(March 1, 2014 at 4:10 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

The gendered slur was "bitch" and the thought terminating cliche was the first part.

It is not my fault you or Mr. Montcrieff or whatever can't handle reversed ordered terms.

My point stands.

The quote involved both qualities.

It was left an exercise to the reader to decide which belong to what - an exercise that some readers evidently failed.

Sorry, I don't use "bitch" as a gendered term. I use it to describe men and women interchangeably.

(March 1, 2014 at 4:10 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote:

(March 1, 2014 at 3:29 pm)Psykhronic Wrote: Cisgender is not a slur, Moros. Although some who are gender-variant use it like one, unfortunately.

Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

The gendered slur was "bitch" and the thought terminating cliche was the first part.

It is not my fault you or Mr. Montcrieff or whatever can't handle reversed ordered terms.

My point stands.

The quote involved both qualities.

It was left an exercise to the reader to decide which belongs to what - an exercise that some readers evidently failed.

Yeah, I already admitted I was being silly. You are right. It's called - I made a mistake.

(March 1, 2014 at 3:38 pm)futilethewinds Wrote: Okay, I'm sorry I wrongly identified you. I guess I don't understand how someone who isn't cisgender could possibly say that changing the binary gender system isn't important. It would be like a black person saying racism isn't much of a problem.

I can't say I mind, I got a good laugh out of it.

It isn't of critical importance. Know what I could get behind? A universal acceptance and respect for people in general.. not concerned about race, nor species, nor gender, nor beliefs unless given a damn good reason to. Until then... there will *always* be issues of this sort.

Further, the way that facebook has chosen happens to 'miss the point'. 'Transgendered/transsexual' is not a gender of itself, it is a mere notation that one's gender does not match their body. 'Cisgendered' is not a gender of itself, it is but the observation of congruency between one's gender and sex. 'Genderqueer' is not a gender of itself, it is only the statement that one's gender does *not* (strictly) adhere to man or woman. 'Questioning' is not a gender of itself, it is, however, the understanding that a person is currently uncertain of their gender. 'Intersex' is not a a gender marker in any way. 'Neither' is not applicable in this situation (more than 2 options). 'Pangender' is more useful as a 'all genders' inclusive word than it is a gender of itself. 'Two-spirit' is an archaic thought that does not apply in the modern age. 'Non-binary' is not a gender either... it only tells that their gender is not found along a binary spectrum.

So yeah... overall? I am not only not impressed of it's importance: I am not impressed of its 'attempt'.

---

(March 1, 2014 at 4:12 pm)futilethewinds Wrote: Sorry, I don't use "bitch" as a gendered term. I use it to describe men and women interchangeably.

I don't use 'Napoleon' as an ice-cream. Doesn't mean it isn't

(March 1, 2014 at 4:10 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote:

(March 1, 2014 at 3:29 pm)Psykhronic Wrote: Cisgender is not a slur, Moros. Although some who are gender-variant use it like one, unfortunately.

Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

The gendered slur was "bitch" and the thought terminating cliche was the first part.

It is not my fault you or Mr. Montcrieff or whatever can't handle reversed ordered terms.

My point stands.

The quote involved both qualities.

It was left an exercise to the reader to decide which belongs to what - an exercise that some readers evidently failed.

Just because I know what the accepted usage of the phrase is, doesn't necessarily mean I fundamentally subscribe to that.

Fundamental subscription isn't something I am fond of. Hence my presence here.

But I can understand why you would perceive my comments as being obtuse. So I apologise.

(February 28, 2014 at 8:27 pm)Alice Wrote:

(February 28, 2014 at 7:41 pm)futilethewinds Wrote: What is not better about it? Instead of having to try to fit themselves into a binary gender system when there are actually MANY genders, people on Facebook can identify themselves more accurately. That seems better to me.

The atrocities committed by man against his kin know no bounds.

Tell me... is announcing one is Shia in a Pakistan Sunni mosque... healthy? Is announcing to homophobic peers and family that one is gay... healthy?

Information is not without harm.

Such an atrociously bad argument that can be applied to any ridiculous oppression the majority inflicts on the minority. This kind of looks like the liberal cowardice many of the 'New Atheists' have spoken out against.

"No, we should not draw the Prophet Mohammad.. or moreover, allow women the freedom to drive cars.. because some extremist Muslim men might get bothered by it and harm them!"

That's an extreme comparison, in which case, you'd probably argue that women are better off surrendering their freedom to "choose" whether or not they'd like to operate a motor vehicle. In this instance, the choice to present oneself on their FB page however one prefers is far less dangerous. And each person understands their own circumstances to know if "coming out" carries more benefits than not. We don't need Alice or her authoritarian cohorts making those decisions for us but thanks for the concern.

(March 1, 2014 at 5:20 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Such an atrociously bad argument that can be applied to any ridiculous oppression the majority inflicts on the minority. This kind of looks like the liberal cowardice many of the 'New Atheists' have spoken out against.

You are not incorrect... however, it is sometimes the minority that 'inflicts' such upon the majority.

I shall reiterate: The atrocities committed by man against his kin know no bounds.

Quote:"No, we should not draw the Prophet Mohammad.. or moreover, allow women the freedom to drive cars.. because some extremist Muslim men might get bothered by it and harm them!"

This is a glorious misrepresentation of my argument. Did I say *anywhere* (*EVER*) that 'we should not do <anything> because someone might do <something> about it'?

No. I have yet only ever said that some degree of caution is advisable... because our actions have effects. Some of which are very dangerous, and could well get a person hurt.

Denying that people can be hurt due to information (true or otherwise) is... a very difficult position to defend, given slander and rumor-mills

Quote:That's an extreme comparison, in which case, you'd probably argue that women are better off surrendering their freedom to "choose" whether or not they'd like to operate a motor vehicle.

Depends on the woman, depends on the place, depends on the time, depends on the woman's relationships with others.

Quote:In this instance, the choice to present oneself on their FB page however one prefers is far less dangerous.

Right... because homophobic families totally haven't kicked gay and/or trans teens out of their homes before.

Because said peoples haven't been bullied horrifically by their classmates before.

Because one's friends definitely wouldn't abandon them or otherwise undermine them based on this data.

Because these things clearly would never affect whether or not an employer investigating your facebook would hire you.

Quote:And each person understands their own circumstances to know if "coming out" carries more benefits than not.

Do they? Does each person also understand their own circumstances well enough to know if "getting high" 'carries' more benefits than not? Does each person also understand their own circumstances well enough to know if "drunk driving" 'carries' more benefits than not?

People don't always understand every facet of their being. People are not always at a state where they can make these decisions without hurting themselves.

I suggest that they consider the negative possibilities before their decisions, if able.

Quote:We don't need Alice or her authoritarian cohorts making those decisions for us but thanks for the concern.

Authoritarian Alice?

* Violet would die of laughter, but she kind of... can't.

Show me, creature: where have I made ANY decisions for 'yall'?

(March 1, 2014 at 6:07 pm)Alice Wrote: Do they? Does each person also understand their own circumstances well enough to know if "getting high" 'carries' more benefits than not? Does each person also understand their own circumstances well enough to know if "drunk driving" 'carries' more benefits than not?

And your analogous proposal then is that people are disallowed the option of purchasing drugs and alcohol?

And you deny your right-wing mentality is authoritarian at heart?

(March 1, 2014 at 6:28 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: And your analogous proposal then is that people are disallowed the option of purchasing drugs and alcohol?

Do you typically allow five year old human children full access to these?

Quote:And you deny your right-wing mentality is authoritarian at heart?

Alice's right-wing mentality?

(March 1, 2014 at 6:35 pm)Alice Wrote: Do you typically allow five year old human children full access to these?

Five year old children dictate the terms of Facebook now?

Quote:Alice's right-wing mentality?

Well, if the shoe fits... you could be both.

(March 1, 2014 at 7:08 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Five year old children dictate the terms of Facebook now?

Oh, you didn't know? Well, that's what indoctrination will get you, I suppose. I should really go have another tea party with Annie and Tayla... it's been a while. I miss them.

Quote:Well, if the shoe fits... you could be both.

Why, thank you I am both smart and pretty. Some might go so far as to say that I'm 'pretty smart', but they probably exaggerate.

I mean... dead roses? How did they know?