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

[LondonJohn]

For pete's sake, you can't possibly be that dense.

That you were WRONG about your characterisation doesn't magically mean that you weren't targeting anyone with it.

That wasn't the point of that at all. I'll just leave it at that.

John for short.

Ah, so you believe you have the right to alter my username in any way you see fit? And even when I remind you of my username (clearly implicit within which is a request for you to use it, rather than your own chosen paraphrasing), instead of acknowledging my preference (and my right) and replying that you'll do your best to respect my wishes from now on.... you instead choose to respond by doubling down with the attempted justification of "John for short".

Does any of this sound familiar to me, wrt attitudes towards transgender people? Why yes, yes it does.

 

[Belz...]

Even though you described the very same ideas ostensibly held by those unnamed posters as "all kinds of nonsense", indeed to a degree that you have argued someone would naturally interpret them as a joke upon hearing them?

I'm struggling to see where you're going with this. Those are not mutually-exclusive statements or positions.

Only because it needs to be to justify your remaining upset by the idea of someone, somewhere being described as "closed-minded".

You might think so. But if someone calls another person names without at least making the effort to explain why, I assume it's because they just don't like what the other person is saying. John can prove me wrong by making that connection.

 

[Checkmite]

In passing, it truly is a bizarro world in which any given person can mock, belittle and invalidate nonbinary transgender identity....

.... and yet that person - or others on his/her behalf - can take super-umbrage at having his/her position explained as the work of either a closed-minded, reactionary or transphobic attitude.

(And I'd ask once again: what other reasonable explanations might there be if someone makes statements mocking, belittling and invalidating nonbinary transgender identity? I'd genuinely be open to suggestions, as I said before.)

But alas, you're allowed to be selective about whom you criticize for any given type of transgression as long as you dismiss any recognition of your selectivity as "whataboutism".

 

[Belz...]

In passing, it truly is a bizarro world in which any given person can mock, belittle and invalidate nonbinary transgender identity....

Who's done that, exactly?

People have mocked the complaint. But don't let that stop you.

That wasn't the point of that at all. I'll just leave it at that.

Leave it at what? There's no information in your response.

Ah, so you believe you have the right to alter my username in any way you see fit?

No. Only in a specific way for convenience's sake. You alter mine all the time and I've never complained.

Does any of this sound familiar to me, wrt attitudes towards transgender people? Why yes, yes it does.

It does? Your username on an obscure internet forum is equivalent to someone's gender identity? Talk about belittling trans people. You're not a transphobe, are you?

 

[Belz...]

But alas, you're allowed to be selective about whom you criticize for any given type of transgression as long as you dismiss any recognition of your selectivity as "whataboutism".

So you lied when you said that I didn't have to address everyone's every point.

This last series of points by yourself and John are surreal and bizarre. Of COURSE I'm allowed to be selective about who I criticise.

You're trying REAL hard to establish some sort of hypocrisy here, but you're not connecting. Maybe you should focus on the actual arguments and points?

 

[Elaedith]

I regard myself as psychologically androgynous (not masculine nor feminine). Do I need to re-define myself as nonbinary to feel excluded by 'Ladies and Gentleman'? This never occurred to me before.

 

[Checkmite]

Who's done that, exactly?

People have mocked the complaint. But don't let that stop you.

It certainly confirms for me that people who call themselves "non-binary" are actually insecure histrionic narcissists who demand to be acknowledged. Very tiresome, and best ignored.

I question the premise that nonbinary people exist in a way that requires changing language to accommodate them.

What's ludicrous is your assumption that the world's experts are even remotely unanimous on this issue. 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".

Comparing slavery to some person uber offended their made up trendy personal feelings weren't included on a public tannoy in front of hundreds of complete strangers, who don't and probably don't particularly want to know them.

Assuming the person identifies as a passenger and not "non-body movement stasus"....and identifies as a person and not "non definable object"

Should I keep going, or...?

All of the statements I have bolded above are mocking, marginalizing, or denying the sincerity of nonbinary individuals and/or the fact that that is how they identify, independently of the complaint the specific individuals in this specific instance registered.

 

[Checkmite]

So you lied when you said that I didn't have to address everyone's every point.

This last series of points by yourself and John are surreal and bizarre. Of COURSE I'm allowed to be selective about who I criticise.

Oh certainly.

But, people are also allowed to notice and point out specific trend of selectivity.

 

[Belz...]

Oh certainly.

But, people are also allowed to notice and point out specific trend of selectivity.

So again, I have to address everything, lest the people I address use the fact that I don't have infinity time at my disposal to avoid discussing the actuall points.

Checkmite, I generally think that you're a rational poster, but this line of argument you're displaying in this thread is deranged (the argument, not you) to say the least.

Should I keep going, or...?

Or what? Ron's statements are certainly pretty clear, but Cullennz' or theprestige do not support your interpretation, in my opinion. I'll concede the "no one", however.

 

[abaddon]

A 24-year-old teen. You don't see many of those around, do you?

Yeah, I do. Because I have the bollocks to volunteer on support lines for teens being shucked out on the streets simply because of the abject ignorance of their parents/families.

There exist a strange subset that NEVER grow up.

Well guess what. I will continue to waste my time getting actual homeless kids off the streets who have been rejected by everyone they know or care about. Or that should have cared about them. Had a duty to care about them.

If you wish to waste your time clutching pearls about how offended this adult child might be then good for you.

Reality does not suddenly vanish.

 

[Checkmite]

So again, I have to address everything, lest the people I address use the fact that I don't have infinity time at my disposal to avoid discussing the actuall points.

Hmm, how was it that someone just recently put it?

When you don't want to understand what people tell you, you won't.

Or what? Ron's statements are certainly pretty clear, but Cullennz' or theprestige do not support your interpretation, in my opinion.

Framing the nonbinary gender identity as "made up trendy personal feelings" is belittling at the very least.

I won't waste time explaining why "but what if they don't IDENTIFY as a passenger, what if they identify as [arbitrary term I'm going to make up right now]" is intentional mockery of non-binary gender identification as a concept. If you recognize that "Ron's statements are pretty clear", that's all that's really necessary to demonstrate that LondonJohn isn't wrong.

 

[Belz...]

Hmm, how was it that someone just recently put it?

How else am I supposed to interpret it? You keep berating me for being "selective".

Framing the nonbinary gender identity as "made up trendy personal feelings" is belittling at the very least.

I saw it as refering to the "offense" taken, not the gender identity. Read the sentence again.

 

[Checkmite]

I saw it as refering to the "offense" taken, not the gender identity. Read the sentence again.

You would do well to read it again yourself.

A simple substitution makes it clear your interpretation is nonsensical:

some person uber offended their made up trendy personal feelings weren't included on a public tannoy

some person uber offended their offense wasn't included on a public tannoy

Why would they have wanted the public announcement to tell everyone that they were offended, given that what theprestige asserts was their "offense" was caused BY the announcement itself? That interpretation doesn't work.

 

[Belz...]

A simple substitution makes it clear your interpretation is nonsensical:

You are correct. I will concede that.

 

[abaddon]

You would do well to read it again yourself.

A simple substitution makes it clear your interpretation is nonsensical:





Why would they have wanted the public announcement to tell everyone that they were offended, given that what theprestige asserts was their "offense" was caused BY the announcement itself? That interpretation doesn't work.

So the very next kid I get on the line in a panic, I should simply tell him or her to "buckle up buttercup" and hang up the call. Meanwhile, I should also treat some twerp offended by a benign train announcement as though he/she matters.

Let the children die on the street because some jerk made something up? That is where your priorities are?

 

[Belz...]

So the very next kid I get on the line in a panic, I should simply tell him or her to "buckle up buttercup" and hang up the call. Meanwhile, I should also treat some twerp offended by a benign train announcement as though he/she matters.

Let the children die on the street because some jerk made something up? That is where your priorities are?

...what?

 

[Checkmite]

So the very next kid I get on the line in a panic, I should simply tell him or her to "buckle up buttercup" and hang up the call. Meanwhile, I should also treat some twerp offended by a benign train announcement as though he/she matters.

Let the children die on the street because some jerk made something up? That is where your priorities are?

Huh?

The people on the train complained to the management of the train company, not you. Your advocacy for homeless teens isn't connected to this incident and its outcome doesn't affect you and your work in any way.

 

[Belz...]

Ok so I wasn't the only one who couldn't really understand that.

 

[The Atheist]

which specific part are you referring to that supports your position because a cursory glance doesn't make it obvious

If agender or intersex people are non-binary, then the statement that "All nonbinary people have transgender identity" is false.

I have no idea why you need it repeated, but there you go.

Because if it does...... then it does nothing to diminish my original rebuttal. The original claim was that all nonbinary people are, by definition, agender...

I never made any such claim.

Read the post I quote and answer above - you made a clearly false statement and you shouldn't even need a website to reference it from.

Seriously, this is child's play. You were wrong, get over it.

(I almost missed the artfully-inserted mocking of LGBTQIA+ people as "the alphabet people" - nice work!)

Yeah, I'm over the entire debate so am treating it like religion - respond with derision because it and its supporters are just deluded.

Your inability to understand the simplest point helped me confirm my thoughts on it.

 

[abaddon]

Huh?

The people on the train complained to the management of the train company, not you. Your advocacy for homeless teens isn't connected to this incident and its outcome doesn't affect you and your work in any way.

OK so you are proposing that you are unable to distinguish between a homeless child and some entitled jerk on a train.

If that is your view, then fine.

But it is a bit squiffy.