People's views regarding transpeople

[odeon]

Where to begin... Read the post I made, the one that sent GA into orbit, and tell me exactly how I am seeing transgendered people as inferior to those who aren't simply because I refuse to allow them to redefine what a woman (in GA's case) or a man is. You might also want to explain how I am being disrespectful by not blindly accepting the pronouns you are attempting to shove down in our throats, just because it makes you feel better but me like telling the sky is pink when it is blue. Following the same logic, tell me why you aren't being disrespectful to me for wanting me to go against the definitions I feel match the world I can observe.

Linguistically speaking a pronoun is a placeholder for a name. So instead of "Odeon", we could say "he". In the sentence the "he" refers to you. Thus it's your pronoun. Just as Odeon is your name. To refer to you as she or it or they or any other pronoun would be disrespecting you, in the same way as deliberating calling you by a name that is not your own. The pronoun is a placeholder for the name of the subject. It is not a placeholder applied by the 3rd party, but rather it is intrinsic to the person to whom it refers.

I am Kayleigh. I am a female for social purposes. It's appropriate to refer to me using feminine pronouns as that is my identity. And as they are my pronouns I have the right to decide what they should and should not be, just as you would yourself.

This has nothing to do with perception or definition, but rather identity. I identify as a female. I do not identify as a male.


On the matter of definition I would suggest that you expand your horizons a little to include intersex people, and the recent research studies into the 5 sexes. The definitions of "man" and/or "woman" are not as clear cut as you seem to understand them to be.

To apply a wholly physical definition of woman (or man for that matter) is not only factually inaccurate, but it also disrespects not only trans people, but also intersex people, and women (or men) in general. You narrow the definition and restrict the freedom of identification. What starts out as a logically reasoned opinion quickly becomes a sexist attitude.

For reproductive purposes, the definition is strictly binary and clear-cut. That definition is something I accept, because it conforms quite well to how the human race reproduces, reproduction being the main reason to why we are here.

Now, you are perfectly free to disagree with my reasoning but don't try to force your views on me. Throughout this thread I have tried to make clear that these are *my* views, my opinions, and that you are free to live your life as you see fit, free to choose whatever pronouns you see fit, regardless of what I think. What you can't do is to force your views on me, not by trying to guilt-trip me or by bringing in your friends or anything else.

If you think that is disrespectful then the same will apply equally to you.

[Parts]

Five sexes   What pronouns do the other three use

[GalileoAce]

Pronouns are used along gender lines, not sexes.

http://frank.mtsu.edu/~phollowa/5sexes.html

http://www.neiu.edu/~lsfuller/5sexesrevisited.htm


In terms of non-binary genders there are gender neutral pronoun neologisms. Which I don't personally like or agree with, but if someone asked me to refer to them with a specific set of pronouns I'd do me best.

[GalileoAce]

For reproductive purposes, the definition is strictly binary and clear-cut. That definition is something I accept, because it conforms quite well to how the human race reproduces, reproduction being the main reason to why we are here.

I disagree, but I don't have the evidence to support me at this point.

Where do those who can't reproduce fall? Are they neither man nor woman? Your definitions and expectations are narrow, and thus follows your mind.

If you think that is disrespectful then the same will apply equally to you.

You'll have to explain that one to me.

[Rissy]

Then start backing up your shit.

What do you want backed up? You have to specify which statements you weren't satisfied with?

Where to begin... Read the post I made, the one that sent GA into orbit, and tell me exactly how I am seeing transgendered people as inferior to those who aren't simply because I refuse to allow them to redefine what a woman (in GA's case) or a man is. You might also want to explain how I am being disrespectful by not blindly accepting the pronouns you are attempting to shove down in our throats, just because it makes you feel better but me like telling the sky is pink when it is blue. Following the same logic, tell me why you aren't being disrespectful to me for wanting me to go against the definitions I feel match the world I can observe.

A word of advice: don't choose the puppet line of defence re altering the brain because it will make you look daft.

Of course, Al's been asking you to back up the claims you made re trolling and whatnot, and you haven't been doing any of that either.

Mainly, why would you get to define those pronouns when your ideas are based on those of a very small minority?

Don't tl;dr my posts then. I have backed up claims from from Swearengen, it's up to him to flaw my last attempt and if you want to challenge them, you should critique them yourself.

With all due respect, GA is not a woman. He is someone who would like to be one, sure, but that alone does not a woman make. It's not right for people in his situation, nor those sympathetic to them, to hijack the definition just because they want it. Come up with another term, because this one is already consistently defined.

The word wasn't hijacked, it was adapted, and since you object to anything but binary genders as you said earlier, you're giving nothing them. Language changes and new words and made and defined. It's not like there isn't there isn't words with multiple dictionary meaning.

Call me a bad person if you want to, but I am mostly indifferent to the plights of these people. Live and let live, and all that. I will say this, however: I don't have anything per se against the transgendered, but I will also not abuse vocabulary and definitions I see as very well defined as well as reasonably fundamental to human reproductive biology and our society in general.

That is an opinion and a selfish view of yours. You're entitled to it but it's not an argument.

You are being cissexist because you deny transpeoples' gender identity while respecting cispeoples' gender identity. It's minor, but you're still treating them inferior and with disrespect. Some people are against gay marriage without thinking gay people are inferior, they just have a selfish view that gay people shouldn't be allowed to. You can call me disrespectful for not observing your ideas of how everything should be, but so can a nazi. We can both say we don't care about the label thrust upon us. I'm only arguing that your behavior is cissexist, I don't expect you to change your views. If I attack your views, it's for the sake of argument and not because I'm forcing you to accept stuff. If you can object to the use of pronouns by transpeople, I can object to your opinion.
The contributions and the concerns of minorities shouldn't be treated as inferior. Things change. People fight for stuff and get it.

The sky can be pink at one point of the day anyway.

[Rissy]

GA's IRL friend.  Rissy says close friend; GA says not so close.

When did I say I was a close friend?

[Rissy]

For reproductive purposes, the definition is strictly binary and clear-cut. That definition is something I accept, because it conforms quite well to how the human race reproduces, reproduction being the main reason to why we are here.

So you're saying there is a reason why humans are here?

[Rissy]

If you think that is disrespectful then the same will apply equally to you.

You'll have to explain that one to me.

It's a fair argument. You want him to respect your view, but at the same time, you're disrespecting his view. The world is full of conflicting views. All you can do is debate his arguments, which probably won't change his view. You can't make him do anything. I'm here because I like the discussion, even though no one really likes me  .

[Osensitive1]

even though no one really likes me  .

Liking people takes time for some. Don't dislike you, if that counts for anything.

[renaeden]

even though no one really likes me  .

Liking people takes time for some. Don't dislike you, if that counts for anything.

Yeah, don't really know you yet.

[Rissy]

That wasn't self pity, that was just playful mock crying. People are free to dislike me, but I hope they learn to love me.  

[Al Swearegen]

If anyone was trolling it was your good friend Kayleigh. My reply fitted the context beautifully I think and I think that the only one who thinks different is you.

  1. n.
      an ugly person; a grouchy person. :  Gee, that dame is a real troll. What's her problem?
   2. n.
      an internet user who sends inflammatory or provocative messages designed to elicit negative responses or start a flame-war. (As a fisherman trolls for an unsuspecting fish.) :  Don't answer those silly messages. Some troll is just looking for an argument.
   3. n.
      a message sent by a troll (sense 2). :  Every time I get a troll, I just delete it.

Dictionary of American Slang and Colloquial Expressions by Richard A. Spears.Fourth Edition.
Copyright 2007. Published by McGraw Hill.

You both can be said to be trolling. But Kayleigh was ranting and preaching. Your 'fuck off Kayleigh' replies were made to upset her into leaving. You are free to disagree with my use of the word, but it is a fair use of the word.

Both could be said? Not at all. You know what is strange? You were inferring that which came after the "Fuck off Kayleigh" replies was trolling and quoted it and had me back my claim on it and now you move the boundaries to the "fuck off Kayleigh replies" themselves. Is that you argument "style"? if on a pitiful point try to change the goalposts or the boundaries and assert new rules? Were someone to try to do that in any game there would be a word for that kind of playing.

That said....let's look at this NEW argument and humour you.

2. n.
      an internet user who sends inflammatory or provocative messages designed to elicit negative responses or start a flame-war. (As a fisherman trolls for an unsuspecting fish.) :  Don't answer those silly messages. Some troll is just looking for an argument.

Does this equate under any reading to a member of a forum coming in railing against all the membership falsely and emotively as being transphobic and insulting their forum, and preaching how they must behave with them.....kinda huh? OK that is GA.

Next

Is a response from the forum at large and by as large being faced, with this non-contributing, inflammatory poster, in telling him to fuck off and stop their inflammatory remark trolling him or simply reacting and defending against the bigoted, self-righteous blowhard?  If that is what they and i am doing then no your definition is not trolling. Even under the loosest definition the "provocative messages designed to elicit negative responses or start a flame-war" would at best become ""provocative messages designed to elicit a pompous buffoon to indeed fuck off and stop clogging up respectable threads with his idiocy"

Now you made what "may" seem like a decent argument in the "If they don't use "the right" pronouns, then they are cissexist. as it is "infraction-worthy. The act of doing do makes them cis-sexist." (Paraphrased)
However under any reasonable scrutiny this falls down doesn't it?
"If they don't use a prescribe set of pronouns =/= they think transgendered people are inferior"
No it simply doesn't mean that at all. People could use pronouns other than what you prescribe and not think any the less of transgendered people, nor think them inferior.
Are those people cis-sexist?

botty-burp is all about cissexual/cisgender priveledge. I'm sure Kayleigh has posted it before but I can't blame you for not wanting to read it. The difference between botty-burp and transphobia is like the difference between heterosexism and homophobia, or maybe sexism and misogyny/misandry. It's generally about pettier things and the difference in how the other side is treated more favourably. Compare it to white priveledge or male priveledge or whatever. If a cisperson has their gender identity respected but a transperson doesn't, they are being treated inferior to a cisperson. Ignorance or apathy isn't an excuse. There are plenty of people don't think black people are inferior to white people, but they still avoid black people and favor white people. If you've ever watched the italian movie Black and White/Bianco e nero, it had a father proclaimed to like black people but in truth only fetishized black females. Actions kind of speak louder than words and thoughts. And it's not like it's an over-all bad trait. But it's offensive to some people. And in calling some people cissexist, I only mean to point out offensive behavior.

"And in calling some people cissexist, I only mean to point out offensive behavior" It really doesn't matter "what you want to do" it is the claims you make that I am calling you on in as much as you call me and others here.

"Compare it to white priveledge or male priveledge or whatever".  OK I looked at you examples to compare

"they still avoid black people and favor white people" We are not avoiding black people or transgender people.

"it had a father proclaimed to like black people but in truth only fetishized black females" We are not fetishising black women or transgender people.

YOU are still not making yourself clear.

Your kind of attitude always interests me.  You insert yourself somewhere to take part in a discussion that has nothing to do with you, and now that you are here you will persist until you have shown everyone the light and changed the world.  I usually only see this behavior coming from evangelical Christians.

Are you here on God's authority to bring light to the wicked and save the sinners?

Are you here out of a duty to humanity to make sure all the spazzes are shown the proper way of thinking?

Or are you here out of an overblown sense of self-importance, and because you literally cannot conceive of a conversation in which your enlightened viewpoint should not be held at highest center?

I'm pretty sure it's typical human judging, like the type you're casting on me. I'm not trying to make anyone change their views, I'm just using a word on people that describes their behavior. I could make up a word called Spoonrape and say that it perfectly describes what kind of person you are. Basically, I say you're being offensive and then you say 'whatever' and then we continue with our lives.

I'm just critical and like to argue with people about whatever. I don't try to tell people how to live their lives. I don't even have a reason to live, I just do whatever I want.

You are using a word (cis-sexist) that infers a defined moral and valued judgement and that is that the bearer of such a label (cisexist) views transpeople as inferior. Then you say "I could make up a word called Spoonrape and say that it perfectly describes what kind of person you are.". We are not disagreeing with a word YOU made up are we but rather one in existence used to describe that people that believe transpeople are inferior. You used it and now say "Oh it is just a word" No.
"I'm just using a word on people that describes their behavior" - Sorry this is a cop out. Someone either views people as inferior or they don't. They may be grouchy, mean-spirited, insulting or offensive but that does not mean that they view a community of people (transpeople) as inferior and the word (cis-sexism and its derivative cis-seixist) you have made at people here is defined to mean exactly this.

Try again, and this time please back your shit up. (Oh and keep your spoonrape to yourself.)

I know you aren't arguing with me. It's mostly Swearengen who likes this topic.

If your intention is to stick around until Al stops arguing with you, then   to I2.  I hope you brought extra clothes and something comfortable to sit on.  You aren't ever leaving.  

Ever.

Oh shit yes. You got that right.
IN fact I am in mixed minds. I think Rissy could survive a callout and is not that new. The other thing probably more pressing is it is Rissy's birthday soon. What date, Rissy? I ought to start a birthday thread.  

[Al Swearegen]

Then start backing up your shit.

What do you want backed up? You have to specify which statements you weren't satisfied with?

Where to begin... Read the post I made, the one that sent GA into orbit, and tell me exactly how I am seeing transgendered people as inferior to those who aren't simply because I refuse to allow them to redefine what a woman (in GA's case) or a man is. You might also want to explain how I am being disrespectful by not blindly accepting the pronouns you are attempting to shove down in our throats, just because it makes you feel better but me like telling the sky is pink when it is blue. Following the same logic, tell me why you aren't being disrespectful to me for wanting me to go against the definitions I feel match the world I can observe.

A word of advice: don't choose the puppet line of defence re altering the brain because it will make you look daft.

Of course, Al's been asking you to back up the claims you made re trolling and whatnot, and you haven't been doing any of that either.

Mainly, why would you get to define those pronouns when your ideas are based on those of a very small minority?

Don't tl;dr my posts then. I have backed up claims from from Swearengen, it's up to him to flaw my last attempt and if you want to challenge them, you should critique them yourself.

You still have not backed your shit up,so don't try to make believe that this is a last attempt, and infer you have done it now and other times preceding. You simply have not done so at all yet. If you were trying, you have done a poor job. People must eat you alive IRL.
Poor bastard.

[Callaway]

GA's IRL friend.  Rissy says close friend; GA says not so close.

When did I say I was a close friend?

I thought that you said it earlier in this thread, but I double checked and I was mistaken.  You actually said random IRL friend, not close IRL friend.

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

Okay, everyone, refer to me as an "it" now or I'll bitch at how you're all objectist bigots and try to lecture and shame you into respecting my desired pronoun, instead of providing a reasonable counter-argument to your objections!

That is an example of obvious trolling/fucktardism of course.