• 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.

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

banquetbear said:
...you think that wareyin was exaggerating. So how much interaction have you had with the transgender community in NZ? What leads you to your opinion?
Click to expand...
I've worked with a fair few and one is a member of my family.

What is yours?
 
cullennz said:
I've worked with a fair few and one is a member of my family.

What is yours?
Click to expand...

...I helped document the stories of members of the transgender community for a foundation. I don't consider what wareyin said to be an exageration at all.
 
wareyin said:
I suppose we will just have to add "theoretical" to the long list of words that you use in a non-standard manner.
Click to expand...

Yes, we are. You just claimed we were in your last paragraph. Are you sure you're following this thread?
Click to expand...

Definitions matter, except to you.
Click to expand...

No, no one relied on synonyms of "defect" to show that "defect" is offensive. I showed you that the word you are using itself is offensive.
Click to expand...

You're clearly not interested in discussion. You can't be bothered to understand language, you can't follow what other people are saying, and you do not see anything but your own, fantasy perspective. You can't even use logic properly, as shown by your inability to demonstrate that a thing I said somehow means what you claim it means, a claim you've now apparently dropped.

Par for the course for social justice warriors.
 
banquetbear said:
...I helped document the stories of members of the transgender community for a foundation. I don't consider what wareyin said to be an exageration at all.
Click to expand...
Thank you. In the study I linked earlier, they off handedly mentioned that the likelihood of finding "birth defect" offensive went up if they or a member of their family were affected. I it think may be a similar case here. If one doesn't even personally know anyone who is transgender, it's much more easy to be callous about the terms one uses to describe them. Conversely, when one has personal knowledge, one can be more aware of the offensive terms being casually tossed around.
 
ive never even met a transgendered person. But I am capable of empathy and I can imagine that it's not an easy experience. This I have no problem saying that it must be a tough experience for them internally, putting aside the social stigma. Therefore, it is perfectly appropriate to say that their transgendered state is a problem for them even if they didn't experience the social stigma. I liken it to people who think one of their body parts doesn't belong to them. Surely we can all agree that these people have a problem brought about by a defect in their development/brain/genes?
 
xjx388 said:
ive never even met a transgendered person. But I am capable of empathy and I can imagine that it's not an easy experience. This I have no problem saying that it must be a tough experience for them internally, putting aside the social stigma. Therefore, it is perfectly appropriate to say that their transgendered state is a problem for them even if they didn't experience the social stigma. I liken it to people who think one of their body parts doesn't belong to them. Surely we can all agree that these people have a problem brought about by a defect in their development/brain/genes?
Click to expand...

I would have thought we could all agree that, no matter what people are experiencing internally, social stigmas make things worse. Further, insisting on using negative, or offensive, or stigmatizing words only causes problems for people who are likely already in a fragile state. Obviously, I was wrong, and some are intent on making any situation worse, whether or not they claim to have empathy.
 
wareyin said:
I would have thought we could all agree that, no matter what people are experiencing internally, social stigmas make things worse. Further, insisting on using negative, or offensive, or stigmatizing words only causes problems for people who are likely already in a fragile state. Obviously, I was wrong, and some are intent on making any situation worse, whether or not they claim to have empathy.
Click to expand...

Your entire argument is based on accusing people of being mean.

How convincing. I'm sure transgender people appreciate your work.
 
Argumemnon said:
Your entire argument is based on accusing people of being mean.

How convincing. I'm sure transgender people appreciate your work.
Click to expand...
Do you think posting nothing but rule 12 violations is going to either convince anyone, or be appreciated by anyone?

Of course, when the dictionary and the majority of your audience disagrees with your definition of a word, what else are you left with?
 
wareyin said:
I would have thought we could all agree that, no matter what people are experiencing internally, social stigmas make things worse. Further, insisting on using negative, or offensive, or stigmatizing words only causes problems for people who are likely already in a fragile state. Obviously, I was wrong, and some are intent on making any situation worse, whether or not they claim to have empathy.
Click to expand...

I do agree that social stigmas make things worse. But there is nothing "negative, or offensive, or stigmatizing," about the words I used in the context I used them. Now, if I had approached a transgendered person and said, "You are a problem! You are a defect!" I would agree that those statements would be offensive and stigmatizing. But 1)I would never do that because that's not how I view them as people and 2) that is clearly not what I did and you have to twist things and take my words out of proper context in order to manufacture offense.

And sorry, but I really don't see how saying, "Surely we can agree that these people have an issue brought about by an anomaly in their development/brains/gene" is any different from what I said in plain meaning. If you view your job as Internet Word Cop, then have at it but this has grown beyond tedious.
 
xjx388 said:
I do agree that social stigmas make things worse. But there is nothing "negative, or offensive, or stigmatizing," about the words I used in the context I used them. Now, if I had approached a transgendered person and said, "You are a problem! You are a defect!" I would agree that those statements would be offensive and stigmatizing. But 1)I would never do that because that's not how I view them as people and 2) that is clearly not what I did and you have to twist things and take my words out of proper context in order to manufacture offense.

And sorry, but I really don't see how saying, "Surely we can agree that these people have an issue brought about by an anomaly in their development/brains/gene" is any different from what I said in plain meaning. If you view your job as Internet Word Cop, then have at it but this has grown beyond tedious.
Click to expand...
I agree that this has grown beyond tedious. Obviously, some are going to be insistent on using offensive terms. Pointing out that there are better ways to say things isn't playing word cop, but it isn't changing the mind of anyone who wants to cause offense, either.
 
wareyin said:
Do you think posting nothing but rule 12 violations is going to either convince anyone, or be appreciated by anyone?
Click to expand...

How is it a rule 12 violation to say that your argument is ridiculous?

Is there anything you ever understand in a discussion? I ask because, so far, you have understood nothing of what anyone has told you.

And again, here your argument boils down to people being mean:

Obviously, some are going to be insistent on using offensive terms.
Click to expand...
 
I don't get it?

the fact that transgenders feel that there is something wrong, and then attempt to fix it would imply that there is something wrong?

when something is wrong in that context and its a thing that has been wrong from the beginning, what's wrong with using words that mean something is wrong?

Are we censoring words now because some sensitive people might be offended?

words...get over it.
 
Last edited:
Argumemnon said:
How is it a rule 12 violation to say that your argument is ridiculous?
Click to expand...

You're clearly not interested in discussion. You can't be bothered to understand language, you can't follow what other people are saying, and you do not see anything but your own, fantasy perspective. You can't even use logic properly, as shown by your inability to demonstrate that a thing I said somehow means what you claim it means, a claim you've now apparently dropped.

Par for the course for social justice warriors."
Click to expand...

...what part of that snippet attacked the argument? You said that he/she wasn't interested in discussion. That he/she can't be bothered to understand language, that he/she can't follow what other people are saying, that he/she see's everything from a fantasy perspective, that he/she can't use logic properly, and to cap it all off you used the lame label "social justice warrior" completely unironically, which in some parts of the internet is an "instant debate fail state."
 
Argumemnon said:
That wasn't the post he was replying to.
Click to expand...

...perhaps you should pay closer attention to this thread. wareyin said "Do you think posting nothing but rule 12 violations is going to either convince anyone, or be appreciated by anyone?" He/she may have been replying to a particular post: but the "rule 12 violations" do not refer to that particular post.

Do you concede that the snippet I posted did attack the poster and not the post?

Also, if you had followe the thread more closely, you might have noticed that wareyin is in no position to lecture others on rule 12.
Click to expand...

If you followed this thread quite closely you would see that I was replying to a question that you posed and I answered the question that you asked. What wareyin said elsewhere in this thread is irrelevant.
 
banquetbear said:
He/she may have been replying to a particular post: but the "rule 12 violations" do not refer to that particular post.
Click to expand...

You ask me to pay attention to the thread while now arguing that wareyin made a comment that had nothing to do with the post we was replying to?

What wareyin said elsewhere in this thread is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

But apparently, what _I_ said elsewhere in this thread is relevant.

No double standard there at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom