• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Non-binary identities are valid

Status
Not open for further replies.
HansMustermann said:
The moment I get accused of being a "bigot" if I don't comply, I'd rather say it's blatantly obvious that the underlying assumption is that it's a command that I don't have the right to refuse.
Click to expand...



If someone informs you that they are bisexual or pansexual, and you respond by telling them that you don't believe in the validity of their sexual identity and you refuse to "comply" with their belief system.....

.... does that make you a bigot?



(Hint: yes, it does)
 
"Is it good enough that, since you tell me you're a fox, I treat you (?) as a fox.... but at the same time I fundamentally disagree with the validity and reality of a human being a fox (and I have no problem sharing my fundamental opinion on the invalidity/non-reality of a human being a fox with you and others)?"
 
Roboramma said:
So, you're not saying that anything was wrong in that post, just that it's an issue that's not relevant to the discussion of gender identity?

That implies that there are some issues (like the one brought up in theprestige's post) where the important factor is biological sex. There are perhaps other issues where the important factor is gender identity. What features distinguish between those cases?
Click to expand...



Once again, it would appear that you're choosing to assess the "importance" either mainly or wholly from the observer's point of view.

A human's internalised identity is a complex thing. Yes, it often manifests itself in things which are observable, but that doesn't in any way mean that the person's identity is "in the eye of the beholder". It's not.
 
Olmstead said:
"Is it good enough that, since you tell me you're a fox, I treat you (?) as a fox.... but at the same time I fundamentally disagree with the validity and reality of a human being a fox (and I have no problem sharing my fundamental opinion on the invalidity/non-reality of a human being a fox with you and others)?"
Click to expand...
You might be interested in the Otherkin thread from a few years ago. More than a few years ago. Bloody hell I've been here a long time.
 
Olmstead said:
"Is it good enough that, since you tell me you're a fox, I treat you (?) as a fox.... but at the same time I fundamentally disagree with the validity and reality of a human being a fox (and I have no problem sharing my fundamental opinion on the invalidity/non-reality of a human being a fox with you and others)?"
Click to expand...



Oh here we go again. Makes a change from the "attack helicopter" bollocks, I suppose.

But just as with the "attack helicopter" bat guano, the very fact that you're trying to compare a) someone who identifies as gay, or someone who identifies as non-binary wrt their gender identity, with b) someone (human) who announces that they are a different species of mammal....

.....merely goes to demonstrate nicely just how off-base and ignorant your current understanding of valid human conditions actually is. So, thanks for that.
 
LondonJohn said:
Oh here we go again. Makes a change from the "attack helicopter" bollocks, I suppose.

But just as with the "attack helicopter" bat guano, the very fact that you're trying to compare a) someone who identifies as gay, or someone who identifies as non-binary wrt their gender identity, with b) someone (human) who announces that they are a different species of mammal....

.....merely goes to demonstrate nicely just how off-base and ignorant your current understanding of valid human conditions actually is. So, thanks for that.
Click to expand...

It demonstrates that your "find and replace" brand of arguing is bollocks. You should really stop doing that.
 
Olmstead said:
It demonstrates that your "find and replace" brand of arguing is bollocks. You should really stop doing that.
Click to expand...



What on earth are you talking about?

I addressed the problems behind JoeMorgue's statement:

"Is it good enough if I treat you the way you want to be treated without conceptualizing you the way you want to be conceptualized?"
Click to expand...


By applying it to sexual identity. And I did that because a person's sexual identity is (thankfully) something which is nowadays accepted as genuine and valid by most people within modern liberal democracies. I kind of thought that it was obvious why I'd done this.

You then waded in with a(nother) attempt to challenge my position wrt the validity of both sexual identity and gender identity, by way of your implication - via your, uhm, "amusing" fox analogy - that my position was as follows: people can effectively tell me they identify as literally anything (including a fox or an attack helicopter), and I'm duty bound to accept their stated identification as real and valid".
 
LondonJohn said:
What on earth are you talking about?

I addressed the problems behind JoeMorgue's statement:




By applying it to sexual identity. And I did that because a person's sexual identity is (thankfully) something which is nowadays accepted as genuine and valid by most people within modern liberal democracies. I kind of thought that it was obvious why I'd done this.

You then waded in with a(nother) attempt to challenge my position wrt the validity of both sexual identity and gender identity, by way of your implication - via your, uhm, "amusing" fox analogy - that my position was as follows: people can effectively tell me they identify as literally anything (including a fox or an attack helicopter), and I'm duty bound to accept their stated identification as real and valid".
Click to expand...

But that's literally what your position means. Homosexuality and transexuality/gender fluidity only have one singular thing in common: some people discriminate against them. Which means homosexuality has just as much in common with otherkin and transabled people, unless you can find some other connection.
 
caveman1917 said:
What's the bloody point of an apology? Just pick a definition for "command" or "forced" and stick with it, instead of flipping back and forth depending on whether the result suits you or not.
Click to expand...
I believe that I have sufficiently clarified myself in other posts.

Hence, I apologise for being unclear at first, and will continue my ongoing attempts to be more clear into the future. How successful I will be is yet to be seen. Can we move on now?
 
arthwollipot said:
As has been pointed out before, it's only bigotry if you continue to misgender someone after being repeatedly asked not to.
Click to expand...

But that's no longer at the level of "please do X". You've unilaterally elevated yourself to a position where you've can decide what I MUST do, and that my only option is to comply. Otherwise you feel you're entitled to do anything from dumb browbeating to, for some people, try to get me fired, in order to enforce compliance.

Bending logic in a pretzel to call it "not a command", when in fact it's a unilateral demand that I'm not supposed to have any choice but to comply with, is just silly empty sophistry. It's like saying I didn't punch that guy, I just threw a fist in a direction that intersected with his face.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
If someone informs you that they are bisexual or pansexual, and you respond by telling them that you don't believe in the validity of their sexual identity and you refuse to "comply" with their belief system.....

.... does that make you a bigot?



(Hint: yes, it does)
Click to expand...

So, you're just doing a strawman AND running with the goal posts at this point? Ran out of ideas to do your dumb browbeating with, when that ran off the script, eh? :p

Hint: I've already said REPEATEDLY I do consider it to be valid.

Not that it will stop you from making up BS, apparently, if that's what it takes to hear yourself barking together with the fashionable pack, like a clueless puppy.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Oh here we go again. Makes a change from the "attack helicopter" bollocks, I suppose.

But just as with the "attack helicopter" bat guano, the very fact that you're trying to compare a) someone who identifies as gay, or someone who identifies as non-binary wrt their gender identity, with b) someone (human) who announces that they are a different species of mammal....

.....merely goes to demonstrate nicely just how off-base and ignorant your current understanding of valid human conditions actually is. So, thanks for that.
Click to expand...

Wait, so basically you're saying that self-identity is only OK if it's the kind that you decided to support? In fact, that you CAN tell some people that you know better than them what's in their head, and they don't REALLY identify as what they say they do?

Based on... what? That one is in the list of currently fashionable things to accept, if you want to bark together the cool pack, while the other isn't?
 
arthwollipot said:
No, I'm not. If you've got a Code of Conduct, there can be serious consequences if you do not comply. But I don't feel that framing a Code of Conduct as a "command" is an appropriate use of that word
Click to expand...

Do you even know what a "command" even means? At the point where even a demand actually coming from authority is somehow "not a command", that's pretty much just dishonest arguing and making BS up on the fly.

arthwollipot said:
and why are we still talking about this anyway?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wonder why we're not just accepting whatever ad-hoc word redefinitions you're making up, in something that's little more than trying to derail the discussion into 'but what does command really mean?' navel-gazing, instead of expecting the argument to make any sense? :p
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
And therein lies the problem with your approach to this.

After all. you can (if you so desire) apply this "can't tell what's real and what's made up" approach to pretty much every internalised human condition:

"She tells me she loves me, but does she really mean it or is she making it up?"

"My housemate tells me he enjoys my choices of DVD on our movie nights, but does he really mean it or is he making it up?"

"My best friend tells me they have a non-binary gender identity, but do they really mean it or are they making it up?"
Click to expand...

Except that's EXACTLY what YOU do, if I told you that my old classmate identified as a cat. Then what YOU do is exactly decide that no, it's no longer a problem to tell her that she's just making it up. And in fact, that it's not just invalid, but outright offensive somehow to even entertain the thought. Then not only you "know" she's lying about what's in her head, but even WHY she's making that up. Then it's apparently no longer the same problem you argue against above, or even a problem at all, but the self-righteous thing to do if you want to feel all "progressive".

So... hypocrisy much?
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
I believe that I have sufficiently clarified myself in other posts.

Hence, I apologise for being unclear at first, and will continue my ongoing attempts to be more clear into the future. How successful I will be is yet to be seen. Can we move on now?
Click to expand...

caveman1917 was replying to post #1135. Which post subsequent to 1135 better clarified your viewpoint?
 
LondonJohn said:
roboramma said:
So, you're not saying that anything was wrong in that post, just that it's an issue that's not relevant to the discussion of gender identity?

That implies that there are some issues (like the one brought up in theprestige's post) where the important factor is biological sex. There are perhaps other issues where the important factor is gender identity. What features distinguish between those cases?
Click to expand...
Once again, it would appear that you're choosing to assess the "importance" either mainly or wholly from the observer's point of view.
Click to expand...

Am I? I don't think I am. In the situation theprestige described (of two people about to engage in sexual intercourse), whether or not both parties are interested in that sexual intercourse seems important to both of them, not the "the observer".

Do you think you could answer the questions I posed in the post you quoted?

A human's internalised identity is a complex thing. Yes, it often manifests itself in things which are observable, but that doesn't in any way mean that the person's identity is "in the eye of the beholder". It's not.
Click to expand...

I didn't suggest it was. I did suggest that there are things other than a person's "internalized identity" that matter in various situations. Are you disagreeing with that?
 
arthwollipot said:
As has been pointed out before, it's only bigotry if you continue to misgender someone after being repeatedly asked not to. It's bigotry when you persist in the problematic behaviour even when you know it's problematic. It's okay to slip up occasionally, but it's not okay to persist against someone's wish.

I know analogies are fraught with danger, but here's one anyway. My name in meatspace, it might surprise you to know, isn't Arthwollipot but Andrew. But I detest the name Andy. If you call me Andy, I will politely ask you to call me Andrew. If you forget and accidentally call me Andy, I will forgive you. I will remind you, but I will forgive you. But if you clearly and deliberately persist in calling me Andy despite the fact that you know I don't like it, that's not okay. In this particular case I would probably stop short of calling it "bigotry" but no analogy is perfect.

Am I "commanding" you to call me Andrew? No, I'm not. I'm asking you, and by not complying you are being an ass. Do you care that I now consider you an ass? If not, how is that a command? A command that is not complied with carries consequences. The only consequence that I can see for your not complying with my request is that I will consider you an ass, which you might not care about.

This discussion is not about this forum. If you want to join the discussion as it specifically relates to this forum, it's over here in Forum Management.
Click to expand...

What actual crime does mis-gendering some one fall under and what do you think the punishment should be?

Both accidently and on purpose?

And how does the person prove it is/isn't accidental?

And what happens if the other person changes their pronouns between meetings with the accused person, as apparently gender is fluid?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom