political correctness/feminism and language

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.

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.

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.

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).

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?

Originally posted by long pig
Did the man give consent for gay tranny sex? No? Its rape.

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?

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.