Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??

[Sherkeu]

Cool, cool. Just so I make sure I understand, this means that when someone refers to me as "cis" I can punch them in the face. Or you know, when someone calls me a TERF or a transphobe I get to punch them in the face.

Why on earth do you think this is a good idea? Why would you advocate for violence in response to non-preferred language?

His free speech to say some (glib) euphemism of violence directed to a female is okey dokey- and has some social justice excuse to it because we are now the enemy of the penis-having females..

Our right to tell truths as we see them, or to be polite, at our discretion, is actual violence? That is just INSANE.

I havent seen any females here saying they want to punch anyone in the face, even as a metaphor or simile for someone thinking they are female, when they are not. I HAVE seen males defending violence to the other side.
To most of us females, the thought of violence doesnt occur to us because ....and let this be a thought experiment for you...just maybe....we are not generally inclined to think that way.

You may think what you say sounds normal to you- as a glib and innocent usage of violent language. But o us females, it can sound like a threat.

 

[arthwollipot]

I think this is a ******** argument, wolli.

People get repeatedly and deliberately called all sorts of things they don't like. Some of us get repeatedly and deliberately called things we've specifically asked NOT to be called pretty regularly. This kind of thing happens frequently. For some people, it's a daily occurrence.

And when that happens, it can be considered harassment and bullying. And believe me, as a victim of harassment and bullying throughout all my school years, I know what it looks like.

You're singling out one very specific cohort of people, and you're demanding that those people get a special privilege - the privilege to demand that other people's free speech be removed or limited in deference to their feelings.

No, I'm not "demanding" a damn thing. I'm saying that if you harass or bully someone, there may be consequences.

If you want to take the approach that nobody is ever allowed to use any language that hurts someone else's feelings, I would think it was silly, but it would be consistent.

I'm not saying anything about anybody being "allowed" to do anything. I'm saying that people who engage in harassment and bullying may experience consequences.

But this? This is not consistent, nor is it rational. It's granting special a small group of people the special privilege of overriding other people's rights based on their feelings.

I don't want anybody to get "special privilege" and your entire argument against me is based on a massive person made from dried grass (sorry, I don't yet have a good gender-neutral alternative for "strawman").

Until you drop the rhetoric about "demanding" things or "allowing" things, you're going to get nowhere. I'm extremely tired of it.

 

[arthwollipot]

You may think what you say sounds normal to you- as a glib and innocent usage of violent language. But o us females, it can sound like a threat.

I apologise for using threatening-sounding language. Most people who know me know that I am in general a very passive and nonviolent person (recreation of sword arts notwithstanding) who would never literally punch anyone for any reason.

 

[jimbob]

I'll probably regret this, but I'm taking this thread off moderated status.

Remember this is about how appropriate/aggressive it is to refer to someone by a gender identity that they embrace/reject, not about the validity of said gender identity

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jimbob

 

[Hercules56]

I apologise for using threatening-sounding language. Most people who know me know that I am in general a very passive and nonviolent person (recreation of sword arts notwithstanding) who would never literally punch anyone for any reason.

Thank you. Your post seemed to validate my fear that people would now use the use of the wrong pronoun to justify use of violent self-defense.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Do you feel that way about stricter taboos (and sometimes legal consequences) on racially or religiously motivated harassment?

Depends entirely on what you think constitutes harassment that rises to an actionable level.

I dislike and disapprove of epithets and slurs, as a general thing. But they are not illegal, and in about 99.9% of cases, when a person does use epithets or slurs, it's not at all actionable - and I wouldn't support it becoming so.

I spent a year of college during which one person who disliked another person in our dorm said "bitch" every time their paths crossed, anywhere on campus. It was rude, it was uncalled for, and I very much disliked the name-caller. But even with it being their standard reaction toward the person they disliked... I would still not consider that harassment. No other action was taken, they didn't follow them around, they didn't yell it loudly while pointing and laughing or anything of the sort. All they did was say "bitch" every time they saw the other person. It's rude, absolutely. But it's not harassment.

Nor is using a sex-based pronoun harassment. Not in and of itself. One can certainly construct situations with more extreme behavior included, wherein the use of a sex-based pronoun could become an element of harassment. But by itself? No, it simply isn't harassment, nor is it bullying.

You can consider it rude all you want. But it's not harassment, and it's not bullying.

 

[gnome]

Thank you. Your post seemed to validate my fear that people would now use the use of the wrong pronoun to justify use of violent self-defense.

In his supposition, I don't think that the person he's describing is making a moral calculation--they are angry and acting on that. So it's not really seeking "justification" in that sense.

 

[arthwollipot]

I spent a year of college during which one person who disliked another person in our dorm said "bitch" every time their paths crossed, anywhere on campus. It was rude, it was uncalled for, and I very much disliked the name-caller. But even with it being their standard reaction toward the person they disliked... I would still not consider that harassment. No other action was taken, they didn't follow them around, they didn't yell it loudly while pointing and laughing or anything of the sort. All they did was say "bitch" every time they saw the other person. It's rude, absolutely. But it's not harassment.

If the person to whom it was directed didn't consider it harassment, then it was not harassment. I personally would judge such a situation as definitely harassment, but - and here's the important part - I don't get to make that call. Person C does not have the right to determine whether Person A's behaviour towards Person B constitutes harassment. Only Person B does, and if they decide to take it further, some sort of arbitration committee that is directly empowered to make that kind of judgement.

Even more importantly, Person C does not have the right to decide that Person A's behaviour towards Person B is not harassment, if Person B thinks it is.

 

[Samson]

If the person to whom it was directed didn't consider it harassment, then it was not harassment. I personally would judge such a situation as definitely harassment, but - and here's the important part - I don't get to make that call. Person C does not have the right to determine whether Person A's behaviour towards Person B constitutes harassment. Only Person B does, and if they decide to take it further, some sort of arbitration committee that is directly empowered to make that kind of judgement.

Even more importantly, Person C does not have the right to decide that Person A's behaviour towards Person B is not harassment, if Person B thinks it is.

Person B has the right to consider it to be harassment, but not determine it be so.
Being pedantic, but we seem to be in a hair trigger world.

 

[arthwollipot]

Person B has the right to consider it to be harassment, but not determine it be so.
Being pedantic, but we seem to be in a hair trigger world.

Like I said, the determination is made by an arbitration committee specifically empowered to make that determination.

 

[varwoche]

I see no substantial difference between repeatedly using the wrong pronoun for someone and repeatedly using the wrong name for someone.

I beg to differ. A name doesn't carry the weight of factuality. That's a substantial difference. (That doesn't mean I endorse the behavior. )

 

[d4m10n]

I see no substantial difference between repeatedly using the wrong pronoun for someone and repeatedly using the wrong name for someone.

I beg to differ. A name doesn't carry the weight of factuality. That's a substantial difference.

How can we tell the factually right name from the factually wrong name? When I had my surname legally changed in 1994, my birth name went from correct to incorrect, in the sense that society officially recognized the change. When my wife had her surname changed two years later, she went through the same annoying bureaucratic process. What we're talking about here it disanalogous to that process inasmuch as society is not required to weigh in at all, compliance is considered morally mandatory without any process of social construction or broader assent to the changes being made.

 

[gnome]

How can we tell the factually right name from the factually wrong name? When I had my surname legally changed in 1994, my birth name went from correct to incorrect, in the sense that society officially recognized the change. When my wife had her surname changed two years later, she went through the same annoying bureaucratic process. What we're talking about here it disanalogous to that process inasmuch as society is not required to weigh in at all, compliance is considered morally mandatory without any process of social construction or broader assent to the changes being made.

What would that social construction look like, if it had occurred?

 

[dirtywick]

would you consider someone who would repeatedly insist on using your old surname after being made aware of the name change kind of a dumbass?

 

[d4m10n]

would you consider someone who would repeatedly insist on using your old surname after being made aware of the name change kind of a dumbass?

It happened, mostly out of force of habit rather than insistence. IIRC, it felt exactly like being violently attacked.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[d4m10n]

What would that social construction look like, if it had occurred?

Like the UK GRC process, I suppose.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[dirtywick]

It happened, mostly out of force of habit rather than insistence. IIRC, it felt exactly like being violently attacked.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

attacked by a dumbass or a normal person?

 

[d4m10n]

attacked by a dumbass or a normal person?

Surely those are not the only two possibilities.

 

[gnome]

It happened, mostly out of force of habit rather than insistence. IIRC, it felt exactly like being violently attacked.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

If it wasn't persistent and insistent, then I'm not sure why you would anyone to feel attacked.

 

[ahhell]

attacked by a dumbass or a normal person?

Surely those are not the only two possibilities.

Those two things aren't even mutually exclusive.