does not imply a binary; but is most often used to indicate a more nuanced view of gender.

 

[Krikkiter]

I don't identify as cissexual and would not want to be called that. Cis and trans are based on the assumption of yet another gender binary. It erases those who identify as orthosexual (with an identity-biomorphology displacement angle of 60°) and metasexual (ditto 120°).

The problem of privilege theory is that having reminded someone of the obvious fact that your respective experiences are different, what's the follow up?

Your experiences are different, therefore I am right and you are wrong.

Your experiences are different, therefore you are not qualified to have an opinion on this matter.

Your experiences are different, therefore we cannot communicate on this subject.

The first two are aggressive fallacies, and are the implied import of just about every instance of the use of "check your privilege" in discourse on the A+ forums. The person you're speaking to is unlikely to agree, as you've done nothing to attempt to actually persuade them. It reads as, and is, mere bullying. At best, the person might charitably decide on the third interpretation, which simply means you've failed to provide a persuasive argument, let alone actually persuade. It succeeds only at removing them from the local conversation. (This being the Internet, that doesn't mean they disappear, it means they move to more neutral venues, possibly with increased opposition to your agenda -- exactly what you should not want to happen.)

How else could the sentence be filled in? Give it a try. Your experiences are different, therefore ________.

If you can find a way to fill it in that doesn't overbear or end the conversation, then perhaps that's what you should say, instead of "check your ******* privilege."

Respectfully,
Myriad

Absolutely.

How about: Your experiences are different, therefore it would probably help if we discussed our relative experiences in order to better understand our differing perspectives and maybe come to some kind of agreement.

Hmmmm... not as catchy, snarky and cutting. I'll be off now to have a read of the basket of links and check my empathy privilege.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Jargon has the side effect of enforcing a social hierarchy. The better you master the groups jargon, the higher your status. Again, the movement is about power games.

 

[squealpiggy]

I refer again to the idea of intersectionality^WP - privilege isn't something you have more or less of than someone else.

It's a relief then that the term isn't used in such a manner by FTB and A Plus.

Saying "have privilege over" doesn't make sense. It's a way of talking about the differing experiences cause by some aspects of a person. Being white, being male, being straight, or being wealthy change the way society reacts to you in beneficial ways. That's all privilege means.

"Being a straight white male is the easiest difficulty setting" is a phrase I've heard quite a bit. If that's the case then wealth is the Konami Code.

Saying check your privilege is, ideally, a way of reminding people that people have different experiences based on some of their attributes, and that your statement ignored those different experiences.

In the same way that saying "You wouldn't understand, being a woman" is a way of reminding women that their delicate sensibilities and easily confused minds mean that they're probably better off leaving the clever talk to the boys.

In other words it's utter nonsense.

 

[Krikkiter]

http://atheistskepticdialogue.com/


"Purpose

This is a structured dialogue to move beyond the recent rifts in the atheist and skeptic communities.

It is a dialogue between individuals, not between imagined monolithic groups, and the power of any outcomes will lie in their content and how they were formulated, and not in any assumed authority.

It is aimed at those of us who want to move beyond the rifts and to build strong, inclusive, caring and supportive atheist and skeptic communities and groups, that promote robust and rational debate of issues while avoiding needlessly hurting people.

It is not aimed at people who want to escalate the hostilities, or who want to continue to cause unnecessary hurt to other people.

I am optimistic from the dialogue so far that we can combine the best contributions of many good people, on all perceived ‘sides’ of the rifts, to recapture the potential that we had two years ago to advocate for atheism, secularism, skepticism and science."

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't identify as cissexual and would not want to be called that. Cis and trans are based on the assumption of yet another gender binary. It erases those who identify as orthosexual (with an identity-biomorphology displacement angle of 60°) and metasexual (ditto 120°).

That would be gender queer. Cis and trans only apply to those who identify as male or female. Others are lumped together in queer gender.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Jargon has the side effect of enforcing a social hierarchy. The better you master the groups jargon, the higher your status. Again, the movement is about power games.

Just like all the pointless jargon in science and technology. To say nothing of all the fallacies named in skeptic circles.

 

[Wildy]

That would be gender queer. Cis and trans only apply to those who identify as male or female. Others are lumped together in queer gender.

So otherkin would be considered "queer"?

 

[ponderingturtle]

So otherkin would be considered "queer"?

I am not overly familiar with the comunity but they do not seem to frequently identify as species queer. They identify as a specific fictional thing. They are vampires or pokemon not some vague rejection of such labels.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Just like all the pointless jargon in science and technology. To say nothing of all the fallacies named in skeptic circles.

Oh, snap!

I'll back pedal a bit, then, and suggest demonstration of jargon mastery, or lack of mastery, is an indication of status as a side effect of specialized jargon, and the A+ jargon is often denounced here as unnecessary, and therefore serves to enforce social hierarchy.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Oh, snap!

I'll back pedal a bit, then, and suggest demonstration of jargon mastery, or lack of mastery, is an indication of status as a side effect of specialized jargon, and the A+ jargon is often denounced here as unnecessary, and therefore serves to enforce social hierarchy.

That I will agree with, but jargon often does serve a specific use as I demonstrated. They might use useful and legitimate terms to do that but it doesn't mean the term isn't useful and legitimate.