|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 19, 2017 19:40:19 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, you'd definitely want clarification. Well it did just happen. Amadan referred to Chelsea Manning as a "he" right? Was that referencing sex or gender? You just said "transgendered women aren't men." Again, is that referencing sex or gender? You're assuming there should be perfect clarity here and I think that's simply not the case because we're using the same terms in different ways, based on information that everyone involved--whether participating or just listening--may not actually have. |
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jan 19, 2017 19:45:43 GMT -5
Technically speaking, I referred to Manning as a "he who became a she" - implying that the state of Manning's gender changed. I am aware that the way most transgender people put it, they didn't change gender, they "always were" the other gender. What I said may not conform to that framing, but it's not the same as deliberately calling someone who identifies as female a male, which I didn't do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2017 19:51:25 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.  Heh. Me too, for the most part. On boards where I am not a mod, I do report bona fide trolls; I think they're detrimental to a forum. But, yeah, I rarely touch the report post button -- certainly not for fellow members who simply piss me off or insult me. It's more fun to respond. That said, it's better to use the report post button (or the ignore button) than to break forum rules in responding. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2017 19:53:49 GMT -5
I'll be blunt and say I doubt Manning would have gotten nearly as much support, sympathy, and probably not a commuted sentence, if she'd stayed a he. The one thing I know for certain in all this " Oh, that's not what it means---This is what it means" serve-and-volley is it is unfortunate there doesn't seem to be a transgendered member of The Colline Gate who could speak from a position of knowledge on what this remark really means. The only one who can speak to what he really meant is Amadan. A transgendered person could speak to why the wording offended him or her, assuming it did. |
|
|
|
Commuted!
Jan 19, 2017 20:10:25 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Christine on Jan 19, 2017 20:10:25 GMT -5
Well it did just happen. Amadan referred to Chelsea Manning as a "he" right? Was that referencing sex or gender? You just said "transgendered women aren't men." Again, is that referencing sex or gender? You're assuming there should be perfect clarity here and I think that's simply not the case because we're using the same terms in different ways, based on information that everyone involved--whether participating or just listening--may not actually have. No, Amadan did not refer to Manning as "he." He properly (heh) referred to her as she, but stated she could have "stayed a he." This is clearly about gender, not sex organs. Manning has not had sex change surgery (as far as I know; it was approved by the powers that be in September 2016 but I don't think it's been done). And even so, as I've said, she is transgendered without any surgery. So the idea of her "staying a he" would have happened... when, exactly? ETA: and yes, I was referring to gender. Hence, the word transgendered. |
|
|
|
Commuted!
Jan 19, 2017 20:22:17 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Christine on Jan 19, 2017 20:22:17 GMT -5
Technically speaking, I referred to Manning as a "he who became a she" - implying that the state of Manning's gender changed. I am aware that the way most transgender people put it, they didn't change gender, they "always were" the other gender. What I said may not conform to that framing, but it's not the same as deliberately calling someone who identifies as female a male, which I didn't do. You said, "if she'd stayed a he." So... you just meant... she is transgendered. Not that he's should stay he's, not that she should reject her transgendered identity, not that it was a "choice" and certainly not that she opted for the "transgender" route to gain attention or sympathy or a commuted sentence.... right? |
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jan 19, 2017 20:46:20 GMT -5
You said, "if she'd stayed a he." So... you just meant... she is transgendered. Not that he's should stay he's, not that she should reject her transgendered identity, not that it was a "choice" and certainly not that she opted for the "transgender" route to gain attention or sympathy or a commuted sentence.... right? I didn't make any judgment about what people "should" do regarding their gender identity, and I very much doubt Manning was motivated by a desire to get a commuted sentence, thinking the President would be more sympathetic to someone transgendered. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2017 20:52:13 GMT -5
The only one who can speak to what he really meant is Amadan. A transgendered person could speak to why the wording offended him or her, assuming it did. Excuse me, and I don't mean to overlap, but there's another active thread in this same sub-forum where what I meant is in question and nobody's told me, "the only one who can speak to what he really meant is ohio49er." By your logic, no politician or celebrity or any other person making an offensive remark would have to apologize or even explain the remarks because only THEY know what they meant. How is anyone ever held accountable for what they say if the only authority is the person making the offending remark? Your words say exactly what Amadan said they said. One need not go into "intent." ETA: His statement involved half a dozen words ambiguous enough that they could potentially be read in a negative way -- or not. Yours involved a few paragraphs that used the words he said you used. |
|
|
|
Commuted!
Jan 19, 2017 20:53:04 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Christine on Jan 19, 2017 20:53:04 GMT -5
I didn't make any judgment about what people "should" do regarding their gender identity, and I very much doubt Manning was motivated by a desire to get a commuted sentence, thinking the President would be more sympathetic to someone transgendered. Well, good. The last thing I'll say (I swear) is, the suggestion that a transgendered person might have "stayed" in the gender/sex they were assigned at birth shows either a lack of empathy or a lack of understanding of transgendered people. If you weren't meaning that, well... I FORGIVE YOU. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2017 20:57:51 GMT -5
I will agree that the sentence could have been worded more sensitively.
|
|
|
|
Commuted!
Jan 19, 2017 21:07:06 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Christine on Jan 19, 2017 21:07:06 GMT -5
Excuse me, and I don't mean to overlap, but there's another active thread in this same sub-forum where what I meant is in question and nobody's told me, "the only one who can speak to what he really meant is ohio49er." By your logic, no politician or celebrity or any other person making an offensive remark would have to apologize or even explain the remarks because only THEY know what they meant. How is anyone ever held accountable for what they say if the only authority is the person making the offending remark? I must agree with this sentiment. I think it's really important to try to understand what someone is trying to say. But in the end, all you have are the words they've said. |
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 19, 2017 21:13:44 GMT -5
Excuse me, and I don't mean to overlap, but there's another active thread in this same sub-forum where what I meant is in question and nobody's told me, "the only one who can speak to what he really meant is ohio49er." Actually, I specifically asked you for further clarification in that thread of what you meant, and you have now provided that clarification. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2017 21:15:36 GMT -5
Excuse me, and I don't mean to overlap, but there's another active thread in this same sub-forum where what I meant is in question and nobody's told me, "the only one who can speak to what he really meant is ohio49er." By your logic, no politician or celebrity or any other person making an offensive remark would have to apologize or even explain the remarks because only THEY know what they meant. How is anyone ever held accountable for what they say if the only authority is the person making the offending remark? I must agree with this sentiment. I think it's really important to try to understand what someone is trying to say. But in the end, all you have are the words they've said. Agree all you like. As I said, criticizing the words is fine. I agree the statement could have been more sensitively stated. But reading "he hates transgender people and those words were intended to malign them" into those six words? No. Just no. |
|
|
|
Commuted!
Jan 19, 2017 21:21:18 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Christine on Jan 19, 2017 21:21:18 GMT -5
Agree all you like. As I said, criticizing the words is fine. I agree the statement could have been more sensitively stated. But reading "he hates transgender people and those words were intended to malign them" into those six words? No. Just no. Wait, what? I never took any of it to mean Amadan hates transgender people. To be honest, I feel like he "hates" Manning (for what she did), and the insensitive transgender remark was a reflection of that. ETA: A lot of people hate what she did. It's a valid perspective, imo. I don't know what to think about it, personally. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2017 21:28:51 GMT -5
Actually, intent is a critical element in many offenses; a judge would take it into account.
|
|
