Maybe, but I’d like to see what his explanation is. I’m sure he’s just itching to warn someone for calling somebody a ladyboy.
Of course you could. Were you under the impression that you couldn’t say such a thing?
Usage defines what our language means, and usage may vary by location.
If it was intended as a slur, then it should probably be moderated. If not, then it would probably depend on the specific circumstance, IMO.
I think you mean abo, and it’s my understanding that those would be considered offensive by South Asians in America and aboriginal Australians in America.
That’s not my point, and I’m sure you know this.
Usage yes, offensiveness, no.
Sorry, but the same waffling you have demonstrated before.
Yes, I do mean that. So, you are saying location doesn’t determine if a word is offensive, but whether or not somebody is offended? You said “words can mean different things in different places” Apparently not, since if someone is offended in those places, the words DON’T mean something different.
No, I don’t. I don’t see what other point you could be making, but I’m all ears.
I think usage has something to do with offensiveness, going by the history of other slurs.
?
I don’t understand what you’re saying here. Ladyboy might be a slur in the US but not in Thailand. Paki and abo might be slurs in the UK, USA, and Australia. Maybe they’re clear and common slurs in one but uncommon slurs in the other. I see no reason for black and white thinking here.
My point is anyone can just SAY something is offensive. Do you believe that? If someone says that a term is offensive, you will stop using it? Or do you need ‘proof’ that it is offensive? What proof do you require? A poll from people who say “yes, that’s offensive”? Or will you use the accepted definitions in dictionaries across the world?
I don’t think that. Usage is different than the offensiveness of the word.
What if an American transgender woman is in Thailand, and hears the word “ladyboy”? Should everyone there stop using it?
Is “paki” an offensive term in the US? Have you ever heard it? I’ve never heard anyone say that word. What if a Pakistani man is in American and hears the word “Paki”? Should everyone stop using it?
Offensive words ARE black and white. Either they are offensive to call someone or not. In the military, I heard many black people call each other “Nigger”. And I called them out every time, because the word is INHERENTLY offensive. The same if I heard Asian people call each other “Slope” or some other word. Calling someone a derogatory term doesn’t depend on the speaker, it depends on the word.
Threads like these remind me why it’s just easier to hate everyone.
Yeah, maybe this should just be retitled “The Hate Thread”. Case in point:
Let’s remember that one definition of “prejudice” is "a preconceived judgment or opinion, or an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge and also, per Merriam-Webster, “an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics”.
Let’s look at one instance of an individual that Miller wouldn’t piss on if he was on fire: Chris Freeman, Ph.D. in English and gender studies and professor of both at USC. I have no personal knowledge of Freeman but his faculty profile and CV shows him to have been a long-time staunch supporter of the LGBT community – editing books, presenting at conferences, and moderating talks and film presentations on LGBT history, challenges, and issues. One can hardly imagine a more dedicated ally for those seeking LGBT rights, and with a background in English and gender studies, he seems particularly well qualified to be an impartial and sympathetic observer of the pertinent language of the community. And this is what he says:
“For me, ‘cis’ reifies something that is mostly a fiction,” University of Southern California gender studies professor Chris Freeman, Ph.D. (pictured, left) tells The Advocate. “It creates — or re-creates — a gender binary, which is exactly what many scholars and activists have been fighting against for decades.”
“To me, ‘cisgender’ is a clunky, unhelpful, and maybe even regressive term,” Freeman concludes. “It does not move the gender conversation forward in a constructive way. Or in a productive way.”
But according to Miller’s criterion, Freeman must be an “unmitigated asshole” unfit to be pissed on, and apparently so am I, according to Miller. “Prejudice” and “bigotry” seem like the perfect descriptors for spewing that kind of hate based on superficial misconceptions and falsely attributed imaginary motivations.
No, Miller, there isn’t. So why do you do it?
That’s IT? We waited for nearly a week for THAT? You make me sad.
FTR, Miller said “are generally,” not “must be.”
"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.
… And some, I assume, are good people.”
Ah, not all of them! Glad to get that non-prejudice cleared up.
Also - and I suppose this wasn’t clear in my original post - the point I was trying to get across is that the asshole designation usually comes before someone reveals themselves to be an idiot on trans stuff. wolfpup, I’d written you off as a hopeless moron and unrepentant hypocrite based on your antics in the thread about the word “literally.” Similarly, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a post from manson that didn’t leave me genuinely wondering how he manages to get food in his mouth without stabbing himself in the eye with the fork. So when these two wunderkind showed up in this thread, it wasn’t a case of me going, “They’re assholes because they disagree with me on this specific issue!” It’s was more, “I wonder what these assholes have to say on the issue? Yep, that’s about par for the course for these useless fucks.”
Oh, yeah, people who confuse being insulted for saying and believing idiotic stuff with racism or religious bigotry?
Exactly the same kind of asshole.
It’s always a good idea to judge someone’s entire life worth on whether or not one agrees with them on the lexicography of a particular word. This shows an open-minded holistic approach to evaluating someone’s entire life experience, right?
I’m kind of pissed right now about other things that have nothing to do with this thread, but you know what, Miller? If you want to convince people that everyone in the LGBT community is an angry asshole, you’re on the right track. I support that group because my real-life experience is the opposite – they’re fine people, not angry people.
A good piece of advice I heard once was, when you’re dating a guy for the first time, watch how he treats the waitstaff. How someone treats the trivial aspects of their life isn’t that much different from how they treat the important stuff. Assholes are still assholes when they’re talking about things that don’t matter much. So, the point isn’t just that you’re ignorant about some basic facts of linguistics, but rather, how you are ignorant about it. In that thread, you regularly misrepresented the contents of your own cites, criticized people for behaviors you yourself were exhibiting in spades, and generally behaved with an entirely unearned arrogance and condescension. And as we can see in this thread, that was not a one-off for you.
Yeah, attacking me through my sexuality. That’s an excellent way to show your bonafides as an LGBT ally. That also makes a hat-trick in Stereotypical Bigot arguments from you. You entered with the Terminology Nitpick, transferred gracefully into Criticizing My Ideas is the Same as Racism, and then finished (we can only hope) with People Wouldn’t Be So Bigoted if You Were Nicer.
Can’t wait to see what classics you bring out next. Some of My Best Friends Are? I’m Just Playing Devil’s Advocate? You Should Be Happy You’re Not in Saudi Arabia? I’m not sure what it will be, but I know what it won’t be: new.
That’s good advice, and I’ve said it often. More generally, judge someone by how they treat those who cannot benefit them, and more generally still, judge a society by how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable. What I wonder is how you would treat the wait staff, Miller. I’m not the one who’s recently had to apologize for his behavior on this board*. What if you got into a conversation with the wait staff about how to use a word like “literally” or “cisgender”? Frankly I don’t think you’re an asshole – I think you’re intelligent, judgmental, and sometimes angry and prone to jumping to prejudiced generalizations and unprovoked attacks.
And we still haven’t resolved how or why, according to your criteria, Chris Freeman must be an unmitigated asshole. Because, you know, how someone thinks a particular word should be used tells you absolutely everything you need to know about them.
–
- I loved the comment, though!
Bullshit again. Giving recognition to the gender of transgender persons as a form of simple and common decency has been a “thing” since, oh, the 1950’s or so. The only person being shrill here is you, a poster who came out of the woodwork on this issue, alleging to be a gay man who is going to plant his feet against the “gender nazi(s).”
You’d bleat like no one’s business if someone refused to acknowledge your sexual preference or refused to recognize SS relationships, because it violated their standards of what they considered a valid relationship to be.
You cannot be serious. Taking you at face value, you’re another member of the “LGB” community who is incredibly ignorant of the rest of the of the incredibly diverse and rich community.
I’d say he’s a supporter of the LGB community. There is a profound difference between that and being a supporter of the T community. The word “transgender” doesn’t appear once on his resume - it’s all “gay and lesbian.” So I can hardly be surprised that he’s digging in his feet against a simple word.
Honestly, what made you look at that page and think he’s got any experience or qualifications in transgender studies? “Gender studies” does not cut it, as that often is used to refer simply to women’s and men’s studies.
I already effectively answered this question. Didn’t I even give my example from actually being in Thailand and actually working with the transgender community there?
Your problem is you’re trying to get others here to defend one person’s statement, that ladyboy is, as you keep putting it, “INHERENTLY” offensive. Even I said that it was NOT such depending upon the geography and culture one was in. In Mexico calling someone a “muxe” can be offensive if you live outside of Oaxaca. In Hawaii calling someone “mahu” used to be entirely neutral or recognizing of a specific culture. However, years of use as a slur outside the community have made its use problematic (note my choice of word very carefully) and some no longer appreciate the word. “Hijra” can be offensive to a Indian transgender person who does not identify specifically with that third gender community - I’ve heard from them directly, in-country. Yet to outside eyes, the two are often lumped together.
Your problem really seems to be with Miller’s statement, which I think was just not put into context.
The difference is, unlike “ladyboy” no one has ever been beaten by a gang of asshole bigots while being called “cisgendered”. Cisgendered is NOT A SLUR.
That is some serious bullshit right there.