• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Trans Rights Are Human Rights

Status
Not open for further replies.

Punji

Vaskebjørn
Would like to say actions speak louder than words (especially in the year 2021). So actions should also come under scrutiny, as well as language used. One isn't more important to analyse than the other, though. Both should be taken into account.

In the age of the internet, I can only say I hope you don't think lesser of anybody based on their identity and hope what you say rings true. I just have trust issues...mostly permeating from experiences in this fandom.
Well words seem to be more moving than anything else right now, might as make sure we're all on the same foot. :p What more can one do now anyway, beyond words?

I sure don't, you yourself might even know that. Or perhaps have an inkling of it. However there are a lot of people guilty of this in other ways we're not necessarily talking about right now.
 

ASTA

Former Trash Man
Cis people never have to justify or explain why they are cis, and why they deserve to be, and society's willingness to recognize their rights or humanity do not hinge on their ability to craft such arguments.

That's because they can't. For the US at least, you're asking a bunch of retail workers, truck drivers, and food service personnel to articulate well-defined and researched justifications for why they do not suffer from gender dysphoria, why they "deserve to be cisgendered" (whatever the fuck this even means), or why their humanity should should be honored due to their gender identity.

As far as they're concerned, every person that they run into is either a man/boy or a woman/girl due to the various physical markers that denote the female and male human sex. That's how it is in their local communites and workplaces, that's how it was for their ancestors, and that's likely how it's going to at least be until they die.

Have you ever attempted to strike up even the most generic "intellectual" conversation with some of these people? They're going to look at you like you're from an entirely different planet the very moment you open your mouth.

This is what I mean when I say that FAF is packed to the absolute rafters with socially maladjusted people. Many of you are so incredibly solipsistic and detached from everyday mundane reality that you legitimately think that Joe Davis the local Walmart deli clerk actually gives two flying fucks about the evolution of language or gender pronouns.
 

quoting_mungo

Well-Known Member
I think you mean the term 'homo'. Homosexual is an accurate descriptor of same-sex attraction. Just like homoromantic if someone is not interested in sexual relations with someone of the same gender as them.

I don't think 'homosexual' is or should be rejected. But there are many terms that have been rejected and reclaimed by the gay community. If anything, having the word 'homosexual' be recognised as a legitimate thing was a major step forward.
I think it’s context-dependent, and the document linked (which appears to be a “how to approach queer people as a member of the health care system” document of some sort) isn’t going very deeply into context for any of the terms. Using “homosexual” as a noun doesn’t seem to be popular among the gay people I’ve seen mention it, for instance, and it’s definitely the kind of term whose loading may vary widely from country to country.

(Moving away from specifically addressing KD’s point from here on)
Another important point in regards to language that hasn’t much been touched on in the thread is that “it’s acceptable in academic language” doesn’t say much about loading in common parlance. Academia has a spoken ideal of objectivity (which is sometimes so much bullshit, but that’s a different matter), and as such words that in other contexts would have fairly heavy loading can be relatively neutral.

It’s a sad fact of life that language semi-frequently gets co-opted by bad actors who proceed to twist the meaning of words in ways that often have pretty far-reaching consequences. Sometimes it’s possible and reasonable to push back and say “no, you can’t have this word,” but a lot of the time that’s varying degrees of impossible. Ignoring who has dragged a term into more common usage and what their motivations for doing so are/may be is bound to make you look like an ass. Doesn’t have to mean you are one, but that’s why listening is important.

There’s also a lot of things that sound like supportive or equal at first blush, that really aren’t. Sweden used to require that trans* people get sterilized before they could change their legal gender marker. It didn’t really seem like a big deal to me when I first learned of it; “these people will be getting rid of their gonads anyway in the process of surgical transition, right?” Except it’s not the government’s call to make. Except there’s a (world) history of forced sterilization for, among other people, queer folks. So in the end something that to someone who hasn’t thought a lot about it seems innocuous was actually... not so much.
 

Miles Marsalis

The Last DJ.
That's because they can't. For the US at least, you're asking a bunch of retail workers, truck drivers, and food service personnel to articulate well-defined and researched justifications for why they do not suffer from gender dysphoria, why they "deserve to be cisgendered" (whatever the fuck this even means), or why their humanity should should be honored due to their gender identity.

As far as they're concerned, every person that they run into is either a man/boy or a woman/girl due to the various physical markers that denote the female and male human sex. That's how it is in their local communites and workplaces, that's how it was for their ancestors, and that's likely how it's going to at least be until they die.

Have you ever attempted to strike up even the most generic "intellectual" conversation with some of these people? They're going to look at you like you're from an entirely different planet the very moment you open your mouth.

This is what I mean when I say that FAF is packed to the absolute rafters with socially maladjusted people. Many of you are so incredibly solipsistic and detached from everyday mundane reality that you legitimately think that Joe Davis the local Walmart deli clerk actually gives two flying fucks about the evolution of language or gender pronouns.
I think it's a canard to frame this as having started on over mere misunderstandings about the evolution of language and gender pronouns. Looking at the transphobic comments made at the beginning these threads, the comment concerned nothing so high-minded. Centrally, it's about why a small subset of users seem to constantly feel the need to stick noses into trans pride and make comments that are, by the objective measure of the mods, transphobic.

As an aside, I know people who are and have been retail workers, truck drivers, and food service workers; they have brains and can understand the concept of being polite to trans people along with basic gender theory. Most of the country does in fact, especially people in our generation. It is disservice to cast these as not being understanding these concepts and as ignorant.
 

Attaman

"I say we forget this business and run."
This is what I mean when I say that FAF is packed to the absolute rafters with socially maladjusted people. Many of you are so incredibly solipsistic and detached from everyday mundane reality that you legitimately think that Joe Davis the local Walmart deli clerk actually gives two flying fucks about the evolution of language or gender pronouns.
Fun fact: When I worked retail (Grocery, specifically), there was a stretch for about two years where the store manager was transgender individual.

The manager never shared as much out loud. We all knew because, when the previous manager announced they were changing stores and who their replacement was to be, the Meat Manager (having heard it from other Managers, elsewhere in the company) threw a giant fit and loudly proclaimed that they "Cannot and will not" work with [I leave what they called said manager to your imagination]. The previous store manager, presented with as much, spilled the beans about this immediately (also having been made aware, with again the person in question not being the sort who makes public knowledge of as much). The Deli Manager, a woman old enough to be my mother (with a decade or two to spare) butted in to say "This literally does not matter anything whatsoever about our jobs, grow up." Shortly after the meeting, another department manager shared their opinion that the validity of somebody's trans- status depends entirely on whether they're pre- or post-op.

This was around, approximately, 2017. And again: All of the above was set off by others elsewhere in the company blabbing. It was a multiple store thing. And it continued on and off in the background every couple of months when one bothered to listen.

The general public has more formulated thoughts on the matter and its nuances than many people want to give credit. Enough to have opinions on things like the importance of transitional surgery, whether somebody being trans - in and of itself - is a mark against their character, whether a coworker / manager being trans has any relevance whatsoever to performing one's job or any of the workers' business to dig into, to discuss it on and off like a well beaten horse over a span of multiple years without prompting, etcetera.
 

Troj

Your Friendly Neighborhood Dino Therapist
That's because they can't. For the US at least, you're asking a bunch of retail workers, truck drivers, and food service personnel to articulate well-defined and researched justifications for why they do not suffer from gender dysphoria, why they "deserve to be cisgendered" (whatever the fuck this even means), or why their humanity should should be honored due to their gender identity.

As far as they're concerned, every person that they run into is either a man/boy or a woman/girl due to the various physical markers that denote the female and male human sex. That's how it is in their local communites and workplaces, that's how it was for their ancestors, and that's likely how it's going to at least be until they die.

Have you ever attempted to strike up even the most generic "intellectual" conversation with some of these people? They're going to look at you like you're from an entirely different planet the very moment you open your mouth.

This is what I mean when I say that FAF is packed to the absolute rafters with socially maladjusted people. Many of you are so incredibly solipsistic and detached from everyday mundane reality that you legitimately think that Joe Davis the local Walmart deli clerk actually gives two flying fucks about the evolution of language or gender pronouns.

That these admittedly-complicated concepts could indeed be conveyed more clearly and more simply than they often are and that ignorance is too often read as hostility are valid points. Ditto the observation that some people dive too deeply into their own navel, and can get too obsessed with every little facet of their identity.

My original point remains that cis-het people can, if they choose, go their entire lives without reflecting on these things, and they'll be no worse for wear. Most LGBTQ people don't have that luxury.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
We should remember that lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people exist everywhere.

It's a normal part of human variation. Just watch Tiger King on Netflix and you'll see that there's gay and trans folk living their lives even in the middle of 'bum-fuck Oklahoma'.
 

Miles Marsalis

The Last DJ.
Very well then, let's focus on this. Homosexual is the most neutral and accurate term available. One would have to be trying to be offended by it. I agree with KD's opinion, the fact that a neutral and appropriate word even exists to describe it without negative connotations ought to be enough.

And if "homosexual" is offensive then why isn't "heterosexual?" "Homo" and "hetero" are terms which exist outside of sexuality as well, where they were originally taken from. As I'm sure you know they simply mean "same" and different" respectively.

The healthcare card is silly, because if the terms used to describe what is listed are bad, why is my sex listed at all? It's a foolish double standard where the information is important and needs to be listed, yet the most accurate and neutral phrases to describe my biological sex are supposedly deemed inappropriate. Comical!
Not to butt up against @KD142000 , whom I mostly agree, but he may not be familiar with the derogatory connotations homosexual can have here in America; he is English and UK has been somewhat better about gay rights than the US. The "homosexual agenda" is immediate example that comes to mind about how the term is used negatively, particularly in conservative media.

As for the healthcare card issue, people's biological sex tends to be noted public and private health system databases in most Western countries, which negates the need for biological sex to displayed on the healthcare card or benefits card. As you should, legally in the United States and other developed countries, gender is a distinct status separate from sex, so it is a little facile to sweat having the biological sex of someone on the card in the first place. Most medical professionals don't really object to not having on the healthcare card; they can refer to the patient database and most likely a patient will tell them their biological sex to avoid procedural mistakes. Your government adopts and outlines this approach, medical professionals approve of this approach, and experts more qualified than you and I have recommended this approach, so your objections don't really have a leg to stand on.

Not this is central to the core issue here in any way.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Regarding the whole 'ism' thing, politicians often slap 'ism' on the end of something to make it sound like it's a scary ideological movement.
It evokes something of the same feeling people have towards 'Bolshevism', 'Communism'

If a politician referred to 'Homosexualism', then I'd be like 'Oh brother here we go'.
You'll often also see politicians who want to pass laws unfriendly to gay people will describe our sexuality as a 'lifestyle choice', because a lot of anti-gay people think that being gay is a choice that people can reverse.

Hey I live in bum-fuck Oklahoma!

I think they should try to make this the state's official name. ;D
 

Punji

Vaskebjørn
Not to butt up against KD142000, whom I mostly agree, but he may not be familiar with the derogatory connotations homosexual can have here in America; he is English and UK has been somewhat better about gay rights than the US. The "homosexual agenda" is immediate example that comes to mind about how the term is used negatively, particularly in conservative media.

As for the healthcare card issue, people's biological sex tends to be noted public and private health system databases in most Western countries, which negates the need for biological sex to displayed on the healthcare card or benefits card. As you should, legally in the United States and other developed countries, gender is a distinct status separate from sex, so it is a little facile to sweat having the biological sex of someone on the card in the first place. Most medical professionals don't really object to not having on the healthcare card; they can refer to the patient database and most likely a patient will tell them their biological sex to avoid procedural mistakes. Your government adopts and outlines this approach, medical professionals approve of this approach, and experts more qualified than you and I have recommended this approach, so your objections don't really have a leg to stand on.

Not this is central to the core issue here in any way.
Meh. Not like the term "straight agenda" hasn't been used before as well. Trying to "convert" or suppress homosexuality in media and whatever not. It's the "agenda" part that is the problem here, not the homosexual.

I disagree. The listed sex helps protect my identity, should someone come to Canada for free healthcare and steal my card. They at least have to be male to not instantly set off some alarms. Same thing why sex is listed on various licences as well.

Tisk tisk Miles, there's that tone again. I'm no fan of yours either but we can at least be polite.

And if this isn't a big deal to you either, why are you addressing it specifically then, and nothing else I've said, hmmm? The behaviours and attempts to dictate neutral language is the problem here. My healthcare card is just an example of the hypocrisy on display when people try too hard to appease.
 

Troj

Your Friendly Neighborhood Dino Therapist
Meh. Not like the term "straight agenda" hasn't been used before as well. Trying to "convert" or suppress homosexuality in media and whatever not. It's the "agenda" part that is the problem here, not the homosexual.

The straight agenda has historically been the default societal agenda, and has also historically been far from benign or neutral, as evidenced by the countless efforts to actively suppress all knowledge and recognition of LGBTQ people and their concerns. LGBTQ people asking for that basic recognition, respect, and decency has been referred to darkly as "The Gay Agenda" or "The Trans Agenda."

As for ID cards, medical files, and the like, it behooves us to ask ourselves:
  • What pieces of information are important or necessary
  • Why they are important or necessary
  • The pros and cons of including or excluding certain pieces of information, or organizing or presenting them in certain ways.
  • If there are other signifiers or pieces of information that can do the job equally well, or even, do it better.
 

Lucyfur

United forever in friendship and labour
Banned
If a word is used in a negative connotation by those who oppress or would seek to oppress the minority then it doesn't matter if you the speaker from outside that minority view it as a neutral word.
You as the speaker if not a bigot or holding phobic sentiments towards that group should be able to swallow that word down and pick a new one.

This is to say when many people say "transgenderism" is not the best word to use when speaking on a topic if you arent a transphobe because it is a red flag and is used predominantly by transphobes to make being trans into sounding like a belief rather than the scientifically backed reality that it is.

TLDR;
Listen to the minority group that you are talking about.
 

Miles Marsalis

The Last DJ.
I'll play along here, though Troj has framed my thoughts about the "heterosexual agenda" better than I could. I would note that you will hear far more complaining about the "homosexual agenda" than the "heterosexual agenda" and only one of those credibly can be claimed to exist.
And if this isn't a big deal to you either, why are you addressing it specifically then, and nothing else I've said, hmmm? The behaviours and attempts to dictate neutral language is the problem here. My healthcare card is just an example of the hypocrisy on display when people try too hard to appease.
I mean, the disrespect to the trans users here is a big deal to me. Truthfully too, I'm kind of fed with people who style themselves as hard-nosed pragmatists trying to get trans people to tone their rhetoric and accept the disrespect thrown at them along with diminished rights when in actuality they are cultural warriors worse than the social justice warriors they decry and are so wrapped with beating up on trans people and other minorities, they'll let the demagogues they follow run the country into the ground.

I disagree. The listed sex helps protect my identity, should someone come to Canada for free healthcare and steal my card. They at least have to be male to not instantly set off some alarms. Same thing why sex is listed on various licences as well.
Putting the aside the absurdity the scenario, your sex would be confirmed when your healthcare card number was validated by your healthcare provider at the time of service ... by the database I mentioned previously.

It also follows that if sex is not listed on your card, but can validated independently, that would be make your information and access to healthcare more secure, not less.
Tisk tisk Miles, there's that tone again. I'm no fan of yours either but we can at least be polite.
I am mostly , but now is a little late to be panning for politeness.
 

Punji

Vaskebjørn
The straight agenda has historically been the default societal agenda, and has also historically been far from benign or neutral, as evidenced by the countless efforts to actively suppress all knowledge and recognition of LGBTQ people and their concerns. LGBTQ people asking for that basic recognition, respect, and decency has been referred to darkly as "The Gay Agenda" or "The Trans Agenda."

As for ID cards, medical files, and the like, it behooves us to ask ourselves:
  • What pieces of information are important or necessary
  • Why they are important or necessary
  • The pros and cons of including or excluding certain pieces of information, or organizing or presenting them in certain ways.
  • If there are other signifiers or pieces of information that can do the job equally well, or even, do it better.
I honestly just doubt society overall gives enough of a shit about sexuality to make it a priority. Maybe once everyone ran out of things to complain about they realized gay people exist and complained about them. The "gay agenda" is obviously not just about being fairly treated and you know it. Those who use the phase genuinely aren't the ones who want legal marriage. It's the ones fretting about homosexuality in media.

As above it is already important. And if there are other pieces of information to be included, they should be. On my licences it lists my birthday, height and weight, sex, and hair and eye colour. Sex is one of the most stable and constant things for the vast majority of people and can't overlooked as an identifying quality. Thus it's listed in spite of the stupid thing saying biological sex is inappropriate.

Man these goalposts sure did shift, huh? Anything to attack me with I guess.

I'll play along here, though Troj has framed my thoughts about the "heterosexual agenda" better than I could. I would note that you will hear far more complaining about the "homosexual agenda" than the "heterosexual agenda" and only one of those credibly can be claimed to exist.

I mean, the disrespect to the trans users here is a big deal to me. Truthfully too, I'm kind of fed with people who style themselves as hard-nosed pragmatists trying to get trans people to tone their rhetoric and accept the disrespect thrown at them along with diminished rights when in actuality they are cultural warriors worse than the social justice warriors they decry and are so wrapped with beating up on trans people and other minorities, they'll let the demagogues they follow run the country into the ground.


Putting the aside the absurdity the scenario, your sex would be confirmed when your healthcare card number was validated by your healthcare provider at the time of service ... by the database I mentioned previously.

It also follows that if sex is not listed on your card, but can validated independently, that would be make your information and access to healthcare more secure, not less.

I am mostly , but now is a little late to be panning for politeness.
This honestly depends entirely upon who one spends his time with, no? Surround yourself with pissed off people and you'll hear a lot about what it is they might not like. I've heard both phrases enough. Neither is at all credible.

Yes, exactly my point! The disrespect here is entirely aimed at the people for their behaviours and not because of their trans status. Act in an unpleasant way to strangers on the Internet and they'll not show respect in turn. It has literally nothing to do with idenities or any of the nonsense you're pulling out for your ears. You're defending the people and ideologies you like blindly and your slippery slope would have us all believe not putting up with toxic behaviours on the Internet in a place where transgender people are totally supported by close to if not literally everyone will result in allowing violence and demeaning behaviours against them. Insanity.

Yes, as would my name and birthday. Why would they put anything on that card at all when they only need the number? Because it's much more difficult to fake them when the information is written in both places. With just a number one can replicate a card much easier, but if they come in and that card doesn't say exactly what is listed in the database they won't get access to the healthcare.

Is it really so absurd? Canada, a nation with free healthcare paid for by the citizens' taxes, shares a vast border with a nation which routinely bankrupts its citizens through healthcare costs. You can easily see the motive here.

I have been polite and nice to you this entire time, joking in response to your attempts at insult. Responding in kind would not be unexpected and isn't saving you any face by refusing. I'm, how you say, "offering an out."

If a word is used in a negative connotation by those who oppress or would seek to oppress the minority then it doesn't matter if you the speaker from outside that minority view it as a neutral word.
You as the speaker if not a bigot or holding phobic sentiments towards that group should be able to swallow that word down and pick a new one.

This is to say when many people say "transgenderism" is not the best word to use when speaking on a topic if you arent a transphobe because it is a red flag and is used predominantly by transphobes to make being trans into sounding like a belief rather than the scientifically backed reality that it is.

TLDR;
Listen to the minority group that you are talking about.
Big red flag is right. Censoring entirely accurate and neutral language just because some people don't like it is foolhardy and morally dubious.
 

mangomango

Well-Known Chee
Big red flag is right. Censoring entirely accurate and neutral language just because some people don't like it is foolhardy and morally dubious.
I'm sure this has already been said so I'll keep it pretty brief. A few things:
1. It's not really censorship, it's asking to refrain from using certain words or use a synonym in place of them.
2. Just because language may seem neutral or accurate to you doesn't mean that others are okay with it - everyone has their own opinions and experiences.
3. Even if you don't see the point of using one word over the other, it takes next to no effort to switch to the words that people prefer you use. Obviously you can't be forced to do it, nor should anyone force you, but it's just a kind thing to do. Having respect for people and their preferences after they've asked you multiple times to respect them is a decent way to treat people.
 

Attaman

"I say we forget this business and run."
I would like to, once again, remind people that when somebody crawls out of their pit to spew "dEbATe mE", and has already shown that even if decisively, undeniably beaten they will simply go
We cannot ever prevent all crime, while we should still try and no, it's obviously not good to have even a 2% rate, the reality of the situation is that there is always going to be a baseline.
AKA "So what? There will always be some level of crime / violence / oppression / intolerance, we just have to accept that it'll happen"

That the proper response is to slap them on ignore and let them scream at clouds until the end of times. Particularly relevant when they start turning their arguments, once again, into "You're prettier more fun to talk with when you smile more use nice words".
 

Lucyfur

United forever in friendship and labour
Banned
@Punji I don’t know if it is your inability to grasp what was said and that it wasn’t censorship but a recommendation that when a marginalized oppressed group says “hey that word is used in this manner so it isn’t actually neutral like you think so maybe choose a different synonymous word” that maybe you should reconsider and think “well dang I don’t want to opt the language of their oppressors and sound like a bigot maybe I’ll use different words.”

though I don’t know what I honestly expect from you tbh considering you claim leftist views but based on your views in the thoughts on drugs thread you definitely curve quite right, and well the company that you keep and defends you also doesn’t really help your case in being obtuse and stubborn on this topic.
 

KD142000

Leather-clad Lobo
Not to butt up against @KD142000 , whom I mostly agree, but he may not be familiar with the derogatory connotations homosexual can have here in America; he is English and UK has been somewhat better about gay rights than the US. The "homosexual agenda" is immediate example that comes to mind about how the term is used negatively, particularly in conservative media.
I'd like to let you know, I've read this. And I read similar, last night. When you're ready to speak to me about the issues I might face as a member of the gay community in the UK, amongst other things, I am here.

For right now, I'll let the US people talk about it, since it seems I'm not quite wanted in this conversation and it only seems to be about the American side of LGBT rights cos apparently, we Brits got it all sorted out.
 
D

Deleted member 111470

Guest
Ah, so now I am an enemy of lgbt people if I use the word "homosexual" because somehow someone somewhere might get offended.

You know, I come from a country where the word "gay" is used as a synonym of "faggot" and both are almost always used to humiliate and insult people regardless of their sexual preference. In my mind, "homosexual" sounds like a perfectly fine word to use instead of the one mentioned above. I guess I should have known that no world exists outside of the US.

I mean... Well done. You have defeated homophobia and transphobia. The world is safe now. You can go and get some well deserved rest.
 

Punji

Vaskebjørn
I'm sure this has already been said so I'll keep it pretty brief. A few things:
1. It's not really censorship, it's asking to refrain from using certain words or use a synonym in place of them.
2. Just because language may seem neutral or accurate to you doesn't mean that others are okay with it - everyone has their own opinions and experiences.
3. Even if you don't see the point of using one word over the other, it takes next to no effort to switch to the words that people prefer you use. Obviously you can't be forced to do it, nor should anyone force you, but it's just a kind thing to do. Having respect for people and their preferences after they've asked you multiple times to respect them is a decent way to treat people.
1. Censorship is perhaps a strong word for it. However it's still trying to restrict vocabulary on the basis of opinion.

2. This is absolutely fair. However, this is often held at a double-standard, where it's okay with some but not okay with others, but is expected to be removed at the whim of those who don't like it.

3. Again, that's totally fair. The problem with "transgenderism," assuming this is the word in question, is that there isn't really a synonym for it. What it describes is concept, with all our other similar words relating to individuals or similar concepts. Trans/transgender refers to the gender identity but not the concept of it.

I've been asked to respect other's opinions on the word through disrespectful ways. As I've said previously if in a private conversation one asked me not to use the word that's easy enough, but it's not practical to avoid it's use in public discussions when no harm is meant by it.

@Meeeeeeeee again I don’t know if it is your inability to grasp what was said and that it wasn’t censorship but a recommendation that when a marginalized oppressed group says “hey that word is used in this manner so it isn’t actually neutral like you think so maybe choose a different synonymous word” that maybe you should reconsider and think “well dang I don’t want to opt the language of their oppressors and sound like a bigot maybe I’ll use different words.”

though I don’t know what I honestly expect from you tbh considering you claim leftist views but based on your views in the thoughts on drugs thread you definitely curve quite right, and well the company that you keep and defends you also doesn’t really help your case in being obtuse and stubborn on this topic.
You and I both know it's meant as something a little bit stronger than a "recommendation."

As above there are no feasible synonyms for "transgenderism." Any word can be used in harmful ways, we can't just stop using them whenever someone gets upset with it when the base meaning of the word is not harmful.

No politics allowed, judging me off of an incorrectly inferred political belief is mighty hypocritical of you Lucy. I don't think you know much of the company I keep, only with whom I expressly don't. Please refrain from the personal attacks, unless you'd care to make it a date and take things elsewhere.

I would like to, once again, remind people that when somebody crawls out of their pit to spew "dEbATe mE", and has already shown that even if decisively, undeniably beaten they will simply go

AKA "So what? There will always be some level of crime / violence / oppression / intolerance, we just have to accept that it'll happen"

That the proper response is to slap them on ignore and let them scream at clouds until the end of times. Particularly relevant when they start turning their arguments, once again, into "You're prettier more fun to talk with when you smile more use nice words".
CoC 2.4 says "hello." I'm not going to report anything here, yet, but I'm pretty confident it'd be a safe bet.

If you're willing to be reasonable with me for a few posts we can actually talk about a few things. If not, let's just agree to leave each other alone.
 

Miles Marsalis

The Last DJ.
This honestly depends entirely upon who one spends his time with, no? Surround yourself with pissed off people and you'll hear a lot about what it is they might not like. I've heard both phrases enough. Neither is at all credible.

Yes, exactly my point! The disrespect here is entirely aimed at the people for their behaviours and not because of their trans status. Act in an unpleasant way to strangers on the Internet and they'll not show respect in turn. It has literally nothing to do with idenities or any of the nonsense you're pulling out for your ears. You're defending the people and ideologies you like blindly and your slippery slope would have us all believe not putting up with toxic behaviours on the Internet in a place where transgender people are totally supported by close to if not literally everyone will result in allowing violence and demeaning behaviours against them. Insanity.

Yes, as would my name and birthday. Why would they put anything on that card at all when they only need the number? Because it's much more difficult to fake them when the information is written in both places. With just a number one can replicate a card much easier, but if they come in and that card doesn't say exactly what is listed in the database they won't get access to the healthcare.

Is it really so absurd? Canada, a nation with free healthcare paid for by the citizens' taxes, shares a vast border with a nation which routinely bankrupts its citizens through healthcare costs. You can easily see the motive here.

I have been polite and nice to you this entire time, joking in response to your attempts at insult. Responding in kind would not be unexpected and isn't saving you any face by refusing. I'm, how you say, "offering an out."
I think you shouldn't try to condescend when you are clearly in the wrong and don't what you're talking about.

Punji, the healthcare card serves as initial identification for you, which you may be to use to identify yourself in other legal contexts like if a law enforcement officer asked for identification or you needed to provide several piece of identification as points of identification for a legal document like a passport.

The number on your healthcare card provides a reference for your file in the medical database, which has all of the identifying information (birth date, sex, gender, address) and your medical history. As long as information is the database, they can verify who you are, probably more so than with your card since they can ask you to verify information about your medical history, which an improbable imposter is unlikely to know.

Also, think about what you said for a moment. If your healthcare card just had your verification number on it, it would be harder for an imposter to assume your identity for healthcare services, wouldn't it? Just like how it would be harder for this imposter to impersonate you if your sex isn't listed, though you could have an obviously masculine name.

Furthermore, foreigners have access the Canadian healthcare system, though depending on the services it may not be fully covered and prescreening would out anyone trying to engage in fraud. This is your healthcare system, so you should be familiar with this.
 

Lucyfur

United forever in friendship and labour
Banned
@Punji lol okay if you want you can use the language of transphobes like the company that has defended you that you consort with I won’t stop you but it does the opposite of dispelling the perception that you like them are a transphobe.
 

mangomango

Well-Known Chee
1. Censorship is perhaps a strong word for it. However it's still trying to restrict vocabulary on the basis of opinion.

2. This is absolutely fair. However, this is often held at a double-standard, where it's okay with some but not okay with others, but is expected to be removed at the whim of those who don't like it.

3. Again, that's totally fair. The problem with "transgenderism," assuming this is the word in question, is that there isn't really a synonym for it. What it describes is concept, with all our other similar words relating to individuals or similar concepts. Trans/transgender refers to the gender identity but not the concept of it.

I've been asked to respect other's opinions on the word through disrespectful ways. As I've said previously if in a private conversation one asked me not to use the word that's easy enough, but it's not practical to avoid it's use in public discussions when no harm is meant by it.
I feel like a suitable synonym could be something like "being transgender" or just refer to gender identity, "trans people" could also fit in some of the situations. Also something like "the trans community"

For example, instead of something like "Transgenderism is...", you could say "Being transgender is..." or "Trans gender identities are..."
I'm sure other people on the forums also have usable alternatives and synonyms they would be willing to share.
 

Miles Marsalis

The Last DJ.
Ah, so now I am an enemy of lgbt people if I use the word "homosexual" because somehow someone somewhere might get offended.

You know, I come from a country where the word "gay" is used as a synonym of "faggot" and both are almost always used to humiliate and insult people regardless of their sexual preference. In my mind, "homosexual" sounds like a perfectly fine word to use instead of the one mentioned above. I guess I should have known that no world exists outside of the US.

I mean... Well done. You have defeated homophobia and transphobia. The world is safe now. You can go and get some well deserved rest.
I can freely acknowledge that the word homosexual carries different levels of offense here as opposed to elsewhere, I feel other also know better as well. That isn't main crux of the issue here, though, as I've said respectfully.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top