7 ms·

I feel like this is a bit of a mask-off moment that reveals the narcissism behind the movement. And yet people get lambasted on twitter for suggesting that the

I feel like this is a bit of a mask-off moment that reveals the narcissism behind the movement. And yet people get lambasted on twitter for suggesting that there is an undercurrent of narcissism when people obsess over pronouns.

kelseyfrog 4y ago
Do you think you could steelman this take instead?
- poszlem 4y ago
  Can you steelman the idea that "many people obsessed with pronouns are narcissists" rather than just criticizing how others have discussed it? It may be more productive to try reframing the issue yourself.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    No, I don't think I could do that without being transphobic. If there's a way to do that, please let me know though.
    - poszlem 4y ago
      "Another approach is to follow that word, heresy. In every period of history, there seem to have been labels that got applied to statements to shoot them down before anyone had a chance to ask if they were true or not. "Blasphemy", "sacrilege", and "heresy" were such labels for a good part of western history, as in more recent times "indecent", "improper", and "unamerican" have been. By now these labels have lost their sting. They always do. By now they're mostly used ironically. But in their time, they had real force. The word "defeatist", for example, has no particular political connotations now. But in Germany in 1917 it was a weapon, used by Ludendorff in a purge of those who favored a negotiated peace. At the start of World War II it was used extensively by Churchill and his supporters to silence their opponents. In 1940, any argument against Churchill's aggressive policy was "defeatist". Was it right or wrong? Ideally, no one got far enough to ask that. We have such labels today, of course, quite a lot of them, from the all-purpose "inappropriate" to the dreaded "divisive." In any period, it should be easy to figure out what such labels are, simply by looking at what people call ideas they disagree with besides untrue. When a politician says his opponent is mistaken, that's a straightforward criticism, but when he attacks a statement as "divisive" or "racially insensitive" instead of arguing that it's false, we should start paying attention. So another way to figure out which of our taboos future generations will laugh at is to start with the labels. Take a label — "sexist", for example — and try to think of some ideas that would be called that. Then for each ask, might this be true? Just start listing ideas at random? Yes, because they won't really be random. The ideas that come to mind first will be the most plausible ones. They'll be things you've already noticed but didn't let yourself think." Anyway - if you cannot steelman the "many people obsessed with pronouns are narcissists" phrase you are probably not the best person to ask other people to steelman anything.
      - kelseyfrog 4y ago
        Can you please do this without the tu quoque at the end?
        poszlem 4y ago
        Not if your definition of "to steelman" is to "make is sound not transphobic". I really don't consider something being "transphobic" having anything to do with whether it's true or not. I can imagine a statement that is both "transphobic" and factually correct.
        kelseyfrog 4y ago
        I'm not sure where you got that from. My defintion of steelmanning is interpreting someone's argument in the best possible light. If you can do it without being transphobic, I'd like to hear it.
        serverholic 4y ago
        “I’m not sure where you got that from.” proceeds to show exactly where they got it from
        kelseyfrog 4y ago
        It sounds like you really want to say, "people who care about pronouns[trans people] do so because they are narcissistic," but you really don't want to because you understand the implications of such a statement. Personally I think the idea is abhorrent, but correct me if I'm wrong about you.
        serverholic 4y ago
        You're the only one who's brought up trans people so far. Apparently in your mind "obsessed with pronouns and wanting to be celebrated" automatically means trans people. You realize that other people use pronouns right? And you don't have to be trans to narcissistically obsess over them and insist on being celebrated. I hope you're able to overcome your clear transphobia some day.
    - serverholic 4y ago
      What does transgender have to do with it? Are you implying that transgender people are obsessed with pronouns? In my experience trans people just want to be called by their preferred pronouns. They’re not obsessed with it. Most don’t care about being “celebrated” they just don’t want to be excluded or harassed. I hope someday you examine your transphobia.
      - kelseyfrog 4y ago
        Maybe you can clarify. I said that the statement that "pronoun obsessed people are narcissistic" is not possible to justify without being transphobic. ie: it assumes transphobia. I'm not sure how that translates into me being transphobic, but I'm willing to listen.
        serverholic 4y ago
        Having preferred pronouns doesn’t automatically mean that person is obsessed with pronouns and wants to be celebrated. If I buy an iPhone it doesn’t automatically mean I’m obsessed with Apple and want to feel special because I bought an Apple product. That’s an additional step.
- vehemenz 4y ago
  Instead of implying an argumentative fallacy has occurred—I don't see it—why not present your own points in a counterargument?
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    I'm simply referring to the guideline. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. The claim that enjoying to be asked about pronouns is a narcissistic trait is unfalsifiable at worst and unable to be worked out through dialog at best. We could say something about it through surveys and descriptive statistics, but that wouldn't form the basis of a causal relationship. Instead, rhetorically, it's much easier to ask if there simply isn't an interpretation which doesn't assume the worst in people. Doing so reveals more about the commenter than it does about the topic and kindly suggesting a positive or at least neutral interpretation builds bridges of meaning instead of assuming an argument.
    - vehemenz 4y ago
      This is a reasonable response, but good faith should go both ways. Am I operating in good faith if I ask everyone if they are Sunni or Shia for some ulterior motive, assuming they are Muslim? What about astrological signs? I'd argue not, but a similar thing happens when pronoun-talk occurs. Whether someone finds salience in pronouns' mapping to "gender identity"—insofar as the concept is coherent—is largely a matter of worldview. Many, if not most people, only care about sex. The imposition of worldview here is what motivates the narcissism charge. That and the fact that most TRAs are narcissists, but it could be unrelated.
therealdrag0 4y ago
Imagine “I want my religion in work profile so my group can be celebrated and not ignored”. My gut reaction is “gtfo”. (Asking for Pronouns for practical usage makes more sense but that’s not for celebration)

kelseyfrog 4y ago

Do you think you could steelman this take instead?

poszlem 4y ago
Can you steelman the idea that "many people obsessed with pronouns are narcissists" rather than just criticizing how others have discussed it? It may be more productive to try reframing the issue yourself.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  No, I don't think I could do that without being transphobic. If there's a way to do that, please let me know though.
  - poszlem 4y ago
    "Another approach is to follow that word, heresy. In every period of history, there seem to have been labels that got applied to statements to shoot them down before anyone had a chance to ask if they were true or not. "Blasphemy", "sacrilege", and "heresy" were such labels for a good part of western history, as in more recent times "indecent", "improper", and "unamerican" have been. By now these labels have lost their sting. They always do. By now they're mostly used ironically. But in their time, they had real force. The word "defeatist", for example, has no particular political connotations now. But in Germany in 1917 it was a weapon, used by Ludendorff in a purge of those who favored a negotiated peace. At the start of World War II it was used extensively by Churchill and his supporters to silence their opponents. In 1940, any argument against Churchill's aggressive policy was "defeatist". Was it right or wrong? Ideally, no one got far enough to ask that. We have such labels today, of course, quite a lot of them, from the all-purpose "inappropriate" to the dreaded "divisive." In any period, it should be easy to figure out what such labels are, simply by looking at what people call ideas they disagree with besides untrue. When a politician says his opponent is mistaken, that's a straightforward criticism, but when he attacks a statement as "divisive" or "racially insensitive" instead of arguing that it's false, we should start paying attention. So another way to figure out which of our taboos future generations will laugh at is to start with the labels. Take a label — "sexist", for example — and try to think of some ideas that would be called that. Then for each ask, might this be true? Just start listing ideas at random? Yes, because they won't really be random. The ideas that come to mind first will be the most plausible ones. They'll be things you've already noticed but didn't let yourself think." Anyway - if you cannot steelman the "many people obsessed with pronouns are narcissists" phrase you are probably not the best person to ask other people to steelman anything.
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      Can you please do this without the tu quoque at the end?
      - poszlem 4y ago
        Not if your definition of "to steelman" is to "make is sound not transphobic". I really don't consider something being "transphobic" having anything to do with whether it's true or not. I can imagine a statement that is both "transphobic" and factually correct.
        kelseyfrog 4y ago
        I'm not sure where you got that from. My defintion of steelmanning is interpreting someone's argument in the best possible light. If you can do it without being transphobic, I'd like to hear it.
        serverholic 4y ago
        “I’m not sure where you got that from.” proceeds to show exactly where they got it from
        kelseyfrog 4y ago
        It sounds like you really want to say, "people who care about pronouns[trans people] do so because they are narcissistic," but you really don't want to because you understand the implications of such a statement. Personally I think the idea is abhorrent, but correct me if I'm wrong about you.
        serverholic 4y ago
        You're the only one who's brought up trans people so far. Apparently in your mind "obsessed with pronouns and wanting to be celebrated" automatically means trans people. You realize that other people use pronouns right? And you don't have to be trans to narcissistically obsess over them and insist on being celebrated. I hope you're able to overcome your clear transphobia some day.
  - serverholic 4y ago
    What does transgender have to do with it? Are you implying that transgender people are obsessed with pronouns? In my experience trans people just want to be called by their preferred pronouns. They’re not obsessed with it. Most don’t care about being “celebrated” they just don’t want to be excluded or harassed. I hope someday you examine your transphobia.
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      Maybe you can clarify. I said that the statement that "pronoun obsessed people are narcissistic" is not possible to justify without being transphobic. ie: it assumes transphobia. I'm not sure how that translates into me being transphobic, but I'm willing to listen.
      - serverholic 4y ago
        Having preferred pronouns doesn’t automatically mean that person is obsessed with pronouns and wants to be celebrated. If I buy an iPhone it doesn’t automatically mean I’m obsessed with Apple and want to feel special because I bought an Apple product. That’s an additional step.
vehemenz 4y ago
Instead of implying an argumentative fallacy has occurred—I don't see it—why not present your own points in a counterargument?
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  I'm simply referring to the guideline. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. The claim that enjoying to be asked about pronouns is a narcissistic trait is unfalsifiable at worst and unable to be worked out through dialog at best. We could say something about it through surveys and descriptive statistics, but that wouldn't form the basis of a causal relationship. Instead, rhetorically, it's much easier to ask if there simply isn't an interpretation which doesn't assume the worst in people. Doing so reveals more about the commenter than it does about the topic and kindly suggesting a positive or at least neutral interpretation builds bridges of meaning instead of assuming an argument.
  - vehemenz 4y ago
    This is a reasonable response, but good faith should go both ways. Am I operating in good faith if I ask everyone if they are Sunni or Shia for some ulterior motive, assuming they are Muslim? What about astrological signs? I'd argue not, but a similar thing happens when pronoun-talk occurs. Whether someone finds salience in pronouns' mapping to "gender identity"—insofar as the concept is coherent—is largely a matter of worldview. Many, if not most people, only care about sex. The imposition of worldview here is what motivates the narcissism charge. That and the fact that most TRAs are narcissists, but it could be unrelated.

therealdrag0 4y ago

Imagine “I want my religion in work profile so my group can be celebrated and not ignored”. My gut reaction is “gtfo”. (Asking for Pronouns for practical usage makes more sense but that’s not for celebration)