| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So when you said "we don't trust cis people" did you mean -we don't trust cis people when they say they get called that - ? Kind of an important difference. I'd buy the second one, say "oops, gotcha" and moved on
Trans folks are 100% incapable of discriminating against cis people...discrimination is a institutional system that requires us to have social power over you.
Discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit.
*points up at the multiple examples of why you do not read specific sociology/social justice terminology when speaking in mixed company, especially when said mixed company is the speaker*
Not everyone is using your technical vocabulary. You have to accept that.
making things all about you like you are now
cis folks
we don't trust cis peoplewronged they are
us not trust you
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I agree that cis people have, in aggregate, social power over trans people, individual differences may exist. If a trans company owner decides that he will only hire/promote other trans people, that's no less discriminatory than if a cis company owner makes the same decision. It's less problematic on a societal level since an inability to get 1% of jobs is less bad for 9x% of people than an inability to get 99% of jobs by 10-x% of people.
This issue gets complicated and is related to affirmative action. The fictional case I mentioned was deliberately far beyond what affirmative action does in the hopes that this doesn't get into a quagmire on that complicated issue since we have enough complicated issues in this thread.
*points up at the multiple examples of why you do not read specific sociology/social justice terminology when speaking in mixed company, especially when said mixed company is the speaker*
:-) Now that it's not explicitly in the same chain, thanks for the spirited interchange. I always enjoy these discussions, especially in hindsight, when I feel like I can trust that everybody's heart is in the right place. In a less friendly place with someone who I haven't interacted with/read while lurking before I think I would have gotten frustrated with no real upside.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So when you said "we don't trust cis people" did you mean -we don't trust cis people when they say they get called that - ? Kind of an important difference. I'd buy the second one.
Trans folks are 100% incapable of discriminating against cis people...discrimination is a institutional system that requires us to have social power over you.Discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit.
*points up at the multiple examples of why you do not read specific sociology/social justice terminology when speaking in mixed company, especially when said mixed company is the speaker*
Not everyone is using your technical vocabulary. You have to accept that.
making things all about you like you are nowcis folks
we don't trust cis people
wronged they are
us not trust you
BNW, what's your goal here? Is it to force your will on others? Or learn something?
At best, I hear from "I'm willing to learn from others once they agree with me."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
:-) Now that it's not explicitly in the same chain, thanks for the spirited interchange. I always enjoy these discussions, especially in hindsight, when I feel like I can trust that everybody's heart is in the right place. In a less friendly place with someone who I haven't interacted with/read while lurking before I think I would have gotten frustrated with no real upside.
This also would have worked:
You - He can't really be saying...
Other posters: "Yes. Yes he really is saying that. "
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've always read "discrimination" as a more neutral term along the lines of prejudice. I wasn't aware that it had a connotation of social oppression. Although maybe that's difference between discrimination in a legal/social sense and the more general use of the verb discriminate. The point is, though, as Tirisfal points out, that the oppressed talking about how they dislike and distrust oppressor groups doesn't have the same social power as the reverse. Transphobic slurs reinforce the dehumanization of trans people, whereas complaining about cis people may hurt some feelings but ultimately doesn't change the fact that they enjoy basic social rights and privileges that many of them don't even realize they have that trans people don't.
|
making things all about you like you are nowcis folks
we don't trust cis people
wronged they are
us not trust you
Can you imagine trusting everyone you meet and even 10% being really s*@+ty toward you? Like, actively hurtful behavior. (or whatever percentage you prefer)
Would you keep on trusting everyone, or might you get cynical and start giving trust only to people who have proved themselves reliable?
Let's think about other people's perspectives a little before accusing them of discriminating against the majority.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously? "Discriminate" and "prejudice" are "specific sociology/social justice terminology"?
No.
The idea that only the people in power can discriminate is specific sociology/social justice terminology. By the dictionary definition and common usage its not.
This is another example of why the conversation is so hard. I have no idea when I and websters think a word means one thing and someone is going to read it with other implications.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you imagine trusting everyone you meet and even 10% being really s#*$ty toward you? Like, actively hurtful behavior. (or whatever percentage you prefer)
For elementary school that would have cut down on my concussions a lot.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it interesting that I've only heard cis folks use the phrase "cis scum".
We simply say we don't trust cis people, and that gets recentered by cisfeelings about how wronged they are, rather than asking us what it is that makes us not trust you.
Well, yes. Because you are wronging the individual.
When you take any individual who probably has done nothing wrong and blame them for the failings of a group as unspecific as 99+% of the planet that's some pretty serious discrimination. Replace cis with any minority and read it again.
Let me help you with another translation.
When trans people talk about "cis people," they don't mean "literally all cis people." It's a metonymy that references transphobic societal norms and oppressive systems. That's obviously way too much to say every time, so we say "cis people" as a way to refer to that idea through association, because cis people are the ones who constructed and maintain this oppression, consciously or not.
You may be about to point out that not all cis people do that, and let me tell you that maybe there are some cis people who don't. But there are a couple of hiccups with this. First, if we start saying "some cis people" then cis people who think they're not doing anything wrong say to themselves "well, yes, some cis people but not me!" and be on their merry way. By using the metonymy of cis people, it forces those who argue that they're not doing anything bad to reflect and think about whether they should be included with all cis people who do whatever transphobic behavior is being discussed.
Second, everyone does transphobic stuff, and it doesn't make you a bad person. But it's important to recognize when you're doing it, and try not to do it in the future, and listen when trans people point out transphobic behavior. I, as a trans person, do transphobic things. I occasionally misgender myself for goodness' sake.
Of course, I know you've repeatedly objected to this sort of intense self examination. And it can be a difficult process, and it never ends. But if you're not willing to try, then I don't see how you can complain about being lumped in with cis people who do transphobic things in good faith.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure I'm in the privileged category no matter what the metric, but I've never felt the negative connotations that others clearly do when they hear the word. However, I've clearly missed most of the background conversation which makes this an issue (this conversation seems decidedly over-heated, to me).The issue comes into play when someone is using the academic-born, social justice definition of privilege (which is essentially "being able to climb a mountain starting at sea level, versus having to climb out of a chasm to get to sea level just to start climbing the mountain") try's to discuss the topic with someone who has only ever used the common definition of privilege (helicopter tour of the summit and a photo op with the plebs who schlepped up the mountain.)
People take offense at the idea that "privilege" is credited for their hard work, because even though the speaker means "you got to start at sea-level in stead of climbing out of the chasm first," the listener hears, "your lazy ass just rode to the top in a helicopter."
Basically, "privilege" as it is used in the academic sense means, "not starting in the hole," where as in common usage it means, "getting a head start." Functionally they both mean the same thing, but the connotations are vastly different.
Good analogy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously? "Discriminate" and "prejudice" are "specific sociology/social justice terminology"?
Here, lets jump back in history: Back in 1920s Mississippi, is a black man who doesn't trust whites prejudiced, bigoted and/or being discriminatory?
If so, is that in anyway a bad thing? Would he be a better person if he just treated every individual as a individual with no consideration for the other's race?
(Mind you, he'd likely be a dead person, real fast.)
If he hates the whites around him, is he just as bad as the whites who hate the blacks?Now, being a trans person today isn't quite in the same league, but it seems to me the difference is a matter of scale not kind.
hm.
Something to think about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
making things all about you like you are nowcis folks
we don't trust cis people
wronged they are
us not trust you
Can you imagine trusting everyone you meet and even 10% being really s&&#ty toward you? Like, actively hurtful behavior. (or whatever percentage you prefer)
Would you keep on trusting everyone, or might you get cynical and start giving trust only to people who have proved themselves reliable?
Let's think about other people's perspectives a little before accusing them of discriminating against the majority.
for me, it is a matter of when they became cynical, not so much if.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously? "Discriminate" and "prejudice" are "specific sociology/social justice terminology"?
No.
The idea that only the people in power can discriminate is specific sociology/social justice terminology. By the dictionary definition and common usage its not.
This is another example of why the conversation is so hard. I have no idea when I and websters think a word means one thing and someone is going to read it with other implications.
The common dictionary definition of the word "theory" is also quite different from the scientific usage of the word.
The people who write dictionaries are linguists, not sociologists, so they don't include complex, nuanced, field-specific definitions of their words. When talking about prominent social phenomena, it helps to talk about sociological conceptions of things like oppression. These aren't random made up terms that are thrown around to confuse, they've been developed over decades to explain society in a field dedicated to doing so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously? "Discriminate" and "prejudice" are "specific sociology/social justice terminology"?
No.
The idea that only the people in power can discriminate is specific sociology/social justice terminology. By the dictionary definition and common usage its not.
This is another example of why the conversation is so hard. I have no idea when I and websters think a word means one thing and someone is going to read it with other implications.
The common dictionary definition of the word "theory" is also quite different from the scientific usage of the word.
The people who write dictionaries are linguists, not sociologists, so they don't include complex, nuanced, field-specific definitions of their words. When talking about prominent social phenomena, it helps to talk about sociological conceptions of things like oppression. These aren't random made up terms that are thrown around to confuse, they've been developed over decades to explain society in a field dedicated to doing so.
this is why I went into psychology not sociology.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I guess what I'm saying is, there are SJWs who just want to call out people, but there are also plenty that point out when people do crappy things and explain why they're crappy so you don't do them again.
"You're crappy! Here's why!" is exactly a high-handed, holier-than-thou stance to take when you have no actual basis for saying so other than your own opinion.
The other thing I'll say is that I find it pretty hard to take someone seriously if they call arguments they dislike "emotional" and arguments they do like "logical."
You have that exactly 180 backwards, in my case. I point out emotional arguments that lack logical rigor as such, and explain that "I find them unconvincing" for exactly that reason. I call out logical arguments and state that they are more likely to sway me.
It seems to me that the emotion versus logic dichotomy (which is a false dichotomy) is a tool for dismissing people's opinions rather than examining, deconstructing, and/or critiquing them.
It's true that an argument can contain both emotion and logic. It's still the logic that sways me. The emotion doesn't. And you know what they say about opinions and a!$&@&@s.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me that the emotion versus logic dichotomy (which is a false dichotomy) is a tool for dismissing people's opinions rather than examining, deconstructing, and/or critiquing them.It's true that an argument can contain both emotion and logic. It's still the logic that sways me. The emotion doesn't. And you know what they say about opinions and a@#*$!#s.
It's cleaner not to have them, but very unlikely?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These aren't random made up terms that are thrown around to confuse, they've been developed over decades to explain society in a field dedicated to doing so.
I do not trust these fields with any particular insight into the areas they're looking at, precisely for reasons like this conversation. It might be because I'm talking to non experts, but it often seems like words that were meant to be descriptive have become prescriptive, that there is an imagined platonic connection between the words and the events.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's cleaner not to have them, but very unlikely?
It seems to me that the emotion versus logic dichotomy (which is a false dichotomy) is a tool for dismissing people's opinions rather than examining, deconstructing, and/or critiquing them.It's true that an argument can contain both emotion and logic. It's still the logic that sways me. The emotion doesn't. And you know what they say about opinions and a@#*$!#s.
Cute. I'm going to assume you know what he's really going for, though. :-)
As the holder of his opinion, Kirth is entitled to implement his own criteria for what is a better opinion. If your goal is to change his opinion, him telling you that he does not value emotional appeals is a favor. Note that (unless I missed something) he's not saying your opinion is wrong, merely that it's not convincing him to change his. Obviously he thinks his opinion is the best one he knows, because otherwise he would switch to a different one.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
....in the interests of "I gotta see this one" no.
I promise this question is related:
Do you think Pluto should still be considered a planet?
And that's because the scientific consensus among astronomy experts is that it shouldn't be one, right? So you are willing to accept changes in terminology and new information.
But you resist new information about transphobic behavior from the experts in that field, i.e. trans people, sociological knowledge regarding oppression, and the ever lurking Dread SJWs. Presumably because you don't trust or respect these sources, even though they're in the best position to know.
What I'm saying is that your reliance on the dictionary only crops up when you get defensive about terms from people and fields of study you don't like. What I'm saying is that you give long lists of reasons why you don't want to/can't adapt to being more socially conscious, but I think it's mostly just because you don't want to. Am I wrong?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When trans people talk about "cis people," they don't mean "literally all cis people." It's a metonymy that references transphobic societal norms and oppressive systems. That's obviously way too much to say every time, so we say "cis people" as a way to refer to that idea through association, because cis people are the ones who constructed and maintain this oppression, consciously or not.
You may be about to point out that not all cis people do that, and let me tell you that maybe there are some cis people who don't. But there are a couple of hiccups with this. First, if we start saying "some cis people" then cis people who think they're not doing anything wrong say to themselves "well, yes, some cis people but not me!" and be on their merry way. By using the metonymy of cis people, it forces those who argue that they're not doing anything bad to reflect and think about whether they should be included with all cis people who do whatever transphobic behavior is being discussed.
Actually, by making such generalizations, you are making cis people with no specific position on the topic feel unfairly accused of hateful behaviours such as transphobia which makes them far more likely to feel less empathy with trans people (and not more). As in "why should I care about people who insult me casually because of what I am (and cannot help being)" . Aka cis people have feelings too.
So this actually ends up with a result which is the exact opposite of the one you are looking for.
Second, everyone does transphobic stuff, and it doesn't make you a bad person. But it's important to recognize when you're doing it, and try not to do it in the future, and listen when trans people point out transphobic behavior. I, as a trans person, do transphobic things. I occasionally misgender myself for goodness' sake.
Replace "transphobic" with "racist" (if you are white) or "homophobic" (if you are straight) and apply it to yourself. I think you will find the first part rather offensive and far from the truth (at least I believe so). Because I feel very distinctly that doing transphobic stuff (I am cis) or doing homophobic stuff (I am straight) or doing racist stuff (I am white) DOES make me a bad person. And I do not wish to be such a person, which is why I am happy to have it pointed out to me so that I can avoid hurting people. Obviously, this needs the pointing out to be made tactfully so that I can integrate it rather than have an automatic rejection of something that would sound too much like an ad hominem attack.
That said, the second part is perfectly right and what should be observed by all and any sides on such a debate. It is a matter of consideration / empathy for the other person.
Of course, I know you've repeatedly objected to this sort of intense self examination. And it can be a difficult process, and it never ends. But if you're not willing to try, then I don't see how you can complain about being lumped in with cis people who do transphobic things in good faith.
I think I do not understand that specific point. If that means that people who do not agree completely with you are obviously in the wrong, I do not find it a strong argument at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And that's because the scientific consensus among astronomy experts is that it shouldn't be one, right? So you are willing to accept changes in terminology and new information.
Yes, but the enormous differences are that
1) I am not making a moral judgement about people over whether they still consider pluto a planet. I am not even going to make an intellectual judgement about the person if they say pluto is a planet.
2) The change was prompted by new data: There's a cloud out there of similarly sized objects and if we call pluto a planet we're going to have to memorize a very long list of planets in a few years
3) the data is objective and tied to reality. There really is a big giant chunk of rock out there: and it has friends. A LOT of friends. We discovered something new about physical reality , its not a change in winds of society and culture.
But you resist new information about transphobic behavior from the experts in that field, i.e. trans people, sociological knowledge regarding oppression, and the ever lurking Dread SJWs. Presumably because you don't trust or respect these sources, even though they're in the best position to know.
I don't think that they are, especially when they creep over into the biology department.
What I'm saying is that your reliance on the dictionary only crops up when you get defensive about terms from people and fields of study you don't like.
because i'm not in their field of study . Why do you expect me to talk as if i was? My degrees are in trees. I am speaking colloquial, non technical english and if that isn't clear within 6 seconds of talking to me* half of this thread has been about the trouble the social justice types get into speaking in and reading into peoples statements in their own language instead of the ones people can understand and are using
If I'm talking to someone outside of my field and i factually correct them, its usually about something in reality, not a term as people see it. There is an enormous difference.
*yes fine, its almost english. Kinda. Sorta.
What I'm saying is that you give long lists of reasons why you don't want to/can't adapt to being more socially conscious, but I think it's mostly just because you don't want to. Am I wrong?
Both. I am really bad at remembering social mores that I have been around my entire life. NO amount of practice is going to get me up to your standards. No amount of desire not to hurt someones feelings is going to make me accept your set of counterfactual precepts, which hurt far more people than they help and prevent more effective solutions from being implemented. I am not double checking every single word I use against a non existent sociology dictionary: you know what the words commonly mean, you've been around them your entire life, you can do the translation.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So we're seven pages in. How long did it take before someone said
There IS NO problem with communication, discourse, and social justice, because rule 0 exists. You can just house rule to fix the alleged "problems" with communication, discourse, and social justice, so there are no problems. If you are having trouble, you aren't communicating as intended by the Designers, and you need to break out of the MMO mindset.
After all, we can't have gotten seven pages in to a thread on Paizo.com without SOMEONE saying that thing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No amount of desire not to hurt someones feelings is going to make me accept your set of counterfactual precepts, which hurt far more people than they help and prevent more effective solutions from being implemented.
Just out of curiosity, can you back this claim up?
Opinions don't count as backing something up, by the way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But trans women, especially trans women of color, are murdered at higher rates than any other group of people in the U.S. It's not legal, sure, but the powers that be aren't exactly trying their hardest to stop it.
Not to get pedantic, but once the powers that be successfully do stop it, it moves from the murder column to the assault column. I'd suspect that's what going on there is that prostitution has a high fatality rate to murder, and it's also one of the few professions where being transgendered can increase your earnings potential.
. . .
That's a description, not an endorsement.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am really bad at remembering social mores that I have been around my entire life. NO amount of practice is going to get me up to your standards. No amount of desire not to hurt someones feelings is going to make me accept your set of counterfactual precepts, which hurt far more people than they help and prevent more effective solutions from being implemented. I am not double checking every single word I use against a non existent sociology dictionary: you know what the words commonly mean, you've been around them your entire life, you can do the translation.
This sentiment comes off very much as "It's hard so I don't want to even try." I understand that you have very real frustrations that inform this attitude, but you also have the choice whether or not to think about trans issues or take action to improve the well-being of individuals in your life or greater community.
The trans folk in your community don't have that choice. They deal with these issues whether or not you think about them, and when you dismiss their concerns or choose not to monitor your speech or take steps to change your mental habits you make it even harder for each of them.
I don't know. I don't know you. But, it seems like common decency to me to learn a little about how people want to be treated and make some sort of effort to treat them that way. I know I will fail and forget sometimes, but sometimes I'll remember to look at what pronoun mechaPoet prefers before referring to them and feel a bit better about myself for not misgendering him. I don't expect myself to be perfect, but I do expect myself to try and to learn when I misstep.