Without reading the whole thread, I gather that @NOS4A2 is pronoun-challenged.

Which is a failure to recognise the distinction between sex and gender; and indeed, a failure to recognise that gender is not binary; indeed, failure to notice that even sex is not binary.

Now if my memory serves me well, Nos is one of the influx of Christians presently infesting the forums.

The lack of regard for the huge variations of which people are capable is a hallmark of their thinking. Their purpose is not to learn, not to do philosophy, but to defend their faith.

Completely untrue.

We know stuff, make claims, describe what's happening to us all the time. Our lives are filled with experiences of what's going on around us. People speak truths all the time without jumping through some triplicate justification game.

In most respects, knowledge and justification are actually separate axis. The former is to understanding something is true, the latter is to engage in some game with others which allows your statements to be justified.

As I spoke about a few posts up, there is no question of biology here. An identity is not the presence of a body. Pronouns are not given in the existence of a body. They are a social fact about people with bodies.

Completely untrue.

We know stuff, make claims, describe what's happening to us all the time. Our lives are filled with experiences of what's going on around us all the time. People speak truths all the time without jumping through some triplicate justification game.

In most respects, knowledge and justification are actually separate axis. The former is to understanding something is true, the latter is to engage in some game with others which allows your statements to be justified.

As I spoke about a few posts up, there is no question of biology here. An identity is not the presence of a body. Pronouns are not given in the existence of a body. They are a social fact about people with bodies.

Even if I grant all that, a person who claims to be a woman but appears to me to be a man has neither the right nor the justification to demand I conform to their language, especially when that language is used to refer to them in the third person, that is, in conversation with anyone besides them.

You're contradicting yourself: in your first post you claimed it wasn't just a question of terms. Now your running back to an insistence others cannot demand you use terms.

What's more, they (we all should) can indeed demand it. Misgendering them tells a falsehood about them, casts aspersions upon them as a trans person, denies there very existence, etc.

We have many ethical and descriptive reasons to respect.their identity, using the language which recognises it. Using it amongst others, in the "third person" is actually really important. It means we've recognised their identity for the objective truth of is, rather than disrespecting it as a delusion we only entertain for their feelings.

I did not claim that, as is evident from my post.

They can demand anything they want. By the same token I can refuse. None of this involves casting aspersions or denying anyone’s existence.

I respect their identities and their right to be who they want and express themselves how they see fit. But I would expect the same treatment, that I can express myself how I wish, and that includes refusing to distort my own language to appease the demands of those who think I should speak otherwise.

Is it really about language if you doubt that the terms you're contesting actually have referents?

That's the philosophical issue.

Why have you made a demand for linguistic purity which imposes a heavy personal and social cost on people you (and I quote) "respect"?

That's the political one.

It is extremely important to allow those who experience conflict with societal norms to work out their own liberating vocabularies and modes of thought.

Would you make the same demand for free expression for why you should be able to go around calling every black guy a nigger? If not, why not?

I take offence to your use of that term. Do I demand you speak otherwise? No.

Pronouns are an important functional element to speaking. The n-word isn’t.

If someone demands that you call them the n-word, will you refer to them as such in conversation with others?

I take offence to your use of that term. Do I demand you speak otherwise? No. — NOS4A2

They can demand anything they want. By the same token I can refuse. None of this involves casting aspersions or denying anyone’s existence.

If someone demands that you call them the n-word, will you refer to them as such in conversation with others? Why or why not?

Exactly right. Do you believe the same or would you refer to him as the n-word to others?

Do you believe the same or would you refer to him as the n-word to others? — NOS4A2

Besides being ugly, the hubbub over the (censorship of the) n-word is not the use of it, but the demand for it, that people must conform to your language even if they know it to be untrue...

Besides being ugly, the hubbub over gender pronouns is not the use of these terms, but the demand for them, that people must conform to your language even if they know them to be untrue. — NOS4A2

Besides being ugly, the hubbub over the n-word is not the use of it, but the demand for them, that people must conform to your language even if they know them to be untrue...

I’m sorry but is this some form of argument I’m not aware of? I appreciate you mirroring my argument but copying and pasting them for me is a little much.

That I can use what you've written, with word substitutions and minor edits to preserve grammar, to defend calling people racial slurs if you feel like it should probably disturb you.

You used racial slurs and I did not once demand you speak otherwise. It does disturb me that you use racial slurs, but I am quite proud to defend your right to speak how you like.

I'd go at this from a related but different angle. All language functions in thidsmanner of talking about something.

If NOS4A2's postion is taken to be the case, There are no rules or justifications for.the use of.langauge . We are not just free to say anything we want, but incapable of being wrong in our language use. Anyone could take any statement by another and claim it said anything. We could give any description of any one, no matter how false or deflamantory and it would be fine.

This is not just a defence of racial slurs in the end, but a defence of any lie or flasehood told about anyone or anything.

You made arguments which can be used to justify the use of racial slurs.

Which is worse: some fuck like me saying the racial slurs or you making arguments which allow their use for everyone?

Yes, defences on the grounds of free speech applies to all speech. But it also applies to the voices of the oppressed and marginalized, including the trans community. It’s worse, and ironic, you using racial slurs to make an argument against free speech.

I'd go at this from a related but different angle. All language functions in thidsmanner of talking about something.

If NOS4A2's postion is taken to be the case, There are no rules or justifications for.the use of.langauge . We are not just free to say anything we want, but incapable of being wrong in our language use. Anyone could take any statement by another and claim it said anything. We could give any description of any one, no matter how false or deflamantory and it would be fine.

This is not just a defence of racial slurs in the end, but a defence of any lie or flasehood told about anyone or anything.

That’s not quite true. The rules and justifications still apply, it’s just that everyone isn’t forced to use them via threat and coercion.

But it also applies to the voices of the oppressed and marginalized, including the trans community. — NOS4A2

I wonder why you are so happy to grant them a voice you don't want to listen to!

defences on the grounds of free speech applies to all speech. — NOS4A2

Exactly. What one should say is not what one can say. You are operating as if this distinction does not exist. Using a sledgehammer to strike a nail. The same free speech sledgehammer is used to defend the use of racial slurs all over the net.

What a reasonable, critical individual would do is drop the bad argument form you're using. Or be happy that 60 years ago you would be defending the widespread use of "nigger" in public. With the same strategy.

I'd prefer you pick the former.

Yes, but I was going for a little bit more than just oppourtuinistic defences.

I'm saying, in this case, we actually have thesis no-one can make a mistake in the words they use. It's not just that people ought to be able to tell lies, flasehoods, vilifications, but that there are no grounds to even assert these are occurring.

In the case of allowing such speech, it is still false/unjustified, etc., we just grant a permission to speak the words. NOS4A2 appears to be taking a postion beyond even this, where any speech is completely fine.

Yes, but I was going for a little bit more than just oppourtuinistic defences. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Ah, sorry, I didn't read your posts in thread. I just saw the same old shit from @NOS4A2 (also shit I used to say in this context) and wanted to chime in with the argument that convinced me to stop being an ass and start seeing things structurally.

It’s a matter of principle. If your nonchalant use of racial slurs were found out by your employer or friends you’re be subject to loss of employment and social ostracism. Guess who would be there to defend you? Me.

Exactly. What one should say is not what one can say. You are operating as if this distinction does not exist. Using a sledgehammer to strike a nail. The same free speech sledgehammer is used to defend the use of racial slurs all over the net.

What a reasonable, critical individual would do is drop the bad argument form you're using. Or be happy that 60 years ago you would be defending the widespread use of "nigger" in public. With the same strategy.

I'd prefer you pick the former.

This same sledgehammer was used to defend the rights of abolitionists and civil rights activists, who were routinely censored for their views.

What a reasonable, critical individual would do is drop the bad argument form you're using. Or be happy that 60 years ago you would be defending the widespread censorship of abolitionists and civil rights activists in public. With the same strategy.

In the case of allowing such speech, it is still false/unjustified, etc., we just grant a permission to speak the words. NOS4A2 appears to be taking a postion beyond even this, where any speech is completely fine.

I never said nor implied any speech was completely fine, only that no one can coerce you to speak how he wants you to. Think of it this way: imagine if someone told a trans person he was not aloud to express himself how he wishes.

This same sledgehammer was used to defend the rights of abolitionists and civil rights activists, who were routinely censored for their views.

What a reasonable, critical individual would do is drop the bad argument form you're using. Or be happy that 60 years ago you would be defending the widespread censorship of abolitionists and civil rights activists in public. With the same strategy. — NOS4A2

I'm very happy that you've come round to seeing the importance of amplifying the voices of marginalised people and allowing them to (1) state their existence (2) demand recognition in their own terms and (3) do what they need to to get it.

Think about the political positioning of this 'matter of principle'; of what role you are playing in the discourse. Do you go into discussions about systemic racism arguing that use of the n-word is fine on a free speech basis? Have you tweeted Youtube for censoring ISIS material? I very much doubt it.

I respect free speech, I don't respect its selective invocation. I very much hope you are a true warrior of it, demanding that Youtube allows ISIS propaganda to propagate globally, and picking a fight with any verbally abused kid you see who wants his insulters to stop.

But that's just the issue: if the speech is not completely, then coercion is in play.

At the very least, there is the reason/shame of being mistaken, the ethical question of speaking how one should. Even if we take a postion, for example, that some offensive comments can be uttered, we are still in a space of cocerion because the identification of them as offensive marks the utter as shameful. It's still the case one ought not be speaking that way, even if they are allowed to. Pressure of cocerion is being applied in the mere recognition of a vilification, falsehood or lie.

I'm very happy that you've come round to seeing the importance of amplifying the voices of marginalised people and allowing them to (1) state their existence (2) demand recognition in their own terms and (3) do what they need to to get it.

Think about the political positioning of this 'matter of principle'; of what role you are playing in the discourse. Do you go into discussions about systemic racism arguing that use of the n-word is fine on a free speech basis? Have you tweeted Youtube for censoring ISIS material? I very much doubt it.

I respect free speech, I don't respect its selective invocation. I very much hope you are a true warrior of it, demanding that Youtube allows ISIS propaganda to propagate globally, and picking a fight with any verbally abused kid you see who wants his insulters to stop.

The main reason I defend free speech is for the marginalized voices, especially for those who risk death for the mere act of speaking. What I will not do is risk defending their right to speak because of the implications of free speech, that some bigot may find comfort in it down the road.

I do not agree that ISIS propaganda should be censored. I have read enough of it to know what my enemies believe, what they think of me, and how they aim to murder me. Those who cannot read it will continue to remain ignorant of it.

I don’t respect censorship. I suspect it, and those who preach it.

The main reason I defend free speech is for the marginalized voices, — NOS4A2

Then it is strange that you are not on the side of the normalisation of language that recognises flaws in how we think about gender that undermine the disastrous effects of its norms. Maintaining a sense of linguistic decorum in the face of the measurable harm it causes should not be construed as noble.

But that's just the issue: if the speech is not completely, then coercion is in play.

At the very least, there is the reason/shame of being mistaken, the ethical question of speaking how one should. Even if we take a postion, for example, that some offensive comments can be uttered, we are still in a space of cocerion because the identification of them as offensive marks the utter as shameful. It's still the case one ought not be speaking that way, even if they are allowed to. Pressure of cocerion is being applied in the mere recognition of a vilification, falsehood or lie.

They ought not to be speaking in a manner that belittles or dehumanizes the trans person. On that we can agree. But we do no service to the trans person to coerce those who refuse to conform or agree with him. I’m not sure of the answer, but perhaps there are other remedies, and I believe on such remedy is championing the free speech of trans people.

championing the free speech of trans people. — NOS4A2

Amplifying someone's voice != championing free speech. Free speech is already why they can say what they say, it's why we can have this discussion to begin with. You want to amplify their voice? Listen to their concerns and act in accord with them; form relationships of solidarity, think critically; what's needed is a new scalpel (critically motivated, recognition enabling vocabulary) rather than a redundant sledgehammer (the capacity to speak like that without punishment).

Why you frame your responses in this thread as an intent to amplify the free speech of gender non-conforming people rather than as an invocation of free speech to resist the perturbation of language norms is beyond me. It's like you're using free speech to marginalise someone; to stop them from articulating suffering so you do not have to accept it.

Amplifying someone's voice != championing free speech. Free speech is already why they can say what they say, it's why we can have this discussion to begin with. You want to amplify their voice? Listen to their concerns and act in accord with them; form relationships of solidarity, think critically; what's needed is a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer.

I’ve said nothing of “amplifying someone’s voice”. They can amplify their own voice, and I will defend to the death their right to do so. None of that means I have to “act in accord with them” or “form relationships of solidarity”, especially with people I do not know.

Why you frame your responses in this thread as an intent to amplify the free speech of gender non-conforming people rather than as an invocation of free speech to resist the perturbation of language norms is beyond me. It's like you're using free speech to marginalise someone; to stop them from articulating suffering so you do not have to accept it.

I have expressed no such intent, so anything that arises from this misrepresentation is more misrepresentation.

I applaud your patience and calm responses sir, but I cant help but wonder why you keep at it. Neither of those two are really listening, and constantly use straw men In their “arguments”. Its just a bunch of self righteous douchery, id have given up long ago.
What are you getting out if it, if you dont mind me asking?

Just use whatever their fucking name is. Gender is a social construct, biological sex isn’t. However I’d prefer not to be him, I’d just prefer my name to be used. If we can demand anything, it should just be our name. Impersonal language in my opinion is always kind of rude if not offensive whether you identify as a man, women or gender queer space dragon. Just tell us your name.