Serious PC thread

[Moxie]

Lol! You’re caught in a logic trap of your own making. You know perfectly well why the question was asked. But I’ll leave it. It’s clear that you’re ducking. I can only hope you’re reflecting on this privately

It is unfair to claim that I knew "perfectly well" why the question was asked, when I asked for several clarifications. The leap in logic was yours. It's patently unfair debating to say I was "ducking."

 

[Kieran]

I think this issue refers to this passage where you compared the development of gender neutral terms with innovative gender ideological terms.

You know what "verbiage" means, and you described some yourself: "people with cervixes," and "pregnant people," I think were two of your examples. I am going to agree with you that some of that is a bit ridiculous, and bends itself over backwards to accommodate the very small minority of trans-men that may be pregnant. Let's face it: most people with cervixes consider themselves to be women, and most people who find themselves pregnant likewise consider themselves to be women. Sometimes language sensitivity tips a bit far, but language tends to settle on what works. As a counter to your language worries, consider this, (though I don't know how terms changed in Ireland, so you may not be able to answer in the way a man in the US would): some time in the 70s, we, in the US began to replace male-centric words with gender-neutral ones: "chairperson" for "chairman," "spokesperson" for "spokesman," etc. Those were good choices, in order to make women feel more included in the workplace, in particular, and went some way to aiding women. Did it "erase" men? It did not. Other terms that overreached, like "her-story" for "history" never caught on, which is all well and good.

These two things are not the same, because the effect of gender neutral terms is to more accurately present a picture.

The effect of innovative gender ideological terms such as ‘people with cervixes’ is to smuggle in a lie which tells us that there are people without cervixes who are also women…

 

[Federberg]

You are a putz if you don't take me at my word, or see the leap of logic in your own post, and then lay it on me. Read your words.

Putz.. lol! I’m pretty sure you’re smart enough to see the similarity. But I applaud your evasion. Let’s move on.

 

[Kieran]

I'm sad that you guys have taken over this thread like the last one. So convinced by your own points. So uninterested in real conversation.

Stop blaming us when you keep replying to us. We are having ‘real conversation’ and to be completely frank, you’re not. You’re evasive and squirmy because you know your leftist position is not on solid ground. You really should question your side of the aisle some time. You’d all be doing yourselves a favour if you tested the truth of your more outlandish propositions. You’d all be more honest, for a start…

 

[Moxie]

Putz.. lol! I’m pretty sure you’re smart enough to see the similarity. But I applaud your evasion. Let’s move on.

I changed my post, but you are being a putz. You assume that I saw your point, but refuse to believe that I, in earnest, didn't. So you just, basically, called me a liar.

I've been begging for us to not discuss this on this thread for many posts now, so I'm happy to move on.

 

[Moxie]

I think this issue refers to this passage where you compared the development of gender neutral terms with innovative gender ideological terms.


These two things are not the same, because the effect of gender neutral terms is to more accurately present a picture.

The effect of innovative gender ideological terms such as ‘people with cervixes’ is to smuggle in a lie which tells us that there are people without cervixes who are also women…

FFS, you can't even accept when I agree with you, which I did there.

 

[Kieran]

FFS, you can't even accept when I agree with you, which I did there.

You didn’t agree with me. You compared the ridiculous misuse of language by gender ideologists in order to push their lies, with a reasonable attempt to use language in a way that’s more inclusive…

 

[Moxie]

Stop blaming us when you keep replying to us. We are having ‘real conversation’ and to be completely frank, you’re not. You’re evasive and squirmy because you know your leftist position is not on solid ground. You really should question your side of the aisle some time. You’d all be doing yourselves a favour if you tested the truth of your more outlandish propositions. You’d all be more honest, for a start…

Stop telling me my motivation for asking you all to stop. And stop telling me my "leftist" position. Or how I should question my own opinions. I could ask you to question yours, as it begins to tie in with what we call the radical right, in this country. It's not a decent conversation, it's a blame-fest. I'm with Federberg, and myself, frankly...I think we should move on.

 

[Moxie]

You didn’t agree with me. You compared the ridiculous misuse of language by gender ideologists in order to push their lies, with a reasonable attempt to use language in a way that’s more inclusive…

Why do I even try?

 

[Kieran]

Why do I even try?

Listen, read your passage again. You make a comparison between ideological hustling and the use of terms such as chairperson. I know in broad terms you can claim you’re saying that language evolves and the more ridiculous terms get thrown out. I know this. But we’re not facing a natural evolution of language here. We’re facing an ideological revolution which wants to change the meaning and truth of words, which is not the same thing…

 

[Moxie]

Listen, read your passage again. You make a comparison between ideological hustling and the use of terms such as chairperson. I know in broad terms you can claim you’re saying that language evolves and the more ridiculous terms get thrown out. I know this. But we’re not facing a natural evolution of language here. We’re facing an ideological revolution which wants to change the meaning and truth of words, which is not the same thing…

i read it again. I think you read it wrong. I was making every effort to understand your position. To concede on things, to find common ground. To find certain things ridiculous. This is why I get frustrated. I feel like you and Federberg deliberately misread me as you assume what my position is. No matter what I say, you tell me off for being a liberal, and negate any common ground I find.

 

[Kieran]

i read it again. I think you read it wrong. I was making every effort to understand your position. To concede on things, to find common ground. To find certain things ridiculous. This is why I get frustrated. I feel like you and Federberg deliberately misread me as you assume what my position is. No matter what I say, you tell me off for being a liberal, and negate any common ground I find.

I’m not deliberately misreading you. The use of gender ideological terms is not the same as the use of terms like chairperson. Believe me, we agree that language evolves. We agree on that.

But this isn’t an example of language evolving. This is the part we don’t agree on. Gender ideological terms are clearly a part of a push to change the meaning of words and to normalise lies. Evolution happens naturally, but revolutions are planned…

 

[Federberg]

I’m not deliberately misreading you. The use of gender ideological terms is not the same as the use of terms like chairperson. Believe me, we agree that language evolves. We agree on that.

But this isn’t an example of language evolving. This is the part we don’t agree on. Gender ideological terms are clearly a part of a push to change the meaning of words and to normalise lies. Evolution happens naturally, but revolutions are planned…

Is it possible she’s so indoctrinated in this she doesn’t see the difference? It’s amazing

 

[Moxie]

I’m not deliberately misreading you. The use of gender ideological terms is not the same as the use of terms like chairperson. Believe me, we agree that language evolves. We agree on that.

But this isn’t an example of language evolving. This is the part we don’t agree on. Gender ideological terms are clearly a part of a push to change the meaning of words and to normalise lies. Evolution happens naturally, but revolutions are planned…

Well, I hope you can agree that you misread me, when I was trying to find common ground.

Also, if you look back at that post, I said that I think language will have its way. It's unlikely to be persuaded. Even in such Orwellian language as "collateral damage" for human deaths in war, we now know the truth of it, and no one is deceived. My point is that I think this particular language movement is less a "revolution" or even an evolution as much as a fad. We'll find our way to what really works and makes sense.

 

[Moxie]

Is it possible she’s so indoctrinated in this she doesn’t see the difference? It’s amazing

Didn't your mother ever tell you not to speak of a anyone in the 3rd person in their presence?

 

[Kieran]

Well, I hope you can agree that you misread me, when I was trying to find common ground.

Also, if you look back at that post, I said that I think language will have its way. It's unlikely to be persuaded. Even in such Orwellian language as "collateral damage" for human deaths in war, we now know the truth of it, and no one is deceived. My point is that I think this particular language movement is less a "revolution" or even an evolution as much as a fad. We'll find our way to what really works and makes sense.

I certainly think you were trying to make common ground, but at the cost of asking me to believe that what gender ideologists were doing with language is the same as how language has always naturally evolved. It isn’t. Do you see that?

 

[Federberg]

Didn't your mother ever tell you not to speak of an anyone in the 3rd person in their presence?

Why bother when you’re intentionally evading and constantly claiming victimhood. It’s rather pathetic. Nothing wrong with differing views but engage honestly instead of all the obfuscation. Anyway it’s fairly evident the reason you’re doing because you know your argument isn’t rational.

 

[Moxie]

Why bother when you’re intentionally evading and constantly claiming victimhood. It’s rather pathetic. Nothing wrong with differing views but engage honestly instead of all the obfuscation. Anyway it’s fairly evident the reason you’re doing because you know your argument isn’t rational.

Can't even offer you a joke. This is why I don't want to play you you guys any more. Every response comes with an insult from you, FB. Tired of the BS.

 

[Federberg]

Can't even offer you a joke. This is why I don't want to play you you guys any more. Every response comes with an insult from you, FB. Tired of the BS.

You call me a putz then joke and I’m supposed to vibe with you?

 

[Moxie]

I certainly think you were trying to make common ground, but at the cost of asking me to believe that what gender ideologists were doing with language is the same as how language has always naturally evolved. It isn’t. Do you see that?

I see that it worries you. I'm just saying I don't think this stuff will hold water over time. Because I think it's too stupid. Too awkward and over-determined. (The language bit.) Language won't be bent beyond what people will accept. You can't completely "ideologize" language. It tends to find its own water level, in the mouth and in the mind. I think that before too long, we'll go back to having about the normal amount of trans people that we've always had, (and this does go back millennia,) and we'll stop thinking about it so much. We'll have another issue.