When she says that her manner of speaking is an important part of who she is and would rather not be told how to apply 'Mr' and 'Mrs' but would rather the autonomy to apply them in the way that best expresses how she feels. — Pseudonym
It's a question of common curtesy to address someone as they prefer to be addressed. Mary's refusal to show basic respect for another person tells us something about Mary. Perhaps that she has far too great a concern for the contents of other people's underwear. But also a fear of people who are just a bit different. — Banno
To tell them that they are no longer allowed to express that world-view requires a discussion about relative harms, not a slagging match. — Pseudonym
That's not what is in my dictionary. But then, i'm using the Oxford, not one I wrote myself. — Banno
Again, if both men and women can do something, like grow/cut hair and wear/not wear makeup, then there is no point in making a distinction of masculine/feminine between these behaviors. Again, the distinction lies in the boundaries between cultures, not between sex or gender.It is physical, but it is not a sexual trait. It's not even a biological trait. Things like the maximum length hair can grow to are, but aligning short/long hair to masculine/feminine is not. There are myriad examples of non-sexual masculine/feminine entities. — Moliere
We already went over this :roll: Again, I refer you to our friend that believes that they are Jesus. We're just going around in circles. How do you break out of this circle of inconsistency?EDIT: Just to highlight -- feelings are the arbiters of truth with respect to identity, not all beliefs. — Moliere
To respect the way an individual chooses to be addressed is common courtesy. And each individual chooses that for themselves (although their parents give them their names when they're born, as has been noted). That's how it works. I determine how I would like to be addressed, and you respect this. In return, you decide how you wish to be addressed, and I (and everyone else) respect your wishes in return. — Pattern-chaser
Again, if both men and women can do something, like grow/cut hair and wear/not wear makeup, then there is no point in making a distinction of masculine/feminine between these behaviors. Again, the distinction lies in the boundaries between cultures, not between sex or gender. — Harry Hindu
How do you break out of this circle of inconsistency? — Harry Hindu
The separation between the three being biological, sociological, and psychological facts and how we ascertain these things. There's nothing incoherent in applying different methods to determine different sorts of facts, though. It would be foolish to believe there was only one method for determining truth and to use other methods is inconsistent -- mostly because you'd miss out on the varied ways we do, in fact, determine the truth. — Moliere
If I asked people to address me a 'lord' because I felt I was a god, it would not be common courtesy to comply with that request. Absolutely no one would comply. — Pseudonym
when someone makes a request - such as "please address me as she/her" - which harms no-one, there's no reason to refuse, is there? :chin: — Pattern-chaser
Why is it unreasonable to ask that I'm addressed as 'lord'? — Pseudonym
Words like 'him' and 'her' are used in different ways by different people and their use reflects the world-view of the people using them. I think you're mistaking 'not helpful' with 'not agreeing with me' — Pseudonym
If you don't know the answer to your question, there's little point in my explaining. — Pattern-chaser
the topic here and now is gender/sex, not worldview. There is no agreement here on how worldview relates to gender issues, or whether it's helpful in discussing them. — Pattern-chaser
Some people's worldview leads them to want to address people with skin darker than their own using terms that are universally accepted to be offensive. In this case, worldview does not decide the matter. Perhaps this is also the case for gender issues? :chin: — Pattern-chaser
My reason would be that 'lord' means something important to some people and I am not that thing. It would therefore be offensive for me to ask them to use the term in my way. — Pseudonym
Beliefs about gender and sex are part of one's world-view. I don't understand the distinction you're making between the two. — Pseudonym
, lord describes a particular rank (or similar), and you don't hold that rank. It would not be offensive for you to ask to be called "lord", but it would be deceptive and misleading, and that's why it is unreasonable. — Pattern-chaser
It isn't helpful trying to use such a big term in such a small arena as this one. I'm not making a distinction, I'm arguing that the inclusion of worldview, something that applies to half the universe, in a small and contained discussion like this one, is unhelpful. — Pattern-chaser
But that's only according to your definition of 'lord'. Mine is someone who is lordly as in 'our lord Jesus Christ'... — Pseudonym
I meant 'that part of a person's world-view which relates to sex and gender' I just didn't feel it was necessary to write the whole thing out, but secondly I also note you've still not explained how it was unhelpful. What is the task we're trying to achieve here, and how does mentioning world-views make it less likely we'll succeed? — Pseudonym
So we both use the term to denote a "particular rank (or similar)", as I wrote. :up: But you are no more God than you are a Lord of the land, so you would still be seeking to deceive or mislead, n'est ce pas? :wink: — Pattern-chaser
On the one hand, we have the way someone sees themselves, and on the other, you introduce worldview, which is the way everyone else sees them. Two quite contrary perspectives, as I'm sure you agree. :up: — Pattern-chaser
Yes, so why do the conclusions from one dictate language use and the conclusion from the other must be ignored because they're 'unhelpful' ? — Pseudonym
Also, I note you still haven't answered the question about what you would do if I asked you to refer to me by a word you found deeply offensive. — Pseudonym
I'm using the term to describe someone who is deserving of that rank — Pseudonym
In this topic, we are (I think) discussing how people request others to address them in a particular way. It is not helpful to list possible objections that others may have, as you have done, and are doing. — Pattern-chaser
When we are clear on how people should be addressed, and under what circumstances it is reasonable for them to ask to be addressed in a particular way, maybe then we can proceed to considering whether others might have difficulties with this, and whether this is reasonable of them? — Pattern-chaser
I probably wouldn't do it. But why do you concentrate so heavily on breaking courtesy? — Pattern-chaser
Courtesy is a two-way, co-operative, thing. — Pattern-chaser
If I ask you to refer to me as 'she/her', it's not like I'm demanding or mandating that you must call me "Pseudonym-is-a-fucking-prick"! I'm not looking to attack you, only to reflect the 'real' me, as I understand it. Will you not do me the courtesy, the favour, of doing as I ask? I will try hard to accommodate your needs in return, if that will help you decide? This is what courtesy is about, and this, I think, is what this topic is about. — Pattern-chaser
When someone like Harry comes along and says, "no thank you, I'd rather not" and is labelled a bigot for doing so. — Pseudonym
Because you said it was common courtesy to call someone by the term they prefer. You brought courtesy up and now your complaining that I'm focusing on it? — Pseudonym
they are being mandated (by threat of ostracisation and insult) — Pseudonym
Harry has repeatedly denounced and condemned (I use those terms after careful consideration) trans-gender people as "deluded", and their feelings as "delusions". He has stated over and over his outrage at being 'forced' to pander to the delusions of others. I rather think it's this that brands him a bigot, don't you? — Pattern-chaser
Not because you're focusing on it, but because you're trying to break it. — Pattern-chaser
Social pressure is not reasonable or rational. It's red in tooth and claw, if I can steal a phrase from elsewhere. :wink: If we approve of it, we call it one thing, and if we don't, we call it another. In your case, mandation (??? :smile:) "by threat of ostracisation and insult". If we disapprove of the way our children are raised, we call it brainwashing, but if not, we call it education. It's the same thing. And social pressure is not subject to courtesy, sadly. :meh: — Pattern-chaser
John says "I'm a woman" - meaning that he feels like he is something which he would describe as 'a woman'. It's important to him that his feelings on this are respected because having other people acknowledge his feelings is an important part of being in a social group.
Mary says "you are not a woman" - meaning that the thing she associates with term 'woman' is something you're born with, it has meaning to her that womanhood is nothing more than your biological status because she (as a biological woman) wants to feel she can be anything she wants to be. She feels a bond with those previously oppressed for their biological status and its important to her to have her feelings about this definition respected.
How is one oppressed and the other a bigot? — Pseudonym
But Bill and William are simply references, they have no other meaning, so the request is a neutral one. The meaning of the word William doesn't have any significant connotations, nor reflect any major world-view. This is not the case with - 'woman' or 'him/her', they are extremely loaded words with years of oppression, struggle and social demand packed into them. It is not a simple request to ask others to use them in the way you personally see fit — Pseudonym
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.