Misogyny and other gender issues. - The Bear and Badger

poprock

Escape wrote:

I thought that most changing rooms were just a row of little booths with mirrors and curtains, and were open to all whenever available? It's been a long time since I went out shopping for clothes, though; like, the '90s.

I don’t think many high street shops have mixed changing rooms, mostly because our own gender can’t be fucking trusted around women.

RedDave2

Isn't that basically the rights argument?

Escape

Diluted Dante wrote:

I don't agree with your it follows though.

Grammatically follows for uniformity in writing. In reality, you can refer to yourself as a genderless individual. Not as cool as an Apache, though.

Escape

This here woman obviously doesn't like the practice, but I agree with this (my emboldening):

Gender neutral identities involve a kind of grating at the social, an objection to being touched by anything social or universal in content. After all, a regular pronoun describes an individual as something general: to be called ‘he’ is to say that this person, Tom, is something universal, a man. The new identities express a dislike at being part of any general group or category, at being touched or judged by frameworks that are commonly accepted.

In the macho and dolly world of duality I can dig this view, but the blurring of definitions seems more practical. Men caring for babies while women go to work and so on. I don't identify as a man especially, but I take no exception to its implications even though I'm routinely lumped. And if I were bothered by it, I'd try and broaden its definition because it can't be disowned effectively. New Romantics and all that.

[Deleted User]

The existing words and definitions suit you, so fuck anyone they don’t suit?

Nope.

Escape

Tied to our associated and ongoing history of awfulness, I can't run away from being white. I've never identified as white, but the world's not gonna change for me.

[Deleted User]

But you are white. And we’re even happy to provide a plethora of variances and specificities: white European, white Northern European, white British.

For a long time you had the option of white or non-white. Then language and bigots gradually caught up with the fact that we needed to broaden that range.

For a long time you had the option of male or female. Language and bigots are gradually catching up with the fact that we need to broaden that range that range.

Escape

I definitely don't identify as British, either, but labels aren't going anywhere due to popular demand.

Millions of us don't subscribe to gender stereotypes, and gender as a thing's completely facile anyway.

RedDave2

Andy wrote:

But you are white. And we’re even happy to provide a plethora of variances and specificities: white European, white Northern European, white British.

For a long time you had the option of white or non-white. Then language and bigots gradually caught up with the fact that we needed to broaden that range.

For a long time you had the option of male or female. Language and bigots are gradually catching up with the fact that we need to broaden that range that range.

Couple of things with the above. First, I don't think we've ever been just white and non-white. Within the white genre we have division by sex, country, religion, politics. Colour and gender just make it easier to spot who is like you and who isn't.

Second , one of the problems with the gender thing is that language can't catch up because it's being attributed by personal choice. I've no problem with someone telling me the pronouns they want me to use when we first meet but it's next to impossible to change the language that everyone uses to allow for that knowledge before hand. And given that language is used as a universal method of communication, that's a problem.

Escape

And labels can be gradually reforged into offensive terms.

[Deleted User]

RedDave2 wrote:

First, I don't think we've ever been just white and non-white. Within the white genre we have division by sex, country, religion, politics. Colour and gender just make it easier to spot who is like you and who isn't.

Yes, I know there are other characteristics, but within the one defining skin colour / ethnicity, the language people previously used lacked the diversity of the things it was describing. The attitude that we must only have the language to describe two genders fails to accept the more diverse reality.

RedDave2 wrote:

Second , one of the problems with the gender thing is that language can't catch up because it's being attributed by personal choice. I've no problem with someone telling me the pronouns they want me to use when we first meet but it's next to impossible to change the language that everyone uses to allow for that knowledge before hand. And given that language is used as a universal method of communication, that's a problem.

So, because we’re having difficulty finding the right answer straight away, we should scrap the whole endeavour? With that attitude, our species wouldn’t be where it is today.

RedDave2

Andy wrote:

RedDave2 wrote:

First, I don't think we've ever been just white and non-white. Within the white genre we have division by sex, country, religion, politics. Colour and gender just make it easier to spot who is like you and who isn't.

Yes, I know there are other characteristics, but within the one defining skin colour / ethnicity, the language people previously used lacked the diversity of the things it was describing. The attitude that we must only have the language to describe two genders fails to accept the more diverse reality.

RedDave2 wrote:

Second , one of the problems with the gender thing is that language can't catch up because it's being attributed by personal choice. I've no problem with someone telling me the pronouns they want me to use when we first meet but it's next to impossible to change the language that everyone uses to allow for that knowledge before hand. And given that language is used as a universal method of communication, that's a problem.

So, because we’re having difficulty finding the right answer straight away, we should scrap the whole endeavour? With that attitude, our species wouldn’t be where it is today.

I'm not saying don't try. I've no problem with us introducing either more sets of pronouns into our language or just scrapping genders in language. I do think we will have a problem if everyone feels they can create their own personal subset. You're attaching uniqueness to a part of language which is inherently generalizing. I'm not saying don't try, more try a different approach.

I don't have a problem with labels as a way to very broadly categorise people. I'm a middle aged, slightly overweight Irish white male - none of those labels are incorrect. Its when assumptions are made based on those labels that the problem can begin and escalates.

Going back to the first point, again I still don't think you could point any point in history where skin tone/ ethnicity was the only point of differation. I'd argue class would near always come first. I only have to look at how white Irish emigrants were treated in England and America at various points in history to see that being white did not prevent bigotry. Was it as bad as that suffered by those with dark skin? Probably not but as the old signage went - no dogs, no blacks, no Irish- it wasn't that much better.

Escape

No DSS. The solution has always rested with society.

Rejecting inaccurate labels is something I approve of, but if you adopt a replacement you're just moving the goalposts from griefers. If anyone abuses a person with bipolar, autism or other, we criticise the abuser with no thought to changing those definitions. If you fill in a benefits form for someone with a diagnosed condition, you have to describe its effects on their daily life, despite most people hating the thought of being defined by theirs. Bipolar; polar-fluid...

JonB

Perhaps the better solution would be removing pronouns rather than adding new ones. Not all languages have separate words for the first person singular (he/she/it) as it is and they seem to do OK.

Escape

I think I've read that German doesn't cater to additional pronouns?

Diluted Dante

RedDave2 wrote:

I've no problem with someone telling me the pronouns they want me to use when we first meet but it's next to impossible to change the language that everyone uses to allow for that knowledge before hand. And given that language is used as a universal method of communication, that's a problem.

Language changes all the time.

RedDave2

Diluted Dante wrote:

RedDave2 wrote:

I've no problem with someone telling me the pronouns they want me to use when we first meet but it's next to impossible to change the language that everyone uses to allow for that knowledge before hand. And given that language is used as a universal method of communication, that's a problem.

Language changes all the time.

I think you're missing the point. It's not a problem with the language changing but if pronouns have to be personal than they become the same as names and are no longer fit for purpose. If we can agree to let's say 3 gender types that's fine (or where possible remove gender specific) but the personal approach (As in Hi, I'm Dave and my preferred pronouns whatever I feel they should be)

The ze /air pronouns are fine to add in but if everyone gets to pick there own set then there's really no point having he/she/ze/zir etc.

Also while I completely respect someone's right to dictate to me what pronouns I should use for them and I hate gearing the arguments of "I'll use the proper pronouns instead of respecting you" if you can never know before hand than that's a bit of a problem. And if we have to include our pronouns when introducing ourselves, isn't that drawing to our differences when we should not have to

Diluted Dante

I've no idea what you're on about. We're talking about a gender neutral pronoun. That would make 3 pronouns to use, one of which can apply to anyone.

RedDave2

You might be talking about 3 set of pronouns but that's not reflective of what's out there

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:List_of_protologisms/third_person_singular_gender_neutral_pronouns

https://lgbtqia.ucdavis.edu/educated/pronouns.html

It also doesn't take into account people wanting a specific pronoun to describe themselves which is what leads to the "my preferred pronouns are". As escape kinda said, you are just replacing one label with another if there are only 3.

So you might have a transgender male who is not gender neutral but doesn't identify with he or she either. They might prefer xie, ze or yo. If a person can't know these things without being told, I feel they are failing at their purpose

Diluted Dante

We have what's out there because there isn't an agreed upon gender neutral pronoun, mostly because the current options are crap.

RedDave2

You're glossing over those who don't want to be she or he but don't want the blanket term of 'other. I'm not saying your wrong or they're right, but they will still feel prejudiced by not having their own specific pronoun.

Diluted Dante

A gender neutral pronoun isn't other. It can be applied to anyone.

monkey

Some people might object to being referred to by gender neutral pronouns.

RedDave2

monkey wrote:

Some people might object to being referred to by gender neutral pronouns.

This. For some they would make the case that a heterosexual transgender female isn't a she but she isn't gender neutral so neither she, nor he, nor gender neutral suits them. The gender natural position being applied to all only really works if it's the only option (And I'm not against that idea but I'm guessing it would take generations to weed out the he/she standards) as everyone is treated the Same. If it's one of three than it's very much a he/she / other divide.

Escape

If LGBTQIA+ were a DOS filename...

Where lies the ultimate exclusion of inclusivity... Just keep corralling diversity in the hope that factions never rise?

Lea DeLaria wrote:

And part of me believes that this inclusivity of calling us the LGBTQQTY-whatever-LMNOP tends to stress our differences. And that's why I refuse to do it. I say queer. Queer is everybody.

Diluted Dante

Queer is a horrible term. It's something your grandparents would say about someone.

"Watch out for that John, he's a queer you know."

Plus it's often used in the context of wanting to define yourself as different, which quite a lot of people don't wish to do. Despite what Lea DeLaria thinks, queer is definitely not everybody.

Brooks

Idk I've met plenty of queers who are very happy with queer.

Escape

Diluted Dante wrote:

"Watch out for that John, he's a queer you know."

And he's from Cyprus.

The only term I can think of that hasn't been turned against a group is nigga, and I think that's probably because an entire community's united by it and that gives it a solid defence. But with other terms I'm not too sure that you're not punting the goalposts piecemeal across the park.

What about how disabled people feel about their terms for contrast? We've arrived at ‘wheelchair users’, say, and yet youreable.com is one of the biggest disability forums. Those with Asperger's are widely happy to be known as Aspies, but I'm not confident that ‘sufferers’ won't become contentious over time. Autists is already a term of abuse; albeit banter in friendly context. The kneejerk reaction to given names is often rejection. In my experience, a lot of disabled people hate having to describe their conditions for welfare payments. They're fighting against definitions as descriptors.

So I do wonder if there's that same future potential for signing your own term of abuse when self-defining. Queer's been pretty bulletproof so far. I don't argue in favour of it, but I see where Lea's coming from.

MattyJ

Diluted Dante wrote:

Queer is a horrible term. It's something your grandparents would say about someone.

"Watch out for that John, he's a queer you know."

Plus it's often used in the context of wanting to define yourself as different, which quite a lot of people don't wish to do. Despite what Lea DeLaria thinks, queer is definitely not everybody.

Brooks wrote:

Idk I've met plenty of queers who are very happy with queer.

Dunno whether it's just Americans nut listening to podcasts 'queer' seems to be an acceptable term again... But not sure if that's just used by lgbt people

[Deleted User]

They’re here, they’re queer, get used to it.

As with many so things, it’s a derogatory term, appropriated to take the power out of it. It’s not a word I’d use unless somebody made it clear that’s how they identify themselves, and are happy to be identified that way by others (particularly a white, straight male).

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories