When I talk of normality being a creation of the self aware mind I do so understanding that normality is a abstraction. I do not mean to indicate that the mind creates such things as gravity. Gravity is unyielding, however normalcy is solely dependent on the perspective of the self aware mind. In order for one to state that continuous change is normal one must have a some original orientation for to measure it. Should you cease to be self aware then gravity continues, however normalcy ceases along with your reality. To say that the normality of change continues once you cease to be self aware requires that you perpetuate your awareness beyond the moment you imagine your yourself awareness to cease. Now should the charge be made that so to would gravity cease because you are no longer there to perceive it I would reply that gravity is actual and survives the loss of reality. Then comes the statement "I thought you said that actuality was the universe independent of our perception." By the that statement I mean to state in order to find all that is actual one must remove what is real. However this does not mean that actual entities can not be perceived. In fact there must exist something actual that can allow the generation of something that is real. This would allow for actual forces to be part of ones own subjective reality. Because actual entities must continue in order to allow for the creation of a reality to begin with they must continue to exist. Gravity is a fundamental property of the universe and all things are subject to it. It is necessary for gravity to act on other actually entities to allow for the creation of human reality (which is the only one we know.) Normality is real, just not actual and thus is lost with the loss of reality. Gravity is actual and thus survives the loss of what is real.
in actuality, it is the charge that was couched by the long post-enlightenment ascendency over the western cerebral outlook that ascertained that such an external body exists, whose properties are independent of any individual human being and indeed of humanity as a whole; that these properties are encoded in ``eternal'' physical laws; and that human beings can obtain reliable, albeit imperfect and tentative, knowledge of these laws by hewing to the ``objective'' procedures and epistemological strictures prescribed by the (so-called) scientific method.
Oh come on, you've just now run yourself into two clichés and neiher of them really applies here.
Accepting and applying an absolute minimum to cheer someone up is not a "carebear attitude". It's ****ing polite.
Thinking (and acting on it) that people should be who they feel they are and who they feel they should be is hardly politically correct. I am not conforming to currently fashionable ideas, I'm conforming to my own ideas. It hardly even seems as if it coincides with western ideas at the time. It is seemingly more "politically correct" to try and be politically incorrect. What you're essentially doing here is "Gee, I'm being a selfish **** but that's okay because otherwise it's politically correct and we can't have that so it's perfectly fine for me to be a selfish ****! yaaay!".
edit: to clarify, it occassionaly looks as if some folk ae as dickish or moronic as possible just to avoid the label "politically correct". Which is further exacerbated by idiots who throw it around as if it's some surefire way of proving the person they're discussing something with as "wrong". Like what skyrage was doing in his whinging about immigrants. "I'm not a racist ****hole, you're just being politically correct". Hey, me happening to be politically correct doesn't change you being a racist ****hole, bucko.
Hold your horses, kid. What I, rather hostily and not-well-enough-explained, said was that you can't assume that all people (Ilex in this case) will differentiate between gender and physical sex, and that some people are more accustomed to gender meaning what's between your legs, not what you feel that you are. With this I indicated that it's rather over-indignant to assume that people not familiar with the differences between the former will understand the concept, and thus being indignant about it is unfair. Which, granted, I didn't say. Then I said that it smacked of a "I'll be different and speshul because I'm just little ol' me!" attitude, better known as carebearing on this board.
As for being politically correct, I do indeed use it as a general term to describe a severe fear of offending anyone, which I find preposterous and quaint. I am by no means out to offend for the sake of offending (which is what I read you examples as, at least). Often I go to great pains to make people understand my view and try to view theirs, so I don't think that label's fair. You'll never see me generalize about immigrants, for example, and I'm allergic to double standards when I see them (which I don't always do). DO point out where I was selfish, for example - I think you'll have a hard time, which points to a need for you to consider carefully the manner in which you construct arguments, because instead of striking true on something I did do, you made something up that turned out to be untrue, lowering your otherwise decent argument a fair bit.
I still maintain that the vast majority of people need to grow thicker skin. Not just on these boards. See the George Carlin quote for points as to why.
I feel that one of the most important mistakes that people do when they discuss the cultural effect of gender, is that they do not go back far enough. Their opinions seem to be limited to the idea that men all od a sudden simply decided that women were the inferior gender, and started opressing them.
Personally, i like to go back to the days when we were a bunch of cavemen. There, the potential of the food-bringer (the hunter) was the most important factor. And since the males are genetically "made" to be stronger, they were the best choice for the dangerous and physically demanding work of Hunting.
In return, the females had do do the other tasks that were left when the men went out to hunt, i.e care for the children etc.
This also led to the stronger males, the successful hunters, recieving more females, since their genetic traits was beneficial for the survival of the offspring. Thus, the good, strong hunters survived. The weak did not. So men were bred to be hunters. Strong, capable of killing, etc.
Women were bred to be good caretakers etc.
This have later simply followed with the development of humanity, through history, marking both our valuead sexual traits, aswell as promoting them through natural selection.
It's just in the last decades that the need for physical strenght (and other trais that can be needed by a warrior and hunter) have dimnished, and thus the differences have begun being questioned.
Also, the mere fact that men are generally stronger than women leaves other markings. For a man, strenght matters when competing about reproduction. Therefor, men are more eager to prove their strenght, i.e getting into fights. I would also speculate that men are genetically bred to be arrogant and careless in order to take the risks necessary for the survival of the flock, therefor men are more prone to taking stupid risks and risking their lives.
Last but not least, if say a flock consists of 100 humans. 50 male, 50 females. Imagine these two scenarios:
1: All 50 Females goes out to hunt. They are ambushed, and 45 of the women are killed. 5 returns. When it is time to reproduce, the flock can only bring forth ~5 children, at best, (ignoring twins).
2: All 50 males goes out to hunt. They are ambushed and 45 of the men are killed. 5 returns. When it is time to reproduce, the flock can now bring forth ~50 children.
It takes only one man to impregnate 50 women. But with 50 men and 1 women, you will still only get one child.
Therefor, the life of a man is not as important, in terms of the survival of the species, as the life of a women. Therefor, it's beneficial that the men take the risks that survival demands, while the women are kept protected.
Relevance is for pussies. This is skyrim. Here you walk up to people, shove your opinion in their face, stare at them for 15 minutes, then goes and punches a dragon in the face.
Relevance is for pussies. This is skyrim. Here you walk up to people, shove your opinion in their face, stare at them for 15 minutes, then goes and punches a dragon in the face.
Oh come on, you've just now run yourself into two clichés and neiher of them really applies here.
Accepting and applying an absolute minimum to cheer someone up is not a "carebear attitude". It's ****ing polite.
Thinking (and acting on it) that people should be who they feel they are and who they feel they should be is hardly politically correct. I am not conforming to currently fashionable ideas, I'm conforming to my own ideas. It hardly even seems as if it coincides with western ideas at the time. It is seemingly more "politically correct" to try and be politically incorrect. What you're essentially doing here is "Gee, I'm being a selfish **** but that's okay because otherwise it's politically correct and we can't have that so it's perfectly fine for me to be a selfish ****! yaaay!".
edit: to clarify, it occassionaly looks as if some folk ae as dickish or moronic as possible just to avoid the label "politically correct". Which is further exacerbated by idiots who throw it around as if it's some surefire way of proving the person they're discussing something with as "wrong". Like what skyrage was doing in his whinging about immigrants. "I'm not a racist ****hole, you're just being politically correct". Hey, me happening to be politically correct doesn't change you being a racist ****hole, bucko.
Hold your horses, kid. What I, rather hostily and not-well-enough-explained, said was that you can't assume that all people (Ilex in this case) will differentiate between gender and physical sex, and that some people are more accustomed to gender meaning what's between your legs, not what you feel that you are. With this I indicated that it's rather over-indignant to assume that people not familiar with the differences between the former will understand the concept, and thus being indignant about it is unfair. Which, granted, I didn't say.
Which is nice and fair and all, but doesn't really apply here does it? This is a personal situation, this isn't about a large group, this is about someone specific. And she's said she prefers to be labelled female, so why the hell not? If someone isn't aware of it, then correct them.
Seff 说:
Then I said that it smacked of a "I'll be different and speshul because I'm just little ol' me!" attitude, better known as carebearing on this board.
Odd how this applies to damn near everyone except to Athenian. Hyp can be a sour idiot all he wants because he's little ol' him. Archonsod can be a pompous ******* all he wants because he's little ol' him, you can be a creepy skeletal knife-wielding murder-rapist all you want because you're little ol' you, so why not apply this to Athenian as well?
Seff 说:
As for being politically correct, I do indeed use it as a general term to describe a severe fear of offending anyone, which I find preposterous and quaint. I am by no means out to offend for the sake of offending (which is what I read you examples as, at least). Often I go to great pains to make people understand my view and try to view theirs, so I don't think that label's fair. You'll never see me generalize about immigrants, for example, and I'm allergic to double standards when I see them (which I don't always do).
Well, that's not what I intended to say. I don't think you were intending to hurt anyone, but it did seem as if you were a bit callous with Athenian's feelings just so you didn't have to make a very minor change. And I know you're a very decent guy, so I was a bit surprised & confused at how it evolved over there.
Seff 说:
DO point out where I was selfish, for example - I think you'll have a hard time, which points to a need for you to consider carefully the manner in which you construct arguments, because instead of striking true on something I did do, you made something up that turned out to be untrue, lowering your otherwise decent argument a fair bit.
This is where you're gonna call me a square because I think you should get over the fact that you're not quite how you feel you should be, and instead try to use the language we've all agreed on: Penis = male, vagina = female. I really have nothing against diversity, but this smacks of "I'll be different and speshul because I'm just little ol' me!"
What I read it as: Athenian can't be who she claims to be, because I don't want to make the non-effort of accepting that.
Also, I've never agreed on those definitons, they were there already. Not my fault, not hers, not yours.
And, really, that last sentence? That's kinda what makes diversity diversity. Everyone is his or her own little ol' me, that's what makes diversity so diverse. So why can't she be her own little ol' me then?
Seff 说:
I still maintain that the vast majority of people need to grow thicker skin. Not just on these boards. See the George Carlin quote for points as to why.
Well, yes. That's fair, but it's unfair and unreasonable to expect it to happen overnight. Especially not because she's also dealing with crap outside of the forums and if she then gets away from it by coming here and seeing it here too it can likely become too much to deal with at one time. And you can then insist that she needs a thicker skin but if she doesn't have it yet it's too much in one go.
Also, you were referring to Ilex's post. One that seems to be very much a joke.
And this while Ilex is pretty much the manliest man on these forums, excluding Pavlov and maybe Kleid and he himself has "female" on his profile. ***** be pullin' our legs.
I know it's not quite directly comparable, but if for example a girl is naturally blonde and large chested, and she doesn't agree that she should be called or treated as a dumb barbie doll, is that then crazy too? because it's just that the common opinion/perception is that if you're born looking like a barbie, you are a barbie doll? and if you call and treat her as "the dumb blonde she simply is" (because she's born that way), and she hates that, she doesn't have a thick enough skin and you don't need to care to be all carebear-y? if she dyes her hair and does her best not to look or dress or act like what would be expected from her just by her "natural" outer appearance, you would still go and call her "blonde barbie" because that's her natural state?
Obviously, this example is based on a stereotype, and transsexuality goes a tad further than that, but on the other hand, hair colour and genitals are based on your genes, and do not necessarily represent your personality/identification.
To be fair, he said that all the gender stereotypes are made up, and people should be treated as individuals and not based on the stereotypes. So to Mage comparable thing would be girl that is naturally blonde and large chested that wants to be treated as smallchested brunette, and the whole thing about treating her as stupid blonde would be stupid anyways. Or something.
I can kinda see the point he is trying to make, if your gender identity was based only on the reproductive organ and chromosomes you have, saying you are a woman while you are a man would be kind of umm... odd? And if people were treated as individuals it wouldn't really matter anyways.
Which is nice and fair and all, but doesn't really apply here does it? This is a personal situation, this isn't about a large group, this is about someone specific. And she's said she prefers to be labelled female, so why the hell not? If someone isn't aware of it, then correct them.
It's not that he wants to be called she, it's that he's so very in-your-face and indignant about it. Ilex's post was a joke, but I didn't perceive the replies as one.
Odd how this applies to damn near everyone except to Athenian. Hyp can be a sour idiot all he wants because he's little ol' him. Archonsod can be a pompous ******* all he wants because he's little ol' him, you can be a creepy skeletal knife-wielding murder-rapist all you want because you're little ol' you, so why not apply this to Athenian as well?
Remind me, do we call people out for being all of those things, especially when it becomes too much? Yeah.
Well, that's not what I intended to say. I don't think you were intending to hurt anyone, but it did seem as if you were a bit callous with Athenian's feelings just so you didn't have to make a very minor change. And I know you're a very decent guy, so I was a bit surprised & confused at how it evolved over there.
Nah, I'll make the change, but I'll make it out of respect, not from being pestered or indignantly corrected. Being callous or not, I was being honest in saying that I don't care either way, and that what people have between their legs really IS how I distinguish - important here is that I know some people disagree, and that's why I didn't argue that point.
Also, I've never agreed on those definitons, they were there already. Not my fault, not hers, not yours.
Given that they're there already, they're already defined as part of the language. Use another word if the definition of the one you're using doesn't fit your intent. This is like me demanding that other people accept that a carrot is called a banana. No can do, the language is what it is.
And, really, that last sentence? That's kinda what makes diversity diversity. Everyone is his or her own little ol' me, that's what makes diversity so diverse. So why can't she be her own little ol' me then?
Well, yes. That's fair, but it's unfair and unreasonable to expect it to happen overnight. Especially not because she's also dealing with crap outside of the forums and if she then gets away from it by coming here and seeing it here too it can likely become too much to deal with at one time. And you can then insist that she needs a thicker skin but if she doesn't have it yet it's too much in one go.
Heh, you can never expect other people to know how you're feeling, at all. That's a lesson of life for ya. Besides, gaining thick skin has to start somewhere.
Also, you were referring to Ilex's post. One that seems to be very much a joke.
And this while Ilex is pretty much the manliest man on these forums, excluding Pavlov and maybe Kleid and he himself has "female" on his profile. ***** be pullin' our legs.
Which is nice and fair and all, but doesn't really apply here does it? This is a personal situation, this isn't about a large group, this is about someone specific. And she's said she prefers to be labelled female, so why the hell not? If someone isn't aware of it, then correct them.
It's not that he wants to be called she, it's that he's so very in-your-face and indignant about it. Ilex's post was a joke, but I didn't perceive the replies as one.
Only after your little "let me lay down the law" speech did she become remotely indignant.
Seff 说:
Odd how this applies to damn near everyone except to Athenian. Hyp can be a sour idiot all he wants because he's little ol' him. Archonsod can be a pompous ******* all he wants because he's little ol' him, you can be a creepy skeletal knife-wielding murder-rapist all you want because you're little ol' you, so why not apply this to Athenian as well?
Actually, no. I have seen plenty of cases of everyone ganging up on newbies but you can't honestly tell me you ever tried to call out Archonsod. And, hey, I've tried to call out Hyp (with me in a bad mood) but all that happened was that I got comments telling I had to leave hyp alone, chris crocker style. Yeah, Mage gets called out occassionally and Jhessail plenty often but other than them, nah.
Seff 说:
Well, that's not what I intended to say. I don't think you were intending to hurt anyone, but it did seem as if you were a bit callous with Athenian's feelings just so you didn't have to make a very minor change. And I know you're a very decent guy, so I was a bit surprised & confused at how it evolved over there.
Nah, I'll make the change, but I'll make it out of respect, not from being pestered or indignantly corrected. Being callous or not, I was being honest in saying that I don't care either way, and that what people have between their legs really IS how I distinguish - important here is that I know some people disagree, and that's why I didn't argue that point.
Thing is, you were the one trying to indignantly correct her. Whole **** wouldn't have happened if you hadn't gone and pretended to be all matter-of-factly and saying she should get over it.
Seff 说:
Also, I've never agreed on those definitons, they were there already. Not my fault, not hers, not yours.
Given that they're there already, they're already defined as part of the language. Use another word if the definition of the one you're using doesn't fit your intent. This is like me demanding that other people accept that a carrot is called a banana. No can do, the language is what it is.
Yeah, but language changes. Moreover, this isn't anything like your cutesy comparison. It isn't trying to get people to call a carrot a banana, it's trying to get people to call a person by what she prefers to be called by. And I'm not saying that you have to bend over backwards to please everyone all the time, I'm just saying you can give her the simple bloody courtesy of calling her her.
*tiny snip*
Seff 说:
Well, yes. That's fair, but it's unfair and unreasonable to expect it to happen overnight. Especially not because she's also dealing with crap outside of the forums and if she then gets away from it by coming here and seeing it here too it can likely become too much to deal with at one time. And you can then insist that she needs a thicker skin but if she doesn't have it yet it's too much in one go.
Heh, you can never expect other people to know how you're feeling, at all. That's a lesson of life for ya. Besides, gaining thick skin has to start somewhere.
True enough, and it would've come into existence with time and light ribbing and when she's a bit more sure of herself. It ain't gonna come by blasting her completely. Or atleast, that's not gonna happen without her lashing out in retaliation as well.
I have no problems with gays having the same rights as others, more problems with the fact that people are making propaganda about have normal and modern it are. When I was little, after seing a such propaganda poster which said that it's completely normal for boys to be in love with boys, I even started to think that I wasn't normal as I haven't experienced such things yet. When I told my mother that I was in love with Erik (well I wasn't, but I just wanted to see her reaction), my mother was shoked, but if she was a liberal I would probably be a gay today, if I wanted to. By the way, not all countries which are opposed to it are stoning or gassing gays, in Russia nothing of that are being practiced, and tbh I haven't met a single one there. As I said, as long there isn't any propaganda, same right for gays as for other persons are nothing wrong in itself and I'm not a homophobe.
Responding to this sans flaming is one of the most difficult things I hope to be presented with in this exchange...or the remainder of my time on the forum.
Let me just simply say: "it doesn't work that way and if you really think that's how it works, kindly educate yourself."
(And do note my post that you responded to with this last bit of...whatever that was...particularly the part about 'normalcy' in social/cognitive sciences, etc. Surprisingly enough it was actually directed at you and was intended to be read.)
You have your sex that you were born with, nothing else. Gender doesn't really exist as a fact (at least not in the present terminology), it is a social construct - a belief. It exists only because we believe it exists. Believing that you were born the wrong sex because you are not being allowed to fulfill the gender role that you think you should is misidentifying the problem. It doesn't have anything to do with your sex, it has everything to do with your society. If you lived in a society where the gender roles were reversed, you wouldn't have any problem with your sex. That's why if I meet someone who wants to fulfill a different gender role, I encourage them to do so despite whatever other people might think - and without radically altering their body. Difficult? Yes. But I think superior to perpetuating the lie by trying to change your sex (and failing, since it's impossible).
In my experience gender roles have bugger all to do with it.
None of the gender queer people I know want to live out some stereotype, they don't want to transition because they secretly want to switch 'jobs' to what's expected of the other gender.
When it comes down to it the gender queer people I know are the biggest advocates of the breaking down of gender roles and equality. And they're not, as you put it "disgusted by their genitalia", any more than I'm disgusted by female genitalia despite my lack of a desire to have one.
Even in a perfect world where a guy could throw on mascara and heels and no one would blink an eye there would still be people who wanted to transition. It's not a matter of appearing as the other gender to other people, or feeling 'icky' about what you've got between your legs, it's a matter of serious dysphoria caused by the body you're in. Yes it doesn't make 'sense' that you feel like you should be in a different body to the one that you're in, but no amount of therapy or suppression has ever been clinically proven to make it go away so there's no reason to assume it's anything other than a legitimate mental illness.
And arguably there's no reason to try to make it go away. Neither the social act of transitioning or the cosmetic surgery of a gender reassignment are nearly as damaging as you're making them out to be. They don't shorten the persons life expectancy, they don't cause them any serious physical harm or pain. There's no reason to oppose it on the grounds that it's "better for them" to learn to be happy with what they are. And people don't just jump into it lightly then decide later on "oops, turns out I was okay with my original body after all". There's no reason whatsoever that I can think of to be opposed to it on a humanitarian grounds.
You'll never see me generalize about immigrants, for example, and I'm allergic to double standards when I see them (which I don't always do). DO point out where I was selfish, for example - I think you'll have a hard time, which points to a need for you to consider carefully the manner in which you construct arguments, because instead of striking true on something I did do, you made something up that turned out to be untrue, lowering your otherwise decent argument a fair bit.
