I’ve had to explain to people on this site that DEI in an employment sense did not mean hiring/promoting less qualified minorities to the disadvantage of whites. It’s difficult having a meaningful conversation about issues that hurt minorities in the United States when so many people believe lies and misinformation.
Who is the better person: someone who uses preferred pronouns perfectly to make a friend happy, but doesn’t really believe they are the gender they identify as? Or someone who sometimes slips up and forgets to use the correct pronouns, but 100% believes their friend is the gender they identify as?
Ummm, did you think that this was some sort of “gotcha” question?
Very few, if any, liberals are going to get upset about a person “who sometimes slips up and forgets to use the correct pronouns,” but they are going to get upset about someone who intentionally misgenders someone because they disagree that the transgender or non-binary person has the right to prefer a pronoun other than that of their assigned-at-birth gender.
That is not, by any reasonable definition, a cite. It is a question. Possibly it is a ‘gotcha’ question. It certainly is not evidence of any kind of what ‘woke’ people believe. Please come back when you have a cite.
…that was literally my point.
As has been pointed out over and over, people aren’t paying attention to what the Democrats are doing, only to the lies of the Republicans about what they are doing. The behavior of the Democrats has nothing to do with them being perceived as “woke”, and changing it won’t even be noticed, much less affect opinions.
You gave yourself as an example of a woke person. Please come back when you are willing to stand behind your beliefs.
It’s ever so much more convincing to tell people the Dems hate white men when you can point to actual policies where they have discriminated against them.
No, no it was not. At least, that is not what you said. You said
You spoke of accidentally misgendering some one.
Kenobi_65 spoke of intentionally misgendering some one.
See the difference?
Also, I am still waiting for a definition of “woke”, and an actual cite.
Not really, they prefer to just make things up and pay attention to their fantasies.
That is a gotcha question.
The correct answer is that both of these people are welcome in liberal circles, and we don’t generally go around ranking people’s virtue.
It’s the third category, those who intentionally misgender others, that are not welcome and are deemed “less virtuous”. Because they actually hurt people.
I did NOT say I was “woke”. I said I assumed that I was. Until you define “woke”, I cannot know if I meet your definition or not.
Assuming I fit your definition of “woke” (a definition you still have not given), I cannot judge somebody on what they believe. This is because, unless they explicitly tell me what they believe, it is impossibel for me to know what they believe. I can observe and know their actions. This has nothing to do with holding one over the other. It has to do with the fact that I am not a telepath.
Now, please provide a cite for your claim, and a definition of “woke”
I don’t intentionally misgender people, but am not at all welcome in woke circles.“You are welcome as long as you lie about your true beliefs” is no welcome at all. The issue is the lack of tolerance for principled disagreement that I mentioned earlier.
I think I covered that rather well, too.
Happy to repeat if you missed it, though. Please just let me know.
ETA: This being GD and all, may I provide cite to help @DemonTree understand just how deeply precedented her “principled disagreement” is in American history:
Those are your progenitors in principle!
A phrase that continues to be as nebulous as the first time you wrote it.
I would honestly like to understand, as this conversation has been focusing on transgender: if someone believes that transgender and non-binary people are either lying or mentally ill (as I understand it, this is a non-uncommon belief held by conservatives about them), how would that person have a “principled disagreement” with those transgender and non-binary people, about how they self-identify?
This really, really reminds me of the debate over same sex marriage, where people would keep insisting that the Right had reasonable, principled reasons to oppose it; but refused to ever actually present any such reasons. They just treated it as an article of faith that the Right had good reasons for their opposition.
I think this is a repeat of that; some people just consider it unacceptable to admit that the Right acts like a collection of bigots, because they are a collection of bigots.
I guess I’m wondering what your " principled disagreement " is, then.
I’ve mentioned mine.
And also mentioned disagreements about tax policy and healthcare.
I’ll say that i DO believe there are some who have profound gender dysmorphia, and who are best served by being recognized for who they are, and not what they look like. And of course, i don’t know any particular person’s internal thoughts and feelings.
But… There are also less principled disagreements. For instance:
Yes, but, rejecting those obvious principled disagreements just shows how unreasonable the woke truly are!