BANNED USER: Obnoxious and disingenuous, again
>Unban in 1d 21h 20m
omw_68
No bio...
User ID: 1014
Banned by: @Amadan
In theory. Terms and condition apply, of course - starting with the fact that it might cause me discomfort to refer to Jenner as male,
Well that's not really my problem -- you are the one saying that -- generally speaking -- people should be treated as they desire. And my desire is that anyone communicating with me refer to "Bruce Jenner" not "Caytlin" and use "he" and not "she"
In any event, I think you've answered my questions sufficiently. Based on your answers, I am satisfied that, as I had strongly suspected, gender ideology (or whatever you want to call it) is a bunch of ridiculous nonsense on the level of astrology. To be sure it can be defended on the principle of "treat people as they want to be treated," but only if this principle is applied selectively. Which means that it's no principle at all.
Among other things, a sizeable percentage of the population -- perhaps a majority -- would prefer to distinguish between men and women based on the traditional approach as opposed to self-reporting. And yet trans activists frequently trample roughshod over this desire, sometimes even to the point of publicly criticizing, shaming, canceling, etc. such people. I can't really take it seriously when these activists claim that they follow the principle of treating people as they desire.
Anyway, thank you for answering my questions.
omw_68
3hr ago
"Going along with trans people's preferences constitutes being nice to them; misgendering them constitutes being mean to them"
This is the comment your hypothetical was built off.
So if misgendering is mean/rude then your worker is being rude/mean first and his preferences for people being nice to him are overridden by him throwing the first punch as it were.
If it isn't rude/mean to misgender then this does not apply, but then our hypothetical Jenner would not be offended whether present or not.
So your scenario must implicitly accept the framing from the comment you were replying too. That it is rude/mean to misgender. Your response was that it would also be mean to critique the person for misgendering.
But if misgendering is rude/mean then it isn't rude/mean to critique the worker in return. Someone being mean, allows you to be mean in return.
Make sense?
Not really. Because -- significantly -- I was very clear that Bruce Jenner was NOT in the room.
Assuming for the sake of discussion that it's "mean" to "misgender" someone, are you saying that this applies to all conversations, discussions, etc. everywhere, public or private, regardless of whether the person who has been "misgendered" is present or otherwise privy to the conversation?
omw_68
4hr ago
No, I am not saying it is rude to refer to Bruce Jenner as he. I am saying in the hypothetical it was being considered as rude (or mean or whatever).
I'm not sure if I understand this. Are you trying to fight my hypothetical here? Here is the original hypothetical:
Ok, so if a worker is having a conversation in the office and refers to "Bruce Jenner" and uses the word "he" to refer to this person, can we agree that it would not be "nice" -- and in fact it would be "mean" -- to criticize, shame, discipline or otherwise sanction this worker. Because it's better to treat the worker the way he wishes to be treated and Bruce Jenner (or whatever you want to call him) is not in the room to be offended?
Note that I said nothing at all about whether what the worker did is considered "rude."
Are you asserting that what the worker did was "rude"? Or are you assuming for the sake of discussion that it's considered "rude"?
omw_68
4hr ago
If you remember I was just contesting your point that if being nice is a reason to use someone's pronouns then being nice should also apply to how you treat someone who doesn't use someone's pronouns.
"Ok, so if a worker is having a conversation in the office and refers to "Bruce Jenner" and uses the word "he" to refer to this person, can we agree that it would not be "nice" -- and in fact it would be "mean" -- to criticize, shame, discipline or otherwise sanction this worker. Because it's better to treat the worker the way he wishes to be treated and Bruce Jenner (or whatever you want to call him) is not in the room to be offended?"
If not using pronouns is rude then it is in fact acceptable to be rude back in general, whether the victim of the rudeness is present or not. That's my only point.
Whether using the wrong pronouns is rude or not is outside the scope of my argument. Just that your specific argument here is weak as you've framed it because courtesy is a tit for tat scenario. If someone is rude, you are now allowed to be rude to them.
That's the fundamental reason why trans-activists want it to be framed as a courtesy argument, because if they can frame it like that, then it is in fact acceptable to criticize or shame someone who is discourteous.
Ok, it sounds like you are saying that (1) it's "rude" to refer to Bruce Jenner (or whatever he calls himself (or herself or whatever)) as a "he"; and (2) this initial rudeness justifies criticizing or correcting the person who spoke this way.
Do I understand you correctly?
omw_68
4hr ago
Yes.
Ok, thanks for answering that question. It occurs to me that the principle of "treat people how they want to be treated" goes further than that. For example, if someone is communicating with me, I prefer that they not refer to Bruce Jenner as "Caitlin" "she" or anything like that. Can we agree that under your principle, people should, generally speaking, respect my desire?
omw_68
7hr ago
Calling someone an asshole unprompted is rude.
Ok, so it sounds like you are saying that the principle of "treat people how they would like to be treated" must sometimes yield to the principle of "don't be rude."
Do I understand you correctly? And if I do, what's your point? Are you asserting that it's "rude" to refer to Bruce Jenner (or whatever he calls himself (or herself or whatever)) as a "he"? Or are you making some other point?
omw_68
7hr ago
I think you misread that. The argument is the exact opposite: if you wake up (or imagine waking up) as a woman and feel dysphoria, you are now transgender. You can now tell that gender is real because you perceive that yours is wrong.
Here's the argument, or at least the part of the argument that I responded to:
A common argument is to ask the person you're arguing with, "If you woke up this morning and found you had been transformed into a stereotypical example of the opposite gender, how would you feel about that?" If you would prefer that to your current body, this means that you are transgender.
omw_68
7hr ago
If you and i are co-workers in a room together and you call Bruce Jenner an asshole and i don't agree with you then you've still committed a faux pas.
According to what principle?
omw_68
7hr ago
But your restatement sounds fair enough on the merits.
Ok, thank you for answering that question.
That depends on what you mean by "inappropriate"
I mean the same thing you mean when you say that "it is generally morally good to treat people the way they wish to be treated"
i.e., according to your principles, it is -- generally speaking -- morally good to refrain from criticizing someone who refers to Bruce Jenner as a "he" in a conversation where Bruce Jenner (or whatever he calls himself (or herself or whatever)) is not around.
(And to make my example even clearer, I will stipulate that the worker has expressed that he does not believe in gender ideology, and that he would prefer it if nobody corrected him or criticized him for referring to Bruce Jenner (or whatever he calls himself (or herself or whatever)) as a "he.")
Agreed?
omw_68
9hr ago
Well, not as such, but neither would many old-school feminists. I suppose an unstated background assumption of my worldview, here, is that generally speaking it is bad to treat human beings differently due to their biological sex except in contexts where genitalia are directly relevant, eg sex itself.
Right, so when you said the following, it was not entirely accurate:
But trans activists' whole thing is to alter cultural and linguistic norms so that "she/her" or "woman" no longer imply anything factual about people's reproductive organs. We want a world where everyone knows that some "women" have penises rather than vaginas
The real goal is to have a world where, generally speaking, people DON'T distinguish between men and women as those terms were traditionally defined, but instead distinguish between men and women based on the new definitions: A man is someone who self-reports to be a man and a woman is someone who self-reports to be a woman.
Agreed?
By the same token, of course, if there are people in that office who disagree with the worker on how it is appropriate to refer to Jenner, I do think they retain a right to criticize him however they like.
Well according to the principle of "treat people how they want to be treated," it would be inappropriate for anyone to criticize this worker who referred to Bruce Jenner as a "he." Agreed?
omw_68
10hr ago
Not any ruder than you calling someone an asshole if they call you it first.
Or in otherwords the order of meanness matters. If we assume that misgendering is rude then the person being rude first can then indeed be shamed in return.
Note that I stipulated that Bruce Jenner (or whatever you want to call him) is not in the room. From the principle of "treat people as they would like to be treated," perhaps it follows that when you are talking to Bruce Jenner directly, you should call him "Caitlyn" But how does it follow that you should do this even when he (or she or whatever pronouns he uses) is not around?
omw_68
10hr ago
Maybe lay out the exact generalization you mean?
The original argument was that if you are a man and you wake up as a woman and you are happy with the change, then you are transgender. I and another poster pointed out that this argument proves too much, for example if I wake up as a 25 year old and I am happy with the change, it doesn't say anything about my identity. So really I poked a hole in the broader implication of the argument, not the argument itself. But still the same principle applies.
Suppose someone argues "If A, then B." And it follows from their argument that "If C, then D." And you find a single example of NOT D following from C. That single example defeats the original "If A, then B"
omw_68
21hr ago
But trans activists' whole thing is to alter cultural and linguistic norms so that "she/her" or "woman" no longer imply anything factual about people's reproductive organs. We want a world where everyone knows that some "women" have penises rather than vaginas. There is no deceptive intent, as there would be in the Michael Jordan example.
Well, suppose for the sake of argument that pro trans people got their way and "woman" and "man" get redefined. And suppose further that a couple of new words come out, let's say "X24" and "X25" which mean basically what man and woman previously meant. And the new words become so commonplace that you might hear a Christian Pastor say something like "This X24 and X25 will make a great husband and wife" Or you might see a sign at nightclub: "Free admission to X25s!!" In your view, would trans activists be okay with this situation?
Well, my main reason isn't so much a positive argument as the root preference-utilitarian claim that it is generally morally good to treat people the way they wish to be treated, and that any exceptions to this require a proactive case for why normal rules of courtesy should be suspended
Ok, so if a worker is having a conversation in the office and refers to "Bruce Jenner" and uses the word "he" to refer to this person, can we agree that it would not be "nice" -- and in fact it would be "mean" -- to criticize, shame, discipline or otherwise sanction this worker. Because it's better to treat the worker the way he wishes to be treated and Bruce Jenner (or whatever you want to call him) is not in the room to be offended?
omw_68
23hr ago
How do you do this with a single postal worker without them getting caught by their fellow employees or the security cameras in their post office? This is why I say you would need to enlist an entire post office in this scheme.
Yes, I tend to agree with this. But how many people need to be involved? I've seen small post offices with only 2 people on duty.
omw_68
1d ago
Absolutely trivial, it's just an ink stamp.
I imagine it would not be too hard to find a cooperative postal worker who likes the idea of fighting Nazis.
omw_68
1d ago
I have at no point hidden my position from you.
You absolutely have. I presented a fair summary, corrected it after you objected, and asked if it was a reasonable summary of your position. Rather than answering my question, you simply said the following:
Are you going anywhere with this?
(And I am screenshotting the whole exchange so that if you edit your response and any lurkers think I am misrepresenting things, feel free to message me and I will send a screenshot.)
In any event, I am not going to argue with you over whether you hid your position. You plainly did and any further discussion is a waste of time.
Feel free to have the last word, I am not going to read or respond.
omw_68
1d ago
Apologies to the woke, but I think they are retarded. One of the reasons why they are retarded is because the woke framing has a bunch of inconsistent nonsense (which is what I think you are noticing and complaining about) that obscures underlying phenomena.
That may be so, but I started this thread to try to understand the arguments underlying the pro-trans position. Anyone in this thread, regardless of their stance, who hides their position from me (as you have) is not helpful. So I think we are done.
omw_68
1d ago
People who have this sort of pro-trans viewpoint would probably argue a term like "woman" isn't anything except an arbitrary designation either, the trouble is this does not really match how the term has been used colloquially throughout history, during which it has been synonymous in almost all cases with "female." Pro-trans people arguably are attempting to break that association whereas anti-trans people either don't understand this and believe the pro-trans side literally think transwomen are female, or they don't want to surrender the association because doing so would be extremely unintuitive and/or make it difficult to prevent males entering women-only spaces.
Well here's a thought experiment. Suppose that society reaches a point where the trans folks win on words like "man" and "woman" and everyone agrees that a "woman" is someone who self-reports to be a woman and a "man" is someone who self reports to be a man. Suppose further that a couple new words come out: "X24" and "X25" which are defined basically the way "man" and "woman" are traditionally defined. It's gotten to the point where even traditional Christian ministers will say something like "This X24 and X25 would make a great husband and wife" Nightclubs will have signs up saying "Free Entry for X25"
Ok, would trans advocates be happy with this situation? I am pretty sure the answer is "no." I am pretty confident that they would try to commandeer the words "X24" and "X25" just like they are trying to commandeer the words "man" and "woman."
So it's inaccurate to say that "Pro-trans people arguably are attempting to break that association." I mean, it's true, but that's not the actual goal. The goal is to coerce people into pretending that trans-identifying-men are women and vice versa.
omw_68
1d ago
Are you going anywhere with this?
I am simply trying to understand the pro trans position. So far, everyone's responses have pretty much confirmed what I already strongly suspected: That it's a bunch of ridiculous nonsense on the level of astrology, supported by silly word games.
Anyway, I take it that you decline to answer my question?
And I'm a little uncomfortable with the "therefore" which gives the whole the appearance of some sort of logical deduction. I brought up the way we treat non-gender-related chosen names as an analogy for how I think we should think of trans people's chosen genders. I do not claim that you can rigorously derive trans rights from the practice of chosen names on its own; it's merely a good reference point for how I, as a pro-trans person, think of the former, which is what the OP was attempting to grok.
As @Jiro pointed out, names are typically just arbitrary in the sense that they don't imply anything factual about the person being named. In situations where names do imply something factual, suddenly situations start to arise where it's NOT clearly correct to call a person by their chosen name.
In any event, since your argument apparently does not rest on that analogy, and since it apparently did not help me to understand your position, please just lay out your argument for why trans people should be treated by society as their preferred gender without reference to your name analogy.
TIA.
omw_68
1d ago
No, you don't.
To my recollection I don't really take a stance on what to do about people who (actually) identify as trans or have trans thought content.
My apologies, I assumed that you were distinguishing between "real" trans people and others for purposes of treatment by public policy, society, other people, etc.
Let's try again and see if I understand your position correctly:
-
There are "real trans" people as well as people who are not "real trans"
-
There must exist an objective way to distinguish between them which involves interviewing them, although this method has not yet been developed.
-
You know this to be true because (a) there objective ways to ascertain other things about people's mental state by interviewing them, such as whether those persons like bananas; are neurotic; or have suffered from diverticulitis; and (b) there is no reason to think that being "real trans" is any different from these other conditions.
-
You aren't arguing that "real trans" people should be treated any differently, you are simply drawing the distinction for academic purposes.
Do I understand you correctly?
omw_68
1d ago
Hopefully you're starting to understand the woke argument? If you have to say "By X I am not including certain kinds of X" then there's a problem here.
Well the problem is that some ambiguity has been injected into a commonly used word.
Oh, woke people do of course.
In any event, thank you for answering my questions. Assuming that your responses are consistent with mainstream progressive thinking on transgenderism, I am satisfied that it's a bunch of ridiculous nonsense propped up by silly word games.
omw_68
1d ago
I don't believe there are any such circumstances, unless you contrive a situation where their "desire in terms of name, pronouns, etc." is unrelated to their actual transness (e.g. a trans man happens to currently be impersonating a specific biological man for nefarious purposes).
Under what circumstances is it NOT clearly correct to call someone by their chosen name?
A variety of unrelated ones, much as there's a variety of unrelated reasons why you wouldn't feed the apparent starving beggar.
Ok, let's see if I understand your argument correctly:
Your position is that:
-
Generally speaking, it's clearly correct that people should be called by the name they prefer, although there are various exceptions to this principle which you decline to describe or enumerate.
-
A trans person being treated by society as their preferred gender is analogous to calling a person by their preferred name.
-
Therefore, generally speaking, a trans person should be treated by society as their preferred gender.
Do I understand your position correctly?
omw_68
1d ago
What's your evidence you can't do this? You can determine if someone likes bananas, is a neurotic person, has had an episode of diverticulitis from just talking to them.
Ok, so if I understand you correctly, your position is as follows:
-
There are "real trans" people as well as people who are not "real trans"
-
There must exist an objective way to distinguish between them which involves interviewing them, although this method has not yet been developed.
-
You know this to be true because (a) there objective ways to ascertain other things about people's mental state by interviewing them, such as whether those persons like bananas; are neurotic; or have suffered from diverticulitis; and (b) there is no reason to think that being "real trans" is any different from these other conditions.
-
People who are "real trans" should be treated by society as their preferred gender.
Do I understand your position correctly?
Ok, just to be clear, this principle applies to every last person in the world, right? So if I am at work, and I say something negative about someone, somewhere else in the world, that nobody knows or has heard of, that is "rude" just as it would be "rude" if the person were right there. Correct?
More options
Context Copy link