Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Intolerance within the LGBT Community

13»

Comments

  • #102
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #103
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    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.


  • #104
    Goodshape
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,488 ✭✭✭Goodshape


    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?


  • #105
    Goodshape
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,488 ✭✭✭Goodshape


    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.


  • #106
    Lefty Bicek
    Registered Users Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭Lefty Bicek


    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'.


  • #107
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #108
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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?


  • #109
    Goodshape
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,488 ✭✭✭Goodshape


    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.'


  • #110
    Goodshape
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,488 ✭✭✭Goodshape


    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.


  • #111
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ...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?


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Deleted User wrote: »
    That answer completely dodges my question.

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


  • #113
    Lefty Bicek
    Registered Users Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭Lefty Bicek


    Goodshape wrote: »
    They explain why in the article:
    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'.


  • #114
    SoupMonster
    Registered Users Posts: 147 ✭✭SoupMonster


    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?


  • #115
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    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?


  • #116
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #117
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    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.


  • #118
    LoughNeagh2017
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭LoughNeagh2017


    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.


  • #119
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,104 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    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.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #120
    Huntergonzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭Huntergonzo


    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!


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Ten of Swords
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,063 CMod ✭✭✭✭Ten of Swords


    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.

    Moderator: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender, Vegan & Vegetarian

    Category Moderator: Social & Fun



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement