Logic should be the only process by which people's words are accepted or rejected. — Harry Hindu

It's your subjective emotional locus vis-a-vis logic that compels you to proclaim the preeminence of logic. You have a feeling that logic is of a higher order than a feeling.

I actually don't care what she prefers unless I'm given something I consider a good reason to care. — Terrapin Station

Those who care care because it's kind to care. Do you value kindness?

Those who care care because it's kind to care. Do you value kindness? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Not to the extent that one thinks that it involves catering to something just because someone wants you to, no.

Not to the extent that one thinks that it involves catering to something just because someone wants you to, no — Terrapin Station

What kind of kindness do you value?

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.

It leads to bad speaking and writing no matter the concessions we make. Only using proper nouns would be repetitive and cumbersome. Pronouns are necessary to everyday conversation.

No one's voice should be amplified in a society where we are all equal and have free speech — Harry Hindu

Yes. Why do you think people want to have their voices amplified then? Say someone who's been skeptical of their gender from birth, but doesn't identify with the...

Wait you don't believe in that, either.

It's just another internet right talking point, and you're here to take the predictable line under the banner of truth and reason.

There's not some set of criteria for it, really. It's just whatever I feel is warranted.

There's not some set of criteria for it, really. It's just whatever I feel is warranted. — Terrapin Station

It's inaccurate to say there's no criteria. The criteria in operation may be unconscious to you but there is without a doubt some set of criteria.

Is there a situation in which you would designate a transgendered person by his or her pronoun of preference just to be kind?

It's inaccurate to say there's no criteria. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Um, you asked me what kind of kindess I value. There's not really any set criteria for the kindness I value. On what grounds can you say that it's not accurate to say that there's no set criteria for the kindness I value? You're claiming to know my mind better than I do?

I don't buy unconscious mental content, by the way.

Is there a situation in which you would designate a transgendered person by his or her pronoun of preference just to be kind? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Sure, if the person is a friend/has earned my respect, etc., then it's likely though not guaranteed that I'd do it.

I don't buy unconscious mental content, by the way — Terrapin Station

If you "don't buy unconscious mental content" then, yes, I know your mind better than you do.

Sure, if the person is a friend/has earned my respect... — Terrapin Station

Do you only show kindness to people who have earned your respect?

If you "don't buy unconscious mental content" then, yes, I know your mind better than you do. — ZzzoneiroCosm

And the way you know that is?

Do you only show kindness to people who have earned your respect? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Right, so when I say there's no set criteria for it, really, that's what I mean. So no. And I don't necessarily show kindness in particular ways to people who have earned my respect, either. It depends on the situation, really, the way I feel at that moment, what's being asked, what's being interpreted as kindness--all sorts of things.

And the way you know that is? — Terrapin Station

I know that at this moment not everything in your mind is conscious to you. It would be difficult (if not absurd) to argue with that.

Right, so when I say there's no set criteria for it, really, that's what I mean. So no. And I don't necessarily show kindness in particular ways to people who have earned my respect, either. It depends on the situation, really, the way I feel at that moment, what's being asked, what's being interpreted as kindness--all sorts of things. — Terrapin Station

It sounds like you're just not a very kind person. That squares with your other assertions above. Fin.

I know that at this moment not everything in your mind is conscious to you. It would be difficult (if not absurd) to argue with that. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I wasn't asking you to rephrase your claim. I was asking you to justify it epistemically.

It sounds like you're just not a very kind person. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Different people will have different assessments about that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I wasn't asking you to rephrase your claim. I was asking you to justify it epistemically. — Terrapin Station

It's not worthwhile to restate a claim that's obvious to all. Some mental contents, at any point in time, are unconscious. Fin.

Some mental contents, at any point in time, are unconscious — ZzzoneiroCosm

Which again is a claim that I don't at all agree with. I said that from the start. What do you accept as plausible evidence of it?

Your position is that one is conscious, at every moment, of the entire contents of one's mind?

Apart from derailing the thread, it's a silly and fruitless line of argumentation.

Are you going to tell me what you accept as plausible evidence of unconscious mental content?

Yes. Why do you think people want to have their voices amplified then? — fdrake

Because they want special treatment, not equal treatment.

Say someone who's been skeptical of their gender from birth, but doesn't identify with the... — fdrake

phhhtttttlmao - skeptical of their "gender" from birth? How do you know that a newborn that has just come out of it's mother is skeptical of it's gender when it doesn't even know it has arms and legs yet?

Wait you don't believe in that, either. — fdrake

Exactly. I don't believe that stupid shit you just said.

It's just another internet right talking point, and you're here to take the predictable line under the banner of truth and reason. — fdrake

Well, yes. Just take your own argument and apply it to Christian vs. atheist debates, or "white privilege" debates where you can say what you want that offends others. If you were consistent, then we shouldn't be telling Christians that their god doesn't exist because it hurts their feelings, and we shouldn't be labeling others as racist because it offends them.

You seem to think free speech entails only saying things that don't hurt YOUR feelings, and to hell with everyone else's feelings that disagrees with you.

Because they want special treatment, not equal treatment. — Harry Hindu

Baseless assertion.

phhhtttttlmao - skeptical of their "gender" from birth? How do you know that a newborn that has just come out of it's mother is skeptical of it's gender when it doesn't even know it has arms and legs yet? — Harry Hindu

Calm down. From age 3. This happens. If you were interested in finding out anything about what you're criticising, you'd probably not have jumped on any chance to show the world I'm an idiot.

If you were consistent, then we shouldn't be telling Christians that their god doesn't exist because it hurts their feelings, and we shouldn't be labeling others as racist because it offends them. — Harry Hindu

How can I be consistent when you've decided what I've believed is inconsistent? You never actually go away and read anything about anything. I would love to have an informed discussion with you about this kind of thing, but you never want to inform yourself about the perspectives you're criticisng. You put accounts in some box purely of your own invention (well, your ideology's), decide what people are saying, then come in all guns blazing.

There is a place for that, sometimes, of course.

You're obviously not interested in having a "reasoned debate" on the topic. In which people at least understand the other's perspective and then criticise it. You're interested in a bloodsport of worldviews, that you're going to portray as the natural functioning of reason or logic, which is always in agreement with what you've decided is true beforehand. Funny that.

What terrible consequence happens if your ideological enemies win an internet argument? People use zir as a word? Jesus.

Because they want special treatment, not equal treatment.
— Harry Hindu

Baseless assertion. — fdrake

No it isn't. I don't make baseless assertions. I make assertions based on observation and logic. If you want people to change the words they use around certain people because of their feelings, then you should be applying that rule to everyone, not just those whose political ideology you support.

How can I be consistent when you've decided what I've believed is inconsistent? You never actually go away and read anything about anything. I would love to have an informed discussion with you about this kind of thing, but you never want to inform yourself about the perspectives you're criticisng. You accounts in some box purely of your own invention (well, your ideology's), decide what people are saying, then come in all guns blazing.

You're obviously not interested in having a "reasoned debate" on the topic. In which people at least understand the other's perspective and then criticise it. You're interested in a bloodsport of worldviews, that you're going to portray as the natural functioning of reason on logic, which is always in agreement with what you've decided is true beforehand. Funny that. — fdrake

I only decide something after I have evidence, and you provided plenty of evidence that you aren't consistent. How would you know if I ever go away and read anything about anything? Talk about baseless assertions. You are consistent when your statements are consistent.

I take what you say, and ask you to clarify for consistency's sake, but you'd rather engage in ad hominems rather than answer the questions. They aren't rhetorical. Then need answers to make sense of what you already said. You seem to think that your words are religious gospel and uncontestable. I'm sorry to hurt your feelings. They aren't.

Calm down. From age 3. This happens. If you were interested in finding out anything about what you're criticising, you'd probably not have jumped on any chance to show the world I'm an idiot. — fdrake

You're the one not interested in finding out anything. You don't even wonder how it is even possible or coherent for a man to claim to be a woman. You simply take their word for it. Why don't you take a schizophrenic's word for it? Again, I'm asking for consistency in the application of your arguments.

If want people to change the words they use around certain people because of their feelings, then you should be applying that rule to everyone, not just those whose political ideology you support. — Harry Hindu

Yeah, I agree with this.

At that, I don't have any problem with the idea of someone being transgender, but I have no problem with the idea of someone thinking that they're really a dragon or a toaster or whatever. I'm not necessarily going to call them a dragon or toaster, but I don't have any problem with people thinking that.

Say someone who's been skeptical of their gender from birth, but doesn't identify with the... — fdrake

So I went away and did some reading by way of a Google search for "differences in gender brains" and can you guess what kind of search results I received? Why don't you go away and do the same thing and see if you get the same results and then come back here and lets have a reasonable discussion about it. :cool:

Yeah, I agree with this.

At that, I don't have any problem with the idea of someone being transgender, but I have no problem with the idea of someone thinking that they're really a dragon or a toaster or whatever. I'm not necessarily going to call them a dragon or toaster, but I don't have any problem with people thinking that. — Terrapin Station

Sure, but like religion, they are trying to use the government to push their ideology and make it a crime to say certain things. That is when it crosses the line.

The social acceptance of new pronouns has never just been about the feelings of people involved. That's part of it, though. Enough of a part of it to inspire people to join political movements; being misgendered really matters to people darlings. But the people in those movements are campaigning for social recognition, to perturb norms to be more inclusive, in order to end discrimination against them for something as arbitrary as not fitting into how people think of gender, which does indeed have measureable social effects.

Gender nonconformity often leads to bullying and social exclusion; it leads to mental health disorders, it leads to workplace discrimination and hiring discrimination, it affects long term life outcomes pretty much everywhere. But it doesn't always, why? Why don't these people just "buck up" and accept their lot and work with it? Thing is, they already are. In some communities, gender nonconformity is a life or death matter. And that matters, because people's arbitrary social expectations should not inspire mistreatment of any demographic. This is the "we're all created equal"; but who we are is always to a greater or lesser degree in contrast with societal expectations. They shoulder all this while working like you do. Could you stand the same burden? I doubt it, we'd crumple like the sensitive little flowers we are.

Think of a societal expectation as a norm of interpretation; a prediction of someone's behaviour; they are also of course moral standards; if you do not behave consistently with society's norms, you will face social costs. Whether this is socially excluding the tomboy, beating the shit out of a guy at school for being "gay" because he seems feminine, or a trans woman losing a loving relationship just because "they're really a man".

This latter point, necessarily dichotomising people into genders and the normative consequences that entails based on sex is usually something which is presented as a consequence of a reactionary belief system, but should really be seen as a premise rooted in avoidance of punishment for society's norms shifting underneath them. It is a transference mechanism to avoid that vaunted conservative sense of social responsibility even applying to shifting their worldview. If these people cared about truth, they would fess up to their obvious mistakes in public. "This threatens society" <=> "This threatens me". It is a self defending response to something which, if they would only be more logical and observant, could be challenged; and a more informed, inclusive worldview would result. Alas, it is not. These people would burn the world and harm those in it because it does not satisfy their expectations; they are triggered by the fact that they are involved in systems of suppression and subjugation. But they will never thematise their response as emotionally driven; reason for them here is little more than an identity signifier and a defense mechanism. It's just tribalism expressing itself through stupidly motivated arguments, fisking condescension, and a total inability to consistently argue the same points.

Then there's the equal under the law stuff; hiring policies are written to be gender neutral, for example, but this does not imply that hiring is gender unprejudiced (see the article "Discriminating Systems" for a thorough data driven treatment of the issue). When even fucking Google and Facebook know that gender archetypes negatively impact their talent acquisition, one wonders why it is so difficult for people on the internet right to think in these terms.

Underneath all this is a state of prelapsarian (white, almost always male) bliss, a garden of Eden absent from politics that classifies anything which would perturb the current social order as political; as inappropriate state or community interventions; but the forces which to benefit of the people I'm criticising maintain the present social order and their place in it. Inappropriate political action is just that which does not maintain my "rightful" (pfft, entitled buggers) place in things. This is only sustainable by a blinkering of perspective away from systemic issues; which is funny, as political leaders have to be able to think like that about social issues. Think structurally, not personally, and allow suffering to speak.

The apoplectic resistance any systemic critique encounters by the internet right stems from an obvious failure of thought which absolves them from a guilty conscience; don't worry, mummy's already made the bad things go away, they don't exist because they're logically impossible. But you, dear reader, need not feel guilty. Just try and be better in what limited ways you can! And it's hard!

So this is ultimately why internet reactionaries are drawn like flies to the same topics. They don't need to have a consistent worldview to defend themselves; it's a a panic response expressing itself through white nerd rage. You don't need to panic, the world will be better eventually since you're wrong.

It ain't the left who're triggered, darlings.

Yeah, definitely. You know I'm against any speech laws.

Are you going to tell me what you accept as plausible evidence of unconscious mental content? — Terrapin Station

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6977/unconscious-mental-phenomena-evidence-for-and-against

So if you don't actually know any empirical support for it that you accept, it's probably worth examining why you believe in it so firmly.