Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mephisto]

The point is that two wrongs make a right if you're a minority?

The point is if a white guy is arguing why it's so wrong to keep referring to black people with the n-word, maybe a black person should try calling him cracker to see if that helps him understand what it's like. If no other arguments are working then giving a small experience from the same family could be a useful tool in the toolbox. Except that, for some reason I really don't understand, cis seems to work even better than any anti-majority racial or ethnic slur towards this end. Despite having even less power behind the term.

I don't care much about the cis/trans argument - my views can be summed up by "do what you want as long as you're not a jackass" - but this is what pisses me off about modern society. "Oh no, not the n-word!"

I've seen it most recently in the Paula Deen trialfarce. The prosecutor, presumably an adult with an age in the 30-50 range, danced around the subject like a fricking elementary school student. "Did you ever say the n-word? Are you sure you never said the n-word? So, you never said the n-word?" We're adults. Grow the fuck up.

[Willfor]

We're adults. Grow the fuck up.

Yes, we're adults. We need to grow the fuck up and stop using the n-word. It's really not that hard to stop using slurs and disenfranchising language.

[Mephisto]

We're adults. Grow the fuck up.

Yes, we're adults. We need to grow the fuck up and stop using the n-word. It's really not that hard to stop using slurs and disenfranchising language.

That too, but I was more thinking about the prosecutor being afraid to actually use the word in a court of law when the case is specifically about the word being used.

[Wiles]

And honestly, if you view using a trivial injustice to bring attention and understanding to these greater injustices as emotional manipulation then I have no problem with any of that. Call me evil

I agree - it really is trivial, and I'd have a hard time considering being called cisgendered as an injustice at all. However, I think the question (for me at least) is if it would actually bring any attention or understanding.

To those that have negative feeling associated with being called cisgendered I doubt it would engender much empathy because making someone feel bad is a lousy way to look for a positive response. For someone like myself who isn't bothered by being labelled it doesn't really have the desired effect because it doesn't give me a better understanding of what it is like to have a negative label attached to you by someone else.

Listening to someone tell their personal story of how being labelled has hurt them would be far more effective (for me at least). I think positive outreach is always the best approach.

[palsch]

To those that have negative feeling associated with being called cisgendered I doubt it would engender much empathy because making someone feel bad is a lousy way to look for a positive response.

I don't know that you would be looking for a positive response. I don't think you could call actually empathising with someone else's pain or rage is positive. I do think that the utility of such an approach is non-zero. Not optimum, not even all that efficient. Just one more tool in the toolbox that sometimes serves a purpose.

As for the rest, I mostly agree. I just think that the discomfort some people feel from the term cisgendered is interesting and can be useful in some situations. I've maybe made a more emphatic defence of this than I would normally, but that's the internet for you.

[MorleyDev]

I can understand being annoyed if you don't feel the term applies to you, but if your born sex and gender identity are the same, objecting to having that aspect of you referred to as 'being cisgendered' makes no sense... it's literally the definition of the term.

Really that's all these 'labels' boil down to, at their core: terms used to explain aspects of a person, such that it is sufficiently abstracted as to be a shared experience for the subset of the population. Like how chair describes a shared aspect of a subset of furniture. But the labels imply no more about a person's quality or character than chair implies colour...

[Loud Whispers]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I haven't seen anyone cry out for being externally labelled, but rather for the very act of labeling itself.

Then I'll just say that our experiences are very different.

I mean, think about this. When we are talking about non-external labelling we are talking about labels people personally or communally identify with. You are saying that people complain about labels they choose themselves. There are disagreements within groups about labels for those groups, sure, but the vast majority of complaints about labels are when outside groups apply labels that those being referred to don't accept.

Now people complain about other people identifying with labels (hell, that's what you are doing), but I give such complaints far less importance than how a group or person chooses to identify. It's just another form of external groups dictating how people should identify, which is the problem with external labelling in the first place.

Encouraging people to stop basing their identity and treating everyone as separate groups instead of equal individuals is not going to happen if the people acting under these imposed groups reinforce them by accepting them with these labels, and defining their exclusion with more labels.

Different people have different experiences of the world and different needs. Insisting that they shouldn't identify with these differences isn't treating them equally, it's erasing these experiences and needs.

Looking at historical generalizations, seeing the active reduction of man to labels and bringing that into the modern world is not being empathetic, that is earning someone's pity by manipulating their emotions and insecurities. You normalize it, and build in the mind justification for 'good reason' why bad things should continue.

Wait, historic generalizations? That isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about modern labelling of minority groups in both social and legal contexts. The insistence among some people that their outgroup labels for minorities are just fine to use, regardless of how those groups see the label. The practice of lawmakers, medical officials and others defining groups and their needs without input from those groups. These things are hardly historic, even if they are slowly improving.

And honestly, if you view using a trivial injustice to bring attention and understanding to these greater injustices as emotional manipulation then I have no problem with any of that. Call me evil.
Perpetuating this shallow generalization is the basis of discrimination.

To extend the limit of your individuality to your basest attributes is to deny your individuality.

OK, where did I or anyone suggest such a thing? Has anyone ever suggested such a thing?

It is easy to define sexuality, gender and race with words. This is fine. Yet you, and far too many like you then conflate these things with labels, which are immorally used to define a person's very being.

I don't suppose you could clearly define the difference between a morally sound word that describes the shared attributes of a group of people and an immoral label that defines a person's very being for me, could you?

Our experiences are rather different. Where I have been and seen this, people say "stop labeling me." They don't say; "stop labeling me," then label themselves. If you have never met, known or been someone who's used labels to degrade themselves, or have had labels they define their character with used to hurt them, I wouldn't be surprised. Yet you do not need this to have happened to understand and empathize with those who have had it happen, this is no 'trivial injustice,' as you put it.

I don't suppose you could clearly define the difference between a morally sound word that describes the shared attributes of a group of people and an immoral label that defines a person's very being for me, could you?

There are no words that are evil. A useful adjective adds to conversations. Where you are wrong is in that you believe it is necessary to define people with labels, and define them as labelled groups.
The easiest way to demonstrate how this is done is easy. Look at racism; what is it? You look at a characteristic possessed by a race and you make the assumption and generalization that all who constitute that race hold that characteristic.
Jewish for example, is a moderately useful adjective. Not the most important adjective in the English language, yet it still has a meaning. Calling someone Jewish is a far way away from simply calling someone Jew. Or in the more modern Western case, white people as whites and black people as a thousand variations of POC, blacks, negros e.t.c.
If someone is transgender, you would say they are transgender. Likewise, the internet counterpart cisgender. But when you use that descriptive to define someone's very being, you are reducing them to a gender, a sexuality, to differences skin deep. That is what it means to label someone.

And honestly, if you view using a trivial injustice to bring attention and understanding to these greater injustices as emotional manipulation then I have no problem with any of that. Call me evil.

This is no trivial injustice, we are all interdependent on one another. Perpetuating this shallow generalization is the basis of discrimination.

[palsch]

Loud, I know you think badly of me but even so you are reaching quite a long ways to make me look bad.

Yet you do not need this to have happened to understand and empathize with those who have had it happen, this is no 'trivial injustice,' as you put it.

The 'trivial injustice' line was in specific reference to the term cis/cisgendered making some people feel uncomfortable. You seem to be taking it to be talking about labelling people in general and then thinking only of using labelling as stereotyping and dehumanising people. Nothing is further from the truth.

Where you are wrong is in that you believe it is necessary to define people with labels, and define them as labelled groups.

What the fuck did I say to convince you of this? That labels can be useful to groups and individuals for understanding their identities? I'm digging through my posts to try to find anything even close to this and failing, hard.

But when you use that descriptive to define someone's very being, you are reducing them to a gender, a sexuality, to differences skin deep.

And I don't see this happening at all. Neither do I see using a label to describe one aspect of a person's identity as doing this.

This is why I asked for the difference. You see labelling as the inherently negative dehumanisation, always reducing them to that one quality. I see it as saying that a particular label fits a particular person, nothing more. Call it a semantic difference if you want. Hell, I hope it's just a semantic difference that makes you assume I'm advocating dehumanising people into single label stereotypes, because otherwise I'm completely lost at sea here.

[EveryZig]

But when you use that descriptive to define someone's very being, you are reducing them to a gender, a sexuality, to differences skin deep.

And I don't see this happening at all. Neither do I see using a label to describe one aspect of a person's identity as doing this.

This is why I asked for the difference. You see labelling as the inherently negative dehumanisation, always reducing them to that one quality. I see it as saying that a particular label fits a particular person, nothing more. Call it a semantic difference if you want. Hell, I hope it's just a semantic difference that makes you assume I'm advocating dehumanising people into single label stereotypes, because otherwise I'm completely lost at sea here.

I think what Loud Whispers means by 'reducing to one quality' is using a label as a noun rather than an adjective, such as someone talking about 'the gays' rather than 'gay people'. I think I can see noun-labels more dehumanizing in examples like that, but on the other hand there are noun-labels that do not seem to dehumanize in this way (and are really awkward to avoid), such as 'a doctor' versus 'someone who is a doctor'.

[Loud Whispers]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Loud, I know you think badly of me but even so you are reaching quite a long ways to make me look bad.

I ignore the name of the persons I talk to in threads like these excepting for where long sequences of points|arguments appear. There is nothing special to my responses.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Yet you do not need this to have happened to understand and empathize with those who have had it happen, this is no 'trivial injustice,' as you put it.

The 'trivial injustice' line was in specific reference to the term cis/cisgendered making some people feel uncomfortable. You seem to be taking it to be talking about labelling people in general and then thinking only of using labelling as stereotyping and dehumanising people. Nothing is further from the truth.

I understood that you meant emotionally blackmailing insecure people with labels and I stand by my stance. Anyone with a secure identity would be indifferent. Anyone insecure would be hurt just as much as any other feeling human being. They are not animals you shame into following in line.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Where you are wrong is in that you believe it is necessary to define people with labels, and define them as labelled groups.

What the fuck did I say to convince you of this? That labels can be useful to groups and individuals for understanding their identities? I'm digging through my posts to try to find anything even close to this and failing, hard.

See

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Firstly, the idea that labels = bad is pretty much flat wrong. Labels can be useful, if only for helping people to feel like part of a community or as ways to explore their own identity. Especially for marginalised groups labels that they own and define can be very empowering. The problem, again, comes with imposed labels where that power is used by outside groups, often in very controlling ways.

And making people experience such an imposed label is a useful tool for helping others understand that, through admittedly crude methods. Maybe you don't need it, maybe you don't like it, but that doesn't make it useful or harmful overall. It's certainly helpful and useful for some people.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

But when you use that descriptive to define someone's very being, you are reducing them to a gender, a sexuality, to differences skin deep.

And I don't see this happening at all. Neither do I see using a label to describe one aspect of a person's identity as doing this.

This is why I asked for the difference. You see labelling as the inherently negative dehumanisation, always reducing them to that one quality. I see it as saying that a particular label fits a particular person, nothing more. Call it a semantic difference if you want. Hell, I hope it's just a semantic difference that makes you assume I'm advocating dehumanising people into single label stereotypes, because otherwise I'm completely lost at sea here.

You again, keep confusing labeling someone with describing them. You also advocate treating them as groups, not individuals. But that is another side to the same polygon. A label is not an adjective.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I think what Loud Whispers means by 'reducing to one quality' is using a label as a noun rather than an adjective, such as someone talking about 'the gays' rather than 'gay people'. I think I can see noun-labels more dehumanizing in examples like that, but on the other hand there are noun-labels that do not seem to dehumanize in this way (and are really awkward to avoid), such as 'a doctor' versus 'someone who is a doctor'.

This is what I have been saying. Thanks.
Doctor is a noun meaning someone who is qualified to treat the ill, it is not used as someone's identity.

[MorleyDev]

Ultimately it comes down to vagary of language, since obviously rallying against the usage of words that describe a persons trait would be missing the point: We have words to describe things that are.

To use the race example. Saying "white people exist" vs believing "all white people are dirty sinful people", both require the segregation of people into "white" and "not-white", but if it doesn't have any connotations to it beyond that the segregation is a trivial one that does nothing more than describe a basic abstraction.

The problem is the associated weight people needlessly add to the descriptive, they attach inferred roles and behaviours that will inevitably be offensive and inaccurate. Some are even inherently only negative. They presume the term encompasses more than it does.

The problem isn't to say "there are people who are white", but for people to then associate "white" with qualities not covered by "possessing less than a certain amount of melatonin", to allow the term to have any real value beyond the basic, to give it any weight or power to describe and dismiss the whole person, rather than assume it's rightful place as ultimately trivial.