And I literally just picked him because he was a recent and public trans person. The whole point being to demonstrate that different contradictory notions get thrown around, but all are discarded whenever they would be inconvenient to the immediate question at hand.c) I haven't said a word about Elliot Page, that was Schadrach.
Definitions are whatever is convenient for current political activism, to be replaced by new definitions in any context where the old definitions inconvenient logical consequences.People are "forced to change their definitions" if their definitions aren't useful or accurate in a given situation.
The only people placing convenience over accuracy are those who would claim to know someone else's identity better than they themselves do.Definitions are whatever is convenient for current political activism, to be replaced by new definitions in any context where the old definitions inconvenient logical consequences.
The very concept of social identities is claiming knowledge of how other people think and feel. That's not limited to gender or sexuality, that's everything, and it can be good or terrible depending on the identity. Like, I can identify as a Republican, and it's very uncontroversial, since that's a chosen identity, it's literally just saying I think like people who think like me. Racial identity is a good illustrator of both sides of the coin: a black person in the US can identify as black because there is a certain amount of shared experience to say "yes, I understand how another black person in the US feels". It becomes very unacceptable for someone without that shared experience to try and identify as black, because a person saying they identify as black is saying "I understand how black people feel", which is a wildly offensive thing to say if you're caucasian. Like, you're pointing out the problem of someone acting like they know another's identity better than they do, but I think the core of that problem is acting like they know someone's thoughts and feelings better than they do, and that's ultimately the same problem with improper use of identity. If someone declares they identify as X while having a totally different experience from people who they are identifying with, while having very different thoughts and feelings from the people they are identifying with, they are basically saying "I know what it feels like to be you better than you do yourself."The only people placing convenience over accuracy are those who would claim to know someone else's identity better than they themselves do.
I can sympathise with it so long as it isn't used to justify gatekeeping prejudices.The very concept of social identities is claiming knowledge of how other people think and feel. That's not limited to gender or sexuality, that's everything, and it can be good or terrible depending on the identity. Like, I can identify as a Republican, and it's very uncontroversial, since that's a chosen identity, it's literally just saying I think like people who think like me. Racial identity is a good illustrator of both sides of the coin: a black person in the US can identify as black because there is a certain amount of shared experience to say "yes, I understand how another black person in the US feels". It becomes very unacceptable for someone without that shared experience to try and identify as black, because a person saying they identify as black is saying "I understand how black people feel", which is a wildly offensive thing to say if you're caucasian. Like, you're pointing out the problem of someone acting like they know another's identity better than they do, but I think the core of that problem is acting like they know someone's thoughts and feelings better than they do, and that's ultimately the same problem with improper use of identity. If someone declares they identify as X while having a totally different experience from people who they are identifying with, while having very different thoughts and feelings from the people they are identifying with, they are basically saying "I know what it feels like to be you better than you do yourself."
This is the endless conflict between transgenderism and certain aspects of feminism. A trans-woman identifying as a woman is implicitly saying "I know what it feels like to be a woman", and while I can't personally tell you what that feels like in any sense, and I'm not going to claim they are wrong, there is a definite subset of the female sex who hear that message and think "no, you don't. Don't pretend you know what it feels like to be me." Which is a sentiment I think you can sympathize with.
I'm really not sure this is as true as you make out. The range of human variety is such that In practice, the experiences of two Republicans or two black people can be incredibly, wildly different, so different that it is almost meaningless to assume commonality bar the very limited fact of voting Republican or being black. Your average rural Texan Republican voter very likely has more in common with his Democratic voting next-door neighbour than a New York Republican.The very concept of social identities is claiming knowledge of how other people think and feel. That's not limited to gender or sexuality, that's everything, and it can be good or terrible depending on the identity. Like, I can identify as a Republican, and it's very uncontroversial, since that's a chosen identity, it's literally just saying I think like people who think like me. Racial identity is a good illustrator of both sides of the coin: a black person in the US can identify as black because there is a certain amount of shared experience to say "yes, I understand how another black person in the US feels". It becomes very unacceptable for someone without that shared experience to try and identify as black, because a person saying they identify as black is saying "I understand how black people feel", which is a wildly offensive thing to say if you're caucasian. Like, you're pointing out the problem of someone acting like they know another's identity better than they do, but I think the core of that problem is acting like they know someone's thoughts and feelings better than they do, and that's ultimately the same problem with improper use of identity. If someone declares they identify as X while having a totally different experience from people who they are identifying with, while having very different thoughts and feelings from the people they are identifying with, they are basically saying "I know what it feels like to be you better than you do yourself."
If I may be more specific, I would focus down on specifically the shared experiences that define the identity. I don't think all black Americans share all the same experiences, and I apologize for leaving open the implication, but I just mean to say that there are a set of shared experiences and feelings that make the shared identity meaningful. Like, everyone shares certain elements of their experience, some things are just the human experience, but sharing those elements with women doesn't let me identify as a woman. It's specific shared elements unique to women that allows "woman" to exist as an identity. I don't know what those elements are, and even a woman trying to define what makes someone a woman is gatekeeping other women, but conversely an individual deciding for themselves what those elements are while lacking that commonality with women is problematic in the same way. "I am part of X group because of Y" and "You're not part of X group because of Y" are both statements that can be correct or can be offensive if they aren't.Two people who share a characteristic (such as the female gender) can have wildly different experiences. They may share certain elements; they may not share many others. Recognising that is all that's required to recognise that trans women are women.
I do prefer what you're saying to the idea of grouping people by identities, but I also understand specific identities exist, and I don't want to dismiss the merit of them in the right circumstances. I don't want to make someone into a stereotype or a trope of their identity, but tropes are a tool for writers to make an audience comfortable in their fiction, identities are a tool by which people can find comfortable interactions with others. To say "we share this experience" is, I think, a generally positive interaction.I'm really not sure this is as true as you make out. The range of human variety is such that In practice, the experiences of two Republicans or two black people can be incredibly, wildly different, so different that it is almost meaningless to assume commonality bar the very limited fact of voting Republican or being black. Your average rural Texan Republican voter very likely has more in common with his Democratic voting next-door neighbour than a New York Republican.
I mean, a RINO is a Republican on paper, which is not the same as identifying with Republicans. I know that's an odd sentence, but it's perfectly common to have someone who does something like register as a Republican but not claim to identify with other Republicans, and that's just sort of a consequence of a two-party system.All Republicans really need is a shared idea of voting Republican, despite all their other potential differences. But then, I can't help but notice that lots of Republicans disavow other Republicans (e.g. "RINOs") - so gatekeeping is I think a much wider phenomenon than you suggest.
How many of those people then run for public office as Republicans, win elections as Republicans, fundraise for Republicans, then hold office as Republicans for years until they're outed as not being real Republicans because they decided not to be universally shitty towards out groups?I mean, a RINO is a Republican on paper, which is not the same as identifying with Republicans. I know that's an odd sentence, but it's perfectly common to have someone who does something like register as a Republican but not claim to identify with other Republicans, and that's just sort of a consequence of a two-party system.
The accusation of RINO is clearly levelled at established Republicans, even to the levels of the US Senate, who have devoted substantial decades of their life to the party but fail an internal "purity test" of other members. It is more pronounced in two party systems, but exists in more diverse multi-party systems because at some point a party still has to represent allied stances, even if the existence of additional parties means fewer have to settle for a weak fit.I mean, a RINO is a Republican on paper, which is not the same as identifying with Republicans. I know that's an odd sentence, but it's perfectly common to have someone who does something like register as a Republican but not claim to identify with other Republicans, and that's just sort of a consequence of a two-party system.
Well yes, bar perhaps the most extreme of loners, everyone has some yearning to get along, feel a sense of community. It is mostly positive, except for the fact the comforting warmth of inclusivity can stop at the boundary of the group, and promptly to turn into vicious exclusivity. Nor can that disguise the fact some (all?) identities exist with schism; the commonality is challenged between those who share it. Heresy, as we might call it - and as we have all seen, often a heretic can be tolerated less than a total outsider.identities are a tool by which people can find comfortable interactions with others. To say "we share this experience" is, I think, a generally positive interaction.
Nobody is having a problem with people just perceiving them as something. People make mistakes, and we all unavoidably make assumptions based on appearances.
The problem arises once you know how they identify, if you then continue to insist that your own opinion on their gender is more important than theirs.
People are "forced to change their definitions" if their definitions aren't useful or accurate in a given situation. Learning things isn't rude.
What a load of crap. It is very much possible to perceive something incorrectly and happens every day. The world was here first, dude, you don't get to dictate terms to it.I like how you worded that, because yes, the issue here is that people continue to perceive them that way even when given that information, and to acquiesce to that is to in effect lie to yourself about your perception and to that person about the impression they give others. The rude thing is to just call people's perceptions wrong when in fact they are by definition right. Like how you don't own other people's gender identities, you don't own other people's perceptions either, and you can't force them to perceive you how you want when that clashes with other aspects about you that outweigh your feelings and cause you to come off one way instead of another.
Bollocks. It's to recognise that your perception or the "impression" you think they make doesn't mean squat as far as someone else's identity is concerned. Perception + impression =/= identity.I like how you worded that, because yes, the issue here is that people continue to perceive them that way even when given that information, and to acquiesce to that is to in effect lie to yourself about your perception and to that person about the impression they give others.
Someone's "perception" is not by definition right. If I think I see a star, then later find out that a satellite was giving off that light, then my "perception" wasn't correct.The rude thing is to just call people's perceptions wrong when in fact they are by definition right. Like how you don't own other people's gender identities, you don't own other people's perceptions either, and you can't force them to perceive you how you want when that clashes with other aspects about you that outweigh your feelings and cause you to come off one way instead of another.
I'm not the one dictating a bunch of new genders into existence though when in the world we can observe all sorts of life forms have mainly just 2 of them.What a load of crap. It is very much possible to perceive something incorrectly and happens every day. The world was here first, dude, you don't get to dictate terms to it.
The astronomer gives you a telescope and shows you the science behind how it works and lets you look at the stars, he doesn't just say he feels one way and we have to respect him or we're being rude to astronomy. In fact, the astronomer doesn't give a fuck if we don't believe him because he's secure in the knowledge that he's right. He doesn't get offended that some people still think the earth is flat and the moon is made out of cheese.Someone's "perception" is not by definition right. If I think I see a star, then later find out that a satellite was giving off that light, then my "perception" wasn't correct.
You're insisting that the satellite is a star nonetheless because that's what you perceived, and that it's inexplicably rude of the astronomer to tell you otherwise.
Who is? Certainly no one in this thread. And there are dozens of cultures that have had more than 2 gender identities for millennia. Seriously, how have you never heard of 2-spirits at the very least?I'm not the one dictating a bunch of new genders into existence
You're thinking of biological sex again. The fact that you refuse to accept that gender and sex are not interchangeable terms in a biological context is your own personal failure of intellect, imagination and empathy.though when in the world we can observe all sorts of life forms have mainly just 2 of them.
Because I'm not an asshole, I take trans people at their word. It's not difficult to separate who is trans from someone who's just acting in bad faith.And are we supposed to believe people's perceptions (including their self-perception of their own gender) or are we not supposed to?
No you're not, or this conversation never would have happened.Like, I'm fine with letting something I don't believe is true to pass
This conversation is in response to people not being let pass to identify as super straight, which is the thing I am referencing. If you want others to believe your perceptions you first have to lead by example and believe theirs. And that is even more pronounced when you're someone who has known first hand the ills of not being believed. You should be even more for believing them.Who is? Certainly no one in this thread. And there are dozens of cultures that have had more than 2 gender identities for millennia. Seriously, how have you never heard of 2-spirits at the very least?
You're thinking of biological sex again. The fact that you refuse to accept that gender and sex are not interchangeable terms in a biological context is your own personal failure of intellect, imagination and empathy.
Because I'm not an asshole, I take trans people at their word. It's not difficult to separate who is trans from someone who's just acting in bad faith.
No you're not, or this conversation never would have happened.
Unlike you, I can judge when people are acting in bad faith.This conversation is in response to people not being let pass to identify as super straight, which is the thing I am referencing. If you want others to believe your perceptions you first have to lead by example and believe theirs. And that is even more pronounced when you're someone who has known first hand the ills of not being believed. You should be even more for believing them.
No, you really don't. And everything following demonstrates that. At this point, you're just being difficult for the sake of it.And no I get the triad of gender sex and attraction and how they can all be mismatched in a person,
Lol, no, an astronomer is a professional. It's not his job to give you all the tools to figure it out and then just leave it up to you whether it's a satellite or a star.The astronomer gives you a telescope and shows you the science behind how it works and lets you look at the stars, he doesn't just say he feels one way and we have to respect him or we're being rude to astronomy. In fact, the astronomer doesn't give a fuck if we don't believe him because he's secure in the knowledge that he's right. He doesn't get offended that some people still think the earth is flat and the moon is made out of cheese.
This is a confused mess of a point. If someone has perceived something inaccurately, their perception was... inaccurate.And you're really not getting what I mean. People's perceptions are right in the sense that it is how they take you in, whether THAT is accurate is a different subject, but the fact is they take you in thusly and you can't change that. Asking people to believe you over their lying eyes is not the way to go about it.
Is Rachel Dolezal black? She identifies as black. She claims that she feels like she is black. If she's not black, why isn't she black?Trans women are women because they feel they are women. That's it, that's the end of that sentence.
The Democrat version of this would be from my state. Joe Manchin. He runs for office as a Democrat, wins elections as a Democrat, fundraises as a Democrat, held office as a Democrat for years and yet it's not hard to find Democrats willing to declare him not a real Democrat.How many of those people then run for public office as Republicans, win elections as Republicans, fundraise for Republicans, then hold office as Republicans for years until they're outed as not being real Republicans because they decided not to be universally shitty towards out groups?
Your argument hinges on your own inability to differentiate who is being earnest from who is being a twat. Do you really want to argue that you're that dense?Is Rachel Dolezal black? She identifies as black. She claims that she feels like she is black. If she's not black, why isn't she black?
What about "plural" people? If you feel that you are 3 or 4 different people then that is definitely who you are and any attempt to treat that as a mental disorder or something requiring treatment is monstrous, right?
What identity labels am I if I declare I am, what ones have to have some connection to something else, and is it ever right to challenge or medicalize the labels one gives themselves?
That's just a dodge.Your argument hinges on your own inability to differentiate who is being earnest from who is being a twat. Do you really want to argue that you're that dense?