8 ms·

> But why should I take someone's view of their identity without question? Basic respect of others involves at least paying lip service to their preferences (a

> But why should I take someone's view of their identity without question? Basic respect of others involves at least paying lip service to their preferences (and I realise it’s not a preference but I don’t have the correct language here), or ideally genuinely respecting other people. You don’t have to do it, but it’s awfully rude and in cases can be quite a nasty thing to not respect their wishes. Why not do the right thing? How much does it really hurt you to do so (not how much does it irritate you, that’s not really relevant here)? Ideally you try respect the, and they forgive and accept mistakes on others part. Both people should try be kind to one another.

lliamander 4y ago
Whenever I ask these questions, this is always the response I get. It's really frustrating because it's really a non-answer that isn't at all helpful. Firstly, do you think I go around taunting people about their self-perceptions of their gender? Even if it wasn't something I could be fired for (which it is) I don't actually take delight in causing other people psychological distress. I am asking these questions here, in this forum, because I want to hear better reasons other than "it's the nice thing to do". Secondly, I listed several cases where your rules of politeness don't apply and aren't the norm - how are those different? This whole "take people's identity claims without question" works in some limited contexts, but breaks down in so many different cases that it really isn't a generalizable moral principle. At best what you propose is a useful tactic for having pleasant water cooler conversations with strangers and acquaintances. It is not a solution for the rest of life where our identities have important implications for how we relate to each other. Thirdly, that social etiquette is the only justification you provide suggests you understand our acceptance of these identity claims is merely a social fiction. Now, I am a well-socialized adult, which means I understand how often little fictions, little white-lies grease the gears of society. And like I said previously, I don't like to cause others undue distress. But I also think forcing other people to lie (by threatening their job, for example) to be dehumanizing and immoral in its own right.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- foldr 4y ago
  Lots of LGBTQ organizations have FAQs about transgender issues. E.g. https://www.hrc.org/resources/transgender-and-non-binary-faq https://www.hrc.org/resources/transgender-and-non-binary-faq What questions do you have that are not answered in this sort of material? If someone says "I identify as a woman and prefer female pronouns", it's not clear to me what it is that you'd want to 'question' anyway. If the person is, for example, a colleague, why would you care about their anatomy or what gender they were assigned at birth?
  - jawarner 4y ago
    It's important to be kind to everyone. Anyone "skeptical" of a trans person really ought to mind their own business. I agree with you there. To play devil's advocate, some identities have less currency in current society. See "Neopronoun" [1] for examples. To lliamander's point, there is a gray area where not everyone is going to feel comfortable with unfamiliar gender constructs. If the rule is to accept everybody's identity at face value, then that closes down any space to feel uncomfortable calling someone "kitten," to use an extreme example. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopronoun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopronoun
    - foldr 4y ago
      You are indeed using extreme examples. This is not the sort of thing that is causing people to get shouted at on twitter. I'd be interested to know if you can link to a single example of someone insisting that they be referred to using a neopronoun (and not accepting e.g. they). Here, for example, is a discussion of neopronouns on r/nonbinary: https://www.reddit.com/r/NonBinary/comments/k7hegi/can_someone_explain_to_me_why_neopronouns_are_a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/NonBinary/comments/k7hegi/can_someo... I don't see anyone getting canceled for expressing a degree of skepticism about neopronouns. I also think you're being slightly disingenuous in talking about 'accepting people's identity at face value' as if it was being proposed as an absolutely rigid rule. No rule of social interaction is completely rigid or without exception. If you really have a reason to think that someone is being dishonest or disingenuous about their gender identity then you don't necessarily have to go along with whatever they tell you. But if you are not inherently unwilling to believe trans people in general, how often is that scenario going to come up?
manigandham 4y ago
This answers nothing. Respect is earned, otherwise it's meaningless. And who said this is the "right thing"? Why does it matter how much it "hurt"? All you're doing is saying that one group must always be "respected" at the cost of the others agency. This is ridiculous and dystopic. People have the freedom to behave and accept whatever they want. What you're talking about is manners, politeness, and civility. And sure, people should be civil, but civility doesn't mean acceptance without question either and should never come at the cost of freedom. The moment you do so, you've lost both.
- d_e_solomon 4y ago
  > Respect is earned Respect isn't earned in polite society at some base level. I say "Good Morning" to the people I meet on my run not because they saved five children from a burning building, but because they're people I ran into today. That's the right thing to do. Sure, I don't put the person that I said "Good Morning" on some bright pedestal and worship their feet, but I still treat them with respect. To call someone by the name they prefer and the pronouns they prefer and not being a dick to them is pretty basic, and it's not dystopic to expect people to do so.
  - manigandham 4y ago
    > "Respect isn't earned in polite society at some base level." Polite society requires politeness. Manners. Decorum. Civility. Not respect. These are different words for different concepts and should not be conflated. Respect is earned based on your knowledge of that person. Why would you respect random people when you know nothing about them? What if they were murderers? Would you respect them less? If so, why? Because its new knowledge about them that caused a new score, therefore zero knowledge = zero respect until you learn enough to make an assessment. I can also be polite with a murderer but not respect them; see the difference? > "I say "Good Morning" to the people I meet ... because they're people ... That's the right thing to do." What's right about it? What if they didn't want to talk to you? A lack of engagement is not wrong. > "name ... and the pronouns they prefer" Preferences do not overrule rights and freedoms. The point is why should someone accept an identity without question - and both you and the other user made the same argument that it's "the right thing to do". But that means not accepting identity without question is wrong, which therefore removes the rights and agency of one group (to question) the preferences of another. Your rights are my responsibility; your right to question my identity is my responsibility to accept that my identity is open to questioning. That's why those arguments are meaningless. They may sound good but they fail to hold any logical consistency. Expectations of civility are more than enough for society to function, however as soon as you mandate civility at the cost of freedom them you will end up with neither.
vimy 4y ago
So when I meet a flat earther I need to be respectful and acknowledge the earth is flat? Those people consider it to be part of their identity too. Why is it ok to dismiss one group but we have to be respectful of another? Anyway, I never said I want to mock people in their face but the ideas they believe in should be fair game.

lliamander 4y ago

Whenever I ask these questions, this is always the response I get. It's really frustrating because it's really a non-answer that isn't at all helpful. Firstly, do you think I go around taunting people about their self-perceptions of their gender? Even if it wasn't something I could be fired for (which it is) I don't actually take delight in causing other people psychological distress. I am asking these questions here, in this forum, because I want to hear better reasons other than "it's the nice thing to do". Secondly, I listed several cases where your rules of politeness don't apply and aren't the norm - how are those different? This whole "take people's identity claims without question" works in some limited contexts, but breaks down in so many different cases that it really isn't a generalizable moral principle. At best what you propose is a useful tactic for having pleasant water cooler conversations with strangers and acquaintances. It is not a solution for the rest of life where our identities have important implications for how we relate to each other. Thirdly, that social etiquette is the only justification you provide suggests you understand our acceptance of these identity claims is merely a social fiction. Now, I am a well-socialized adult, which means I understand how often little fictions, little white-lies grease the gears of society. And like I said previously, I don't like to cause others undue distress. But I also think forcing other people to lie (by threatening their job, for example) to be dehumanizing and immoral in its own right.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
foldr 4y ago
Lots of LGBTQ organizations have FAQs about transgender issues. E.g. https://www.hrc.org/resources/transgender-and-non-binary-faq https://www.hrc.org/resources/transgender-and-non-binary-faq What questions do you have that are not answered in this sort of material? If someone says "I identify as a woman and prefer female pronouns", it's not clear to me what it is that you'd want to 'question' anyway. If the person is, for example, a colleague, why would you care about their anatomy or what gender they were assigned at birth?
- jawarner 4y ago
  It's important to be kind to everyone. Anyone "skeptical" of a trans person really ought to mind their own business. I agree with you there. To play devil's advocate, some identities have less currency in current society. See "Neopronoun" [1] for examples. To lliamander's point, there is a gray area where not everyone is going to feel comfortable with unfamiliar gender constructs. If the rule is to accept everybody's identity at face value, then that closes down any space to feel uncomfortable calling someone "kitten," to use an extreme example. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopronoun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopronoun
  - foldr 4y ago
    You are indeed using extreme examples. This is not the sort of thing that is causing people to get shouted at on twitter. I'd be interested to know if you can link to a single example of someone insisting that they be referred to using a neopronoun (and not accepting e.g. they). Here, for example, is a discussion of neopronouns on r/nonbinary: https://www.reddit.com/r/NonBinary/comments/k7hegi/can_someone_explain_to_me_why_neopronouns_are_a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/NonBinary/comments/k7hegi/can_someo... I don't see anyone getting canceled for expressing a degree of skepticism about neopronouns. I also think you're being slightly disingenuous in talking about 'accepting people's identity at face value' as if it was being proposed as an absolutely rigid rule. No rule of social interaction is completely rigid or without exception. If you really have a reason to think that someone is being dishonest or disingenuous about their gender identity then you don't necessarily have to go along with whatever they tell you. But if you are not inherently unwilling to believe trans people in general, how often is that scenario going to come up?

manigandham 4y ago

This answers nothing. Respect is earned, otherwise it's meaningless. And who said this is the "right thing"? Why does it matter how much it "hurt"? All you're doing is saying that one group must always be "respected" at the cost of the others agency. This is ridiculous and dystopic. People have the freedom to behave and accept whatever they want. What you're talking about is manners, politeness, and civility. And sure, people should be civil, but civility doesn't mean acceptance without question either and should never come at the cost of freedom. The moment you do so, you've lost both.

d_e_solomon 4y ago
> Respect is earned Respect isn't earned in polite society at some base level. I say "Good Morning" to the people I meet on my run not because they saved five children from a burning building, but because they're people I ran into today. That's the right thing to do. Sure, I don't put the person that I said "Good Morning" on some bright pedestal and worship their feet, but I still treat them with respect. To call someone by the name they prefer and the pronouns they prefer and not being a dick to them is pretty basic, and it's not dystopic to expect people to do so.
- manigandham 4y ago
  > "Respect isn't earned in polite society at some base level." Polite society requires politeness. Manners. Decorum. Civility. Not respect. These are different words for different concepts and should not be conflated. Respect is earned based on your knowledge of that person. Why would you respect random people when you know nothing about them? What if they were murderers? Would you respect them less? If so, why? Because its new knowledge about them that caused a new score, therefore zero knowledge = zero respect until you learn enough to make an assessment. I can also be polite with a murderer but not respect them; see the difference? > "I say "Good Morning" to the people I meet ... because they're people ... That's the right thing to do." What's right about it? What if they didn't want to talk to you? A lack of engagement is not wrong. > "name ... and the pronouns they prefer" Preferences do not overrule rights and freedoms. The point is why should someone accept an identity without question - and both you and the other user made the same argument that it's "the right thing to do". But that means not accepting identity without question is wrong, which therefore removes the rights and agency of one group (to question) the preferences of another. Your rights are my responsibility; your right to question my identity is my responsibility to accept that my identity is open to questioning. That's why those arguments are meaningless. They may sound good but they fail to hold any logical consistency. Expectations of civility are more than enough for society to function, however as soon as you mandate civility at the cost of freedom them you will end up with neither.

vimy 4y ago

So when I meet a flat earther I need to be respectful and acknowledge the earth is flat? Those people consider it to be part of their identity too. Why is it ok to dismiss one group but we have to be respectful of another? Anyway, I never said I want to mock people in their face but the ideas they believe in should be fair game.