3 ms·

> How can I assume what this person is using as criteria? The same way you can can communicate with anyone and understand I'm not using "communicate" to mean "

by tivert 3y ago

> How can I assume what this person is using as criteria? The same way you can can communicate with anyone and understand I'm not using "communicate" to mean "hit with a pickle." That is: having an understanding of what things conventionally mean and the kinds of ideas people conventionally have, so you won't get thrown off by one-offs or people who are not communicating clearly or seriously. > I have definitely heard anti-trans activist state that if 'you can't have a baby, you aren't a woman'. Communicate means "hit with a pickle." I picked up a pickle and communicated with my computer. > Now I have to figure out what segment of anti-trans beliefs this one has? Now that you've encountered someone who has stated that "communicate means 'hit with a pickle,'" will you have any trouble figuring out what someone means when they say "communicate"? > Point 3: If anti-trans activist do realize this, then why not include that in the laws? Because point 3 is so obvious that it goes unstated and is not typically consciously articulated by those who hold the way I did. But it's there if the only two sex/gender categories are male/man and female/woman.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
>"conventionally mean" This is the problem. You have expressed some opinions, and think they are 'conventional' thus I should of course automatically understand you. This is no longer true in our post-truth world. Both sides have re-defined vocabulary to a degree that conversation is near impossible. So guess you are really questioning why I don't open with more sympathetic readings of others posts? I should know everyone elses definitions, figure out which definition they are using, and then cross reference to my definitions? What the first poster stated and what you have are not the same, and are not obviously 'conventional'. You do know the 'trans' controversy is a completely made up story to lead the 'right' around by the nose? You did state it, so you must know, there are genetic disorders and people that actually do suffer with them. There are a lot of other people that do not understand this, so hey, lets pick Trans to pile on. How can I know that the original poster really meant (calm) "MTF transition because of genetic disorder" versus (angry) "MTF wuut, ahhhh, bible bible, god, against nature" The original poster was complaining because as a conservative, he was being censored by not being allowed to talk about how blacks have a lower IQ, thus I assumed he was in the camp of "bible bible, righteous vengeance, trans are unnatural, god told me to kill the abominations".
- tivert 3y ago
  > This is the problem. You have expressed some opinions, and think they are 'conventional' thus I should of course automatically understand you. And you do understand me. > I should know everyone elses definitions, figure out which definition they are using, and then cross reference to my definitions? Yes, if you want to communicate. That's pretty par for the course, and nothing special about any "post-truth world." And it's not like I described anything esoteric. Those three points were a pretty straightforward formulation of how pretty much everyone in the general population understood gender identity a few decades ago. But if you just want to "express yourself" via unidirectional excretions, even if those expressions rest on pretty obtuse misunderstandings, then don't do that. > You do know the 'trans' controversy is a completely made up story to lead the 'right' around by the nose? It isn't, but I understand that that belief is a convenient and psychologically satisfying for some people in certain "post-truth" bubbles, to borrow your expression. It's not unusual for people to mainly "know" their "opponents" though their own side's propaganda (and the usual recipe is a big lie sprinkled with a few little bits of truth and flattery, to make the mass go down easy). > You did state it, so you must know, there are genetic disorders and people that actually do suffer with them Yeah I do, but that fact is actually neither here nor there for understanding why your hysterectomy comment was a nonsense misinterpretation, which I also touched on when I brought it up. > The original poster was complaining because as a conservative, he was being censored by not being allowed to talk about how blacks have a lower IQ, thus I assumed he was in the camp of "bible bible, righteous vengeance, trans are unnatural, god told me to kill the abominations". That's pretty lazy, bigoted thinking. Even if you correctly identify the other guy is a bigot, it doesn't mean you aren't one too.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    >"Those three points were a pretty straightforward formulation of how pretty much everyone in the general population " Nope. I think you are in a bubble yourself if you think these points are common in the general population. >"understood gender identity a few decades ago" There you go. Now you are starting to see the problem. Definitions have shifted over time. The current population (not the population of decades ago) and 'generally on the right', do not understand those definitions as you stated, and are driven by 'biblical' interpretations, not science. How am I a bigot for noticing this? Or not keeping up with their current biblical interpretations. But. It does seem like you might be able to break through and see the big picture. You seem to have started to understand the limitations of language and that it is being used to manipulate. Guess, since you seem to acknowledge that your bubble is also a bubble, and I have a bubble, but this break down goes ad-Infinitum, every individual is a bubble. What, does every conversation have to start with a debate about language? It wouldn't be a bad idea these days. I'm tired of keeping up with every sub-groups shifting definitions on the right. (though, I do concede, I'm tired of keeping up with the left too on most days). But big picture, for groups, you can't deny that the evangelical take over of Republicans is NOT driven by some well regarded genetic research, and is really a purely emotional hot button, with plenty of lets say 'stretched language to sway the frothing pews'. So, yeah, I was un-generous to the original poster, but given the background of today, I don't think my interpretation of his post was a 'long shot', 'a risky bet', 'very far off'.

by tivert 3y ago

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

>"conventionally mean" This is the problem. You have expressed some opinions, and think they are 'conventional' thus I should of course automatically understand you. This is no longer true in our post-truth world. Both sides have re-defined vocabulary to a degree that conversation is near impossible. So guess you are really questioning why I don't open with more sympathetic readings of others posts? I should know everyone elses definitions, figure out which definition they are using, and then cross reference to my definitions? What the first poster stated and what you have are not the same, and are not obviously 'conventional'. You do know the 'trans' controversy is a completely made up story to lead the 'right' around by the nose? You did state it, so you must know, there are genetic disorders and people that actually do suffer with them. There are a lot of other people that do not understand this, so hey, lets pick Trans to pile on. How can I know that the original poster really meant (calm) "MTF transition because of genetic disorder" versus (angry) "MTF wuut, ahhhh, bible bible, god, against nature" The original poster was complaining because as a conservative, he was being censored by not being allowed to talk about how blacks have a lower IQ, thus I assumed he was in the camp of "bible bible, righteous vengeance, trans are unnatural, god told me to kill the abominations".

tivert 3y ago
> This is the problem. You have expressed some opinions, and think they are 'conventional' thus I should of course automatically understand you. And you do understand me. > I should know everyone elses definitions, figure out which definition they are using, and then cross reference to my definitions? Yes, if you want to communicate. That's pretty par for the course, and nothing special about any "post-truth world." And it's not like I described anything esoteric. Those three points were a pretty straightforward formulation of how pretty much everyone in the general population understood gender identity a few decades ago. But if you just want to "express yourself" via unidirectional excretions, even if those expressions rest on pretty obtuse misunderstandings, then don't do that. > You do know the 'trans' controversy is a completely made up story to lead the 'right' around by the nose? It isn't, but I understand that that belief is a convenient and psychologically satisfying for some people in certain "post-truth" bubbles, to borrow your expression. It's not unusual for people to mainly "know" their "opponents" though their own side's propaganda (and the usual recipe is a big lie sprinkled with a few little bits of truth and flattery, to make the mass go down easy). > You did state it, so you must know, there are genetic disorders and people that actually do suffer with them Yeah I do, but that fact is actually neither here nor there for understanding why your hysterectomy comment was a nonsense misinterpretation, which I also touched on when I brought it up. > The original poster was complaining because as a conservative, he was being censored by not being allowed to talk about how blacks have a lower IQ, thus I assumed he was in the camp of "bible bible, righteous vengeance, trans are unnatural, god told me to kill the abominations". That's pretty lazy, bigoted thinking. Even if you correctly identify the other guy is a bigot, it doesn't mean you aren't one too.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  >"Those three points were a pretty straightforward formulation of how pretty much everyone in the general population " Nope. I think you are in a bubble yourself if you think these points are common in the general population. >"understood gender identity a few decades ago" There you go. Now you are starting to see the problem. Definitions have shifted over time. The current population (not the population of decades ago) and 'generally on the right', do not understand those definitions as you stated, and are driven by 'biblical' interpretations, not science. How am I a bigot for noticing this? Or not keeping up with their current biblical interpretations. But. It does seem like you might be able to break through and see the big picture. You seem to have started to understand the limitations of language and that it is being used to manipulate. Guess, since you seem to acknowledge that your bubble is also a bubble, and I have a bubble, but this break down goes ad-Infinitum, every individual is a bubble. What, does every conversation have to start with a debate about language? It wouldn't be a bad idea these days. I'm tired of keeping up with every sub-groups shifting definitions on the right. (though, I do concede, I'm tired of keeping up with the left too on most days). But big picture, for groups, you can't deny that the evangelical take over of Republicans is NOT driven by some well regarded genetic research, and is really a purely emotional hot button, with plenty of lets say 'stretched language to sway the frothing pews'. So, yeah, I was un-generous to the original poster, but given the background of today, I don't think my interpretation of his post was a 'long shot', 'a risky bet', 'very far off'.