4 ms·
Correct me if I'm mischaracterizing you, but it seems like our deepest disagreement comes down to this: You think of misgendering as someone imposing a false i
by yepguy 8y ago
Correct me if I'm mischaracterizing you, but it seems like our deepest disagreement comes down to this:
You think of misgendering as someone imposing a false identity on you. This is an injustice because you have a right to determine your own identity.
I view the expectation to utter words I think are false to be the real imposition. I don't think people have total freedom to define themselves however they wish because they are constrained by the necessity to negotiate it with other people. I didn't choose my own gender identity and neither is anyone else entitled to.
I don't think these positions can be reconciled, but I would point out a disadvantage to your approach is that it leaves no possibility to foster peace between people who believe differently. Because if they don't accept your identity they should be written off as hateful.
EDIT: s/understanding/peace/
- CocaKoala 8y agoWell, one position is concerned with truth (e.g. "I'm a man") and one position is concerned with belief (e.g. "I believe you're a woman"). Being more concerned with what you believe about people over facts about them seems pretty selfish, but at this point if I haven't convinced you that perhaps people are a better judge of their identities than random strangers, I don't think I'm going to, and I agree that our positions are irreconcilable. I'd point out, however, that your position doesn't really leave possibility to foster understanding between people who believe differently either; if I say I'm a man and somebody disagrees, they're ignoring the most primary of primary sources. That's not the position of somebody who's open to compromise; that's the position of somebody who's already made their decision and refuses to consider any other factor.