Maybe trans people are tired of having their existence debated or being treated as a problem to solve (often in an unnuanced way that tries to simplify trans people in exactly the ways we are pushing back against).
How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?
101–110 of 130 posts
Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?
#102Maybe trans people are tired of having their existence debated or being treated as a problem to solve (often in an unnuanced way that tries to simplify trans people in exactly the ways we are pushing back against).
You don't get to not have your existence debated, no one else has that privilege.
Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?
#103It's really a shame Dawkins hasn't dipped his toe into social epistemology. It's very clear that this is a grounding issue that's highlighting that different categories have different grounding rules and that within categories, individuals have different grounding rules. Furthermore, grounding rules have cultural-geofraphic territories and change over time. It's how I can get a new job and call myself a Data Scientis…
I'm glad Dawkins has not got into social epistemology. His reasoning seems very clear. For comparison here is some Asta, where the jargon leaves me unclear at what she is saying: >Gender is a paradigm case for me. However, even if we assume that my account does justice to the construction of gender, the question remains whether this notion of social construction and social meaning is really adequate for accounting fo…
Asta is simply applying a little self-critique by asking, "Is my account complete?" You can rest assured that not understanding the quoted passage does not influence one's ability to understand the rest of the work.
Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?
#104Maybe trans people are tired of having their existence debated or being treated as a problem to solve (often in an unnuanced way that tries to simplify trans people in exactly the ways we are pushing back against).
You don't get to not have your existence debated, no one else has that privilege.
Seriously? That's your response. Who's debating your right to existence? Or do you get to take yours for granted?
Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re being weird. I thought you hadn’t read the article when you asked “Why did you invoke gender?”. They’re just talking about the same thing the article is.
Oh I am? Ok, sure. Did not realize there was an obligation to avoid “being weird” to your sensibilities.
That’s what the entire article is about.
Trans people: “Please don’t be rude to me. This is how you can be nice”
Dawkins: “My being rude to you isn’t the same as violence.”
Trans people: “Ok… why would you feel the need to say that unless you wanted to be violent to us?”
Dawkins: “You’re calling me violent! That’s policing my speech which is oppression!”
Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?
#106> But shouldn’t we just indulge the harmless whims of an oppressed minority? Maybe, were it not for a strain of aggressive bossiness which insists, not so very harmlessly and not sounding very oppressed, that the rest of us must humour those whims and join in. Goodness, what a whine. If you’re not a person who is directly confronted with this, why are you throwing yourself into this debate? The only reason to enforce…
That's like saying to an atheist that they have to personally accept any of the harmless whims of the religious. Like, a quick prayer won't hurt you if you don't really believe in it, will it? Just do it to be polite. Hands together, eyes closed, done. What's the problem?
In your example, I take it Dawkins is the atheist and Trans people are “forcing him to pray” ?
I think the analogy is better said that Trans allies think it’s rude to yell in people’s faces that god doesn’t exist (which is exactly what Dawkins does, so points for consistency).
There’s no personal obligation on what you believe, just don’t be a jerk and tell people that they can’t exist.
Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't get to not have your existence debated, no one else has that privilege.
Seriously? That's your response. Who's debating your right to existence? Or do you get to take yours for granted?
Yes, seriously. Pick a characteristic and someone out there says it should not exist. I've walked past people with megaphones saying my race should not exist. I've loudly been told my religion should not exist by employers. Having your existence questioned is normal and probably unavoidable whenever humans with different values bump into one another.
Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seriously? That's your response. Who's debating your right to existence? Or do you get to take yours for granted?
Yes, seriously. Pick a characteristic and someone out there says it should not exist. I've walked past people with megaphones saying my race should not exist. I've loudly been told my religion should not exist by employers. Having your existence questioned is normal and probably unavoidable whenever humans with different values bump into one another.
And because of that are people taking away your health insurance? Are people preventing you from getting necessary medical care?
Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, seriously. Pick a characteristic and someone out there says it should not exist. I've walked past people with megaphones saying my race should not exist. I've loudly been told my religion should not exist by employers. Having your existence questioned is normal and probably unavoidable whenever humans with different values bump into one another.
And because of that are people taking away your health insurance? Are people preventing you from getting necessary medical care?
Moving the goalposts. Dawkins is doing neither of those in the above article.
Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What does he want us to do? Are you waiting to be told what to do? The article is asking whether we're approaching Orwellian times. If police turn up at your work because of a satirical tweet you wrote last night, maybe that's something to write about and be concerned about. > Not criticize I believe his problem is when criticism bares teeth and is delivered as legal action, or some kind of penalty or strike action…
If the police showed up because of a satirical tweet, I would laugh. As should he. Come on. Have the police showed up to Richard Dawkins' home? No. He didn't describe any legal action. Youtube is a private company. Youtube is owned by a trash company. I don't get it.
so you didnt even read the piece...