5 ms·

I don't understand the table in this article which refers to replacement words for e.g. "penis" or "breast". My first instinct is to think that it must obviousl

by throwaway22032 4y ago

I don't understand the table in this article which refers to replacement words for e.g. "penis" or "breast". My first instinct is to think that it must obviously be some sort of parody. I am male. I have a penis and no breasts. If I were to transition into being a woman, I assume that would involve me having breasts and a vagina (in the final state). At some point in the process I imagine that I would have some set of physical attributes that don't correspond neatly into being either e.g. a "penis" or a "vagina", unless it's a one and done operation. At that point using either term would be inaccurate, but the terms themselves would not be inaccurate. At no point in that process would any of the words "penis", "vagina", "chest", "breast" etc cause me offence. They quite obviously are good descriptors, both for myself (past, present and future) and for others. What am I missing? Why do the terms need to be replaced, what is gained by doing so?

hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
I think the original reasoning went like this. When you refer to a black person standing by a tree, it is preferable to say "That guy in a blue shirt/in glasses" and omit the skin color. Similarly here, you omit the names of body parts that could be used to identify the biological sex and therefore infer the gender of the person you refer to. But I'm not convinced it's actually beneficial to the people in question.
- throwaway22032 4y ago
  But, to use your analogy there, the table is simply replacing "myopic person" with "person who wears glasses". The terms are specifically being used to refer to the same things, just with some sort of bizarre euphemism for basic terminology. It feels like saying "the colour at the low energy end of the spectrum" instead of "red". Are people offended by the mere utterance of the word "breast"?
- another_story 4y ago
  Why is using a defining characteristic of someone offensive in and of itself? If you're in Asia you might say "that white guy over there" because it's the most easily recognized characteristic when picking a person out. If you're in a minority, no matter the characteristic, it's a matter of convenience for others to use it to denote you. The priest, the tall woman, the handicapped person, etc...
  - pnt12 4y ago
    I agree: it's not racist to acknowledge race. There's two things at play here: 1. Some people don't want to be racist, so they over correct. That's OK, but we can also take a step back in some cases eg "actually acknowledging race is not racist, let's stop avoiding it all costs". 2. Some people like to be virtuous and tell others what they can think and say. It's a powerful position. So they spend their time telling others what is OK or not to say, and find reasons to be outraged. Not that we've solved racism: there's still lots of violence and re-appearance of racist ideologies. But we should fight those, not the "micro-agressions" which just create fights between people who could be OK the same side.
SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
Past present and future… Reminds me how Ellen Page the young woman was not in Inception, but Elliot Page the male actor played a woman’s role… I learned quite awhile ago that none of this was ever supposed to stand up to logical review. That’s the point.
- Spivak 4y ago
  Why doesn’t it stand up? The best supported theory (like theory of gravity theory) is that one’s gender is innate and unchangeable. Since we’re on a programming forum it’s read-only human firmware. So Elliot Page was born a man but assigned female at birth. Eventually he realized that the pain and wrongness he’d been feeling his whole life was dysphoria. So he changed his name to something that suited him better. Okay, so why then don’t we say that Elliot Page was in Inception but back then he went by Ellen? Why the rewriting history? We don’t do that for changing last names in marriage. Well because it’s a kindnesses for trans people. A huge number of them have extremely painful and negative associations with their deadname and so we backdate it so they can experience their past in a way that doesn’t bring up trauma. It’s similar to why when taking to a trans person you would probably edit a quotation you’re relaying that misgenders them.
  - HyperSane 4y ago
    "A huge number of them have extremely painful and negative associations with their deadname and so we backdate it so they can experience their past in a way that doesn’t bring up trauma." Society really should not have to pretend they were never a woman just to protect a person's feelings. And why is acknowledging that they used to be a woman be so horrible? They have their own memories of their life before transitioning.
    - Spivak 4y ago
      Uhh I meant backdating his name. He was never a woman that’s like the whole point. So you’re asking why bringing up that he used to be perceived as and treated as a woman which gave him gender dysphoria — a feeling so bad that it causes 80% of trans people to seriously consider taking their own like and 40% of people to actually try — horrible? You being up a good point about memories. But memories are mutable, first person, and we’re really bad at remembering how our bodies felt at different times so most of his memories probably feature him as he is now.
d6e 4y ago
The author is mistaking trans men with trans women. The pregnancy language change is for women transitioning into men. They can still be pregnant. Everyone is too blind in their rage over transwomen existing to realize that.

hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago

I think the original reasoning went like this. When you refer to a black person standing by a tree, it is preferable to say "That guy in a blue shirt/in glasses" and omit the skin color. Similarly here, you omit the names of body parts that could be used to identify the biological sex and therefore infer the gender of the person you refer to. But I'm not convinced it's actually beneficial to the people in question.

throwaway22032 4y ago
But, to use your analogy there, the table is simply replacing "myopic person" with "person who wears glasses". The terms are specifically being used to refer to the same things, just with some sort of bizarre euphemism for basic terminology. It feels like saying "the colour at the low energy end of the spectrum" instead of "red". Are people offended by the mere utterance of the word "breast"?
another_story 4y ago
Why is using a defining characteristic of someone offensive in and of itself? If you're in Asia you might say "that white guy over there" because it's the most easily recognized characteristic when picking a person out. If you're in a minority, no matter the characteristic, it's a matter of convenience for others to use it to denote you. The priest, the tall woman, the handicapped person, etc...
- pnt12 4y ago
  I agree: it's not racist to acknowledge race. There's two things at play here: 1. Some people don't want to be racist, so they over correct. That's OK, but we can also take a step back in some cases eg "actually acknowledging race is not racist, let's stop avoiding it all costs". 2. Some people like to be virtuous and tell others what they can think and say. It's a powerful position. So they spend their time telling others what is OK or not to say, and find reasons to be outraged. Not that we've solved racism: there's still lots of violence and re-appearance of racist ideologies. But we should fight those, not the "micro-agressions" which just create fights between people who could be OK the same side.

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago

Past present and future… Reminds me how Ellen Page the young woman was not in Inception, but Elliot Page the male actor played a woman’s role… I learned quite awhile ago that none of this was ever supposed to stand up to logical review. That’s the point.

Spivak 4y ago
Why doesn’t it stand up? The best supported theory (like theory of gravity theory) is that one’s gender is innate and unchangeable. Since we’re on a programming forum it’s read-only human firmware. So Elliot Page was born a man but assigned female at birth. Eventually he realized that the pain and wrongness he’d been feeling his whole life was dysphoria. So he changed his name to something that suited him better. Okay, so why then don’t we say that Elliot Page was in Inception but back then he went by Ellen? Why the rewriting history? We don’t do that for changing last names in marriage. Well because it’s a kindnesses for trans people. A huge number of them have extremely painful and negative associations with their deadname and so we backdate it so they can experience their past in a way that doesn’t bring up trauma. It’s similar to why when taking to a trans person you would probably edit a quotation you’re relaying that misgenders them.
- HyperSane 4y ago
  "A huge number of them have extremely painful and negative associations with their deadname and so we backdate it so they can experience their past in a way that doesn’t bring up trauma." Society really should not have to pretend they were never a woman just to protect a person's feelings. And why is acknowledging that they used to be a woman be so horrible? They have their own memories of their life before transitioning.
  - Spivak 4y ago
    Uhh I meant backdating his name. He was never a woman that’s like the whole point. So you’re asking why bringing up that he used to be perceived as and treated as a woman which gave him gender dysphoria — a feeling so bad that it causes 80% of trans people to seriously consider taking their own like and 40% of people to actually try — horrible? You being up a good point about memories. But memories are mutable, first person, and we’re really bad at remembering how our bodies felt at different times so most of his memories probably feature him as he is now.

d6e 4y ago

The author is mistaking trans men with trans women. The pregnancy language change is for women transitioning into men. They can still be pregnant. Everyone is too blind in their rage over transwomen existing to realize that.