4 ms·

My point was that this is not about how personally difficult it is for you to respect someone else's preferences. It's actually very easy and we do it all the t

My point was that this is not about how personally difficult it is for you to respect someone else's preferences. It's actually very easy and we do it all the time for other things, like nicknames. If you're so against trans people having similar status as you then you shouldn't claim that it's because trans people are causing you a burden.

omginternets 5y ago
>If you're so against trans people having similar status as you then you shouldn't claim that it's because trans people are causing you a burden. Yes, I understand. But, much of the opposition you're seeing isn't because people are "against trans people". It's because they're opposed solving the problem of intolerance through authoritarian methods.
- mike00632 5y ago
  Aren't you being the "authoritarian" by insisting on calling people by the wrong nicknames (gender), promoting laws that outlaw nickname (gender) preference and going as far as violence if that person continues to disagree with your name (gender)? The proposed protections for trans people are in response to real acts of violence that are not in line with laws like the 14th Amendment which promotes equality for all people. And let's remember that these laws to protect trans people are only being proposed. Many laws on the books are against trans people. What you're reacting to is social pressure to treat trans people with respect, not authoritarian legal pressure. If anyone is feeling authoritarian legal pressure it's trans people.
  - omginternets 5y ago
    >Aren't you being the "authoritarian" by insisting on calling people by the wrong nicknames (gender) ... Of course not. I'm perhaps being an asshole, but authoritarianism is a concept applied to policymaking, not manners. It roughly translates to the belief that institutions should have more power over individuals. Calling people the wrong name, no matter how mean-spirited, is expressing no such belief. The point is that certain things -- bad though they may be -- are not to be legislated. You may disagree with this premise, and you may even be correct, and that would definitionally make you lean towards authoritarianism. To reiterate, many people -- myself included -- agree with you that it is unkind to call trans people the wrong name. Where you seem to disagree with us is that we find the prospect of things like compelled speech to be terrifying and fundamentally at odds with the principles of liberal government.
    - mike00632 5y ago
      But you're not just calling people by the wrong gender, you're acting as a gender authority and upholding the laws and restrictions against trans people that the authorities put in place. Look at it from a trans person's perspective and it's clear that their struggle is a clash with authority. If your company forbids you from creating a toxic work environment for trans people then that is an extremely minor brush with authority compared to what trans people endure.
      - omginternets 5y ago
        No. Sorry, but no. Nothing in expressing an opinion (much less indulging in name-calling) makes me a gender authority. Even if it amounted to a bona fide claim of authority, you can rightly dismiss it. No need to involve the law. In fact, I could just as well retort that you are currently positioning yourself as an authority on becoming a authority, which is just as ludicrous, and just as irrelevant to the question at hand. Again, this kind of conflation of ideas and Jesuit argumentation is precisely why CRT is opposed by a great many liberals.
        mike00632 5y ago
        The act of misgendering someone is not just "expressing an opinion." It's a slight. It's intentionally harmful. It creates a toxic environment.
        greendave 5y ago
        This nicely captures the crux of the argument. I suspect it also explains why you’re going to have an uphill battle convincing a lot of folks. When the presumption of ill intent (and not e.g. confusion or ignorance) is automatic, there’s not much left to discuss. It’s worth remembering that cis children (and adults) are misgendered too, including for reasons as banal as unorthodox appearance or unusual names.
        pseudalopex 5y ago

omginternets 5y ago

>If you're so against trans people having similar status as you then you shouldn't claim that it's because trans people are causing you a burden. Yes, I understand. But, much of the opposition you're seeing isn't because people are "against trans people". It's because they're opposed solving the problem of intolerance through authoritarian methods.

mike00632 5y ago
Aren't you being the "authoritarian" by insisting on calling people by the wrong nicknames (gender), promoting laws that outlaw nickname (gender) preference and going as far as violence if that person continues to disagree with your name (gender)? The proposed protections for trans people are in response to real acts of violence that are not in line with laws like the 14th Amendment which promotes equality for all people. And let's remember that these laws to protect trans people are only being proposed. Many laws on the books are against trans people. What you're reacting to is social pressure to treat trans people with respect, not authoritarian legal pressure. If anyone is feeling authoritarian legal pressure it's trans people.
- omginternets 5y ago
  >Aren't you being the "authoritarian" by insisting on calling people by the wrong nicknames (gender) ... Of course not. I'm perhaps being an asshole, but authoritarianism is a concept applied to policymaking, not manners. It roughly translates to the belief that institutions should have more power over individuals. Calling people the wrong name, no matter how mean-spirited, is expressing no such belief. The point is that certain things -- bad though they may be -- are not to be legislated. You may disagree with this premise, and you may even be correct, and that would definitionally make you lean towards authoritarianism. To reiterate, many people -- myself included -- agree with you that it is unkind to call trans people the wrong name. Where you seem to disagree with us is that we find the prospect of things like compelled speech to be terrifying and fundamentally at odds with the principles of liberal government.
  - mike00632 5y ago
    But you're not just calling people by the wrong gender, you're acting as a gender authority and upholding the laws and restrictions against trans people that the authorities put in place. Look at it from a trans person's perspective and it's clear that their struggle is a clash with authority. If your company forbids you from creating a toxic work environment for trans people then that is an extremely minor brush with authority compared to what trans people endure.
    - omginternets 5y ago
      No. Sorry, but no. Nothing in expressing an opinion (much less indulging in name-calling) makes me a gender authority. Even if it amounted to a bona fide claim of authority, you can rightly dismiss it. No need to involve the law. In fact, I could just as well retort that you are currently positioning yourself as an authority on becoming a authority, which is just as ludicrous, and just as irrelevant to the question at hand. Again, this kind of conflation of ideas and Jesuit argumentation is precisely why CRT is opposed by a great many liberals.
      - mike00632 5y ago
        The act of misgendering someone is not just "expressing an opinion." It's a slight. It's intentionally harmful. It creates a toxic environment.
        greendave 5y ago
        This nicely captures the crux of the argument. I suspect it also explains why you’re going to have an uphill battle convincing a lot of folks. When the presumption of ill intent (and not e.g. confusion or ignorance) is automatic, there’s not much left to discuss. It’s worth remembering that cis children (and adults) are misgendered too, including for reasons as banal as unorthodox appearance or unusual names.
        pseudalopex 5y ago