Who is being overly sensitive?

I reference to this thread.

Not so fast, you ignorant asshole.

Some terms are generally considered vulgar, insulting, and offensive. Among these we have nigger, cripple, gimp, whore, and she-male.

Politely pointing out to someone that a term is in this category is not the same thing as taking offense or flaming.

Politely pointing out that something is phrased in what could be offensive terms, or phrased in a way that presumes a situation that is not in fact the case, is not flaming.

Some suppositions are inherently offensive, and wrong to boot. Among these are: it is the white man’s burden to shepard the other races because only white men are fit to govern, any woman wearing make up or tight clothing is a whore and has, by dressing provocatively, consented to any sexual activity and need not be asked before fucking her, and transsexuals are really their apparent birth sex, they may try to change it, but genitalia determine the true sex of an individual anyone asserting otherwise is simply delusional.

Where the hell do you get off telling transsexuals that in order to acheive acceptance in society they need to stop taking offense? You seemed to have taken offense easily enough just from having ignorance pointed out to others in front of you, are you accepted in society? Isn’t it a wee bit overly sensitive on your part to take offense on behalf of someone who was not being insulted? Why do you feel that behavior is fine, but that transsexual just have to shut their mouths?

You just popped into a GQ thread to make overbroad generalizations in support of someone else who is making offensive overbroad categoriztion in support of someone who made offensive comparisons. The place for that is not GQ, it is Great Debates, or possibly the Pit.

Let’s review the offensive generalization:

Up to that point kwikwitty had not said anything that was obviously or deliberately offensive. It had been pointed out that kwikwitty’s thread title may be deemed offensive by some because it makes an underlying assumption that is not true. No one in the thread had been been taking personal exception to anything said, and then BOOM she compares transsexuals to delusional snakes. Nice going. Good choice of animal for maximum offense. Dog80 can you really tell me that what kwikwitty was not actually offensive?

Side point about ladies and women: Eve is a lady. She deservers respect. She is generally polite, always classy, and makes keen, witty, and insightful observations about those around her. If Eve told me directly that I was batshitcrazy, she would do so with the utmost class, and I would probably look into seeing a shrink. She has a good eye for these things.

She is also of course a woman.

Kelly is a woman. I have never once noticed her being a lady. She was closer to being one than usual in that thread in that she was not attacking at all, and was being polite. She does have respect for GQ, if not for those who would call her a delusional snake.

I gasped when I saw Kwikwitty’s statement. Some people just can’t accept that there are things in life that are (at this point, anyway) inexplicable. The cruelness exhibited in her post is running second to JerseyDiamond and her sidekick only because she didn’t actually attach a name to it. He/she is neither “Kwik” nor “witty.” Just mean.

I mean KellyM not Kelly.

I don’t recall the post in question, but in that thread there were plenty of insensitive statements on the conservative vocabulary wing of the discussion.

Despite this, however, were it not for the brain chemistry science that has been discovered in the past decade(s?), that side would have a point. It would be akin to calling, nay, taking umbrage that we do NOT CALL your average white person racist because s/he passively partakes of the advantages of being white. Just because you want to redefine a term doesn’t mean that everyone else has to share in your delusion.

On the other hand, since there seems to be solid science behind the differences, there is a need for a term for those with differing genital and psychiatric genders.

Perhaps we can use the gender term for the psychological gender, and man/woman for the genitic? I know that that is not a new concept, but in that thread it seemed that BOTH sides were violating this. Would the liberal vocabulary side take offense if the title were “Man becoming a woman?”

After all, not only is there the need for a term for the gender a person feels they are, but also for a term for the sex they are. Not that there SHOULD be a need to reference either of those terms more than necessary, but English is a large language, we can make room :slight_smile:

But gender identity issues have been around since before there was solid science to back it up. The feeling of misassignment was always there. In other words, the science doesn’t make it suddenly valid to say you identify with one sex or another. The fact remains, only YOU can interpret your identity to be one gender or the other. It should not make a difference whether we “understand” it or not. Although science helps in a debate, I s’pose.

The irony is just too much for me to bear.

I feel like I am King and Master Pimp of all I Survey. Does that give me the right to be offended if others do no recognize me as such?

Nobody would take offence at that; we would just point out that it was incorrect. A transsexual woman is a woman even when she was assigned and presenting as male.

Nobody took offence at the original thread title, for what it’s worth. KellyM claimed that it was offensive, not that she was offended:

Yes, it is possible to claim that something is offensive without taking offence. Much as if a second-language speaker of English were to call me a faggot without realizing what that exactly meant; I would correct them and inform them that the word was considered offensive, but I wouldn’t take offence.

And kwikwitty apologized for it – just before tossing the major bomb, the bit about the snakes, which I am having a really hard time coming up with a positive interpretation of.

Which he then apologized for, an apology Eve accepted.

I should point out that KellyM said nothing even remotely insulting to kwikwitty, instead pointing out his misconceptions about transsexuality in a matter-of-fact way.

As a summary: Kelly said the thread title was offensive, which was apologized for. Eve took offence at the “snake delusion” comment, which was also apologized for. The rest of the thread was people posing questions and having them answered, until about midway down Page 2 when some people started tacking “…or can I ask this question without getting my ass flamed off me by the PC police,” which as you can see is not a reasonable description of what happened to any other poster in that thread.

Nobody got flamed, not even for the one statement that actually provoked offence. I’m at a loss to explain the little asides about getting flamed and being afraid to ask questions.

In a word, yes. Overlooking your thinly veiled comparison of a transgendered person to a lunatic, who am I to dictate what your personal feelings and identification are?

Ok, I’m not sure if that was a typo or if I’m ignorant.

Should it say Kelly is a woman. “I have never once noticed her not being a lady.”

Or is lady an offensive term?

(I’m asking in all seriousness here).

When dealing with idiots, I usually just wave my hand and say “BAH!”, but in your case I will make an exception and try to answer thoughtfully.

Nobody was flamed? How do you explain this nice little exchange then?

And the answer:

I read KellyM’s answer as: Shut up, because Eve is the Ultimate Arbiter of what is bat-shit crazy. Also she is a lady which somehow makes her protected species. End of story.

I think she is drawing a distinction between Eve’s more refined, “ladylike” demeanor, as opposed to KellyM’s, shall we say, “less delicate” verbal style. I could be wrong.

Lady is a term which only certain women choose to apply to themselves. I, for instance, don’t mind being called a lady (particularly if I’ve just horked sunflower seeds out a car window); however, many women don’t like the term and don’t care for some of the implied connotations associated with it.

If you think that KellyM’s answer was a flame, then you don’t know from flames.

KW really seemed to be walking the line in that thread - I can totally understand why KellyM answered the way she did.

Kalhoun and alice_in_wonderland have it right. I am not trying to be offensive by calling Eve a lady, but neither was I trying to be offensive to KellyM by saying she isn’t one. When I use the term, lady, I use it to refer to a woman with a certain class and grace that who tends toward ladylike behavior and even when engaging in unladylike activities retains a je ne se quois that recharacterizes the activity rather than herself.

KellyM does not aspire to be a lady, though she seems to appreciate them.

A couple of the reasons that the terms lady and ladylike are seen as insulting or offensive is that they have been used to try to circumscribe women’s freedom. They are also used to dress up other wise insulting references e.g. bag lady, lady of the evening.

Thanks Lee, Kalhoun and alice_in_wonderland, I had no idea. I did a little more searching about this and found that there was already a thread about this. I’m considering myself a little less ignorant today! :slight_smile:

kwikwitty apologised for the snake comment. Was this question: From this view point, what is the difference between Eve calling the person from the example 'bat-shit crazy, and me calling Eve ‘bat-shit crazy’? Which I must add, with lighting quick reflexes, I am not doing. walking the line? I don’t think so. It is a legitimate question. And then all we get is KellyM’s idiotic answer.

The “little asides” are just the status quo being enforced. It’s one of the not-so-subtle ways that people in the majority remind people in the minority that “if you want us not to treat you like the dirt we both know you are, you have to play by our rules and take whatever we choose to give you and be happy about it”. At least, that’s how I interpret them.

Can you please explain what those ‘little asides’ where and what you mean by ‘status quo’?

You are free to interpret anything you like as "“if you want us not to treat you like the dirt we both know you are, you have to play by our rules and take whatever we choose to give you and be happy about it” but I would like to know what exactly you interpreted as that. You are free to ignore me of course.

Not that this answers your question, but I really don’t think anyone in that thread or this thread is directing any of their ire your way.

As I said, I think KW was walking the line the whole way through the thread. I hate to ascribe motives to people, but I was getting a really creepy vibe from the tone and wording of some (most) of his posts. I don’t know the guy from Adam and perhaps his intentions were pure but he really seemed to be trying to push it a bit.