JeffreyDahmer said:
[...]if i can't tell WTF you are i'll refer to you as "it".

[quotes]

"Grab it by the front hole" is the correct term.

First one is rude, second one is deliberately dehumanizing. Don't use the word "it" to describe transgender people, or any people/person.

CCoyote said:
I don't think asking for people to be conscious of something and respect it equates to a hammer, does it?

It does when the response is so frequently brutal and angry as it is nowadays. It either makes people just annoyed with the issue or switch sides.

For example, even as a dude I used to consider myself a feminist. Now I really don't give a shit one way or the other after all that has happened.

And I have seen similar thinking in the last few years lol

Nowadays we use the word "You" in both plural and singular, seems like the same will happen to the word "They". When you say "You", it is often understood that you are talking to an individual, but may vary with context. When you say "You all", you are talking to a group. Maybe words will merge in the future. Yəll know language is always changing.

@savageorange I think we have some different definitions of respect, and honestly, that sounds like a really deep, philosophical, and pretty convoluted way of redefining what respect means. I get it, though. We're just talking about two different levels of the same word, I think. @UnitedGamers same thing. In my experience, showing good manners to someone is a form of respect. So is what you're talking about. They're just two widely disparate degrees of the word.

@CamKitty what you're talking about is not consciousness. It's easy to get jaded. I hear you.

I think UnitedGamers and I are probably similarly motivated by seeing people using 'respect' in a vague and manipulative way, and as a result wanting to use definitions which are less open to abuse, and/or more specific terms (like 'good manners'). Maybe being a bit too reactive to potential vagaries, too.

CCoyote said:
@savageorange I think we have some different definitions of respect, and honestly, that sounds like a really deep, philosophical, and pretty convoluted way of redefining what respect means. I get it, though. We're just talking about two different levels of the same word, I think. @UnitedGamers same thing. In my experience, showing good manners to someone is a form of respect. So is what you're talking about. They're just two widely disparate degrees of the word.

@CamKitty what you're talking about is not consciousness. It's easy to get jaded. I hear you.

I dunno if it's even jaded. I guess it is. You get told you are awful for not going to the extreme on things enough and you just stop caring lol

CamKitty said:
I dunno if it's even jaded. I guess it is. You get told you are awful for not going to the extreme on things enough and you just stop caring lol

I've been in a room filled with people of color and felt discriminated against while actually at a diversity conference because I'm a middle-aged, white male, and my diversity isn't visible. (I also identify as a bisexual, queer, atheist, nature worshiper, and sometimes furry-- but one can't see those parts of me; they have to ask.)

It's frustrating when you're doing the best you know how in order to help (feminist in your case), and people spurn you because you don't do things the way they would. And to be fair, you can't know to do what they would do, because you don't know what they know.

I had to ask myself some things. What have they gone through that I haven't? What insight did they have that I literally can never understand because I will never experience what they have? Did I need to listen more? Did my perception of their behavior make the need to work toward equanimity any less real?

Women still aren't equal. And just because one woman or a group of women thought you weren't "extreme" enough, that doesn't mean all women have the same opinion about what's needed to achieve equality. Women aren't a monolithic, single-minded bloc. Neither are people of color, LGBTQ people, atheists, furries, etc.

The ultimate question is whether you think equality matters, and your answer to that ultimately depends on your values, not theirs.

CCoyote said:
The ultimate question is whether you think equality matters, and your answer to that ultimately depends on your values, not theirs.

That's the attitude I see many people take, and is why more people started calling themselves egalitarian, which means exactly that. But to the more extreme sides, if you're not in lock-step with them on every point, you're as much the enemy as everyone else. Prefer the term egalitarian and avoid using the term feminist (even if you don't mind being called one by people who mean it positively)? You're alt-right neo-nazi on their way to being canceled. Think it's not nice to assume women are overly emotional by default and need a man to stablize them? You're a liberal far-left feminist. Think a particular word is not inherently a slur and has useful non-pejorative application (even if only in a historical context)? You're a bigot. Heck, the recent discussion here on the word "Trap" was surprisingly calm compared to how I normally see that kind of ending up.

In regards to "respect", another issue with that is it's not just a single value you can apply to a person. I can respect someone for their artistic skill, for example, but not for their view on furries. Or I can respect someone's view on religion and not their thoughts on porn. But short of some egregious issue, I will default to acting courteous and kind because I don't like to cause people to be upset and I don't like confrontations. Also, in certain situations acting courteous or good-mannered can actually be a sign of disrespect; for instance if two people loathe each other and one acts all nice and proper to the other, but does so to show how much of a "better" person they are, that's quite disrespectful. Acting honestly to yourself and others is a better sign of respect than putting up a dishonest or deceitful facade, even if the former's actions may not be as nice.

millcore said:
First one is rude

Just a tad bit.

second one is deliberately dehumanizing.

That's subjective, from my perspective it can't be dehumanizing.

Don't use the word "it" to describe transgender people, or any people/person.

Don't worry, I would never use "it" to describe any user on this site.

We us = You all
Kind of redundant, much, surely, right, yes?

jeffreydahmer said:
That's subjective, from my perspective it can't be dehumanizing.

Just to be clear, are you saying transgender people aren't human?

ccoyote said:
Just to be clear, are you saying transgender people aren't human?

I didn't say transgenders aren't human, that would get me in trouble.

jeffreydahmer said:
I didn't say transgenders aren't human, that would get me in trouble.

Everything you're saying is using deliberately "othering" language. That's a conscious choice.

Every thing you've said in this thread has been with the express intent of being offensive to at least one person.

And now you're literally saying "transgenders" as if were some sort of other species, and that the only reason you're not "explicitly" saying that they're not human is because it would get you in trouble. For real.

This thread is bad b8 as it is but come on.

These kinds of "you have to totally rewrite your reality and language to accomodate my feelings or face the punishment I appoint myself to decide" ideas are why hate is growing in the world when a couple decades ago it was shrinking. You're not helping anybody get more respect or dignity, you're making yourself a menace and my LGBT friends are the ones who will have to face the consequences when the pendulum swings back.

arrow189 said:
These kinds of "you have to totally rewrite your reality and language to accomodate my feelings or face the punishment I appoint myself to decide" ideas are why hate is growing in the world when a couple decades ago it was shrinking. You're not helping anybody get more respect or dignity, you're making yourself a menace and my LGBT friends are the ones who will have to face the consequences when the pendulum swings back.

I am bisexual and queer. Personally, if I have to face some consequences for standing up for another marginalized group of people, I'm willing. The only way asking for respect is menacing is if someone is absolutely set against giving it. In that situation, we're not the ones who are causing menace.

arrow189 said:
These kinds of "you have to totally rewrite your reality and language to accomodate my feelings or face the punishment I appoint myself to decide" ideas are why hate is growing in the world when a couple decades ago it was shrinking. You're not helping anybody get more respect or dignity, you're making yourself a menace and my LGBT friends are the ones who will have to face the consequences when the pendulum swings back.

As a gay person and a trap, I have to agree. People respect it when you don't enforce your way of thinking on them. Live and let live. I have to distance myself from these types of people on a regular basis. Stop shaming people for perfectly accurate descriptive terms. Especially doctors describing the anatomical sex of a baby before it has any notion or inkling what fucking gender and genitals even are. You cannot police people's inoffensive language, and expect no backlash.

Thanks, I hate it.

fluffy_tail said:
As a gay person and a trap, I have to agree. People respect it when you don't enforce your way of thinking on them. Live and let live. I have to distance myself from these types of people on a regular basis. Stop shaming people for perfectly accurate descriptive terms. Especially doctors describing the anatomical sex of a baby before it has any notion or inkling what fucking gender and genitals even are. You cannot police people's inoffensive language, and expect no backlash.

Also agree, though if I dare mention my identity it would likely be marked as invalid just on the basis of tribalism. And yeah, the overbearing tone policing SUCKS. I always just go on my merry way when people are incapable over getting over the hurdle of inoffensive, objectively-based descriptions.

Is it me, or have those types of people just become too sensitized to function in a real & gritty society?

millcore said:
First one is rude, second one is deliberately dehumanizing. Don't use the word "it" to describe transgender people, or any people/person.

You know, all the people who've berated me in the past for using "he" or "it" didn't change a thing. Then again I still reject the alteration to the DSM regarding gender dysphoria. It's hard-coded into one's genes, we don't get to make that choice maaaan...

On the other hand, the eugenicist would revel in glee that people voluntarily remove themselves from the gene pool. :|

libertarianhorsefukr said:
Thanks, I hate it.

Also agree, though if I dare mention my identity it would likely be marked as invalid just on the basis of tribalism. And yeah, the overbearing tone policing SUCKS. I always just go on my merry way when people are incapable over getting over the hurdle of inoffensive, objectively-based descriptions.

Is it me, or have those types of people just become too sensitized to function in a real & gritty society?

Personally I doubt that they are incapable of getting over it, they are just getting *rewarded* for not getting over it by the media and internet outrage machine.

"It is difficult for a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it".

“Those who claim to be hurt by words must be led to expect nothing as compensation.
Otherwise, once they learn they can get something by claiming to be hurt,
they will go into the business of being offended.”