4 ms·

There's probably a lot of political stuff I am unaware of here, but a "sex realist" immediately made me understand what Colin's views probably area. I don't ge

by b112 4y ago

There's probably a lot of political stuff I am unaware of here, but a "sex realist" immediately made me understand what Colin's views probably area. I don't get the "legitimatize" bit. If I acknowledge that some people believe the Earth is flat, and call them flat Earthers, how does this make their position legitimate? Is the thought process here to pretend such people do not exist? I don't grok.

blep_ 4y ago
"Realist" is a bit non-neutral in the attitude it expresses toward the view. Compare it to "planet shape realist" and it'll be more obvious.
gwd 4y ago
"Flat earther" is an accurate representation of their beliefs; it doesn't say whether those beliefs reflect reality or not. "Sex realist", however, implies that this Colin person's beliefs correspond to reality, while his opponent's beliefs do not. Imagine if flat earthers started going around calling themselves "geological realists" -- anyone who then used that term would pretty clearly identify themselves as aligned with them. Everyone on both sides of this debate would claim to be a "sex realist". I'm not at all familiar with Colin's views, but "trans denier" or "biological determinist" might be more neutral terms.
- b112 4y ago
  I guess I get you, but, it don't see the point of even bringing it up. Or caring. Why? Because worrying, caring about this is the ultimate red herring. Imagine there are two sides. One which believes all blue people should be exiled, another which is opposed... including the blue people. Now, to add to this frey, people start shouting at the name the other group calls themselves?! I mean really, it's like caring that someone is putting too much salt on a sick of salted butter. How about we argue about the salted butter itself?! Worse, every erg of energy complaining about the name, is a wasted breath to fight the real issue. And even worse, the other side chose the name, likes it, so what's the point. People will always think of them by this name. Always.
- drstewart 4y ago
  Ah yes, "realist" is loaded but "denier" is neutral. So can we neutrally consider TRAs to be "biological denialists"?
  - gwd 4y ago
    OK, I agree that "denier" is probably not neutral. I was more focused on explaining why "realist" wasn't neutral, than actually coming up with a better option (particularly as I don't actually know anything about this Colin person we're talking about).

by b112 4y ago

blep_ 4y ago

"Realist" is a bit non-neutral in the attitude it expresses toward the view. Compare it to "planet shape realist" and it'll be more obvious.

gwd 4y ago

"Flat earther" is an accurate representation of their beliefs; it doesn't say whether those beliefs reflect reality or not. "Sex realist", however, implies that this Colin person's beliefs correspond to reality, while his opponent's beliefs do not. Imagine if flat earthers started going around calling themselves "geological realists" -- anyone who then used that term would pretty clearly identify themselves as aligned with them. Everyone on both sides of this debate would claim to be a "sex realist". I'm not at all familiar with Colin's views, but "trans denier" or "biological determinist" might be more neutral terms.

b112 4y ago
I guess I get you, but, it don't see the point of even bringing it up. Or caring. Why? Because worrying, caring about this is the ultimate red herring. Imagine there are two sides. One which believes all blue people should be exiled, another which is opposed... including the blue people. Now, to add to this frey, people start shouting at the name the other group calls themselves?! I mean really, it's like caring that someone is putting too much salt on a sick of salted butter. How about we argue about the salted butter itself?! Worse, every erg of energy complaining about the name, is a wasted breath to fight the real issue. And even worse, the other side chose the name, likes it, so what's the point. People will always think of them by this name. Always.
drstewart 4y ago
Ah yes, "realist" is loaded but "denier" is neutral. So can we neutrally consider TRAs to be "biological denialists"?
- gwd 4y ago
  OK, I agree that "denier" is probably not neutral. I was more focused on explaining why "realist" wasn't neutral, than actually coming up with a better option (particularly as I don't actually know anything about this Colin person we're talking about).