• 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.

UK - Train firm apologise for "ladies and gentlemen" announcement

Matthew Best said:
Interesting that the person who complained about announcements on London North Eastern Railway works as a railway guard for South Western Railway. I wonder if that had anything to do with it?
Click to expand...


It might *perhaps* explain why the person made such a public complaint. But I can't see how it affects either the validity or the principle related to the complaint.

(Unless you're suggesting that the person was not actually genuinely non-binary, but merely "pretended" to be so in order to make the complaint....)
 
Belz... said:
Nobody said it was difficult. But as usual you take every opportunity to be condescending to everyone you disagree with.
Click to expand...


I was replying to arthwollipot. To whom I was not being condescending. And please remind me how I was being condescending to anyone else.

(SURELY this can't be part of an agenda-based attempt to colour virtually everything I write as "condescending", whether it actually is or not....? :rolleyes:)


Oh, and plenty of people implied that it was difficult, by the way. You've probably forgotten all the "hysterical" responses along the lines of "Hello to men, women, alphabet-people, shemales, hefemales, hermaphrodites.......".
 
Last edited:
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Yes. As pointed out they do this by using inclusive language like 'passengers' it really isn't a problem to include everyone most of the time it just needs a bit of thought.
Click to expand...


"It just needs a bit of thought"?????

How DARE you be so condescending! Especially when responding to Belz's post!!

:rolleyes:
 
LondonJohn said:
Wow.

That is, regrettably, not a new level of denial of transgender (inc nonbinary) identity, even for here.
Click to expand...

Leaving aside the fact that "you're a meanie!" is not an argument, I don't think cullennz was denying trans identity. I think he was more addressing the fact that this person saw fit to complain about something so trivial.

How about something like "Good afternoon to all those travelling on our rail service today"?

See: that wasn't too hard, was it? Short, to the point, pleasant, and properly inclusive.
Click to expand...

It's proper and inclusive, but boring and bland, and devoid of flair, emotion or impact. It works, but it's pretty meh.

Oh dear.
Click to expand...

As detailed and poignant an argument as I've come to expect from you.
 
LondonJohn said:
I was replying to arthwollipot. To whom I was not being condescending. And please remind me how I was being condescending to anyone else.

(SURELY this can't be part of an agenda-based attempt to colour virtually everything I write as "condescending", whether it actually is or not....? :rolleyes:)
Click to expand...

That has to be the shortest fringe reset I've ever seen. I quoted you IN THE POST you responded to being condescending to everyone who disagreed, calling them either closed-minded, reactionary, or flat-out transphobic.

Are you going to ask me to quote you to prove it, now?

Oh, and plenty of people implied that it was difficult, by the way. You've probably forgotten all the "hysterical" responses along the lines of "Hello to men, women, alphabet-people, shemales, hefemales, hermaphrodites.......".
Click to expand...

Jokes are not meant to be serious, unless something's terribly wrong with your humour detector.
 
LondonJohn said:
It might *perhaps* explain why the person made such a public complaint. But I can't see how it affects either the validity or the principle related to the complaint.

(Unless you're suggesting that the person was not actually genuinely non-binary, but merely "pretended" to be so in order to make the complaint....)
Click to expand...

No I'm pretty sure they identify as non-binary. I'm not exactly sure how "public" their complaint was, though.
 
Belz... said:
Meh, I don't know. People even here use "grow up" to indicate that someone is acting like a child. And you're using "validity" as a buzzword, so there's that.
Click to expand...


"Validity" is a perfectly.....valid term in the context of a discussion in which some people are trying to frame nonbinary transgender identity as somehow "made up" or "trendy". In fact it's not only a valid term: it's the correct term.

I suspect from your use of the (probably pejorative) term "buzzword" that you take issue with the use of the term "validity", insomuch as you consider it to be some sort of trendy mot-du-jour which is employed to make a person *seem* knowledgeable, logical, reasonable and well-informed (while the latter is probably the truth).

Would that be a more-or-less accurate suspicion? If so, why?
 
Matthew Best said:
No I'm pretty sure they identify as non-binary. I'm not exactly sure how "public" their complaint was, though.
Click to expand...


It was on twitter. And, one way or another, it found its way into a national newspaper (which, had the person phoned, emailed or written a letter to the rail operator in question, it almost-certainly would not have done).
 
Matthew Best said:
These are two different things.
Click to expand...


No they're not. Nonbinary identity is just a subset of transgender identity. All nonbinary people have transgender identity. "Transgender identity" in its accepted current usage means "a gender identity which differs from the gender which was assigned at birth".
 
LondonJohn said:
"Validity" is a perfectly.....valid term in the context of a discussion in which some people are trying to frame nonbinary transgender identity as somehow "made up" or "trendy".
Click to expand...

I'm not sure anyone here has done that. They may have, but my perception is that they are refering to the specific reaction of the plaintiff. I could be wrong.

I suspect from your use of the (probably pejorative) term "buzzword" that you take issue with the use of the term "validity", insomuch as you consider it to be some sort of trendy mot-du-jour which is employed to make a person *seem* knowledgeable, logical, reasonable and well-informed (while the latter is probably the truth).
Click to expand...

It's become a word that's used to force an end to the discussion by telling people they're big meanies. "You're denying the validity of my experience" is one common framing.

But really, who cares? Let's say that poster X is denying said validity. So what? I think especially on this forum that should lead to an argument, not pointing fingers angrily.
 
LondonJohn said:
It was on twitter. And, one way or another, it found its way into a national newspaper (which, had the person phoned, emailed or written a letter to the rail operator in question, it almost-certainly would not have done).
Click to expand...

How public is "it was on Twitter"?

I could put something on Twitter and it would be seen by approximately half a dozen people, most likely. It's hard to say how many people responded to Laurence's tweet as they've protected them now, so nobody except their 1,284 followers can see them.
 
LondonJohn said:
No they're not. Nonbinary identity is just a subset of transgender identity.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make sense. The whole point of the word "transgender" is that the person feels more as ANOTHER gender. If they feel more as NO gender, then the word makes no sense. Nonbinary is a fine descriptor.

This is the same thing I see with the acronym LGBTQIA+ (or its variations). Sexual orientation and gender identity shouldn't be lumped in the same category. They're completely different things.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Nobody said it was difficult.
Click to expand...

LOL, no? "Gee golly goshums I just can't think of any alternative language that isn't problematic in some other contrived way" has quite literally been the base idea of several individuals' arguments over the last few pages of this thread.
 
Checkmite said:
LOL, no? "Gee golly goshums I just can't think of any alternative language that isn't problematic in some other contrived way" has quite literally been the base idea of several individuals' arguments over the last few pages of this thread.
Click to expand...

Instead of using quotations to create your own argument to tear down, why don't you quote a serious post claiming that it's difficult?
 
Belz... said:
That has to be the shortest fringe reset I've ever seen. I quoted you IN THE POST you responded to being condescending to everyone who disagreed, calling them either closed-minded, reactionary, or flat-out transphobic.
Click to expand...


1) There was a discussion over what a rail operator might say in greeting its passengers other than "ladies and gentlemen".

2) Some participants stated - some perhaps "hilariously", some certainly not - that a) a rail operator should neither need nor seek to "pander" to the whims of these strange nonbinary people by making their greeting inclusive. Many responses implied that it was probably functionally difficult (if not impossible) to be inclusive without the greeting being either overlong, unworkable, unfriendly or ridiculous (cue more of that fabulous "humour").

3) Arthwollipot quickly and easily rebutted that by pointing out that for him, a simple "Hi friends" fits the inclusivity requirement in a quick and friendly way.

4) I responded by agreeing that it was not difficult. And I stated my belief that it was indeed simple to sort this matter out in a quick, inclusive and friendly manner.

5) I then stated my belief that anyone who believed otherwise was probably either closed-minded, reactionary, or flat-out transphobic.


so......

a) would you point out for me how/why I've been inaccurate in my characterisation of those who have flat-out insulted/denied the entire concept of nonbinary transgender identity, complete with often-sardonic sending-up of the kind of greeting they *think* nonbinary people feel they're entitled to?

b) would you also point out to me quite how my characterisation in (a) is in any way "condescending"? (I would maybe suggest - with good reason - that you don't know what the word "condescending" means, but then I'd be accused of being condescending....)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom