Those are all good points and especially you speak to my biggest problem with “identity”, i.e. when it is used as a means of lazily describing the totality of a person’s experience, beliefs and thoughts.
We should be accepting of the identities that people value for themselves but be very wary of any external imposition or assumption or restriction.
I think any version of “ah, you are an X, therefore you must think/do/act/vote Y” is a terrible way of interacting with people.
Only on the SDMB would a thread in the forum dedicated to insults and ranting devolve into a discussion on the influence of linguistic relativism on identity .
A blog post I wrote about the flip side of group identity, as opposed to it being an erasure of individuality:
Can’t We All Just Be Equal (Without Jumping Up & Down About Your Own Little Cause)?
And nothing prevents you from working through the “understanding” part yourself, internally, without burdening the other. You respect and accept, and then aside educate yourself, read up, listen to those who are informing.
[Moderating]
Following up on the previous modertion: After discussion in the mod loop, @Aspidistra, due to your repeated warnings in this thread, you are banned from further participation in this thread. Any further posting here will lead to further warnings, including the possibility of losing posting privileges to the SDMB.
[/Moderating]
Come on, we’re in a pit thread. No one is under any obligation to do anything but cast insults. Or just ignore me.
Not once have I said or implied that I’m not fully accepting of trans people. But I know of no way of understanding people or anything else than by picking them apart and examining the mechanism. I limit this in real life because it’s rude to be confrontational about personal topics. A pit thread seems like the perfect opportunity.
Thank you for the thoughtful post. I more or less agree that we have no choice but to present ourselves with a certain identity, that this is both an approximation and a self-limiter, but ultimately there isn’t much of an alternative. Therefore, people should be respectful of others and not assume too much.
What I would add, I suppose, is that there is still an “inside” identity–deeper and more complex–that isn’t on display to the world. It’s still influenced by the social environment, but it can’t be easily described by a few labels or by how someone dresses.
Can you elaborate on this a bit? If the set of labels in some language limits one’s ability to think about a subject, that sounds a lot like the strong Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
Since I have to dredge up my pain to be able to discuss the subject here, to have it picked apart and analyzed in an ivory tower abstract way comes across as just rude.
It isn’t.
The Pit isn’t just a place where we can be rude because nobody is going to stop us. It has a purpose.
The rules are loosened here, we get to be rude and mean and use nasty words, tell people we hate them or they’re stupid, or racist or whatever, but it’s because they deserve it. Being rude and hurtful to people who haven’t done anything to deserve it is just not right. Even in the Pit it’s not right.
If the set of labels in some language completely limits one’s ability to think about a subject, I’m bewildered about how the proponents of such a theory think that language acquisition takes place.
But in a lesser form, I’ll testify from firsthand experience that it’s a helluva lot more difficult to communicate when you have to invent or repurpose the language you use than when there’s a set of terms already in use with that meaning.
I’m not a linguist, just someone that’s heard of the hypothesis before and read the Wiki page. It does seem that the weak version (language influences thought) is blatantly obvious, while the strong version (language limits thought) is blatantly false, so the truth is somewhere between those points.
Also, there is clearly a difference between communication and thought. It is definitely difficult to convey subtle ideas when there is no clear expression in one’s language. I can still think about them, though.
That wasn’t what I said.
Try looking of the Wiki of semiotics, instead.
In this context, however, it is a burden that is willingly being taken. There’s no obligation for anyone to respond here, and no real pressure to respond. It’s not like when someone goes up to a trans person out of the blue and demands an explanation, or goes to a trans space and demands their concerns be dealt with.
The main reason I object is that I don’t think a thread that was created to call out transphobes and later to also debunk them is the best place to try and have the sort of discussion @Dr.Strangelove wants. In that context, the questioning will inherently come off as a lack of acceptance. And even if that isn’t the intent, that sort of thing only empowers transphobes to say the whole concept is controversial.
But that doesn’t mean picking things apart is a bad thing. It’s actually a necessary component of understanding. Sure, we can accept without understanding, but that’s not the ideal. A lack of understanding leads to more mistakes.
For example, I can know that women don’t like sexual objectification. But, if I don’t understand why, then I might easily no longer ever flirt or show attraction at all. I need to pick it apart to understand it.
But, at the same time, the time to discuss it would not be in a thread calling out people saying the only place for women is in the kitchen.
Not sure, I can never get the scrolling post counter to behave predictably. I just scroll the screen old-school to step through a thread and use the “Reply” links and the post number from the timestamp post-ID button to identify specific posts. Glad to know that Discourse isn’t being inconsistent about the “official” post count labels, though.
I know what semiotics means; I’m just confused that we were talking about how labels are tied to how we think, whereas semiotics is about communication. Thought and communication aren’t completely disjoint, but nor are they the same thing. I can think ideas that I can’t communicate, and I can communicate ideas I can’t think about. You must have some position on their relationship if you’re going to say “Labels are intimately tied in to how we think”. While I don’t dispute that there is influence, I don’t believe that it really rises to the level of “intimate.”
So then do you not think in words? Because I do. And I can’t do either one of these. Sure, some things are more difficult to describe because there aren’t easy labels for it. Sometimes there’s a lot of detail that would be necessary to explain, and doing so is impractical. Sometimes I fish around for the best explanation that will help the other person. But, ultimately, there aren’t any ideas I can’t explain, because my inner monologue had to explain it to me.
And if I don’t understand an idea, I can’t see how I could communicate it at all. Unless you’re including quoting someone who you don’t understand. But I don’t see how that’s relevant in this situation.
It is a strange one. I’ve gone to look at 2k post threads and the scrolling counter is consistent at both ends and sometimes in the middle but in other places it is off by a few. Or sometimes not.
Who knows why? Still at least I know now where to get an accurate post number, though In terms of interface design the time stamp itself doesn’t give much of clue that the true post number is hidden beneath it. A B- on that one I reckon.
Sometimes, but usually not. Certainly not for mathematics, or for anything where physical form plays a part. But even pure ideas aren’t usually in words. Though I do spend a fair amount of time mentally explaining concepts as form of practice, and occasionally to flesh out an idea where I need a new angle (i.e., the rubber duck technique, except that I don’t need a duck).
Have you ever had a word on the tip of your tongue? You know what you’re trying to say; you just don’t have the word for it right at hand. That’s an idea without a word.
Or, in a slight reversal, when I read a book, I’m (usually) not listening to an audiobook by my internal voice. I’m processing the text into ideas while not consciously seeing the words.
That’s all I meant (though I imagined repeating a sentence from a language you don’t know). I mentioned it only to emphasize that communication and thought are different things.
Yeah, concur.