Intolerance within the LGBT Community

isohon · 03-11-2019 8:06pm

Deleted User wrote: »

There's a stark difference, though, between two people agreeing to disagree on an issue - which is normal and relatively prevalent - and opting to silence someone for having "the wrong opinion".

The latter is where I, and others, draw the line.

Furthermore, having a respectable opinion should not gather opprobrium in the first place. That's the whole point of my thread. It would be akin to me holding others in opprobrium for failing to agree with me.

I don't care if people agree or disagree with me, but what I do expect is to be heard - which is the same respect I afford to others.

But you haven't been silenced? If you were silenced you couldn't possibly have experienced the responses you've already cited in this thread, you couldn't be in this thread. You wouldn't be among the many other individuals who complain regularly online, in print, on the radio, on the television that they too have been silenced. If you were silenced your opinion should be shocking and interesting to us, but it isn't. It is just the same opinion as countless others including well placed politicians, columnists, comedians, etc express daily.

You are not silenced.

pinkyeye · 03-11-2019 8:28pm

OP I kind of get where you're coming from but in more simple terms can you please explain why you feel:

a) that others views are being imposed upon you or affecting your life

b) how often these topics would ever come up?

You've stated a few times that you want to be heard but why is it so important to you for others to listen to your views on such an obscure subject?

We all have views that others don't agree with but just don't feel the need to voice them all the time.

For example I hate piercings but I would never feel the need to tell someone with piercings this because that's just being deliberately provocative. They obviously like piercings and they're not affecting my life so live and let live no?

Is it not that simple?

Barna77 · 03-11-2019 9:00pm

pinkyeye wrote: »

OP I kind of get where you're coming from but in more simple terms can you please explain why you feel:

a) that others views are being imposed upon you or affecting your life

I think what the OP is trying to say is that lately if you don't agree with the let's call it LGTB (I refuse to add more letters) point of view you are labelled as a bigot homophobe cave wo/man

04-11-2019 12:26pm

pinkyeye wrote: »

OP I kind of get where you're coming from but in more simple terms can you please explain why you feel:

a) that others views are being imposed upon you or affecting your life

b) how often these topics would ever come up?

You've stated a few times that you want to be heard but why is it so important to you for others to listen to your views on such an obscure subject?

We all have views that others don't agree with but just don't feel the need to voice them all the time.

For example I hate piercings but I would never feel the need to tell someone with piercings this because that's just being deliberately provocative. They obviously like piercings and they're not affecting my life so live and let live no?

Is it not that simple?

In terms of (a), we are confronted - almost on a daily basis - of an ever-encroaching trend toward censoring words and phrases in favor of what I believe to be a social fad. Today's example is that "Ladies and Gentlemen" is going to be banned by a theatre for fear that the term "excludes" non-binary people.

In the United States, for example, I think the figure is 0.4% of the population identify as non-binary.

Even if the statistic were double or treble that value, I think altering the way we speak is incredibly damaging and it's a very long, slippery slope toward targeting other forms of speech and aspects of language.

All this, based on what all evidence suggests is a subjective personality description that has absolutely nothing to do sex.

Goodshape · 04-11-2019 2:25pm

So what's the hard scientific truth and evidence behind the existence of "Ladies" or "Gentlemen"? Those are just imagined titles aren't they? Shouldn't they be saying "Biological Males and Biological Females"?

Or is it maybe just an attempt to be polite?

Could the answer to the question "what is polite?", when addressing a large audience, change over time?

Is there actually any cause for alarm if or when it does?

04-11-2019 2:40pm

Goodshape wrote: »

So what's the hard scientific truth and evidence behind the existence of "Ladies" or "Gentlemen"? Those are just imagined titles aren't they? Shouldn't they be saying "Biological Males and Biological Females"?

Or is it maybe just an attempt to be polite?

Could the answer to the question "what is polite?", when addressing a large audience, change over time?

Is there actually any cause for alarm if or when it does?

Sure what's the point in having meanings of words at all then?

Should common usage of words be changed to accommodate an absolutely tiny percentage of the population for the sake of "inclusivity"?

Should people who wish not to change their vernacular be branded as intolerant?

The problem here is that a large percentage of people are being coerced to change their way of thinking/speaking for fear of being labelled as some sort of bigot.

Lefty Bicek · 04-11-2019 2:46pm

Goodshape wrote: »

So what's the hard scientific truth and evidence behind the existence of "Ladies" or "Gentlemen"? Those are just imagined titles aren't they? Shouldn't they be saying "Biological Males and Biological Females"?

Or is it maybe just an attempt to be polite?

Could the answer to the question "what is polite?", when addressing a large audience, change over time?

Is there actually any cause for alarm if or when it does?

Big difference between 'change over time' on the one hand; and on the other, the systematic re-engineering of language not because it reflects gradual shifts in mores but because it wants to embed and reinforce novel categories, with consequences for anyone who doesn't immediately bend to the new orthodoxy.

It is the difference between evolution and revolution.

is_that_so · 04-11-2019 2:54pm

Goodshape wrote: »

So what's the hard scientific truth and evidence behind the existence of "Ladies" or "Gentlemen"? Those are just imagined titles aren't they? Shouldn't they be saying "Biological Males and Biological Females"?

Or is it maybe just an attempt to be polite?

Could the answer to the question "what is polite?", when addressing a large audience, change over time?

Is there actually any cause for alarm if or when it does?

They evolved to represent all the perceived good qualities of those titles. Their modern use in many languages show respect and decorum and a level of protocol that a bland "inoffensive" epithet can't match. As to how they change the level of formality may have but many remain based on the same principles other generations would recognise.

Here's Geoffrey Leech on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politeness_maxims

04-11-2019 3:02pm

is_that_so wrote: »

They evolved to represent all the perceived good qualities of those titles. Their modern use in many languages show respect and decorum and a level of protocol that a bland "inoffensive" epithet can't match. As to how they change the level of formality may have but many remain based on the same principles other generations would recognise.

Here's Geoffrey Leech on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politeness_maxims

Over the years many women have complained about how men are referred to as "gentlemen", but women are referred to as just "ladies".

In fact, I imagine the percentage is more than the 0.4% of the population who identify as non-binary.

Yet the terms remained.

In today's instance, those terms buckle under the pressure of the non-binary phenomenon.

It's a political weapon imposed upon the rest of us.

At least with "gay" and so on, it's a biological reality and the term progressed over time as more people understood that very biological basis.

With non-binary terms and phraseology, it is entirely socially constructed and personally subjective, and the 100s of terms are not progressing over time, but rather politically imposed with strict enforcement.

is_that_so · 04-11-2019 3:10pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Over the years many women have complained about how men are referred to as "gentlemen", but women are referred to as just "ladies".

In fact, I imagine the percentage is more than the 0.4% of the population who identify as non-binary.

Yet the terms remained.

In today's instance, those terms buckle under the pressure of the non-binary phenomenon.

It's a political weapon imposed upon the rest of us.

At least with "gay" and so on, it's a biological reality and the term progressed over time as more people understood that very biological basis.

With non-binary terms and phraseology, it is entirely socially constructed and personally subjective, and the term is not progressing over time, but rather politically imposed with strict enforcement.

It's really nothing of the sort at all. The terms in question now have very restricted usage and largely in highly formalised social gatherings. You should really read that link and go and look up Grice, mentioned in that, as well. How we communicate is a matter of personal choice. I don't know about that ladies thing any more. I've heard girls used about 60 year olds.

04-11-2019 3:17pm

is_that_so wrote: »

It's really nothing of the sort at all. The terms in question now have very restricted usage and largely in highly formalised social gatherings. You should really read that link and go and look up Grice, mentioned in that, as well. How we communicate is a matter of personal choice. I don't know about that ladies thing any more. I've heard girls used about 60 year olds.

One of the problems with this discussion is that the definitions of what constitute gender identities are almost completely ignored. Yet they feature the core of the dispute.

I return to some of the examples I listed in an earlier post:

Neutrois - When you identify as agender, neither male nor female, and/or genderless (how can a genderless state be a "gender", by definition?).
Aporagender - Somebody with a strong gender identification of themselves that is non-binary.

Terms have meanings. That's the purpose of language.

If you identify as a term, that must have a positive meaning, rather than an absence of something.

For example - if I identify as male, that's a positive attribution.

However, if I identify as neutrois; the definition is the absence of something "neither male nor female and/or genderless" - there is no substantive meaning to the word beyond what it is not. For instance, it would be equally fruitless to say neutrois is "not plant based"; which is obviously the case, but what we need to know is what neutrois is, rather than what it is not. We see the same problem with aporagender, above.

The same is true for many other gender identifications. We are told what it is not, rather than what it is.

And unless we know what it is, we have no conceptual basis on which to accept it as part of reality.

is_that_so · 04-11-2019 3:27pm

Deleted User wrote: »

One of the problems with this discussion is that the definitions of what constitute gender identities are almost completely ignored. Yet they feature the core of the dispute.

I return to some of the examples I listed in an earlier post:
Neutrois - When you identify as agender, neither male nor female, and/or genderless (how can a genderless state be a "gender", by definition?).

Aporagender - Somebody with a strong gender identification of themselves that is non-binary.

Terms have meanings. That's the purpose of language.

If you identify as a term, that must have a positive meaning, rather than an absence of something.

For example - if I identify as male, that's a positive attribution.

However, if I identify as neutrois; the definition is the absence of something "neither male nor female and/or genderless" - there is no substantive meaning to the word beyond what it is not. For instance, it would be equally fruitless to say neutrois is "not plant based"; which is obviously the case, but what we need to know is what neutrois is. We see the same problem with aporagender, above.

The same is true for many other gender identifications. We are told what it is not, rather than what it is.

And unless we know what it is, we have no conceptual basis on which to accept it as part of reality or not.

Language is used to communicate. In verbal conversations it is strongly influenced by cooperation, relevance, negotiation and politeness maxims. If people don't embrace them it all breaks down. I'm really not sure what part all of this plays in general in communication. In my own contacts with people who may identify differently, it's just I'm ...... and we move on.

Goodshape · 04-11-2019 3:28pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Should common usage of words be changed to accommodate an absolutely tiny percentage of the population for the sake of "inclusivity"?

Yeah they should be – and they are, frequently – and what possible harm does it cause?

Should people who wish not to change their vernacular be branded as intolerant?

In my opinion that would depend on the circumstance, the company, and many other variables. Nobodies breaking your door down to force you to do anything.

The problem here is that a large percentage of people are being coerced to change their way of thinking/speaking for fear of being labelled as some sort of bigot.

Large percentage of people? Coerced? Where's your hard scientific data to back that up?

This is a theatre deciding on a new set of guidelines for themselves. Who are you to say they can't do that?

Goodshape · 04-11-2019 3:35pm

Deleted User wrote: »

One of the problems with this discussion is that the definitions of what constitute gender identities are almost completely ignored. Yet they feature the core of the dispute.

I return to some of the examples I listed in an earlier post:
Neutrois - When you identify as agender, neither male nor female, and/or genderless (how can a genderless state be a "gender", by definition?).

Aporagender - Somebody with a strong gender identification of themselves that is non-binary.

Terms have meanings. That's the purpose of language.

If you identify as a term, that must have a positive meaning, rather than an absence of something.

For example - if I identify as male, that's a positive attribution.

However, if I identify as neutrois; the definition is the absence of something "neither male nor female and/or genderless" - there is no substantive meaning to the word beyond what it is not. For instance, it would be equally fruitless to say neutrois is "not plant based"; which is obviously the case, but what we need to know is what neutrois is, rather than what it is not. We see the same problem with aporagender, above.

The same is true for many other gender identifications. We are told what it is not, rather than what it is.

And unless we know what it is, we have no conceptual basis on which to accept it as part of reality.

You seem to think we're all living within a scientific research paper.

We're not.

Words are flexible in normal social conversation. Meanings change. "Rules" evolve.

Lefty Bicek · 04-11-2019 3:37pm

Goodshape wrote: »

This is a theatre deciding on a new set of guidelines for themselves. Who are you to say they can't do that?

WHY are they doing that ?

Please back up your answer with 'hard scientific data'.

04-11-2019 3:39pm

Goodshape wrote: »

Yeah they should be – and they are, frequently – and what possible harm does it cause?

Nobodies breaking your door down to stop you being a In my opinion that would depend on the circumstance, the company, and many other variables.

Large percentage of people? Coerced? Where's your hard scientific data to back that up?

This is a theatre deciding on a new set of guidelines for themselves. Who are you to say they can't do that?

I never once said they couldn't. I just said it is a bizarre that a company would choose to do this to ride in on the wave of inclusivity that in my opinion is doing more damage to the perception of the LGBT society, from people inside the community and the outliers looking in.

It is ironic that you request hard scientific data from me while talking to me about this topic where science and proof is irrelevant when you want it to be.

04-11-2019 3:40pm

is_that_so wrote: »

Language is used to communicate. In verbal conversations it is strongly influenced by cooperation, relevance, negotiation and politeness maxims. If people don't embrace them it all breaks down. I'm really not sure what part all of this plays in general in communication. In my own contacts with people who may identify differently, it's just I'm ...... and we move on.

That answer completely dodges my question.

Goodshape wrote: »

You seem to think we're all living within a scientific research paper.

We're not.

Words are flexible in normal social conversation. Meanings change. "Rules" evolve.

You seem to be in favour of scientific evidence, though:

Goodshape wrote: »

Large percentage of people? Coerced? Where's your hard scientific data to back that up?

Goodshape · 04-11-2019 3:41pm

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

WHY are they doing that ?

Please back up your answer with 'hard scientific data'.

They explain why in the article:

DailyMail wrote:

Royal Shakespeare Company said it would, 'strive to create environments which welcome and support trans people and people who identify their gender as fluid'.

Meanwhile Nica Burns, co-owner of Nimax Theatre, said: 'Coming to the theatre is a shared and communal experience in one single auditorium and we want to please our audience and give them a great evening. We wouldn't want anyone to feel offended or annoyed.'

Goodshape · 04-11-2019 3:43pm

Deleted User wrote: »

It is ironic that you request hard scientific data from me while talking to me about this topic where science and proof is irrelevant when you want it to be.

Deleted User wrote: »

You seem to be in favour of scientific evidence, though:

I'm only asking you to play by your own rules.

With more than a pinch of sarcasm, I might add.

04-11-2019 3:44pm

...welcome and support trans people and people who identify their gender as fluid'.

First of all, "trans-people" can be women - so why would "ladies" be offensive?

is_that_so · 04-11-2019 3:44pm

Deleted User wrote: »

That answer completely dodges my question.

Really not clear what your question was. I've always been talking about communication.

Lefty Bicek · 04-11-2019 4:19pm

Goodshape wrote: »

They explain why in the article:

That's what they SAY.

Completely principled of course, and totally unrelated to the fact that the newest offerings from RSC, from this Friday, is...

'The Boy in the Dress', by William Shakespeare David Walliams.

And what do we have on at the moment, at the Apollo (a Nimax theatre)... ?

Answer - 'Everybody's Talking About Jamie', the teenage drag queen.

Cold commercial decisions, masquerading as 'guidelines'.

SoupMonster · 04-11-2019 4:59pm

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

That's what they SAY.

Completely principled of course, and totally unrelated to the fact that the newest offerings from RSC, from this Friday, is...

'The Boy in the Dress', by William Shakespeare David Walliams.

And what do we have on at the moment, at the Apollo (a Nimax theatre)... ?

Answer - 'Everybody's Talking About Jamie', the teenage drag queen.

Cold commercial decisions, masquerading as 'guidelines'.

Does anyone else believe David Walliams is actually a woman?
If he came out as a woman tomorrow, would everybody suddenly claim that they're not surprised and they knew all along?

p1akuw47h5r3it · 04-11-2019 6:00pm

Goodshape wrote: »

They explain why in the article:

How is not saying Ladies and Gentleman inclusive to Trans people? Do they think that trans-women aren't ladies, and that trans-men aren't men?

04-11-2019 6:02pm

DanDan6592 wrote: »

How is not saying Ladies and Gentleman inclusive to Trans people? Do they think that trans-women aren't ladies, and that trans-men aren't men?

It's intolerant to gender fluid people, or people who don't identify as a man or a woman.

Its very silly.

p1akuw47h5r3it · 04-11-2019 6:28pm

Deleted User wrote: »

It's intolerant to gender fluid people, or people who don't identify as a man or a woman.

Its very silly.

Oh I know. But surely it's not inclusive to trans people, since I'd have thought they would be perfectly fine with being called a lady, or a gentleman, depending, since they'd consider themselves a male of female.

LoughNeagh2017 · 04-11-2019 6:35pm

I have found that LGBT people tend to hate low tier men like me, men who live with their mothers, unemployed men or men with low tier jobs. I think it is because of their history of being treated poorly that they enjoy feeling superior to lower class creatures like me.

Annasopra · 04-11-2019 6:47pm

LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »

I have found that LGBT people tend to hate low tier men like me, men who live with their mothers, unemployed men or men with low tier jobs. I think it is because of their history of being treated poorly that they enjoy feeling superior to lower class creatures like me.

Mod

This post breaches the forum charter parts 2, 7, 9 and 14.

Dont post in the thread again.

Huntergonzo · 04-11-2019 6:48pm

There's only 2 genders (with the odd rare exception, such as hermaphrodites etc) and I don't believe it's possible for somebody to change their gender. Now if they want to get surgery and pretend to be someone else then I have no objection but you'll do well to convince me that a person born with a pair of testicles is a woman.

As for personal pronouns, ze and zur and all that shíte, they can fúck right off, I have zero time for the 'nonbinary', today I'm a carrot cake nonsense. Get a hobby or do something constructive for jaysus sake!

Ten of Swords · 05-11-2019 9:08pm

Mod

This thread was closed yesterday evening for a mod review. Following this review with input from all of the mods it has been decided the thread will remain closed.

Although it started as an interesting debate it veered quickly off topic and broke a number of charter rules including exclusionary posting, off topic posting, blatant transphobia couched as concern for womens rights and soapboxing without entertaining actual discussion. Further to this there has been an personal agenda targeting a mod of this forum and this is not acceptable.

Finally, to clarify, nobody participating in the thread had their views or opinions suppressed and, up until the closure for review, everybody had the same opportunity to post. There are 4 deleted posts in this thread, all 4 of which were deleted by the users that originally posted them. There were no mod deletes and no mod edits.

Intolerance within the LGBT Community

Comments