Print

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

[Tiruin]

Not arguing on 'why this thread exists' or the purpose and motivation, silly. Just giving a note here, that its very unclear. This vague clarity creates misunderstandings, and misunderstandings are pretty much a foundation of many problems...which the rules are supposed to prevent: problems.

[That Wolf]

I agree with Tiruin.
You seem to let some quoting slide but others offend you.
Thats 'why'

The rules have a few loop holes in them.

[Tack]

Quoting is pretty ingrained into this forum culture, after all- so I'm not entirely sure how well we do in a situation where it's forbidden- social experiment


So when I first came into the gender threads, I was tentatively expressing my personal, "far-right left wing views". Coming here I can see that it's opened up the discussion to both sides of the table thankfully, rather than one side be cowed by social pressure- but after skimming through the last however-many 50-post-pages, It's getting pretty noticeable that the Other side is beginning to be downtrodden.
This forum is primarily left-wing and I've noticed that whilst Vector continues to fight the good fight, Alleecat has seriously lagged under the pressure. Sure, the "you have no right to speak on something you haven't experienced" tag is harsh, but in specific circumstances that's true, especially with LB's constant regurgitation of "fighting words".

But everyone gets the right to ask and share.

The basic idea of what this kind of discussion should achieve is Learning. Those who don't know ask, and those who do know answer. I think most people here (after the distinctions between sex and gender) are on similar sides- really the crux point comes down to a single thing- rights.

Do we think that a minority should have less rights because they take up less of a population share than everyone else?
Do we think that a disability entitles someone to More rights than a person without? If those rights are necessary for them to function in society?
DO WE see non-polar gender, gender confusion, and dis... Whatever; as a disability?
Disability is loosely defined as someone who has a physical or mental handicap which inhibits their actions.
What about social handicaps? The majority has railroaded the genders- not as an act of oppression but in passive, herd movements.
How much extra effort Should the majority give to make the minority live an easier life?
Should it be relative?
How Much Is One Life Worth?

These aren't rhetorical questions, and I'm not gonna say "there's no wrong answers".
As a counterpoint, there is a Lot of right ones, sometimes mutually exclusive.

I've said before, Ethics is not one thing. It's not. It's insanely complicated.
We're an incredibly strange breed of animal which operates as a herd but still is loathe to give up anything for the greater good.

I don't know what point I had, I started writing this an hour ago, but I hope I made it.
Feel free to quote me.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Tack, I have never met anyone with more confusing viewpoints.

EDIT: Which is to say, could you please clarify them? I mean, half of the time you seem very "left-wing", to use your wording, and the other half of the time you seem "right-wing".

EDIT: Damnit, I might as well reply to them.

Everyone gets equal rights, specifically in equal of opportunity situations, not opportunity of outcome.

Disabilities generally make life harder, and while society tends not to impart more rights on a disabled individual, it does do what it can to ease their burden.

No. Fucking Christ man. Non-polar gender is not a disability. If you went up to a person who had  sex change and told them they were disabled you are liable to be beaten up. To take it further, if a teenager, say, is female and identifies as a male it is expressly not ok to categorize them at disabled physically or mentally.

Indeed, that is how disability is defined. So how could it be applied to trasngenders?

There are definitely social handicaps. Although, America is starting to get a little more accepting. It's a little slow from the legal standpoint.

Not that much.

No.

Depends on the life, especially if you're going to cast that one life in to the limelight and highly publicize it.

In order of appearance.

[penguinofhonor]

.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Yeah, Tack. Pick a side. You're either with us or against us.

I hardly care which SIDE he takes. However, some of his point seem contradictory. Although I get the feeling he's mostly very right wing and just hasn't expressed it in full. (Don't take that the wrong way, it seems to be what you're hinting at!)

[penguinofhonor]

.

[Tack]

I've stated myself as conservative left-wing many times. On a left-left forum like this it can come out pretty right-wing, but in terms of society in general I wouldn't see myself that way.
But quantifying politics like that is also a problem, I guess. Who knows.

Looking back on it objectively, I just seem to be backing the underdog.

[Vector]

.

[Orange Wizard]

Re: gender roles

So, some people assume roles are rules rather than guidelines, therefore the guidelines must be scrapped? I don't really follow the logic here.

[TD1]

The above.

Feminists scaring children in Berlin by setting things on fire and running riot over a barby house is rather stupid. If they wanted true equal rights ( in which girls can go to a barby house if they want) they would not do that.

[Bauglir]

I might be bending the rules here, but I said something relevant to this very red herring just last page.

I certainly don't want to deny to a trans woman the option of wearing dresses in order to feel more feminine. The difference in the latter case is that the notion is intimately tied to what she understands to be womanly, instead of what she's told is, and her choices are motivated by her own agency. Moreover, the whole business lacks larger implications for everybody else; there's no need to object to her notion of femininity because it conflicts with your own, for example.

At least, that's my take on it.

Incidentally, I want to ask - have I actually been helping anybody here? I think I've been advocating strongly on the side of trans people to be allowed to be who they understand themselves to be, but I'm starting to wonder if that's what I'm managing to communicate. If there's some way I could do a better job of that, I would love to hear it. Cause if I'm messing up, I should fix it!

[SirQuiamus]

^^^
The distinction between rules and guidelines is only applicable when it's convenient. Guidelines are interpreted as inviolable rules within social groups, and "ought" becomes "must" whenever there's some serious gender-policing to be done.

[Tack]

Barbie house.

Barbies have always been a symbol of unrealistic expectations of femininity, so feminists use them as a strawman for the patriarchy.

That being said, Ken gives off some unrealistic expectations too, and men don't seem to complain (Even though at least he's far more proportionally correct)

[AlleeCat]

Gender roles are treated as a bad thing largely because not everybody fits neatly into their assigned box.

"not everybody" meaning "nobody." I'm pretty sure nobody in the world actually completely fits their gender stereotype (and feels comfortable doing so)