Split Thread Issues around language and offense, with reference to transgenderism.

[Belz...]

If transgenderism is a defect, then the people with it are defective.

Not in the sense you are pretending that it has. You are attempting to equate "has a genetic defect" with "is less of a person". One simply does not follow from the other and the only reason why you would claim that it does is in an attempt to make your emotional reading of my post more legitimate. You are treating how one feels about a word as more important than the actual message.

For the record Arth I agree with your argument, but these guys really do not give half a fig about that kind of language association and see it as a kind of six degrees of connotation BS thing. They feel that a statement like 'that guy has a defect' does not in any way imply 'that guy is defective' and that pointing out such an implication is literally just looking for something to be offended by. They really just feel it's total BS and no amount of arguing is gonna shift them.

Ah, yes. Now let's dismiss the person rather than address the content of their post. I'm sure that's totally skeptical and rational, somehow.

 

[Belz...]

This reaction to facts is typical of the far-left. Even after I specifically said that transgender people should be treated like everyone else, even after I specifically said that they should have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else, even after I specifically said that I would solve their restroom problem with unisex rooms, even after I specifically said that I expect that science will rule that it is NOT a mental illness, none of that matters.

All that matters is that I disagree with them on ONE thing; one that doesn't even have anything to do with how society treats them but only relates to how science classifies them. That disagreement alone means that I'm a total bigot who denies transgender people their humanity and invalidates their experience.

Again, this is typical of the far-left: you must 'listen and believe' -- cater and conform to every single feeling, not just of the people in question, but those who feel on their behalf. Any deviation from that marks you as 'the problem', conveniently allowing these left-wingers to label and dismiss you entirely, because otherwise they have no argument, which is what happens when you base your reasoning on feelings.

Label, dismiss and shame opponents into compliance. That says a lot about their belief in diversity when diverging opinions or words are not allowed.

 

[luchog]

All that matters is that I disagree with them on ONE thing; one that doesn't even have anything to do with how society treats them but only relates to how science classifies them. That disagreement alone means that I'm a total bigot who denies transgender people their humanity and invalidates their experience.

The fact that you can't or won't understand the power of language and how it is inherently an important and potentially damaging part of "how society treats them" is rather telling.

Language has power, power to shape how people think about an issue, how people communicate about an issue, and how people react to an issue. Every major culture has understood this, every religion has understood this, and created its own internal language to reflect this fact. Propaganda is an incredibly potent force for reshaping society and social norms, for good or for bad, and always has been.

You can claim to be fully in favour of equality and acceptance of a particular out-group; but continuing to not only use the language of exclusion and marginalization, but to rabidly defend its use (particularly on such shaky, specious ground) makes that claim ambiguous at best; and hypocritical equivocation at worst.

It's odd how it's this one single word that the conservative anti-change brigade has chosen as a hill to die on. No one seems to be all that heated up about "hetero" vs. "normal", yet that is a term which is identical in origin and purpose. What makes this term so different? No on has yet satisfactorily answered question. Why is "hetero" acceptable, but "cis" is not? What is the difference?

 

[Belz...]

Language has power

Only to those who GIVE it power. If someone calls me an asshat, it's entirely within my ability to not let it have power over me. If I lose my **** about it I'm the only loser. If someone calls me 'carrot head', I shrug it off. It used to bother me as a kid but I toughened up because of it.

And no one's saying that we should be offensive for the sake of it. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't shy away from accurate words just because it makes people uneasy.

You can claim to be fully in favour of equality and acceptance of a particular out-group; but continuing to not only use the language of exclusion and marginalization, but to rabidly defend its use (particularly on such shaky, specious ground) makes that claim ambiguous at best; and hypocritical equivocation at worst.

And here it is again: it doesn't matter what I believe in or do to help, so long as I use language that makes you feel better. You'll forgive me if I subscribe to the opposite philosphy.

 

[wareyin]

Only to those who GIVE it power. If someone calls me an asshat, it's entirely within my ability to not let it have power over me. If I lose my **** about it I'm the only loser. If someone calls me 'carrot head', I shrug it off. It used to bother me as a kid but I toughened up because of it.

And no one's saying that we should be offensive for the sake of it. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't shy away from accurate words just because it makes people uneasy.



And here it is again: it doesn't matter what I believe in or do to help, so long as I use language that makes you feel better. You'll forgive me if I subscribe to the opposite philosphy.

Language is meant to convey ideas and feelings to the listener. It is not an either/or situation.

 

[Belz...]

Language is meant to convey ideas and feelings to the listener. It is not an either/or situation.

I didn't say that it was. But look at how language has been twisted in order to avoid offending people, with the result that people are even more sensitive now. You can't even call someone disabled anymore for fear of someone, somewhere, taking it wrong, even if said person isn't even the disabled one. No, they're differently abled. Isn't that insulting and infantilising?

Once again: no one's saying that we should insult people deliberately, but rather that at some point we should grow thicker skins and accept that 1) some people are jerks, 2) your negative reaction to a word does not make that word or the speaker bigoted or demeaning and 3) we shouldn't shy away from accurate language.

 

[wareyin]

I didn't say that it was. But look at how language has been twisted in order to avoid offending people, with the result that people are even more sensitive now. You can't even call someone disabled anymore for fear of someone, somewhere, taking it wrong, even if said person isn't even the disabled one. No, they're differently abled. Isn't that insulting and infantilising?

Once again: no one's saying that we should insult people deliberately, but rather that at some point we should grow thicker skins and accept that 1) some people are jerks, 2) your negative reaction to a word does not make that word or the speaker bigoted or demeaning and 3) we shouldn't shy away from accurate language.

We also need to own the fact that when we don't "shy away from accurate language" that is insulting to others, that we are intentionally conveying negative feelings.

 

[Belz...]

We also need to own the fact that when we don't "shy away from accurate language" that is insulting to others, that we are intentionally conveying negative feelings.

Yeah well, reality won't change to adjust to our feelings. Maybe we should instead adjust to reality.

 

[wareyin]

Yeah well, reality won't change to adjust to our feelings. Maybe we should instead adjust to reality.

Everyone else must change so that you can continue to use language intended to convey negative feelings?

 

[Belz...]

Everyone else must change so that you can continue to use language intended to convey negative feelings?

That is such an uncharitable misrepresentation of what I said that one can only conclude that it was done out of malice.

In case it wasn't, I invite you to actually read my posts before you reply with knee-jerk nonsense such as this.

ETA: To clarify:

Everyone else

No, only the over-sensitive few.

must change

Should tolerate.

so that you can continue to use

It has nothing to do with me. It has everything to do with accurate descriptions.

language intended

Again, this is a dishonest interpretation of what I said. The language is NOT intended to convey negative feelings. It's intended to be accurate. SOME people interpret it negatively.

to convey negative feelings?

I've already addressed reality vs feelings in the post you replied to.

So your post is 100% BS.

 

[wareyin]

That is such an uncharitable misrepresentation of what I said that one can only conclude that it was done out of malice.

In case it wasn't, I invite you to actually read my posts before you reply with knee-jerk nonsense such as this.

On the contrary. Language is intended to convey feelings as well as ideas. Some language is intended to convey negative feelings. You wish to utilize language that is intended to convey negative feelings, despite being informed (just in case you weren't previously aware) of the connotations of your terms. Your demand is that everyone else ignore the connotations of the words you choose to use.

 

[Belz...]

On the contrary. Language is intended to convey feelings as well as ideas.

And more dishonesty. I didn't say language is not intended to convey anything.

Are you doing this on purpose?

Some language is intended to convey negative feelings.

Calling something a genetic defect is NOT intended to convey negative feelings. How would you call Down syndrome? Would you not call it a genetic disorder or defect in order to avoid hurting people's feelings? Are we supposed to give up medical science altogether?

You wish to utilize language that is intended to convey negative feelings

That is a lie.

despite being informed (just in case you weren't previously aware) of the connotations of your terms.

Please stop using the words "you" and "your" when addressing me. It has a negative connotation for me.

 

[Beerina]

That is the worst form of grammatical nitpicking. If transgenderism is a defect, then the people with it are defective. You just can't strip away everything except the bare grammar from a word. It carries baggage. Like how referring to some people as "normal" implies that other people are "abnormal" even though you didn't use that word. That's part of the baggage that comes with using a word. English is like that.

Your dedication to RightThinking is impressive. Now I do not consider it a defect, just a difference, and people should be free to do what they want. Hence needing to justify it as born that way is irrelevant from a freedom point of view.

But trying to slam the door on discussion by applying social ostracism techniques, this I do not like. I prefer a post-that world, rather than just a swapping of the factions in control of it.

 

[Pup]

Only to those who GIVE it power. If someone calls me an asshat, it's entirely within my ability to not let it have power over me. If I lose my **** about it I'm the only loser. If someone calls me 'carrot head', I shrug it off. It used to bother me as a kid but I toughened up because of it.

That's how people justify bullying.

Some kids toughen up, the weaker ones deal with lifelong social phobias and self esteem issues, the real losers try suicide. But it's always their fault for feeling hurt when bullies try to hurt them. Some are just weaklings.

And no one's saying that we should be offensive for the sake of it. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't shy away from accurate words just because it makes people uneasy.

I'd like to believe you understand the nuance of words in different situations, and are arguing for clinical use in clinical situations, informal use in informal situations, and supportive use where help is needed. But I'm not so sure.

Clinically, one could say, "Being transgender is not normal, and even the best surgical intervention leaves the transgendered female sterile, with male DNA, and an inverted penis that superficially resembles a vagina."

Would you also say to a friend excited about starting transition: "You're not normal, and after surgery, you'll be sterile, still with male DNA, and only an inverted penis"? It's all true. If she gets upset, is it her fault for being upset that you reminded her of the truth?

 

[wareyin]

And more dishonesty. I didn't say language is not intended to convey anything.

Are you doing this on purpose?

Then we are in agreement that language is intended to convey feelings? Good. Now to get an agreement on whether or not language can be intended to convey negative feelings...

Calling something a genetic defect is NOT intended to convey negative feelings. How would you call Down syndrome? Would you not call it a genetic disorder or defect in order to avoid hurting people's feelings? Are we supposed to give up medical science altogether?

That figleaf is doing nothing for you. Because a word can be used clinically in one context does not take away the negative connotations it is intended to convey in other contexts.

That is a lie.

No, it obviously is not. You are aware that the words you choose to use are used with the intent to convey negative feelings. You still wish to use them. Therefore, you wish to use language that is intended (possibly not by you, but how is a listener to know?) to convey negative feelings.

Please stop using the words "you" and "your" when addressing me. It has a negative connotation for me.

Ok, shall I use something like "it"? After all, even if I know that dehumanizing someone by calling them an "it" conveys a negative feeling, "it" can be used in a sterile, clinical context.

 

[Belz...]

That's how people justify bullying.

No they don't.

Some kids toughen up, the weaker ones deal with lifelong social phobias and self esteem issues, the real losers try suicide. But it's always their fault for feeling hurt when bullies try to hurt them. Some are just weaklings.

Nobody said that.

So basically this is all you have: appeals to emotion, shaming your opponents into compliance, etc. Here's a bit of advice: this is entirely lost on me. If you want to make a case, make it with reason and logic, not feelings. And if you don't care about convincing me, then go right ahead and paint me as a bigot if it makes you feel better.

I'd like to believe you understand the nuance of words in different situations, and are arguing for clinical use in clinical situations, informal use in informal situations, and supportive use where help is needed. But I'm not so sure.

I _WAS_ using it in the clinical sense, but even that isn't good enough.

 

[Belz...]

Then we are in agreement that language is intended to convey feelings?

No. You're simply employing a false dichotomy.

Now to get an agreement on whether or not language can be intended to convey negative feelings...

Of course they can. I never argued otherwise, but your ideological lenses are preventing you from seeing that.

Because a word can be used clinically in one context does not take away the negative connotations it is intended to convey in other contexts.

I wasn't using it in another context.

No, it obviously is not.

Of course it is. You said I _wanted_ to used language _intended_ to invoke negative feelings. None of those highlighted words are true, and you know it. Ergo, you lied.

Therefore, you wish to use language that is intended (possibly not by you, but how is a listener to know?) to convey negative feelings.

Amazing. If the language is potentially intended to be negative, then it must be avoided? Every word could be intended to be negative. I suppose we should use only emojis from now on.

Ok, shall I use something like "it"? After all, even if I know that dehumanizing someone by calling them an "it" conveys a negative feeling, "it" can be used in a sterile, clinical context.

Nope. Still triggering. And since you can't use "you" or "it" in my presence, you shouldn't use it ever, lest it offend someone, somewhere. It is, after all, by your own definition, intended to invoke negative feelings.

 

[wareyin]

No. You're simply employing a false dichotomy.

Nonsense. At the risk of being accused of another false dichotomy, either we agree, or we do not.

Of course they can. I never argued otherwise, but your ideological lenses are preventing you from seeing that.

More progress! I'll ignore the snark in order to focus on the positive.

I wasn't using it in another context.

Ok, sure.

Of course it is. You said I _wanted_ to used language _intended_ to invoke negative feelings. None of those highlighted words are true, and you know it. Ergo, you lied.

Obviously not. You did want to use that language. That language is intended to invoke negative feelings. Now, put them together, and we have you wanting to use language intended to invoke negative feelings. Note, I did not claim that you intended to invoke negative feelings, only that you wished to utilize the same words that are intended to invoke negative feelings. A minor distinction I know, but as I said, that figleaf isn't covering you very much.

Amazing. If the language is potentially intended to be negative, then it must be avoided? Every word could be intended to be negative. I suppose we should use only emojis from now on.

I know, right?!?! Just because the word bitch can be clinically used to describe a female dog, why would anyone have a problem if I use it to refer to another poster? After all, I could be commenting on that poster's loyal qualities, I don't have to be using it as an insult!

Nope. Still triggering. And since you can't use "you" or "it" in my presence, you shouldn't use it ever, lest it offend someone, somewhere. It is, after all, by your own definition, intended to invoke negative feelings.

The usage of "it" to refer to another person is intended to invoke negative feelings. The usage of "you" is not intended to do so, your silly false equivalence notwithstanding. The usage of "defect" can be intended to convey negative feelings, and choosing to use it with that knowledge certainly conveys the impression that it is likely that the user intended to convey the negative feelings that that word is used to convey.

 

[Pup]

So basically this is all you have: appeals to emotion, shaming your opponents into compliance, etc. Here's a bit of advice: this is entirely lost on me. If you want to make a case, make it with reason and logic, not feelings. And if you don't care about convincing me, then go right ahead and paint me as a bigot if it makes you feel better.

If a child can't toughen up and learn not to be hurt, he/she is weaker than one who can. Tough/weak are pretty normal antonyms, and the psychological outcomes of weaker children are pretty well known. I was just restating what you said. If it's not what you meant, feel free to clarify.

If purely factual language seems jarring in this context, well, that's why purely factual language can also, strangely enough, be classed as an appeal to emotion and shaming.

 

[Belz...]

Nonsense. At the risk of being accused of another false dichotomy, either we agree, or we do not.

Here is the false dichotomy: either language doesn't have any connotation, or it conveys feelings. You are pushing the idea that there is no in-between. Here's my version: language conveys ideas. Sometimes it can convey feelings, and sometimes those are meant to be negative or interpreted as negative. It isn't a black-or-white issue

Obviously not. You did want to use that language.

I did not want to language intended to invoke negative feelings.

That language is intended to invoke negative feelings.

No, it isn't. You have not demonstrated that it is. You have asserted that it is based on the possibility that someone, somewhere, might intend or interpret it as such.

Just because the word bitch can be clinically used to describe a female dog, why would anyone have a problem if I use it to refer to another poster?

Let's correct that analogy: someone owns a female dog, and is married to a woman. If you tell them they have a bitch when discussing their dog, it's not reasonable for them to lose their **** because they think it's a negative were it used to describe their wife.

After all, I could be commenting on that poster's loyal qualities, I don't have to be using it as an insult!

That is completely detached from anything I've been saying. You are arguing against strawmen.

The usage of "you" is not intended to do so

It is by your own definition, because _I_ interpret it as negative. You're the one who defined it that way, not I. I'm attempting to show you that your definition is nonsense.