Millie's LGBTQ+ lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, intersex, asexual, and more discussion thread

[MillieDynamite]

I haven't been on the site since my last post here. The because is two-fold, calling transgenders "IT" is rude and flies in the face of what we have been doing here, which has been a Polite Discourse of ideas. This violates my request for people to agree to disagree, in lieu of nasty comments to other posters, in my opening statement. The second reason I don't want him to be rude is that it is my thread, and I'd like this discussion to remain civil.

I will confess, I shouldn't have called him IT when I got pissed off. But he didn't like that any more than our trans community in this thread like it, and call me an asshole for calling him IT! Which, again, isn't all that polite. My reason for calling him "IT" was to show him how it felt. I'm waiting for him to apologize to those he offended here, but don't expect him to do so.

Now back to suffering through Monday Night Football with Jo. A game between two teams that neither of us nor our child and cat give two cents about. But that's what one does when one loves someone; one suffers for love in a game one couldn't care less who wins and who loses.

Mansplaining!!!

You've not noticed she's twice as smart as you, and twice as capable of forming her own opinions and putting them into words.

 

[AlexBailey]

Because?

Because people should stand up to intolerance and rudeness so more people are included in society rather than rejected or disrespected for being social outliers.

 

[XerXesXu]

Because people should stand up to intolerance and rudeness so more people are included in society rather than rejected or disrespected for being social outliers.

The complaint is that he made other posters feel uncomfortable, the suggestion is that he go elsewhere. Hyperbolic exaggeration never calmed things.

Thought experiment. Put yourself in his shoes; would you not want to be ‘included in society rather than be rejected … for being social outliers?’

He disagrees, on a point of principal, with many posters in this thread, nothing more. That happens. Do you not think they make him as uncomfortable as he makes them? That appears to be the case. Would you want to be included in a society which excludes groups who make other groups feel uncomfortable?

 

[AwkwardMD]

How long would someone have to waste your time and energy, going around in circles with bad faith arguments, before you would just ignore them?

Asking for a friend.

 

[Zootonius]

I came across a good article that many will find interesting.

Some excerpts:

Tolerance is not a moral precept​

Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats.

But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others.

When viewed through this lens, the problems above have clear answers. The antisocial member of the group, who harms other people in the group on a regular basis, need not be accepted;

https://medium.com/extra-extra/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376

 

[AlexBailey]

The complaint is that he made other posters feel uncomfortable, the suggestion is that he go elsewhere. Hyperbolic exaggeration never calmed things.

Thought experiment. Put yourself in his shoes; would you not want to be ‘included in society rather than be rejected … for being social outliers?’

He disagrees, on a point of principal, with many posters in this thread, nothing more. That happens. Do you not think they make him as uncomfortable as he makes them? That appears to be the case. Would you want to be included in a society which excludes groups who make other groups feel uncomfortable?

He engaged in a conversation and refused to accept the validity of a proven concept - that the word ‘they’ is already in use as a singular pronoun and that that logically justifies an individual’s use of it as a personal pronoun. He chooses to be singled out and ‘forced’ to be graceful rather than to respect the request of others. He has made the choice to prioritize and voice his illogical and emotional argument when he knows it will make someone else uncomfortable.

Unless he enjoys being rude he would probably enjoy his time better spent elsewhere, no?

Is it helpful in any way that his ‘cause’ has support from other posters here? Is the conversation made better by this? Why or why not?

 

[MelissaBaby]

The complaint is that he made other posters feel uncomfortable, the suggestion is that he go elsewhere. Hyperbolic exaggeration never calmed things.

Thought experiment. Put yourself in his shoes; would you not want to be ‘included in society rather than be rejected … for being social outliers?’

He disagrees, on a point of principal, with many posters in this thread, nothing more. That happens. Do you not think they make him as uncomfortable as he makes them? That appears to be the case. Would you want to be included in a society which excludes groups who make other groups feel uncomfortable?

One person’s thought experiment is another person’s lived reality.

 

[CuriouslyBiDom]

The saddest part is, I will never have that, so I write my stories and fantasize about a life I never had and never will.

Oh, I very much doubt that. Given the astonishing pace at which medical technology is progressing, you’ll definitely be able to get the body you want someday soon. The capability to rejuvenate cells, returning them to a youthful state, is perhaps only five years away, ten at the utmost. The breakthroughs of just the last year have been coming fast and hard. You’ll be able to get back the physical body you had at the age of 25 along with peak attractiveness.

As for experiencing life as a woman, I predict two technological tracks that will facilitate this, each with their own advantages. One will be the virtual route with full sensory immersion. People who don’t want to change their physical body will be able to inhabit an avatar of the opposite sex. I can see this being very popular with the merely curious, such as myself. Some people will stick with their biological sex, some will spend all of their virtual lives as the opposite, and some will swap on a whim.

The other track will simply be more sophisticated techniques for altering your physical body. I could see harvesting stem cells and then coaxing them into growing fully-formed sex organs for implantation. Altering height and bone structure might be accomplished through surgery or, in the more distant future, via nano machines. AI will aid in enhancing the attractiveness of facial features, which will benefit everyone, not just trans folk.

So don’t lose hope. You live in an amazing time of potential possibilities.

 

[XerXesXu]

One person’s thought experiment is another person’s lived reality.

You do realise that was my point, don't you? Think about it.

 

[XerXesXu]

How long would someone have to waste your time and energy, going around in circles with bad faith arguments, before you would just ignore them?

Asking for a friend.

Isn't that the old, 'Anyone who disagrees with me must be acting in bad faith' argument.

Asking for your friend.

 

[XerXesXu]

He engaged in a conversation and refused to accept the validity of a proven concept - that the word ‘they’ is already in use as a singular pronoun and that that logically justifies an individual’s use of it as a personal pronoun. He chooses to be singled out and ‘forced’ to be graceful rather than to respect the request of others. He has made the choice to prioritize and voice his illogical and emotional argument when he knows it will make someone else uncomfortable.

Unless he enjoys being rude he would probably enjoy his time better spent elsewhere, no?

Is it helpful in any way that his ‘cause’ has support from other posters here? Is the conversation made better by this? Why or why not?

Non-responsive. He refused to be coerced into using others' words, insisting he be free to use his own. Does walking a mile in another's shoes daunt you?

The conversation would be very much enriched by this, hence the attachment some have to free speech in contributing to making the world a better place.

I attach no importance to my pronouns, why do some people get excited by it?

 

[XerXesXu]

I came across a good article that many will find interesting.

Some excerpts:

Tolerance is not a moral precept​

Precept: "When viewed through this lens, the problems above have clear answers. The antisocial member of the group, who harms other people in the group on a regular basis, need not be accepted;"

Reflect on this. There are many on this forum who have grown up with the admonition, 'For Christ's sake-shut up and fuck-off,' ringing in their ears, and who would not admire such immoral precept as those being used as an excuse for social exclusion.

 

[AwkwardMD]

Oh, I very much doubt that. Given the astonishing pace at which medical technology is progressing, you’ll definitely be able to get the body you want someday soon. The capability to rejuvenate cells, returning them to a youthful state, is perhaps only five years away, ten at the utmost. The breakthroughs of just the last year have been coming fast and hard. You’ll be able to get back the physical body you had at the age of 25 along with peak attractiveness.

As for experiencing life as a woman, I predict two technological tracks that will facilitate this, each with their own advantages. One will be the virtual route with full sensory immersion. People who don’t want to change their physical body will be able to inhabit an avatar of the opposite sex. I can see this being very popular with the merely curious, such as myself. Some people will stick with their biological sex, some will spend all of their virtual lives as the opposite, and some will swap on a whim.

The other track will simply be more sophisticated techniques for altering your physical body. I could see harvesting stem cells and then coaxing them into growing fully-formed sex organs for implantation. Altering height and bone structure might be accomplished through surgery or, in the more distant future, via nano machines. AI will aid in enhancing the attractiveness of facial features, which will benefit everyone, not just trans folk.

So don’t lose hope. You live in an amazing time of potential possibilities.

I have been cautiously optimistic about these kinds of things for years now. I don’t trust that they'll be viable, publically, in my lifetime, but I hold hope for my daughter.

 

[AlexBailey]

Non-responsive. He refused to be coerced into using others' words, insisting he be free to use his own. Does walking a mile in another's shoes daunt you?

The conversation would be very much enriched by this, hence the attachment some have to free speech in contributing to making the world a better place.

I attach no importance to my pronouns, why do some people get excited by it?

He's just so put upon! Poor little victim! Does also refuse to call his physician doctor?


Oh don't worry, you have full freedom in society to be disrespectful just as everyone has full right to consider you to be an ass. The poor victim who wants the right to be disrespectful can be that way, they can even whine about the social fallout, but they should also understand they have earned the label of being known as an ass.


Farting in public by accident because you have a bit of gas is very different than doing it with pride and gusto for your own pleasure. Have you explored that as a social thought experiment?

 

[Escierto]

Another fucking moron on the ignore list. And then people wonder why I have so many assholes on ignore!

 

[MillieDynamite]

The complaint isn't that he made people feel uncomfortable. I'm sure they have been made uncomfortable by those better at it than him. My complaint is he dehumanized them by calling them "IT." Calling them by their birth-assigned gender is one thing; removing their humanity because you don't like what they represent isn't expressing an opinion; it's a direct attack.

The complaint is that he made other posters feel uncomfortable, the suggestion is that he go elsewhere. Hyperbolic exaggeration never calmed things.

Thought experiment. Put yourself in his shoes; would you not want to be ‘included in society rather than be rejected … for being social outliers?’

He disagrees, on a point of principal, with many posters in this thread, nothing more. That happens. Do you not think they make him as uncomfortable as he makes them? That appears to be the case. Would you want to be included in a society which excludes groups who make other groups feel uncomfortable?

Yes, I get your POINT. I disagree with you on what the purpose of the comment was. His statements went beyond making a point into a personal attack.

You do realise that was my point, don't you? Think about it.

All poster can make their points without stopping to personal attacks toward other posters. I'm not, and will not, tell him he can't post in my thread and isn't welcome here. I will point out when he's being an ass, even at the risk of being called an ass, which is what I've done. He didn't like being called an IT any more than the people he called IT. Golden rule, speak to others as you wish they would speak to you. The reaction rule, talk trash to the trash-talker.

Precept: "When viewed through this lens, the problems above have clear answers. The antisocial member of the group, who harms other people in the group on a regular basis, need not be accepted;"

Reflect on this. There are many on this forum who have grown up with the admonition, 'For Christ's sake-shut up and fuck-off,' ringing in their ears, and who would not admire such immoral precept as those being used as an excuse for social exclusion.

 

[MelissaBaby]

You do realise that was my point, don't you? Think about it.

Do you think that was what Gambinluck was doing? Performing a thought experiment? Making a principled point in good faith? If so, and as long as we are condescendingly telling people what to think about, I suggest that you think about the privilege you enjoy that allows you to see this as an abstract debate.

 

[theWollstonecraftWoman]

That may well be the case, but I'm sure you accept the free expression of conflicting opinions is a greater good than making others feel comfortable, and the value of that greater good lies in the fact that it makes others feel uncomfortable.

Uncomfortable, did you read his comments? He isn't making them feel uncomfortable, he's telling them they don't belong. They don't belong in a thread dedicated to them.

 

[M_K_Babalon]

Non-responsive. He refused to be coerced into using others' words, insisting he be free to use his own. Does walking a mile in another's shoes daunt you?

The conversation would be very much enriched by this, hence the attachment some have to free speech in contributing to making the world a better place.

I attach no importance to my pronouns, why do some people get excited by it?

Sure, that's kinda fine and all that. But to be just blatantly disrespectful, and do so unwarranted is the issue, I believe. Nobody here is telling him how to speak, or trying to take his voice. Dawg was already hype before he hit reply the first time.

 

[CuriouslyBiDom]

I came across a good article that many will find interesting.

Some excerpts:

Tolerance is not a moral precept​

https://medium.com/extra-extra/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376

Yes, I have seen similar arguments before, usually referencing Karl Popper’s paradox of tolerance. I can also see where XerXesXu is coming from. To be blunt, I think that what Popper was arguing is often misinterpreted as a call for wide restrictions on free speech. If you read the entire footnote (this was a footnote from Popper’s “The Open Society and It’s Enemies”), Popper explicitly refuted that interpretation.

However, I don’t think the conflict is so much about whether or not people who do harm others should be suppressed (we all agree there that they should) but about what constitutes harm and what harms should be actionable within a given community or context.

If we were arguing whether or not using the wrong pronouns should literally land you in jail, as a free speech advocate, I am staunchly on XerXesXu’s side. I think that this would be a clear violation of civil rights. However, this isn’t a matter of civil rights as we know them. This is a forum that you join voluntarily and a thread that you participate in voluntarily. In coming here, you tacitly accept certain rules.

For example, if there were a rule “Don’t post pictures of kittens”, most people would agree to abide by it and there would be no issue. But we’re in a bit of a gray area, aren’t we? “Use a person’s preferred pronouns in all circumstances” isn’t an explicit rule. Rather, it falls under the “be polite” directive, which is much more squishy.

To use another example, if someone started posting nude pics of themselves in this thread, I think most of us would consider that to be rude and inappropriate for the topic at hand. Though unlikely to truly harm anyone, it derails the discussion, in much the way the argument about pronouns does.

That said, I do not accept the premise that using the wrong pronouns is “violence”. Sure, it can cause subjective harm, but a conscious person with agency has the power to alter their internal landscape. To some degree, being hurt by someone’s words is a choice, and you can choose to grow and move beyond that emotional response. By treating it as some horrible act of aggression, you are actually feeding into right wing fears of suppression. Instead of, “die, you monster!”, a more effective response is “not here, you rube”.

There is also merit in XerXesXu’s point, that it is better for us all as a community and our intellectual growth to debate (or preferably, discuss) such topics when they come up, rather than suppress them. However, there is also merit in recognizing the right time and place for such debate. Unfortunately, that “right” place, the Politics forum, is famous for its toxicity. It is also a sad commentary on the current state of that debate.

All I can do is encourage openness and moderation from both sides. We all have some good points to make, and we all also carry a lot of biases. Whenever possible, try to be charitable. If the other person is strident and aggressive, try to make them feel like an asshole by killing them with kindness. You change minds by first changing hearts.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Well, it doesn't for me, but apparently, it does for him. Don't point fingers at us without returning the favor to him. Don't lecture us about acceptance of his views when he is openly disgusted by our views. Or is it only the ones this thread was created for that must walk the proverbial mile? Or have you missed his statements, preferring to attack ours?

Non-responsive. He refused to be coerced into using others' words, insisting he be free to use his own. Does walking a mile in another's shoes daunt you?

The conversation would be very much enriched by this, hence the attachment some have to free speech in contributing to making the world a better place.

I attach no importance to my pronouns, why do some people get excited by it?

 

[alohadave]

XerXesXu is not interested in having a discussion. His interest lies in coming into a thread, siding with the most controversial poster and spewing a ton of replies that drags the thread further off topic. Notice how we aren't talking about queer anything anymore, but replying to his bullshit trolling rhetoric.

He'll get bored and move on to another thread.

Put him on ignore because he does this shit all the time.

 

[Escierto]

Why should anyone be tolerant of the intolerant? Fuck, no.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Why not redirect the thread back on topic, then? Shall we do this?

XerXesXu is not interested in having a discussion. His interest lies in coming into a thread, siding with the most controversial poster and spewing a ton of replies that drags the thread further off topic. Notice how we aren't talking about queer anything anymore, but replying to his bullshit trolling rhetoric.

He'll get bored and move on to another thread.

Put him on ignore because he does this shit all the time.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Why not redirect the thread back on topic, then? Shall we do this?

The thread derailed many pages ago, it would be like whipping a dead horse. I'd try again later, and maybe keep it a bit more low key?

I did wonder why it wasn't somewhere else in the forums, because it's not been about writing.