NationStates

Farburg wrote:

Khasinkonia wrote:I understand this sentiment. Frankly I get rather tired of seeing these same old arguments debating whether trans people exist or not. I’d like to see more stuff about how the current systems work and what needs improvement and what we can learn from the past.

Frankly any changes our ''systems'' need have nothing to do with trans people.

Dumb Ideologies wrote:Thread clogged by fatberg. Who flushed the wet wipes?

Auzkhia wrote:The traditional sex-gender system is a clunky, outdate, oppressive system. You cannot always and accurately extrapolate one's gender and sexual orientation from one's sex, which here means a composite of physiological traits related to mammalian sexual reproduction, it's a construct that only directly contributes to sexism and transphobia, but it rode the coattails of racism and colonialism. Not all human societies constructed gender the same way.

What's your angle for upholding it? Do you not want to change your worldview? Being wrong is part of learning, and thus bettering yourself.

Even gender essentialism is a woke rebrand of it, some people try to look for something inward, when really gender is much more murky and complicated, and that's ok, gender only exists in a society. Do we live in a society? Yes. Only society can define it and redefine it, and who is society, you are, I am society, you are society, we are all society.

Khasinkonia wrote:

Farburg wrote:
Frankly any changes our ''systems'' need have nothing to do with trans people.

Well I should think systems which primarily serve to deal with trans people ought to be well-suited to the job. Maybe ensuring our systems are able to capably execute their duties is something of a controversial opinion, but I stand by it.

Farburg wrote:

Khasinkonia wrote:Well I should think systems which primarily serve to deal with trans people ought to be well-suited to the job. Maybe ensuring our systems are able to capably execute their duties is something of a controversial opinion, but I stand by it.

We need systems that primarily deal with a tiny minority of people with rare disorders at the expense of literally everyone else.

Gremand wrote:

Farburg wrote:
We need systems that primarily deal with a tiny minority of people with rare disorders at the expense of literally everyone else.

Question- how does allowing for more people within the system harm in any way literally anyone? Does accepting that there is varience harm you? My mother has a beard. Does that harm you? There is enough people who vary from the "standard" definition of both gender AND sex that the system is visibly flawed. What of that? I am a man to some and a woman to others. Does this harm you?

Farburg wrote:

Auzkhia wrote:The traditional sex-gender system is a clunky, outdate, oppressive system. You cannot always and accurately extrapolate one's gender and sexual orientation from one's sex, which here means a composite of physiological traits related to mammalian sexual reproduction, it's a construct that only directly contributes to sexism and transphobia, but it rode the coattails of racism and colonialism. Not all human societies constructed gender the same way.

What's your angle for upholding it? Do you not want to change your worldview? Being wrong is part of learning, and thus bettering yourself.

Even gender essentialism is a woke rebrand of it, some people try to look for something inward, when really gender is much more murky and complicated, and that's ok, gender only exists in a society. Do we live in a society? Yes. Only society can define it and redefine it, and who is society, you are, I am society, you are society, we are all society.

Farburg wrote:

Gremand wrote:Question- how does allowing for more people within the system harm in any way literally anyone? Does accepting that there is varience harm you? My mother has a beard. Does that harm you? There is enough people who vary from the "standard" definition of both gender AND sex that the system is visibly flawed. What of that? I am a man to some and a woman to others. Does this harm you?

I just don’t want to have to use stupid pronouns, that’s all.

Gremand wrote:

Farburg wrote:
I just don’t want to have to use stupid pronouns, that’s all.

Ah, then you should try using the commonly accepted for 500 years genderless pronoun they. I believe therein lies thine problem. Else, attempt to change thine worldview, unless you're fine taking the consequences for not using people's preferred pronouns. (Social isolation in certain circles, primarily.)

Gremand wrote:

Farburg wrote:
I just don’t want to have to use stupid pronouns, that’s all.

Ah, then you should try using the commonly accepted for 500 years genderless pronoun they. I believe therein lies thine problem. Else, attempt to change thine worldview, unless you're fine taking the consequences for not using people's preferred pronouns. (Social isolation in certain circles, primarily.)

Farburg wrote:

Gremand wrote:Ah, then you should try using the commonly accepted for 500 years genderless pronoun they. I believe therein lies thine problem. Else, attempt to change thine worldview, unless you're fine taking the consequences for not using people's preferred pronouns. (Social isolation in certain circles, primarily.)

I can use they, but the problem is when they want us to say xie or xir.
If they try to push that bullshit on me I’d be tempted to call them an it.

I can’t beleive that it’s illegal to not play along with this shit in Ontario.

Proctopeo wrote:

Gremand wrote:Ah, then you should try using the commonly accepted for 500 years genderless pronoun they. I believe therein lies thine problem. Else, attempt to change thine worldview, unless you're fine taking the consequences for not using people's preferred pronouns. (Social isolation in certain circles, primarily.)

Tbf, though, it's unlikely they'd be in those circles, both due to their views and because those circles are quite simply few in number and small in size.
Are we talking neopronouns, specifically? Like, xer and zim and shit like that? Yeah, just use they.

Maxine IV wrote:

Farburg wrote:
I can use they, but the problem is when they want us to say xie or xir.
If they try to push that bullshit on me I’d be tempted to call them an it.

I can’t beleive that it’s illegal to not play along with this shit in Ontario.

Language evolves. New technologies, new concepts, new ideas, and language changes to reflect the times. Welcome to the 21st century.

Farburg wrote:

Gremand wrote:Ah, then you should try using the commonly accepted for 500 years genderless pronoun they. I believe therein lies thine problem. Else, attempt to change thine worldview, unless you're fine taking the consequences for not using people's preferred pronouns. (Social isolation in certain circles, primarily.)

I can use they, but the problem is when they want us to say xie or xir.
If they try to push that bullshit on me I’d be tempted to call them an it.

I can’t beleive that it’s illegal to not play along with this shit in Ontario.

Farburg wrote:

Maxine IV wrote:
Language evolves. New technologies, new concepts, new ideas, and language changes to reflect the times. Welcome to the 21st century.

I’m not letting identity politics and people wanting to be special and different in order to have purpose in their pathetic lives be what dictates the evolution of MY native language!

Gremand wrote:

Farburg wrote:
I can use they, but the problem is when they want us to say xie or xir.
If they try to push that bullshit on me I’d be tempted to call them an it.

I can’t beleive that it’s illegal to not play along with this shit in Ontario.

I tend to be of the opinion that xie and xir and stuff, neopronouns or the ilk, are quite good and useful for certain people. I have a particular question for u tho- why does this harm you? What is in this stuff that makes you so enraged? These are people trying to determine their own gender and identity, what is it for you to say they're wrong?

Farburg wrote:
I’m not letting identity politics and people wanting to be special and different in order to have purpose in their pathetic lives be what dictates the evolution of MY native language!

Ah, i understand. Guess what, it's my language too. Just for you, i'd like you to call me xim. Anyone else can, but I'd greatly prefer it of you currently.

Gremand wrote:

Farburg wrote:
I can use they, but the problem is when they want us to say xie or xir.
If they try to push that bullshit on me I’d be tempted to call them an it.

I can’t beleive that it’s illegal to not play along with this shit in Ontario.

I tend to be of the opinion that xie and xir and stuff, neopronouns or the ilk, are quite good and useful for certain people. I have a particular question for u tho- why does this harm you? What is in this stuff that makes you so enraged? These are people trying to determine their own gender and identity, what is it for you to say they're wrong?

Farburg wrote:
I’m not letting identity politics and people wanting to be special and different in order to have purpose in their pathetic lives be what dictates the evolution of MY native language!

Ah, i understand. Guess what, it's my language too. Just for you, i'd like you to call me xim. Anyone else can, but I'd greatly prefer it of you currently.

Besides, identity politics is no worse than y replacing the thorn because the printing press was weird.

Farburg wrote:

Gremand wrote:I tend to be of the opinion that xie and xir and stuff, neopronouns or the ilk, are quite good and useful for certain people. I have a particular question for u tho- why does this harm you? What is in this stuff that makes you so enraged? These are people trying to determine their own gender and identity, what is it for you to say they're wrong?



Ah, i understand. Guess what, it's my language too. Just for you, i'd like you to call me xim. Anyone else can, but I'd greatly prefer it of you currently.

Besides, identity politics is no worse than y replacing the thorn because the printing press was weird.

It doesn’t realize that if gender really is this fluid and meaningless than having it at all is just a nuisance that in some cases can be used as a weapon against normal people to kick them out of their positions for not being up to date on the latest BS pronouns.

Farburg wrote:

Gremand wrote:I tend to be of the opinion that xie and xir and stuff, neopronouns or the ilk, are quite good and useful for certain people. I have a particular question for u tho- why does this harm you? What is in this stuff that makes you so enraged? These are people trying to determine their own gender and identity, what is it for you to say they're wrong?



Ah, i understand. Guess what, it's my language too. Just for you, i'd like you to call me xim. Anyone else can, but I'd greatly prefer it of you currently.

Besides, identity politics is no worse than y replacing the thorn because the printing press was weird.

It doesn’t realize that if gender really is this fluid and meaningless than having it at all is just a nuisance that in some cases can be used as a weapon against normal people to kick them out of their positions for not being up to date on the latest BS pronouns.

Gremand wrote:Farburg, why did you reply to the same post twice? I'd just compile the replies into one post. Also, i'm totally fine with divergent languages. Have a nice day in that regard

Farburg wrote:
It doesn’t realize that if gender really is this fluid and meaningless than having it at all is just a nuisance that in some cases can be used as a weapon against normal people to kick them out of their positions for not being up to date on the latest BS pronouns.

Literally if one asks you to use a certain set of pronouns and you don't, then that's on you. It's like if you called an androgenous-looking kid a girl and they told you they're a boy, and you kept calling them a boy. To use my mom again, it's as if you continued to call my mom a man even after she told you she was a woman. And guess what? Human's also a social construct. We keep these things around because they are useful, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't change them! There are hundreds of different definitions for the word "nationalist," but that doesn't mean nationalist is a useless word!

Khasinkonia wrote:

Farburg wrote:
It doesn’t realize that if gender really is this fluid and meaningless than having it at all is just a nuisance that in some cases can be used as a weapon against normal people to kick them out of their positions for not being up to date on the latest BS pronouns.

I frankly don’t know why we even bother with the three different first person pronouns. He(men), she(women and ships), it(non-human life and inanimate objects). I think animate versus inanimate or just one would suffice, from a pragmatic linguistic perspective.

Farburg wrote:

Gremand wrote:Farburg, why did you reply to the same post twice? I'd just compile the replies into one post. Also, i'm totally fine with divergent languages. Have a nice day in that regard



Literally if one asks you to use a certain set of pronouns and you don't, then that's on you. It's like if you called an androgenous-looking kid a girl and they told you they're a boy, and you kept calling them a boy. To use my mom again, it's as if you continued to call my mom a man even after she told you she was a woman. And guess what? Human's also a social construct. We keep these things around because they are useful, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't change them! There are hundreds of different definitions for the word "nationalist," but that doesn't mean nationalist is a useless word!

Nationalism is supposed to confusing and murky,
Nations weren’t around until humans started building them.
It’s just if everyone decides to be these androgynous things how the hell are we supposed to reproduce? Many countries are having birthdate problems and this doesn’t help.

Farburg wrote:

Gremand wrote:Farburg, why did you reply to the same post twice? I'd just compile the replies into one post. Also, i'm totally fine with divergent languages. Have a nice day in that regard



Literally if one asks you to use a certain set of pronouns and you don't, then that's on you. It's like if you called an androgenous-looking kid a girl and they told you they're a boy, and you kept calling them a boy. To use my mom again, it's as if you continued to call my mom a man even after she told you she was a woman. And guess what? Human's also a social construct. We keep these things around because they are useful, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't change them! There are hundreds of different definitions for the word "nationalist," but that doesn't mean nationalist is a useless word!

Nationalism is supposed to confusing and murky,
Nations weren’t around until humans started building them.
It’s just if everyone decides to be these androgynous things how the hell are we supposed to reproduce? Many countries are having birthdate problems and this doesn’t help.

Gremand wrote:

Farburg wrote:
Nationalism is supposed to confusing and murky,
Nations weren’t around until humans started building them.
It’s just if everyone decides to be these androgynous things how the hell are we supposed to reproduce? Many countries are having birthdate problems and this doesn’t help.

Is there any evidence that this hurts people reproducing? Besides, can we not simply woo those who we wish? How is that any different than normal wooing?

Besides, gender and sex didn't exist before humans defined them. Same as nationalism.