4 ms·

I don't have a big problem with people who "identify as" someone else. I have a big one with people who insist that I must call them in a particular way. It c

by b0rsuk 5y ago

I don't have a big problem with people who "identify as" someone else. I have a big one with people who insist that *I* must call them in a particular way. It clashes with the idea that freedom of one person stops where freedom of another person starts. What about my right to call another person as I see them? This is invasive. I'm not telling them how to live - they are. This is *gaslighting* and promoting *taboos*. Margaret Thatcher once said: "Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't." https://pbfcomics.com/comics/bear-boy/ https://pbfcomics.com/comics/bear-boy/

kristopolous 5y ago
> I have a big one with people who insist that I must call them in a particular way. It clashes with the idea that freedom of one person stops where freedom of another person starts So this would also apply to say, racial slurs and personal insults. Calling someone a name or the n-word instead of their name, that's a freedom? What about antisemitic slurs or insulting disabled people? How about just referring to women as sex objects, that's also within that rule. As well as doing the same for children or the deceased. You don't expect people to be insulted by such things? Are you serious? I don't think you actually mean what you say.
- textgel 5y ago
  You don't have the right not to be offended. No matter how many times you ask.
  - kristopolous 5y ago
    Huh? So say, sexually fetishizing children in front of their parents is a freedom? That's actually a crime, you know that, right, it's not freedom of speech. Using racial slurs is a crime in most environments as well. There is no right to say arbitrary things in front of arbitrary people. That's actually not a thing. It's not "your freedom" that's being violated, there never was one there to begin with here.
    - textgel 5y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech > Freedom of speech[2] is a fundamental human right that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The list of things at the forefront of you mind would fall under the above. You might get your teeth kicked in but by the actual freedom of speech definition rather than your own truths interpretation there would be no legal response. It's true however that we don't actually subscribe to that definition any more, so you never know. Maybe you'll have your wish.
      - kristopolous 5y ago
        Huh? It's called criminal verbal threats and they're quite illegal. Case laws have upheld them numerous times. This isn't "interpreted truths", racial slurs have been interpreted as intent and such things have been prosecuted.
        textgel 5y ago
        And you want missgendering to be interpreted legally as the equivalent of a death threat?
  - anoncake 5y ago
    You have a right not to be intentionally offended. Because that is an attack.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > You have a right not to be intentionally offended. Seems lots of people get intentionally offended nowadays... Only the intention is their own.
- b0rsuk 5y ago
  Is that something I said? Did I call anyone a nigger, eskimo, blanca, rusek...? Or are you just misrepresenting my argument with a superficially similar one that's easy to refute? (straw man) It's a completely different thing. I want my right to use neutral, non-offensive terms to describe people as I see them and not have people jump at me for that. It is possible to insult people by using neutral terms, but I think I've done my part and the ball is now on the other side of the court. Managing someone else's emotions is not my responsibility beyond not using words that are intentionally hurtful and untrue. I could meet someone in a dark alley and that person might take offense that I don't give him my wallet. He might be even more offended if I call him a thief and a mugger. It may be a good idea at the time to give him that wallet, but I'm doing that because of intimidation. I don't want people to intimidate me when I don't deserve it. Just because someone feels offended doesn't necessarily mean they're right. The purpose of a conversation should be to reach a mutual understanding. We start on two sides and hopefully meet somewhere in the middle... if both parties act in good faith. It's not always possible to achieve with everyone, and it's not always your fault. Sometimes the other person is messed up, for example takes offense very easily or insists that I accept their demands. Sometimes the other person is just unreasonable. As long as they are, I'll just stay clear off them. I think nowadays Western society is too tolerant of intolerance. I feel we celebrate the right of people to be offended. This enables very thin-skinned and manipulative people. I could live with the thin-skinned, but they're extremely hard to separate from the manipulative.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
imsesaok 5y ago
You call them whatever you want, and the other side has a freedom to call you a transphobe. simple as that.
- b0rsuk 5y ago
  I don't see anything offensive in calling someone "a man" or "a woman". If I do that, and you respond by labeling me as a "transphobe", fine, but as far as I'm concerned you are responding with a pejorative (unflattering) term to a neutral one.

I don't have a big problem with people who "identify as" someone else. I have a big one with people who insist that *I* must call them in a particular way. It c

by b0rsuk 5y ago

kristopolous 5y ago

> I have a big one with people who insist that I must call them in a particular way. It clashes with the idea that freedom of one person stops where freedom of another person starts So this would also apply to say, racial slurs and personal insults. Calling someone a name or the n-word instead of their name, that's a freedom? What about antisemitic slurs or insulting disabled people? How about just referring to women as sex objects, that's also within that rule. As well as doing the same for children or the deceased. You don't expect people to be insulted by such things? Are you serious? I don't think you actually mean what you say.

textgel 5y ago
You don't have the right not to be offended. No matter how many times you ask.
- kristopolous 5y ago
  Huh? So say, sexually fetishizing children in front of their parents is a freedom? That's actually a crime, you know that, right, it's not freedom of speech. Using racial slurs is a crime in most environments as well. There is no right to say arbitrary things in front of arbitrary people. That's actually not a thing. It's not "your freedom" that's being violated, there never was one there to begin with here.
  - textgel 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech > Freedom of speech[2] is a fundamental human right that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The list of things at the forefront of you mind would fall under the above. You might get your teeth kicked in but by the actual freedom of speech definition rather than your own truths interpretation there would be no legal response. It's true however that we don't actually subscribe to that definition any more, so you never know. Maybe you'll have your wish.
    - kristopolous 5y ago
      Huh? It's called criminal verbal threats and they're quite illegal. Case laws have upheld them numerous times. This isn't "interpreted truths", racial slurs have been interpreted as intent and such things have been prosecuted.
      - textgel 5y ago
        And you want missgendering to be interpreted legally as the equivalent of a death threat?
- anoncake 5y ago
  You have a right not to be intentionally offended. Because that is an attack.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > You have a right not to be intentionally offended. Seems lots of people get intentionally offended nowadays... Only the intention is their own.
b0rsuk 5y ago
Is that something I said? Did I call anyone a nigger, eskimo, blanca, rusek...? Or are you just misrepresenting my argument with a superficially similar one that's easy to refute? (straw man) It's a completely different thing. I want my right to use neutral, non-offensive terms to describe people as I see them and not have people jump at me for that. It is possible to insult people by using neutral terms, but I think I've done my part and the ball is now on the other side of the court. Managing someone else's emotions is not my responsibility beyond not using words that are intentionally hurtful and untrue. I could meet someone in a dark alley and that person might take offense that I don't give him my wallet. He might be even more offended if I call him a thief and a mugger. It may be a good idea at the time to give him that wallet, but I'm doing that because of intimidation. I don't want people to intimidate me when I don't deserve it. Just because someone feels offended doesn't necessarily mean they're right. The purpose of a conversation should be to reach a mutual understanding. We start on two sides and hopefully meet somewhere in the middle... if both parties act in good faith. It's not always possible to achieve with everyone, and it's not always your fault. Sometimes the other person is messed up, for example takes offense very easily or insists that I accept their demands. Sometimes the other person is just unreasonable. As long as they are, I'll just stay clear off them. I think nowadays Western society is too tolerant of intolerance. I feel we celebrate the right of people to be offended. This enables very thin-skinned and manipulative people. I could live with the thin-skinned, but they're extremely hard to separate from the manipulative.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

imsesaok 5y ago

You call them whatever you want, and the other side has a freedom to call you a transphobe. simple as that.

b0rsuk 5y ago
I don't see anything offensive in calling someone "a man" or "a woman". If I do that, and you respond by labeling me as a "transphobe", fine, but as far as I'm concerned you are responding with a pejorative (unflattering) term to a neutral one.