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

[Belz...]

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.

More appeals to emotion. I told you: all this is wasted on me.

Either make a reasoned argument or admit that you don't have one.

 

[wareyin]

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



I did not want to language 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.



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.



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



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.

Utter nonsense. You are not Humpty Dumpty*, and the word we are discussing is not something that "someone, somewhere might interpret" as negative. It is commonly used, and intended to be used, as a negative term.



*"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

 

[Pup]

More appeals to emotion. I told you: all this is wasted on me.

Either make a reasoned argument or admit that you don't have one.

I'm making a reasoned response, pointing out and illustrating that purely factual language sounds different and less neutral in different contexts, and you keep claiming it's an appeal to emotion. My irony meter needs repaired and recalibrated now.

 

[Belz...]

I'm making a reasoned response

You are trying to make a case that it makes some people uncomfortable as a reason not to use that word. How is that not an appeal to emotion?

It is commonly used, and intended to be used, as a negative term.

Then answer me: how would you call Down Syndrome, genetically speaking?

 

[AdamSK]

You are trying to make a case that it makes some people uncomfortable as a reason not to use that word. How is that not an appeal to emotion?

That's not an appeal to emotion at all. It's a logical argument. To wit:

P1: X makes people feel bad.
P2: We should refrain from making people feel bad.
C: We should refrain from X.

An appeal to emotion isn't an argument that happens to reference emotions. An appeal to emotion is an attempt to get agreement because of the way what you say makes the listener feel. To wit:

"As I say 'defective,' you are sad. You should associate your sadness with Argumemnon and call him a bigot."

Pup is making an argument that includes taking people's emotions into consideration. Pup is not merely appealing to emotion; Pup is actually making an argument.

 

[luchog]

Only to those who GIVE it power.

This is utter nonsense, and completely ignores the entire history of language and propaganda. We communicate by means of language, so of course it's going to have power. That's basic human nature. This is just one big long evasion.

And a profoundly hypocritical one.

You and others are whinging on about being "labeled" as "cisgendered" and how horrible that is; while out the other side of your mouth you attack people who are upset about being labeled abnormal as "oversensitive" and "allowing" language to hurt them when they could just ignore that. And compound that by going to elaborate and bizarre lengths to paint "cisgendered" as somehow derogatory, while flatly denying the labeling of people as "normal" and "not normal" as somehow neutral.

That level of cognitive dissonance is painful to watch.

And I see you continue to evade my question about "hetero" vs. "cis". Are you ever going to answer that?

Do you similarly dismiss black people for being upset by being called "******"? Chinese people should just grow a thick skin about being called "chinks"? Gay and lesbian people getting upset about being called "dykes" and "fags" are just being weak and whiny? People whose gender identity matches their physical sex are just stupidly giving power to people who call them "cisgendered"? Oops, wait... how does that work again?

You know what, maybe you're right, I shouldn't care how you feel. If calling you "cisgendered" triggers you so badly, then by your philosophy that means you're weak and need to grow a thick skin, and I shouldn't care what you feel about it.

Edited by kmortis: 

Please let the Autocensor do its job in the future

 

[AdamSK]

Wait, people are claiming to be insulted / offended by the term "cisgendered"?

Is there a particular post where Arg displays this attitude?

 

[Belz...]

Pup is making an argument that includes taking people's emotions into consideration.

I can and do take people's emotions into consideration; but there are limits. I won't stop using accurate descriptions, especially when discussing science, in order to avoid offending people who might not like it.

And yes, it is an appeal to emotion.

 

[wareyin]

I can and do take people's emotions into consideration; but there are limits. I won't stop using accurate descriptions, especially when discussing science, in order to avoid offending people who might not like it.

And yes, it is an appeal to emotion.

What is scientific about people using the bathroom that corresponds to which gender they identify as?

 

[AdamSK]

And yes, it is an appeal to emotion.

No, it really doesn't appear to be an appeal to emotion. He is not trying to get people to disagree with you by making them mad at you or disgusted with you.

Again, explaining the emotional impact of words and giving reasons why they should or shouldn't be used is not an appeal to emotion. It's an argument that uses facts about emotions as part of its evidence.

 

[Belz...]

This is utter nonsense, and completely ignores the entire history of language and propaganda.

It does no such thing. I'm very much aware of all that. But calling a genetic defect a defect is not a social value judgment. Perhaps you can tell me how you would call Down Syndrome from a genetic perspective?

You and others are whinging on about being "labeled" as "cisgendered" and how horrible that is

You have me confused with someone else. I've argued _against_ Cullennz on this. Therefore, your argument that I'm being hypocritical is based on a false premise.

And compound that by going to elaborate and bizarre lengths to paint "cisgendered" as somehow derogatory

That's not what I said. I said that it _can_ be used in a derogatory fashion, an argument that was only meant as a counter to the claim that it is _not_ derogatory.

That level of cognitive dissonance is painful to watch.

Presumably, because you can't tell me apart from other posters who disagree with you on other points.

And I see you continue to evade my question about "hetero" vs. "cis". Are you ever going to answer that?

I believe I've answered it, but I'm not sure, so please ask it again and I will attempt to do so once more.

Do you similarly dismiss black people for being upset by being called "******"?

You mean, by white people, right? They don't seem to mind being called that by other black people. I guess it's not always derogatory.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed previously moderated content

 

[luchog]

Wait, people are claiming to be insulted / offended by the term "cisgendered"?

Is there a particular post where Arg displays this attitude?

There are two other threads on the subject where this has been hashed out to death repeatedy by Arg and others. I'm not going to be arsed to dig them up yet again.

 

[Belz...]

What is scientific about people using the bathroom that corresponds to which gender they identify as?

I was making a specific comment on the genetics of the issue, not the directive. Perhaps it'd be nice if you could follow the individual points raised.

No, it really doesn't appear to be an appeal to emotion. He is not trying to get people to disagree with you by making them mad at you or disgusted with you.

He's trying to get _me_ to agree because some people are offended.

 

[wareyin]

I was making a specific comment on the genetics of the issue, not the directive. Perhaps it'd be nice if you could follow the individual points raised.

And in the context of this thread, which is not in the science section, and is ostensibly about legislation of social change, pretending that your words are only to be interpreted in one specific scientific usage, and not the social usage is a poor excuse for a fig leaf. Do follow along, please.

He's trying to get _me_ to agree because some people are offended.

Some people? Rather than just "someone, somewhere"? More progress!

 

[luchog]

It does no such thing. I'm very much aware of all that. But calling a genetic defect a defect is not a social value judgment. Perhaps you can tell me how you would call Down Syndrome from a genetic perspective?

So transgenderism is a genetic defect? You want to provide evidence of that?

That's not what I said. I said that it _can_ be used in a derogatory fashion, an argument that was only meant as a counter to the claim that it is _not_ derogatory.

Which, as was pointed out, was completely irrelevant, since it's a pointless truism that can be applied to any word in the English language. By your logic, either all words are derogatory, or they're not; and there's nothing inherently derogatory in any word,

I believe I've answered it, but I'm not sure, so please ask it again and I will attempt to do so once more.

I just did, you quoted it. But since you're reading comprehension appears to be problematic, I'll simplify it. Why is "hetero" an acceptable label, and "cis" not, despite having identical origins and purposes?

You mean, by white people, right? They don't seem to mind being called that by other black people. I guess it's not always derogatory.

You are clearly unaware of the tremendous controversy over the use of the word in the black community, or the concept of "reappropriation". Here's a brief article on a much more complex subject.

 

[Belz...]

And in the context of this thread, which is not in the science section, and is ostensibly about legislation of social change, pretending that your words are only to be interpreted in one specific scientific usage, and not the social usage is a poor excuse for a fig leaf.

What's this "fig leaf" nonsense you keep talking about?

Do follow along, please.

Perhaps you'd like to tell that to Ziggurat. He started this by saying this:

But for the record, I never said that they are a problem, I said they have a problem. People who are near-sighted also have a problem. It's not wrong to say this.

Then Craig_B asked if they are defective, which is why I brought up the genetics issue. Of course, Craig himself was conflating cold fact with value judgment. But it's no one's fault but your own if you can't distinguish between the two.

Some people? Rather than just "someone, somewhere"? More progress!

Stop taking the piss.

 

[Belz...]

So transgenderism is a genetic defect? You want to provide evidence of that?

It's obviously not what 'nature intended', for lack of a better phrase, as it's excessively rare and pretty useless for reproduction or societal ties. For the record, I don't care: I have a number of defects myself and it doesn't devalue me. Humanity has moved beyond purely evolutionary concerns.

Which, as was pointed out, was completely irrelevant, since it's a pointless truism that can be applied to any word in the English language.

If that's true then we should agree that all words can be neutral, positive or negative depending on the use and interpretation, and stop trying to paint some words as inherently negative. How about we do that?

And would you at least admit that you were wrong about my stance on "cis"? It would be the least you could do.

Why is "hetero" an acceptable label, and "cis" not, despite having identical origins and purposes?

They are both acceptable. I told you, you are proceding from a false premise.

You are clearly unaware of the tremendous controversy over the use of the word in the black community, or the concept of "reappropriation".

I'm aware of it but the point stands: some black people use it without negative connotations.

 

[AdamSK]

He's trying to get _me_ to agree because some people are offended.

Right, he's not trying to get you to agree by making you feel a certain way. He is making an argument, one of the premises of which is that your behavior should be motivated by how other people feel. That is not an appeal to emotion.

 

[Lithrael]

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.

Excuse me? I'm not dismissing but observing a basic disconnect here that will prevent you guys seeing eye to eye on this issue. Is your argument not essentially that Arth's side of the argument is unadulterated useless BS? You're free to address the content of my post if you like; was I wrong? You characterize this kind of thing as PC doublespeak and avoidance of facts; you believe that anyone who is offended or made uncomfortable by this kind of thing is oversensitive and/or being offended by a perfectly reasonable and inoffensive way to discuss reality and that any such feelings are their problem. You believe that avoiding such things only leads to more sensitivity and thus is worse than useless. You believe that Arth is free-associating from your words out into the wild country to find the offensive connotations in it. You believe that language only has power if you 'let it'.

Please show me where in these posts I have said anything unskeptical or irrational.

 

[Belz...]

Right, he's not trying to get you to agree by making you feel a certain way.

He's appealing to my empathy, Adam, rather than my intellect (for what little I may have).

Excuse me?

No, excuse me. I guess in the heat of all this I may have misinterpreted your meaning. Sorry about that. Your summary above is somewhat accurate.

However, you are wrong that no manner of arguing will change my mind. But the argument will have to be based on something that I can agree with (i.e. a rational argument) rather than simply saying that some people may be offended and leave it at that, especially with the thinly-veiled accusation that I am in fact a bigot, and the no-veiled-at-all accusation that I'm part of the problem.