For Your Consideration... On Debate

Jamie Stick wrote: But what should I think and feel when the debate is on a topic that directly affects me or the ones I love? How should I feel when people voice their belief that I don't belong in a woman's bathroom ...

or that youre inherently culpable for the decisions of the entire history of civilization because of the color of your skin?

you specifically asked the forum how you should feel about an issue, but if i had to guess, my guess would be that youre not even slightly interested in any feedback that doesnt affirm your own presuppositions, and would either resent it or just dismiss it out of hand

i could be wrong, i suppose we are about to find out

what i do when i see that there is a public campaign to promote ideas that i consider dangerous to society, contrary to my own interests, or both, is to make it a priority to openly speak my own views as articulately as possible, to present myself as reasonable as i am able to (not that i do always) and to keep up with the conversation within the venues that i care about

to the best of my ability, i address every new idea or accusation in a coherent and meticulous manner, and i make an effort to do it from a place of thoughtfulness and objectivity, rather than one of melodramatic hostility

thats what I endeavor to do, and its what i would suggest you (and everyone else) endeavor to do as well

Jamie Stick wrote: or worse, that I am not a woman? Suddenly it doesn't strike me as a friendly debate among peers, but a grave threat to my existence and a desperate need to defend my very right to it.

someone actually physically murdering you is not at all the same as someone believing or expressing an opinion that is contrary to your own on the topic of gender dysphoria

saying that "you are not a woman" definitely challenges the world view that you want to promote, and it might even threaten your personal belief structure if they can make a case that is really convincing

but it does not actually threaten your existence - thats so dramatic and illogical
certainly this assertion is consistent with a popular stereotype about women lol but i dont think thats what you were going for

the internet has allowed our cultural dialogue to progress rapidly, but the fundamentals of good judgement are the same now as they ever were, and this comment shows that you dont apply them to your conclusions or your assertions

you make false connections and then use them to create ideological battle lines from whence you can claim all on the other side to be either villains or fools

the irony is that it is a particularly foolish kind of villainy to view the world with such poorly reasoned hostility, and even worse yet to recruit others into choosing sides under such terms

Jamie Stick wrote: Concept adapted from this blog entry (not my blog).

yea and heres another thing, your "sources" are trash lol

yet another rant from yet another angry, self righteous, racist ideologue

the person is talking as if they themselves have personally experienced all of the most very extreme form of every kind of bias that exist

they claim a mantle of victimhood to which they are not entitled and then label everyone who has a view contrary to their own as a tyrannical oppressor

theres no nuance of understanding here, there is just an angry simplification, which in my opinion is motivated much more by the desire to frame the world in good guy vs bad guy terms in order to show ones own goodness by firing a salvo at the bad guy

it seems that you deliberately seek out the most inflammatory and resentful people that you can find and then present them as if they are the examples of wisdom and insight that the rest of the world should follow

the funny thing is that this person sounds just like every left leaning, intellectual white male under the age of 25 to access the internet lol

petulant, smug, entitled, full of social criticisms, and yet completely useless as a model for actually resolving any kind of real issues, because its not really about resolving issues, its just a chance to feel superior by throwing a tantrum at how evil the enemy is and how good they are for not abiding it

to say the least, it isnt helpful

J. K. Barger wrote: This thread is a prime example of why I don't visit the forums often.

Instead of complaining about it, improve it.

Rosalyn J wrote: Jamie are you saying that as a trans individual you might be labeled with a mental health disorder? That is not without precident. I believe that Transgender (I forget what term was used) was a part of the DSM III and only recently removed (DSMIV-TR) but my facts may be wrong. There is a very real possibility that individuals are still working under that paradigm.

Indeed, it's no longer identified as a mental disorder, called gender identity disorder (GID), but rather gender dysphoria. So, for people not to recognize it as not a mental disorder is a smack in the face and is still dangerous. Our minds are only as malleable as we allow them to be, so for a staunch supporter of treating trans* people as a subhuman species, it would be easy to play on others' fears about the trans* community by demonizing, mischaracterizing, and belittling. Weak minds are playthings for those who would take advantage. We are still people and deserve the same respect as any other person, regardless of anybody's preconceived notions.

Luthien wrote:

Rosalyn J wrote: Jamie are you saying that as a trans individual you might be labeled with a mental health disorder? That is not without precident. I believe that Transgender (I forget what term was used) was a part of the DSM III and only recently removed (DSMIV-TR) but my facts may be wrong. There is a very real possibility that individuals are still working under that paradigm.

Indeed, it's no longer identified as a mental disorder, called gender identity disorder (GID), but rather gender dysphoria. So, for people not to recognize it as not a mental disorder is a smack in the face and is still dangerous. Our minds are only as malleable as we allow them to be, so for a staunch supporter of treating trans* people as a subhuman species, it would be easy to play on others' fears about the trans* community by demonizing, mischaracterizing, and belittling. Weak minds are playthings for those who would take advantage. We are still people and deserve the same respect as any other person, regardless of anybody's preconceived notions.

first, i do not personally say that it is a mental disorder - i want to state that explicitly so that people do not misunderstand what follows

believing and suggesting that being transgender is a mental disorder is not the same thing as believing or suggesting that trans people are sub-human or should be physically assaulted, or even that they dotn have every right to be transgender

i do understand that trans people face a lot of hostility, but society is not going to simply adopt a new view "just because"

whatever changes happen are going to come as a result of ongoing dialogue between interested parties, and the conversation needs to be allowed to happen as openly and candidly as possible

as difficult as it is, that means that the greater burden of maturity and logic rests with the transgender community, and those sympathetic to your cause (which i consider myself to be btw)

just because some of the people who speak against the trans community are belligerent, intolerant and/or ignorant, doesnt mean either that 1) trans people, as the minority group who wants to be understood and accepted, should also present themselves as being belligerent and intolerant or 2) that everyone with an opposing view is a bad person who wants to cause trans people harm

for a person who is trying to deciede what they believe there are arguments on both sides of the issue

actually i say. "both sides" as if there are only two possible ways to understand it and i dont know that is true

im not attemlting to minimize the actual discrimination that exists, im only saying be precise and rational

labeling everyone as either evil or stupid just because they havent come to the conclusions you want them to isnt really accurate and it does not help your case or cause at all

thats all im saying
maybe no one wants to hear it though
so, if someone responds to me directly i will continue dialogue with that person

otherwise i will step back for a bit so as not to "be the loudest voice"

OB1Shinobi wrote:
to the best of my ability, i address every new idea or accusation in a coherent and meticulous manner, and i make an effort to do it from a place of thoughtfulness and objectivity, rather than one of melodramatic hostility

Yes, your exhaustingly long diatribes are always free of melodrama and hostility, carefully reasoned and well-argued. Okay. :whistle:

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Jamie Stick wrote: or worse, that I am not a woman? Suddenly it doesn't strike me as a friendly debate among peers, but a grave threat to my existence and a desperate need to defend my very right to it.

someone actually physically murdering you is not at all the same as someone believing or expressing an opinion that is contrary to your own on the topic of gender dysphoria

saying that "you are not a woman" definitely challenges the world view that you want to promote, and it might even threaten your personal belief structure if they can make a case that is really convincing

but it does not actually threaten your existence - thats so dramatic and illogical

You're conflating. Y'all gotta stop doing that.

My claim was not that denying who I am, my reality, is the same as murdering me. I claimed that denying who I am, my reality, makes me feel unsafe and makes me feel as though there's a real threat to my existence at play. That was my claim. Please don't get confused simply for the sake of trying to be right.

OB1Shinobi wrote: the internet has allowed our cultural dialogue to progress rapidly, but the fundamentals of good judgement are the same now as they ever were, and this comment shows that you dont apply them to your conclusions or your assertionsp

I would hardly consider you to be a good judge of the fundamentals.

OB1Shinobi wrote: the irony is that it is a particularly foolish kind of villainy to view the world with such poorly reasoned hostility, and even worse yet to recruit others into choosing sides under such terms

Why then do you persist to debate this way?

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Jamie Stick wrote: Concept adapted from this blog entry (not my blog).

yea and heres another thing, your "sources" are trash lol

Yet again you have conflated and misconstrued this as me claiming it was a source in the sense of the research aid or source from which I cite as credibility when in fact the reason I even included that line and link was to give credit to the author because to write what I wrote without crediting them for the original could be construed as rude or even plagiarism. You'll note, if you take a second to actually read what I wrote rather than just reading to respond, that I said, "concept adapted from (link)" as opposed to something like, "Source" or "Citations" or "References" as I would in an academic paper.

OB1Shinobi wrote: to say the least, it isnt helpful

What isn't helpful is your persistent need to interject a long and tiresome rebuttal appealing to logic and reason (without using a shred of it), demeaning the person you're critiquing as idealogues who are irrational, melodramatic, or hostile (or perhaps all three), and doing so repeatedly without giving a second thought to whether what you have to say is relevant or warranted.




We can continue this contest in every thread I post until the day one of us stops coming here or, y'know, maybe we could actually have a discussion some time.

Addendum: and for the record, I consider it the right of the oppressed to respond to their oppressors with equal or greater violence for the purpose of defense and liberation.

J. K. Barger wrote: This thread is a prime example of why I don't visit the forums often. :sick: :sick: :sick:

The fact that people disrespect me and treat my life as an opinion makes me not want to visit the forums often either.

OB1Shinobi wrote: believing and suggesting that being transgender is a mental disorder is not the same thing as believing or suggesting that trans people are sub-human or should be physically assaulted, or even that they dotn have every right to be transgender

i do understand that trans people face a lot of hostility, but society is not going to simply adopt a new view "just because"

I wasn't equating the two things. Please re-read what I said. My point was that people, in general, treat others as sub-human when they believe they are broken or mentally disturbed. Throughout history, when society views a group of people as a sub-class, they tend to mistreat and abuse the group because they can get away with it by any flimsy excuse they can conjure up.

OB1Shinobi wrote: whatever changes happen are going to come as a result of ongoing dialogue between interested parties, and the conversation needs to be allowed to happen as openly and candidly as possible

I agree with this, but remember that in order for a dialogue to happen, there needs to be some basic level of respect between those having the dialogue, otherwise one part of the dialogue ceases to want to further discussing it. In other words, if I feel disrespected by another person, I definitely don't want to continue talking to them.

OB1Shinobi wrote: as difficult as it is, that means that the greater burden of maturity and logic rests with the transgender community, and those sympathetic to your cause (which i consider myself to be btw)

just because some of the people who speak against the trans community are belligerent, intolerant and/or ignorant, doesnt mean either that 1) trans people, as the minority group who wants to be understood and accepted, should also present themselves as being belligerent and intolerant or 2) that everyone with an opposing view is a bad person who wants to cause trans people harm

And, as difficult as it is, it's not necessarily the words being spoken, but mostly in the attitude of those involved in the discussion. If one side is putting up walls and throwing spears, one is either left with staying to fight, or leaving. That's not to say that I think you were doing anything of the sort; I'm speaking in generalities, rather than specifics, because I'm not trying to single anybody out, here.

OB1Shinobi wrote: for a person who is trying to deciede what they believe there are arguments on both sides of the issue

actually i say. "both sides" as if there are only two possible ways to understand it and i dont know that is true

im not attemlting to minimize the actual discrimination that exists, im only saying be precise and rational

labeling everyone as either evil or stupid just because they havent come to the conclusions you want them to isnt really accurate and it does not help your case or cause at all

Have I labeled anybody? I don't recall ever labeling anybody as evil or stupid. Am I missing something, here?

I shall never seek so much to be consoled as to console;
To be understood as to understand;
To be loved as to love;
For it is in giving that we receive;
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned;

I think we could spend another 10 or 20 post pages discussing who is right and who is wrong, and we will get nowhere, but if I am not mistaken that was not the intent of the original post. If anything, it feels to me as the point of the original post was proven: debate is upheld as a maxim, sometimes at the expense of empathy.

So how about instead of debating whether or not someone has a right to feel unsafe, we simply show support?

Jamie Stick wrote: I claimed that denying who I am, my reality, makes me feel unsafe and makes me feel as though there's a real threat to my existence at play. That was my claim.

that might be what you [/i]meant[/i] to say Jamie, and it might even be what you should have said, but what you actually said was

Jamie Stick wrote: ...when people voice their belief that ... I am not a woman... it doesn't strike me as a friendly debate among peers, but a grave threat to my existence...

its not conflating if a reader assumes that you literally mean exactly what you say, its just basic reading

the next thing i would point out is that a person might feel as though any number of things

one might feel as thoughthere are government agents watching over their every move, but when a person feels as though something is true, when that things isnt really true, you might say they have conflated their own imagination with reality

OB1Shinobi wrote: it seems that you deliberately seek out the most inflammatory and resentful people that you can find and then present them as if they are the examples of wisdom and insight that the rest of the world should follow

had to repeat that cause it was the important part - you focused on everything but this, but its my own fault, i should have put more emphasis on it

Jamie Stick wrote:

Attachment h445680d.gif not found

your post didnt really have any substance to it - it was basically "you conflate" and "you dont understand" but you felt as though a mic drop was warranted

Jamie Stick wrote: We can continue this contest in every thread I post until the day one of us stops coming here or, y'know, maybe we could actually have a discussion some time.

well i can think of a couple of times that i have tried and the result was basically "im not going to talk to you."

in fairness, its tough when two people disagree as much as we do about as much as we do, especially when they both have a habit of being condescending and dismissive

this has been a genuine attempt but the topic is not all that clear i think, so i may not have much more to say here

Jamie Stick wrote: Addendum: and for the record, I consider it the right of the oppressed to respond to their oppressors with equal or greater violence for the purpose of defense and liberation.

im not sure why this is relevant to the points that i raised
are you saying that you feel as though it is appropriate to use violence against people who think that sex is binary?

or that you think its ok to use violence against against people who dont think a biological male should be allowed in a womans restroom?

the take-home idea i am attempting to get across to you is that you give the impression - every time ive read anything youve said, actually- of being an ideological extremist, who jumps to the most radical conclusions possible in any given subject

youre talking about violence against your oppressors - i was talking about the difference between feeling unsafe because someone has a contrary view of gender dysphoria and actually being unsafe

can you see why a reader might draw the conclusions ive mentioned to you?

things like public bathroom usage are new to the public consciousness, and it takes time to get these ideas sorted out

it seems obvious to you that society needs to change itself around to suit your needs and your demands, but to the rest of society, exactly how much change is appropriate isnt always so obvious

if you talk like a crazy person then the natural result is that people are going to associate craziness with transgenders, and its going to be because of their direct observation, rather than only pure ignorance or assumption

there wasnt really anything else in your response, so...

Luthien wrote: Have I labeled anybody? I don't recall ever labeling anybody as evil or stupid. Am I missing something, here?

no, you didnt label anyone in your post

i wasnt trying ot put words in your mouth and i basically agree with everything youve said here, and also much of what you say generally

peace!