Ser Scot A Ellison Posted May 5, 2017 Author Share Posted May 5, 2017 17 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said: From their side though I'm sure they feel so totally offended by the sight of a transgender person that rudeness is not a problem. They wouldn't consider that they were in the right; and maybe doing that person a favour by discouraging them from being so sinful Jon, No. They are being assholes and the distinction they attempt to draw is pefectily arbitrary if they will, based merely upon a person's preference call someone with the given name "Clive" by the preferred name "Jack" because that person prefers "Jack" to "Clive". The best they can come up with is "because its different". They will not be able to explain why the first situation is okay but the second is not beyond "because that's what I believe" at which point you clearly state that their distinction is perfectly arbitrary and they are treating one person with more kindness and courtesy than they extend to another for arbitrary reasons. Unless they want to say that being Transgender someone makes someone less than a person and not deserving of courtesy and kindness. If they take that route... they're an asshole to begin with. To a Christian I would say "Whatever you do unto the least of these... you do unto me" If they don't like it they are rejecting the words of the man they claim as their savior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channel4s-JonSnow Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Unless they want to say that being Transgender someone makes someone less than a person and not deserving of courtesy and kindness. If they take that route... they're an asshole to begin with. Of course they are not going to out and out say that, or maybe even admit to themselves.. but essentially that is what it boils down to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 Scot, Religion is many things, and I believe faith can be a very positive force for good. But surely, you realize that many people use religion as an excuse to feel superior to their fellows? The whole point of the email you showed us is to demean and humiliate another human being in order to feel better about oneself. It's actually as un-Christian as you can imagine imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted May 5, 2017 Author Share Posted May 5, 2017 3 minutes ago, Rippounet said: Scot, Religion is many things, and I believe faith can be a very positive force for good. But surely, you realize that many people use religion as an excuse to feel superior to their fellows? The whole point of the email you showed us is to demean and humiliate another human being in order to feel better about oneself. It's actually as un-Christian as you can imagine imho. Indeed. My Priest emphasizes "taking the lower seat" as an important tenant of Christianity. That putting others above yourself is important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 It's not just rudeness. Rudeness would be if a woman is married to a man and chooses to change her name and you refusing to use her married name. It's rude. Yet outside of some extreme examples, it's not going to lead her to be harassed, discriminated against, or attacked. On the other hand, misgendering or misnaming a trans person is bullying and depending on certain factors it can also be an act of violence. Every time you misgender or misname a person who may be transgender, you invite hostility towards that person. It's dangerous. And if you know someone doing this and you don't do anything at all to make it right, you're also part of the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted May 5, 2017 Author Share Posted May 5, 2017 Dr. Pepper, I'm not claiming it's "merely rudeness". I'm saying that at a bare minimum it is inarguablely rudeness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Dr. Pepper, I'm not claiming it's "merely rudeness". I'm saying that at a bare minimum it is inarguablely rudeness. No, because of the climate for transgender people, the bare minimum is that it's bullying. Arguing that at the minimum it's simply rude is ignoring the reality that trans folk live with daily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted May 5, 2017 Author Share Posted May 5, 2017 3 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said: No, because of the climate for transgender people, the bare minimum is that it's bullying. Arguing that at the minimum it's simply rude is ignoring the reality that trans folk live with daily. Okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 Not to be pedantic, but I'm precisely doing research on something that seems relevant to this discussion. The book I'm reading right now posits that because of distrust of government, human rights in the US mainly have a negative dimension, i.e. that they are defined by what government may not do. From a constitutional perspective however, there is little ground for a positive dimension, i.e. for government to actively promote and protect human rights and human dignity. Such positive rights only stem from legal precedent and Supreme Court landmark decisions, which means they can be reversed - especially if one adopts the "originalist" perspective. In other words, according to the US legal/constitutional tradition you are essentially protected from government, but not that much from your fellow citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 1 hour ago, Dr. Pepper said: It's not just rudeness. Rudeness would be if a woman is married to a man and chooses to change her name and you refusing to use her married name. It's rude. Yet outside of some extreme examples, it's not going to lead her to be harassed, discriminated against, or attacked. On the other hand, misgendering or misnaming a trans person is bullying and depending on certain factors it can also be an act of violence. Every time you misgender or misname a person who may be transgender, you invite hostility towards that person. It's dangerous. And if you know someone doing this and you don't do anything at all to make it right, you're also part of the problem. I'd take it a step further, and say that it's straight up bigotry and people are using their religion as a shield. It's gross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted May 5, 2017 Author Share Posted May 5, 2017 18 minutes ago, Rippounet said: Not to be pedantic, but I'm precisely doing research on something that seems relevant to this discussion. The book I'm reading right now posits that because of distrust of government, human rights in the US mainly have a negative dimension, i.e. that they are defined by what government may not do. From a constitutional perspective however, there is little ground for a positive dimension, i.e. for government to actively promote and protect human rights and human dignity. Such positive rights only stem from legal precedent and Supreme Court landmark decisions, which means they can be reversed - especially if one adopts the "originalist" perspective. In other words, according to the US legal/constitutional tradition you are essentially protected from government, but not that much from your fellow citizens. Rippounet, You are protected from violent or unwelcome touching by your fellow citizens. Such violent or unwelcome touching can have fairly serious repercussions. What we don't have protection from, except in very unusual circumstances, is speech. That said President Trump's Chief of Staff has said that they are considering attempting to weaken first amendment free speech protections to make slander and liable suits easier to file. http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/30/media/reince-priebus-libel-laws/ From the article: Quote Reince Priebus, the president's chief of staff, said during an interview on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday that the White House has discussed potential changes to laws that are intended to safeguard free speech. "How it gets executed or whether that goes anywhere is a different story," Priebus said. But he added that he thinks "newspapers and news agencies need to be more responsible with how they report the news." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 19 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: You are protected from violent or unwelcome touching by your fellow citizens. Such violent or unwelcome touching can have fairly serious repercussions. What we don't have protection from, except in very unusual circumstances, is speech. That said President Trump's Chief of Staff has said that they are considering attempting to weaken first amendment free speech protections to make slander and liable suits easier to file. That's interesting, because a shrewd lawyer (or judge) might see misnaming a transgender person as a form of slander, might they not? In other words, weakening the first amendment might, very ironically, protect some categories of people against some forms of verbal insult or aggression. If the judiciary gets on board that is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted May 5, 2017 Author Share Posted May 5, 2017 10 minutes ago, Rippounet said: That's interesting, because a shrewd lawyer (or judge) might see misnaming a transgender person as a form of slander, might they not? In other words, weakening the first amendment might, very ironically, protect some categories of people against some forms of verbal insult or aggression. If the judiciary gets on board that is... Actually, that's possible. The key is whether or not the "slander" or "liable" is "true" and whether the "slander" or "liable" actually injured the party in question. Public figures in the US have a very high threshold to prove liability for slander. They have to show "actual malice" that the false statement was made and made with "actual malice" toward the person to whom it was directed. What I think Trump would like to see change is a removal of the "Actual Malice" standard. That means he could sue papers or news organizations that merely "negligently" release inaccurate information about him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 I just would like to add another term for this. "Rudeness" at this level is not just rudeness or jerkiness. It is a manifestation of hatefulness and should be called such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted May 5, 2017 Author Share Posted May 5, 2017 3 minutes ago, Ormond said: I just would like to add another term for this. "Rudeness" at this level is not just rudeness or jerkiness. It is a manifestation of hatefulness and should be called such. Ormond, That's fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theda Baratheon Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 3 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said: No, because of the climate for transgender people, the bare minimum is that it's bullying. Arguing that at the minimum it's simply rude is ignoring the reality that trans folk live with daily. Yep. This isn't just rudeness. Even the bare minimum, against a transgender person, misgendering them is dangerous and hateful. Accidentally messing up on pronouns - emailing someone to tell them you do NOT believe in their gender identity and are going to continue to misgender them is an act of contempt. It's an act of hate. Calling it rudeness and trying to make some analogy about cisgender people with traditionally masculine or feminine names seems to be to be taking the conversation away from transgender people and the fact this is a hateful and spiteful act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted May 5, 2017 Author Share Posted May 5, 2017 9 minutes ago, Theda Baratheon said: Yep. This isn't just rudeness. Even the bare minimum, against a transgender person, misgendering them is dangerous and hateful. Accidentally messing up on pronouns - emailing someone to tell them you do NOT believe in their gender identity and are going to continue to misgender them is an act of contempt. It's an act of hate. Calling it rudeness and trying to make some analogy about cisgender people with traditionally masculine or feminine names seems to be to be taking the conversation away from transgender people and the fact this is a hateful and spiteful act. Theda, That is not my intent. My intent is to present this in an idiom that people cannot dismiss or ignore. That they would recognize as unacceptable because it is comparable to common courtesy they would extend to anyone they happened to meet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theda Baratheon Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Theda, That is not my intent. My intent is to present this in an idiom that people cannot dismiss or ignore. That they would recognize as unacceptable because it is comparable to common courtesy they would extend to anyone they happened to meet. I know it's not your intent and I know what you're trying to do Scot, I just don't think it's that helpful. Misgendering a trans person is always going to be so much more loaded than simply being 'rude'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 6 minutes ago, Theda Baratheon said: I know it's not your intent and I know what you're trying to do Scot, I just don't think it's that helpful. Misgendering a trans person is always going to be so much more loaded than simply being 'rude'. Yes, yes, yes. I've heard people try to use this 'it's rude' argument to explain why someone shouldn't rip off a Muslim woman's hijab. It belittles and minimizes what is experienced by the victim. Yes, victim. I'm wearing a scarf on my head right now because I haven't washed my hair in days and I didn't feel like dealing with it. Pulling this scarf off me is rude. It's not an article of clothing to me, at least not one that covers a part of my body that I've deemed very private. On a Muslim woman, her scarf or hijab does cover a very private part of her body. When you rip her covering off, it's assault. At the bare minimum it's assault. It would be as if you ripped off her dress. Two similar seeming actions can be very different depending on the person to whom it's directed. Calling me by the male version of my name is rude. Calling my girlfriend by the name and gender she was assigned at birth is, at the bare minimum, dangerous, hateful, bullying, bigoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted May 5, 2017 Share Posted May 5, 2017 29 minutes ago, Theda Baratheon said: I know it's not your intent and I know what you're trying to do Scot, I just don't think it's that helpful. Misgendering a trans person is always going to be so much more loaded than simply being 'rude'. But if you could get folks to stop doing it by making them realize that it is rude in a sort of "common courtesy" sort of context, wouldn't you consider that to be progress of a sort? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.