• 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

Belz... said:
Other people questioned X, and their opinion is no longer mainstream. Ergo you questioning Y will also become wrong.

See the problem?
Click to expand...

Which funnily enough is a mirror of the original problematic claim that ' X and Y were shown to be made up things and therefore Z will also become wrong

But gender identity doesn't really mean anything, either, unless it's tied down to something objective. As discussed in the other thread, I have no idea how other men or women "feel", so I can't say whether I feel like any of them. That's why body dysphoria has to be a requisite.
Click to expand...

Well obviously gender identity means SOMETHING otherwise you wouldn't be able to discuss it at all to question whether it means something.

Lots of **** makes me uncomfortable. Seeing people repeat 2000 year old religious nonsense like robots makes me uncomfortable, but I don't demand they close down churches.
Click to expand...

You aren't a customer of the church so they probably don't care what you think or feel. Train companies probably do care what their passengers think... to some extent anyway.
 
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...

Indeed.

Well obviously gender identity means SOMETHING otherwise you wouldn't be able to discuss it at all to question whether it means something.
Click to expand...

That's nonsense. I can say "But Zurlobg doesn't really mean anything, either, unless it's tied down to something objective." and you could answer the same thing. Of course we can question whether something means something if it actually doesn't. What a bizarre argument.

You aren't a customer of the church so they probably don't care what you think or feel. Train companies probably do care what their passengers think... to some extent anyway.
Click to expand...

True but entirely irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Is this yet another of those thread where a bunch of 'skeptics' rail against a thing that they demonstrate they don't even understand while simultaneously claiming that it's a stupid thing to get annoyed about and they don't care about the *insert whatever epithet applies to the particular group that has annoyed them today by asking to treated as if they matter* anyway?

Cos we need more of them.
Click to expand...

I don't think the other side has demonstrated that they understand it either.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Is this yet another of those thread where a bunch of 'skeptics' rail against a thing that they demonstrate they don't even understand while simultaneously claiming that it's a stupid thing to get annoyed about and they don't care about the *insert whatever epithet applies to the particular group that has annoyed them today by asking to treated as if they matter* anyway?

Cos we need more of them.
Click to expand...

Which group?
 
I haven't seen a serious alternative wording suggested.

"Passengers, train 26 is arriving on platform 10 in 6 minutes."

(26 minutes later) "My grandmother was waiting for me on platform 10 for 20 minutes, why didn't you announce when the train arrived?"

"We made several announcements..."

"No, you made announcements to "passengers" and I'm not a passenger, so I didn't listen."

"Sorry, we'll just say 'Hey everybody' from now on."

"Oh, so I'm just a body now?"
 
Myriad said:
I haven't seen a serious alternative wording suggested.

"Passengers, train 26 is arriving on platform 10 in 6 minutes."

(26 minutes later) "My grandmother was waiting for me on platform 10 for 20 minutes, why didn't you announce when the train arrived?"

"We made several announcements..."

"No, you made announcements to "passengers" and I'm not a passenger, so I didn't listen."

"Sorry, we'll just say 'Hey everybody' from now on."

"Oh, so I'm just a body now?"
Click to expand...


Agree. Kind of mentioned it earlier in the thread, but people seem to chose to not answer
 
Some passengers were offended by a train announcement. The train operator was not offended by their offence.

The Sun and some members here are offended by the passengers' offence, and the train operator's non-offence

Some other members here are offended at the offence taken by the prior group of members.

Did I miss anyone?


*"Offended" is being applied as possibly interchangeable with "felt uncomfortable" and/or "took the piss"
 
Francesca R said:
Some passengers were offended by a train announcement. The train operator was not offended by their offence.

The Sun and some members here are offended by the passengers' offence, and the train operator's non-offence

Some other members here are offended at the offence taken by the prior group of members.

Did I miss anyone?
Click to expand...

Nobody here who pointed out the abject stupidity of this whole situation was "offended" by it.

A lot of people these days seem to always be trying to shoehorn oppression narratives and victimisation hierarchies into ordinary situations and human interactions. This neither enlightens any discussion or helps anyone but merely divides people and makes life more tedious and drab and probably makes people less sympathetic if anything.
 
Checkmite said:
In 1787, many American Congressmen questioned the premise that black slaves were "people" for governmental purposes. They eventually decided that it would be okay to consider them three-fifths of a person.
Click to expand...

That, too, was political gamesmanship, not sincere belief.

And in that case, what needed to happen was society needed to be changed to include black people - a premise I do not and have never questioned.

But I would say that unlike black people, nonbinary people are already included in society in every way that matters.

Except perhaps for discrimination because of gender identity in employment or housing. Neither of which was in play here.
 
Belz... said:
Indeed.
Click to expand...

So... your argument was silly

That's nonsense. I can say "But Zurlobg doesn't really mean anything, either, unless it's tied down to something objective." and you could answer the same thing. Of course we can question whether something means something if it actually doesn't. What a bizarre argument.
Click to expand...

Not even close. I can't parse your sentence because I have no idea what Zurlobg means. You obviously knew what gender identity meant in some way because you used it in a grammatically correct way within a sentence.

There's no need for anything to be tied to something objective ... subjective things are still things.

True but entirely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

When it comes to the policies of rail companies I think it's VERY relevant what rail companies think or value. Why on Earth would you say it's not?
 
Ron Obvious said:
Nobody here who pointed out the abject stupidity of this whole situation was "offended" by it.

A lot of people these days seem to always be trying to shoehorn oppression narratives and victimisation hierarchies into ordinary situations and human interactions. This neither enlightens any discussion or helps anyone but merely divides people and makes life more tedious and drab and probably makes people less sympathetic if anything.
Click to expand...

The only tedious and drab thing for me is listening to a bunch of predominantly old cis het white guys constantly moaning about everything that changes because it doesn't fit their narrative of how the world should be.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
So... your argument was silly
Click to expand...

No. Two statements can be true at the same time, Archie.

Not even close. I can't parse your sentence because I have no idea what Zurlobg means.
Click to expand...

That is precisely my point.

You obviously knew what gender identity meant in some way because you used it in a grammatically correct way within a sentence.
Click to expand...

"What does gender identity mean?" is also a grammatically correct sentence. You're not making any sense.

There's no need for anything to be tied to something objective ... subjective things are still things.
Click to expand...

I didn't say they weren't things. How about you go back and read what I actually wrote, rather than strawman me?

When it comes to the policies of rail companies I think it's VERY relevant what rail companies think or value. Why on Earth would you say it's not?
Click to expand...

Because the reaction of the company is NOT what I was talking about. Maybe if you took time and effort to read and understand before responding, it would help.

Archie Gemmill Goal said:
The 'other side' in this case being people who, for example, know that transwomen aren't non-binary? I think that's pretty well understood by MOST people.
Click to expand...

What in the blue hell does this have to do with anything? If anything you're proving my point here.
 
Last edited:
Ron Obvious said:
Intersex or ambiguous genitalia is not non-binary.
Click to expand...


What does that mean? What is your criteria for deciding if a human is a "lady" or a "gentleman"? If you go by chromosomes, there are humans who are chimeras with both XX and XY chromosomes, and a small number of those are also intersex.
 
Belz... said:
That there is no such thing as physically non-binary i.e. that every human is either male or female, regardless of some ambiguities in certain individuals.
Click to expand...


OK, but then what are the criteria?

For mixed XX/XY chimeras, are there body parts for which the majority of the chromosomes be one or the other to determine this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom