BANNED USER: Obnoxious and disingenuous, again
>Unban in 1d 18h 52m
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
6hr 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
6hr 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
7hr 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
7hr 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
10hr 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
10hr 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
10hr 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
10hr 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
12hr 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
12hr 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
12hr 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
23hr 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?
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