Maybe this has always been in some kind of corner since the 90s and I'm only starting to realize it, but the amount of pseudo-intellectual discourse around race among my generation of Americans seems to have really skyrocketed. I just don't get it.
Link. (http://www.gioandollo.info/5/post/2014/03/on-coalescing-part-1.html)
QuoteCivil rights activist and Sweet Honey in the Rock founder Bernice Johnson Reagan once said about coalitions that if you're comfortable, "you're not really doing no coalescing." I've taken this quote to heart this past week, while processing two great articles about privilege.
The first is a discussion with activists Suey Park and Dr. David Leonard, on the "problem" of white allies in the movements against racism and white supremacy. Leonard offers suggestions as to how white-privileged activists ought to regard and approach racism in society, alongside communities of color, while also accounting for their privilege. Find some choice excerpts below!
I will soon follow up with the second article, about PMC (professional middle class) privilege and building bridges across class differences.
Picture
SP: As you know, the concept of the white anti-racist or white ally has been put into question. Why do you think this is? Are these words oxymorons? What is a better word?
DL: First and foremost, [these terms] presume that struggles against injustice are the responsibility of someone else – those who are subjected to the violence of racism, sexism, homophobia – and that the "allies" are helping or joining forces with those who are naturally on the frontlines. The idea of white allies also reinscribes the idea that whites have a choice as to whether to fight racism, to fight white supremacy. And while this may be true, it turns any agitation into a choice worthy of celebration. At the same time, it turns struggles against racial violence and injustice to a discussion of "what people are" rather than one focused on what people are doing in opposition to white supremacy.
Secondly, the mere fact that we don't talk about Black, Latino, Indigenous or Asian American anti-racists, at least with the same public resonance, reflects this idea: people may see anti-racist struggle as organic and natural within communities of color, which not only embodies this logic but erases the risks, sacrifices and hard work necessary to battle racism. The idea of allies reinscribes this binary, whereupon white allies are seen as doing something different, special, and necessary, furthering the privileging of white action.
Thirdly, I also have a problem with the entire focus on defining white people in these exceptional terms. White, yet anti-racist – these are the ideas that emanate from the labeling. As if participation in struggle or consciousness cancels out whiteness, privilege, and position within America's white supremacist hierarchy. No amount of work cancels out my whiteness, my masculinity, my class status, or my heterosexuality; no amount of activism erases the power and privilege generated because of white supremacy... It's not about choosing the right word, it's about making the commitment to racial justice.
Picture
SP: I often hear that "people of color should not have to educate white folks" [indeed, that's why I started this blog about privilege] and "white folks need to take their cues from people of color" simultaneously. Is this a contradiction?
The presumption here is that white people need/want to be educated about issues of racism, about inequality, or about differences in experience, and that this desire should compel people of color to act. This is all about white desire; it is about white agency and the expectation of Others helping white folk grow, learn, and be better people.
Asking whites engaged in social justice or anti-racist work to "take their cues from people of color" is about accountability and decentering white desire and white needs. It is no longer about what white people need and want but the agency, action, and politics of organizations of color. It is about being accountable and listening as opposed to demanding recognition, ownership or power.
Each is about asking whites to put aside their own needs, desires, and privileged position.
Many white folks, including Tim Wise, say that racism needs to be fought not to "help" people of color, but because all people are hurt by it, including white people. Do you agree that racism hurts white folks?
Whether or not it hurts whites is the wrong place to start. The centering of whiteness, of white humanity, desire, and history, is a core element of white supremacy so our conversations and actions should not and cannot focus on "how racism hurts" white America.
When we talk about white supremacy, we need to focus on the structural violence directed at communities of color – we are talking about issues of life and death, from healthcare to food insecurity, from labor exploitation to systems of mass incarceration. Recognizing intersectionality and varied levels of privilege, racism empowers, privileges, and protects white America.
Do you think that being a white man gives you more agency to do anti-racist work with folks who might not be ready to hear it from people of color?
White supremacy codifies agency, choice, and freedom, so it would be ridiculous to deny its existence within the spaces I occupy as a teacher, a writer, a commentator, and an activist... When I walk into a classroom, I am often seen as more objective, as embodying what many view as an "expert" and a "professor." When I walk on campus, whether wearing a hoodie or argyle sweater, I am seen as non-threatening, as belonging, and as being desirable.
I have a role, to teach. I have a role to challenge racism, to educate those who believe there is equal justice under the law, those who think that racism is a thing of a past, who perpetuate rape culture through jokes and media culture, who think that sports are innocuous rather than a site of racial pedagogy.
Do you have any tips for white folks who are trying to engage in anti-racist work?
It is important to think about one's whiteness and what it means to be white within contemporary society.
It's crucial to push back the urge to make every conversation about "self."
A friend I consider intelligent posted this, but I found it hard to read without giggling a little bit. I find the entire perspective crazy, and more than a little perverse. Whiteness and heterosexuality are treated as something close to Calvinist Total Depravity. It's fucking pathetic.
Here's something related from TNR (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117665/princeton-essay-check-your-privilege-raises-legitimate-gripes)
QuoteMy freshman year in high school, the administration's diversity czars lined my whole class across the gym and read a series of statements, each accompanied by a command to step forward or backward. "If you are white, take two steps forward." "If your parents went to college, take one step forward." "If you are gay, take two steps back." Before long, we were sorted according to our supposed privilege—and I'm pretty sure all of us, from the children of real estate moguls up front to the mostly black financial aid students in the rear, felt awful about where we stood.
That was almost nine years ago, and the incident upset many students and parents. Today, the phrase "check your privilege"—that is, to acknowledge your relative advantage—is commonplace, as is the tallying of privilege. A recent Buzzfeed "How Privileged Are You?" quiz asks readers to check off a hundred statements—from "I am white" to "I consider myself to be physically attractive"—and spits out a score between 0 ("under-privileged") and 100 ("the most privileged"). Last year, Gawker created "The Privilege Tournament," a March Madness–like bracket that included "race" and "gender" regions but also "allergies."
All this has prompted something of an anti-anti-privilege backlash. You'll find no better example of that than Princeton freshman Tal Fortgang's diatribe in The Princeton Tory last month, "Checking My Privilege: Character as the Basis of Privilege."
The essay, which caught The New York Times's attention last week, was Fortgang's response to comments that he should check his privilege because he is a white man. "I actually went and checked the origins of my privileged existence, to empathize with those whose underdog stories I can't possibly comprehend," Fortgang writes. He then recounts his grandparents' persecution during the Holocaust and their hard work in America. People who tell him to check his privilege, he says, are to be blamed for "diminishing everything I have personally accomplished, all the hard work I have done in my life, and for ascribing all the fruit I reap not to the seeds I sow but to some invisible patron saint of white maleness who places it out for me before I even arrive."
What Fortgang misses is that the concept of privilege isn't meant to be about history. It's about the benefits accrued today by members of advantaged classes. When people call Fortgang privileged, they're not referring to his grandparents' escape from the Nazis. They're referring to his status as an affluent white American man who attends one of the top universities in the world. Fortgang may have worked hard to get to Princeton, and he should be proud of that accomplishment, but he did have a head start in the race.
That said, Fortgang's frustration is justified. In liberal spheres of debate—spheres that, as a student at an elite college, Fortgang must be familiar with—privilege can be a sort of scarlet letter. Gawker's tournament may have been intended as comedy, but it was not without insight. "Privilege: so sweet to have," Hamilton Nolan wrote in the introduction. "But even sweeter to not have. Privilege has its benefits, but the lack of privilege confers that sweet, sweet moral superiority." The bracket makes explicit the competitive nature of the today's debate about privilege. Everyone is checking everyone else's privilege, competing to be the least privileged person present—and, thus, the most authoritative on the subject of privilege. Privilege is stigmatized; hardship—or assumed hardship—becomes a badge of honor.
Take, for example, the biographies of the students who run the popular tumblr "Check Your Privilege at the Door." If the blog weren't so self-serious, I'd assume this was parody: "I am mixed race (white and Korean) and a lesbian. I also identify as fat and as an atheist. My privileges include white-passing privilege, cisgender privilege, class privilege and able-bodied privilege. I am an extrovert with low social skills." Nothing about her personality, interests, or achievements—only where she stood in the Internet equivalent of my high school's sorting exercise. Mixed race: one step back. Fat: one step back. Cisgender: two steps forward.
The real problem with the phrase "check your privilege"—aside from the fact that it reduces people to the sum of their characteristics—is that it has become a handicapping device. White male? Then what could you possibly know about racism or sexism? Calling out privilege often isn't intended to make someone consider his advantages in life so much as to dismiss his perspective. But I want to be able to discuss sexism or feminism with men, and I think their opinions are no less worthy or relevant for the fact that they are male. Similarly, anyone should be able to participate in a conversation about racism without being discounted or silenced on account of race.
That's why I find Fortgang's reaction not wholly out of place. Told to check your privilege, it's pretty easy to feel shut out of conversation; an advantage in life might be turned into a disadvantage in debate. "Check your privilege" can come across as an expectation that a person be repentant for sins he has not committed. In its most generous usage, of course, "check your privilege" isn't meant to make anyone feel guilty—only to make them recognize their privileged position. But it has the effect of invoking guilt, in large part because the phrase is so often used ungenerously, as a weapon rather than a gentle reminder. This is partly what outraged Fortgang, who refers to the phrase as a reprimand that "threatens to strike down opinions without regard for their merits, but rather solely on the basis of the person that voiced them." He concludes, "I have checked my privilege. And I apologize for nothing."
This disconnect stems from confusion about what "check your privilege" really means, which results in accusations and defensiveness rather than a reasonable debate about—well, whatever subject the debate was originally about. Who can remember? But the problem isn't just the phrase "check your privilege," or even the concept of privilege. It's rooted in a basic disagreement over the weight of identity in determining a person's role in social discourse. And that's why Fortgang's opponents and supporters will continue to talk past each other.
Partially inspired by a flamewar on my Facebook involving me, Scipy and some richboy, great looking NYU dropout who took it upon himself to argue that I didn't properly respect my racial privilege.
Is this new? Why am I only now recognizing this?
BTW, Scipio, that conversation really, pissed me off. He's fantastic looking and his parents are way wealthier than mine ever were and he wasted all of his looks, brains and money on yay, yet somehow I'm the asshole for not viewing my skin color as a Mark of Cain.
Interesting you caught the Calvinist thing so quickly. Puritanism sure takes weird forms in our country.
I guess while I understand and respect the basic spirit it originates from, it gets pretty ridiculous fast. I think I described it before like going down the rabbit hole. I am not going to describe myself with a long line of descriptors.
Quote"I am mixed race (white and Korean) and a lesbian. I also identify as fat and as an atheist. My privileges include white-passing privilege, cisgender privilege, class privilege and able-bodied privilege. I am an extrovert with low social skills." Nothing about her personality, interests, or achievements
The whole things seems a little dehumanizing. It is sort of like the need to continue adding letters to the LGBT acronym. I saw one that went on for about five more letters and even added A for allies at the end :lol:, I mean fuck why not just say 'everybody but EVIL people'. It does seem like some bizarre effort to sort the saved from the damned. And in the end does all this actually help anybody?
My friend is Irish. Which is weird. You'd expect some perspective on the fluidity of racial resentment from an Irishman.
Many people lack your historical perspective. :lol:
These people drive me nuts. They really do evince an unhealthy preoccupation with purity, and their rhetoric has the effect of alienating everyone who isn't part of a social science department from the struggle for equality.
I've no time for this 'check your privilege' bollocks I see on the American left. I'll go mad if it makes the slightest incursion over here. It also feels like they've only just discovered literary theory.
Also I think trans activists have a really bad habit of driving away people who basically support them.
I cannot help but seeing Christian guilt-culture behind stuff like this.
It's just plain old retardism. The only difference is that in the old days retardism didn't have to be about anything.
You may complain about the movie reviews, but aren't you all really glad I don't have a "blog about privilege"?
Quote from: Ideologue on May 07, 2014, 05:47:20 AM
You may complain about the movie reviews, but aren't you all really glad I don't have a "blog about privilege"?
This.
The 25 years in debt thread is bad enough. :P
Quote from: mongers on May 07, 2014, 06:03:12 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 07, 2014, 05:47:20 AM
You may complain about the movie reviews, but aren't you all really glad I don't have a "blog about privilege"?
This.
The 25 years in debt thread is bad enough. :P
Class and generation matter far more in today's America than race, sex, or sexuality.
BBC also has a piece on Tal Fortgang:
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27287402
QuoteTal Fortgang not sorry for being white and privileged
Princeton University freshman Tal Fortgang has been told repeatedly to "check his privilege" - to be aware of how his socio-economic and cultural background shapes his views - and he's not happy about it.
"The phrase," he writes, "handed down by my moral superiors, descends recklessly, like an Obama-sanctioned drone, and aims laser-like at my pinkish-peach complexion, my maleness and the nerve I displayed in offering an opinion rooted in a personal Weltanschauung."
(Weltanschauung means "worldview". I had to look it up. But then, I didn't go to Princeton.)
In an opinion piece originally carried last month by a conservative Princeton student publication and reprinted on Friday in Time magazine, the 20-year-old condemns those who paint him with the "privileged" label for "diminishing everything I have personally accomplished, all the hard work I have done in my life, and for ascribing all the fruit I reap not to the seeds I sow but to some invisible patron saint of white maleness who places it out for me before I even arrive".
To answer his critics, Fortgang recounts his ancestry, which includes a grandfather who fled Poland after the German invasion in World War Two and a grandmother who was sent to a Nazi concentration camp.
"That's the problem with calling someone out for the 'privilege' which you assume has defined their narrative," he writes. "You don't know what their struggles have been, what they may have gone through to be where they are."
He says he is privileged, but not in the way the liberals think:
It was my privilege that my grandfather was blessed with resolve and an entrepreneurial spirit, and that he was lucky enough to come to the place where he could realise the dream of giving his children a better life than he had.
He says the virtues of "faith and education" passed along from his parents are his privilege.
"It's not a matter of white or black, male or female or any other division which we seek, but a matter of the values we pass along, the legacy we leave, that perpetuates 'privilege'," he concludes. "And there's nothing wrong with that."
Asking him to apologise for it, he asserts, is "insulting".
The right-wing media have been quick to embrace Fortgang and his story. He's appeared on Fox News and been cited by Glenn Beck's the Blaze.
"This guy is going to go far," writes the American Conservative's Rod Dreher. "And should."
On Saturday the New York Times ran a profile of the freshman, saying his essay "touched a nerve".
All of this nerve-touching has rubbed Salon's Kate McDonough the wrong way. She calls Fortgang's piece "a ridiculous baby tantrum".
"Nothing in the essay is a new or shocking expression of white privilege or the astounding sense of entitlement and self-regard shared by white racists," she writes.
A lot of people in the United States also believe that race-blind meritocracy is real and that discussions of privilege and institutional racism are just sore losers being sore, and many of the people who think this way also happen to make our policies or control most of the wealth in this country.
She continues:
It's likely that Fortgang will have the opportunity at Princeton to learn about the racial wealth gap, the legacy of red-lining, the unemployment rate among college educated men of colour versus their white counterparts, the convergence of racism and sexism that leaves women of colour disproportionately impacted by domestic violence, the gender pay gap experienced by black women, the deadly violence faced by black children and the myriad other manifestations of racism in the United States. Basically all of the things that he will never have to experience as an extraordinarily privileged white man.
Being asked to "check your privilege" means "recognising, identifying and challenging the insidious operations of racism", she concludes. "He doesn't want to confront racism and white privilege because those things have - and will continue to - really, really help him out in life."
Fortgang is a good candidate for an "ideological stoning", writes Mediaite's Luke O'Neil.
He says Fortgang "courageously struck out against the oppressive climate of basic cultural awareness and bare minimum human decency that has despoiled college campuses everywhere".
"Like most entitled white guys, upon finding himself on the opposite end of the entire world's fawning approval, he started crying about it," he continues.
O'Neil says that many of the privileged class, if they go back far enough, can find an ancestor who didn't have it so good. Does everyone with a grandparent who faced adversity get a free pass?
"Violet Baudelaire" on the Jezebel Groupthink site explains privilege in terms of a one-legged man running against a two-legged man in a race. Just because the two-legged man trained hard and persevered doesn't mean he didn't have an innate advantage over the one-legged man. Just because one-legged men occasionally win their races doesn't mean they are competing on a level playing field. And having a one-legged grandfather doesn't mean you can claim you don't have "two-legged privilege".
She writes:
Checking your privilege doesn't mean anyone is asking you to say "I only have things because I am part of privileged groups". It does mean someone is asking you to say "By position of a characteristic I was born with, I have been helped, or at least not hurt, more than others without this characteristic". It does not mean anyone wants you to apologize for it; it does mean someone is asking for an acknowledgement of the implications of it, either for how it is impacted where you are now, how it might be skewing your perspective or level of knowledge in discussing a subject, or for how the lack of that same privilege may have made things different for someone else.
Race and privilege have been hot topics of late, with the controversies swirling around Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and basketball team owner Donald Sterling, and last week's Supreme Court decision upholding Michigan's ban on affirmative action in college admissions.
This explains why an Ivy League college freshman and his "no apologies" defence of a colourblind US meritocracy has become a national story.
It's a Weltanschauung conservatives are eager to endorse.
I bet an editor at The Times wouldn't have had to look up the term "Weltanschauung."
The comment I always drop to shut down these things: the goal's equality, not to make yet another different class of Untermenschen.
When the guilty party's unable to respond coherently, I just tell them "helping you see your own [circle one: sexism/racism/classism]. You're welcome."
This "check your privilege" stuff is just nuts, agreed on that. I guess it works, sort of, at some colleges but I have to think it's just pissing many people off and the overbearing of it probably tends to turn them off to real race issues.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 06, 2014, 11:36:29 PM
Maybe this has always been in some kind of corner since the 90s and I'm only starting to realize it, but the amount of pseudo-intellectual discourse around race among my generation of Americans seems to have really skyrocketed. I just don't get it.
I get it. It's because youngsters these days don't have enough work to do and too much spare time. Idle hands are the Devil's play-things. :)
Quote from: KRonn on May 07, 2014, 07:01:02 AM
This "check your privilege" stuff is just nuts, agreed on that. I guess it works, sort of, at some colleges but I have to think it's just pissing many people off and the overbearing of it probably tends to turn them off to real race issues.
Never heard that expression until opening this thread.
I look forward to soon hearing it in the wild over here. <_<
What is really annoying about privilege crusaders--aside from the fact the vast majority of them have great masses of unexamined privilege themselves--is that they use the moral righteousness of their framework to avoid intellectual analysis and often even intellectual honesty. You can't talk about advantages and disadvantages except in the most oblique, tongue-in-cheek ways--if you suggest there are real advantages that arise from being female or homosexual, you get laughed out of town.
That said, when it comes to race, there are overwhelming advantages society gives one for being white--or, more accurately, not black--and the fervor is more appropriate. And "checking" class privilege is probably even more important--though God knows what material difference it actually makes if a rich kid with a Harvard degree concedes that his happy position in life is a result of the genetic lottery or not. Still, the advantages of being male and straight are far more ambiguous, but these aren't topics of discussion, even though they should be.
It doesn't help, admittedly, that those who recognize disadvantages to being male or straight also have a tendency to completely discount the disadvantages of being female or gay, and have the exact same monomaniacal stridency in addition to being basically on the wrong side of history. The entire debate is an intellectual wasteland.
Quote from: mongers on May 07, 2014, 07:05:20 AM
Quote from: KRonn on May 07, 2014, 07:01:02 AM
This "check your privilege" stuff is just nuts, agreed on that. I guess it works, sort of, at some colleges but I have to think it's just pissing many people off and the overbearing of it probably tends to turn them off to real race issues.
Never heard that expression until opening this thread.
I look forward to soon hearing it in the wild over here. <_<
It's been a taple on left-wing forums etc for a coupla years now. It's a great way to avoid engaging in an argument. The negative version of the familiar "As a ....[black person/lesbian/whatever]
Quote from: Ideologue on May 07, 2014, 07:24:08 AM
What is really annoying about privilege crusaders--aside from the fact the vast majority of them have great masses of unexamined privilege themselves--is that they use the moral righteousness of their framework to avoid intellectual analysis and often even intellectual honesty. You can't talk about advantages and disadvantages except in the most oblique, tongue-in-cheek ways--if you suggest there are real advantages that arise from being female or homosexual, you get laughed out of town.
That said, when it comes to race, there are overwhelming advantages society gives one for being white--or, more accurately, not black--and the fervor is more appropriate. And "checking" class privilege is probably even more important--though God knows what material difference it actually makes if a rich kid with a Harvard degree concedes that his happy position in life is a result of the genetic lottery or not. Still, the advantages of being male and straight are far more ambiguous, but these aren't topics of discussion, even though they should be.
It doesn't help, admittedly, that those who recognize disadvantages to being male or straight also have a tendency to completely discount the disadvantages of being female or gay, and have the exact same monomaniacal stridency in addition to being basically on the wrong side of history. The entire debate is an intellectual wasteland.
Agree with all of this. Being encouraged to examine your unconsious biases and prejudices is one thing (and applies to everyone - being underprividged gives you no particualr insight into the truth). Discounting an opinion on the basis of who holds it is just a childish debating tactic.
Speaking of debating:
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/traditional-college-debate-white-privilege/360746/
QuoteOn March 24, 2014 at the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) Championships at Indiana University, two Towson University students, Ameena Ruffin and Korey Johnson, became the first African-American women to win a national college debate tournament, for which the resolution asked whether the U.S. president's war powers should be restricted. Rather than address the resolution straight on, Ruffin and Johnson, along with other teams of African-Americans, attacked its premise. The more pressing issue, they argued, is how the U.S. government is at war with poor black communities.
In the final round, Ruffin and Johnson squared off against Rashid Campbell and George Lee from the University of Oklahoma, two highly accomplished African-American debaters with distinctive dreadlocks and dashikis. Over four hours, the two teams engaged in a heated discussion of concepts like "nigga authenticity" and performed hip-hop and spoken-word poetry in the traditional timed format. At one point during Lee's rebuttal, the clock ran out but he refused to yield the floor. "Fuck the time!" he yelled.
:bleeding:
Quote from: Gups on May 07, 2014, 07:44:08 AM
Discounting an opinion on the basis of who holds it is just a childish debating tactic.
It is also popular on Languish.
Quote from: Tamas on May 07, 2014, 08:23:04 AM
Quote from: Gups on May 07, 2014, 07:44:08 AM
Discounting an opinion on the basis of who holds it is just a childish debating tactic.
It is also popular on Languish.
Well that sort of proves his point doesn't it?
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2014, 08:22:21 AM
QuoteOn March 24, 2014 at the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) Championships at Indiana University, two Towson University students, Ameena Ruffin and Korey Johnson, became the first African-American women to win a national college debate tournament, for which the resolution asked whether the U.S. president’s war powers should be restricted. Rather than address the resolution straight on, Ruffin and Johnson, along with other teams of African-Americans, attacked its premise. The more pressing issue, they argued, is how the U.S. government is at war with poor black communities.
:bleeding:
Huh. Well I guess that explains why political debates always go the useless way they do.
'That is a very interesting question...but I am going to ignore that and just say my prepared statement on another issue.'
I did that cross the line activity for the first time in high school. At one point, a girl stated that she didn't realism that racism still occurred, she thought it was just a historical thing.
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2014, 08:29:06 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2014, 08:22:21 AM
QuoteOn March 24, 2014 at the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) Championships at Indiana University, two Towson University students, Ameena Ruffin and Korey Johnson, became the first African-American women to win a national college debate tournament, for which the resolution asked whether the U.S. president’s war powers should be restricted. Rather than address the resolution straight on, Ruffin and Johnson, along with other teams of African-Americans, attacked its premise. The more pressing issue, they argued, is how the U.S. government is at war with poor black communities.
:bleeding:
Huh. Well I guess that explains why political debates always go the useless way they do.
'That is a very interesting question...but I am going to ignore that and just say my prepared statement on another issue.'
Also her speaking style is: interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFbQftMe6qY
She starts around 1:03:00 but *really* gets going around 1:07:00.
Quote from: garbon on May 07, 2014, 08:30:40 AM
I did that cross the line activity for the first time in high school. At one point, a girl stated that she didn't realism that racism still occurred, she thought it was just a historical thing.
You aren't accusing me of saying this?
Quote from: garbon on May 07, 2014, 08:30:40 AM
I did that cross the line activity for the first time in high school. At one point, a girl stated that she didn't realism that racism still occurred, she thought it was just a historical thing.
Teenagers always think things like this. Or at least I would read something like how corrupt politics was in early 20th century Texas and automatically think 'whew so glad we are so much more enlightened and do not have this problem at all now'. :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 07, 2014, 04:05:53 AM
I've no time for this 'check your privilege' bollocks I see on the American left.
"Check Your Privilege" is Actually Just a Lousy Argument (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://notes.brianmayer.com/check-your-privilege-is-actually-just-a-lousy-argument)
The expected reaction (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7706427) by left-libertarian Hacker News. HN is one of the worst sites I peruse for this "check your privilege" bullshit. We can't have a discussion about the very real issues women face in the tech industry without this self-effacing shit coming up from white dudes. In fact, there was a thread within the past few days where multiple people posted shit like the the blogger bio quote above about their own "privilege".
What Margaret Cho quote? :hmm:
You weren't supposed to see that. <_< :P
Another thing I hate and don't fully understand: 'lean in' <_<
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 07, 2014, 09:36:17 AM
Another thing I hate and don't fully understand: 'lean in' <_<
Can you elaborate? :unsure:
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 07, 2014, 09:36:17 AM
Another thing I hate and don't fully understand: 'lean in' <_<
You need to hang out with Seedy and watch MSNBC. He'll learn ya.
Wasn't that that book about women in business? I seem to remember some grumbling from the Jezebel side of the force when the author made a statement about who she hoped more men in top positions would mentor women last year.
"Check your privilege" (and identity based purity politics in general) is meant to check coalition-building among the subaltern populations, so that they never unite to challenge their exploitation, while giving liberal academics something to write papers about. "Lean in" is meant to reframe one manifestation of that exploitation ("chain yourself to your desk, woman!") as a form of empowerment.
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2014, 09:21:16 AM
What Margaret Cho quote? :hmm:
"Please Raz, put away the gun, I swear I won't make any more films".
She made films? Ugh.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on May 07, 2014, 10:44:59 AM
"Check your privilege" (and identity based purity politics in general) is meant to check coalition-building among the subaltern populations, so that they never unite to challenge their exploitation, while giving liberal academics something to write papers about. "Lean in" is meant to reframe one manifestation of that exploitation ("chain yourself to your desk, woman!") as a form of empowerment.
:)
Quote from: Queequeg on May 07, 2014, 12:05:56 AM
My friend is Irish. Which is weird. You'd expect some perspective on the fluidity of racial resentment from an Irishman.
Is the Irish guy the Red?
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2014, 08:38:44 AM
Also her speaking style is: interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFbQftMe6qY
She starts around 1:03:00 but *really* gets going around 1:07:00.
Well, that was painful.
Quote from: Habbaku on May 07, 2014, 11:16:01 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2014, 08:38:44 AM
Also her speaking style is: interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFbQftMe6qY
She starts around 1:03:00 but *really* gets going around 1:07:00.
Well, that was painful.
Racial politics in High School and College debate are just as fucking stupid as you'd expect them to be.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 07, 2014, 08:49:16 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 07, 2014, 08:30:40 AM
I did that cross the line activity for the first time in high school. At one point, a girl stated that she didn't realism that racism still occurred, she thought it was just a historical thing.
You aren't accusing me of saying this?
Am I known for mincing words? :unsure:
Sorry. After the whole fracas on my FB I am pretty paranoid about any kind of perceived accusations of racism.
Reminds me, I need to get you losers on Facebook.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 07, 2014, 11:36:12 AM
Reminds me, I need to get you losers on Facebook.
Reported.
QuoteQuoteChecking your privilege doesn't mean anyone is asking you to say "I only have things because I am part of privileged groups". It does mean someone is asking you to say "By position of a characteristic I was born with, I have been helped, or at least not hurt, more than others without this characteristic". It does not mean anyone wants you to apologize for it; it does mean someone is asking for an acknowledgement of the implications of it, either for how it is impacted where you are now, how it might be skewing your perspective or level of knowledge in discussing a subject, or for how the lack of that same privilege may have made things different for someone else.
I just want to say, this is perfectly reasonable. And perfectly obvious. I mean sure one is helped by having functioning eyeballs and not being born paralyzed, or having mental problems. One is aided by not having to put up with the crap certain other groups have to put up with. One's family and economic circumstances are probably better than somebody elses'. I mean sure I think everybody could agree with that.
So it is puzzling to me why this idea always seems to go to weird and counterproductive directions. Or at least seems that way to me.
Quote"Like most entitled white guys, upon finding himself on the opposite end of the entire world's fawning approval, he started crying about it," he continues.
O'Neil says that many of the privileged class, if they go back far enough, can find an ancestor who didn't have it so good. Does everyone with a grandparent who faced adversity get a free pass?
I mean complete ad hominem attack, and making presumptions about his life entirely based on his race. And then follow that up by claiming he does not get a free pass. A free pass on what? How do we get to weird places like this?
Quote from: Queequeg on May 07, 2014, 11:32:59 AM
Sorry. After the whole fracas on my FB I am pretty paranoid about any kind of perceived accusations of racism.
You don't have to worry about that here. You can attend a couple of Aryan nation rallies and Derspeiss will be okay with it.
:huh:
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 11:57:02 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on May 07, 2014, 11:32:59 AM
Sorry. After the whole fracas on my FB I am pretty paranoid about any kind of perceived accusations of racism.
You don't have to worry about that here. You can attend a couple of Aryan nation rallies and Derspeiss will be okay with it.
Spicey rages against all who engage in inter-racial marriages.
Quote from: Syt on May 07, 2014, 06:41:56 AM
"The phrase," he writes, "handed down by my moral superiors, descends recklessly, like an Obama-sanctioned drone, and aims laser-like at my pinkish-peach complexion, my maleness and the nerve I displayed in offering an opinion rooted in a personal Weltanschauung."
Okay I've switched sides <_< :bleeding:
It makes you want to punch him in the face, right? Who writes like that?
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2014, 11:57:43 AM
:huh:
Randy Weaver. And you not buying that he really is a racist.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 12:09:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2014, 11:57:43 AM
:huh:
Randy Weaver. And you not buying that he really is a racist.
So when did I say I was a fan of his? I believe I've stated on multiple occasions that he's a kook.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 07, 2014, 12:07:19 PM
It makes you want to punch him in the face, right? Who writes like that?
I'm not sure even Germans should use the word weltanschauung <_<
But you're right. Do sanctioned and aimed drones really descend recklessly?
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 07, 2014, 12:03:20 PM
Quote from: Syt on May 07, 2014, 06:41:56 AM
"The phrase," he writes, "handed down by my moral superiors, descends recklessly, like an Obama-sanctioned drone, and aims laser-like at my pinkish-peach complexion, my maleness and the nerve I displayed in offering an opinion rooted in a personal Weltanschauung."
Okay I've switched sides <_< :bleeding:
His opponents at Princeton are equally pretentious. It is Princeton.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 07, 2014, 12:11:21 PM
But you're right. Do sanctioned and aimed drones really descend recklessly?
I suppose that depends on the style of the operator.
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2014, 11:54:11 AM
Quote"Like most entitled white guys, upon finding himself on the opposite end of the entire world's fawning approval, he started crying about it," he continues.
O'Neil says that many of the privileged class, if they go back far enough, can find an ancestor who didn't have it so good. Does everyone with a grandparent who faced adversity get a free pass?
I mean complete ad hominem attack, and making presumptions about his life entirely based on his race. And then follow that up by claiming he does not get a free pass. A free pass on what? How do we get to weird places like this?
Agreed. Weird places indeed. :hmm:
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 07, 2014, 12:11:21 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 07, 2014, 12:07:19 PM
It makes you want to punch him in the face, right? Who writes like that?
I'm not sure even Germans should use the word weltanschauung <_<
But you're right. Do sanctioned and aimed drones really descend recklessly?
The guy sounds like a total prat.
Quote from: Jacob on May 07, 2014, 12:32:03 PM
The guy sounds like a total prat.
Right. As I said that is almost axiomatic.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 07, 2014, 12:07:19 PM
It makes you want to punch him in the face, right? Who writes like that?
Smarmy rich kids who've done little so far, but who nonetheless expect people to pay rapt attention to their pronouncements.
You know... people who were raised to believe that their insights are profound and their expressions brilliant and have not, as of yet, had any significant experiences to counter that belief.
... I think there may be a more concise way to express that concept, but you get the picture.
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2014, 11:57:43 AM
:huh:
If you stop responding to him, he will accuse me of being you (like he accused me in the "what are you playing now" thread in the game forum of being some dude who ignored him online or something, because, you know, everyone who doesn't respond to razness must be me). :lol:
That should lead to some fun; why don't you try it. :P
Quote from: Jacob on May 07, 2014, 12:36:20 PM
Smarmy rich kids who've done little so far, but who nonetheless expect people to pay rapt attention to their pronouncements.
You know... people who were raised to believe that their insights are profound and their expressions brilliant and have not, as of yet, had any significant experiences to counter that belief.
... I think there may be a more concise way to express that concept, but you get the picture.
In other words, people who had crappy teachers.
I hope he has a work ethic that goes beyond what he needed in high school, because if he got away with writing like that at his school, he is going to find an Ivy league college very hard indeed.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 07, 2014, 12:11:21 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 07, 2014, 12:07:19 PM
It makes you want to punch him in the face, right? Who writes like that?
I'm not sure even Germans should use the word weltanschauung <_<
It's rather neutral in German. Ideology would have a more negative connotation.
Quote from: grumbler on May 07, 2014, 12:39:09 PM
I hope he has a work ethic that goes beyond what he needed in high school, because if he got away with writing like that at his school, he is going to find an Ivy league college very hard indeed.
It was good enough to get him on Fox News wasn't it? Wait....
Quote from: Tamas on May 07, 2014, 08:23:04 AM
Quote from: Gups on May 07, 2014, 07:44:08 AM
Discounting an opinion on the basis of who holds it is just a childish debating tactic.
It is also popular on Languish.
Figures
you would say that...
Childish attacks aside, we make few pretensions at being above childish debating tactics here. And in general, I think we're reasonably aware when we're just trading barbs for the hell of it (most of the time, to varying degrees of childishness) and when we're actually having reasonably intelligent exchanges of opinions and analysis (on occasion).
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 07, 2014, 12:11:21 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 07, 2014, 12:07:19 PM
It makes you want to punch him in the face, right? Who writes like that?
I'm not sure even Germans should use the word weltanschauung <_<
But you're right. Do sanctioned and aimed drones really descend recklessly?
And, I mean, there aren't nearly as many semicolons and dashes as there should be. I'm satisfied with the number of commas.
Quote from: Syt on May 07, 2014, 12:40:36 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 07, 2014, 12:11:21 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 07, 2014, 12:07:19 PM
It makes you want to punch him in the face, right? Who writes like that?
I'm not sure even Germans should use the word weltanschauung <_<
It's rather neutral in German. Ideology would have a more negative connotation.
It was in Calvin and Hobbes once:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg111.imageshack.us%2Fimg111%2F3815%2Fchtj8.jpg&hash=5e8883a6d5ef5e59fc794f6de4c194c4d6b2aed1)
Which is pretty much the most incisive criticism of that line possible. :lol:
How about "I check my privilege regularly, to see how I may best add to it"? :hmm:
You should acknowledge your Canadian privilege.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 07, 2014, 12:51:55 PM
You should acknowledge your Canadian privilege.
Oh but we do. That's why you guys think we're so damn smug all the time. Because we revel in our Canadian privilege.
Quote from: Gups on May 07, 2014, 07:39:09 AM
Quote from: mongers on May 07, 2014, 07:05:20 AM
Quote from: KRonn on May 07, 2014, 07:01:02 AM
This "check your privilege" stuff is just nuts, agreed on that. I guess it works, sort of, at some colleges but I have to think it's just pissing many people off and the overbearing of it probably tends to turn them off to real race issues.
Never heard that expression until opening this thread.
I look forward to soon hearing it in the wild over here. <_<
It's been a taple on left-wing forums etc for a coupla years now. It's a great way to avoid engaging in an argument. The negative version of the familiar "As a ....[black person/lesbian/whatever]
:huh:
Wait, when did Languish stop being a left-wing forum ?
Quote from: mongers on May 07, 2014, 12:55:43 PM:huh:
Wait, when did Languish stop being a left-wing forum ?
It never was.
I haven't checked my Appalachian privilege for a while. Might do that while I'm running out for coffee in a few.
Quote from: Jacob on May 07, 2014, 12:57:30 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 07, 2014, 12:55:43 PM:huh:
Wait, when did Languish stop being a left-wing forum ?
It never was.
Hans disagrees. However Buddha left us for being a right wing American forum though right?
Is that why she hasn't posted in a while? If true, what an asshole. :huh:
Most of you are worse than right wing: you're centrists.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 07, 2014, 01:00:02 PM
Is that why she hasn't posted in a while? If true, what an asshole. :huh:
Most of you are worse than right wing: you're centrists.
We are true believers; but we don't know what we truly believe in. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2014, 12:59:15 PM
Hans disagrees. However Buddha left us for being a right wing American forum though right?
That was Sask. I don't think Buddha ever said while she left, she just drifted off. Personally I think it was the background - sometimes foreground - trans hostility that got expressed here fairly frequently; I imagine that would've gotten pretty tedious pretty quick.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 07, 2014, 01:00:02 PM
Is that why she hasn't posted in a while? If true, what an asshole. :huh:
Most of you are worse than right wing: you're centrists.
I remember that was the explanation she gave on facebook. But I don't want you harboring a deep anger towards Buddha just based on my recollections :P
I used to classify myself as centrist but I seem to be being pulled in a lefterly direction as I get older.
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2014, 12:59:15 PM
However Buddha left us for being a right wing American forum though right?
Really? I know he left a while ago but never knew why. We're still FB friends so she obviously doesn't seem to take offense to my rightwingedness.
I like to think I'm a left leaning libertarian adherent of realpolitik. But that's just, like, my Weltanschauung or something. :P
Quote from: Jacob on May 07, 2014, 01:04:48 PMPersonally I think it was the background - sometimes foreground - trans hostility that got expressed here fairly frequently; I imagine that would've gotten pretty tedious pretty quick.
Seriously? Huh I thought we liked that part of Buddha. People might have just been busting on her.
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2014, 01:07:09 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2014, 12:59:15 PM
However Buddha left us for being a right wing American forum though right?
Really? I know she left a while ago but never knew why. We're still FB friends so she obviously doesn't seem to take offense to my rightwingedness.
Ok I don't want to tar Buddha with this. Maybe it was Sask. Either way though.
I think what characterizes this forum overall is skepticism and sacrasm. Both are somewhat corrosive to deeply-held political, social or religious beliefs, of whatever stripe.
Now I will admit to being a little hostile towards Sask and his views on hygiene.
Quote from: Jacob on May 07, 2014, 01:04:48 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2014, 12:59:15 PM
Hans disagrees. However Buddha left us for being a right wing American forum though right?
That was Sask. I don't think Buddha ever said while she left, she just drifted off. Personally I think it was the background - sometimes foreground - trans hostility that got expressed here fairly frequently; I imagine that would've gotten pretty tedious pretty quick.
I did find the transphobia more than a little off-putting, especially when we had a t-woman on the board. It probably would've been better if we'd had more than one--I think part of the reason we get away with the (usually) joking homophobia is because like half of us are gay. And thanks to Meri and Brazen, we narrowly get away with the misogyny. -_-
Val, I'm not really mad. I just miss Buddha's perspective and I also very much hope I didn't have anything to with it. It's narrowly possible that she might've interpreted some things I said, not directly to her, as transphobia (actually more like agism, really), though I was only talking about practical concerns. :(
I now await in fear of the crappy French translation of "Check your privilege". Past horrors of "perspective de genre" have been used quite liberally for the past decade.
Quote from: Malthus on May 07, 2014, 01:04:14 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 07, 2014, 01:00:02 PM
Is that why she hasn't posted in a while? If true, what an asshole. :huh:
Most of you are worse than right wing: you're centrists.
We are true believers; but we don't know what we truly believe in. ;)
C.R.E.A.M.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 07, 2014, 01:11:42 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 07, 2014, 01:04:48 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2014, 12:59:15 PM
Hans disagrees. However Buddha left us for being a right wing American forum though right?
That was Sask. I don't think Buddha ever said while she left, she just drifted off. Personally I think it was the background - sometimes foreground - trans hostility that got expressed here fairly frequently; I imagine that would've gotten pretty tedious pretty quick.
I did find the transphobia more than a little off-putting, especially when we had a t-woman on the board. It probably would've been better if we'd had more than one--I think part of the reason we get away with the (usually) joking homophobia is because like half of us are gay. And thanks to Meri and Brazen, we narrowly get away with the misogyny. -_-
Val, I'm not really mad. I just miss Buddha's perspective and I also very much hope I didn't have anything to with it. It's narrowly possible that she might've interpreted some things I said, not directly to her, as transphobia (actually more like agism, really), though I was only talking about practical concerns. :(
You guys will never get away with the anti-Semitism though. I'm taking names. :ph34r:
Anti-lawyerism, too. :ph34r: :ph34r:
Quote from: Ideologue on May 07, 2014, 01:11:42 PM
And thanks to Meri and Brazen, we narrowly get away with the misogyny. -_-
That is what you think mr. thinspiration.
Quote from: Malthus on May 07, 2014, 01:09:02 PM
I think what characterizes this forum overall is skepticism and sacrasm. Both are somewhat corrosive to deeply-held political, social or religious beliefs, of whatever stripe.
fagdiz lost his religion. :(
I was going to make an anti-Semitic joke about checking your Jewish privilege just to see if I could get a reaction. :P
Then it made me think about how eventually accruing privilege to a certain group has been used before to stoke hatred of it as a scapegoat, but then I didn't want to make a Nazi comparison to (basically) good-hearted leftists. :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2014, 01:16:03 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 07, 2014, 01:11:42 PM
And thanks to Meri and Brazen, we narrowly get away with the misogyny. -_-
That is what you think mr. thinspiration.
My anti-obesity campaign isn't directed solely at women. :angry: It's also directed at transwomen.
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2014, 01:07:39 PMSeriously? Huh I thought we liked that part of Buddha. People might have just been busting on her.
Just being busted on is rarely that pleasant when you're a representative of a small minority and you're being busted on for those traits, in my observation. Especially when you're the only representative of that minority.
Small and still very discriminated-against minority. "LGBT" is a fucking joke.
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2014, 12:10:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 12:09:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2014, 11:57:43 AM
:huh:
Randy Weaver. And you not buying that he really is a racist.
So when did I say I was a fan of his? I believe I've stated on multiple occasions that he's a kook.
You said you weren't really sure you could buy that he was a racist despite the fact he kept showing up to Aryan Nation rallies. I found that amusing.
Quote from: grumbler on May 07, 2014, 12:36:28 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2014, 11:57:43 AM
:huh:
If you stop responding to him, he will accuse me of being you (like he accused me in the "what are you playing now" thread in the game forum of being some dude who ignored him online or something, because, you know, everyone who doesn't respond to razness must be me). :lol:
That should lead to some fun; why don't you try it. :P
Christ, for someone who ignores me you seem to take a lot of interest in my posts. In fact, I don't think anyone else here is that interested in what I have to say.
Quote from: Jacob on May 07, 2014, 01:22:28 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2014, 01:07:39 PMSeriously? Huh I thought we liked that part of Buddha. People might have just been busting on her.
Just being busted on is rarely that pleasant when you're a representative of a small minority and you're being busted on for those traits, in my observation. Especially when you're the only representative of that minority.
Nothing is more hilarious than making fun of a tiny, generally ridiculed and persecuted minority. You are practically
guaranteed yuks from the majority of slack-jawed yokels. :hmm:
I suppose stuff must have happened since Buddha left the forum, since I don't recall anyone referring to "her" when he was here. :hmm:
Quote from: Jacob on May 07, 2014, 01:22:28 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2014, 01:07:39 PMSeriously? Huh I thought we liked that part of Buddha. People might have just been busting on her.
Just being busted on is rarely that pleasant when you're a representative of a small minority and you're being busted on for those traits, in my observation. Especially when you're the only representative of that minority.
How did we bust her on those traits? It seemed like most of the time Buddha showed up she would be on the left wing on an issue and people would usually get on her for that but...damn.
That sucks I would feel horrible if that was what was going on. Both you and Ide seem to think it was so...fuck. Well I will apologize next time I see her on facebook.
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2014, 01:31:55 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 07, 2014, 01:22:28 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2014, 01:07:39 PMSeriously? Huh I thought we liked that part of Buddha. People might have just been busting on her.
Just being busted on is rarely that pleasant when you're a representative of a small minority and you're being busted on for those traits, in my observation. Especially when you're the only representative of that minority.
How did we bust her on those traits? It seemed like most of the time Buddha showed up she would be on the left wing on an issue and people would usually get on her for that but...damn.
That sucks I would feel horrible if that was what was going on. Both you and Ide seem to think it was so...fuck. Well I will apologize next time I see her on facebook.
Well, to be honest, I remember no mention at all about it when she was here. Maybe I just wasn't paying attention, which is quite possible.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 07, 2014, 01:31:00 PM
I suppose stuff must have happened since Buddha left the forum, since I don't recall anyone referring to "her" when he was here. :hmm:
She changed her name and stuff shortly after she left IIRC.
I don't think it was ever a direct insult, we are mostly (believe it or not) too classy for that. It's been a long time since anyone's ever been directly called a faggot on Languish (well, an actually gay guy anyway -_- ) too. But when the topic came up, I recall that there were reactions which were bound to make someone of the persuasion feel a bit unwanted. :(
Can't remember any specific examples, so take it with a grain of salt, but I don't think I'm making it up. :unsure:
Quote from: Ideologue on May 07, 2014, 01:35:05 PM
I don't think it was ever a direct insult, we are mostly (believe it or not) too classy for that. It's been a long time since anyone's ever been directly called a faggot on Languish (well, an actually gay guy anyway -_- ) too. But when the topic came up, I recall that there were reactions which were bound to make someone of the persuasion feel a bit unwanted. :(
Can't remember any specific examples, so take it with a grain of salt, but I don't think I'm making it up. :unsure:
I remember specific examples, but there isn't really much point in dredging them up now.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 07, 2014, 01:31:00 PM
I suppose stuff must have happened since Buddha left the forum, since I don't recall anyone referring to "her" when he was here. :hmm:
I think he/she made the switch fairly recently. Of course, I never really cared that much.
Quote from: Jacob on May 07, 2014, 01:37:31 PM
I remember specific examples, but there isn't really much point in dredging them up now.
Certainly something to keep in mind if she ever comes back though.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 01:37:52 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 07, 2014, 01:31:00 PM
I suppose stuff must have happened since Buddha left the forum, since I don't recall anyone referring to "her" when he was here. :hmm:
he/she
And then there's that.
Quote from: JacobI remember specific examples, but there isn't really much point in dredging them up now.
Says you. Check your cognitive privilege. :angry:
How else am I suppose to refer to a person over a period of time who makes a shift like that? I'm not entirely sold on the deference for transsexuals thing.
Since this is America, is there any way I can go about purchasing this "privilege"? Is there a privilege store?
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 07, 2014, 01:46:17 PM
Since this is America, is there any way I can go about purchasing this "privilege"? Is there a privilege store?
We call it a "Country club", in Jefferson City.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 01:45:36 PM
How else am I suppose to refer to a person over a period of time who makes a shift like that? I'm not entirely sold on the deference for transsexuals thing.
Simple forgetfulness is one thing, and if someone gets torqued over that they're oversensitive, but why not use the preferred personal pronoun rather than "he/she" stuff? The framework of transsexuality is not the same framework we'd use for DGuller if he just decided to stop being an accountant one day. In theory, Buddha was a woman with gender dysmorphia. Now she's getting better. Just say "she." It costs nothing.
She'll never be able to get rid of those pesky y-chromosomes though.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 07, 2014, 01:49:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 01:45:36 PM
How else am I suppose to refer to a person over a period of time who makes a shift like that? I'm not entirely sold on the deference for transsexuals thing.
Simple forgetfulness is one thing, and if someone gets torqued over that they're oversensitive, but why not use the preferred personal pronoun rather than "he/she" stuff? The framework of transsexuality is not the same framework we'd use for DGuller if he just decided to stop being an accountant one day. In theory, Buddha was a woman with gender dysmorphia. Now she's getting better. Just say "she." It costs nothing.
What if she switches back? Is he then a man who had gender dysmorphia and now is a man again? Or what about someone in mid-transition? Let's say I board a plane and midway through I decide I'm a woman. Do you say "He boarded the plane and she left it?" I find it rather confusing. I also come from a position where I've known (well been locked up with) people who believed they were things they were not like, angels or dogs. I remember a man who believed he was some sort of animal (I think it was a dog), but I never actually thought of him as a dog or referred to him as such. Likewise when he tried to run about naked the staff would stop him, something they wouldn't do to a dog.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 07, 2014, 01:57:35 PM
She'll never be able to get rid of those pesky y-chromosomes though.
Fortunately she only has one.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 01:59:16 PM
What if she switches back? Is he then a man who had gender dysmorphia and now is a man again? Or what about someone in mid-transition?
However they want to be addressed. Not my business to make decisions like that.
Raz, I'm sure Yi has an economic position you disagree with somewhere. You two boys go play.
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2014, 01:59:45 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 07, 2014, 01:57:35 PM
She'll never be able to get rid of those pesky y-chromosomes though.
Fortunately she only has one.
One in every cell.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 01:59:16 PM
What if she switches back? Is he then a man who had gender dysmorphia and now is a man again? Or what about someone in mid-transition? Let's say I board a plane and midway through I decide I'm a woman. Do you say "He boarded the plane and she left it?" I find it rather confusing. I also come from a position where I've known (well been locked up with) people who believed they were things they were not like, angels or dogs. I remember a man who believed he was some sort of animal (I think it was a dog), but I never actually thought of him as a dog or referred to him as such. Likewise when he tried to run about naked the staff would stop him, something they wouldn't do to a dog.
So what you just did there saying that someone who is transgendered is essentially the same as some guy who thought he was a dog.
I expect that sort of thing could get tiresome over time if you are transgendered.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 07, 2014, 02:08:31 PM
One in every cell.
Nothing tons of intersex women don't easily deal with.
Damn ok Jake point taken.
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2014, 01:31:55 PM
How did we bust her on those traits?
You were the one who suggested people may have been busting on her.
Like Ide said upthread, it was less people directly addressing negative stuff at Buddha, and more that stuff ridiculing or otherwise being hostile to transgendered people came up in other contexts.
I mean, in many ways it was just some people being their regular crusty selves in a way that's pretty standard here; only on that topic. I think it could get pretty tedious pretty quickly, however if it applies directly and personally to you and you're the only such person here. Also, Buddha never was that much for the verbal abuse back and forth here altogether.
That said, I don't know if that's why we don't see Buddha around anymore. I'm merely saying that it was something that stood out to me on several occasions, that I didn't know how to address it at the time so I didn't, and that it might have contributed; but I don't know.
I am saying a person who believes they are something that they are physically aren't, is similar to a person who believes they are something they physically aren't. Would you deny someone who believe the are a dog, is a dog?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 02:21:30 PM
I am saying a person who believes they are something that they are physically aren't, is similar to a person who believes they are something they physically aren't. Would you deny someone who believe the are a dog, is a dog?
Maybe they are physically a female in some way? Maybe it is in the brain structure or something? I honestly do not know. Again not my business.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 02:21:30 PM
I am saying a person who believes they are something that they are physically aren't, is similar to a person who believes they are something they physically aren't. Would you deny someone who believe the are a dog, is a dog?
Raz, if you have any transgendered friends or associates you should be aware that that line of reasoning and argument is likely to be seen as demeaning. This may matter to you if you value those relationships.
I have no interest in being the spokesperson for transgender issues here on languish (or elsewhere, for that matter) nor in having this particular debate with you. But I will say that transgendered people, the medical establishment, as well as the general consensus amongst the progressive side of the political spectrum (and possibly outside of it as well) is that there are considerable differences between being transgendered or otherwise fluid on the gender spectrum and thinking you are a dog.
If you are interested in finding out why that is I recommend you look around a bit. It's not that difficult to find resources; you can probably even find people who'll explain it to you in a way that makes sense to you if you don't approach them in a demeaning fashion.
On the other hand, if you are just looking for an internet-standard point and counterpoint argument then, like I said, I'm not interested.
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2014, 02:01:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 01:59:16 PM
What if she switches back? Is he then a man who had gender dysmorphia and now is a man again? Or what about someone in mid-transition?
However they want to be addressed. Not my business to make decisions like that.
Yeah I agree with this and what Ide said. Even if I might still have questions around the phenomena*, it doesn't cost me to refer to someone how they like to be referred.
*As someone who insists they are really male but in a woman's body is counter to my view of the world that gender is sort of arbitrary/mutable and genders are fixed things that one can know to which one fundamentally belongs. If I check that I'm a male on a form it is really more so that I am recognizing a societal label and that I may have some of the behaviors/traits that society associates with men - but not so much that I feel like a male. I'm not even totally sure what it means to feel like a particular gender.
I'm not sure it's quite as clear-cut as that, Raz. Even ignoring the confusion caused by socialization and gender roles, many people experiencing gender dysphoria seem to have neurological structures that are more similar to those found in the opposite biological sex. For some people gender isn't an integral part of identity (if I woke up as a woman tomorrow I imagine I'd be cool just being a lesbian), but for some it is, and I can't really make judgments on something so personal that I haven't experienced, so I think we might as well just acknowledge them as what they want to be.
In a perfect world we'd all be able to switch our sex back and forth at will anyway.
Quote from: garbon on May 07, 2014, 02:35:36 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2014, 02:01:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 01:59:16 PM
What if she switches back? Is he then a man who had gender dysmorphia and now is a man again? Or what about someone in mid-transition?
However they want to be addressed. Not my business to make decisions like that.
Yeah I agree with this and what Ide said. Even if I might still have questions around the phenomena*, it doesn't cost me to refer to someone how they like to be referred.
*As someone who insists they are really male but in a woman's body is counter to my view of the world that gender is sort of arbitrary/mutable and genders are fixed things that one can know to which one fundamentally belongs. If I check that I'm a male on a form it is really more so that I am recognizing a societal label and that I may have some of the behaviors/traits that society associates with men - but not so much that I feel like a male. I'm not even totally sure what it means to feel like a particular gender.
Awful.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 02:21:30 PM
I am saying a person who believes they are something that they are physically aren't, is similar to a person who believes they are something they physically aren't. Would you deny someone who believe the are a dog, is a dog?
It is like what Howard Cosell said when Cassius Clay changed his name to Muhammad Ali: a person has a right to decide how they are addressed.
Presumably that only applies to sincerely held beliefs - if you are being trolled, someone wants to be addressed as "God" or something, there is no reason to go along with it. The issue then turns on whether you think people who believe they are transgendered are trolling. I see no particular reason to believe that, so I feel it is right to extend them the courtesy of referring to them as they would prefer.
Jake, what I know of the mental health establishment is that is quite a bit of debate on the issue (this isn't out of the ordinary, since there is disagreement on even basic things in mental health), and the DSM IV lists these as mental disorder (I don't know about the DSM V). I brought up the dog thing from personal experience. I would like to ask you one last question though, which I believe is at the heart of what I'm getting at. How would you, distinguish between a person who is transgendered and someone who simply has a delusion they are of a different gender?
Anyone can answer this last question. BTW.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 01:26:30 PM
You said you weren't really sure you could buy that he was a racist despite the fact he kept showing up to Aryan Nation rallies. I found that amusing.
Is that the same thing as being okay with him? I've never been okay with him.
Anyway, my impression was that he attended a couple of their meetings to make contacts with them since they more or less faced a common "enemy". Extremist types do this a lot-- this does not necessarily mean a full endorsement of each other's views or agenda. It's obviously bad enough that he didn't have any qualms about attending the meetings.
Randy Weaver may well be a racist-- I don't know and really don't care. He's sufficiently weird and marginalized to where it really doesn't make much difference to me.
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2014, 02:46:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 01:26:30 PM
You said you weren't really sure you could buy that he was a racist despite the fact he kept showing up to Aryan Nation rallies. I found that amusing.
Is that the same thing as being okay with him? I've never been okay with him.
Anyway, my impression was that he attended a couple of their meetings to make contacts with them since they more or less faced a common "enemy". Extremist types do this a lot-- this does not necessarily mean a full endorsement of each other's views or agenda. It's obviously bad enough that he didn't have any qualms about attending the meetings.
Randy Weaver may well be a racist-- I don't know and really don't care. He's sufficiently weird and marginalized to where it really doesn't make much difference to me.
You should be reveling in this thread, everyone's coming down on me for not being progressive here.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on May 07, 2014, 02:38:10 PM
In a perfect world we'd all be able to switch our sex back and forth at will anyway.
We are sort of born with our physical sex, so I presume you mean gender? Or are we looking forward to a future where we can hop from one body to the next?
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2014, 02:54:24 PM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on May 07, 2014, 02:38:10 PM
In a perfect world we'd all be able to switch our sex back and forth at will anyway.
We are sort of born with our physical sex, so I presume you mean gender? Or are we looking forward to a future where we can hop from one body to the next?
I have a few way-stations on that journey in mind for myself ... :hmm:
The latter -- Ian M. Banks-style body craziness. Gotta aim high.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 02:46:11 PM
Jake, what I know of the mental health establishment is that is quite a bit of debate on the issue (this isn't out of the ordinary, since there is disagreement on even basic things in mental health), and the DSM IV lists these as mental disorder (I don't know about the DSM V). I brought up the dog thing from personal experience. I would like to ask you one last question though, which I believe is at the heart of what I'm getting at. How would you, distinguish between a person who is transgendered and someone who simply has a delusion they are of a different gender?
Anyone can answer this last question. BTW.
I guess my answer is that, in terms of answering how they should be addressed, I wouldn't. If they sincerely believe themselves transgendered, it is really unimportant to me whether they are right or suffering from a delusion.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 02:49:12 PM
You should be reveling in this thread, everyone's coming down on me for not being progressive here.
Nah, I'm kind of with you on it. I think Ide was being hypersensitive for jumping your shit for the "he/she" thing, especially since Buddha once identified as a "he" and then later as a "she".
Out of politeness I'd call Buddha a she now since that's what she prefers, but on a high level I'm also skeptical on feeding someone's gender delusions.
Are you going to make me use the word "microaggression" non-ironically? You son of a bitch. :(
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 02:46:11 PM
Jake, what I know of the mental health establishment is that is quite a bit of debate on the issue (this isn't out of the ordinary, since there is disagreement on even basic things in mental health), and the DSM IV lists these as mental disorder (I don't know about the DSM V).
I believe that the change from DSM IV to DSM V is from "disorder" (meaning that being transgendered was considered a disorder to be cured) to "dysphoria" (meaning that whatever negative consequences and unhappiness springing from being transgendered is the problem, not being transgendered).
QuoteHow would you, distinguish between a person who is transgendered and someone who simply has a delusion they are of a different gender?
I wouldn't attempt to, I don't think.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 07, 2014, 02:42:16 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 07, 2014, 02:35:36 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2014, 02:01:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 01:59:16 PM
What if she switches back? Is he then a man who had gender dysmorphia and now is a man again? Or what about someone in mid-transition?
However they want to be addressed. Not my business to make decisions like that.
Yeah I agree with this and what Ide said. Even if I might still have questions around the phenomena*, it doesn't cost me to refer to someone how they like to be referred.
*As someone who insists they are really male but in a woman's body is counter to my view of the world that gender is sort of arbitrary/mutable and genders are fixed things that one can know to which one fundamentally belongs. If I check that I'm a male on a form it is really more so that I am recognizing a societal label and that I may have some of the behaviors/traits that society associates with men - but not so much that I feel like a male. I'm not even totally sure what it means to feel like a particular gender.
Awful.
:unsure:
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 02:46:11 PM
How would you, distinguish between a person who is transgendered and someone who simply has a delusion they are of a different gender?
I think the premise of this question is flawed. Why would there be any need to make such a judgment unless of course one started from the proposition that there is something wrong with being transgendered.
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2014, 02:57:59 PM
Nah, I'm kind of with you on it. I think Ide was being hypersensitive for jumping your shit for the "he/she" thing, especially since Buddha once identified as a "he" and then later as a "she".
Well, we were discussing how Buddha could have (but may not have) started to feel unwelcome or that it just wasn't worth the bother to read and post here. What Ide pointed is relevant independent of how hypersensitive Ide may or may not be on the subject.
That said, different people have different thresholds of stuff that bother them. Maybe Buddha wouldn't have given a damn, or maybe she does.
QuoteOut of politeness I'd call Buddha a she now since that's what she prefers, but on a high level I'm also skeptical on feeding someone's gender delusions.
It probably comes across as more polite if you refrain from voicing your skepticism about feeding gender delusions in the same breath :)
Jake, for your latter point I'd agree with you if Buddha were still here.
Well, if you're in the shitty gender.
Which one is that?
Quote from: garbon on May 07, 2014, 03:41:19 PM
Which one is that?
Male. What is this, twenty questions?
Quote from: garbon on May 07, 2014, 03:45:08 PM
What's shitty about that?
Always tripped me up in Latin class.
Feeling awful is a part of the human experience that is not limited to males.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 07, 2014, 03:53:42 PM
Feeling awful is a part of the human experience that is not limited to males.
What Teach said.
Upon reflection I've realized that my Appalachian Privilege is actually a disadvantage. The city of Cincinnati actually considers 'Appalachian' a protected minority :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2014, 03:58:10 PM
Upon reflection I've realized that my Appalachian Privilege is actually a disadvantage. The city of Cincinnati actually considers 'Appalachian' a protected minority :lol:
On the plus side, "Appalachian Privilege" would make a great hillbilly band name. :D
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 02:49:12 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2014, 02:46:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 01:26:30 PM
You said you weren't really sure you could buy that he was a racist despite the fact he kept showing up to Aryan Nation rallies. I found that amusing.
Is that the same thing as being okay with him? I've never been okay with him.
Anyway, my impression was that he attended a couple of their meetings to make contacts with them since they more or less faced a common "enemy". Extremist types do this a lot-- this does not necessarily mean a full endorsement of each other's views or agenda. It's obviously bad enough that he didn't have any qualms about attending the meetings.
Randy Weaver may well be a racist-- I don't know and really don't care. He's sufficiently weird and marginalized to where it really doesn't make much difference to me.
You should be reveling in this thread, everyone's coming down on me for not being progressive here.
Climb down off your cross.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 07, 2014, 03:16:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 02:46:11 PM
How would you, distinguish between a person who is transgendered and someone who simply has a delusion they are of a different gender?
I think the premise of this question is flawed. Why would there be any need to make such a judgment unless of course one started from the proposition that there is something wrong with being transgendered.
Because people are treated differently if they are delusional. If someone were tell you that he was the Son of God, it's going to elicit laughter and pity. If a man were tell you he was a women a lot of people are going to accept that and even call them brave for coming out for who they really are.
Raz, you realize there's a difference between a delusion and gender dysmorphia, right? Someone who believes they are a woman is not under the impression they actually have a vagina, XX chromosomes, or tits. I imagine they're rather acutely aware of the fact.
So how does that disprove a delusion?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 05:57:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 07, 2014, 03:16:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 02:46:11 PM
How would you, distinguish between a person who is transgendered and someone who simply has a delusion they are of a different gender?
I think the premise of this question is flawed. Why would there be any need to make such a judgment unless of course one started from the proposition that there is something wrong with being transgendered.
Because people are treated differently if they are delusional. If someone were tell you that he was the Son of God, it's going to elicit laughter and pity. If a man were tell you he was a women a lot of people are going to accept that and even call them brave for coming out for who they really are.
Correct. The first person is delusional. The second person is not.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 07, 2014, 03:16:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 02:46:11 PM
How would you, distinguish between a person who is transgendered and someone who simply has a delusion they are of a different gender?
I think the premise of this question is flawed. Why would there be any need to make such a judgment unless of course one started from the proposition that there is something wrong with being transgendered.
One reason there may be a need is the fact that being transgendered is a condition that requires extensive medical treatment to cure. I would guess that it would not be ethical to treat a person with such an invasive therapy if they didn't truly suffer from the condition that warrants it.
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2014, 06:17:47 PM
So how does that disprove a delusion?
A delusion is a mistake of fact that is impervious to evidence. For example, you are apparently under the delusion that you read and write English.
Quote from: DGuller on May 07, 2014, 06:25:26 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 07, 2014, 03:16:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 02:46:11 PM
How would you, distinguish between a person who is transgendered and someone who simply has a delusion they are of a different gender?
I think the premise of this question is flawed. Why would there be any need to make such a judgment unless of course one started from the proposition that there is something wrong with being transgendered.
One reason there may be a need is the fact that being transgendered is a condition that requires extensive medical treatment to cure. I would guess that it would not be ethical to treat a person with such an invasive therapy if they didn't truly suffer from the condition that warrants it.
Cure?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 05:57:40 PM
Because people are treated differently if they are delusional. If someone were tell you that he was the Son of God, it's going to elicit laughter and pity. If a man were tell you he was a women a lot of people are going to accept that and even call them brave for coming out for who they really are.
This sounds a lot like you're saying that transgendered people are in fact not transgendered, but rather delusional.
Quote from: Jacob on May 07, 2014, 06:35:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 05:57:40 PM
Because people are treated differently if they are delusional. If someone were tell you that he was the Son of God, it's going to elicit laughter and pity. If a man were tell you he was a women a lot of people are going to accept that and even call them brave for coming out for who they really are.
This sounds a lot like you're saying that transgendered people are in fact not transgendered, but rather delusional.
And if they are are? Does that change the way you think of them?
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 07, 2014, 06:24:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 05:57:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 07, 2014, 03:16:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 02:46:11 PM
How would you, distinguish between a person who is transgendered and someone who simply has a delusion they are of a different gender?
I think the premise of this question is flawed. Why would there be any need to make such a judgment unless of course one started from the proposition that there is something wrong with being transgendered.
Because people are treated differently if they are delusional. If someone were tell you that he was the Son of God, it's going to elicit laughter and pity. If a man were tell you he was a women a lot of people are going to accept that and even call them brave for coming out for who they really are.
Correct. The first person is delusional. The second person is not.
Why would you make this assumption?
Quote from: DGuller on May 07, 2014, 06:25:26 PMOne reason there may be a need is the fact that being transgendered is a condition that requires extensive medical treatment to cure. I would guess that it would not be ethical to treat a person with such an invasive therapy if they didn't truly suffer from the condition that warrants it.
Are you speaking of gender reassignment surgery, hormone therapy, etc? Because I don't believe that's considered "a cure". In fact, using that term sounds similar to how "a cure for homosexuality" would sound.
As I understand it, it's a fairly lengthy process to embark on gender reassignment surgery etc, involving a whole bunch of psychological assessments and therapy before any physical or pharmaceutical steps are taken.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 06:38:28 PMAnd if they are are? Does that change the way you think of them?
I was not responding on the substance of your proposition that transgendered people are delusional. I merely wanted to confirm that that is what you are proposing.
It sounds like you are, and that you really want to have an argument about the validity of that proposition.
Like I said, I'm not interested in having that argument with you.
Quote from: Jacob on May 07, 2014, 12:36:20 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 07, 2014, 12:07:19 PM
It makes you want to punch him in the face, right? Who writes like that?
Smarmy rich kids who've done little so far, but who nonetheless expect people to pay rapt attention to their pronouncements.
You know... people who were raised to believe that their insights are profound and their expressions brilliant and have not, as of yet, had any significant experiences to counter that belief.
... I think there may be a more concise way to express that concept, but you get the picture.
This may have come up in the next few pages, but isn't he making a joke? I mean, if you read Ide's film blog he writes just like that.
Quote from: Jacob on May 07, 2014, 06:47:34 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 07, 2014, 06:25:26 PMOne reason there may be a need is the fact that being transgendered is a condition that requires extensive medical treatment to cure. I would guess that it would not be ethical to treat a person with such an invasive therapy if they didn't truly suffer from the condition that warrants it.
Are you speaking of gender reassignment surgery, hormone therapy, etc? Because I don't believe that's considered "a cure". In fact, using that term sounds similar to how "a cure for homosexuality" would sound.
I dunno. I've never seen the terminology used--and you highlight the reason it ain't--but honestly I think it works. Transsexuality isn't a disease, but I see no reason not to consider gender dysphoria as such (it's already sort of explicit in the name).
QuoteAs I understand it, it's a fairly lengthy process to embark on gender reassignment surgery etc, involving a whole bunch of psychological assessments and therapy before any physical or pharmaceutical steps are taken.
I believe you are correct. However, they're getting far more aggressive about diagnosing it early, which is great, because while something like 80% of cases self-resolve and don't involve what I guess you'd call "true" transsexualism, if you wait and permit the subject to undergo puberty, it's a far more physically complicated process to make the change, and generally a less successful one in terms of passing, attractiveness, and the general psychosocial health associated with that.
(This recapitulates something I said a long time ago, and is what I feel could possibly have hurt Buddha's feelings, since as we all know she made the leap far later in life--though that certainly wasn't my intent. :( )
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2014, 06:56:58 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 07, 2014, 12:36:20 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 07, 2014, 12:07:19 PM
It makes you want to punch him in the face, right? Who writes like that?
Smarmy rich kids who've done little so far, but who nonetheless expect people to pay rapt attention to their pronouncements.
You know... people who were raised to believe that their insights are profound and their expressions brilliant and have not, as of yet, had any significant experiences to counter that belief.
... I think there may be a more concise way to express that concept, but you get the picture.
This may have come up in the next few pages, but isn't he making a joke? I mean, if you read Ide's film blog he writes just like that.
I DO NOT.
Quote from: Jacob on May 07, 2014, 06:47:34 PM
Are you speaking of gender reassignment surgery, hormone therapy, etc?
Of course I am.
QuoteBecause I don't believe that's considered "a cure". In fact, using that term sounds similar to how "a cure for homosexuality" would sound.
Meh. You have a problem: you have a body of the opposite gender. You have a procedure to convert that body to one of your own gender. What the fuck am I supposed to call it, a palliative treatment?
I defy you to find an instance where I use a pompous foreign term unironically instead of a more populist English one if the English one works.
Or to find such a clumsy non sequitur of a simile.
Quote from: DGuller on May 07, 2014, 07:01:20 PM
Meh. You have a problem: you have a body of the opposite gender. You have a procedure to convert that body to one of your own gender. What the fuck am I supposed to call it, a palliative treatment?
I get what you mean now :)
Quote from: DGuller on May 07, 2014, 07:01:20 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 07, 2014, 06:47:34 PM
Are you speaking of gender reassignment surgery, hormone therapy, etc?
Of course I am.
QuoteBecause I don't believe that's considered "a cure". In fact, using that term sounds similar to how "a cure for homosexuality" would sound.
Meh. You have a problem: you have a body of the opposite gender. You have a procedure to convert that body to one of your own gender. What the fuck am I supposed to call it, a palliative treatment?
Apparantly, Raz would call it feeding their delusion.
The troubling part is that I don't think any of us can be certain that he's wrong.
Quote from: Jacob on May 07, 2014, 06:52:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 06:38:28 PMAnd if they are are? Does that change the way you think of them?
I was not responding on the substance of your proposition that transgendered people are delusional. I merely wanted to confirm that that is what you are proposing.
It sounds like you are, and that you really want to have an argument about the validity of that proposition.
Like I said, I'm not interested in having that argument with you.
If you wish. I suppose I am already damned.
Quote from: Jacob on May 07, 2014, 07:23:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 07, 2014, 07:01:20 PM
Meh. You have a problem: you have a body of the opposite gender. You have a procedure to convert that body to one of your own gender. What the fuck am I supposed to call it, a palliative treatment?
I get what you mean now :)
Yeah which I think then addresses CC's original statement that there is a "problem" being addressed - though the problem isn't the sort of one that Raz is suggesting.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 06:45:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 07, 2014, 06:24:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 05:57:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 07, 2014, 03:16:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2014, 02:46:11 PM
How would you, distinguish between a person who is transgendered and someone who simply has a delusion they are of a different gender?
I think the premise of this question is flawed. Why would there be any need to make such a judgment unless of course one started from the proposition that there is something wrong with being transgendered.
Because people are treated differently if they are delusional. If someone were tell you that he was the Son of God, it's going to elicit laughter and pity. If a man were tell you he was a women a lot of people are going to accept that and even call them brave for coming out for who they really are.
Correct. The first person is delusional. The second person is not.
Why would you make this assumption?
Because there is no God
Quote from: garbon on May 07, 2014, 09:17:00 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 07, 2014, 07:23:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 07, 2014, 07:01:20 PM
Meh. You have a problem: you have a body of the opposite gender. You have a procedure to convert that body to one of your own gender. What the fuck am I supposed to call it, a palliative treatment?
I get what you mean now :)
Yeah which I think then addresses CC's original statement that there is a "problem" being addressed - though the problem isn't the sort of one that Raz is suggesting.
The question there is not whether they are delusional. The question is whether they are certain. Those are two very different things.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 07, 2014, 10:24:01 PM
Because there is no God
Whew glad that is settled. I have to say I am not entirely comfortable with the militant atheistic implications of declaring all religious people delusional. Besides when I say I am the Son of God I mean it symbolically.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 07, 2014, 10:24:01 PM
Because there is no God
Ah. Dogma. I've noticed that is running theme here.
Quote from: dps on May 07, 2014, 07:54:14 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 07, 2014, 07:01:20 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 07, 2014, 06:47:34 PM
Are you speaking of gender reassignment surgery, hormone therapy, etc?
Of course I am.
QuoteBecause I don't believe that's considered "a cure". In fact, using that term sounds similar to how "a cure for homosexuality" would sound.
Meh. You have a problem: you have a body of the opposite gender. You have a procedure to convert that body to one of your own gender. What the fuck am I supposed to call it, a palliative treatment?
Apparantly, Raz would call it feeding their delusion.
The troubling part is that I don't think any of us can be certain that he's wrong.
Let's assume for the sake of argument Raz is right and that such people are delusional.
What difference does it make? Either they are suffering from a genuine condition, or they are suffering from a delusion. As far as I know, there is no evidence that this "delusion" can be cured by any therapy we know of (or at least I have never heard of any). In either case, the only "cure" we currently have is to physically change their gender.
Assuming that is the case, I see no real difference between calling it a "delusion" and calling it a "condition".
Quote from: Malthus on May 08, 2014, 08:19:43 AM
What difference does it make?
Okay, Hillary :rolleyes:
Quote from: Malthus on May 08, 2014, 08:19:43 AM
Let's assume for the sake of argument Raz is right and that such people are delusional.
What difference does it make? Either they are suffering from a genuine condition, or they are suffering from a delusion. As far as I know, there is no evidence that this "delusion" can be cured by any therapy we know of (or at least I have never heard of any). In either case, the only "cure" we currently have is to physically change their gender.
Assuming that is the case, I see no real difference between calling it a "delusion" and calling it a "condition".
We can urge them to snap out of it.
Quote from: Malthus on May 08, 2014, 08:29:51 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2014, 08:26:25 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 08, 2014, 08:19:43 AM
What difference does it make?
Okay, Hillary :rolleyes:
:huh:
Don't get it.
Have you heard of a Benghazi attack? I wouldn't be surprised if you haven't, Obama covered it up.
Malthus, I'd expect you not to buy into this false definition of "delusion."
Under that definition, gay dudes are just people who are deluded into believing they want to fuck men.
I assume it's because Raz and Spice either don't have or reject the sex/gender dichotomy framework the issue is usually discussed in.
Quote from: DGuller on May 08, 2014, 08:34:23 AM
Have you heard of a Benghazi attack? I wouldn't be surprised if you haven't, Obama covered it up.
Yes ... still don't get the Hillary reference.
Sadly, US political humour really is not universal. :(
Quote from: Ideologue on May 08, 2014, 08:38:21 AM
Malthus, I'd expect you not to buy into this false definition of "delusion."
Under that definition, gay dudes are just people who are deluded into believing they want to fuck men.
I assume it's because Raz and Spice either don't have or reject the sex/gender dichotomy framework the issue is usually discussed in.
I'm not.
If you read my posts, the point I'm making is that
even assuming their position is true, it makes no difference.
That isn't the same as me believing their position is true.
Even assuming the sky is green doesn't mean green means blue. -_- I'm gonna quit before I get to grumbler levels of semantic argument though.
Quote from: Malthus on May 08, 2014, 08:38:47 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 08, 2014, 08:34:23 AM
Have you heard of a Benghazi attack? I wouldn't be surprised if you haven't, Obama covered it up.
Yes ... still don't get the Hillary reference.
Sadly, US political humour really is not universal. :(
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2013/may/07/context-hillary-clintons-what-difference-does-it-m/
Quote from: Ideologue on May 08, 2014, 08:43:34 AM
Even assuming the sky is green doesn't mean green means blue. -_- I'm gonna quit before I get to grumbler levels of semantic argument though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_of_blue_and_green_in_various_languages
QuoteMany languages do not differentiate between certain colors on the visible spectrum and do not have separate terms for blue and green.
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2014, 08:47:16 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 08, 2014, 08:38:47 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 08, 2014, 08:34:23 AM
Have you heard of a Benghazi attack? I wouldn't be surprised if you haven't, Obama covered it up.
Yes ... still don't get the Hillary reference.
Sadly, US political humour really is not universal. :(
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2013/may/07/context-hillary-clintons-what-difference-does-it-m/
My bad. I really ought to have the minutes to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings of years past memorized. Silly me. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on May 08, 2014, 08:50:50 AM
My bad. I really ought to have the minutes to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings of years past memorized. Silly me. ;)
:rolleyes: You asked for the context. I've used the "What difference does it make" line multiple times here to successfully bait Seedy.
Quote from: Syt on May 08, 2014, 08:49:51 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 08, 2014, 08:43:34 AM
Even assuming the sky is green doesn't mean green means blue. -_- I'm gonna quit before I get to grumbler levels of semantic argument though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_of_blue_and_green_in_various_languages
QuoteMany languages do not differentiate between certain colors on the visible spectrum and do not have separate terms for blue and green.
Yeah, yeah. The still distinguish between shades. :P
Quote from: Ideologue on May 08, 2014, 09:02:16 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 08, 2014, 08:49:51 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 08, 2014, 08:43:34 AM
Even assuming the sky is green doesn't mean green means blue. -_- I'm gonna quit before I get to grumbler levels of semantic argument though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_of_blue_and_green_in_various_languages
QuoteMany languages do not differentiate between certain colors on the visible spectrum and do not have separate terms for blue and green.
Yeah, yeah. The still distinguish between shades. :P
http://drinks.seriouseats.com/2013/09/cocktail-glossary-parts-of-a-pot-still-distillation-terms-dictionary.html
:hmm:
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2014, 08:55:32 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 08, 2014, 08:50:50 AM
My bad. I really ought to have the minutes to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings of years past memorized. Silly me. ;)
:rolleyes: You asked for the context. I've used the "What difference does it make" line multiple times here to successfully bait Seedy.
I hate to tell you this, but rolling your eyes because someone doesn't get your inside jokes just makes you look like an ass.
The phrase "what difference does it make?" didn't originate with Hillary Clinton.
Good Morning, Grumbles :hug:
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2014, 09:12:55 AM
Good Morning, Grumbles :hug:
And the rest of the day to you, Spicey. :hug:
Quote from: Ideologue on May 08, 2014, 08:38:21 AM
I assume it's because Raz and Spice either don't have or reject the sex/gender dichotomy framework the issue is usually discussed in.
Gender is a fluid social construct, but sex isn't really mutable. I think the easier (and healthier) option for people who believe theirs are at odds is to adjust their concept of gender rather than to go through radical cosmetic surgery and hormone treatments.
If you're 40, it's probably easier. If you're 12, I strongly suspect it's easier and healthier to undergo hormone therapy.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 08, 2014, 08:38:21 AM
Malthus, I'd expect you not to buy into this false definition of "delusion."
Under that definition, gay dudes are just people who are deluded into believing they want to fuck men.
I assume it's because Raz and Spice either don't have or reject the sex/gender dichotomy framework the issue is usually discussed in.
Nonsense. I suggest delusion because that is what we typically call a person who has a false belief contrary to known evidence. I ask if it's theoretically possible for a man to be deluded into thinking he's a woman? If that is possible how would you distinguish this delusion from being transsexual?
Raz, I explained this already, and you're just arguing for the sake of it. To recapitulate: transwomen* are aware they have a penis, a Y chromosome, and a male hormonal balance. This does not fit their mental ideal of themselves, leading to distress, but that does not constitute a "delusion."
Treating a transwoman in the initial stages as a woman is aspirational and polite, and though it may not be very faithful to reality in narrow terms of present physical form, it's not delusional in the sense that gender is a social construct and involves substantially more than the presence of a penis, Y chromosome, etc., including those things you may have heard of called "feelings."
*just to keep the pronouns straight, but the same applies to transmen
Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2014, 01:11:17 PM
Nonsense. I suggest delusion because that is what we typically call a person who has a false belief contrary to known evidence. I ask if it's theoretically possible for a man to be deluded into thinking he's a woman? If that is possible how would you distinguish this delusion from being transsexual?
It seems to me the difference is that if it was a delusion, as per your scenario, the man who delusionally thinks he's a woman would claim to have the body of a woman when in observable fact he does not. The transgendered woman, conversely, would feel that she ought to have the body of a woman and the fact that she does not is a cause for distress.
You speak of observable fact. We can observe what someone's body looks like. If someone insists that their body is different from observable fact, then I suppose calling them delusional makes sense.
But if someone insists that they ought to have a body that's different from what they have, that they feel like their body does not represent who they are psychologically and emotionally, then that is not contrary to observable fact and thus cannot, by your own schema, be labelled a delusion.
That is a good distinction Jacob.
FU, Valmy. :mad:
That seems fair enough.
I'm with Jake, Garbo and Ide. As unusual coalition of the willing as I've ever seen.
I didn't think it was that unusual. :(
Do the 4 of us differ so radically on basic social decorum? :unsure:
Well shelf and Ide are genuine socialists, and I'm deeply disturbed. Despite our common ground we often disagree.
Shaun Caislean, socialist? LOL ok.
On a different but related note:
http://news.yahoo.com/prison-officials-inmate-doesnt-sex-change-155849483.html
QuotePrison officials: Inmate doesn't need sex change
Massachusetts prison officials on Thursday made another push to overturn a court ruling that would force them to provide a taxpayer-funded sex-change operation to a murder convict with gender-identity disorder.
The inmate has been given a substantial amount of care, including female hormones, laser hair removal and psychotherapy, and doesn't need the surgery, the Department of Corrections attorney Richard McFarland told the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.
"The clinician didn't say you must have this surgery, but that if you want it you can get it," McFarland said Thursday. Only 5 percent of people diagnosed with the disorder actually undergo sex-assignment surgery, he added.
Michelle Kosilek, born Robert Kosilek, has been in a heated legal battle to get the surgery, which she says is required to relieve the emotional stress caused by the disorder. Kosilek is currently serving a life sentence for killing spouse Cheryl Kosilek in 1990.
In 2012, a federal judge ruled that the department must give Kosilek the surgery.
In January, that decision was reaffirmed by a three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said it is a constitutional right to receive medically necessary treatment "even if that treatment strikes some as odd or unorthodox."
The prisons department appealed and won a rehearing before the full appeals court. Five appeals court judges heard arguments on the matter Thursday and could take months to issue a decision.
The department said in a statement Thursday that it "fully acknowledges the legitimacy of a gender identity disorder diagnosis" but was appealing because of "the court's significant expansion of the standard for what constitutes adequate care under the Eighth Amendment."
Multiple doctors have testified that surgery is the only sufficient treatment for Kosilek, who has tried twice to commit suicide while incarcerated. There is no exact amount of how much the state-funded surgery will cost, but it could be up to $50,000.
Kosilek's lawyer, Joseph Sulman, said the present treatment regime has alleviated "some of her pain, but she still suffers from severe mental anguish that cannot be treated without the surgery."
The department also argued that housing Kosilek at an all-male facility could raise serious security issues. McFarland said if Kosilek received the surgery, her notoriety could potentially create a dangerous climate for her among other prisoners.
But Judge William Kayatta, Jr. noted the department already houses infamous prisoners, and he said the only reason Kosilek is notorious is because she was "consistently pursuing her rights through the U.S. Constitution." He also noted the department could someday be required to house an inmate who already had a sex change.
At the close of the hearing, Sulman said, "After all the medical recommendations, if the court reverses their decision, there would never be a prisoner who has a need for this surgery."
If it loses its appeals, Massachusetts would be the first state to fund sex-reassignment surgery for an inmate.
She's a murderer. It's am expensive operation.
I just think that if we didn't have a socially constructed gender and sexuality in addition to our biological genders none of this would be an issue. Then again, like with gays, there is something going on in the heads of these people that I cannot fathom or appreciate or understand.. and I'm willing to take their word for it as long as they don't use much more than their fair share of taxes to do what they need to do.
Imagine being really fat. Like 400 lbs. You'd be disgusted with yourself all the time until you lost 240 pounds. I imagine it's a lot like that.
What would it mean to not have sexuality?
I do think it'd be great if we didn't have gender roles / gender role expectations.
Quote from: garbon on May 08, 2014, 05:35:43 PM
What would it mean to not have sexuality?
I do think it'd be great if we didn't have gender roles / gender role expectations.
David Reimer. It's impossible.
Quote from: garbon on May 08, 2014, 05:35:43 PM
What would it mean to not have sexuality?
Isn't that being asexual?
Actually, I've been reading some more and I'm fully willing to believe that transsexualism results from a real neurological condition and that treatment and surgery are appropriate under the right circumstances. Asexuality strikes me as just bullshit though, almost certainly resulting from psychological or health disorders.
Quote from: Jacob on May 08, 2014, 06:11:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 08, 2014, 05:35:43 PM
What would it mean to not have sexuality?
Isn't that being asexual?
I guess so. I don't know why that would be a preferred place for humanity.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 08, 2014, 01:18:14 PM
Raz, I explained this already, and you're just arguing for the sake of it.
You know, it's a shame you didn't study something in school that would make you better at say, advocating a position. Something like that could have been useful.