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

[Belz...]

Yes. Electronically speaking, we are both in a social issues and current events discussion area, not an academic setting.

By that stupid logic, it's impossible to discuss topics rationally in the social issues and current events subforum. Of course it's academic. It's a discussion on a web forum dedicated to critical thinking, something you seem to consider alien.

Referring to transgender people in dehumanizing terms like "defect"

There you go again, emotionally-charging terms. You're the one making them "dehumanizing", not I.

terms that even the dictionary point out are offensive, has nothing to do with oppression?

Exactly. Oppression has nothing to do with uncomfortable words.

though this thread was begun about the federal push to force states to stop oppressing transgender people with bathrooms before being split off into your 12 page long fight for the right to continue using offensive terms to describe transgender people, you think bathroom usage has nothing to do with it?

Exactly. Accurate terminology has nothing to do with intolerant laws.

It simply seems that you are incapable of distinguishing between one thing and the other.

 

[Belz...]

I'm just going to go ahead and call this a lie.

I'm just going to go ahead and call you a platypus.

Why do you call it a lie? Where have I done anything but discuss this issue from a science standpoint?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/25/politics/texas-lawsuit-barack-obama-transgender/

How does that "back" violence against transgender people? Make the connection.

 

[wareyin]

By that stupid logic, it's impossible to discuss topics rationally in the social issues and current events subforum. Of course it's academic. It's a discussion on a web forum dedicated to critical thinking, something you seem to consider alien.

This is still not support for your assertion that the social issues forum is an academic setting. What form of accreditation does the International Skeptics Forum have again?

There you go again, emotionally-charging terms. You're the one making them "dehumanizing", not I.

There you go again, denying what meaning your words convey.

Exactly. Oppression has nothing to do with uncomfortable words.

Nonsense.

Exactly. Accurate terminology has nothing to do with intolerant laws.

It simply seems that you are incapable of distinguishing between one thing and the other.

A: Referring to people as defects or defective is not accurate terminology.
B: Those intolerant laws are being justified by the offensive terms you insist on using.

How does that "back" violence against transgender people? Make the connection.

You can't see how Governmental support of the idea that transgender people don't deserve the same rights as everyone else backs those that are committing violence against transgender people? Do you really not understand that words have consequences, and using words intended to dehumanize people has the consequence of making them seem less than human, less than deserving the same rights as everyone else?

 

[Belz...]

This is still not support for your assertion that the social issues forum is an academic setting. What form of accreditation does the International Skeptics Forum have again?

What in the blue hell are you babbling about? Do you think this is some sort of support group forum?

There you go again, denying what meaning your words convey.

Oh, I'm quite aware that they convey that meaning TO YOU, but that is because you are unable to understand anything about our discussion.

Nonsense.

That's nice.

A: Referring to people as defects or defective is not accurate terminology.

Nobody has done this.

B: Those intolerant laws are being justified by the offensive terms you insist on using.

No, they are not.

You can't see how Governmental support of the idea that transgender people don't deserve the same rights as everyone else backs those that are committing violence against transgender people?

Don't deserve the same rights? Where does it say that? And no, it doesn't back violence. You're talking nonsense.

Do you really not understand that words have consequences, and using words intended to dehumanize people

NONE of those words are intended to dehumanise.

 

[wareyin]

What in the blue hell are you babbling about? Do you think this is some sort of support group forum?

Sorry, but you're the one claiming that this is somehow an academic setting. Will you be supporting that claim at any point?

Oh, I'm quite aware that they convey that meaning TO YOU, but that is because you are unable to understand anything about our discussion.

Well, that's limited progress, at least. Now, how can I make you aware that I am not alone in understanding the meaning of your words? And then progress on to the point that you begin to understand that when "many people" all understand a word to mean the same thing, that's what the word means.

That's nice.

Thanks.

Nobody has done this.

Other than you.

No, they are not.

Yes, they are.

Don't deserve the same rights? Where does it say that?

Do you have the right to use the bathroom that corresponds to your identity? Do transgender people?

And no, it doesn't back violence. You're talking nonsense.

Transgender people aren't attacked for being in the wrong bathrooms? You're denying documented facts, here.

NONE of those words are intended to dehumanise.

Similarly, when white supremacists call Obama a "monkey", they aren't trying to dehumanize him, they are merely trying to make him be seen as less than human.

 

[Belz...]

Sorry, but you're the one claiming that this is somehow an academic setting.

It is a discussion forum, not a support, advocacy or lobbying group.

ac·a·dem·ic
adjective
1. of or relating to education and scholarship.
2. not of practical relevance; of only theoretical interest.

And you talk of accreditation as if that's what I meant. Your problems with definitions are many.

Now, how can I make you aware that I am not alone in understanding the meaning of your words?

How can I make you aware that I don't care? It's irrelevant that you can find some people to agree with you, for several reasons: 1) you are in the minority, 2) your understanding is wrong in this context, and 3) I don't care if you find it offensive.

Other than you.

Quote me. You can't, because I've never said this.

Your entire argument is based on false premises, and you are insisting that they are true regardless. I have never called people defects or defective. It is you and your ilk who are incapable of distinguishing having a genetic defect, and being defective as a person.

Calling it an anomaly could just as well be taken to mean that transgender people are anomalous, or anomalies themselves, and calling it an error could be taken to mean that they are erroneous, or errors themselves, both of which, of course, are also dehumanising (sic), I'm sure.

Of course they are, since the entire point of your rhetorical strategy is to avoid discussing that aspect in favour of mentioning how feelings could be hurt by said discussion.

Yes, they are.

Nuh-huh.

Do you have the right to use the bathroom that corresponds to your identity?

I use the bathroom that corresponds to my biological sex. A less tolerant person might argue from this that transgender people should _also_ use the bathrooms that correspond to their sex, but that person is not me.

Transgender people aren't attacked for being in the wrong bathrooms?

Strawman. The law does not suddenly make assault legal, and since it's illegal, the government does no back violence. Your understanding of this issue is pure fantasy.

Similarly, when white supremacists call Obama a "monkey", they aren't trying to dehumanize him, they are merely trying to make him be seen as less than human.

Context, cupcake. The thing you are incapable of understanding.

 

[wareyin]

It is a discussion forum, not a support, advocacy or lobbying group.

ac·a·dem·ic
adjective
1. of or relating to education and scholarship.
2. not of practical relevance; of only theoretical interest.

And you talk of accreditation as if that's what I meant. Your problems with definitions are many.

Which definition do you think makes a discussion forum on social issues "academic"? It is clearly not 1, as this is not of or relating to education and scholarship. It is also clearly not 2, as the events we are discussing are real world events, not only theoretical interest.

How can I make you aware that I don't care? It's irrelevant that you can find some people to agree with you, for several reasons: 1) you are in the minority, 2) your understanding is wrong in this context, and 3) I don't care if you find it offensive.

Sorry, but whether or not you care that a word conveys a certain idea does not change the fact that it does, actually convey that idea.

Quote me. You can't, because I've never said this.

You've only spent the last 12 pages arguing for the right to do this, but now you claim you haven't said it?

Your entire argument is based on false premises, and you are insisting that they are true regardless. I have never called people defects or defective. It is you and your ilk who are incapable of distinguishing having a genetic defect, and being defective as a person.

Calling it an anomaly could just as well be taken to mean that transgender people are anomalous, or anomalies themselves, and calling it an error could be taken to mean that they are erroneous, or errors themselves, both of which, of course, are also dehumanising (sic), I'm sure.

It's amusing that you misspell dehumanizing, then write (sic) to imply that I am the one who spelled it that way. Or did you mean something else with that?

I agree that error can be dehumanizing, but I challenge you to support your claim that anomaly has negative connotations. I will accept a dictionary definition, or public survey, or mental health professional advisory. What do you have?

Of course they are, since the entire point of your rhetorical strategy is to avoid discussing that aspect in favour of mentioning how feelings could be hurt by said discussion.

Of course, the person insistent on using offensive terms makes disparaging remarks about hurting feelings.

I use the bathroom that corresponds to my biological sex. A less tolerant person might argue from this that transgender people should _also_ use the bathrooms that correspond to their sex, but that person is not me.

You also use the bathroom that corresponds to your gender identity, and less tolerant people are passing laws which deny that right to transgender people. Which is the part of denying the same rights you questioned earlier.

Strawman. The law does not suddenly make assault legal, and since it's illegal, the government does no back violence. Your understanding of this issue is pure fantasy.

Who said anything about assault being legal?

 

[Belz...]

Which definition do you think makes a discussion forum on social issues "academic"? It is clearly not 1, as this is not of or relating to education and scholarship. It is also clearly not 2, as the events we are discussing are real world events, not only theoretical interest.

Of course it's theoretical. It's not like we're going to enact policy or anything. we're discussing language and offense.

Sorry, but whether or not you care that a word conveys a certain idea does not change the fact that it does, actually convey that idea.

It's very nice that you focus on one of the three points and ignore the other two. It's almost as if these other two hurt your case.

You've only spent the last 12 pages arguing for the right to do this, but now you claim you haven't said it?

You claimed that I referred to people as defects or defective. Quote me or retract your accusation.

It's amusing that you misspell dehumanizing, then write (sic) to imply that I am the one who spelled it that way.

Did you already forget that it's the British spelling for the word, yet? Or are you now saying that only the American spelling counts?

And I'll add humour to the list of things that you don't understand, regarding "sic".

I agree that error can be dehumanizing, but I challenge you to support your claim that anomaly has negative connotations.

a·nom·a·lous
adjective
deviating from what is standard, normal, or expected.
synonyms: abnormal, atypical, irregular, aberrant, exceptional, freak, freakish, odd, bizarre, peculiar, unusual, out of the ordinary

I seem to remember that "abnormal" was seen as a very, very bad thing to say.

Of course, the person insistent on using offensive terms makes disparaging remarks about hurting feelings.

Grow a thicker skin. These terms, in this context, are neither meant to be offensive, nor are they offensive to reasonable people. Get over it.

You also use the bathroom that corresponds to your gender identity

Yes, that's exactly what I said: you can interpret it both ways, but you pretend like there's only one interpretation. That the two happen to match up for me is irrelevant.

Who said anything about assault being legal?

You're the one who said the government backs this violence. Are you now retracting that claim?

 

[wareyin]

Of course it's theoretical. It's not like we're going to enact policy or anything. we're discussing language and offense.

No, discussing real world events is not theoretical, and nor is language or offense. Your dictionary must be a strange and magical thing.

It's very nice that you focus on one of the three points and ignore the other two. It's almost as if these other two hurt your case.

They do not hurt my case in the slightest. Your contention that I'm in the minority in this view is both wrong in this thread, and irrelevant. Your claim that my understanding is wrong is incorrect. I merely focused on the phrase you opened and ended that paragraph with, as it appears that was the most important to you.

You claimed that I referred to people as defects or defective. Quote me or retract your accusation.

Ok:

As I've said before, I have a number of "defects" myself. Why should I find that marginalising or demeaning? Genetic defects doesn't mean that someone is less human. That is a silly position to take.

Did you already forget that it's the British spelling for the word, yet? Or are you now saying that only the American spelling counts?

And I'll add humour to the list of things that you don't understand, regarding "sic".

I can see that you have no idea what (sic) means or how it is used, even though I've already given you that definition. You don't write (sic) when the spelling is normal or correct for you, you write it when someone else's spelling it is odd or incorrect. You could write it for the way I spell "dehumanizing" when you quote me, because apparently you live somewhere where that is not correct, just as I did for your "recognise".

a·nom·a·lous
adjective
deviating from what is standard, normal, or expected.
synonyms: abnormal, atypical, irregular, aberrant, exceptional, freak, freakish, odd, bizarre, peculiar, unusual, out of the ordinary

I seem to remember that "abnormal" was seen as a very, very bad thing to say.

I didn't ask you to support whether "abnormal" was offensive, I asked you to support your claim that "anomaly" was offensive. A list of synonyms that includes offensive terms doesn't mean "anomaly" is offensive.

Grow a thicker skin. These terms, in this context, are neither meant to be offensive, nor are they offensive to reasonable people. Get over it.

They are offensive to reasonable people, and the majority of people in this thread who have expressed an opinion on their suitability have told you that they are.

Yes, that's exactly what I said: you can interpret it both ways, but you pretend like there's only one interpretation. That the two happen to match up for me is irrelevant.

How is it irrelevant? You have a right that for others is being legislated away.

You're the one who said the government backs this violence. Are you now retracting that claim?

I claimed that the government backs those attacking transgender people, not that the government backs "this violence", nor that the government has made assault legal.

 

[xjx388]

No, I am quite serious. I am also American, and I don't know a single person who is happy to be called a "defect" or "genetic defect" or any other variation on defect. Honestly, I would be quite surprised if you did know anyone who was OK being called any form of defect.

Ah, now I see your confusion. No one called anyone defective.

 

[Belz...]

No, discussing real world events is not theoretical

Then please demonstrate the real-life impact that this thread has. Face it, this is entirely an intellectual discussion about whether or not words can be offensive or whether them being offensive should be relevant to a discussion on the topic. That is not particularily practical.

Your contention that I'm in the minority in this view is both wrong in this thread, and irrelevant.

Wrong? Your own numbers showed that.

Ok:

That quote actually doesn't support your claim. Nowhere in the quote do I suggest that I, for example, am defective. I have never said this. In fact I've said the exact opposite, and this quote was a response to precisely this accusation. How you can think that this quote supports your ridiculous claim is beyond me.

I can see that you have no idea what (sic) means or how it is used

I know exactly what it means. I was making a joke, as I indicated in the last post, which you apparently didn't read. Of course, ideologues are well known for their lacking sense of humour.

I didn't ask you to support whether "abnormal" was offensive, I asked you to support your claim that "anomaly" was offensive.

Anomalous is a synonym for abnormal, which, I have on good authority, is negative and demeaning.

They are offensive to reasonable people, and the majority of people in this thread <snip>

This thread is not a statistic, nor are the people in it particularily reasonable for thinking that neutral terms are dehumanising.

How is it irrelevant? You have a right that for others is being legislated away.

You are not listening. How do you know that my right is about gender identity and not biological sex?

I claimed that the government backs those attacking transgender people, not that the government backs "this violence"

Explain the difference. If you back someone using violence, how are you not backing the violence?

You are playing a silly word game because you are unable to see any point of view but your own. You've lost this argument days ago.

 

[wareyin]

Then please demonstrate the real-life impact that this thread has.

Why? You made the claim that this is an academic discussion, it is incumbent on you to demonstrate that our discussion of the real world is somehow theoretical only.

Wrong? Your own numbers showed that.

Did you miss "in this thread"?

That quote actually doesn't support your claim. Nowhere in the quote do I suggest that I, for example, am defective. I have never said this. In fact I've said the exact opposite. How you can think that this quote supports your ridiculous claim is beyond me.

I am discovering that there is much that is beyond you in this discussion.

I know exactly what it means. I was making a joke, as I indicated in the last post, which you apparently didn't read.

OK, if you say so.

Anomalous is a synonym for abnormal, which, I have on good authority, is negative and demeaning.

And having a synonym that is negative and demeaning has no bearing on "anomaly". Your claim was about "anomaly", support your claim.

This thread is not a statistic, not are the people in it particularily reasonable for thinking that neutral terms are dehumanising..

I thought you were claiming that minority views don't matter? Since, in this thread, yours is the minority view, we can dismiss it, by your logic.

You are not listening. How do you know that my right is about gender identity and not biological sex?

Your right is the use of a bathroom that fits. That right is being legislated away from others. It doesn't matter why you claim that it is, it is still a right that you have that they do not.

Explain the difference. If you back someone using violence, how are you not backing the violence?

You are playing a silly word game because you are unable to see any point of you but your own. You've lost this argument days ago.

I'm finding it quite challenging to simplify this concept into terms that you might understand. Adding the very likely possibility that you will then pretend to need a definition of a simple word after I do explain it, and then argue for pages about that definition, I don't think it's worth the effort.

 

[Belz...]

Why?

You say that it's not academic after I explained to you why it is. I think it's only fair that you make your case, now.

Did you miss "in this thread"?

No, in fact I responded to it. It seems obvious at this point that you don't even bother reading the posts.

I am discovering that there is much that is beyond you in this discussion.

Well, deluded fantasies seem to have that effect on people. I also find it very interesting that you decided to go for schoolyard snark rather than actually making a case for why your inference is correct. You cannot, it seems, make any sort of argument in favour of any of your claims.

And having a synonym that is negative and demeaning has no bearing on "anomaly".

Now you demonstrate that you don't know the first thing about language. No wonder we're not communicating properly.

I thought you were claiming that minority views don't matter? Since, in this thread, yours is the minority view, we can dismiss it, by your logic.

No, that's you being silly. The only person using this thread as a statistic is you, so it's your logic, not mine.

Your right is the use of a bathroom that fits. That right is being legislated away from others.

Thank you for proving my point that you are incapable of seeing any perspective but your own.

I'm finding it quite challenging to simplify this concept into terms that you might understand.

I am discovering that there is much that you find challenging.

 

[wareyin]

You say that it's not academic after I explained to you why it is. I think it's only fair that you make your case, now.

Your explanation disproved your claim. This is not a theoretical discussion, and it does not relate to education.

No, in fact I responded to it. It seems obvious at this point that you don't even bother reading the posts.

Now you claim that my numbers show that in this thread, only a minority find your term offensive? Are you certain you are following this thread?

Well, deluded fantasies seem to have that effect on people. I also find it very interesting that you decided to go for schoolyard snark rather than actually making a case for why your inference is correct. You cannot, it seems, make any sort of argument in favour of any of your claims.

Maybe they do, but common usage of language intended to convey that message also seems to have that effect on people. I've made my case for why I am correct. I've done so with dictionary definitions of the actual word being discussed (not merely synonyms of that word), with mental health professional organizational advisories on the actual word being discussed, as well as popular polling. Apparently, you either cannot understand all this or choose to ignore all of this. Are you sure you're following this thread?

Now you demonstrate that you don't know the first thing about language. No wonder we're not communicating properly.

No, I've demonstrated that you have shown that a synonym of a word has negative connotations, but not the actual word that you claimed has negative connotations. I agree we're not communicating well, here. I'm of the mind that it has a lot to do with your unusual usage of common words.
eta: Synonyms often convey different meanings from each other. For instance, sad and inconsolable are synonyms, yet they have different meanings.

No, that's you being silly. The only person using this thread as a statistic is you, so it's your logic, not mine.

You haven't been claiming that only a minority find your term offensive, so that means it isn't offensive? Great, I'm glad you can agree that it's offensive, now.

Thank you for proving my point that you are incapable of seeing any perspective but your own.

If that's what you think was demonstrated here, ok. I think we all know better, though.

I am discovering that there is much that you find challenging.

Yeah, it is pretty challenging to explain things to someone who has to be told what "lots" means, for instance. Or (sic), or "offensive"; the list just keeps growing.

 

[Belz...]

Your explanation disproved your claim. This is not a theoretical discussion, and it does not relate to education.

You may, of course, continue to persist in your denial. The point remains that this discussion is merely that: an intellectual discussion. The context is not the same as what you are claiming.

Now you claim that my numbers show that in this thread, only a minority find your term offensive?

Pay attention: we're not talking about this thread.

Maybe they do, but common usage of language intended to convey that message also seems to have that effect on people. I've made my case for why I am correct. I've done so with dictionary definitions of the actual word being discussed (not merely synonyms of that word), with mental health professional organizational advisories on the actual word being discussed, as well as popular polling.

Context matters, except to you.

No, I've demonstrated that you have shown that a synonym of a word has negative connotations, but not the actual word that you claimed has negative connotations.

I'm going to let that stand, just to show how utterly removed from reality your perceptions are. I've been shown synonyms that 'demonstrate' that one word I use is negative, but somehow that doesn't apply to when I do the same. Hypocrisy galore. Have fun with that.

You haven't been claiming that only a minority find your term offensive, so that means it isn't offensive?

I repeat: we're not talking about this thread.

 

[wareyin]

You may, of course, continue to persist in your denial. The point remains that this discussion is merely that: an intellectual discussion. The context is not the same as what you are claiming.

Thank you for your permission, but discussions of real world events are in no way theoretical only. I suppose we will just have to add "theoretical" to the long list of words that you use in a non-standard manner.

Pay attention: we're not talking about this thread.

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

Context matters, except to you.

Definitions matter, except to you.

I'm going to let that stand, just to show how utterly removed from reality your perceptions are. I've been shown synonyms that 'demonstrate' that one word I use is negative, but somehow that doesn't apply to when I do the same. Hypocrisy galore. Have fun with that.

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. The best you have come up with for this is that a synonym is offensive, while you are similarly ignoring other, positive synonyms for the same word. Do "exceptional" and "abnormal" convey the same meaning to you? They are both synonyms of "anomaly", yet exceptional is a positive term, abnormal is a negative term, and anomaly is a neutral term.

I repeat: we're not talking about this thread.

Alrighty, if you insist, then we are talking about the real world, which makes this discussion not "theoretical" and therefore not "academic". It doesn't change whether offensive terms are offensive or not, though.

 

[banquetbear]

I think you are exaggerating it.

Well in NZ

...you've led a very sheltered and privileged life.

 

[cullennz]

...you've led a very sheltered and privileged life.

Um. No.

You actually not be more wrong

 

[Noztradamus]

If someone told me my blue eyes are a genetic defect I'd shrug. But no one's ever harassed me for having blue eyes. No one's trying to ban me from going to an optometrist for having blue eyes. No presidential candidate has ever made up a fear of blue eyes to get religious people to vote for them.

Maybe not now, but a decade of so back there was a mountebank named Jane Elliott who had a career doing exactly that.

For a time I thought she might have had a deeper purpose, because her "awareness raising" courses were pretty much a Milgram experiment showing how blacks could be turned into fascist thugs. In one of her Australian extravaganas, a person (of the indigenous persuasion) made pretty much that point. Her response as to call him an ignorant abo who wasn't properly aware about the Australian racial situation(in slightly different word, but that was the message)

 

[Noztradamus]

OK back on topic.

There seems to be confusing of denigratory terns and offensive terms

Denigratory words (like republiscum) have a meaning intended by the user. So if I say "Malcolm Trumbull is a republiscum", my intent is clear and there's not much point in telling me I'm being offensive.

Offensive words have a meaning created in the mind of the listener, and her interpretation of the intent may be a delusion. If it is a delusion being positive that the word is offensive doesn't contribute anything to the argument a(positive: being wrong at the top of your voice)

Hope this helps