Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?

[Luckmann]

This is remarkably alike to discussing racism.

 

White people (for the record, I am one) will just dismiss it altogether, acting as if bring it up is the problem.

 

And here we are having dudes ignoring somebody can be transgender just so they can have a *BLEEPING* limerick in the game. 'It's not intolerance'. Puhlease.

First, racism. Saying that white people can't be subjected to racism or will casually dismiss it is racism in itself. In fact, no other countries in the world save white ones obsess nearly as much over racism and racial tolerance.

 

Second, strawman. Nobody is ingoring that somebody can be transgendered (regardless as to whether that's an arguable point or not) by dismissing the twitter lunatic's claim of intolerance. Furthermore, suggesting that you cannot believe that people can be transgendered and also believe that the limerick is not offensive is a false dichotomy and patently false; there are transgendered persons that agree that the perpetually offended are being ridiculous.

 

 

 

If people can't see why the limerick is clearly transphobic (and misogynistic),

So, you're saying a fictional character in a fictional game isn't even fictionally free to prefer fictional women to fictional men.

 

... said absolutely no-one in the history of ever. Nice straw-man though.

 

I'll just repeat what has been repeated probably a million times by now, it's trans-misogynistic because it unfairly maligns an already historically-oppressed group, because it has absolutely no context other than to offend, that somehow, a "genetic" woman turned into a man is somehow shameful.

 

Except, to just repeat what has been repeated probably a million times by now, it does nothing even close to that. It doesn't malign anyone, whether "historically-oppressed" or not, nor does it have a context to offend, or suggest that a real woman turned into a man is shameful. What you are doing is called a windmill.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Luckmann

[Malcador]

I'll just repeat what has been repeated probably a million times by now, it's trans-misogynistic because it unfairly maligns an already historically-oppressed group, because it has absolutely no context other than to offend, that somehow, a "genetic" woman turned into a man is somehow shameful.

I just thought it was because the dude looked like a lady (dim lights I guess), rather than it being a gender change.

[achaye]

I'll just repeat what has been repeated probably a million times by now, it's trans-misogynistic because it unfairly maligns an already historically-oppressed group, because it has absolutely no context other than to offend, that somehow, a "genetic" woman turned into a man is somehow shameful.

Except, to just repeat what has been repeated probably a million times by now, it does nothing even close to that. It doesn't malign anyone, whether "historically-oppressed" or not, nor does it have a context to offend, or suggest that a real woman turned into a man is shameful. What you are doing is called a windmill.

 

Except, to just repeat what has been repeated probably a billion times by now, the author himself stated it was offensive. I'm only forced do to a "windmill" because apparently there is a need for constant reminders.

[Namutree]

 

 

Said person not even acknowledging the trans individual's identified female gender is.... not intolerance? 

Your confusing tolerance with acceptance. Here's an example:

 

BOB is intolerant.

 

MIKE isn't accepting.

 

JOE changes his name to JENNY and has a sex change operation.

 

JENNY tells MIKE that she was born a man.

 

MIKE: "You're still a man. Sorry, but no operation can make you a woman." MIKE walks away.

 

JENNY tells BOB she used to be a man.

 

BOB: "You disgusting me. You must be punished!" BOB then attempts to harm JENNY.

 

Understand the difference?

[Luckmann]

 

I'll just repeat what has been repeated probably a million times by now, it's trans-misogynistic because it unfairly maligns an already historically-oppressed group, because it has absolutely no context other than to offend, that somehow, a "genetic" woman turned into a man is somehow shameful.

I just thought it was because the dude looked like a lady (dim lights I guess), rather than it being a gender change.

 

 

I thought it was because he wasn't told, which is pretty damn reprehensible. I wouldn't kill myself if it happened, but I can't leave any guarantees for the state of the other dude in the morning. Has nothing to do with "trans-misogony".

 

 

 

I'll just repeat what has been repeated probably a million times by now, it's trans-misogynistic because it unfairly maligns an already historically-oppressed group, because it has absolutely no context other than to offend, that somehow, a "genetic" woman turned into a man is somehow shameful.

Except, to just repeat what has been repeated probably a million times by now, it does nothing even close to that. It doesn't malign anyone, whether "historically-oppressed" or not, nor does it have a context to offend, or suggest that a real woman turned into a man is shameful. What you are doing is called a windmill.

 

Except, to just repeat what has been repeated probably a billion times by now, the author himself stated it was offensive. I'm only forced do to a "windmill" because apparently there is a need for constant reminders.

 

That doesn't actually, y'know, change it or suddenly make it offensive. It just means that the author has bought into the idiocy.

 

And for reference, it is hilarious that you don't know what a windmill is in context. Sweet, even.

 

Your confusing tolerance with acceptance. Here's an example:

 

BOB is intolerant.

 

MIKE isn't accepting.

 

JOE changes his name to JENNY and has a sex change operation.

 

JENNY tells MIKE that she was born a man.

 

MIKE: "You're still a man. Sorry, but no operation can make you a woman." MIKE walks away.

 

JENNY tells BOB she used to be a man.

 

BOB: "You disgusting me. You must be punished!" BOB then attempts to harm JENNY.

 

Understand the difference?

I acknowledge physical truth and genetic reality. To social justice warriors everywhere, I am Satan, and unless I am accepting of every individual crazy person and mental issue's validity over science and reality, I'm being offensive, and should probably be murdered for not being tolerant enough.

 

It's a religion of intolerance and cognitive dissonance is one of the sacraments. You're not going to dissuade them with your fancy logic. I bet you're one of those bigoted STEM CIS rapelords.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Luckmann

[achaye]

Sorry to disappoint you, I know full well what a windmill is, and perhaps if you used it properly, it would actually make sense, rather than "what you're doing is called an imaginary obstacle," but I'm glad I got to give you a few moments of feeling smugly superior.

 

Hyperbole aside, it's funny that you would claim to accept "science and reality" over "every individual crazy person" only a page after I talked about androgen insensitivity syndrome, and how it's an actual living, breathing trans individual that made the complaint to Obsidian in the first place.

 

The poem is transphobic (and misogynistic) because it clearly disparages transsexuals as a whole, again, poking at the idea that a woman being a man is something to be ashamed of, and regardless of how you (undoubtedly a straight male) may think it in-offensive at all, that a trans individual found it offensive clearly refutes your point.

[Malcador]

It's misogynistic ? How so ? Don't think it's encouraging hatred of women. Really does seem like it's just the Aerosmith song

But oh well, some random prole on Twitter gets antsy about it and that's all is needed these days.

[achaye]

 

 Except, to just repeat what has been repeated probably a billion times by now, the author himself stated it was offensive. I'm only forced do to a "windmill" because apparently there is a need for constant reminders.

 

That doesn't actually, y'know, change it or suddenly make it offensive. It just means that the author has bought into the idiocy.

 

And for reference, it is hilarious that you don't know what a windmill is in context. Sweet, even.

 

 

I almost forgot to mention this gem. The author admits to his own work as being offensive, yet you brush it off completely; what sort of mental gymnastics is required for such a feat? Do you do this with others like Einstein, where, when he mentions "God does not play dice," you construe that as Einstein buying into the "idiocy" of quantum mechanics?

[Mungri]

I also lean more towards genetic and physical gender. Genuine intersex people are very rare, and simply dressing as the other gender doesn't change your genetics.

[Psychevore]

I also lean more towards genetic and physical gender. Genuine intersex people are very rare, and simply dressing as the other gender doesn't change your genetics.

Too simplistic, way too simplistic.

 

You can be born genetically a 'perfect' male, but be born with a female brain, or the other way around. This has to do with hormones released (or not released) during pregnancy (edit: by the mother), due to outside influences likes stress. The sex (SEX, people, not gender) of the body is determined way before the sex of the brain.

 

Then you are litterally stuck in the right body, while feeling like you're not.

 

On the opposite side of the spectrum: completely androgenic immune males, with a full immunity to testorone, will feel female, will act female, and will look female and they will never even question their sex. (until they try to get pregnant, which they can't) But technically, they are in the wrong body.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Psychevore

[Mungri]

There's actually nowhere near enough evidence to support the masculinized / feminised brain hypothesis. On a hormonal level, the natural hormonal balance in transgender people is not in anyway altered, hence why they still need hormonal therapy to assist with reversing their gender appearance.

[FlintlockJazz]

****, how the hell did I end up on BSN??  Damn, need to find the way out of this hellhole and back to civilised company.

[Psychevore]

There's actually nowhere near enough evidence to support the masculinized / feminised brain hypothesis. On a hormonal level, the natural hormonal balance in transgender people is not in anyway altered, hence why they still need hormonal therapy to assist with reversing their gender appearance.

Doh. Their bodies give the appropriate gender hormones for their bodies. Their brain wiring is different, but this has nothing to do with the hormones released by their bodies, which is appropriate for their genetic sex.

[BruceVC]

****, how the hell did I end up on BSN??  Damn, need to find the way out of this hellhole and back to civilised company.

 

Yet you still managed to comment on  this thread despite your annoyance ...weird one that. It obviously can't bother you that much

Edited April 14, 2015 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

 

 If people can't see why the limerick is clearly transphobic (and misogynistic),

 

So, you're saying a fictional character in a fictional game isn't even fictionally free to prefer fictional women to fictional men.

 

.

 

I'll just repeat what has been repeated probably a million times by now, it's trans-misogynistic because it unfairly maligns an already historically-oppressed group, because it has absolutely no context other than to offend, that somehow, a "genetic" woman turned into a man is somehow shameful.

 

 

This is in  essence is what the issue is for me, the person kills himself because he had sex with a transgender person. She would have looked like a women and had the physical characteristics of women so she would have had a vagina so the actual act of sex would have been normal but then the guy suddenly finds out  that she use to be a man and suddenly the mental image is enough for him to kill himself because of the " shame"

 

But he had no issue during the sex, so of course it is offensive

How would any  heterosexual  male feel if  a women killed herself after having sex with you ? How would you not be offended that just the physical act of consensual sex with you was enough to warrant suicide ?

Edited April 14, 2015 by BruceVC

[FlintlockJazz]

 

****, how the hell did I end up on BSN??  Damn, need to find the way out of this hellhole and back to civilised company.

 

Yet you still managed to comment on  this thread despite your annoyance ...weird one that. It obviously can't bother you that much

 

Annoyance?

[Amentep]

****, how the hell did I end up on BSN??  Damn, need to find the way out of this hellhole and back to civilised company.

 

There's only one way out.

 

Edited April 14, 2015 by Amentep

[FlintlockJazz]

 

 

There's only one way out.

 

 

Not sure even that would free me of the curse of BSN that seems to follow me around!!!

[Luckmann]

 

 

Except, to just repeat what has been repeated probably a billion times by now, the author himself stated it was offensive. I'm only forced do to a "windmill" because apparently there is a need for constant reminders.

That doesn't actually, y'know, change it or suddenly make it offensive. It just means that the author has bought into the idiocy.

 

And for reference, it is hilarious that you don't know what a windmill is in context. Sweet, even.

 

 

I almost forgot to mention this gem. The author admits to his own work as being offensive, yet you brush it off completely; what sort of mental gymnastics is required for such a feat? Do you do this with others like Einstein, where, when he mentions "God does not play dice," you construe that as Einstein buying into the "idiocy" of quantum mechanics?

 

If someone draws Muhammed, knowing that it will be offensive, does that make it offensive and thus validate the censorship of the work? Of course not. To misconstrue this into some argument relating to a quote by Albert Einstein and his comments on quantum mechanics is just childish. This is extra funny, because he never actually said that, but that is beside the point.

 

A more apt comparison would be if Darwin's studies would be prefaced with the quote of him realizing that many will be offended by his works. Would that mean that his works can be reasonably considered offensive? Of course not. I would say that he's buying into the idiocy of his contemporary religious communities.

 

I can say "Muhammed was a pedophile"; I know that could possibly offend people. It does not mean that I think that it is reasonable to be offended. The beliefs of the author is, in context, completely irrelevant. There are many great persons that I would laud in one way and call out in another. This is not mental gymnastics. It is consistency.

 

Sorry to disappoint you, I know full well what a windmill is, and perhaps if you used it properly, it would actually make sense, rather than "what you're doing is called an imaginary obstacle," but I'm glad I got to give you a few moments of feeling smugly superior.

 

Hyperbole aside, it's funny that you would claim to accept "science and reality" over "every individual crazy person" only a page after I talked about androgen insensitivity syndrome, and how it's an actual living, breathing trans individual that made the complaint to Obsidian in the first place.

 

The poem is transphobic (and misogynistic) because it clearly disparages transsexuals as a whole, again, poking at the idea that a woman being a man is something to be ashamed of, and regardless of how you (undoubtedly a straight male) may think it in-offensive at all, that a trans individual found it offensive clearly refutes your point.

 

You clearly did not, because you went on about constant reminders, when fighitng windmills is about creating imaginary targets and blowing them out of proportion.

 

You did mention Androgen insensitivity syndrome. I accept that that exists. This is not the same thing as accepting every individual crazy person's taken offence as valid. There is a marked difference between recognizing a disease or syndrome, and saying that society should be moulded after them. Just because something is a real thing does not mean that we all buy into their disorders or indulge them.

 

Schizophrenia can, amongst other things, result in the belief that you are something you are not. If you tell them that they're not, they are offended. They react, often violently or in an abusive manner (like the original twitter lunatics).

 

I recognize that schizophrenia is a real issue. It doesn't mean that I recognize their delusions as legitimate. No, you are not Napoleon and I'm not going to re-enact Waterloo. No, I'm not going to support your request to build a helicopter pad on your lawn with public funding because you think you're an Apache attack helicopter. And I'm not going to stop making innocent jokes because you think it's doing something it's not.

 

The poem isn't remotely transphobic, and I'm not even sure how you can overinterpret it to the point of being misogynistic. It doesn't disparage transexuals as a whole, and certainly not clearly. Nor does it poke at the idea that a woman being a man is something to be ashamed of. If there's anything it pokes at, it is the fact that a person was tricked into having intercourse with another person despite the fact that he clearly didn't want to have intercourse with this type of person; tantamount to rape, in my book. What happened to the issue of informed consent, was that just forgotten from one crusade to the next?

 

It is funny - not to mention somewhat offensive - that you would think me a straight male. "Undoubtedly", even, based solely on your bigoted and biased opinion - stereotyped, even, at the very least. The fact that you think that this somehow disqualifies me belies your disregard for argument rather than ad hominems. It matters more to you who said it, than what is said; somehow, one person's argument weighs more than someone elses, just because they're not part of a particular social, racial or economical clique.

 

That a person, whether "trans indivudal" or not, found it offensive does in no way clearly refute the point. The point being that it doesn't matter whether they're trans-, bi-, black-, white-, heli-, manoid-, proto-, germo-, whatever-whatever.  Your offence taken does not dictate policy. Anyone can be offended by anything. Christians are offended by gays. Blacks are offended by whites. Communists are offended by fascists. Retards are offended by jokes. Offended people are offended by other offended people.

 

It doesn't matter. "I'm offended"; well so bloody what?

Edited April 14, 2015 by Luckmann

[Malcador]

How would any  heterosexual  male feel if  a women killed herself after having sex with you ? How would you not be offended that just the physical act of consensual sex with you was enough to warrant suicide ?

Offended perhaps on a personal level. Wouldn't really see it as promoting hate of my $relevant_classification though.

[Serdan]

First, racism. Saying that white people can't be subjected to racism or will casually dismiss it is racism in itself.

You'd have a point if racism was defined simply as discrimination based on race. Most social justice advocates don't define it that way, so you're either ignorant of what the conversation is actually about or you're arguing in bad faith.

[Luckmann]

How would any  heterosexual  male feel if  a women killed herself after having sex with you ? How would you not be offended that just the physical act of consensual sex with you was enough to warrant suicide?

Honestly? Not that great. I'd worry how long it'd take before I was accused of rape.

 

In all seriousness though, on a personal level, insulted, of course, but if you make a joke about someone killing themselves because they slept with a man? Nothing. I'd feel nothing. Except joy, if the joke was funny, but all things being equal, let's just assume nothing.

 

 

First, racism. Saying that white people can't be subjected to racism or will casually dismiss it is racism in itself.

You'd have a point if racism was defined simply as discrimination based on race. Most social justice advocates don't define it that way, so you're either ignorant of what the conversation is actually about or you're arguing in bad faith.

 

"Most social justice advocates". And therein the issue lies, of course. Just because you want to redefine something so that it excludes whatever group you personally hate does not make it OK. Whites are subjected to racism, often systematic, institutional racism, every day, often under the guise of affirmative action and "reverse racism".

 

No group has a monopoly on victimization and any race can be the target of racism. Disregarding anyone out of hand based on who or what they are, instead of what they say or what they argue, is at the very core of the issue. Defending this behaviour just because someone shares the same clique as you is nothing short of hypocrisy.

 

"It's not racism when we do it". Classic. The target doesn't matter, and neither does the abuser. Abuse is abuse, racism is racism, and trying to pin all the faults in the world on a single boogey-man, the proverbial windmill, to absolve yourself of guilt, as a person or as a group, does nothing to resolve any issues anywhere. At best, it's perpetuated, at worst, it escalates due to reaction to baseless accusation.

 

It creates exactly the two-or-more camps that everyone purports to want to abolish or dissolve. Want to make a point? Argue based on merit and facts, not feelings and ad hominems. Anything else should be rightfully ridiculed.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Luckmann

[MLMII]

What the hells BruceVC, I've got the breath to waste at the moment. The reason that my quoting your post fits is it's a perfect example showing you making assumptions about a group of people; in this case the kinds of comments that you "are sure we will now hear". However, that wasn't the reason your reaction caught in my craw ... no I expect SJWs to come into these threads with at least as many assumptions and biases as they proclaim their dreaded foes to have ... the reason that your reaction struck a nerve is that it read to me as being self centered and focused on your narrative with Mungri being little more then a springboard for your own self importance.  

[MLMII]

Yeah, I don't get that statement either - regardless of what position the authors of the posts in this thread take, I've yet to encounter a single one accuse Firedorn or Obsidian of being transphobic (though truth be told, I have not read every single post in the thread).

 

What I have seen though are plenty of disturbing, clearly homophobic, misogynistic, or transphobic remarks throughout this thread and others, from posts whose authors may or may not consciously understand that such statements are homophobic, misogynistic, or transphobic.

 

Such discriminatory mindsets have as much to do with culture (certainly a force not lacking in homophobia and transphobia) as with ignorance. For example, I read in one of these threads where the author, whom I cannot remember, states that he (and it's almost certainly a he) only considers "genetic" females as females (that is, no Y chromosome, period), and continues on on how someone born "male" but identifying as "female" is unnatural. This completely undermines transsexual individuals and is a bigoted mindset, even if no ill-intent is on purpose. It's the same kind of reasoning that people used to think interracial marriage was "unnatural," or that women working rather than taking care of kids was "unnatural," or currently, that homosexuals are "unnatural."

 

Gender isn't as black-or-white (or more apt, male-or-female) as people think. The whole notion of genders, in fact, is actually pretty archaic. All I have to do to refute the author who opined that only "genetic" females are females is to tell him about androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS). People with this condition can be born "genetically" male (XY), but due to certain developmental quirks, their bodies do not respond to androgens, and have a range of female secondary sexual characteristics, ranging from a small amount to having full-blown female curvatures and fully-developed breasts.

 

This is why I am so vocal about these issues and am proud to be a SJW, a term I've only recently become aware of, thanks mostly to the GamerGate crowd (seriously, how can detractors think using such a term will be insulting? Who ISN'T for social justice? I guess homophobes and bigots in general). If people can't see why the limerick is clearly transphobic (and misogynistic), considering that things like AIS exist, then there is still much to be done to increase the awareness of the general public.

 

 

Ok .... and? I've been told that one of my cousins although born physically female has some odd genetic mutation where she has an odd combination of "XXYX" or the like. She became convinced that instead of a straight female she was meant to be a gay male; underwent a sex change and although still extremely depressive does seem to be at least somewhat happier with life as a result. ... And you know what? More power to her as far as I'm concern, I wish them nothing but the best in life. (The boyfriend is fully aware of my cousin's history as is proper.)

 

 

--- Now see, I relayed my cousin's story in an knowingly insensitive manner, using the pronoun that I grew up referring to my to cousin as opposed to the one that fits his current biological sex. Hells, even today I switch back and forth between the male and female pronoun; doesn't mean that my cousin doesn't have an open invitation to dinner when he is in my part of the country, provided that he doesn't try to bring that damnable purse dog into my house.  

 

 

 

 

Most awesome video I've seen in a while:

 

Wow Psychevore, that guy nailed it on so many levels it's unbelievable. I wonder what the transformative experience was for him to change his mind...

 

 

I was saying to Serdan how I spend most of my time on these forums on the Off-Topic where I try to raise issues around SJ and most of the time people aren't really that interested...so I  use to feel I was one of the few people who seemed to care. But after reading many of the comments in this  thread and others its been very reassuring to see there are many people who share my views and refuse to accept discrimination on these forums. So this entire discussion has been great

 

The only thing I do nowadays is I say " I care about SJ values " and not  " I'm a SJW ". They do basically mean the same thing but what I have noticed is  an immediate dismissive attitude if you say " SJW " because that has become a term to describe people who want to change everything that people claim to hold dear. And even though we shouldn't have to not use the term SJW its much easier to initiate dialogue if you just avoid that word. The discussion can be exactly the same and thats what matters to me, the discussion. Frankly I don't care what people want to call me, I just want to debate the issues I feel are relevant to achieve a more equitable and tolerant society 

 

I can empathize with you completely, it definitely takes a certain mindset to wade in the mud against numerous, extremely vocal "social injustice warriors", as PrimeJunta would call them, and stick around despite all the childish insults like "lunatic" or "loon" being tossed around, so it feels really nice to see others who care about the same cause. Like the guy in the video, I won't back down to intolerance if I see it, no matter how uncomfortable it may be. That the SIJWs would label people like us "babies" and "whiners" with no backbone, whilst hanging around in the relative safety of a game forum (which surely has far more like-minded SIJWs than other subgroups), is pure irony. I wonder how long they would last making comments at Jezebel or something like that, before they're viciously tore apart by the denizens that reside there.

 

EDIT: Regarding the insults, I find that if I simply engage them without lashing back with insults, they eventually back down and become more civil, and we can perhaps even get a conversation going. I mean, the start of this thread had a WHOLE lot of "feminazi," "idiot," "lunatic," and "crazy f***" thrown at anyone making any comment about social justice. Now, it's essentially gone, and I think part of it, besides perhaps threats by moderators to keep it civil, is that they know how ridiculous it looks when one side is making arguments that are mostly personal-insult-free, while the other side regurgitates tons of vitriol.

 

 

Umm ... unless you are being purposefully ironic here we just went through how many pages of SJWs calling anyone they disagreed with as bigots; or did my "homophobic bigotry" induce a state of delusion where I imagined all of that? 

 

 

 

"..intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices."

 

They're not being intolerant.

 

 

The author to which I refer does not even acknowledge the identified gender of trans individuals. How is this different than a person from the 1700s saying that black people weren't people, they're property? Even if that person harbored zero ill-will towards black people, it would still amount to 100% bigotry,

The notion that black people (or any people really) are property has severe legal consequences. The notion that homosexuality is "unnatural" does not have legal consequences.

 

 

because said person is completely intolerant to the idea that a black person can actually be a person, and not property. Back to the author, he is completely intolerant to the fact that a person born "genetically" as a male can still identify as a female, and vice versa.

Said person is not intolerant to the idea. They just don't accept it. Big difference.

 

Said person not even acknowledging the trans individual's identified female gender is.... not intolerance? That's news to me. How can you be tolerant of something that you do not even believe can exist? Not tolerating the fact that a XY trans individual can be considered female is the textbook definition of intolerance.

 

And something cannot be considered bigoted if there's no legal frameworks around it? You should tell that to the police officer during the Ferguson protests who called the protestors "f***cking animals."

 

 

 

Video wouldn't load for me so I can't hear the officer's actual words; if he was referring to the rioters as "animals" because they are black then yeah, that was most certainly racist on his part. However, if on the other hand he referred to the rioters as "animals" because they were looting and destroying and generally carrying on as such then it most likely wasn't racist at all, either way it's a bit of a moot point as I very much doubt anyone here knows the officer well enough to be able to peer into his heart and make a meaningful determination either way.

[Serdan]

Luckmann, you're barely coherent and you demonstrated no understanding of the subject.

I think I'll go do something more productive, like watching cat vids on youtube.