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

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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

And one can be stupid and the other not be. You do remember what you said previously right? Or did you forget?

That is precisely my point.

Then weird that it 100% contradicts your point. I was able to parse your usage of gender identity perfectly well. Because it has a meaning.

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

Because you don't understand, doesn't mean something doesn't make sense. You me and anyone else are able to use the words gender identity in conversation to discuss things and have some level of common understanding. You can argue about what it is specifically, whether we all mean exactly the same thing, whether it is important but what you can't sensibly do is claim that the words are functionally equivalent of 'Zarblorg'

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

You actually wrote : "But Zurlobg doesn't really mean anything, either, unless it's tied down to something objective." You put it in quotes but it was supposed to be a parallel of your statement on gender identity. Which read "But gender identity doesn't really mean anything, either, unless it's tied down to something objective"

So yes you ACTUALLY wrote that something doesn't have meaning unless it's tied down to something objective. Something that doesn't have meaning cannot be a thing because obviously if word X is a thing then it's meaning is the thing that it is.

The words table, invisible table, unicorn, loneliness, depression and gender identity are all things and the words all have meanings despite them being a mixture of subjective, objective, existing and non-existing things.

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.

No you were talking about the reaction of passengers ... but passengers of a train company can reasonably expect their personal preferences to be taken into account by a train company because the company cares what they think (and actually actively request company feedback!). Random passers by cannot have the same expectation of a church, who do not care or want to know what you think about them.

I apologise for not spelling it out for you and expecting you to do the hard work of actually thinking through what we are talking about rather than just throwing out knee-jerk responses without doing the thinking first

What in the blue hell does this have to do with anything? If anything you're proving my point here.

If your point is you haven't read the thread or understood the thread then I agree. If it's otherwise then you are going to have to join the dots.

 

[Belz...]

And one can be stupid and the other not be. You do remember what you said previously right? Or did you forget?

Why would you think I forgot? I agreed with your previous point. That doesn't at all imply that my other point was wrong.

Then weird that it 100% contradicts your point. I was able to parse your usage of gender identity perfectly well. Because it has a meaning.

That's completely bonkers. I've already demonstrated that this isn't the case.

Because you don't understand, doesn't mean something doesn't make sense.

I know that. But it doesn't make sense and I've already explained why. Did you forget?

So yes you ACTUALLY wrote that something doesn't have meaning unless it's tied down to something objective.

You said that I said it wasn't a thing. And now you admit that I said it had no meaning. Those are completely different statements.

The words table, invisible table, unicorn, loneliness, depression and gender identity are all things and the words all have meanings despite them being a mixture of subjective, objective, existing and non-existing things.

And yet I can put a meaningless word in a sentence questioning its meaning and it still works.

No you were talking about the reaction of passengers ...

Good, so your earlier comment was indeed irrelevant. Thank you.

I apologise for not spelling it out for you and expecting you to do the hard work of actually thinking through what we are talking about rather than just throwing out knee-jerk responses without doing the thinking first

No, you expect me to understand the exact opposite of what you're saying. Things vs meaning, company vs customers, etc. You just can't keep your arguments straight, presumably because they're not working for you so you try to switch to a different argument without having to admit that the previous argument was wrong.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Why would you think I forgot? I agreed with your previous point. That doesn't at all imply that my other point was wrong.



That's completely bonkers. I've already demonstrated that this isn't the case.



I know that. But it doesn't make sense and I've already explained why. Did you forget?



You said that I said it wasn't a thing. And now you admit that I said it had no meaning. Those are completely different statements.



And yet I can put a meaningless word in a sentence questioning its meaning and it still works.



Good, so your earlier comment was indeed irrelevant. Thank you.



No, you expect me to understand the exact opposite of what you're saying. Things vs meaning, company vs customers, etc. You just can't keep your arguments straight, presumably because they're not working for you so you try to switch to a different argument without having to admit that the previous argument was wrong.

Words that are things have meanings. They refer to THING THAT THEY ARE. That's what they mean.

It's not my fault you can't understand the things that you rant about it. Or think through the things that you are saying. I don't think you are stupid.
You must be a parody account. Feel free to ignore me from now on.

 

[Belz...]

Words that are things have meanings.

That sentence doesn't even make sense in context. Words are all things. Did you mean words that refer to things? Or course 'gender identity' is a thing, in that it's a concept. But it has no objective meaning because it has been deliberately made that way. It had a good opportunity to have meaning when it was related to body dysphoria, but it was taken too far and has lost that meaning. Remember that little word there, 'objective'? Or had you already forgotten that it was in the argument you are weakly trying to address?

Do you remember why I said the term has no meaning? You sidestepped that again.

You must be a parody account.

Yes I'm sure that feels good for you to believe that those who disagree with you are always disingenuous. It avoids the painful possibility of you being wrong. The guy who's been here for 16 years and has participated in probably thousands of threads is just doing all that for the giggles, presumaly just to piss you off personally.

When you're willing to put some effort into understanding what I and others write for your benefit, let me know.

 

[Modified]

I'm just translating Ron's post for you. I'll let him answer this one.

Sure, I understood that and didn't mean to imply that I was directing the question at you.

 

[Belz...]

Sure, I understood that and didn't mean to imply that I was directing the question at you.

I wanted to chance an answer but I'm not sufficiently versed in the genetics and how doctors and health professionals interpret these intersex conditions to be confident in any way in what I would write.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I prefer the gender neutral "guys" and "dudes."


But this does have another issue. Ladies and gentlemen is more polite than, "passengers." By switching to a non gendered method it is hurting others by referring to them in a more impolite way.

 

[abaddon]

I wonder how this whole notion that people have a "right to not be offended" ever arose?

Nobody has a "right not to be offended". I have met people who are "offended" by the simple fact that I am an atheist. Shall I suddenly join some priesthood and abandon my beliefs simply because they are offended? Make atheism illegal perhaps? It's absurd.

The chap on the train has the right to be whatever he likes and I would happily defend that right. What he doesn't have is some imaginary right to not be offended. That is the territory of religion.

Anyone old enough to remember when Python's Life of Brian came out there were so many "offended" people crawling out of the woodwork it was astonishing. But guess what, it turns out that they had no right to "not be offended" either. The Life of Brian would have been utterly banned if the pearl clutchers had their way and their imagined "offence" was given any heed. Guess what. That movie is still freely available.

Always look on the bright side of life.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I think it quite possible that a train guard who used the phrase "ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls" was not following corporate protocol for announcements. This lackadaisical slip into cheerful informality is clearly intolerable. What if there had been a member of the peerage aboard? Failing to begin with "My Lords..." would be a terrible disrespect and I seriously doubt that any member of staff with such a frivolous attitude would have checked.

 

[Belz...]

I wonder how this whole notion that people have a "right to not be offended" ever arose?

Because we're way too comfortable. No wars or major plagues or food shortages, etc. We've got to complain about something.

Nobody has a "right not to be offended". I have met people who are "offended" by the simple fact that I am an atheist. Shall I suddenly join some priesthood and abandon my beliefs simply because they are offended? Make atheism illegal perhaps? It's absurd.

I'm offended by religion. Does that cancel out?

 

[abaddon]

Because we're way too comfortable. No wars or major plagues or food shortages, etc. We've got to complain about something.



I'm offended by religion. Does that cancel out?

Nope. You are not allowed to be offended by any religion. Because reasons.

Most religions are offensive to somebody. Islam offends christianity, christianity offends islam, bahai offends everyone while trying their best not to. And so forth.

Best I can offer for an inoffensive religion is Jainism, and they are frankly mental.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

And one can be stupid and the other not be. You do remember what you said previously right? Or did you forget?







Then weird that it 100% contradicts your point. I was able to parse your usage of gender identity perfectly well. Because it has a meaning.







Because you don't understand, doesn't mean something doesn't make sense. You me and anyone else are able to use the words gender identity in conversation to discuss things and have some level of common understanding. You can argue about what it is specifically, whether we all mean exactly the same thing, whether it is important but what you can't sensibly do is claim that the words are functionally equivalent of 'Zarblorg'







You actually wrote : "But Zurlobg doesn't really mean anything, either, unless it's tied down to something objective." You put it in quotes but it was supposed to be a parallel of your statement on gender identity. Which read "But gender identity doesn't really mean anything, either, unless it's tied down to something objective"



So yes you ACTUALLY wrote that something doesn't have meaning unless it's tied down to something objective. Something that doesn't have meaning cannot be a thing because obviously if word X is a thing then it's meaning is the thing that it is.



The words table, invisible table, unicorn, loneliness, depression and gender identity are all things and the words all have meanings despite them being a mixture of subjective, objective, existing and non-existing things.







No you were talking about the reaction of passengers ... but passengers of a train company can reasonably expect their personal preferences to be taken into account by a train company because the company cares what they think (and actually actively request company feedback!). Random passers by cannot have the same expectation of a church, who do not care or want to know what you think about them.



I apologise for not spelling it out for you and expecting you to do the hard work of actually thinking through what we are talking about rather than just throwing out knee-jerk responses without doing the thinking first







If your point is you haven't read the thread or understood the thread then I agree. If it's otherwise then you are going to have to join the dots.

For my money, questioning how all this 'word-concept association' stuff operates has to be the fringiest reset of all :9.

 

[smartcooky]

I wonder how this whole notion that people have a "right to not be offended" ever arose?

Nobody has a "right not to be offended". I have met people who are "offended" by the simple fact that I am an atheist. Shall I suddenly join some priesthood and abandon my beliefs simply because they are offended? Make atheism illegal perhaps? It's absurd.

The chap on the train has the right to be whatever he likes and I would happily defend that right. What he doesn't have is some imaginary right to not be offended. That is the territory of religion.

Anyone old enough to remember when Python's Life of Brian came out there were so many "offended" people crawling out of the woodwork it was astonishing. But guess what, it turns out that they had no right to "not be offended" either. The Life of Brian would have been utterly banned if the pearl clutchers had their way and their imagined "offence" was given any heed. Guess what. That movie is still freely available.

Always look on the bright side of life.

De-Dum... De-Dum, De-DUM, De-Dum


(No offence to De-Dums intended)

 

[abaddon]

De-Dum... De-Dum, De-DUM, De-Dum


(No offence to De-Dums intended)

Just before you draw your terminal breath.

De-Dum... De-Dum, De-DUM, De-Dum.

 

[Checkmite]

But should they recognise all subgroups no matter how small?

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

You're correct that this would become laborious, which is why you don't separately greet subgroups in your announcements; you instead address the entire group singularly with an appropriate term, like "passengers".

 

[Belz...]

For my money, questioning how all this 'word-concept association' stuff operates has to be the fringiest reset of all :9.

Notice how he doesn't make an actual point in any of that?

 

[theprestige]

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?

This is an extremely rare condition that describes almost nobody who prefers a nonbinary gender identity.

In almost all cases, the primary and secondary sex characteristics of an individual are quite easy to observe. Even people who successfully "pass" as nonbinary don't pass with their trousers down.

Not that we need people to drop trou or anything. For the most part, it's fine to preserve the polite fiction that transgender identities matter, at least to the individual so identifying. Obviously it's different in the bedroom.

 

[Checkmite]

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?"

This type of argument, like Belz's "should they recognize all subgroups no matter how small", is quite frankly stupid. It takes problems with painfully intuitive solutions and pretends they are inscrutable in much the same way that "as-seen-on-TV" gadgets frame utterly common and mundane household tasks as if they are extremely difficult or complication-fraught for the average person, inventing a pressing need for whatever gimmicky junk is being peddled.

If an announcement is intended for a general audience - literally whomever is present, regardless of identity or circumstance - there is obviously no need for an opening that implies a targeted audience. "Attention. Train X is arriving on platform Y in Z minutes." If you're not an idiot, you can figure this out.

 

[theprestige]

For my money, questioning how all this 'word-concept association' stuff operates has to be the fringiest reset of all :9.

Between the "I'm a robot space alien with only a faint grasp of natural language and human culture" and the "we can't possibly have a productive discussion until we can satisfy the robot space aliens", it gets pretty amusing sometimes.

 

[cullennz]

This is an extremely rare condition that describes almost nobody who prefers a nonbinary gender identity.

In almost all cases, the primary and secondary sex characteristics of an individual are quite easy to observe. Even people who successfully "pass" as nonbinary don't pass with their trousers down.

Not that we need people to drop trou or anything. For the most part, it's fine to preserve the polite fiction that transgender identities matter, at least to the individual so identifying. Obviously it's different in the bedroom.

How does some one even pass or fail at being non-binary?

It isn't like trans, where you are portraying yourself outwardly as something you aren't, and with a bit of luck you happened to be born a bit of an effeminate looking dude, or a butch chick.

Non-binary is all internal and by it's very nature, you have nothing to pass or fail at. Because you aren't one or the other.