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

[Belz...]

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 are seriously asking me to explain how preemptively calling people closed-minded, reactionary, or flat-out transphobic is condescending?

Do you want that mathematically?

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

And I *wonder* why they protected their tweets, huh?

My point stands: had this been an entirely private complaint, via a phone call, email or letter, it would almost certainly have been responded to by the rail operator in kind. And therefore there would have been an extremely low likelihood of it ever finding its way into the pages of a national newspaper.

So, to that extent, yes: twitter* is public communication (that much should be obvious).

Anyhow, all of this is entirely peripheral to the meat of my response to your original post - which was to do with whether or not the fact that this person apparently works for another rail operator had anything to do with them having made the complaint.


* From a non-protected account, of course - and it's a racing certainty that this person's twitter account was public when, and for some time after, they made the complaint and received the tweeted response. After all..... it all ended up finding its way into a national newspaper.

 

[Checkmite]

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?

Claiming that one's statement was "just a joke, bro" doesn't somehow render the ideas it contains immune to analysis or scrutiny. When a person injects a non-serious response into an otherwise-serious discussion, the particulars of the joke - what they are making fun of, and why they think it is funny - are revealing about that person's point-of-view. The subtext of a joke response is usually informed by a genuinely-held belief of some kind relevant to the discussion, which is fair game for counter-argument.

Take for example the old adage by people opposed to same-sex marriage that goes something like "people will be marrying their dogs next". This is usually a non-serious or at most a rhetorical response; the person giving it doesn't genuinely think that legalizing gay marriage will literally result in people marrying dogs. But when it's injected into a discussion about gay marriage, the joke contains information: that the speaker feels the idea of a person marrying a dog IS an exaggeration of the non-exaggerated situation of a man wanting to marry another man, but NOT of the situation of a man wanting to marry a woman. The "joke" is a vehicle for expressing the person's genuinely-held position about the validity of a person's desire to marry someone of the same sex. And even though the vehicle of delivery is a joke, that position can still be responded to seriously.

And, if the "joke" you're posting does not, in fact, reflect any genuinely-held belief at all, then you can't possibly feel condescended to by someone making fun of it in turn.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

It makes perfect sense IMO. Your own personal definition of "transgender" is not the current accepted definition of "transgender".

In the term "transgender", "trans" is defined as "moving across" (which is actually the literal definition of the prefix in any case). It doesn't mean - and it doesn't have to or need to mean - "moving between" (ie with a binary start point and destination). It thus means movement across the gender spectrum (with "man" at one end and "woman" at the other). Virtually everyone has been assigned a gender at birth of either "man" or "woman". If someone with (for example) a birth-assigned "woman" gender identifies as anything other than woman (whether nonbinary or "man"), then that person is transgender.

So people with a nonbinary transgender identity are, by definition, transgender. I think you're also misunderstanding what nonbinary transgender identity is. Such people don't think that they have "no gender"; it's simply that they don't have either of the binary ("man"/"woman") genders. Gender is now considered to be a spectrum, as I said before. People who identify at any place on that spectrum other than "man" at one end or "woman" at the other end..... still have a gender. It's just a nonbinary gender.

 

[LondonJohn]

Claiming that one's statement was "just a joke, bro" doesn't somehow render the ideas it contains immune to analysis or scrutiny. When a person injects a non-serious response into an otherwise-serious discussion, the particulars of the joke - what they are making fun of, and why they think it is funny - are revealing about that person's point-of-view. The subtext of a joke response is usually informed by a genuinely-held belief of some kind relevant to the discussion, which is fair game for counter-argument.

Take for example the old adage by people opposed to same-sex marriage that goes something like "people will be marrying their dogs next". This is usually a non-serious or at most a rhetorical response; the person giving it doesn't genuinely think that legalizing gay marriage will literally result in people marrying dogs. But when it's injected into a discussion about gay marriage, the joke contains information: that the speaker feels the idea of a person marrying a dog IS an exaggeration of the non-exaggerated situation of a man wanting to marry another man, but NOT of the situation of a man wanting to marry a woman. The "joke" is a vehicle for expressing the person's genuinely-held position about the validity of a person's desire to marry someone of the same sex. And even though the vehicle of delivery is a joke, that position can still be responded to seriously.

And, if the "joke" you're posting does not, in fact, reflect any genuinely-held belief at all, then you can't possibly feel condescended to by someone making fun of it in turn.

Said more eloquently than I could have managed.

 

[LondonJohn]

You are seriously asking me to explain how preemptively calling people closed-minded, reactionary, or flat-out transphobic is condescending?

Do you want that mathematically?

What was the pre-emptive element here?

(And do you think that the sentence "people who cannot distinguish between red and green are either blind or colourblind" is either pre-emptive or condescending).

((Oh and as an aside, what other reasons (other than the three I suggested) might there be for people to deny and mock the very notion of nonbinary transgender identity, and mock/dismiss the idea of using nonbinary-inclusive greetings on public transportation? I'd be genuinely interested in hearing if you can put forward any other reasonable reasons.....))

(((And I have no idea what you mean by "do you want that mathematically? ", but I'm guessing it was by way of a personal insult, right?)))

 

[Checkmite]

And yet another amazing bit of projection again by the usual suspects to assume I was "offended" by this stupidity.

This from the same person who earlier posted

Even if it were to be proven to be a real condition, you'd have to be a real **** to be offended at not being included in "ladies and gentlemen".

...despite the fact that the complainants never said they were "offended at not being included in 'ladies and gentlemen'", only that the exclusion made them uncomfortable.

 

[Belz...]

Claiming that one's statement was "just a joke, bro" doesn't somehow render the ideas it contains immune to analysis or scrutiny. When a person injects a non-serious response into an otherwise-serious discussion, the particulars of the joke - what they are making fun of, and why they think it is funny - are revealing about that person's point-of-view. The subtext of a joke response is usually informed by a genuinely-held belief of some kind relevant to the discussion, which is fair game for counter-argument.

Take for example the old adage by people opposed to same-sex marriage that goes something like "people will be marrying their dogs next". This is usually a non-serious or at most a rhetorical response; the person giving it doesn't genuinely think that legalizing gay marriage will literally result in people marrying dogs. But when it's injected into a discussion about gay marriage, the joke contains information: that the speaker feels the idea of a person marrying a dog IS an exaggeration of the non-exaggerated situation of a man wanting to marry another man, but NOT of the situation of a man wanting to marry a woman. The "joke" is a vehicle for expressing the person's genuinely-held position about the validity of a person's desire to marry someone of the same sex. And even though the vehicle of delivery is a joke, that position can still be responded to seriously.

And, if the "joke" you're posting does not, in fact, reflect any genuinely-held belief at all, then you can't possibly feel condescended to by someone making fun of it in turn.

"Yes I know it's a joke but I'll act as if you were entirely serious."

Ridiculous.

...despite the fact that the complainants never said they were "offended at not being included in 'ladies and gentlemen'", only that the exclusion made them uncomfortable.

A bit of splitting hairs, though.

It makes perfect sense IMO. Your own personal definition of "transgender" is not the current accepted definition of "transgender".

It's not a "personal definition". It's my understanding of the term based on the discussions we've had in the past. I'm happy to drop this and consider nonbinaries to be part of the "umbrella" for the sake of this discussion.

What was the pre-emptive element here?

The fact that you called people closed-minded, reactionary, or flat-out transphobic is condescending before any discussion on the issue?

 

[Ron Obvious]

...despite the fact that the complainants never said they were "offended at not being included in 'ladies and gentlemen'", only that the exclusion made them uncomfortable.

I'm not seeing the contradiction.

There appear to have been a lot of people offended on behalf of a fragile snowflake who merely felt "uncomfortable" by "Ladies and Gentlemen".

Honestly, that's not sane or rational behaviour on the part of anyone.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not seeing the contradiction.

There appear to have been a lot of people offended on behalf of a fragile snowflake who merely felt "uncomfortable" by "Ladies and Gentlemen".

Honestly, that's not sane or rational behaviour on the part of anyone.

Personally I don't see a problem with more inclusive language. It's just that I don't think it's necessary.

For a parallel, I'm not offended or made uncomfortable by the fact that almost everything in the world is made for right-handed people. And it's surely a bigger hassle than words on the PA.

 

[Checkmite]

There appear to have been a lot of people offended on behalf of a fragile snowflake who merely felt "uncomfortable" by "Ladies and Gentlemen".

And there appears to have been at least one person (you) offended by the fact that a business responded to its customers' discomfort.

 

[Checkmite]

"Yes I know it's a joke but I'll act as if you were entirely serious."

Ridiculous.

What are you talking about? That entire post was, like, just a joke, man. Why so serious?

A bit of splitting hairs, though.

Interesting double-standard, there.

 

[Ron Obvious]

Personally I don't see a problem with more inclusive language. It's just that I don't think it's necessary.

For a parallel, I'm not offended or made uncomfortable by the fact that almost everything in the world is made for right-handed people. And it's surely a bigger hassle than words on the PA.

Exactly. Neither am I offended or made uncomfortable when the president says "my fellow Americans" at the state of the union address, or demand to be included as a green card holder.

People should grow the **** up and judge by intent instead of looking for reasons to take offence.

 

[Ron Obvious]

And there appears to have been at least one person (you) offended by the fact that a business responded to its customers' discomfort.

Then let me assure you that I wasn't. I think they were misguided because the perpetually-offended are never appeased and should be ignored.

 

[Belz...]

What are you talking about? That entire post was, like, just a joke, man. Why so serious?

Dude, get a grip.

The post I made initially was clearly a joke as it included all sorts of nonsense. That's not what I'm refering to when talking about condescension. In fact I've made it very clear what I was refering to, so I don't know why you're trying to change that.

Interesting double-standard, there.

What? How and where did I split hairs?

 

[Checkmite]

Then let me assure you that I wasn't. I think they were misguided because the perpetually-offended are never appeased and should be ignored.

When it's pointed out the people you (still, insistently) assert were "offended" never claimed to have been offended, it just bounces right off and you endlessly repeat the assertion anyway. Yet you expect people to respond to your insistence that you aren't offended. Now that's entitlement.

 

[Checkmite]

The post I made initially was clearly a joke as it included all sorts of nonsense. That's not what I'm refering to when talking about condescension. In fact I've made it very clear what I was refering to...

Rather obviously not, it would seem.

So the post you made was a "joke" and the positions and arguments you put in it were "clearly" "all sorts of nonsense". You apparently want to distance yourself from those statements and assure everyone that it's not really your opinion that alternative language is difficult to come up with - okay, fine.

So when LondonJohn says that people who DO believe that it is difficult - a set which, again, by your assertion, does not include you - are "closed-minded, reactionary, or transphobic", how can that be condescending to you? Indeed, how can it be condescending to anyone at all, if as you say "nobody said [seriously] it was difficult?" Who was condescended to, the Man Who Wasn't There?

What? How and where did I split hairs?

Not that you yourself have; but that you felt compelled to interject that my pointing out the complainants weren't offended is "splitting hairs" but not to interject the same about Ron Obvious pointing out that he isn't offended.

 

[Belz...]

So the post you made was a "joke" and the positions and arguments you put in it were "clearly" "all sorts of nonsense". You apparently want to distance yourself from those statements and assure everyone that it's not really your opinion that alternative language is difficult to come up with - okay, fine.

Checkmite, read this:

"Ladies and gentlemen and nonbinaries and transmen and transwomen and asexuals and intersex, left-handed guitarists and ginger fashion designers..."

You think I'm being serious that this is the kind of phrase they'd use? Including the gingers and lefties? You can't possibly say that. Plus, immediately after I agree that a simple more inclusive term should be used. But you've ignored that.

So when LondonJohn says that people who DO believe that it is difficult - a set which, again, by your assertion, does not include you - are "closed-minded, reactionary, or transphobic", how can that be condescending to you? Indeed, how can it be condescending to anyone at all, if as you say "nobody said [seriously] it was difficult?" Who was condescended to, the Man Who Wasn't There?

That is some twisted logic, right there. You are reaching across the ocean.

It doesn't matter if anyone actually said it was difficult. John clearly thought that other posters -- presumably including myself -- did, and called them names, as he is wont to do. That's condescending: "Of course you'd disagree with me if you're an idiot", to paraphrase, is not an argument. It's meant to belittle.

Not that you yourself have; but that you felt compelled to interject that my pointing out the complainants weren't offended is "splitting hairs" but not to interject the same about Ron Obvious pointing out that he isn't offended.

Ok so now I have to address everything everyone says or I'm being hypocritical? You realise that this is the essence of whataboutism, right?

 

[Checkmite]

Checkmite, read this:

You think I'm being serious that this is the kind of phrase they'd use? Including the gingers and lefties? You can't possibly say that. Plus, immediately after I agree that a simple more inclusive term should be used. But you've ignored that.

This defense is redundant; I already said accepted that your saying those things was non-serious.

That is some twisted logic, right there. You are reaching across the ocean.

It doesn't matter if anyone actually said it was difficult. John clearly thought that other posters -- presumably including myself -- did, and called them names, as he is wont to do. That's condescending: "Of course you'd disagree with me if you're an idiot", to paraphrase, is not an argument. It's meant to belittle.

No. Saying that a position is closed-minded, or reactionary, or potentially-bigoted is NOT the same thing as calling someone an idiot, get out of there. That is reaching logic. You, yourself, have just called the very same position LondonJohn was criticizing "all kinds of nonsense", which is certainly no less "condescending" than calling it closed-minded.

Ok so now I have to address everything everyone says or I'm being hypocritical? You realise that this is the essence of whataboutism, right?

Of course you don't have to address everything that everyone says. In point of fact, you don't have to address anything that anyone says. But, you picked an exchange that you weren't a part of, involving a grand total of TWO people, saying a functionally-identical thing to each other, and you chose to interject in defense of one of them with a critique that applied equally to both. That's a little hypocritical, yeah.

 

[LondonJohn]

Once more with (lack of) feeling:

cf.

"Anyone who cannot distinguish between red and green is either blind, colourblind or unconscious/semi-conscious".

Who is being condescended to here?


In passing, I'd repeat another of my previous points wrt this: I'm not sure Belz really knows the difference between

a) someone insulting (or, more accurately, calling out) - by way of listing the likely causal factors - the beliefs of those who mocked, belittled and invalidated the very concept of nonbinary transgender identity, both directly and via the medium of their mocking, belittling and invalidating the notion of making public transport greetings more inclusive;

and

b) someone condescending - by way of listing the likely causal factors - those who mocked, belittled and invalidated the very concept of nonbinary transgender identity, both directly and via the medium of their mocking, belittling and invalidating the notion of making public transport greetings more inclusive.

Though as Checkmite has now repeatedly pointed out: if one states that nobody said they found it difficult to formulate a simple, friendly and inclusive greeting that public transport operators might use....

....and I had explicitly stated that my descriptors only applied to anyone who did find it difficult...

....by this reckoning my descriptors would apply to **nobody whatsoever** who's participating in this thread.

So which of these two alternative truths is it to be, I wonder? Cos they're both mutually exclusive of each other. Boom! Maths!