Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

i know this might seem like one of those hot button issue type threads but i don't intend this to be a very heated discussion... this is just something i'm a bit curious about

because i can't help but notice that the language that is considered acceptable/not acceptable seems to keep changing. this could be a good thing or a not so good thing, depending on your perspective/priorities.

on the one hand i understand the value of not using "hate speech..." i.e. not calling black people *******, gay people *******, jewish people kykes, etc

and i understand the value of not being sexist... i.e. referring to women generically as "bitches" etc

but there was a conversation on here not too long ago which i thought was sort of interesting. this is just an example so bear with me. but i was talking about hillary clinton with bardock and he said i was using misogynist code. now i honestly have never heard of misogynist code, and i don't consider myself a misogynist. but in the post i called her a *****, which i assume is what he was referring to?

and my question is... does calling a single woman a ***** make you misogynist? or is this a misogynist thing to do?

cause i thought it was referring to women as bitches generically which was misogynist... and which many of my favorite rappers are guilty of
but i thought it was fair game to call a single woman a *****... it's a statement about her character, not women in general

now i know the counter argument might be that since it's a gender specific insult, it's still sexist. and maybe it is sexist to an extent... but does it indicate an actual hatred of women?

if so... then what about calling someone a pussy? yes, i'm assuming?
well what about calling a guy a prick or a dick... is that misandrist? why or why not? it seems just as gender specific.

if the answer to all these questions is yes... then i suppose maybe i am just not fit to live in this PC society... because i like using vulgar language and it sort of irritates me that my roster of vulgar insults is growing smaller by the day, all in the name of some vague utopian agenda to bring about equality through policing language. doesn't that sound a bit... dunno... stalinist or orwellian to you?

what do you guys think

edit- thread related
fjIuPSuYSOY

Well, considering the word is bleeped out, maybe?

A thing about some of the language is it's not necessarily purposeful- descriptors used on one group are similar but less-positive than those used on another.

And we all live in a world where a large number of people alive now remember when being openly part of the KKK was socially acceptable, and was equally behind in other areas. Heck, we *just* moved gay from 'something to use as an insult' to 'something ok' within our lifetimes. So really, it's no surprise that our language is borked, and being told that we're using some words that aren't helping and basically exist to describe one group different than another shouldn't be surprising or be taken as an insult. We got handed this language after all, we didn't make it ourselves, and we can adjust it to be better.



Not in the deliberate sense, but think about how 'fun' it is to walk around and hear a lot of people casually using insults that hit you too, even when they're supposedly be primarily targeted at someone else. And knowing that society has an entire class of insults just for your group.




Personally, I think sex insults are pretty low-hanging to begin with, with some exceptions. Sex is great, after all. And ones based on someone's group (i.e. implying a guy is too girly or vice-versa) have way too much collateral in who they hit.

Take it as an incentive to get creative with your insults.

Read up on some foreign language ones. There's some pretty great bizarre ones in other countries, and consider also how less-familiar insults often hit harder. Pick and chose the best ones.

Make your own. Yadda yadda.

Peoples feelings have reached epic levels of feminism.

I don't see Trump complaining when people make fun on his hair. Or Christy whining about people making fun of his weight, I call him fat all the time and Trumps hair is aweful. And you know what who gives a shit!

They embrace it and make jokes.

Maybe everyone should man the hell up and grab their respective sacks, but then again masculinity is under attack and it's all about "being in touch with your feminine side."

There was a day when men were men, and women were women.

Just because we pump out food full of garbage and our kids full of hormones and some think "oh I'm a woman, and nature or God made a mistake."

Complete bs.

This world has filled up with a bunch of weak jawed cry babies. To think now that kids kill themselves over Internet bullying.

Whatever mankind has become is a far shadow to how we started out.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial

Whatever mankind has become is a far shadow to how we started out.
Overreacting just a little there buddy?

We are better than early mankind in nearly every way imaginable.

Except emotional maturity.

Identity politics caused this.

"If you dislike a person you dislike all people who share that persons likeness." Except white, f*ck those cis gendered asshats.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Peoples feelings have reached epic levels of feminism.

I don't see Trump complaining when people make fun on his hair. Or Christy whining about people making fun of his weight, I call him fat all the time and Trumps hair is aweful. And you know what who gives a shit!

They embrace it and make jokes.

Maybe everyone should man the hell up and grab their respective sacks, but then again masculinity is under attack and it's all about "being in touch with your feminine side."

There was a day when men were men, and women were women.

Just because we pump out food full of garbage and our kids full of hormones and some think "oh I'm a woman, and nature or God made a mistake."

Complete bs.

This world has filled up with a bunch of weak jawed cry babies. To think now that kids kill themselves over Internet bullying.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts, as well.

But I would change the language to be less sexist such as "man up" and "grab their sacks."

Not engaging with the full debate here, red g- though to be honest your OP kinda smacks of not being interested debating the idea but attacking it- but to your particular point about it logically being misandry if a guy calls another guy a dick-

Prejudicial language is exceptionally context sensitive. So there are two major ways in which that's not the same at all. First of all because it has never been used in the context of ridiculing or abusing a weaker power group. Secondly, because it's being spoken by the traditionally dominant power group to itself, not from a powerful group to a less powerful one.

So a man saying 'pussy' potentially becomes prejudicial because it ticks those boxes- it can be seen in the cultural context of oppression of women, and it is being used by those traditionally associated with the oppression towards the oppressed (even when said by a man to a man, it is effectively now here invoking the cultural position of the weaker group into its meaning).

I'm not making some broad 'all use of that language is sexist' argument necessarily- I am being neutral there- but I am explaining that, whilst it may be tempting to see them as equal, they are not equivalent due to the culturally loaded nature of language,

but i think that calling a guy a prick is roughly equivalent to calling a woman a ***** in the common (american) vernacular...

both terms mean roughly the same thing.. that the person in question is being intolerable

when you dress drown all that feminist propaganda you just loaded the situation with, what you're saying is it's ok to point out an unpleasant male, but not an unpleasant female... because.... patriarchy

A good measuring stick is seeing which gender specific words are censored here.
Prick obviously isnt...

Originally posted by red g jacks
but i think that calling a guy a prick is roughly equivalent to calling a woman a ***** in the common (american) vernacular...

both terms mean roughly the same thing.. that the person in question is being intolerable

when you dress drown all that feminist propaganda you just loaded the situation with, what you're saying is it's ok to point out an unpleasant male, but not an unpleasant female... because.... patriarchy

See what I mean about you not being interested in debate? You open by saying you don't want it to be heated, but you immediately call a reasoned explanation of a point of your argument 'feminist propaganda'. Quite aside from the fact that I was not approaching this from a feminist position at all- it was pure language theory- that's simply you making an emotional attack instead of trying to make an effort to understand, which is exactly what makes things heated. Try to engage rather than just bat away in such a hostile manner.

Ultimately, you are mistaken in thinking they have the same cultural meaning. To be honest, you are a bit weird in thinking they are even semantically equivalent- 'prick' is used to mean 'idiot' or 'stupidly annoying' (because male genitals look funny), whilst 'pussy' is used to mean weak or cowardly (rooted in women being lesser than men). 'Your word comes into the same area- it's used constantly in relation to weakness.

If you are concerned about being seen as misogynist, you really need to reel in that immediate 'feminist propaganda' shout at any attempt at explanation. That's a real clue to misogyny right there. I would not have made bardock's accusation as you report it, but you're pretty much painting yourself into that corner now.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
See what I mean about you not being interested in debate? You open by saying you don't want it to be heated, but you immediately call a reasoned explanation of a point of your argument 'feminist propaganda'. Quite aside from the fact that I was not approaching this from a feminist position at all- it was pure language theory- that's simply you making an emotional attack instead of trying to make an effort to understand, which is exactly what makes things heated. Try to engage rather than just bat away in such a hostile manner.

Ultimately, you are mistaken in thinking they have the same cultural meaning. To be honest, you are a bit weird in thinking they are even semantically equivalent- 'prick' is used to mean 'idiot' or 'stupidly annoying' (because male genitals look funny), whilst 'pussy' is used to mean weak or cowardly (rooted in women being lesser than men). i'm not going to get into what is and isn't feminist propaganda cause i don't want to derail the simple point i'm trying to make, so let's agree to disagree on that front

as for the comparison... maybe you just don't understand american english the same way i don't quite understand your british version

because in mainstream america, a prick is a guy who is uptight, ornery, unpleasant

and a b|tch is basically a female version of the same thing

if you address this basic point then i will be interested in a debate or maybe even a clarification

otherwise not really.

edit... btw the forum's censors are absurd
b i t c h = *****
yet make it plural and it's all good, bitches.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Except emotional maturity.

Identity politics caused this.

"If you dislike a person you dislike all people who share that persons likeness." Except white, f*ck those cis gendered asshats.

Great post

My two cents: desiring that people consider and reflect on how their language and behavior might affect other people who are different from them and perhaps change their language and behavior to be less offensive isn't unreasonable, nor is it being a crybaby. In fact, those who come closer to being crybabies are the ones who complain about being "oppressed" by "PCness"
Originally posted by Ushgarak
See what I mean about you not being interested in debate? You open by saying you don't want it to be heated, but you immediately call a reasoned explanation of a point of your argument 'feminist propaganda'. Quite aside from the fact that I was not approaching this from a feminist position at all- it was pure language theory- that's simply you making an emotional attack instead of trying to make an effort to understand, which is exactly what makes things heated. Try to engage rather than just bat away in such a hostile manner.

Ultimately, you are mistaken in thinking they have the same cultural meaning. To be honest, you are a bit weird in thinking they are even semantically equivalent- 'prick' is used to mean 'idiot' or 'stupidly annoying' (because male genitals look funny), whilst 'pussy' is used to mean weak or cowardly (rooted in women being lesser than men). 'Your word comes into the same area- it's used constantly in relation to weakness.

If you are concerned about being seen as misogynist, you really need to reel in that immediate 'feminist propaganda' shout at any attempt at explanation. That's a real clue to misogyny right there. I would not have made bardock's accusation as you report it, but you're pretty much painting yourself into that corner now.
I look at your well-thought out posts, and then I look at the sort of half-baked posts TI marks out as a "good post." The gap is remarkable.

Originally posted by Omega Vision

I look at your well-thought out posts, and then I look at the sort of half-baked posts TI marks out as a "good post." The gap is remarkable.

Cry about it too, by the way, your post was great.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Cry about it too, by the way, your post was great.
I'm half angry and half pleased by this post.

This is my face right now. g_serious

You like dropping my name I get it.

I don't think of it as name dropping when you posted just before I did and I was commenting on that post.

I'd think of it as "name dropping" if I took a dig at you in a thread you hadn't even posted in.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I don't think of it as name dropping when you posted just before I did and I was commenting on that post.

I'd think of it as "name dropping" if I took a dig at you in a thread you hadn't even posted in.

So because I didn't say Ush's post was great, but someone else's was, you name drop. Gotcha.

Funny you agree with the liberal posts of liberals, and I agree with the more conservative less PC posts, I didn't see you agree or say great post to mine, so why would you say "Oh Look TI didn't say this was a good post." Its pretty stupid of you.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So because I didn't say Ush's post was great, but someone else's was, you name drop. Gotcha.
Nope. I was pointing out that your standard for "great post" is lower than mine. My idea of a great post contains a well-thought-out argument.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Nope. I was pointing out that your standard for "great post" is lower than mine. My idea of a great post contains a well-thought-out argument.

Good for you, but what does it have to do with your opinion on my opinion of a good post, did you see me disagree with Ush? Btw when did you become the moderating opinionator,

Nvm dont answer that, This is my last post regarding this stupid exchange.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
My two cents: desiring that people consider and reflect on how their language and behavior might affect other people who are different from them and perhaps change their language and behavior to be less offensive isn't unreasonable, nor is it being a crybaby. In fact, those who come closer to being crybabies are the ones who complain about being "oppressed" by "PCness" who can spot the paradox

most of my posts are half baked tbh

the only difference between TI and you... other than maybe a college education... is the ideological lense through which you read my posts

fact is i know how to trigger both of you despite your ideological differences

because it's mostly all a bunch of bullshit at the end of the day

but neither one of you can see this cause you're both stuck in the matrix

I don't even know if Omega went to College. He seems to smart but he lacks street smarts and the ability to see Obama is disingenuous for America, and wants to "Fundamentally Change America." As Obama said he was going too.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I don't even know if Omega went to College. He seems to smart but he lacks street smarts and the ability to see Obama is disingenuous for America, and wants to "Fundamentally Change America." As Obama said he was going too.

This does not apply to Omega, but plenty of College educated people are complete idiots.

Originally posted by red g jacks
who can spot the paradox

most of my posts are half baked tbh

the only difference between TI and you... other than maybe a college education... is the ideological lense through which you read my posts

fact is i know how to trigger both of you despite your ideological differences

because it's mostly all a bunch of bullshit at the end of the day

but neither one of you can see this cause you're both stuck in the matrix

I have grown fond of you honestly, we started off enemies and I call you a friend now.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Except emotional maturity.

Identity politics caused this.

"If you dislike a person you dislike all people who share that persons likeness." Except white, f*ck those cis gendered asshats.
I disagree, at least insomuch as you're ignoring that it applies to the other side too. I usually see as much(often more) whining in response to these "pc arguments" rather than in the "pc arguments themselves."

Your own closing statement there is a pretty silly caricature, inspired by....well defensiveness to criticism (i.e. emotional immaturity). No one has actually said any of that. Critiquing a system that benefits a particular group is not a personal attack on that group. Maybe you're joking, and I did laugh at your comment, but I felt it needed to be formally engaged at least once here.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial

Maybe everyone should man the hell up and grab their respective sacks, but then again masculinity is under attack and it's all about "being in touch with your feminine side."

There was a day when men were men, and women were women.

This is another example. It's strictly an emotional response to something that isn't happening. Masculinity isn't under attack. You can still play sports, grow your beard out, chug beer and whatever. The idea is that people should be able to express their gender identity, as long as it doesn't harm others, without being stigmatized by society. If you're a masculine guy, cool. If you're not, that's also cool.

It may not be unreasonable persay but neither is critiquing every single comment made in order to find some offense. While offense things are said, these things are words and people need to have thicker skin.

Did anyone see the recent "Stunning and Brave" South Park episode? Believe it or not, it was actually relevant to this thread. Political correctness was the main theme.

And pretty funny to boot. PC Principle was such a douchelord.

Originally posted by StyleTime
I disagree, at least insomuch as you're ignoring that it applies to the other side too. I usually see as much(often more) whining in response to these "pc arguments" rather than in the "pc arguments themselves." once again... try to spot the paradox.

this is the pandora's box we've opened by indulging the PC culture. you can say that criticizing this social/cultural movement is just another form of whining... fair enough

on the flip side... apparently we are all supposed to be in tune with one anothers' preferences and what we find offensive/distasteful

well, i think certain forms of hypersensitivity are particularly distasteful

be tolerant, my friends. i'm just letting you know that some of this stuff is offensive to me.

another tricky situation, since a part of being masculine is basically being able to subjugate men who are lower on teh masculinity totem pole than you

i know it sounds a bit cruel and i suppose it is

but there is also a relatively sound biological foundation to this sort of behavior

ykptR18xChc
btWuXEztMpM

Originally posted by Omega Vision
My two cents: desiring that people consider and reflect on how their language and behavior might affect other people who are different from them and perhaps change their language and behavior to be less offensive isn't unreasonable, nor is it being a crybaby. In fact, those who come closer to being crybabies are the ones who complain about being "oppressed" by "PCness"

In theory, I agree. People should be tolerant, and actually try not to be a dick to other people.

The problem, imo, is that people take advantage of that. They take offense to EVERYTHING, making any effort pointless in the first place.

Originally posted by red g jacks
once again... try to spot the paradox.

this is the pandora's box we've opened by indulging the PC culture. you can say that criticizing this social/cultural movement is just another form of whining... fair enough

on the flip side... apparently we are all supposed to be in tune with one anothers' preferences and what we find offensive/distasteful

well, i think certain forms of hypersensitivity are particularly distasteful

be tolerant, my friends. i'm just letting you know that some of this stuff is offensive to me.

another tricky situation, since a part of being masculine is basically being able to subjugate men who are lower on teh masculinity totem pole than you

i know it sounds a bit cruel and i suppose it is

but there is also a relatively sound biological foundation to this sort of behavior

I disagree. There isn't a paradox, so much as you're misunderstanding the argument. It's not simply a matter of "I'm offended, stop." The argument is more "these words exist on continuums that perpetuate harm against these groups." If you disagree with that, then fair enough. But it's important we're on the same page here.

Defining masculinity is a huge enough topic to be it's own thread. I won't go deep(giggity) here, as we'd get derailed, but I reject the notion that masculinity has to mean "being an ass."

Originally posted by StyleTime
I disagree. There isn't a paradox, so much as you're misunderstanding the argument. It's not simply a matter of "I'm offended, stop." The argument is more "these words exist on continuums that perpetuate harm against these groups." If you disagree with that, then fair enough. But it's important we're on the same page here. i disagree that it's just about harm being done to groups (beyond them being offended)

not to say that some terms don't harm some groups

but there is also an aspect of PC culture that involves avoiding saying anything that offends a particular group

so i think you are trying to redefine the rules as is convenient for you in this particular argument

i don't think you're being really straightforward about how political correctness and the policing of language actually works

i reject your meaningless rejection of what seems to me a reasonable comment on the nature of masculinity without giving any effort at all to explain your disagreement

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Nope. I was pointing out that your standard for "great post" is lower than mine. My idea of a great post contains a well-thought-out argument.

Why you going full on Astner on TI?

Much love Bent

Originally posted by red g jacks
i disagree that it's just about harm being done to groups (beyond them being offended)

not to say that some terms don't harm some groups

but there is also an aspect of PC culture that involves avoiding saying anything that offends a particular group

so i think you are trying to redefine the rules as is convenient for you in this particular argument

i don't think you're being really straightforward about how political correctness and the policing of language actually works

i reject your meaningless rejection of what seems to me a reasonable comment on the nature of masculinity without giving any effort at all to explain your disagreement
I haven't seen anyone call for a ban on everything anyone ever called offensive, so I don't think I'm redefining an argument. I was bringing up the only legitimate discussion to be had on it.

That said, fine. I'll humor your. Language shouldn't be "policed" in a way that prevents everyone from saying anything offensive.

If that was your whole point, then this thread is silly. No one will disagree with you, as that statement is obvious. Seems like you were less interested in a discussion, and just wanted to vent?
Originally posted by red g jacks
i reject your meaningless rejection of what seems to me a reasonable comment on the nature of masculinity without giving any effort at all to explain your disagreement
Fair enough. Like I said, huge topic.

Originally posted by -Pr-
In theory, I agree. People should be tolerant, and actually try not to be a dick to other people.

The problem, imo, is that people take advantage of that. They take offense to EVERYTHING, making any effort pointless in the first place.
Another consequence of that (i've seen) is it tends to hamstring people by making them second guess themselves. A whole "Well what if such and such group finds this offensive?" Outlook on everything, without even giving said group the opportunity to say/not say anything.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
...My idea of a great post contains a well-thought-out argument.
Mine contains at least one smiley.

Originally posted by -Pr-
In theory, I agree. People should be tolerant, and actually try not to be a dick to other people.

The problem, imo, is that people take advantage of that. They take offense to EVERYTHING, making any effort pointless in the first place.

Well said

Originally posted by red g jacks
then i suppose maybe i am just not fit to live in this PC society... because i like using vulgar language and it sort of irritates me that my roster of vulgar insults is growing smaller by the day, all in the name of some vague utopian agenda to bring about equality through policing language. doesn't that sound a bit... dunno... stalinist or orwellian to you?

what do you guys think

fjIuPSuYSOY

Vulgar language in general offends quite a few people. So it sounds like your asking for permission to use vulgar language, or find out what vulgar language isn't actually vulgar. In the second case, say things like "doo doo head" and "smelly" when insulting something or someone.

Anytime you say something vulgar or insulting your likely to offend at least a single person. So if you LIKE using vulgar language, that comes with the territory mate. Just gotta suck it up and deal with someone thinking you might be a mysoginist or a jerk or racist or something.

Ok, fair point as far as vulgar language is concerned.

Originally posted by red g jacks

the only difference between TI and you... other than maybe a college education... is the ideological lense through which you read my posts

fact is i know how to trigger both of you despite your ideological differences

because it's mostly all a bunch of bullshit at the end of the day

but neither one of you can see this cause you're both stuck in the matrix

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/atheists.png

Originally posted by -Pr-
In theory, I agree. People should be tolerant, and actually try not to be a dick to other people.

The problem, imo, is that people take advantage of that. They take offense to EVERYTHING, making any effort pointless in the first place.
Those people are an extreme minority, and while I know a few people who sort of fit this description, they're also capable of interacting normally with society even if they get irked by little things like people's pronoun choices.

Whenever I hear someone complain about political correctness, they're generally an ******* who wishes they could get away with saying obnoxious/off-color things and don't like being reminded that they're an *******.

That's like me saying whenever I hear someone complain about getting offended, they need to stop being so sensitive. Your post is a rationalization as well as a blanket statement. "People that complain about PC are generally assholes". Complaining PC is a very legitimate thing.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Those people are an extreme minority, and while I know a few people who sort of fit this description, they're also capable of interacting normally with society even if they get irked by little things like people's pronoun choices.

Whenever I hear someone complain about political correctness, they're generally an ******* who wishes they could get away with saying obnoxious/off-color things and don't like being reminded that they're an *******.

Honestly, I disagree.

I can't speak for how it is in America though, so I'm not gonna try to invalidate where you're coming from.

Funnily enough I'm currently watching the latest South Park, which deals with this topic.

I don't think calling Hilary the P word is inherently sexist, assuming you are using it in a way to suggest cowardice. Some might find the word vulgar, but it's not sexist. Unless it was established you go out of your way to call men you think are cowardly words other then the P word.

Political correctness is simply a repackaging of the Alinsky method of thought control.

I am going to have to do more research on Alinsky, this is a new subject for me, I have heard of her a lot, I am guessing she is a dirty secret among the liberal party, much like Margaret Sanger I am guessing?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I am going to have to do more research on Alinsky, this is a new subject for me, I have heard of her a lot, I am guessing she is a dirty secret among the liberal party, much like Margaret Sanger I am guessing?

Alinsky is a "he".

Saul Alinsky is the name you want to Google.

The whole of political correctness summed up in a single gif. Its all you have to say to win an argument:
https://media2.giphy.com/media/142dhzXGA8EsIE/200_s.gif

At a certain point, when enough people call you racist, maybe you have to do some self-reflecting and question if it's more than just a tactic in debates.

There are of course people who use labels like "racist," "sexist," and "homophobic" to stifle debate, but that doesn't mean that the labels are meaningless, nor does it mean you aren't necessarily racist, sexist, or homophobic.

Originally posted by long pig
The whole of political correctness summed up in a single gif. Its all you have to say to win an argument:
https://media2.giphy.com/media/142dhzXGA8EsIE/200_s.gif

thats cool how you de-animated it.

Originally posted by psmith81992
That's like me saying whenever I hear someone complain about getting offended, they need to stop being so sensitive. Your post is a rationalization as well as a blanket statement. "People that complain about PC are generally assholes". Complaining PC is a very legitimate thing.
There's only been a few times where I've felt overwhelmed by someone's level of PCness, and it's just a matter of not talking to that person anymore or giving them time to cool down. If we're talking about which end of the spectrum of extremes to err toward, PCness is more desirable than a lack of any concern for how other people and other groups might feel about someone's speech/behavior.

But here's the thing: I don't really like thinking in terms of "politically correct." I'd rather frame it as "being respectful to other people." One area I struggle with is with the various non-CIS gender identities. It's a minefield of (to me) new and strange terms and concepts, but I do my best not to make waves when I'm around people from those groups.

South Park's most recent episode criticized CIS, straight white males who bully other people in the name of social justice. Those people do exist, but they're a strawman. My advice to everyone is to ignore them and just be concerned with the actual minorities/subgroups they claim to champion. An open mind goes a long way. Don't ever adopt an "us vs them" mindset, and give some effort to understanding the struggles of other people.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
At a certain point, when enough people call you racist, maybe you have to do some self-reflecting and question if it's more than just a tactic in debates.

There are of course people who use labels like "racist," "sexist," and "homophobic" to stifle debate, but that doesn't mean that the labels are meaningless, nor does it mean you aren't necessarily racist, sexist, or homophobic.
Racist used to mean you were wrong or bad. It doesnt anymore.

Example. I'm anti religion for various reasons. Technically, that makes me a bigot and a racist.
It doesn't mean I'm wrong or what I believe is incorrect and not based on factual reality. But, by definition, because I recognize facts, I'm a bigot and racist.

The definition has changed and so has the connotation.

Originally posted by long pig
Racist used to mean you were wrong or bad. It doesnt anymore.

Example. I'm anti religion for various reasons. Technically, that makes me a bigot and a racist.
It doesn't mean I'm wrong or what I believe is incorrect and not based on factual reality. But, by definition, because I recognize facts, I'm a bigot and racist.

The definition has changed and so has the connotation.
There's a difference though between disbelieving in the dogma of various religions and disapproving of certain religious practices on the one hand and being aggressive and disrespectful toward believers.

I don't like Islam or many Islamic practices, but I don't call Muslims members of a "death cult."

If anything you should feel compassion for Muslims and do your best to try to convince them to reconsider the worst practices of their faith, and you won't do that by acting like a jerk toward them or calling them names.

Originally posted by long pig
Racist used to mean you were wrong or bad. It doesnt anymore.

Example. I'm anti religion for various reasons. Technically, that makes me a bigot and a racist.
It doesn't mean I'm wrong or what I believe is incorrect and not based on factual reality. But, by definition, because I recognize facts, I'm a bigot and racist.

The definition has changed and so has the connotation.
Why would it make you racist?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
There's only been a few times where I've felt overwhelmed by someone's level of PCness, and it's just a matter of not talking to that person anymore or giving them time to cool down. If we're talking about which end of the spectrum of extremes to err toward, PCness is more desirable than a lack of any concern for how other people and other groups might feel about someone's speech/behavior.

But here's the thing: I don't really like thinking in terms of "politically correct." I'd rather frame it as "being respectful to other people." One area I struggle with is with the various non-CIS gender identities. It's a minefield of (to me) new and strange terms and concepts, but I do my best not to make waves when I'm around people from those groups.

South Park's most recent episode criticized CIS, straight white males who bully other people in the name of social justice. Those people do exist, but they're a strawman. My advice to everyone is to ignore them and just be concerned with the actual minorities/subgroups they claim to champion. An open mind goes a long way. Don't ever adopt an "us vs them" mindset, and give some effort to understanding the struggles of other people.

Fair point.

Originally posted by StyleTime
I haven't seen anyone call for a ban on everything anyone ever called offensive, so I don't think I'm redefining an argument. I was bringing up the only legitimate discussion to be had on it.

That said, fine. I'll humor your. Language shouldn't be "policed" in a way that prevents everyone from saying anything offensive.

If that was your whole point, then this thread is silly. No one will disagree with you, as that statement is obvious. Seems like you were less interested in a discussion, and just wanted to vent? my whole point was basically that posting on websites like this makes me feel out of touch with what is considered acceptable

or makes me think a lot of people online are just out of touch with what your average working class people find acceptable
Originally posted by Quincy
Vulgar language in general offends quite a few people. So it sounds like your asking for permission to use vulgar language, or find out what vulgar language isn't actually vulgar. In the second case, say things like "doo doo head" and "smelly" when insulting something or someone.

Anytime you say something vulgar or insulting your likely to offend at least a single person. So if you LIKE using vulgar language, that comes with the territory mate. Just gotta suck it up and deal with someone thinking you might be a mysoginist or a jerk or racist or something. that's fair enough... they can feel free to judge me

just understand that sword cuts both ways

i.e. it's well within your rights to be easily offended... but i might think less of you for it

Originally posted by Surtur
I don't think calling Hilary the P word is inherently sexist, assuming you are using it in a way to suggest cowardice. Some might find the word vulgar, but it's not sexist. Unless it was established you go out of your way to call men you think are cowardly words other then the P word. i didn't call her a pussy, which isn't censored by this site, i called her a b*tch

but using pussy to describe cowardice doesn't strike you as sexist?

i think it is.. but i don't think it necessarily means women are inherently less than men... but they are generally weaker and less masculine

as such, the word pussy when used to describe a man seeks to emasculate him.. which is a sexist attack but not necessarily hateful towards women... any more than calling a woman butch is hateful towards men

One PC element I don't at all subscribe to are words like "African American" and "Asian American." Just say black and Asian. We don't use "Caucasian American" or "European American" after all.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
There's only been a few times where I've felt overwhelmed by someone's level of PCness, and it's just a matter of not talking to that person anymore or giving them time to cool down. If we're talking about which end of the spectrum of extremes to err toward, PCness is more desirable than a lack of any concern for how other people and other groups might feel about someone's speech/behavior.

But here's the thing: I don't really like thinking in terms of "politically correct." I'd rather frame it as "being respectful to other people." One area I struggle with is with the various non-CIS gender identities. It's a minefield of (to me) new and strange terms and concepts, but I do my best not to make waves when I'm around people from those groups.

South Park's most recent episode criticized CIS, straight white males who bully other people in the name of social justice. Those people do exist, but they're a strawman. My advice to everyone is to ignore them and just be concerned with the actual minorities/subgroups they claim to champion. An open mind goes a long way. Don't ever adopt an "us vs them" mindset, and give some effort to understanding the struggles of other people. personally i don't like being called cisgender. i feel like this term has basically been forced on us just to make trans people feel better about the fact that there's a term to describe them, so they want one to describe everyone who's not trans. i have an idea... about about non-transgender?

how come they get to label themselves whatever they like and pick all their pronouns and shit but i'm forced to be called cis when i don't even like that term?

the **** is cis anyway? cis sounds like something you catch on vacation and need to get a shot to get rid of it. i say get rid of cis... let cis people vote on our own term if we need a term for it

and don't give me that "it's latin" excuse either. i don't speak latin and to be frank i want nothing to do with the romans or their perverse language and customs

Originally posted by Omega Vision
One PC element I don't at all subscribe to are words like "African American" and "Asian American." Just say black and Asian. We don't use "Caucasian American" or "European American" after all.

I say we go back to 'Negroes' and 'Chinamen'.

Originally posted by red g jacks
personally i don't like being called cisgender. i feel like this term has basically been forced on us just to make trans people feel better about the fact that there's a term to describe them, so they want one to describe everyone who's not trans. i have an idea... about about non-transgender?

how come they get to label themselves whatever they like and pick all their pronouns and shit but i'm forced to be called cis when i don't even like that term?

the **** is cis anyway? cis sounds like something you catch on vacation and need to get a shot to get rid of it. i say get rid of cis... let cis people vote on our own term if we need a term for it

and don't give me that "it's latin" excuse either. i don't speak latin and to be frank i want nothing to do with the romans or their perverse language and customs
Non-Transgender would be weird. Cisgender and Transgender follow the Latin linguistic convention for describing mountains (Cis--this side of the mountain, trans--beyond this side of the mountain; think of Transalpine Gaul vs Cisalpine Gaul), whereas non-Transgender would not really describe the difference as well.

Do you also think heterosexual should be "non-homosexual?"

i just don't like the way cis sounds tbh

i know there's no turning back at this point.. it is what it is

but i don't like the word. and tbh i really don't see why it's necessary to have a word to describe people who aren't trans.

to me that's like having a word to describe people who aren't blind... it's pointless

i don't really like the term caucasian either tbh... once again just don't like the sound of it. plus it technically refers to more than just white people does it not... yet it's used to describe white people alone in the PC universe

what's wrong with "white"?

as for non-homosexual... that would include bisexuals as well.. where as hetero is more specific.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i just don't like the way cis sounds tbh

i know there's no turning back at this point.. it is what it is

but i don't like the word. and tbh i really don't see why it's necessary to have a word to describe people who aren't trans.

to me that's like having a word to describe people who aren't blind... it's pointless

i don't really like the term caucasian either tbh... once again just don't like the sound of it. plus it technically refers to more than just white people does it not... yet it's used to describe white people alone in the PC universe

what's wrong with "white"?

as for non-homosexual... that would include bisexuals as well.. where as hetero is more specific.
It's not pointless. Non-blind people are called "sighted."

If you don't have a word to describe non-Trans people it only emphasizes an idea that trans people are unnatural. If we call non-Trans people "Cisgender" then there's equality in that both are categorized rather than simply accepting non-trans people as "normal"

Originally posted by Omega Vision
One PC element I don't at all subscribe to are words like "African American" and "Asian American." Just say black and Asian. We don't use "Caucasian American" or "European American" after all.

I agree. Can we please continue using homo if it involves online gaming?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
It's not pointless. Non-blind people are called "sighted."

If you don't have a word to describe non-Trans people it only emphasizes an idea that trans people are unnatural. If we call non-Trans people "Cisgender" then there's equality in that both are categorized rather than simply accepting non-trans people as "normal" lol... that's the first i've ever heard that term

and like i said yea the word cis only exists to make trans people feel normal

it's not actually necessary as a descriptive term... because people who aren't trans typically don't go on about not being trans... where as trans people often center their identity around their trans status

and call me insensitive.. but isn't "normal" basically accurate? or are we to pretend like "norms" don't exist so as to protect people's feelings? the whole thing smacks of delusion to me

Normal is not the same as most common. It has a value judgment, as in, this fits to the norm. People with black hair aren't called normal opposed to those that have other hair colors, the same goes for eye color, race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, political affiliation, etc.

So, no, Trans people are also normal, they just aren't a majority.

Originally posted by Bardock42
So, no, Trans people are also normal, they just aren't a majority.

I disagree with this statement.

Originally posted by red g jacks
lol... that's the first i've ever heard that term

and like i said yea the word cis only exists to make trans people feel normal

it's not actually necessary as a descriptive term... because people who aren't trans typically don't go on about not being trans... where as trans people often center their identity around their trans status

and call me insensitive.. but isn't "normal" basically accurate? or are we to pretend like "norms" don't exist so as to protect people's feelings? the whole thing smacks of delusion to me
And why shouldn't they feel normal? Do you want them to feel separate from society?

Yes, I think "insensitive" does describe your stance. I'd recommend actually getting to know a transgendered person. It might broaden your understanding of the subject.

Im going to cut my arms and legs off, crawl around the floor eating leaves and call myself a caterpillar.
ACCOMMODATE ME!!!

Originally posted by long pig
Im going to cut my arms and legs off, crawl around the floor eating leaves and call myself a caterpillar.
ACCOMMODATE ME!!!
A swing and a miss. Same advice I gave to red I'm giving to you. Instead of just being prejudiced, actually get to know a transgendered person and try to understand what their life is like and why they've undergone transition.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
A swing and a miss. Same advice I gave to red I'm giving to you. Instead of just being prejudiced, actually get to know a transgendered person and try to understand what their life is like and why they've undergone transition.
How can i understand???...I'm a ****ing caterpillar!

Sincerely yours,

Caterpillar.


P.s Pay for my surgery and meds. Kthnxbi.

Originally posted by long pig
How can i understand???...I'm a ****ing caterpillar!

Sincerely yours,

Caterpillar.


P.s Pay for my surgery and meds. Kthnxbi.
So you're just going to be stubborn and stonewall me. Okay, cool.

Why do people shit their pants over being called cisgendered?

Every adjective needs its opposite.

"Normal", as an adjective, means "usual or ordinary" in this context. Now, that technically describes non-transsexuals compared to transsexuals (I don't find it offensive to refer to transgendered people as being less normal personally), but it doesn't actually describe how they differ from transsexuals, like the term "cisgender" (your sexual identity agrees with your assigned sex) does.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
So you're just going to be stubborn and stonewall me. Okay, cool.
Sorry, I don't speak English. I only speak caterpillar. Don't worry, you'll be forced by your HR to learn my language after my discrimination lawsuit against your employer is over.

I am NOT Cisgendered

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I am NOT Cisgendered

Idk, I feel like the usual word that's used, i.e. "Normal", actually does what the author complains about, cis not so much.

As an aside, how do you view he term "cis" in relation to the "straight" to refer to heterosexual people.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I am NOT Cisgendered Pretty good read actually, although I found the author to be a bit of a pussy, I hadn't considered a lot of that.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I am NOT Cisgendered
Lol.
Gender is not a social construct.

And even "sex" is not a nice, tidy binary as people would like it to be.

Originally posted by long pig
You do know the definition of gender was recently changed, correct? Libs are to thank for that. They also changed the definition of racism to include race/culture/sex/sexuality/religion/creed/gender/nationality . Guess why? Because "race" was also given a new definition recently! . Race no longer means a person's color/origin. Race is now considered a social construct.

15 yrs ago, gender and sex were by definition one and the same. Gender roles are social construct.

Gender is not.
Your trolling is rusty. You should talk to Mindset.

Originally posted by long pig
You do know the definition of gender was recently changed, correct? Libs are to thank for that. They also changed the definition of racism to include race/culture/sex/sexuality/religion/creed/gender/nationality . Guess why? Because "race" was also given a new definition recently! . Race no longer means a person's color/origin. Race is now considered a social construct.

15 yrs ago, gender and sex were by definition one and the same. Gender roles are social construct.

Gender is not. The modern academic idea that gender is a social construct dates from the work of John Money in the fifties, actually. The idea actually gained traction in like the seventies due to feminists (oh shit sorry didn't mean to make you shit your pants there, I know that word triggers you).

Race is a social construct, lol. It's not even a recent POV. Some white southerners viewed themselves as being of a different race than northern whites during the Civil War.

Originally posted by NemeBro
The modern academic idea that gender is a social construct dates from the work of John Money in the fifties, actually. The idea actually gained traction in like the seventies due to feminists (oh shit sorry didn't mean to make you shit your pants there, I know that word triggers you).

Race is a social construct, lol. It's not even a recent POV. Some white southerners viewed themselves as being of a different race than northern whites during the Civil War.
well, if uneducated rednecks 120 years ago thought they were a different race then it must be true!

Race in its true sense is derived from DNA. DNA clusters more precise. Each race has identifying DNA clusters that other races do not.
A white man has different clusters than a Chinese man. They are different races. With different DNA.

If race is a social construct, tell me....

Why can they tell the race of a man via his DNA? Maybe DNA hasn't gotten the memo yet? How does one get a social construct so deep in their DNA? Did they inject the construct intravenously?

Is DNA racist? Misguided?

....point.

It might be if he provides some kind of source for it. As far as I know, there is no definitive scientific consensus on what biological race actually is, much less where to draw the boundaries between them. There's entire areas of study devoted to exploring these things though.

As for the socially constructed part, our concepts of race are positively loaded with cultural assumptions that don't always have a grounding in biological fact. Consider comedians who use "black people do this, white people do that" jokes. Our socially constructed understanding of the interplay between race and behavior fuels this brand of humor.

This is also present when people say "quit acting white" or "quit acting black." These terms should refer to colors, but we as a society have attributed certain traits to certain groups. It's all around us. The music you're expected to listen to, the shows you're expected to watch, the dialect you speak...it's all tangled up in a mess of what we consider appropriate for a certain group.

...counter point.

Not trying to be funny; these two posts are food for thought.
Very interesting reading. Thanks to both you and LP.

One of the definitions of "normal" is: typical state or condition.

Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=normal+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Whereas a person born would have the "typical state" of the sex he/she is born with.

Just saying.

Edit. On a separate note, I have a question for everyone:

Is it ok for a trans person to NOT disclose the fact that he is trans to a potential partner? I ask because I've seen (online mostly) a growing movement that says that anyone who would condemn a trans person who misrepresented themselves as being "racists/bigots".

So, hypothetically, if you think a trans not being honest is wrong, you're a racist/bigot?
Dont really agree with that, but of course it depends what form the objection takes.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
One of the definitions of "normal" is: typical state or condition.

Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=normal+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Whereas a person born would have the "typical state" of the sex he/she is born with.

Just saying.

Edit. On a separate note, I have a question for everyone:

Is it ok for a trans person to NOT disclose the fact that he is trans to a potential partner? I ask because I've seen (online mostly) a growing movement that says that anyone who would condemn a trans person who misrepresented themselves as being "racists/bigots".

You're right that there are certain definitions of "normal" that can be applied, the problem in the greater context of it seeming like a judgment (even if you don't intend it) still persists though. So, to facilitate what you want to communicate you would have to go out of your way to specify the definition, which would actually be useful to make people think about what they are saying, but seems unlikely to happen. Typical is interesting, btw, a lot of people with autism, etc. do use the word neurotypical to describe non-autistic people or people not suffering from certain mental illnesses like depression etc....another word, similarly coined to the term "cis", but autism specific, would be "allistic".

To your second point, the term thrown around would likely not be "racist", but "transphobic". At any rate, the question and and to whom to disclose ones gender identity is complicated, particularly because of the dangers associated with it (things like the trans panic defense). At some point in a relationship it is surely prudent to disclose it, and I don't think a potential partner is at fault if they don't want to pursue the relationship, you can't help what you are into, even if it is informed by a transphobic society.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You're right that there are certain definitions of "normal" that can be applied, the problem in the greater context of it seeming like a judgment (even if you don't intend it) still persists though. So, to facilitate what you want to communicate you would have to go out of your way to specify the definition, which would actually be useful to make people think about what they are saying, but seems unlikely to happen. Typical is interesting, btw, a lot of people with autism, etc. do use the word neurotypical to describe non-autistic people or people not suffering from certain mental illnesses like depression etc....another word, similarly coined to the term "cis", but autism specific, would be "allistic".

To your second point, the term thrown around would likely not be "racist", but "transphobic". At any rate, the question and and to whom to disclose ones gender identity is complicated, particularly because of the dangers associated with it (things like the trans panic defense). At some point in a relationship it is surely prudent to disclose it, and I don't think a potential partner is at fault if they don't want to pursue the relationship, you can't help what you are into, even if it is informed by a transphobic society.

People judge, that's how it is. The same way ppl would take certain things as a "judgement" when none existed. Certain athiests (for example) judge Christians all the time, for example (but somehow I feel that this practice seems to be more tolerated by the liberal media for some reason). I would agree with you that we should all just be nice to each other and not be judgemental. But this seems to be an extreme of changing an entire definition of terms and shoving it down ppl's throats just because of "PC" (yet being completely judgemental towards others).

Or maybe they can disclose their gender right away to potential partners AT THE VERY START? You know, so that they don't risk these so-called dangers you are pertaining to? Nondisclosure of gender at the start at the very least is "rape by deception". At the very least the psychological impact would be just as bad to a man as rape is to a woman (perhaps even worse at times).

There's actually a case of this in the Philippine news about a US serviceman, so I thought I'd ask. Google it and read thru some the comments section.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Nondisclosure of gender at the start at the very least is "rape by deception". At the very least the psychological impact would be just as bad to a man as rape is to a woman (perhaps even worse at times).
https://33.media.tumblr.com/4baf5e1335a87490ee690e12d818dbef/tumblr_nuxdzfqN8y1rkifreo1_500.gif

Originally posted by Sancty
GIF

I take it you disagree?

Apologism for homophobia. That's where we're at now.

It's true that trans people should disclose to their potential partners who they are, but saying that keeping that a secret is as bad as rape is ridiculous and cheapens what rape really is.

Would it also be rape if you were half Jewish and your partner was an anti-Semite who didn't know?

If the anti-Semite partner then placed the jewish partner into a makeshift concentration camp and treated them like shit, yes.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Apologism for homophobia. That's where we're at now.

It's true that trans people should disclose to their potential partners who they are, but saying that keeping that a secret is as bad as rape is ridiculous and cheapens what rape really is.

Would it also be rape if you were half Jewish and your partner was an anti-Semite who didn't know?
Did the man give consent for gay tranny sex? No? Its rape.

Originally posted by long pig
Did the man give consent for gay tranny sex? No? Its rape.
At most it would be something like statutory rape. Calling it rape though is an insult to actual rape victims.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Apologism for homophobia. That's where we're at now.

It's true that trans people should disclose to their potential partners who they are, but saying that keeping that a secret is as bad as rape is ridiculous and cheapens what rape really is.

Would it also be rape if you were half Jewish and your partner was an anti-Semite who didn't know?

Let me get this straight:

It's not really all that bad that some heterosexual male gets exposed to possibly his (or at least one of his) worst nightmare that will no doubt leave extreme feelings of violation as well as trauma. It's not really the knowingly-deceptive trans person's fault really, it's the straight guy's own damn for being a homphobe?

Really?

I once read here that straight, white, Catholic males have no rights in the eyes of some liberals. Thought it was a funny joke. Now it actually feels kinda accurate.

And no, there are levels to rape. Statutory rape is still considered a kind of "rape" although it is an act done by 2 knowingly consenting individuals. Statuatory rape having the word "rape" in its wording does not cheapen the more vile and evil kinds of rape, FYI.

And nice apples and oranges comparison in the end, too.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Let me get this straight:

It's not really all that bad that some heterosexual male gets exposed to possibly his (or at least one of his) worst nightmare that will no doubt leave extreme feelings of violation as well as trauma. It's not really the knowingly-deceptive trans person's fault really, it's the straight guy's own damn for being a homphobe?

Well, yeah. Homophobia/transphobia is like any other prejudice--it isn't something we should accept or make accommodations for.

I did say that I believe that trans people should be honest to their potential partners, but I don't for a second find it acceptable to be violent toward trans people if they aren't completely honest, nor do I think it's equivalent to rape, and trying to equate the two is repugnant.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Well, yeah. Homophobia/transphobia is like any other prejudice--it isn't something we should accept or make accommodations for.

I did say that I believe that trans people should be honest to their potential partners, but I don't for a second find it acceptable to be violent toward trans people if they aren't completely honest, nor do I think it's equivalent to rape, and trying to equate the two is repugnant.

You mean ppl don't have the right to protect the sanctity of their choice of sexual orientations from malicious fraud? And this right should not be accommodated?

Sex without informed consent is rape. Or does that only apply if you're NOT a straight male?

You're right, you did say that. But you also said added a "but" in the end. Like the fact that a person who only wishes to engage in straight sex not have the right to feel violated when he gets deceived into participating in a sexual act he would never agree to.

It's NEVER ok to be violent. But somehow I feel like if a woman pepper sprays then repeatedly kicks a guy in the groin for groping her butt, ppl like you would cheer her on. While a guy who beats the crap out of trans guy who tricked him into sex would be crucified for being a "bigot". Even tho the latter would have far deeper and more traumatic psychological scars than the former. Double standards everywhere.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Well, yeah. Homophobia/transphobia is like any other prejudice--it isn't something we should accept or make accommodations for.

I did say that I believe that trans people should be honest to their potential partners, but I don't for a second find it acceptable to be violent toward trans people if they aren't completely honest, nor do I think it's equivalent to rape, and trying to equate the two is repugnant.
You don't accept those who don't accept others....?


Ironic.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Idk, I feel like the usual word that's used, i.e. "Normal", actually does what the author complains about, cis not so much.

As an aside, how do you view he term "cis" in relation to the "straight" to refer to heterosexual people.

I do not see it as accurate or even particularly useful.

Straight refers to one who is attracted to members of the opposite sex. Since sex is a material reality, there can be a consensus about who qualifies as straight.

Cis refers to one who identifies with the gender that corresponds to his sex. Since gender is a social construct, no two ideas about manhood are the same.

Classifying all non-transgender people as cis incorrectly groups all people with male bodies who identify as men, even though there is no consensus among them about what manhood is or who qualifies as a man.

Gay, bi, queer, and straight men have very different ideas about manhood, and some would hold that others do not qualify to be in the same group.

Grouping them together effectively erases their conception and experience of their own gender by saying they are the same.

All to create a semantic dichotomy so transgender people do not feel stigmatized, even though forcing equity in language does not create equality in the real world.

Moreover, transgender people categorically do not want others to make assumptions or ask questions about their genitals, but in labeling others as cisgender, they are ironically making assumptions about the genitals of other people.

Which brings me to the subject of labeling: cisgender is not a term most non-transgender people choose for themselves, and it is not the place of any one to impose that label on them. Identity is central to the experience of a person, and he should be free to define that for himself.

Just as one person cannot define the sexuality of another person, one cannot define the gender of another person either. He chooses how he will identify and what he would prefer to be called, not anyone else.

Sounds like more of a birth defect than a sexual orientation.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
. . . Sex without informed consent is rape.

. . . a person who only wishes to engage in straight sex not have the right to feel violated when he gets deceived into participating in a sexual act he would never agree to.

It's NEVER ok to be violent. . .

I actually agree to this.

One has an inviolable right to control to whom he makes his body available to sexually.

One does not have the right to gain access to the body of another through deception by withholding information that would affect his decision making.

That is true whether it is the non-disclosure of a sexually-transmitted disease or of one's birth sex.

If one is male, identifies as a man, and identifies as straight because he is attracted to people with female bodies, he has a right to not have a same-sex sexual experience without his consent.

That is rape under any definition.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Apologism for homophobia. That's where we're at now.
I'd never ask anyone to apologize for their phobias or isms, for that matter.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
It's true that trans people should disclose to their potential partners who they are, but saying that keeping that a secret is as bad as rape is ridiculous and cheapens what rape really is.
Agree on both points.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Would it also be rape if you were half Jewish and your partner was an anti-Semite who didn't know?
I think that was the plot to a Seinfeld episode.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I do not see it as accurate or even particularly useful.

Straight refers to one who is attracted to members of the opposite sex. Since sex is a material reality, there can be a consensus about who qualifies as straight.

Cis refers to one who identifies with the gender that corresponds to his sex. Since gender is a social construct, no two ideas about manhood are the same.

Classifying all non-transgender people as cis incorrectly groups all people with male bodies who identify as men, even though there is no consensus among them about what manhood is or who qualifies as a man.

Gay, bi, queer, and straight men have very different ideas about manhood, and some would hold that others do not qualify to be in the same group.

Grouping them together effectively erases their conception and experience of their own gender by saying they are the same.

All to create a semantic dichotomy so transgender people do not feel stigmatized, even though forcing equity in language does not create equality in the real world.

Moreover, transgender people categorically do not want others to make assumptions or ask questions about their genitals, but in labeling others as cisgender, they are ironically making assumptions about the genitals of other people.

Which brings me to the subject of labeling: cisgender is not a term most non-transgender people choose for themselves, and it is not the place of any one to impose that label on them. Identity is central to the experience of a person, and he should be free to define that for himself.

Just as one person cannot define the sexuality of another person, one cannot define the gender of another person either. He chooses how he will identify and what he would prefer to be called, not anyone else.

This is just a ridiculous amount of mind bending to fit a preconceived notion.

While straight is often simplified to mean an attraction to the opposite sex, in reality sex is a much more complicated construct than is made out to be, and the idea of gender identity is not even considered.

Gay, Bi, Queer, Straight have nothing to do with whether someone is cis or trans, all of these groups can contain either cis or trans people.

While most people assume that a person they are talking to is cisgender (the same way people default to assuming others are straight), it is silly to pretend that this is the same as the issue of people casually asking about trans people's genitals.

The labeling also doesn't work the way you make it seem. The same way trans people don't choose the term trans, it just applies to their situation, cis is a term that applies to many other people's situation (they are still individuals, with different experiences and lifes, that is not erased by being part of a group). If you identify as the gender that you were assigned and that society has been applying to you, you are cis, if not, you are trans, if you think your situation doesn't fit in this, very well, you can explain why and what term you want to be used, but you don't get to claim the term "normal", the same way straight people don't get the term.

This really boils down to the fight about labeling of sexuality having taken place over the last century and through exposure and acceptance now having arrived at a point where people are okay with the once extremely anti-gay term homosexual and people being alright with the term "straight" which was initially defined in gay culture. Just because the trans rights movement is at an earlier point of acceptance doesn't mean we should fight it tooth and nail, that just makes us the bigots of this civil rights issue.

Originally posted by long pig
You do know the definition of gender was recently changed, correct? Libs are to thank for that. They also changed the definition of racism to include race/culture/sex/sexuality/religion/creed/gender/nationality . Guess why? Because "race" was also given a new definition recently! . Race no longer means a person's color/origin. Race is now considered a social construct.

15 yrs ago, gender and sex were by definition one and the same. Gender roles are social construct.

Gender is not.

Since language actively changes meaning over time there is little point in arguing about strict definitions.

I avoid this kind of discussion like a plague

Originally posted by Bardock42
This is just a ridiculous amount of mind bending to fit a preconceived notion.

Pot, meet kettle.




Originally posted by Bardock42
While straight is often simplified to mean an attraction to the opposite sex, in reality sex is a much more complicated construct than is made out to be, and the idea of gender identity is not even considered.

No, it is not. With the exception of rare medical conditions in which people are intersex, humans are a sexually dimorphic species. Sex is a material reality that is not complicated whatsoever.

Gender is not a consideration of sexual orientation, because one does not have sex with the gender identity of another person. A male, who identifies as a man, and identifies as heterosexual is attracted to female bodies, not necessarily a feminine gender expression. Presenting as a woman ≠ having a female body.




Originally posted by Bardock42
Gay, Bi, Queer, Straight have nothing to do with whether someone is cis or trans, all of these groups can contain either cis or trans people.

Yes, it does. Gender is a social construct. There are as many notions of man and woman as there are people. One may identify with the gender that corresponds with his sex, but depending on who is defining man, he may or may not qualify to be a part of that group. It is completely inaccurate to say that a feminine queer man is cisgender in the same way as a masculine straight man. Not to mention that it completely erases their conceptions and experiences of their own gender to say they are the same. They are not the same.




Originally posted by Bardock42
While most people assume that a person they are talking to is cisgender (the same way people default to assuming others are straight), it is silly to pretend that this is the same as the issue of people casually asking about trans people's genitals.

A transwoman would like others to accept her gender identity on the basis of her gender presentation without making assumptions about whether she has a penis. Yet, when labeling me cisgender on the basis of my gender presentation, she is making assumptions about whether I have a penis. That is completely hypocritical.




Originally posted by Bardock42
The labeling also doesn't work the way you make it seem. The same way trans people don't choose the term trans, it just applies to their situation, cis is a term that applies to many other people's situation (they are still individuals, with different experiences and lifes, that is not erased by being part of a group). If you identify as the gender that you were assigned and that society has been applying to you, you are cis, if not, you are trans, if you think your situation doesn't fit in this, very well, you can explain why and what term you want to be used, but you don't get to claim the term "normal", the same way straight people don't get the term.

This is incorrect. Trans people adopted transgender in 1970 as term to use to describe themselves, in the same way that homosexuals adopted gay in 1955.

Moreover, there are people who are male, and identify as men, but who do not identify cisgender, because they do not subscribe to the notion of gender. They believe that gender is an emergent property of their sex, and they simply conform to and identify with the role that they were assigned at birth, because that is how the society in which they live operates. They do not believe they have a unique experience of gender, and could not even begin describe to someone what an experience of being a man is, because they believe the entire notion to be incomprehensible. To say that because this person is male, identifies as a man, and presents as a man that he is cisgender completely belies the meaning of the term.

Furthemore, it is not a value judgment to state that being non-transgender is the norm and being transgender is an anomaly, in the same way that being heterosexuality is the norm and being homosexuality is an anomaly. Both or normal, one is simply more prevalent.




Originally posted by Bardock42
This really boils down to the fight about labeling of sexuality having taken place over the last century and through exposure and acceptance now having arrived at a point where people are okay with the once extremely anti-gay term homosexual and people being alright with the term "straight" which was initially defined in gay culture. Just because the trans rights movement is at an earlier point of acceptance doesn't mean we should fight it tooth and nail, that just makes us the bigots of this civil rights issue.

Homosexual is not implicitly anti-gay. It is a clinical term that can be anti-gay depending on how it is used.

Moreover, the etymology of straight meaning "heterosexual," is derived from the use of the word meaning "not dishonest, not a drug addict, not a delinquent, etc." When the term came into use to refer to heterosexuals in 1960, homosexuality was still considered a mental illness, and it was widely believed that homosexuals belonged in the aforementioned group. So no, straight is not a term homosexuals developed for heterosexuals, it is a term they adopted for themselves, and it is one born of homophobia at that.

If we have learned anything from the fight over the labeling of sexuality that has taken place over the last century, it is that people get to define themselves, and no one else.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Pot, meet kettle.






No, it is not. With the exception of rare medical conditions in which people are intersex, humans are a sexually dimorphic species. Sex is a material reality that is not complicated whatsoever.

Gender is not a consideration of sexual orientation, because one does not have sex with the gender identity of another person. A male, who identifies as a man, and identifies as heterosexual is attracted to female bodies, not necessarily a feminine gender expression. Presenting as a woman ≠ having a female body.






Yes, it does. Gender is a social construct. There are as many notions of man and woman as there are people. One may identify with the gender that corresponds with his sex, but depending on who is defining man, he may or may not qualify to be a part of that group. It is completely inaccurate to say that a feminine queer man is cisgender in the same way as a masculine straight man. Not to mention that it completely erases their conceptions and experiences of their own gender to say they are the same. They are not the same.






A transwoman would like others to accept her gender identity on the basis of her gender presentation without making assumptions about whether she has a penis. Yet, when labeling me cisgender on the basis of my gender presentation, she is making assumptions about whether I have a penis. That is completely hypocritical.






This is incorrect. Trans people adopted transgender in 1970 as term to use to describe themselves, in the same way that homosexuals adopted gay in 1955.

Moreover, there are people who are male, and identify as men, but who do not identify cisgender, because they do not subscribe to the notion of gender. They believe that gender is an emergent property of their sex, and they simply conform to and identify with the role that they were assigned at birth, because that is how the society in which they live operates. They do not believe they have a unique experience of gender, and could not even begin describe to someone what an experience of being a man is, because they believe the entire notion to be incomprehensible. To say that because this person is male, identifies as a man, and presents as a man that he is cisgender completely belies the meaning of the term.

Furthemore, it is not a value judgment to state that being non-transgender is the norm and being transgender is an anomaly, in the same way that being heterosexuality is the norm and being homosexuality is an anomaly. Both or normal, one is simply more prevalent.






Homosexual is not implicitly anti-gay. It is a clinical term that can be anti-gay depending on how it is used.

Moreover, the etymology of straight meaning "heterosexual," is derived from the use of the word meaning "not dishonest, not a drug addict, not a delinquent, etc." When the term came into use to refer to heterosexuals in 1960, homosexuality was still considered a mental illness, and it was widely believed that homosexuals belonged in the aforementioned group. So no, straight is not a term homosexuals developed for heterosexuals, it is a term they adopted for themselves, and it is one born of homophobia at that.

If we have learned anything from the fight over the labeling of sexuality that has taken place over the last century, it is that people get to define themselves, and no one else.

Since reasonable estimates for intersex births range from about the same to considerably more than the trans population, maybe we shouldn't pretend it is not an issue in this context.

And gender expression should and is a consideration in actual sexuality. People are attracted to different phenotypes (mixed with a lot of cultural baggage of course), not chromosomes.

It is as silly to say that being cis erases their experience as saying grouping them both as blond is. If the person identifies as male and was assigned male then they fit the description of cisgender. I don't have a problem with another term becoming more accepted at some point, the problem at the moment is that transgender people are pretty much erased from popular consciousness, so that many cis people don't even realize that there is a need to categorize their experience (which is very similar to what happens with heterosexual experiences, really). Of course there is also people who are gender fluid, which get perhaps erased even more, or others who think gender is a function of a binary sex (those people are misinformed or idiots though)

I also like how you basically agree on my point that both are normal, but phrase it to make it seem that we are in disagreement.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Normal is not the same as most common. It has a value judgment, as in, this fits to the norm. People with black hair aren't called normal opposed to those that have other hair colors, the same goes for eye color, race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, political affiliation, etc.

So, no, Trans people are also normal, they just aren't a majority. actually i find this an interesting claim, since it implies there is something negative about being abnormal

pretty insensitive of you to say so, buddy
Originally posted by Omega Vision
And why shouldn't they feel normal? Do you want them to feel separate from society?no.. i just don't want to get stuck with a shit term like cis just to help them feel normal

if i have to have a term i'd rather get to pick it, just like trans people get to pick from the 70+ something genders out there and if they don't find one they like then they can just make up a new one

maybe i should invent my own gender just to avoid being called cis

how do you know i don't know any trans people?

Originally posted by red g jacks
actually i find this an interesting claim, since it implies there is something negative about being abnormal

pretty insensitive of you to say so, buddy
no.. i just don't want to get stuck with a shit term like cis just to help them feel normal

if i have to have a term i'd rather get to pick it, just like trans people get to pick from the 70+ something genders out there and if they don't find one they like then they can just make up a new one

maybe i should invent my own gender just to avoid being called cis

how do you know i don't know any trans people?

Trans people generally don't make up their experiences.

And abnormal is a term that when used to describe people comes with a stigma attached to it.

what about if a person is 8 feet tall.. would you consider that abnormal?

Originally posted by red g jacks
actually i find this an interesting claim, since it implies there is something negative about being abnormal

pretty insensitive of you to say so, buddy
That's a tricky little issue. In a strictly literal sense, abnormal doesn't have to have a negative connotation true. Unfortunately, the term is usually thrown about with negative implications.

I think that's what most people would like to avoid.

Originally posted by long pig
You do know the definition of gender was recently changed, correct? Libs are to thank for that. They also changed the definition of racism to include race/culture/sex/sexuality/religion/creed/gender/nationality . Guess why? Because "race" was also given a new definition recently! . Race no longer means a person's color/origin. Race is now considered a social construct.

15 yrs ago, gender and sex were by definition one and the same. Gender roles are social construct.

Gender is not. to a certain extent, gender roles are a 'social construct'

at their most basic they are a biological reality.

no i wasn't saying it's necessarily 'wrong'

just that my idea of a misogynist was someone who hates women

so if that's the definition then i don't consider myself a misogynist

but if not being a misogynist means i can't call hillary clinton a b*tch, then i suppose i'd rather just be a misogynist

do you guys really want to live in a world where calling hillary clinton a b*tch is considered over the line? i know i don't

Haha, nicely put.

Originally posted by red g jacks
no i wasn't saying it's necessarily 'wrong'

just that my idea of a misogynist was someone who hates women

so if that's the definition then i don't consider myself a misogynist

but if not being a misogynist means i can't call hillary clinton a b*tch, then i suppose i'd rather just be a misogynist

do you guys really want to live in a world where calling hillary clinton a b*tch is considered over the line? i know i don't

I want to live in a world where the term b*tch is not used to put down and disqualify women. If you think she's an assh*le just call her that, no need to draw attention to her gender in your put down.

As an aside, my objection of misogynist code was to the term "that chick", at the time I had missed you calling her a "b*tch".

I don't think that someone using misogynist language is necessarily a misogynist, I think there is an argument to be made about severity and prevalence of their misogyny, but we definitely all have internalized the misogyny that society teaches us, and some of us are less comfortable with that than others.

Originally posted by red g jacks
no i wasn't saying it's necessarily 'wrong'

just that my idea of a misogynist was someone who hates women

so if that's the definition then i don't consider myself a misogynist

but if not being a misogynist means i can't call hillary clinton a b*tch, then i suppose i'd rather just be a misogynist

do you guys really want to live in a world where calling hillary clinton a b*tch is considered over the line? i know i don't
Well, I wasn't there, so I can't speak to Bardock's intention. And it appears he's since clarified himself.

I don't think using those words makes you a misogynist. I use *****/pussy/etc. myself and I am sure I rate highly on TI's "crazy left libtard" scale. These words still developed out of a sexist line of thought though. We have to acknowledge that.

As a male, I don't know what it feels like to have my sex be synonymous with "weak and crazy".

Originally posted by Bardock42
I want to live in a world where the term b*tch is not used to put down and disqualify women. If you think she's an assh*le just call her that, no need to draw attention to her gender in your put down.

As an aside, my objection of misogynist code was to the term "that chick", at the time I had missed you calling her a "b*tch".

I don't think that someone using misogynist language is necessarily a misogynist, I think there is an argument to be made about severity and prevalence of their misogyny, but we definitely all have internalized the misogyny that society teaches us, and some of us are less comfortable with that than others. i don't know what you mean by disqualify... i wasn't disqualifying her from anything, other than not being a b*tch

but i notice you think assh*le is a gender neutral substitute for the word b*tch... as it gives the same basic meaning except without being gender specific

i agree.. and i would argue that assh*le is likewise a gender neutral substitute for the insults "dick" and "prick," and that these are (as i noted in my OP ) basically male equivalents for that insult

ush tried to argue that i was wrong in defining them this way, but clearly he was wrong about that, at least by the common american use of these words

so once again i'd reiterate that these terms aren't really hateful at all, but are just gender specific insults. and i don't really see what is wrong about having gender specific terms

the fact that you think the phrase "that chick" is also somehow degrading and/or misogynist is even more strange to me

Originally posted by StyleTime
Well, I wasn't there, so I can't speak to Bardock's intention. And it appears he's since clarified himself.

I don't think using those words makes you a misogynist. I use *****/pussy/etc. myself and I am sure I rate highly on TI's "crazy left libtard" scale. These words still developed out of a sexist line of thought though. We have to acknowledge that.

As a male, I don't know what it feels like to have my sex be synonymous with "weak and crazy". but the word ***** doesn't mean weak and crazy... if it did then i wouldn't call hillary a *****. because she's anything but weak and/or crazy. she's an extremely strong and ruthless political machine. in fact she might actually not be a female human at all but a literal machine that takes on the form of a female human as part of her/its PR strategy. at least i've yet to see any convincing proof that this is not the case.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i agree.. and i would argue that assh*le is likewise a gender neutral substitute for the insults "dick" and "prick," and that these are (as i noted in my OP ) basically male equivalents for that insult

ush tried to argue that i was wrong in defining them this way, but clearly he was wrong about that, at least by the common american use of these words

I have to disagree on the dick/prick vs ***** angle. Not only can ***** be potentially more severe, but it can also refer to males...who are "acting like women". i.e. being cowards/pushovers/weak.

Both can be used casually depending on context, but "*****" seems to have a higher...ceiling?

Originally posted by red g jacks
but the word ***** doesn't mean weak and crazy... if it did then i wouldn't call hillary a *****. because she's anything but weak and/or crazy. she's an extremely strong and ruthless political machine. in fact she might actually not be a female human at all but a literal machine that takes on the form of a female human as part of her/its PR strategy. at least i've yet to see any convincing proof that this is not the case.
I meant female based insults in general.

I think Ush made a very well thought out post on the very first page to explain why b*tch and prick ar not the same category of insult, and I do agree with it. And while I personally try to avoid male gendered insults as well, the idea that it is equivalent to the sexist terms that have been used to keep women down for ages seems ludicrous to me. As a man, prick is an almost meaningless insult to me, it packs no punch whatsoever, because my gender isn't degraded and attacked in the same manner that women are.

As a side note, do you understand the qualitative difference between the n-word and the term "cracker", or do you view them as equal racial insults, because if we have to start there we might have a long way to go to common ground.

Edit

Originally posted by StyleTime
I have to disagree on the dick/prick vs ***** angle. Not only can ***** be potentially more severe, but it can also refer to males...who are "acting like women". i.e. being cowards/pusharound/weak.

Both can be used casually depending on context, but "*****" seems to have a higher...ceiling? but the way i used the term, they basically mean the same thing. except one refers to a man and the other refers to a woman

i can also see how the term can be used in a more negative way... e.g. referring to women generically as bitches, sort of like virtually ever rapper ever has done

but calling a woman a ***** who is acting like a ***** is no different from calling a man a prick who is acting like a prick

as far as i am concerned, to argue otherwise is basically condescending towards women and acting like they need to be treated with kid gloves, like children

which btw is something liberals have the tendency to do with virtually every "oppressed" minority.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think Ush made a very well thought out post on the very first page to explain why b*tch and prick ar not the same category of insult, and I do agree with it. And while I personally try to avoid male gendered insults as well, the idea that it is equivalent to the sexist terms that have been used to keep women down for ages seems ludicrous to me. As a man, prick is an almost meaningless insult to me, it packs no punch whatsoever, because my gender isn't degraded and attacked in the same manner that women are. his argument was basically "because men have more power"

i didn't find it very compelling.

what about if a woman calls a woman a *****? do you honestly think she intends to degrade her entire gender? or maybe the girl was just acting like a *****
i view them both as racial insults... but one has more history behind it and as a result is more potent

i make the active choice not to be offended by the word cracker, as a white person. because i don't want to give power to bigots

but i have had people shout the term at me while assaulting me... i have also had people shout the term at me from moving cars while i was walking down the street of my own neighborhood, while throwing a glass bottle at me

so yea, it's not a nice term. and people basically use it with the sole intention of offending you. whether it works or not is a different story.

but i'm curious... are you saying "b*tch" has as much brutal history behind it as "n*gger?"

Originally posted by red g jacks
but the way i used the term, they basically mean the same thing. except one refers to a man and the other refers to a woman

i can also see how the term can be used in a more negative way... e.g. referring to women generically as bitches, sort of like virtually ever rapper ever has done

but calling a woman a ***** who is acting like a ***** is no different from calling a man a prick who is acting like a prick

as far as i am concerned, to argue otherwise is basically condescending towards women and acting like they need to be treated with kid gloves, like children

which btw is something liberals have the tendency to do with virtually every "oppressed" minority.
At this point we're saying similar things. Not going to argue for the sake of arguing.

I disagree on the kid gloves thing though. It happens but it's not as common as one might think.

Originally posted by red g jacks
his argument was basically "because men have more power"

i didn't find it very compelling.

what about if a woman calls a woman a *****? do you honestly think she intends to degrade her entire gender? or maybe the girl was just acting like a *****
i view them both as racial insults... but one has more history behind it and as a result is more potent

i make the active choice not to be offended by the word cracker, as a white person. because i don't want to give power to bigots

but i have had people shout the term at me while assaulting me... i have also had people shout the term at me from moving cars while i was walking down the street of my own neighborhood, while throwing a glass bottle at me

so yea, it's not a nice term. and people basically use it with the sole intention of offending you. whether it works or not is a different story.

but i'm curious... are you saying "b*tch" has as much brutal history behind it as "n*gger?"

I think when a woman calls another a woman a ***** she is subject to the same misogynist indoctrination that men are, and uses the additional sexist power that the word has to put down the other woman. She is harming herself with that, but it can often be hard to see that.

I am not saying that b*tch has the same or a comparable history to the n-word, however I am saying that b*tch as well as all sort of other gendered insults for women have a much, much more destructive and harmful history than any gendered insult for men, which is why they are so much worse, and not comparable.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think when a woman calls another a woman a ***** she is subject to the same misogynist indoctrination that men are, and uses the additional sexist power that the word has to put down the other woman. She is harming herself with that, but it can often be hard to see that.

I am not saying that b*tch has the same or a comparable history to the n-word, however I am saying that b*tch as well as all sort of other gendered insults for women have a much, much more destructive and harmful history than any gendered insult for men, ehich is why they are so much worse, and not comparable.

Stop talking about Hilary. It's my job.

Damnit, you edited you sly dog you.

The saddest and most hilarious thing is watching gays/minorities/women etc fight over who is the biggest victim. They never argue about why they allowed themselves to become victims in the first place, though.

Are you this bad ass in person? If so we gotta hang.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think when a woman calls another a woman a ***** she is subject to the same misogynist indoctrination that men are, and uses the additional sexist power that the word has to put down the other woman. She is harming herself with that, but it can often be hard to see that. that sounds like a crock of shit to me

a woman calls another woman a ***** just cause she's been indoctrinated by the patriarchy? not because it's a common term which just so happens to be gendered? yea.. that's not at all condescending


let's hear it, then. maybe i'm just ignorant. what is the terrible historical legacy of the word *****?

Originally posted by long pig
The saddest and most hilarious thing is watching gays/minorities/women etc fight over who is the biggest victim. They never argue about why they allowed themselves to become victims in the first place, though.

Yeah, why didn't they just choose to have all the advantages society extends to straight, white men...

Link doesn't work: http://bit.ly/1zBczXV

At any rate, from its earliest modern usage the term has been used to keep women in their place, to stop them from participating in male dominated society. And while the term has evolved in many ways, it is still often used for the same purpose, and when used for a woman seeking to be the first female leader of a country, after 2 and a half centuries of all male leaders, this connotation has to be clear, even if you were actually using it innocently.

Using the term in a derogatory manner is always based in sexism, it just should be avoided generally. And that's not even talking about the many other gendered insults thrown at woman that have served similar or otherwise controlling purposes.

Red g, if you want to call Hillary a b*tch, then you don't need to justify yourself to anybody, Bardock least of all. But please think carefully whether your desire to call her a b*tch comes from the fact that she's a woman or the fact you genuinely don't like her as a person.

I dunno, while the word is gender specific, its still interchangeable. Never heard a woman referred to as a bastard, for example.
This may go more towards putting men down by feminizing them, though; a continuation of the school yard "you throw like a girl" mindset.

Way overanalyzing b**ch tbh.

I prefer the word ****. See you next Tuesday.

Originally posted by Trocity
Way overanalyzing b**ch tbh.
Better than 90% of the other topics on the page.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Red g, if you want to call Hillary a b*tch, then you don't need to justify yourself to anybody, Bardock least of all. But please think carefully whether your desire to call her a b*tch comes from the fact that she's a woman or the fact you genuinely don't like her as a person. it's a combination of the two... i don't feel the compulsion to call any random woman a b*tch.... but her being a woman makes that feel like the appropriate insult

honestly i think perhaps i am a misogynist

i dunno i read bardock's history thing and while i agree with women being able to vote... it still doesn't make me feel bad enough to not say b*tch

perhaps i'm just not as nice as you

really you feminists haven't succeeded in making the word as taboo as you'd like... normal people still use it on a daily basis. and that's what i'm comfortable with and used to... so until it becomes seriously socially unacceptable, i'm not going to opt to adhere to the feminist standard

it is what it is, i'll concede that it's misogynist. but i don't feel like stopping

maybe that's not the conclusion anyone would hope for. sort of like i will concede that supporting factory farming with my patronage of their meat is probably wrong and contributing to suffering... but i like eating the meat more than doing the 'right' thing.

271gbSxVrNk

i will say... to backtrack on the prick vs ***** argument... let's say i'm willing to concede one is easily worse than the other. that still doesn't justify either one. just like saying n*gger is worse than cracker... it is. that doesn't justify using cracker though. so ignoring the use of one while condemning the other is still a hypocritical double standard and basically ideologically inconsistent to me.

not that i am saying i want both to be unacceptable... that would be even worse to me. i rose that comparison because i suspect most people aren't willing to take the stance that both are unacceptable.

To me the conclusion you draw is at the thresholds that makes one go from saying something misogynist to being a misogynist. Knowing and understanding that something is misogynist, that it is harmful, and then consciously choosing to do it is much worse, imo, than acting out of ignorance. I mean, do what you want, but then complaining about being called a misogynist seems silly, and a bit pathetic.

Regarding the "prick" comparison, like I said, I try to avoid male gendered insults as well, but for the many reasons stated in this thread, it doesn't actually cause the greater harm that the word b*tch has caused and continues to cause, which is why I don't view condemnation of the latter, but use of the former as hypocritical.

Glad you agree with women getting to vote though....guess we got that common ground to go on...

I love being called a cracker. Its literally calling someone master.

Originally posted by Bardock42
To me the conclusion you draw is at the thresholds that makes one go from saying something misogynist to being a misogynist. Knowing and understanding that something is misogynist, that it is harmful, and then consciously choosing to do it is much worse, imo, than acting out of ignorance. I mean, do what you want, but then complaining about being called a misogynist seems silly, and a bit pathetic.no, i'm not complaining about it. at first i disagreed cause my idea of misogynist was someone who hates women. and i don't hate women.

but i am willing to concede the misogyny point and just be considered a misogynist in order to get to speak how i am used to speaking.

maybe if the feminist campaign really works and you guys turn it into a serious taboo... it will become so socially unacceptable that saying it won't seem worth it to me

but as it stands that isn't the case... so yea



you're talking about severity though... the concept is pretty similar, regarding the casual use of these terms and not whatever historical version there was... i could use the same logic to justify the use of b*tch because in comparison to n*gger, it's history is pretty tame

like i said, n*gger is worse than cracker. that isn't a justification of cracker. not even in the slightest. so the same should apply to prick... so long as we are assuming that gendered insults are inappropriate or perhaps even nefariously subversive

but like i said, a world where all of these terms are over the line is a annoyingly linguistically sterilized dystopian 1984 esque hellhole, if i might exaggerate slightly

well if it were up to me no one would get to vote. but you know the saying, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Originally posted by long pig
I love being called a cracker. Its literally calling someone master.
Is it? How so?
I've never run across this definition before (not that i Google crackers all that often).

Originally posted by red g jacks
that's fair enough... they can feel free to judge me

just understand that sword cuts both ways

i.e. it's well within your rights to be easily offended... but i might think less of you for it



Of course it does, you already cut the person who gets offended by saying something inherently offensive to them.

You say something offsensive, someone gets offended, you get offended for them being offended. What a vicious circle.

Originally posted by riv6672
Is it? How so?
I've never run across this definition before (not that i Google crackers all that often).
Cracker was what slaves called the white taskmasters. They called them that because of the whip they used would "crack". Hence, " cracker".

So where does honky come from?

Originally posted by long pig
Cracker was what slaves called the white taskmasters. They called them that because of the whip they used would "crack". Hence, " cracker".
Neat. Thanks.