You have no existential stake in the argument. — thewonder

You're basically restating this. What does it amount to to have an existential stake in an argument?

This is coming across to me like empty rhetoric where one isn't expecting it to be challenged.

thewonder is a good person here and keeps the discussions going, plus he is being forthright. — PoeticUniverse

I never said that thewonder isn't a good person, or anything of the sort. I just literally find some of what he is saying laughable.

There can be degrees of 'problems' with the masculinization of the brain. All embryos begin as female. — PoeticUniverse

I know all about problems with masculinity first hand, having grown up male, and never quite fitting in with the typical male stereotype.

They aren't fringe beliefs in this regard, though. Being "queer" is not synonymous with being "homosexual". "Homosexuals" are just often called "queers" in a pejorative sense. Queer Theory can be summarized as being a radical reconceptualization of sexuality and gender. It is related to Gay and Lesbian Studies, but is not synonymous with it,

They aren't fringe beliefs in this regard, though. Being "queer" is not synonymous with being "homosexual". "Homosexuals" are just often called "queers" in a pejorative sense. Queer Theory can be summarized as being a radical reconceptualization of sexuality and gender. It is related to Gay and Lesbian Studies, but is not synonymous with them. — thewonder

And that's why discussion with you is pointless. I think you're in denial. I feel as though if I were to say that the sky is blue, you would deny it and say that it is red, because you've attended Sky Colouration Studies or some shit, and the modern trend in such groups is the indoctrination that the colour of the sky is a matter of personal identification. Perhaps in your world you can even make up funny-sounding colours which don't really exist, like cerphleem. Yes, the sky is cerphleem.

They aren't fringe beliefs in this regard, though. Being "queer" is not synonymous with being "homosexual". "Homosexuals" are just often called "queers" in a pejorative sense. Queer Theory can be summarized as being a radical reconceptualization of sexuality and gender. It is related to Gay and Lesbian Studies, but is not synonymous with them. — thewonder

Sorry, you can't be queer if you're not a homosexual. And you can't be a feminist if you are a man. And you can't be a black power advocate if you're white. You can be a white, straight, man who tries to be sympathetic and respectful of black, gay, and female people, but it's disrespectful and creepy to claim more than that.

If I experience the sky as being red, then it is red to me. A person who is colorblind may experience the sky as being red.

I'm just explaining that the equation of homosexuality with queerness is as a result of the slur, "queer". Identifying as being "queer" does, whether or not someone accepts Queer Theory, refer to something other than being "homosexual".

If I experience the sky as being red, then it is red to me. — thewonder

Oh god. You are very predictable. Sure, whatever, the sky is red, I'm a unicorn, and up is down.

Au contraire! I have posited that what being "queer" means is that you generally accept something along the lines of that gender is performative and that sexuality is fluid as per Queer Theory. This does not necessarily imply that a person has to be a homosexual in order to be queer.


If you want to identify as being a unicorn, then that is something that I am willing to accept.

Au contraire! I have posited that what being "queer" means is that you generally accept something along the lines of that gender is performative and that sexuality is fluid as per Queer Theory. This does not necessarily imply that a person has to be a homosexual in order to be queer. — thewonder

No, I'm saying a person has to be a homosexual to be queer. Using that word differently based on your own political preferences or desire to be included with the cool guys is, as I said, disrespectful and creepy.

Sorry, you can't be queer if you're not a homosexual. And you can't be a feminist if you are a man. And you can't be a black power advocate if you're white. You can be a white, straight, man who tries to be sympathetic and respectful of black, gay, and female people, but it's disrespectful and creepy to claim more than that. — T Clark

I'm fully with you on that first sentence, but the next two sentences are false, even if it might strike some as peculiar. Being queer - outside of the bizarre make-believe world that people like thewonder comes from - just means being gay, albeit with nonidentical connotations. However, there is nothing in the meaning of feminism or black power advocation which precludes males or whites, nor should there be in the case of feminism especially, which is all about gender equality.

Au contraire! I have posited that what being "queer" means is that you generally accept something along the lines of that gender is performative and that sexuality is fluid as per Queer Theory. This does not necessarily imply that a person has to be a homosexual in order to be queer. — thewonder

That you've posited something does not make it so. You do understand that, right? You are of course free to go by your own meanings, but no one is obliged to do likewise. When I was talking about the meaning of the word "queer", I was speaking generally. It might help if you thought outside of your own belief system instead of forgetting its status as a fringe view which many people outright reject. "Queer Theory" is not the norm. It is not widely accepted, nor even seen as a credible academic subject by lot of people.

However, there is nothing in the meaning of feminism or black power advocation which precludes males or whites, nor should there be in the case of feminism especially, which is all about gender equality. — S

Don't agree. You don't have to be a feminist to believe in gender equality. For a man to call himself a feminist is to try to coopt for himself whatever power and authority comes with that word. A lot of times it's also a way of avoiding personal guilt for gender conditions. Just the same for race.

If someone wants to be a fucking genderqueer blue wolf who uses "zem" pronouns why the hell do you care. — fdrake

I certainly don't care. It's just that I'm not going to be restricted to how other people want me to use language, unless I think there's a good reason to cater to the person's requests.

That's kind of in line with me not caring for conventions of etiquette in general. If you're going to have a problem with me not using the "right" silverware, not eating in the "right" order, not following some arbitrary set of ritualistic behavior, etc., then you'd probably better not hang out with me. You can do whatever you want and I won't give you a hard time about it. But I'm going to do the same thing, and I expect you to not give me a hard time about it, too.

Examples of the Problems:

Each one of us loves his mother.
The writer must carefully proofread what he writes.
All men are created equal.
Let’s ask each of the poets what he thinks is his best work.
Let everyone ask himself to consider the problem of the lack of the epicene pronoun.
Man, being a mortal, breast feeds his young.
... — PoeticUniverse

Examples of available solutions:

People love their mothers.
Writers must carefully proofread their writing.
All people are created equal.
Let's ask the poets to name each of their best works.
Let's all ask ourselves to consider...
Being mortal, we breastfeed our young / Humans breastfeed their young.

And so on.

All of which pay heed to grammar and gender neutrality. Where the two must conflict for stylistic reasons, it's generally acceptable (and often desirable) to bend the grammar rules, especially concerning verb-subject agreement.

But they won’t have a chance of getting used if they don’t sound right. — PoeticUniverse

They probably won't have a chance, period. The difficulty with messing with the pronouns is that they're a closed word class and very resistant to change. So, it's not something that can really be subject to decree. Having said that, I don't get the self-righteous refusal not to respect—within reason—others choices about how they want to be addressed. Seems like an unnecessary way to make enemies.

Don't agree. You don't have to be a feminist to believe in gender equality. — T Clark

But that's not implied by what I said. That's actually a fallacious inference. Feminism, as I characterised it, is all about gender equality, but that is not at all to suggest that one must be a feminist to believe in gender equality. Feminism is just a form of gender equality advocation with a focus on females.

For a man to call himself a feminist is to try to coopt for himself whatever power and authority comes with that word. A lot of times it's also a way of avoiding personal guilt for gender conditions. Just the same for race. — T Clark

That's a load of rubbish. I don't identify as a feminist, as it happens, but if I did I would be doing nothing of the sort. I would be expressing my support and identification with female focused equal rights.

Any ideology which claims to be feminism but is not about and in favour of gender equality is just another form of sexism.

That's kind of in line with me not caring for conventions of etiquette in general. If you're going to have a problem with me not using the "right" silverware, not eating in the "right" order, not following some arbitrary set of ritualistic behavior, etc., then you'd probably better not hang out with me. You can do whatever you want and I won't give you a hard time about it. But I'm going to do the same thing, and I expect you to not give me a hard time about it, too. — Terrapin Station

If you don't care about etiquette in general this is a deeper problem than just apparently bollocks pronouns, sis.

That is just my summary of what Queer Theory is. I think that it suffices, but other people can disagree with it. It doesn't really seem like anyone knows quite enough about Queer Theory to really discount it. I fail to see how a theory which challanges traditional gender roles necessitates that a person has to be a homosexual in order to believe in it.

I actually think that that gender is performative and that sexuality is fluid is just simply a statement of affairs. Being queer is not a choice in lifestyle, it's just simply describes the relationship that everyone has to sexuality and gender. I identify as being queer because I think that the traditional roles that we are assigned to at birth ought to be challanged. I don't always perform my gender as a male. I don't think that anyone does. I usually do, however. as I'm not usually in a situation where it is advantageous to behave otherwise. I actually think that everyone is queer. Identifying as such is also a partial means to promote the theory which I see as being mostly positive.

I just don't understand the need to care so much about this. Why are so many people pedants when it comes to inventing pronouns when:

"humba wumba shlumba dumbha, these sounds even in the haze"
"Twas brillig and the slithy toves..."
"embiggen" — fdrake

For the simple and fairly obvious reason that people ambiguous in appearance are not speaking out in significant numbers and demanding that I adopt that particular terminology in reference to them. So it's a non-issue. That's just a segment of deliberately nonsensical poetry. It's not the same.

But if they were, then my position would essentially be no different. I simply won't be browbeaten into adopting nonsense terminology or be made to feel bad every time the situation calls for the use of personal pronouns, and it's as simple as that. It's only an issue because people have made it into one. I would rather the whole thing were not an issue, as it is an embarrassing distraction from more serious and worthy causes, but this is what certain contemporary groups have been making noise about, and yes, it has pretty much become a parody of itself.

If you don't care about etiquette in general this is a deeper problem than just apparently bollocks pronouns, sis. — fdrake

It's only a problem for people who care about etiquette and want me to follow it. :yum:

There is a good reason, though. You ought to respect their chosen identity.

Imagine if I exclusively decided to refer to you as "she" or "her" in a demeaning sexist sense. Terrapin Station made a comment. She is totally off of her rocker. You would, at first, probably ignore this as you would consider yourself to be someone who is above engaging in such a discourse, but would probably eventually be bothered by it enough to address me with why it is that you don't think that I should do that.

I think that respecting chosen pronouns is kind of similar.

I actually think that everyone is queer, however. Identifying as such is also a partial means to promote the theory which I see as being mostly positive. — thewonder

Yes, probably, as not 100% all one way, just as many might have some amount of any condition, such as depression, but not really notice, since it doesn't exceed some threshold.

You ought to respect their chosen identity. — thewonder

Within reason.

Imagine if I exclusively decided to refer to you as "she" or "her" in a demeaning sexist sense. Terrapin Station made a comment. She is totally off of her rocker. You would, at first, probably ignore this as you would consider yourself to be someone who is above engaging in such a discourse, but would probably eventually be bothered by it enough to address me with why it is that you don't think that I should do that. — thewonder

Actually I couldn't care less how you address me, what you call me. The only "requirement" if you want a response is that I have to be able to figure out that you're addressing me somehow. But you don't have to care about that, of course.

There is no claim that you attest by making an argument. You aren't of a marginalized position and don't need to stake your existence when engaging in debate. I'm not quite sure how to put this effectively. A person who is queer has to contend the validity of their being while making an argument for that you should use their chosen pronouns. Because you are, I assume, heteronormative, you don't risk anything by engaging in the debate.

How is that there are an arbitrary set of behaviors that are considered to be masculine and feminine more reasonable than what Queer Theory posits?

There is no claim that you attest by making an argument. — thewonder

That's obviously false, though. You must have something in mind other than what you're literally saying.

You aren't of a marginalized position — thewonder

What determines this, exactly, and why does it matter, exactly?

don't need to stake your existence — thewonder

What the heck is "staking one's existence"?

A person who is queer has to contend the validity of their being — thewonder

That's just nonsense, though. First off, "validity" doesn't apply to "being."

I think it should function as the converse of a necessary apology that's accepted with the condition of necessity being negated.

As in:
A: "I really must apologize about X" (Obligation presumed)
B: "Oh, there's no need to apologize" (Obligation negated)(But with the unspoken necessary condition of negation here being the original assumption of obligation in the apology itself)

So, the converse is that someone asks you as a favour to refer to them by their preferred pronoun presuming no obligation. Then, on the basis of that lack of presumption, you accept it as an obligation. In other words the obligatory etiquette arises out of its voluntary negation by its beneficiary.

As in:
A: "I'd really appreciate it if you would refer to me as "they" rather than "he or she". You don't have, to of course, but I do prefer it." (Obligation negated)
B: "Sure, of course." (Obligation presumed)(On the unspoken necessary condition of the original negation of obligation).

This is how etiquette works. Give and take in a space created by charity and good-will. There is nothing to be proud of in a vulgar rejection of this aspect of human relations.

(In other words, a normatively phrased demand (You should refer to me as.../ You should not expect me to refer to you as... ) by either party short-circuits the solution from both ends.)

Perhaps I'm not being terribly clear.

If you were to engage in a debate with an Arab Muslim over Islam, then they would have more of an existential stake in the debate. The hegemony of Western culture does not deny your right to exist. You don't really have anything to lose by engaging in the debate. The other perspective has more 'weight' to it or something. It doesn't mean that they're right. It just means that they have more of an existential stake in the debate.

Should that be taken into consideration? I think so. A person who has an existential stake in a debate is somewhat unfairly subject to it. There shouldn't really be a reason for it to matter whether or not a person is proven right or wrong.

There's probably some other philosophical term for this which better describes what I have just cooked up, but I don't know what it is.

That's just nonsense, though. First off, "validity" doesn't apply to "being." — Terrapin Station

A person who identifies as being queer does have to contend that Queer Theory is valid.

If you were to engage in a debate with an Arab Muslim over Islam, then they would have more of an existential stake in the debate. The hegemony of Western culture does not deny your right to exist. You don't really have anything to lose by engaging in the debate. The other perspective has more 'weight' to it or something. It doesn't mean that they're right. It just means that they have more of an existential stake in the debate. — thewonder

What are we talking about re "denying your 'right' to exist" though? What's an example of that?

I'm just trying to explain what I mean by "existential stake". I didn't mean to imply that you were denying anyone's right to exist, although, refusing to use a person's chosen pronouns does slightly deny their right to exist as such.