|
Post by Amadan on Jan 19, 2017 14:10:14 GMT -5
Okay, and?
I don't think anyone is under the impression that we are shaping policy or changing the world here. The purpose of a message board is discussion. Presumably you discuss because you find it interesting.
Responding to opinions expressed on a message board with "Your opinion is irrelevant, no one cares what any of us think" is kind of like wandering onto a golf course and saying "You know that no one actually cares whether or not you get the little ball into that hole, right? You're not even going to remember your score next month." True, but either missing the point or just trolling.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jan 19, 2017 14:26:26 GMT -5
I don't golf either.
I also don't tell people doing things that don't interest me that what they are doing is uninteresting and irrelevant, and hang around where people are doing things that don't interest me just so I can keep telling them that what they're doing doesn't interest me.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 19, 2017 17:07:56 GMT -5
This exchange is irrelevant, because it's not imparting anything worth knowing or contemplating.
As to someone's opinions being irrelevant in general, that's simply not the case. What someone thinks, says, or feels about anything might be irrelevant to me or to someone else in particular. It might also be irrelevant (or better yet, inconsequential) to national policy and/or the decisions of people with some measure of authority (from governments to businesses to communities to families). But it also might not be. We can't rightly say with absolute certainty.
Ideas and opinions--even expressed feelings--are not stagnant things. They can impact other people, other things. Even the most seemingly inconsequential idea can potentially lead somewhere, can impact others, can even impact institutions.
Of course, that's a wider philosophical discussion (which we can certainly have; I can split this stuff into a new thread if people are into such a thing).
But with regard to messageboards in general and this one in particular: if "no one cares what you think" is the best counter one can offer, that's not particularly impressive, nor is it particularly good for a discussion, even a heated/heavy one. That said, true enough the exchanges here aren't world-changing ones. But they are real exchanges between real people. That's enough for me.
|
|
|
Commuted!
Jan 19, 2017 17:57:16 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Christine on Jan 19, 2017 17:57:16 GMT -5
You do understand I'm not saying you're wrong that it was written in a way that could be misconstrued, but clearly 2 of us read the 'intent' of the post differently. Again, Amadan can come in and tell us we were wrong in our reading. I'm not saying you're being unreasonable in how you read it, but I just don't think that's what Amadan meant. We've all said things that were badly worded, even though we're writers. (Mostly on this site at least) Transgender women aren't men; they are transgender women, whether or not they transition. Ergo, Manning could not have stayed a man. This isn't rocket science, and I don't think Amadan is ignorant on this subject. I will not speak to his intent (though I will note, he hasn't either), because I don't know him well enough to do that. *eats fourth Snickers bar*
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 19, 2017 18:08:59 GMT -5
You do understand I'm not saying you're wrong that it was written in a way that could be misconstrued, but clearly 2 of us read the 'intent' of the post differently. Again, Amadan can come in and tell us we were wrong in our reading. I'm not saying you're being unreasonable in how you read it, but I just don't think that's what Amadan meant. We've all said things that were badly worded, even though we're writers. (Mostly on this site at least) Transgender women aren't men; they are transgender women, whether or not they transition. Ergo, Manning could not have stayed a man. This isn't rocket science, and I don't think Amadan is ignorant on this subject. *eats fourth Snickers bar* I am. When I characterize someone as a man or a woman, I do so based on physiology, because I think in terms of male and female. Male parts=man, female parts=female. That's the way archaeologists do it, too. And anthropologists, for the most part. That said, I accept that gender and sex aren't the same thing. But as a matter of course, gender cannot be absolutely determined via physical characteristics. So if someone claims a given gender, I accept it of course. It's their "self," after all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2017 18:16:32 GMT -5
To note, you are quite welcome to critique his words.
But you are correct to steer clear of accusing a member of ill intent in speaking those words. IMO, doing so is (or at least can skate dangerously close to) a personal attack. And yes, I AM saying that as a mod.
The report button is always there if you feel someone is being trollish.
|
|
|
Commuted!
Jan 19, 2017 18:23:36 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Christine on Jan 19, 2017 18:23:36 GMT -5
(To rob's post)
Right, it is about gender, not body parts. If it were about body parts, we would say a TGF who did not have her sex organ removed had "stayed a man." Many TGFs do not have that surgery.
But I'm not an expert on the subject either. I just know enough to know that transgendered folks don't "stay" men or women, and using that phraseology is, at the very least, unkind.
|
|
|
Commuted!
Jan 19, 2017 18:27:56 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Christine on Jan 19, 2017 18:27:56 GMT -5
(To Cass's post) I am a card-carrying member of the Never Report Posts club. Not even for a bona fide troll. I ain't no crybaby and I ain't no snitch.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 19, 2017 18:47:21 GMT -5
Well, that's all an issue of vocabulary. It can be a problem simply because our vocabulary isn't well-formed to account for sex and gender being two different things, since people can use the same terms in reference to both. So I think that assuming intent from the phraseology is problematic, to say the least.
|
|
|
Commuted!
Jan 19, 2017 18:54:02 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Christine on Jan 19, 2017 18:54:02 GMT -5
I think our vocabulary has expanded quite suitably to meet the challenge.
And once informed, there really isn't an excuse, imo.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 19, 2017 19:01:32 GMT -5
I disagree. It's done no such thing.
If someone says they are "a man" or "a male" how does one know if that's a reference to gender or to sex?
|
|
|
Commuted!
Jan 19, 2017 19:05:21 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Rolling Thunder on Jan 19, 2017 19:05:21 GMT -5
/derail
Rob's take on archaeology is interesting though. In a thousand years any transgender dug up will likely be catalogued by sex via bone structure or DNA.
/End derail
|
|
|
Commuted!
Jan 19, 2017 19:15:56 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Christine on Jan 19, 2017 19:15:56 GMT -5
I disagree. It's done no such thing. If someone says they are "a man" or "a male" how does one know if that's a reference to gender or to sex? Assuming this actually happens in the course of a conversation between someone and one ... wait, are we talking speed dating? If so, one would definitely want clarification.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jan 19, 2017 19:32:15 GMT -5
I have thoughts on this subject, but the reason I haven't responded directly to your inferences about my intent (besides that on principle I dislike being hectored for what someone perceives as an infelicitous use of words) is that I'd prefer to frame them elsewhere, when and if I have the inclination, rather than in this thread where I have strong thoughts about Manning-the-data-dumping-jackhole that are completely separate from my thoughts about Manning's gender identity.
|
|
|
Commuted!
Jan 19, 2017 19:36:00 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Christine on Jan 19, 2017 19:36:00 GMT -5
Okie. Dokie.
|
|