Slashdot Mirror

Ah, this tactic. The nice thing about this particular bullshit derailing tactic is that there's always someone else who's worse off, so you can use it to effectively stonewall any discussion of any social problem and make sure nothing gets done about any of them. The other nice thing is that - by definition - anyone who can actually talk about their problems is better off than someone who can't, so you can use it to stop anyone talking about issues that affect them.

It's a very convenient way of looking like you care about the poor, the disenfranchised, ... whilst you're actually making sure that nothing gets done to help them. Not very imaginative though; been done before a billion times.

Don't let inconvenient facts get in the way of your http://www.derailingfordummies.com/

10 points!

I'm not so sure that holding a different definition of the word "girl" than you do is really disrespectful. I get what you're saying but you've got to understand that to the population at large there is a difference between someone born biologically female and someone who surgically removed their genitals and started hormone therapy (or whatever other combination of measures you took to legally change your gender). For example, you never could and never will bear a child. Not that all women can, but they've generally got a higher likelihood of being able to do so. So people like to have different words for those different things. You've got to face the music, to Joe six-pack you're not a girl, you're a post-op transsexual.

I agree with everything you've said here. As I said, I don't think Vega was intending the language to be disrespectful or hurtful. Likewise, I understood exactly what she meant, and Vega was using an culturally-understood phrasing when said, "...she wasn't really a girl."

However, I think you raise the point I'm trying to make by saying, "Not that all women [can bear a child]..." The fact is, any individual definition of 'girl' (or 'boy') will ultimately boil down to "I knows it when I sees it," because there are so many edge cases: definitions of genetics get tricky with people who have XXY or XYY instead of XX or XY, definitions of childbearing get difficult (as you mention) with people who are infertile, definitions of how one was raised get confusing with trans people (and other definition-straddling or -crossing individuals), definitions based on appearance get muddled with anyone not confirming to strict gendered appearances (and people with AIS), etc, etc.

As such, what I'm putting forth is that it's most respectful to use someone's own self-identification when labeling someone a man or a woman.

I get what you're trying to say but I also feel like you're trying to strongarm others into changing the definitions of their words.

Oh, completely - I'm 100% trying to get people to change their definitions of 'man' and 'woman' (and 'boy' and 'girl' and so on and so forth). I'd like to think I'm trying to convince them rather than strongarm them, but I suppose that'd just be a different semantic argument. ::grin::

If somebody doesn't think you're "really a girl" and you take offense to that, you're just picking a fight over semantics. Go ahead and wait until they say something really inflammatory and hateful before you bust out the righteous indignation, you'll win more hearts and minds.

Well, definitions are important. I identify as a Jew, too, and I would be offended if someone else said I wasn't "really" a Jew because I don't observe the sabbath or keep kosher (or a number of other things...I said I was a Jew, not a particularly observant one). I don't think I was in the wrong (or, as a note to moderators, trolling...) when I said it's "...not generally considered respectful language [to say someone who is trans isn't "really" a girl]." You're right, I should wait until there's overt transphobia before being similarly divisive, butI don't think I was being righteously indignant in what I said. At least I certainly wasn't trying to be. But pointing out that I'll ruffle feathers by sticking up for myself doesn't mean I shouldn't.

-Trillian

(Obligatory acknowledgement that, yes, it's "just a joke" and, yes, I'm just over sensitive and taking things too personally.)

Trillian

I'd go with "you need to check your sense of humor".

(Obligatory acknowledgement that, yes, it's "just a joke" and, yes, I'm just over sensitive and taking things too personally.)

Trillian

I'd go with "you need to check your sense of humor".

I knew, coming into this thread, that the comments would just make me feel great, but I have a masochistic streak, so I did it anyway.

I don't know, MichaelSmith, if you intended your comment as tongue-in-cheek or not (giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume not) but - as a trans woman - I'm disappointed that the two moderations your post has received so far are 'Funny.' It's A) transphobic to assume MichaelSmith meant the comment as a joke and B) not particularly funny even if it was intended as a joke...

(Obligatory acknowledgement that, yes, it's "just a joke" and, yes, I'm just over sensitive and taking things too personally.)

Trillian

I knew, coming into this thread, that the comments would just make me feel great, but I have a masochistic streak, so I did it anyway.

I don't know, MichaelSmith, if you intended your comment as tongue-in-cheek or not (giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume not) but - as a trans woman - I'm disappointed that the two moderations your post has received so far are 'Funny.' It's A) transphobic to assume MichaelSmith meant the comment as a joke and B) not particularly funny even if it was intended as a joke...

(Obligatory acknowledgement that, yes, it's "just a joke" and, yes, I'm just over sensitive and taking things too personally.)

Trillian