Misogyny and other gender issues.
-
Funkstain wrote:Yes sports is another problematic issue. I do believe there are solutions for these issues, which will invariably require compromise from interested parties ("loss of power" to use the parlance of Gurt's transcript), and the only way to make opponents compromise in a negotiation, is to (again paraphrasing from transcript) explain, offer, and persuade. Stridently affirming "wrongness" (transphobia, gammon) won't get you anywhere. Arguably with some (gammon) you wouldn't anyway, so fuck em. But trans rights (and as importantly, trans acceptance) is an achievable thing and so should be pursued, thoughtfully and inclusively.
At the same time, you can see why an oppressed minority might well think "go fuck yourself" to people denying their existence? -
Yeah cos that is what's going onDon't wank. Zinc in your sperms
-
You have never encountered someone insisting on misgendering transfolk?
-
Yes but the original wording didn't imply that, at least not to me"I spent years thinking Yorke was legit Downs-ish disabled and could only achieve lucidity through song" - Mr B -
They're not denying their existence, they're denying their access to a social construct. Gender is a social construct. It is made up, by language. This is a social war, over language. It doesn't do owt to anyone's existence, only their social identity. It's not less important, but it is more precise, and therefore more useful, to be clear about that.
Your language is just strident and emotive, you are denying their existence. Well, on the other side is a hardened person, probably a woman, who is also feeling oppressed, by men, and seeing this as a form of male oppression. She is probably using all sorts of emotive language, defenses up, warlike language, and claiming self defence.
This sort of language does no one any favours. Existence. This isn't the gulag, it's not concentration camps and the extermination of degeneracy we are talking about. We are talking about an argument over Twitter which spills over to the odd debate hall or lecture room. And look at you, a straight man, delighting in joining in. For shame.Don't wank. Zinc in your sperms -
Diluted Dante wrote:You thought I meant they physically did not exist?
What does existence mean? You deny my existence means what? In plain English?
Don't wank. Zinc in your sperms -
If I refer to you as she, does that mean I'm saying you don't exist? I mean, why I have to explain this is beyond me.Don't wank. Zinc in your sperms
-
Diluted Dante wrote:How do you know I am either straight or a man Gonz?
Based on how you have presented yourself on here. Happy to be corrected, and from then on will respect it. Now how about you answer my question - am I denying your existence if I refer to you as she? I'm misgendering you (if as I assume you are a man) - if I do it by accident, that's an accident. If I do it on purpose, then I'm a dick. Does that sum it up? Do you retract this lazy existence bollocks or do we keep this up?
Don't wank. Zinc in your sperms -
Diluted Dante wrote:How do you know I am either straight or a man Gonz?
I'm not having a pop, merely attempting to simplify for some observers, but this is something that a lot of folk hold up as a straw man to poke of fun of those being misgendered. I think of it in the same way I would a name, if you're a German lad called Mo, and I call you Jurgen every day despite having been told your name I'm a cunt. I might think Jurgen is a better name for you, I might struggle to understand how yo could be German and not be called Jurgen, but respecting your desire to be addressed as Mo should be common decency"I spent years thinking Yorke was legit Downs-ish disabled and could only achieve lucidity through song" - Mr B -
I'm not referring to accidental misgendering. That's absolutely fine. Anyone remotely sensible will from then on use the correct name and pronouns. It's the likes of Ben Shapiro I'm referring to who insist on using what he refers to as 'biological pronouns'. Its not just conservative dickwads who do this though. It's very common with 'gender critical' people.
If you want to understand where I'm coming from, http://theconversation.com/denying-transgender-identity-has-serious-impact-on-mental-health-108152 may help.
For the record, I'm still figuring out what I am. All I can tell you is that its not cisgender. -
oh aye, Shapiro is a cunt. Also I wouldn't get too hung up on the label (though I know many find it important), I've known a few folk who when asked would call themselves asexual for years just because accepted labels didn't seem to fit. For Sam at least I think incel would have fit better, despite him opening his options up to include men"I spent years thinking Yorke was legit Downs-ish disabled and could only achieve lucidity through song" - Mr B
-
I can at least state that I am not an incel, despite the lack of sex.
-
Youre a badger, this much I know.
I appreciate trying to see both sides of the argument but I don't really get deliberately misgendering someone after it's been pointed out. It's just rude and ignorant.SFV - reddave360 -
Diluted Dante wrote:I'm not referring to accidental misgendering. That's absolutely fine. Anyone remotely sensible will from then on use the correct name and pronouns. It's the likes of Ben Shapiro I'm referring to who insist on using what he refers to as 'biological pronouns'. Its not just conservative dickwads who do this though. It's very common with 'gender critical' people.
If you want to understand where I'm coming from, http://theconversation.com/denying-transgender-identity-has-serious-impact-on-mental-health-108152 may help.
For the record, I'm still figuring out what I am. All I can tell you is that its not cisgender.
Ok, my bad - genuine apologies
Don't wank. Zinc in your sperms -
With apologies to Gonzo and Dante if I’m misreading either of your posts.
While I agree that gender is a societal construct, and a large part of the problem is that our language has developed to only accommodate two distinct possibilities, I also recognise that if you identify as something that is ill-served by current widely accepted labels, and there are people making rigid statements about ovaries, for example, then it might feel like people are denying that you exist. Not denying that you physically occupy space, obviously, but denying that your identity exists, or should even be acknowledged. That would feel to me like (and I would likely express that feeling as) someone ‘denying my existence’. -
Andy wrote:With apologies to Gonzo and Dante if I’m misreading either of your posts.
While I agree that gender is a societal construct, and a large part of the problem is that our language has developed to only accommodate two distinct possibilities, I also recognise that if you identify as something that is ill-served by current widely accepted labels, and there are people making rigid statements about ovaries, for example, then it might feel like people are denying that you exist. Not denying that you physically occupy space, obviously, but denying that your identity exists, or should even be acknowledged. That would feel to me like (and I would likely express that feeling as) someone ‘denying my existence’.
It might "feel" like that if you are emotional, but it doesn't amount to that. It ISN'T that. Denying you exist has meaning. It is language with ordinary meaning.
I find it interesting that you couldn't use the word "is" - it had to be "feel".
Don't wank. Zinc in your sperms -
Given that you pointed out the importance of empathy, you’re being a little intolerant of the language people have used when expressing themselves. It’s an emotive topic, people are bound to be emotional when they feel attacked.
-
Language isn't always used to convey the literal meaning of the word. When you're talking about something as intangible as the sense of self I think it's reasonable to expect that to be the case. -
There is a massive philosophical rabbit hole to go down here.
-
And it's not particularly useful.
The issue at hand remains that there are women, and their supporters, who say that trans women are not women - in an attempt to deny them the right to self-identify, or perhaps more accurately encourage others not to identify them, as women.
Some of their reasons for doing so seem at least understandable, to this cis male: potential invasion of safe spaces; advantage at sports; concern for children's mental health and physical well-being.
Other reasons appear to be simply reactionary ("in my day") and should be condemned.
I would argue that there are more constructive ways to engage with the understandable concerns / issues than simply trying deny people's right to identify their gender as they choose. It must be possible to establish a sporting framework. It must be possible to solve issues relating to prisons, toilets, women's clubs and other spaces - first by identifying the true extent of the problem (are obviously-cis men really trying to invade women's spaces by pretending to be trans women? Gonz has provided evidence of at least one such, but it seems to me he got shut down pretty quickly, though maybe this is happening a lot?).
The whole "lived experience" angle, "you'll never know what it truly is to be a woman", is the one where anti-trans / trans-wary feminists and women are probably going to have cede the most power (or at least part of their ownership of that experience and story), if this is ever going to work. Unless they can accommodate the idea that if a person feels like a woman, lives like a woman, they can actually be a woman, with all the ramifications, then there's an impasse. -
GooberTheHat wrote:Language isn't always used to convey the literal meaning of the word. When you're talking about something as intangible as the sense of self I think it's reasonable to expect that to be the case.
Who said anything about literal? I just said ordinary meaning. Here we go - another tell in choice of word.
.
I call someone she. They're a he. How am I denying their existence? Every single post has avoided answering this question. This is the kind of ridiculous emotional hyperbole that pervades this kind of issue. No answer.
Of course, I call someone the wrong gender, I do acknowledge their existence. I assign, however, an unwelcome social identity to them. That's the key to analysing this issue. There is a social debate over what it means to be a woman, and in what contexts. It is mostly assertions on both side. "Trans women are women" full stop. A stake is planted. "Women don't have dicks". Stake removed, another planted. No one has learnt a fucking thing.
"Women is a made up word, which describes a societal status frequently aligned with, but not exclusively determined by sex. It's called gender. Language refers to people in a gendered way. Its not skin off your nose to use the preferred gender" - here we made some progress.
"It is skin off your nose that you now can't compete in your sport because someone who has a sex-based advantage, current or historical, will always outperform you" there we made some more progress.
'but they deny my existence" - fuck all progress.
Can't put it any plainer than that.
Don't wank. Zinc in your sperms -
Funkstain wrote:...first by identifying the true extent of the problem (are obviously-cis men really trying to invade women's spaces by pretending to be trans women?
I realise I’m only talking about one small city, but...
In my unit, we monitor somewhere in the region of 225 registered sex offenders living in the community.
All but one are cis-gender men. While none that I know of offended specifically by entering a toilet uninvited, a number did choose to enter places they were not welcome simply because they wanted to. None pretended to be transgender women to do so.
There is one transgender woman. Her offending was totally unrelated to her transition, which came later.
Overwhelmingly, men commit abuse by just taking what they think they’re entitled to, not pretending they’re something else.
Edit: I’ve just remembered, we’ve got one who tampers with toilet signs. The point remains, though, he is not pretending to be trans. -
Armitage_Shankburn wrote:I call someone she. They're a he. How am I denying their existence? Every single post has avoided answering this question.
Because you’re missing the point. We’ve explained what leads to people using that phrase, it’s up to you if you want to take that on board. -
I identify as an internet poster, the sorriest gender of all. -
Armitage_Shankburn wrote:GooberTheHat wrote:Language isn't always used to convey the literal meaning of the word. When you're talking about something as intangible as the sense of self I think it's reasonable to expect that to be the case.
Who said anything about literal? I just said ordinary meaning. Here we go - another tell in choice of word.
.
I call someone she. They're a he. How am I denying their existence? Every single post has avoided answering this question. This is the kind of ridiculous emotional hyperbole that pervades this kind of issue. No answer.
Of course, I call someone the wrong gender, I do acknowledge their existence. I assign, however, an unwelcome social identity to them. That's the key to analysing this issue. There is a social debate over what it means to be a woman, and in what contexts. It is mostly assertions on both side. "Trans women are women" full stop. A stake is planted. "Women don't have dicks". Stake removed, another planted. No one has learnt a fucking thing.
"Women is a made up word, which describes a societal status frequently aligned with, but not exclusively determined by sex. It's called gender. Language refers to people in a gendered way. Its not skin off your nose to use the preferred gender" - here we made some progress.
"It is skin off your nose that you now can't compete in your sport because someone who has a sex-based advantage, current or historical, will always outperform you" there we made some more progress.
'but they deny my existence" - fuck all progress.
Can't put it any plainer than that.
GooberTheHat wrote:There is a massive philosophical rabbit hole to go down here.Funkstain wrote:And it's not particularly useful.
.
-
[img][/img]Andy wrote:Armitage_Shankburn wrote:I call someone she. They're a he. How am I denying their existence? Every single post has avoided answering this question.
Because you’re missing the point. We’ve explained what leads to people using that phrase, it’s up to you if you want to take that on board.
I think the problem with the phrase “ you’re denying my existence” is that it is factually wrong but also it’s so hyperbolic that’s it acts as a nuclear retort which feels like it is in part to just kill the discussion on emotive terms that make the other person feel guilty.
If someone says “you’re denying my existence” it creates a dissonance because it is extreme and a person probably hasn’t been denying any existence in a normal sense.
even in such a situation To apologise for “denying someone’s existence” it feels fucking stupid to say “I’m sorry for denying your existence” when a person has no idea that is what they are doing (remember it is an in group phrase and not normal language even though It is technically English) and in a normal sense we’re not doing that at all (nobody is denying an existence - spiritually the human in front of them is being acknowledged as a human, physically the person isn’t murdering them or keeping them trapped in a box). It feels like a trap to humiliate a person on extreme terms in order to win a discussion without thinking.
Look at how Dante uses it: at the top of the page - it’s a meme that has loaded connotations - as soon as someone says one of the classic phrases everyone is meant to collapse into an “ooh” and stop talking. It’s like the classic “trans women are women” even without talking about what that means if someone says it it’s meant to be a full stop to the conversation - if you even smell the idea of questioning the mantra you are automatically a monster. The problem is we can see even digging into these mantras a little bit their meaning becomes very different (denying existence = not accepting gender is real can be seen more of as a societally oppressive tool) or it can lead to other problematic consequences. But the phrase’ job, I think, is not is not to act as a bridge to help a person to understand but as a weapon to bludgeon people into using a phrase and grow support through memes becoming reality.
-
Exactly. It forces everyone to move to subjective point of view - one person's, and ignore the women. They see that - it's not new to them.Don't wank. Zinc in your sperms
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions2,715
- Games1,879
- Off topic836