|
speaking as a person who has used unisex bathrooms, also is friends with a bunch of women who have used the same unisex bathrooms, they're alright, and not a problem. namaste
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 20:57 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:I am asking how this is to be enforced. If that's not what you meant, please retract it instead of acting incredulous when I respond to the words that you say. How do we currently enforce that men don't go into woman bathroom? Whatever it is, it works fantastic. Can you figure out what it is?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 01:35
|
|
waitwhatno posted:How do we currently enforce that men don't go into woman bathroom? Whatever it is, it works fantastic. Can you figure out what it is? You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding the question. 1. You are proposing that the difference exists because it is a "huge effort to legally change your sex". 2. Therefore, it must be extremely difficult for someone who has not had their birth certificate updated but can still pass successfully to use their proper restroom. 3. Therefore, you should outline this mechanism. Alternatively, you are saying that it is the fact of changing what's on the birth certificate which determines gender.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
Octatonic posted:what is it with men and being so into this whole peeing standing up thing. why is it such a big deal to you all? you should just sit and relax like normal people. quote:theres also the whole "can't pee next to the other man thing" like basically y'all are neurotic messes about bathrooms as far as i can tell
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 01:46
|
|
Kilroy posted:Why should I need to explain myself to you? Why should anyone? Why are you defensive about this?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding the question. OK, I can already see that you are not going to come up with the solution. Here is the answer: For the most part, people follow social norms and rules willingly, without the need to enforce them through violence or intimidation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 01:57
|
|
waitwhatno posted:OK, I can already see that you are not going to come up with the solution. Here is the answer: Is there some sort of dread curse on you, preventing you from following the social norm of clarifying what you meant?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:One is a person being able to define themselves. The other is a person being able to define others. Isn't civil society fundamentally based on limiting the absolute freedom of the individual? I don't understand the ethical justification for maximizing individual freedom, thst seems like a fundamentally anti-social attitude. The only people who can freely define themselves are total psychotics living outside of the social realm, they are free to believe they are whatever they please, up to and including Napoleon or Jesus. Our identities are not, and have never been, our own. They are forged in the fires of society, cut by the limitations imposed by an Other, and only seen by us through the reflections in the eyes of our neighbors. From the moment the toddler achieves the Mirror Stage and begins forming their own ego, their own sense of self as a complete and autonomous being, they begin relying on external cues to limit and determine the contours of their identity. Children who fall down often look at the reaction of their parents before they begin (or don't) crying, as if they need e outside world, society as they know it, to inform them of their own subjective experience of pain. Children learn from others what to desire. Our identity is formed by the millions of little interactions that someone has with the world, and as such, our identities are Social Constructs. This doesn't mean, like some people think, thst we should be free to monopolize them if we please. My identity exists only in relation to other people in society, and is shaped by the symbolic boundaries and expectations that come from from others. So if our social identities are communally formed, and negotiated between the subject and other people on society and the shape of the symbolic space that mediates these social relations.....where do these gender activists get the idea that their own private conception of themselves should trump everyone else's, amd why do they expect an ethical injunction to dictate that everyone else, the world, conform to their own imagination? TLDR: I get the idea of just being nice and polite and humoring people, but >99.9% of people have no choice I'm their gender. I didn't choose my gender, and my gender hasn't always been peachy perfect for me, I haven't always felt like an ideal Platonic from of my gender, but I never got to choose it. Individuals are determined by society, they don't get to determine society, and trying to force society to conform to your own inner narrative seems authoritarian in nature
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:OK, I can already see that you are not going to come up with the solution. Here is the answer: There isn't really a social norm for trans people and bathrooms. Commie NedFlanders posted:Isn't civil society fundamentally based on limiting the absolute freedom of the individual? TLDR because it doesn't really matter what you've got between your legs and people who think it does are dumb. There's no actual need for you to define what is and isn't acceptable in the junk-having department so don't. This is not an issue where individual freedom needs to be curtailed for the good of society. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:I mean, if you want to directly compare the gender thing to the religious thing, I would argue that religious people should have exactly the same rights as transgender people, and vice versa. I fully oppose transgender people making laws that marginalize non-transgender people. I'm not aware of any cases where that's happened, but if it were to, I'd be opposed How would you respond to a woman who argues that having to call a transwoman a "woman", diminishes her own feminine identity which was formed through a lifetime of experiences as a girl, being treated by others as a girl, and learning first hand what it means to be a girl in a world dominated by men. If someone who grew up being treated as a male, who never had those formative experiences as a young girl, demands to be considered equivalent to a woman, would she be wrong to consider it another case of authentic feminine subjectivity being reduced to the male fantasy of femininity?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:03
|
|
Likewise, I support the right of anyone to identify with and move through society as a member of the religion of their choice, as long as they don't invalidate or marginalize others.
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:How would you respond to a woman who argues that having to call a transwoman a "woman", diminishes her own feminine identity which was formed through a lifetime of experiences as a girl, being treated by others as a girl, and learning first hand what it means to be a girl in a world dominated by men. If someone who grew up being treated as a male, who never had those formative experiences as a young girl, demands to be considered equivalent to a woman, would she be wrong to consider it another case of authentic feminine subjectivity being reduced to the male fantasy of femininity? That if her concept of her self worth is so damaged by other people having different conceptions of self worth then she needs to re-examine her concept of self worth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:05
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:How would you respond to a woman who argues that having to call a transwoman a "woman", diminishes her own feminine identity which was formed through a lifetime of experiences as a girl, being treated by others as a girl, and learning first hand what it means to be a girl in a world dominated by men. If someone who grew up being treated as a male, who never had those formative experiences as a young girl, demands to be considered equivalent to a woman, would she be wrong to consider it another case of authentic feminine subjectivity being reduced to the male fantasy of femininity? Yes, she would be wrong. First of all, because she is an imperialist, viewing her perception of femininity as the only true one, and determining all women outside of her culture, class, and circumstances to be fake plastic women. Second of all, because she's ignorant of the fact that feminine norms must necessarily be known by men so that they can know how to avoid acting like a woman, and so that they can properly police gender boundaries.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:There isn't really a social norm for trans people and bathrooms. I didn't say anything at all about genitals or chromosomes or whatever, I'm speaking strictly in socio-symbolic terms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Why are you defensive about this? It's awfully presumptuous to tell me how I should urinate and downright stupid to call it abnormal when half the population does it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:I didn't say anything at all about genitals or chromosomes or whatever, I'm speaking strictly in socio-symbolic terms. Same is true for gender roles. They're dumb, and not required.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:12
|
|
Kilroy posted:"you should just sit and relax like normal people" Why are you so defensive about this? I read it too, and I didn't give a gently caress, so why do you give a gently caress? Are you feeling the ol' castration anxiety?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Is there some sort of dread curse on you, preventing you from following the social norm of clarifying what you meant? Maybe he does. Who are you to judge?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Why are you so defensive about this? I read it too, and I didn't give a gently caress, so why do you give a gently caress? Are you feeling the ol' castration anxiety?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:Isn't civil society fundamentally based on limiting the absolute freedom of the individual? In the sense I can't kill you and/or steal your possessions without some kind of negative repercussions happening to me. If I want to go by Bill instead of my current name that's entirely different. How I define myself has extremely little bearing on you and thus does not need to be limited, unless asking you to use a different name when referring to me is somehow that much of a burden. quote:The only people who can freely define themselves are total psychotics living outside of the social realm, they are free to believe they are whatever they please, up to and including Napoleon or Jesus. You're Jim and you're a fireman. Go put out fires. By your logic, if enough people agree with me, you are now Jim the fireman and are obligated to put out fires. That is, of course, ridiculous. You've gone too far in the other direction and give people no freedom to define themselves. While people are influenced by their environment, that influence is not as absolute as you make it sound. You treat people like empty shells rather than intelligent minds, like robots responding to programming and inputs instead of emotional and thinking creatures. quote:TLDR: I get the idea of just being nice and polite and humoring people, but >99.9% of people have no choice I'm their gender. I didn't choose my gender, and my gender hasn't always been peachy perfect for me, I haven't always felt like an ideal Platonic from of my gender, but I never got to choose it. Individuals are determined by society, they don't get to determine society, and trying to force society to conform to your own inner narrative seems authoritarian in nature Sex is the biological trait. Gender is also a social construct. A female gets pregnant. A woman is expected to find a man who financially supports her and have children. The two have historically had a relationship, but it's not necessary that they do, once you get past the idea of limited gender roles determined by sex. What is society besides a collection of individuals? Is society some sort of outside force, a wizard in a castle that says on the megaphone that disco is no longer popular? The individuals within society act, and those actions are what determines society. Without the individuals and their choices of action, there wouldn't be society.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That if her concept of her self worth is so damaged by other people having different conceptions of self worth then she needs to re-examine her concept of self worth. I don't think you are in a position to tell someone how to value their self worth, but that's not even what I'm talking about. It's not about self worth, it's about the qualitatively different subjective experience of growing up as a female in the eyes of society than growing up as a male and transitioning Consider the phenomenon of "mansplaining". Why do women find it offensive ? Is it not because of the dominating privileged presumption that a man can speak for both genders? Can someone who grew up as a male really, truly understand how the Male Gaze affects women in the same way as a woman who has been subjected to it since puberty (and before)?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:In the sense I can't kill you and/or steal your possessions without some kind of negative repercussions happening to me. If I get a restraining order on you, should you be allowed to bypass it by changing your name? Our identities carry crucial social functions outside of our own minds
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:19
|
|
Kilroy posted:Just replying to a post? You seem to infer something that isn't there, like I'm getting the vapors or something. In fact I just read something dumb and thought to respond. Funny, I also read something dumb and thought to respond. I genuinely want to know why you're taking that post seriously, instead of being a joke. Commie NedFlanders posted:I don't think you are in a position to tell someone how to value their self worth, but that's not even what I'm talking about. Can a woman growing up in the Mayan culture of Chiapas really understand what it's like to be an American woman? Do the two have much in common at all which isn't shared by a trans woman? Have you ever had an original thought in your life?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
Deconstructing the symbolic relations that keep the social space consistent for your own satisfaction is selfish and anti-social Our identities are not just for our own solipsistic naval gazing, they function as anchor points for other people to form their own identities. This is the reason certain social identities are protected. You cannot put on a police uniform and walk around pretending to be a police officer, even if it's just for your own amusement. A teacher at a school cannot have a side job as a porn star. There are reasons for this, and the reasons extend beyond the mind of that individual.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:I don't think you are in a position to tell someone how to value their self worth, but that's not even what I'm talking about. She is welcome to not re-examine it but she will probably continue to feel very uncomfortable if she does not. Her discomfort does not afford her the right to tell other people how they can live, either, thus self-reflection would appear to be the most elegant solution. I don't know why people find men being mouthy annoying, I imagine it could be for a variety of reasons, there are plenty of them. However I would suggest that there is a difference between men being mouthy at women because they're idiots and a person expressing their identity. As long as the trans person is not requiring all women in the world to share their sense of identity I fail to see why theirs should not be as legitimate as any other? There is a difference between "I require my identity as a cis woman to be enforced on everyone else to feel validated" and "I require my identity as a trans woman to not be shat on by everyone else in the world to feel validated" One is a desire for the individual liberty to be at least tolerated by your peers, the other is the desire for dissenting opinions to be exterminated so you can feel better about yourself. Commie NedFlanders posted:Deconstructing the symbolic relations that keep the social space consistent for your own satisfaction is selfish and anti-social Demolishing everyone else's preferences to enforce your chosen identity on the world in order to validate it is selfish and antisocial. Having a dissenting opinion is absolutely not. Your identity is entirely for your own solipsistic navel gazing, and the sooner you realize that the happier you will be. The reason you cannot pretend to be a police officer is a very practical one. The reason a teacher cannot also be a porn star is entirely a construct of lovely attitudes about women and sex, and is a very good example of something which should be destroyed because it is indefensible. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:If I get a restraining order on you, should you be allowed to bypass it by changing your name? Who said that I was transforming my identity into another person? I am merely defining me. I am the same physical, mental, and legal entity. Saying I'm Bill now doesn't change that I'm me, it merely refines that concept. A transperson isn't a new creature, they're the same person as before, just with a new understanding of themselves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Funny, I also read something dumb and thought to respond. I genuinely want to know why you're taking that post seriously, instead of being a joke. it would be inappropriate for an Americam woman to put on some Mayan clothing and walk around demanding thst they treat her just like one of their own.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Funny, I also read something dumb and thought to respond. I genuinely want to know why you're taking that post seriously, instead of being a joke.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:27
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:Deconstructing the symbolic relations that keep the social space consistent for your own satisfaction is selfish and anti-social My Words to Victor Frankenstein Above the Village of Chamounix posted:The attribution of monstrosity remains a palpable characteristic of most lesbian and gay representations Commie NedFlanders posted:it would be inappropriate for an Americam woman to put on some Mayan clothing and walk around demanding thst they treat her just like one of their own. Ah, dodging the question, I see. My Words to Victor Frankenstein Above the Village of Chamounix posted:The stigmatization fostered by this sort of pejorative labelling is not without consequence. Such words
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:Who said that I was transforming my identity into another person? I am merely defining me. I am the same physical, mental, and legal entity. Saying I'm Bill now doesn't change that I'm me, it merely refines that concept. So you are still the same legal entity? The law treats men and women differently in certain cases, like with public bathrooms. How does changing one's understanding of themselves supersede that? You say you are changing "me", but maintaining that they are the same person as they were before. If the transition is purely in their own understanding of themselves, why should there be any expectation of others to go along with that? The issue I disagree with is, is this idea that your identity is something private and that exists only in your own mind. It's just not, it's a social formation that exists only insofar as it is mediated by society. There is no "you" outside of the symbolic supports of society, you need other people to validate and confirm your social identity and because of that, your identity is not entirely your own.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:So you are still the same legal entity? The law treats men and women differently in certain cases, like with public bathrooms. How does changing one's understanding of themselves supersede that? Society should afford you as much leeway as it can to make decisions about who you want to be, because there is no justification for doing otherwise. Sex, sexuality, and gender are issues where there is 0 justification for not affording people more or less complete freedom to self determine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Ah, dodging the question, I see. Again, I have not once mentioned genitals, I have not once argued that ones body they are born with should be the absolute determinate factor I'm not trying to make that argument, it seems irrelevant What I'm saying is that your identity is not your own. It's a socially formed construct that is determined by, and which also determines, external social relations with other people. I'm saying your identity is produced by society and is therefore at least partially owned by society. Other people depend on your identity too, it's not all about you and your own satisfaction. I'm arguing in favor of other people in society, and suggesting that this effort to monopolize one's social presence is selfish and authoritarian. You are demanding that everyone else adjust to the identity you came up with in your head. it seems obvious that "cultural appropriation" is bad, like a suburban white kid dressing up and acting the way he imagines black people act. We can all see how thst might offend some people if he walked into black neighborhood and started talking to everyone about his thoughts on race relations, as a black man. Race is a social construct just as much as gender, why is this considered inappropriate though? So why is "gender appropriation" considered okay?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:This is the reason certain social identities are protected. You cannot put on a police uniform and walk around pretending to be a police officer, even if it's just for your own amusement. That's because being a police officer involves legally-granted authority beyond the average person, such as arresting and transport to prison etc. Mimicking a police officer is a threat to the social order because misrepresenting that authority threatens the stability in a variety of ways. Even if I personally do it for fun and don't abuse the authority, there are enough advantages for a person to exploit for nefarious purposes that it isn't allowed. Saying I'm Bill now or a man saying she's a woman does not threaten stability unless we really are on the world's slipperiest slope. There is no legally-granted authority to Bills or to women that I could abuse. I cannot say my profession is whatever and expect the privileges that come with it, like police and the power of arrest. But what privileges are their to my name, or gender identity? Commie NedFlanders posted:The issue I disagree with is, is this idea that your identity is something private and that exists only in your own mind. It's just not, it's a social formation that exists only insofar as it is mediated by society. We disagree on a rather fundamental level, then, but I understand where you're coming from a bit better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:Again, I have not once mentioned genitals, I have not once argued that ones body they are born with should be the absolute determinate factor I'm not trying to make that argument, it seems irrelevant No you see because you don't think everyone is a special little unique snowflake you are a fascist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Society should afford you as much leeway as it can to make decisions about who you want to be, because there is no justification for doing otherwise. Sex, sexuality, and gender are issues where there is 0 justification for not affording people more or less complete freedom to self determine. You don't see the irony of arguing thst people should have more liberty in perceiving things the way they want, while in the very next sentence brutally asserting that There. Is. Zero. Justification. for X? But okay, if we accept your line of thinking here, why is cultural appropriation considered a bad thing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:Again, I have not once mentioned genitals, I have not once argued that ones body they are born with should be the absolute determinate factor I'm not trying to make that argument, it seems irrelevant You are arguing merely for the status quo, by your logic society should not change because doing so would require people to dissent from it, because from dissent comes change and from change comes a new society. The fundamental basis of the argument for the acceptance of nonbinary sex, gender, and sexuality is that society can be remade to function better than it currently does. Conservatism for its own sake on the basis that dissent is "authoritarian and selfish" is absurd. Commie NedFlanders posted:You don't see the irony of arguing thst people should have more liberty in perceiving things the way they want, while in the very next sentence brutally asserting that There. Is. Zero. Justification. for X? Cultural appropriation is considered a bad thing because of the power imbalance involved. It is almost universally one way and done without the consent of the individuals concerned. It serves as a tool of oppression. There is nothing inherently wrong with dressing in clothes you don't understand, merely that doing so contributes to the wider cultural conquest and erasure of the culture with less money behind it. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
Pictured: a person who is legally a woman using the womens' restroom. As this person is legally a woman, surely no one would object. Commie NedFlanders posted:I'm arguing in favor of other people in society, and suggesting that this effort to monopolize one's social presence is selfish and authoritarian. You are demanding that everyone else adjust to the identity you came up with in your head. For a fun game read this as referring to gay marriage. It's very easy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:47
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:Again, I have not once mentioned genitals, I have not once argued that ones body they are born with should be the absolute determinate factor I'm not trying to make that argument, it seems irrelevant "Society", if it is sophontic, minded, hnau, whatever you wanna call it, does not interact on a personal level with us. So if your identity is owned by society, the owner is an absentee landlord. Since identity is owned by society and you, other people have no claim on it and your argument falls apart. But if we mean by society that we are to conform to whatever the majority wants, I declare that this means that you would have cheerfully sent people to Auschwitz and I will not associate myself with such a craven person. Crowsbeak posted:No you see because you don't think everyone is a special little unique snowflake you are a fascist. You cowardly crustacean of a man, crawl out from your shell and make a drat argument. This is the internet, and all that will happen is the mild sting of the possibility someone who you view with utter contempt anyways might laugh, or, worse, post earnestly at you. Say what you want to say, instead of merely hinting at it, you hermit crab in human guise. Effectronica fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:That's because being a police officer involves legally-granted authority beyond the average person, such as arresting and transport to prison etc. Mimicking a police officer is a threat to the social order because misrepresenting that authority threatens the stability in a variety of ways. Even if I personally do it for fun and don't abuse the authority, there are enough advantages for a person to exploit for nefarious purposes that it isn't allowed. That's fair, it was a bad example. quote:Saying I'm Bill now or a man saying she's a woman does not threaten stability unless we really are on the world's slipperiest slope. There is no legally-granted authority to Bills or to women that I could abuse. I cannot say my profession is whatever and expect the privileges that come with it, like police and the power of arrest. But what privileges are their to my name, or gender identity? The privilege is just the experience of seeing the world from a certain perspective which is generally not accessible from the other perspective. I just don't think someone who grew up as a male can ever really understand the experience of growing up as a female and I think that experience (as varied as it may be) is part of what constitutes real femininity. It's like, I trust my Swedish friend when she gives her opinions as a Swede in America, but if someone born in Mexico decided they wanted to identify with Swedish identity, would it be wrong of me or my Swedish friend to reject their thoughts of America from a Swedish perspective? quote:We disagree on a rather fundamental level, then, but I understand where you're coming from a bit better. Well cheers on a productive discussion, helping each other see each others point of view Civility reigns!
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:it seems obvious that "cultural appropriation" is bad, like a suburban white kid dressing up and acting the way he imagines black people act. We can all see how thst might offend some people if he walked into black neighborhood and started talking to everyone about his thoughts on race relations, as a black man. Race is a social construct just as much as gender, why is this considered inappropriate though? So why is "gender appropriation" considered okay? Are you suggesting that cultural appropriation should be illegal?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 20:57 |
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:It's like, I trust my Swedish friend when she gives her opinions as a Swede in America, but if someone born in Mexico decided they wanted to identify with Swedish identity, would it be wrong of me or my Swedish friend to reject their thoughts of America from a Swedish perspective? And yet when trans people speak about their experiences, better look out cause CommieNedFlanders has a theory and knows better than you!
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 03:02
|
|