I’m not buying it - kids who got slapped around by their parents aren’t more likely to become pacifists as a result.
Then again, you’ll only know my thoughts about otherkin if I show up in a thread started by a different bigot for the purpose of yawping about how he DOESN’T CARE AT ALL about otherkin, and then make a big deal out of how important it is that I personally also AM NOT SO SURE I’M COMFORTABLE about otherkin having words to describe things that are important to their identities.
And why would I do that? Unless I were a raging asshole and my bigotry was so important to my own identity that I needed other people to ratify it, I mean.
Slapping someone around is not actually a logical argument.
Well, my point is that 99.9999% of the time, using the “victimization” argument is a cheap shot. “How can you possibly have that opinion? You’re Slobbovianese so you should know better!”
I think I’m saying something closer to a hypocrisy argument. “If you would object to bullshit bigoted definitions used against you, it’s rich to invent bullshit bigoted definitions to use against someone else.”
So would I be within my rights to tell women they should have certain opinions because, as a woman, they would be hypocritical not to be sensitive to the plight of (whatever)?
Personally, I’d feel mortified doing it…
What trans rights am I against? The right of a trans women to be considered the same as a woman born as woman? Now you are making a demand of my own perceptions, and you don’t get to dictate that. This is where the language policing comes into play. I’m convinced the goal of the terminology enforcement is all about creating a “safe space” where peoples real perceptions of trans people are dampened and drowned out. Where any vagrant notions about the nature of a trans woman compared to a women born as a woman is grounds to be strung up before the high inquisitors of trans justice.
I sincerely wish you’d feel mortified about whatever it is you’re doing now.
Sorry to have bothered you!
a) I’m fine with all of this (even that ugly sounding cisgendered word, god even the sound of the word grates against my sensibilities)
b) Now here is where things get interesting, and all I will say is you better watch out Max. In the statement you just made, you have revealed that whatever else you might call transgender women, you don’t see them as entirely the same as natural born women.
I don’t know if hypocrisy is the right word here. But this is because I think part of the goal of the language policing and additional terms to describe hetero males/females born in the bodies they identify with as cisgendered is to wipe away the distinctions people place on trans women and men vs natural born women and men.
MAKE SURE TO USE THE RIGHT GENDER TERM (you can hear the rage when they demand the correction). Why the furor? I don’t think the terminology is all people are after. I think the end goal is more broad than that, I think the end goal is to get more and more of society to consider trans women as functionally and socially identical to natural born women. It started with the replacement of sex with gender (a mental state), and once that becomes embedded, people are what they say they are, and if you want to remain a good and upstanding member of society, you WILL consider them what they say they are too. Or else.
Or else what?
bigot/transphobic/hate filled cretin not worth any respect
We see it all on display in this thread.
Even YOU don’t see transwomen as the same, and for this reason I am warning you to watch yourself. They are after me now, but they are after you next. Why would you feel uncomfortable being with a trans women? Do you think they are not real women?
The goal is not just the term, it’s the perceptions of all mankind, the thought police are not done with where you want to stop.
I’m just drawing a line in the sand sooner. I am quite open about the fact that I do not see trans men or women as the same as their natural born counterparts. They are something in between and not all the way there.
They might say it’s not about thoughts, they just want to be called what they want to be called. Really? IS that all they want? Because I’m pretty sure they want to be thought of as women too, and not the lukewarm pity words people like you have given out. They REALLY want to be thought of and considered women, because that is the entire POINT of thinking you were born into the wrong body. And all I am saying is that is Not, going, to happen. Not by me, not even by you, and not by most of humanity. Not until we are capable of transferring the consciousness into another body.
It’s remarkable how many people on this board are extremely concerned that someone will force them to date transgendered folk. Let me guess, you’re really short and inclined to call people communists? Is it Barack Obama or Barack HUSSEIN Obama?
You don’t have to seen transwomen as identical to ciswomen to give them equal social and legal rights, not discriminate in employment or housing, and otherwise accord them equal status with every other human being in society.
Saying that using various “cis-” words requires the user to view transgender people as equally acceptable sex partners to everyone else is bogus. There are a lot “men-born-as-men” that are off my list of people I’d find sexually attractive and it has nothing to do with their chromosomes, genital configuration, or whether or not I view them as humans beings deserving of equal rights. I honestly don’t know if I’d date or have sex with a transman. I do think it’s more likely I’d do that than have sex with a woman whether cis or trans, but since I’m not into women at all that’s really not saying much. That doesn’t mean I view transmen or women of any sort as lesser members of society.
While transgender people would love to have a date, to have relationships just like everyone else, what I hear over and over that they MOST want is to live their lives, make a decent living, and NOT be afraid all the time.
I don’t know for certain that ladyboy is a slur. I believe it because of personal experience and the evidence I’ve heard and read – every trans person I’ve talked to personally, and almost every trans person I’ve ever heard from or read from in media, says that ladyboy is a slur (in the US, at least).
As for how large a group, I don’t know if there’s a rule. Since almost every single representative I’ve spoken to or heard from among the trans community in the US says it’s a slur, I think it’s most likely that they’re correct (especially since slurs become slurs from usage – and if the targets almost all say that it was used as a slur against them, then that means it’s a slur). Other examples would go by a case by case basis, most likely.
As for Zimmern, was he in the US? If so, from my experience, he was using a slur. If he wasn’t in the US, then I don’t know.
I don’t have any interest in “lambasting” anyone for using a slur, but I have no problem with telling people that they’re using a slur and I think that’s rude and unkind if I think they are doing so.
What enforcement? What “trans justice”? What “strung up”? What are you whining about? Just criticism? Quit complaining about being criticized, you fucking baby. There’s no enforcement, no “trans justice”, and no stringing up – just people getting criticized and then whining about it. What a fucking baby you are.
Thank you for at least acknowledging the fact that this particular argument does not have an easy resolution.
The difference is you can go to any dictionary or online source of the English language and see that “tranny” is derogatory or offensive. The same cannot be said for “ladyboy”
Correct. Here’s what a representative of said group says:
Thai superstar cabaret: ‘We are happy for people to call us ladyboys, if they talk nice’
Unless I totally misunderstood Una, she recognizes this. Words can mean different things in different places.
But I could just as easily say "I believe cisgender is a slur because of personal experience and the evidence I’ve heard and read – every gender-typical person I’ve talked to personally, and almost every gender-typical person I’ve ever heard from or read from in media, says that cisgender is a slur (in the US, at least)
This argument is based on your own anecdotes, and not supported by any definitive sources, namely dictionaries and such that define what our language means.
Does that case by case basis include calling somebody a “ladyboy” on this message board? What do YOU think should happen if someone called somebody else a “ladyboy” here?
In the interest of fairness, he was in Bangkok. But if geographic boundaries matter to the inherent offensiveness of terms, would you say that someone could call a person a “paki” or an “abro” on this message board and not be warned? I’m not aware that those words are offensive in the US.
But Miller’s argument was the word “ladyboy” was INHERENTLY offensive. How can something be INHERENTLY offensive if there exists some places that it is NOT offensive?
Maybe he was wrong or he meant something else by inherent.