I didn’t leave a top-level comment. I replied to someone who made an excessively broad statement lacking any nuance. They didn’t say “it’s being used as a transphobic dogwhistle in this context,” they suggested that it can only be used as a transphobic dogwhistle
No, they didn’t, they just said (and to repeat, they said it in the context of this guidance about access to gendered spaces) “it’s a transphobic dog whistle”, which is absolutely what it is in this context, and you strawmanned that up to “it’s always transphobic dog whistle in every context, even if you omit the unnecessary oversimplifying adjective ‘biological’” and made the argument about that.
very legitimate point that I made that doctor’s need to know
Correction, very irrelevant point in this context.
If you aren’t transphobic and you aren’t autistic, I would expect you to adjust how you speak in this kind of context
Great, so you’re assuming I’m not autistic. Neurotypical defaultism is ableist.
No, there’s an if at the start of that sentence and an and partway in.
and the fact that you can’t seem to understand why it happened is the same reason they wanted to do it.
Oh, I can understand why it happened. It’s because someone was being petty and trigger-happy without caring to stop and think critically for a moment. I didn’t say I don’t understand how this could happen. I just called it petty.
I think it’s rational to ban someone who refuses to accept that their lengthy sealioning is unwelcome from a comm designed to be free of exactly that kind of sealioning.
You act like you’re unable to understand why those comments were unwelcome. If you do understand why they’re unwelcome, stop. If you don’t understand why they’re unwelcome, don’t claim to understand.
They applied their judgement in an unqualified and overly broad sense. They weren’t just talking about “in this context.” And if you aren’t operating on the assumption that “it’s always a transphobic dogwhistle,” then why are people saying it’s a transphobic dogwhistle when I simply say “it’s not necessarily a transphobic dogwhistle”?
Correction, very irrelevant point in this context
It’s not irrelevant at all, but if you keep ignoring thr context that makes it relevant then I can’t change your mind…
No, there’s an if at the start of that sentence and an and partway in.
Which was clearly meant to be hostile and the disclaimer “if you’re not autistic…” doesn’t really change that.
I think it’s rational to ban someone who refuses to accept that their lengthy sealioning is unwelcome from a comm designed to be free of exactly that kind of sealioning.
First of all, I’m not sealioning. I don’t know why you’re fixated on that. I didn’t say “Oh yeah, prove it’s a dogwhistle” multiple times while ignoring evidence. I provided evidence in the form of a counterexample that it’s not always a dogwhistle; evidence which was promptly and repeatedly ignored. In other words, you’re the ones sealioning.
Second of all, this isn’t a trans comm, and neither were half the ones I got permabanned from. So your logic falls short.
You act like you’re unable to understand why those comments were unwelcome. If you do understand why they’re unwelcome, stop. If you don’t understand why they’re unwelcome, don’t claim to understand.
They’re unwelcome cause some mods and instance admins want to create echo chambers where nuanced discussion isn’t allowed, so they label any unpopular opinion as “transphobic” even when that accusation doesn’t hold up.
Nothing I’ve said has been bigoted, y’all are just loading layers of meaning and interpretation onto my statements because you’re conditioned to see transphobia and bigotry everywhere you look. It sucks that you have to put up with that stuff, but that’s not what I’m doing and you’re overapplying that filter.
why are people saying it’s a transphobic dogwhistle when I simply say “it’s not necessarily a transphobic dogwhistle”?
Ib don’t think you really thought about that question before you posted it. If I recall correctly, this is your first use of the word “necessarily”. If you had merely said “it’s not necessarily a dog whistle in every context -medics might use the term”, you might have simply had a quick “but in this guidance transphobic dog whistling is very much where it comes from and in any case a medic is likely to omit the word biological”.
Again, the context of this while discussion, as you keep rejecting despite the link at the top of the page, is the trans-harassment “equalities” guidance. The other context is entirely and irrelevantly of your invention.
this isn’t a trans comm, and neither were half the ones I got permabanned from. So your logic falls short.
I have no idea which comms you got banned from, but some whole instances are designed to be safe spaces so that trans people can complain about being excluded from access to public toilets in peace without you turning up to derail the entire conversion to be about what the word “sex” means. blahaj.zone is one such instance, and I know there are several other instances that are keen to protect trans folk from exactly the kind of “bbbut medically, surely” crap you’re pulling here.
The fact that you argue rather than apologise when people say you’re behaving insensitively to trans folk is exactly the reason I fully support banning you from trans-supportive spaces.
Nothing I’ve said has been bigoted, y’all are just loading layers of meaning and interpretation onto my statements because you’re conditioned to see transphobia and bigotry everywhere you look. It sucks that you have to put up with that stuff, but that’s not what I’m doing and you’re overapplying that filter.
Wow. I want you to think of a phrase about a minority group that you personally acknowledge is offensive.
Imagine someone turning up after someone explained that that phrase was offensive and then spending upwards of three hours arguing that it it isn’t offensive in some contexts. And then to cap it all, blaming that targetted group of people in general for being offended and hinting that they should have put aside a lifetime of prejudice and disadvantage so they can look more calmly rationally at the debate about whether it’s always offensive.
Whatever, I don’t even care anymore. You’re just going to completely ignore subtext and connotation while playing semantic games about what is or isn’t verbatim or what modifiers have or haven’t been added for clarity. I’m done wandering in this labyrinth with you.
The next time a trans man dies of ovarian cancer because his doctor was too afraid to have him screened for it (or worse: didn’t even know he has ovaries in the first place!), then at least I know it won’t be my fault. I’ve done my part. I’ve contributed my bit to the discussion, and if you want to categorically reject it because it would require you to assimilate an uncomfortable truth into your worldview, then fine. What’s it to me?
You make it really hard to care about anyone’s feelings if I have to walk on eggshells to avoid being taken out of context, mischaracterized, labeled a bigot, and banned from a whole list of unrelated communities. Keep scratching your head as to why journalists rarely touch on the topic anymore, too.
Wow. I want you to think of a phrase about a minority group that you personally acknowledge is offensive.
If someone tries to say that the word “ethnicity” is insensitive to racial minorities and has no use other than as a dogwhistle, then I wouldn’t be in the wrong for pointing out how it’s a necessary concept in anthropology.
Just because people want to manufacture outrage about benign concepts doesn’t make me responsible for their feelings.
I want you to think of a phrase about a minority group that you personally acknowledge is offensive.
If someone tries to say that the word “ethnicity”
I think if you break character and you’re really honest with yourself and me, you may be able to come to terms with the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you don’t sincerely believe that ‘ethnicity’ is a word that you, personally acknowledge is offensive.
It was a breathtakingly futile attempt to help you for once look at something from someone else’s perspective. I don’t know why I tried given how insulated from empathy for anyone else’s feelings or perspective you have demonstrated you are over the last hours.
You make it really hard to care about anyone’s feelings if I have to walk on eggshells
Lol. You really think that the victims of transphobic talk are to blame.
The next time a trans man dies of ovarian cancer because his doctor was too afraid to have him screened for it (or worse: didn’t even know he has ovaries in the first place!), then at least I know it won’t be my fault.
Lol lol lol. You are parodying yourself now! You invented this timeline, this complete fiction, this flight of fancy in which someone was insisting that it’s transphobic for a doctor to ask people about their medical history, (a context and an assertion that you, and only you invented) and then you blamed someone merely telling you that you were being impolite for the DEATH of your fictional character when they followed the imagined straw man advice that literally no one gave except you. And then you congratulated yourself that you had done your best to prevent the fictional death resulting from the implausible consequence of following advice that you yourself invented!
You have to give in and admit that the sheer audacity and absurdity of this far fetched straw man is actually funny!
Ethnicity is to race what sex is to gender. Race and gender are social constructs, while ethnicity and sex are biological categories that are often conflated with their sociological counterparts.
You wanted me to come up with a slur and then try to argue that it’s perfectly fine to say? I’m not going to do that, because I’m not a bigot. Just because you’re trying to mischaracterize me as one doesn’t mean you can bait me into talking like one.
And then you act offended that I didn’t blindly stumble into your transparent attempt at entrapment? You’re not worth arguing with.
You really think that the victims of transphobic talk are to blame.
Nothing I’ve said has been transphobic, you’re just using “victim blaming” as a shield to hide from information or ideas that conflict with your own.
As for the rest of your drivel, get over yourself. Trans men aren’t a fiction, and many of them do have ovaries. The fact that you’re manufacturing so much outrage over using sex as opposed to gender as a useful concept in medical contexts has the direct implication that doctors would be hindered from screening trans men for ovarian cancer. And if you can’t see that direct connection, then I can’t help you.
Feel free to blindly stumble into problems that no one could have foreseen because you’re so averse to anyone pointing out where some notions might lead.
Thanks, I was starting to feel like I had my back against the wall and was being outnumbered.
I’m mentally ill too though, so I don’t think that automatically means someone should be ignored. But yeah, if they persistently misrepresent what I say in order to feel morally superior and make it easier to argue then I’ll gladly ignore them, mental illness or not
I’ll clarify that they’ve repeatedly demonstrated that they’re unfortunately mentally ill in a way that makes it not worth your time to engage. Just downvote and move on.
No, they didn’t, they just said (and to repeat, they said it in the context of this guidance about access to gendered spaces) “it’s a transphobic dog whistle”, which is absolutely what it is in this context, and you strawmanned that up to “it’s always transphobic dog whistle in every context, even if you omit the unnecessary oversimplifying adjective ‘biological’” and made the argument about that.
Correction, very irrelevant point in this context.
No, there’s an if at the start of that sentence and an and partway in.
I think it’s rational to ban someone who refuses to accept that their lengthy sealioning is unwelcome from a comm designed to be free of exactly that kind of sealioning.
You act like you’re unable to understand why those comments were unwelcome. If you do understand why they’re unwelcome, stop. If you don’t understand why they’re unwelcome, don’t claim to understand.
They applied their judgement in an unqualified and overly broad sense. They weren’t just talking about “in this context.” And if you aren’t operating on the assumption that “it’s always a transphobic dogwhistle,” then why are people saying it’s a transphobic dogwhistle when I simply say “it’s not necessarily a transphobic dogwhistle”?
It’s not irrelevant at all, but if you keep ignoring thr context that makes it relevant then I can’t change your mind…
Which was clearly meant to be hostile and the disclaimer “if you’re not autistic…” doesn’t really change that.
First of all, I’m not sealioning. I don’t know why you’re fixated on that. I didn’t say “Oh yeah, prove it’s a dogwhistle” multiple times while ignoring evidence. I provided evidence in the form of a counterexample that it’s not always a dogwhistle; evidence which was promptly and repeatedly ignored. In other words, you’re the ones sealioning.
Second of all, this isn’t a trans comm, and neither were half the ones I got permabanned from. So your logic falls short.
They’re unwelcome cause some mods and instance admins want to create echo chambers where nuanced discussion isn’t allowed, so they label any unpopular opinion as “transphobic” even when that accusation doesn’t hold up.
Nothing I’ve said has been bigoted, y’all are just loading layers of meaning and interpretation onto my statements because you’re conditioned to see transphobia and bigotry everywhere you look. It sucks that you have to put up with that stuff, but that’s not what I’m doing and you’re overapplying that filter.
Ib don’t think you really thought about that question before you posted it. If I recall correctly, this is your first use of the word “necessarily”. If you had merely said “it’s not necessarily a dog whistle in every context -medics might use the term”, you might have simply had a quick “but in this guidance transphobic dog whistling is very much where it comes from and in any case a medic is likely to omit the word biological”.
Again, the context of this while discussion, as you keep rejecting despite the link at the top of the page, is the trans-harassment “equalities” guidance. The other context is entirely and irrelevantly of your invention.
I have no idea which comms you got banned from, but some whole instances are designed to be safe spaces so that trans people can complain about being excluded from access to public toilets in peace without you turning up to derail the entire conversion to be about what the word “sex” means. blahaj.zone is one such instance, and I know there are several other instances that are keen to protect trans folk from exactly the kind of “bbbut medically, surely” crap you’re pulling here.
The fact that you argue rather than apologise when people say you’re behaving insensitively to trans folk is exactly the reason I fully support banning you from trans-supportive spaces.
Wow. I want you to think of a phrase about a minority group that you personally acknowledge is offensive.
Imagine someone turning up after someone explained that that phrase was offensive and then spending upwards of three hours arguing that it it isn’t offensive in some contexts. And then to cap it all, blaming that targetted group of people in general for being offended and hinting that they should have put aside a lifetime of prejudice and disadvantage so they can look more calmly rationally at the debate about whether it’s always offensive.
Whatever, I don’t even care anymore. You’re just going to completely ignore subtext and connotation while playing semantic games about what is or isn’t verbatim or what modifiers have or haven’t been added for clarity. I’m done wandering in this labyrinth with you.
The next time a trans man dies of ovarian cancer because his doctor was too afraid to have him screened for it (or worse: didn’t even know he has ovaries in the first place!), then at least I know it won’t be my fault. I’ve done my part. I’ve contributed my bit to the discussion, and if you want to categorically reject it because it would require you to assimilate an uncomfortable truth into your worldview, then fine. What’s it to me?
You make it really hard to care about anyone’s feelings if I have to walk on eggshells to avoid being taken out of context, mischaracterized, labeled a bigot, and banned from a whole list of unrelated communities. Keep scratching your head as to why journalists rarely touch on the topic anymore, too.
If someone tries to say that the word “ethnicity” is insensitive to racial minorities and has no use other than as a dogwhistle, then I wouldn’t be in the wrong for pointing out how it’s a necessary concept in anthropology.
Just because people want to manufacture outrage about benign concepts doesn’t make me responsible for their feelings.
I think if you break character and you’re really honest with yourself and me, you may be able to come to terms with the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you don’t sincerely believe that ‘ethnicity’ is a word that you, personally acknowledge is offensive.
It was a breathtakingly futile attempt to help you for once look at something from someone else’s perspective. I don’t know why I tried given how insulated from empathy for anyone else’s feelings or perspective you have demonstrated you are over the last hours.
Lol. You really think that the victims of transphobic talk are to blame.
Lol lol lol. You are parodying yourself now! You invented this timeline, this complete fiction, this flight of fancy in which someone was insisting that it’s transphobic for a doctor to ask people about their medical history, (a context and an assertion that you, and only you invented) and then you blamed someone merely telling you that you were being impolite for the DEATH of your fictional character when they followed the imagined straw man advice that literally no one gave except you. And then you congratulated yourself that you had done your best to prevent the fictional death resulting from the implausible consequence of following advice that you yourself invented!
You have to give in and admit that the sheer audacity and absurdity of this far fetched straw man is actually funny!
Ethnicity is to race what sex is to gender. Race and gender are social constructs, while ethnicity and sex are biological categories that are often conflated with their sociological counterparts.
You wanted me to come up with a slur and then try to argue that it’s perfectly fine to say? I’m not going to do that, because I’m not a bigot. Just because you’re trying to mischaracterize me as one doesn’t mean you can bait me into talking like one.
And then you act offended that I didn’t blindly stumble into your transparent attempt at entrapment? You’re not worth arguing with.
Nothing I’ve said has been transphobic, you’re just using “victim blaming” as a shield to hide from information or ideas that conflict with your own.
As for the rest of your drivel, get over yourself. Trans men aren’t a fiction, and many of them do have ovaries. The fact that you’re manufacturing so much outrage over using sex as opposed to gender as a useful concept in medical contexts has the direct implication that doctors would be hindered from screening trans men for ovarian cancer. And if you can’t see that direct connection, then I can’t help you.
Feel free to blindly stumble into problems that no one could have foreseen because you’re so averse to anyone pointing out where some notions might lead.
I’m done arguing with you.
You should ignore that poster. They’re mentally ill.
Thanks, I was starting to feel like I had my back against the wall and was being outnumbered.
I’m mentally ill too though, so I don’t think that automatically means someone should be ignored. But yeah, if they persistently misrepresent what I say in order to feel morally superior and make it easier to argue then I’ll gladly ignore them, mental illness or not
I’ll clarify that they’ve repeatedly demonstrated that they’re unfortunately mentally ill in a way that makes it not worth your time to engage. Just downvote and move on.
Noted. Thank you