Aberrant -departing from an accepted standard.
- different from what is typical or usual, especially in an unacceptable way
Just by definition homosexuality and transgender people are aberrant.
I have nothing against either, but that’s what aberrant means.
Except that neither is “unacceptable”, and heterosexually is not (or doesn’t have to be) an “accepted standard”.
“Aberrant” is a loaded term with negative connotations. There are hordes of other terms that denote the same thing without the baggage of such connotations, including “variant”, “unusual”, “atypical”, “different”, etc.; I’d make the same point if you’d used “deviant”, another word with skin-crawley connotations.
I wish people would quit bumping this damn thread. The thread title itself annoys the fuck out of me every time I read it.
Uh…
Heterosexual is the accepted standard sorry.
It’s just another fact, like the definition.
And there is quite a large population that finds it unacceptable as well.
Once again, not me.
People put their own connotations on a word, and then argue about these instead of the actual thing itself.
I didn’t use the word, I responded to a question about the word, by supplying the definition, and answering the question by definition alone.
Aberrant -departing from an accepted standard.
- different from what is typical or usual, especially in an unacceptable way
I agree there are negative connotations, as most people perceive it.
That however does not mean one can change the definitions of things to suit your own agenda.
So ,gays are aberrant by definition, but so are genius’s, prodigies, most basketball players, redheads, and on, and on.
You seem really invested in this.
People live in a social context. Please don’t be abstruse and obtuse. “Nigger” is a mispronunciation of a Spanish word meaning “black”, but I don’t suggest you go around using it and then shrugging innocently and saying “but it just means ‘black’, why get upset?” The word “aberrant” has connotations that I did not put there and which you are not likely to be ignorant of; you live in the social context in which “aberrant” has negative connotations, same as I do.
And we’re off…
Please substitute your own facts at will.
Word definitions aren’t facts. They’re arbitrary conventions.
Was that your intent?
No, we’re using the “accepted standard” for facts, thank you.
Connotations matter. “Eugenics” is, in theory, a perfectly neutral word, meaning “the science of improving a population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics.” Sounds reasonable, right? Sounds like something we could do intentionally to humans to make the human race better. Except that in the past, we’ve tried that, and the word has gotten some downright gruesome connotations attached to it.
Similarly, when you call something an “abberation”, you are putting a negative spin on it. You are specifically choosing a word with those negative connotations to describe something as “different, not typical”, when as others have pointed out there are many other words you could have chosen which don’t have that connotation. That says something, and if it’s not your intent to say that, you should stop using that word to refer to various minority groups.
When’s the last time you heard someone say, “Geniuses are aberrant”? It… generally doesn’t happen, right? It sounds weird, and wrong in a way. Same with “pro basketball players are aberrant”. It’s a really weird thing to say! Even if the definition technically works, and all you mean is “most humans are not geniuses/pro basketball players”, saying “geniuses are aberrant” sounds off. It sounds less like the kind of thing you’d hear from someone neutrally describing characteristics of geniuses, and more like something you’d hear shortly before the call goes out to round up everyone who can read.
So what you’re saying is that his use of the word “aberrant” is aberrant?
Is that, like, a REALLY esoteric version of rock-paper-scissors?
More like Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock, using the rules book from Diplomacy, sprinkled with a bit of Shoots and Ladders, and played on a Twister mat. Of course, this only applies to the 1974 Tunderhill Codicil. Other variants are too esoteric to be mentioned in polite conversation.
You know, letting Laurna Tallman provide her own response to Czarcasm’s questioning of her chosen terminology was also an option.
Especially since it’s VERY unlikely that a non-negligible percentage of the participants in this thread actually NEEDED your etymology “lesson.” Just as it’s probable that YOU didn’t strictly REQUIRE the subsequent explanations of semantics and semiotics that were offered to you.
(N.B. to the thread participants at large: I require some reassurance, at least. Did I use “semiotics” appropriately, above?)
Just don’t play with the Free Parking rule. It’s not official and it ruins the game.
You guys might want to be careful. I derailed a Pit thread into a sidetrack about fonts when I made a joke about Comic Sans. Y’all could be headed down the same path…
Sure, but you can take that path to Turnham Green via the adenoids.
I’m late to this party and I didn’t read all 11 pages, but to answer the original question. Most transgendered people have a fundamental denial of an observable fact. This does not mean that they are mentally ill. Mental illness is a cultural construct. A schizophrenic can be seen as we tend to see them as somehow fundamentally flawed, or they could be seen as a mystic capable of speaking with other worldly beings. Similarly someone with depression could be considered mentally ill, or they could be considered simply melancholic. A person that enjoys killing other people can be seen as a sociopath or they can be seen as a brave warrior. Moderns tend to like to place diagnoses on thoughts or behaviors that we see as deviating from an ‘idealistic’ norm, but that’s only one way of viewing things. In a case where moderns don’t diagnose a behavior, we could point at climate-change deniers. I’m sitting in 66 degree weather in West Virginia in February and it’s not supposed to get below freezing for the next ten days. This has become an established pattern that didn’t exist 30 years ago when I was a child. It’s pretty obvious that something about the climate has changed, but we don’t call people who deny this observable reality mentally ill (despite the fact that they may engage in self-harming behaviors like driving unnecessarily large vehicles or voting for people who want to make fossil fuels cheaper to use.)
So, to sum up. Transgendered people have no rational scientific basis that they either ‘are’ or ‘are supposed to be’ a gender different than their biological sex. This self-assessment can lead to behaviors that may be considered harmful to themselves(for instance, pre-pubescent hormone therapies or gender reassignment surgeries) but not all transgendered people do engage in behaviors that harm themselves(For instance, a transgendered person who expresses themselves through cross-dressing or through participating in activities stereotypically associated with another gender.) Whether that is mentally ill or not is a decision that culture has to make.