You don’t even need to finish the sentence. “I’m just sick of how men are often…” is already not a generalization about the entire gender.
Also, “I’m just sick of how all men in my office…” or “All men who are in MRA movements…” or “All men in fedoras…” or “All men who are convicted sexual predators…”
Honestly, it’s trivially easy to come up with constructions to complete the character’s sentence that are not generalizing about all men. And that’s without hypothesizing about what she might have said before Not-All-Men Man threw himself through the window.
Uh, yes it is. The qualifier has to come before the word men. Otherwise you’re just saying (or, at the very least, strongly implying) all men often act a certain (and, judging by the expression on that woman’s face, clearly objectionable) way.
And again, do you really think these are plausible within the context of the cartoon? Would #notallman be leaping into action if this woman were only talking about the the men in her fucking office?.
Jesus, this kind of handwaving about any other group would probably earn most posters a pit thread of their own.
You mean would it be plausible within the context of the cartoon that a character who is being portrayed as a kneejerk idiot who leaps into action without having any information might not actually have all the information?
Oh, for fuck’s sake! All the way through this poxy thread the narrative has been that #notallman is an asshole because he “derails” things, and that his actions toward the sexist women were “stifling” their oh-so-important conversation. Now his problem is just that he jumps the gun?
Do you really think that’s the cartoonists point? Yes or no?
You say they have to be sexist, because there’s no way they cannot be sexist, because what they were saying was going to be sexist. And the proof of that was that the cartoon was portraying them as sexist. And the proof of that is that they were going to say something sexist. And the proof of that is that they cannot have been intending to say something non-sexist. And the proof of that is that a caped crusader thought they were going to say something sexist and interrupted them. And now you say that it has to be that they are sexist because other people in this thread agree they are sexist when they don’t say they are sexist.
Goddamn, I hope there’s a raven under there somewhere, Edgar.
Yes it is. Qualifiers come before the thing being qualified. Let’s pretend this woman was about to say “I’m sick of how men are often groping, cat-calling scum”. Don’t you think this is a little unfair to the huge number of men who never grope or cat-call? Hint: If your answer is yes, you agree with me.
No, the behaviour the comic is satirising is the act of challenging generalisations about men at all. It’s “derailing” y’see. We’re all supposed to just pretend that generalisations about men aren’t really generalisations and should be treated differently to generalisations about blacks, muslims, jews, women, transpeople, and other groups because reasons.
You’re making it much more complicated than it really is. I’m simply saying this:
The most plausible reading of the comic is that men who object to women generalising about them should just butt out, because whatever those women are complaining about has to be more important than the fact that they’re being bigoted, and by interrupting, #notallman is “derailing”. I could find plenty of feminist bloggers who interpret the cartoon that exact same way. The only difference between me and them, is that they don’t see anything wrong with it.
I just think the cartoon’s message is bullshit. That’s really all there is to it. And on that note, I’m off to bed.
And I think it’s more likely a commentary that the caped crusader didn’t even wait to hear what she was going to say, because it is more important to speak to women than to listen to them.
And hey! If it turns out that you spoke so soon that you don’t know what they were going to say, you can just go on a message board and make it up.
Yes but these are usually to address physical disorders that are being corrected to revert them to the norm. Here we are using puberty blockers to deviate from the norm.
I agree that once you get past all that, the ultimate question is whether that particular patient would be better off with transition. In THAT way, its similar to giving HGH treatments to HGH deficient kids during puberty.
So about 20 years. I don’t think most people have heard of it used in that context (or in any other context for that matter). The general public is very ignorant about these things.
Does this argue for letting males go through puberty?
Is it much more difficult with girls after puberty?
You mentioned earlier that girls more commonly realize that they are transgendered after puberty than boys (or transgender boys realizing that they are actually girls when they row boobs). Does this mean that boys don’t have similar post pubescent revelations (and transgirls similarly don’t have a high recidivism rate despite puberty)? Is the gap between transgirls and transboys because there is a wide open space for tomboys that lets girls feel comfortable acting male?
Let’s make this as clear as possible. The point of this comic strip is that NotAllMan and his ilk are idiots. No, really, that’s the point. That’s literally the reason the strip exists: to paint this guy, and people like him, as obnoxious and stupid.
So with that in mind, what do you reckon the odds are that NotAllMan is accurate about “reverse sexism” here?
(Much of your commentary I found largely reasonable, but this is just silly.)
NotAllMan is satirizing those men who feel that shutting the complainant down is more important than addressing her concern.
It is not aimed at the men who say “Not all men do that, and we will find those that do and tell them to stop it because it makes the rest of us look bad.”
No, because the distinction I’m making here is physical. A transgender child who experiences the “wrong” puberty (as I talked about earlier) risks suffering intense psychological trauma without blockers.
While transgender girls have a penis and have had it all their life, prominent breasts (typically) come from puberty, and are an externally visible sign to the world that “this is a girl.” Transgender girls do suffer from serious dyspmorphia from facial and body hair growth (thankfully, due to my intersex condition, I never had to worry about that, although covering up my breasts was very difficult and a source of constant stress, as they made me open to mockery, harassment, and to be blunt what could best be described as physical torture.)
This is easy to answer: I don’t know, and I’d have to hit my books, so to speak, to try to answer that question. I’m not a transkid specialist and don’t know all the facts handy here on the road.
Thanks for the info and perspective. I don’t need to be an expert but i don’t want to talk too much out of my ass when I stake out a position on this issue at parties etc. There is always some guy (and its usually a guy) that has really strong feelings about this and in at least one case I think it was displaced homophobia. I think there are still a LOT of people out there that think of transsexualism as an extreme form of homosexuality.