Recent posts by biguglyorc on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
To confirm my position that I was actually “finished” w/ our discussion, I went back and reread some of those points of yours.

Don’t misunderstand me – if you’re finished, you’re finished, but if you actually took the time to reread some parts of this discussion, you could’ve also spent some on reading my arguments or questions. You completely ignored them, and from my point of view at least, that’s the main reason why any of this can be called “merry-go-round”, if you insist on such phrasing.
Likewise, I’ve never claimed that:

The point you are failing to present is that this minority are the ppl in charge of that society.
Not in the paragraph you’re quoting, nor anywhere else.

Originally posted by TheBSG:
Can we take a moment to appreciate how presumptuous I’m being that you’re white, male, and almost necessarily living in America?

Yes, BSG… Let’s take a moment to appreciate how inaccurate you are in flailing about remarks as stupid as this one. 1/3, keep shooting. I’m afraid you’ll need to get on a horse higher than that to look down on me.

Flag Post

Topic: Gravitee Wars Online / Suggestions megathread

I kinda don’t like it that you get just 20 gravitons for a won match. Not with items in store worth thousands. Is campaign 4 really worth 375 gold medals…?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
My thought, throughout this discussion, is that you were thinking all of society should be (forced?) to share it.

The “forced” part in this context is interesting, because it also refers to restrictions of a language. One is “forced” to conjugate “properly”, after all: “properly” being “in accordance with said language’s rules and principles”. If one doesn’t conjugate properly, they can be misunderstood, and they break the principles of that language. By using a language, you agree to its restrictions and principles, so it isn’t as much as “being forced to” but “signing an agreement” – that’s why people try to speak like others.

That’s why:

I’ll even go so far as to agree that there would likely be this negative reaction. But, this doesn’t mean that I think that reaction is reasonable and just.
it is about “sanctity” of a language, in a way.
In modern English, there are eight personal (nominative) pronouns: I, you (singular), he, she, it, we, you (plural), they. What each of them describes is obvious now, however it wasn’t as obvious back in the day. Important political/religious figures used to address themselves in first plural person to emphasise their importance, status, superiority over others: “we, the King”, “we, the Pope”; it worked both ways – a lowly peasant couldn’t address the king as “you, the King”, but “His Royal Majesty, the King” (“Your Majesty” is a modern shortcut): back then, it wasn’t as simple as stating the titles once and then cutting it to more understandable “you” (or “thou”, “thee”, etc.), one had to address the king in third person whilst talking to him. Only other – acknowledged – kings could address their equivalents more freely, as equals. Consequently, the Pope was always above any kings, and the latter had to address him as “His Holiness”.

Such formalities aren’t very visible now, in modern English (mostly due to its progressive bastardisation: colonialism and globalisation are having their dues paid) – you can only emphasise your respect for someone by adding “sir”, “madame”, “mister”, when addressing them. They are, however, required in other languages: in French, you address a respected person as “vous” – which also stands for plural “you”, with verbs conjugated the same (as opposed to singular “tu” with different conjugation); in German, it’s “Sie”, capital “S” – “sie” stands for “they”, and the verbs coming after either of these are conjugated the same – it’s similar with other Romance and Germanic languages; in most (to my knowledge – all) Slavic languages, a single respected person is addressed with a combination of a descriptive/titular noun preceding a third person verb (“you, Mr. Johnson, are…” re-translated literally would be “you, Mr. Johnson, is…”; saying “you, Mr. Johnson, are…” literally is usually disrespectful), while a group of respected people needs to be addressed as various plural counterparts of “misters” and “madames” considered a “group” English just doesn’t have an equivalent for.

Also, fun fact – Soviet communism, being a prime example of devastation Newspeak can lay to a language, introduced a new pronoun/apostrophe to address a notable activist, translated as “you (plural), comrade” when referring to a single person – it’s more a title than it is a pronoun as such, but in Slavic languages the line is a bit blurry there – I hope you see why.

Anyway, the problem with transgenderist pronouns is still hypothetical, since they just aren’t used by the public. I think the above should make a good reason for special caution when introducing them: that’s why someone unbiased and knowledgeable in the field should do it, e.g. professional philologists; it is not as simple as “hey, let’s call them however they want to be called”. The instances of “special pronouns” are rare, and usually made to show one’s superiority over another.

Maybe this group is a very small percentage of society; making your concerns for society as a whole somewhat moot?

The problem is, pronouns are not a part of legalese: “she” or “he” are not defined legally, people use them as common sense tells them to, even if they appear in legal acts. I honestly don’t know how transgenderists formulate their legal issues, however if they do so using such vocabulary as I linked two posts ago, it’s a legal problem. And, by extension, if it’s a legal problem, it’s a problem for society to redefine everything, to let common sense go (because that’s changed, too) and support every word with a legal definition. English as a language soaks up such changes extremely easily compared to other languages.

I don’t agree w/ your efforts to think society should agree w/ you
Sure, I take it.
Absolutely it is about frequency – along w/ the degrees of it. Only those “purists” for the sanctity of our lexicon should have any interest in any additions (likely NOT “changes”) to any parts of our informal terminology.
BigO, I’m simply not able to understand your “neutral” angst over this.
Well, I don’t know if that news has made its way to the States, but here you have an example of a bearded woman that had her (quote from Wikipedia: “Neuwirth describes himself as a gay man and uses female pronouns to describe his Wurst character, but male pronouns when referring to himself.”) five minutes of fame in Europe. The public were torn here, as Conchita won the Eurovision contest, mainly for political reasons.

Wurst also officially admitted that it was a political statement:

Conchita had a simpler message at the press conference following her win: “This project is based on tolerance, acceptance and love.” Although she later admitted she had Russian President Vladimir Putin “among others” in mind with her performances.

I’m sorry that you are yet to grasp a concept that I’ve made abundantly clear. I’m NOT wanting to “coin half a pronoun”.
Never said you were. I was explaining to you why I was being black-or-white on this.
But, such evaluations are highly subjective. Ergo, I’ve lost interest in/am also tired of playing this game.
I tried to tell you that two pages ago, here:
Originally posted by biguglyorc:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
First: read BSG’s profile. That alone should give ya an insight about what I’m talking about in the area of “being outside of the norm”.

Yes, I know who he is.

Either way, let’s leave any possible clarifications to him, if he deems them necessary.

I’m getting a bit tired of having to explain my views.
Interestingly enough, YOU DON’T HAVE TO.
And, any such refusal should be seen (by us?) as you having lost the argument and/or that we have “won” it.
You seeing a topic like this as winnable or losable is the reason why I said it in the first place, karma. There isn’t one solution to it, you’ve agreed with me there – please, let’s act like it.
I don’t mind questions or constructive critique (I actually enjoy that), but the last several posts are neither, so if you guys want to keep it on such track, I’d rather we all returned to the topic of Newspeak (if you feel it needs that) or whatever was being discussed before screening me.
Likely, from what I can see, neither does anyone else [want to talk about Newspeak].
“If you feel it needs that”. You don’t. Fine.
I’m also adamantly challenging your positions that there are any real, large, or damaging effects from the efforts to address a minor part of society.
Hope this post and the one on the word cisgender have covered it. They aren’t damaging as such, but largely problematic for those familiar with dangers coming with messing around with a language like that (links provided before).
You think we should accept your views as being valid without you telling us/EXPLAINING why they are?
Nope. Which is why I engaged in explaining them. I see a difference, however, between explaining the reasoning behind bringing up Newspeak and explaining my views. You confronting my views with yours over the last two or three posts prior to this one was the reason why I said that. No offence intended here, but you know you often come off as aggressive, regardless of what your intentions are. The first few posts of yours addressing me in this thread and this one I’m replying to right now are, however, a really valuable argument to the contrary – I, again, thank you for the effort.

Originally posted by TheBSG:
Yeah, I’m not playing that game.
Originally posted by TheBSG:
This, on the other hand, I can work with. I hope you’ll see some sense in the reasoning above.
you still choose to prescribe your understanding of language to others,
This is a fair argument, but it’s a double-edged sword – I prescribe it to others just as much as others prescribe it to me.

Also, on a side-note:

not because you’ll admit it makes you comfortable,
Neutrality is comfortable, but it’s something I’ve got as many rights to as anyone else.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Originally posted by vikaTae:
As you went on to say anyone might choose to pretend to be a gender other than their own at any time.

Go ahead and quote it. If you mean this line:

Anyone can pretend to be a man or a woman someday. You’re overgeneralising my stance.
Don’t even bother reading the rest of this post, it’s a waste of your time.
So, the core of the issue is that you don’t consider a transgender individual as any more than a person of the gender other than the one they identify as, with a severe mental illness. You won’t ‘encourage’ the illness, so you won’t accept their transgender identity, and refer to tham as their birth gender always.
Go ahead and quote it. I made a rather clear distinction there.
Then this whole diatrube about cisgender. Cis is an old latin prefix, so it predates all of this catawhaling about new terms destroying your precious language. It literally means ‘the same as’ as opposed to trans which means ‘across from’ (also Latin).
This argument is so absurd, I’m surprised it came from you. Here, have two examples of two languages Latin takes a lot from: Sumerian and Ancient Greek. By your own logic, coining a word using either of these will cancel out English words of Latin provenance, as the latter cancel out any other English words (or debates…) originating from sources that are less obvious to determine.
He sees transsexuals as individuals who want to be the opposite sex to themselves.
Go on.
The language choice makes it crystal clear he sees it that they are not being themselves by transitioning.
The language choice makes it crystal clear I’m referring to terminology and definitions you’re unfamiliar with and you keep going on misinterpreting me. You could’ve just asked what I meant in one quote or another, but you came here with a hypothesis:
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by biguglyorc:

Well, no. If someone identifies themselves e.g. as a woman (and has gone through necessary surgeries), I don’t see a problem calling that person a “she”.

Why does the surgery matter? It’s not like you’re going out of your way to see the parts of the body affected after all.

And then went on to prove it, although it had been based on simply wrong assumptions.

He sees those who are the same gender as their birth to be normal people.

1) Read this, all of this, along with these two practical examples:

Despite her illness, she was able to lead a normal life.
They had a normal, healthy baby.

But that is not to say I think anything is sick or ill here.
2) Check this excerpt karma quoted:
“In her 1995 book Apartheid of Sex, biopolitical lawyer and writer Martine Rothblatt describes “transgenderism” as a grassroots social movement seeking transgender rights and affirming transgender pride. For many in the transgender – or “trans” – movement, the label transgender encompasses not only transsexual and transgender people but also transvestites, drag queens, drag kings, intersex individuals, and anyone non-conventionally gendered (i.e., anyone identifying or behaving in a manner that runs counter to expected societal norms concerning the gender assigned them after birth) or sexed (if one includes transsexual people)."

3) As I’ve said here:
It’s one thing to advocate “slight inappropriateness” of such words [normality being one of them] – which I understand and try not to use them if unnecessary – another to bitch and whine about them being used.
This is my stance on this, this is why I, whenever speaking of “normality”, kept using quotation marks. Since you don’t, I can only guess that you understood my stance as a claim that “normals” (see? Quotation marks, again) are superior to “abnormals” (and again). I can understand why – the fault is mine, as I haven’t stated enough times that I want equality:
I want equality.
I want them to be equals.

Thus he sees people who are not the same gender as their birth to be abnormal – freaks basically.
Fantastic conclusion.
With someone visibly feminine if they wish to be female, or masculine if they wish to be male, my default stance is to call them whatever they wish to be called.
This is the telling part. With a great many such individuals they are stuck bewixt and between. As I mentioned some can never complete the transition no matter how they try. Some atre stuck with garguantian secondary male characteristics. (It’s not the same for FtMs as the more delicate structures are quickly overwhelmed.) So a visual search isn’t immediately obvious.
Funny how you failed to read or quote (I begin to think that’s how you read – you take one sentence out of its context and then interpret the whole post accordingly) what I wrote in the same post, in the paragraph right below the one you quote:
With men and women “invisibly” masculine or feminine, it depends on each individual, I can’t generalise that properly to post it as my formal guideline, since that’s what this seems to be about.

Combined with his other statements about mental health and visual inspection, its not hard to draw the line connecting them that if he believes there might be any measure of mental strife involved, he’ll play a game at their expense.
As pointed out, you’re not one to combine my statements; the results of your combinations are preposterous.
I gave him plenty of chances to explain or clarify his position, and each time I got the brush-off, together with long text-walls
You sure you are one to pull that card? If I recall, not long ago you were bragging in another thread about having once hit the 5k character limit…
where he contradicted himself umpteen times.
If you fail to interpret one line properly, all other lines that refer to it have to come off as contradictory.

Also, all these quotes are what you should have checked.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
I’m disgusted by the way ya twist things to support your position. The bold above puts a whole “shades-of-gray” qualifier on your only black/white “with-or-against”.
So why aren’t you letting me stay in the gray area? I want to be neither black, nor white.
Walk up to a ghetto kid and ask him what the value of “nigger” is.
Words come and go, but they don’t just disappear leaving no residue.
Hyperbolising won’t cut it as a rebuttal to my point.
And some won’t disappear that easily.
On a side-note, I’m not sure why you’re so eager to point out hyperbolae on every occasion: they’re rather obvious and you use them often yourself. It’s just a part of ad extremum rhetoric.

And, pray tell me O hyperboliser, how often are you going to run into “some bearded guy wearing a dress and has painted his nails and went out shopping on his day off”? How often is ANYONE going to experience this?

Why does it matter? It’s about frequency now?

Well fuck, if necessary, just talk to them like they are a typical person….until they give cause to indicate otherwise.
To me, mental issues are such indicator.
There are ppl out there that are fully heterosexual. HOWEVER, they are so androgynous (NOT having a beard….lol) that using a pronoun for them is going to have the same issues.
So what if a trans doesn’t want to static their chosen/preferred gender?
Sure, I said it depends on each individual alone. I was generalising because I was, in a way, asked to generalise, but I did try to underline that it was a generalisation.

If I don’t know them, I call them by what is predominately presented.


However, the way I’m seeing your position is that your solution to the pronoun thing is that there are only two…he & she. You are being a stickler about not “allowing” for the “special case” of the whole “blur-gender” issue.
Yes, I am. You can’t have a gray area here, you can’t coin half a pronoun. You can either allow it or not. I don’t want to allow it. I wouldn’t necessarily call it “forbidding”, either, but that’s beyond the case.
Ya really luv Newspeak as being some “proof” re think much more simple issue of a new *pronoun.. *
No. “Cisgender” and the like, pronouns included.
If Newspeak is such a bad thing, why use it? BSG didn’t bring it up. Why contemptuously reply to BSG’s post when you have previously chastised Sharangir for doing likewise? Is this not hypocrisy?
I don’t think you understood me there. And if anyone was contemptuous, it was BSG, whether you like it or not.

I’m getting a bit tired of having to explain my views. I don’t mind questions or constructive critique (I actually enjoy that), but the last several posts are neither, so if you guys want to keep it on such track, I’d rather we all returned to the topic of Newspeak (if you feel it needs that) or whatever was being discussed before screening me.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Originally posted by vikaTae:

My issue is that you are fixiated on their genetalia, and you will use a pronoun relating to whether or not you think you can see a bulge in their pants, basically, without taking their own wishes into consideration.

I’ve specifically said it three times now that I don’t wish to check anyone’s genitalia. Believe me or don’t, I’m not going to repeat myself, nor explain that part any further than I have. I agree, and have pointed it out myself, that I’ve been clumsy in phrasing what I meant to convey, but on the other hand, you’ve granted yourself too much freedom of interpretation: you can’t read a “no” as a “yes”, and such is the case here.

I’m guessing you aren’t reading the many links I’m providing where the medical community and others
I did. None of them say anything about female penes.
46, XX Intersex. The person has the chromosomes of a woman, the ovaries of a woman, but external (outside) genitals that appear male. This usually is the result of a female fetus having been exposed to excess male hormones before birth. The labia (”lips" or folds of skin of the external female genitals) fuse, and the clitoris enlarges to appear like a penis.
None of it means there exists a “female penis”. It only means that the clitoris may look like a penis. It doesn’t mean the clitoris becomes the penis, it doesn’t mean the clitoris starts to function like the penis. You still can’t reproduce with the clitoris, you can’t urinate with the clitoris. The clitoris enlarges to appear like a penis.

This is the first known female penis. It doesn’t belong to a human.

The whole of society is NOT being FORCED to use ANY coined terms that are applied, without or within, to this very small area of our population.
Here is the official list of LGBT vocabulary they’ve coined for dialogue. The “female penis” isn’t there, either.

Thanks to that link, though, I now know that I’m a cisgender:

Cisgender: a term used to describe those who are not-transgender
“Not-transgender”, because the word “normal” is passé. It’s already greatly avoided so as not to hurt someone’s feelings. The first thing you hear when you say you’re “normal” is that you’re homo- or transphobic. It’s one thing to advocate “slight inappropriateness” of such words – which I understand and try not to use them if unnecessary – another to bitch and whine about them being used. Here, a quote from BSG:
“Because I have some deep convictions about words that supersede your’s, and I’m the “normal” one between us.”
Well, I’m sorry to crimethink like that (I actually don’t, not for such reasons anyway, but I’ve covered that).
The word “cisgender” in this sense, seems akin to fullwise. “Fullwise” prevents one from pondering such terms as “totalitarity”, “cisgender” prevents one from pondering such terms as “normality”.

I’m not aware of any convention where society all get together and decide on what this year’s new words are going to be. Most all words, both formal & informal, are integrated into society from very “humble origins”.

I’ve already given you this link.
That’s why Ebonics is not tantamount to Standard English.

Good grief, are you not able to see how all of this splitting frog hairs about words, their origins, their “rightful” validity, their harm to society’s general lexicon doesn’t have a taint of BIGOTRY (having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one’s own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others) to it?
I’m not. And the reason why I can’t explain to you why I’m not able to see that is in that quote. A bigoted person will never see they’re bigoted. I can call you bigoted, and you won’t be able to argue against it, either.

But, if you prefer hypocrisy, I can see a particular area of hypocrisy going on here. It is how you want to say you have no issue w/ and are “neutral” about the social movement/efforts of a particular SMALL group of ppl; YET, you toss out some very lame “reasons” why they should place ridiculous limits on those efforts.

What limits? In the sense that I’m not buying this Newspeak and I want it to stop? Fine. What do I get in return? I can see it benefits those interested, how will it benefit me? I want equality.

To some degree or another, you are either a part of the problem or your are a part of the solution.
Yeah, I called that “you’re with us or you’re against that”. I still don’t want to be either.
What I’m seeing above is something akin to prejudice. Or, a judging of the whole based upon the more overt actions of the (likely) few.
I know some LGBT activists. If anything, it’s “postjudice” – many of them are like the crass gay from the video. I don’t know if they’re many enough to be called the majority of the movement, but statistically, in my own experience, it is so: most LGBT activists I know are like that.

On the other hand, I know homo- and transsexuals who want their rights and match Jan’s description of his friend. That is the attitude I’m willing to cooperate with.

BUT, can you not apply my American Revolutionary WAR to the ideology that there are times that “moderation” just ain’t gonna cut it. […]
The women’s movement was simply bogged down by “moderation”.

I’m confused. Are you saying moderation is good, but transgenderists are exempted from it? I mean – I think – I get your point, but why the double standards?
Who should judge when moderation is necessary and when it’s not?

If you apply those rules to other movements, IRA turns out to be just alright; if they were bogged down by moderation, they’d never achieve anything. Well, they still haven’t achieved much, so let’s give them a nuke…
I’ll admit beforehand that it’s a hyperbole, but my question remains: who should be the judge? It can’t be common sense, as the only, I think, conclusion that can be drawn from this thread is that common sense isn’t very common; it varies from person to person.

YET, you are so adamantly & weakly promoting that this small group of ppl refrain from being able to express themselves. Those ppl aren’t wanting to change their views of themselves. They are wanting to enlighten/enhance the views others have of them. A growth I see as being very beneficial….if not necessary.
You kind of admit here that they introduce their vocabulary to official language.
But yeah, I’ve said it before that there needs to be a dialogue. But I want it to be serious. Without “female penises”, “cisgenders”, etc. It should be completely bereft of ideologies, on both sides.
This is a bit of the hyperbole you are engaging that likely creates this taint-0-bigotry some see.
Karma, really. If you want to call me a bigot, I can deal with it. We’re both grown ups. If you don’t see me as a bigot, don’t compare me to bigots like that. I can’t be a bigot just partly.
Ask your questions, if you have any – I hope you know I’ll answer them best I can, and I appreciate your effort in taking various approaches – but, to be honest, the line between you just investigating my views and you confronting them with yours has become blurry to me. This isn’t one of those topics that have one and only solution.

BUT, they are no longer used, no longer “needed”, no longer of value.

Walk up to a ghetto kid and ask him what the value of “nigger” is.

Words come and go, but they don’t just disappear leaving no residue.

Could you define “seriously oppressive”?

I’ll leave that up to YOU.
You seem to be the one promoting gloom & doom should some minor words/terms “takes roots very deep”.

I’m sorry, but you used that phrase. I don’t know what it means, although I tried to answer your question.
Again, where the hell are ya getting this notion that anyone is INSISTING that you personally adhere to their agenda….esp. in the area of using THEIR “language”?

Why is it that if someone calls a homosexual a “homo”, or a transsexual a “trannie”, or (by gods) refers to either of them as “not normal”, you can just sit and wait until someone corrects them (BSG’s first post being a point in case, even though I hadn’t then said anything about normality), but when people refer to non-transgenders as “cisgender”, it’s fine? I mean, not that I really care what someone calls me when I can’t hear it, but I don’t want to be called “cisgender” in person. I’m not particularly offended by that word, but for me, it carries wrong connotations. Should I now go out with a banner saying “CISGENDERS ARE ALSO PEOPLE”?

That word is new and coined by transgenderists. Apparently it’s stuck around well enough for it to make it to an SD thread, so I’m guessing it made its way to the public.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
I just want to be somehow certain – if that’s possible – that I’m not drawn into other people’s mental issues. Some mental issues are more visible than other, and if I can detect them, I won’t willingly engage with them.
How often does this possibly happen?
How committed to an encounter are you that any of that is of any real importance?
This stance of mine isn’t limited to just transsexuals, so it happens almost every day.

What constitutes a “game” for them?
Why not play their game?

There are transvestites who don’t want to be their opposite sex 24/7. I don’t want to address some bearded guy as “lady” just because he put on a dress, painted his nails and went out shopping on his day off. But not, as vika insists on believing, just because he has a penis.

Originally posted by TheBSG:

On topic: The pedantic bullshit this guy puts people through just so he can defend the sanctity of language is ironic. Because language doesn’t describe culture and ideas, it dictates them! Those crazy gender bending queerfags better get with the program and make their genders fit a language invented thousands of years ago or they don’t exists and/or language is broken irreparably and the fabric of society will come unspun.

I bellyfeel your assessment. If we had doubleplus more people who could crimestop like you, we’d rid the world of oldthinkers in no time.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Originally posted by vikaTae:

My issue here is that you by your prior words, would not consider these individuals to be women, and would treat them with a masculine pronoun, solely because their health prevents the full surgivcal rectification from being carried out. That they present as fully female otherwise, is irrelevant to you, as you say “they might pretend to be a man someday”.

Anyone can pretend to be a man or a woman someday. You’re overgeneralising my stance.

I just want to be somehow certain – if that’s possible – that I’m not drawn into other people’s mental issues. Some mental issues are more visible than other, and if I can detect them, I won’t willingly engage with them. That’s why I said I wouldn’t check anyone’s genitals. With someone visibly feminine if they wish to be female, or masculine if they wish to be male, my default stance is to call them whatever they wish to be called. If I find out it’s a game for them, and if I need to function with them, I’ll play my own game and change my behaviour accordingly.

With men and women “invisibly” masculine or feminine, it depends on each individual, I can’t generalise that properly to post it as my formal guideline, since that’s what this seems to be about.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
While a GYN-OB should engage in any terminology that the patient wouldn’t understand—esp. if it is limited in scope as in the case of intersex that the patient likely knows nothing of,

I know sexual education may vary from country to country, but I can hardly imagine a woman that would know what a “female penis” is, but wouldn’t know have a clue what a clitoris is. And even if you could find such a woman, the gynecologist still should not use such terminology. It’s informal. It’s a bit (not completely, since “female penis” isn’t even a valid term) like calling the vagina “a pussy” and breasts – “boobs”. Most women would feel insulted when asked to show their boobs, so that they could be examined with a mammograph. It’s informal and inappropriate.

this medical situation alone doesn’t segue mean that the term “male penis”, in all of its informal/colloquial meanings, is limited to being ideological.

That’s because the expression “male penis” is a tautology. The penis is a part of a man’s body, which is why MtF transsexuals say that they’re women trapped in men’s bodies. They consider themselves female, so they feel “trapped” in the body that has a penis; they think they shouldn’t have a penis, which is why they have it surgically removed. If it were as easy as renaming it to “female penis”, aka clitoris, it wouldn’t be much of a problem.

What I have yet to get a good grasp of is why you have such a problem with it?
It’s because I find it “Newspeakly”, as you phrased it. Expressions like “female penis” make no sense and refer more to ideologies than they do to things/ideas they’re supposed to describe. That’s a quality of Newspeak.

In case you disagree – can I ask you to give some examples as a counterargument of when one should refer to the clitoris as the “female penis”? I would especially appreciate an example that by mentioning “female penis” would remain ideologically neutral.

why does a society need to be held to a similar, somewhat similar, whatever standard as opposed to just letting the public at large kick it around until the media settles on those terms it finds most expedient for its uses?

It doesn’t. But, on the other hand, who coins those terms? Not society, but its groups or individuals.
It isn’t as simple as it was for Shakespeare to make up the word “alligator” – he used licencia poetica and then people decided they want to use that word, at first informally, then formally. It’s different now. The word “nigger”, for instance, is now informal (and at that derogatory), because it’s historically/ideologically biased – people decided it refers too strongly to slavery and racial oppression, so they don’t formally use it anymore. Etymologically though, it has nothing to do with slavery, but it’s derived from “niger” or “negro” which means “black”. It leads, however, to other nonsensical debates, such as those on the appropriateness of the word “niggardly”.

Do you not see how Sharangir (assuming she is a “colony”) might see your attitude here as being that of “Straight privilege” (King G.) and therefore feeling very comfortable in your position of neutrality (disinterest) in regard to her situation?
I’m not at all saying I think you are “bigoted” here;
The thing with bigotry is that it isn’t very descriptive; etymologically, the word “bigot” is just an insult, and in practice one can’t really argue against being called a bigot. It’s a bit (although not as emotional) like calling someone “stupid” as opposed to calling them “uneducated” – the latter can be argued for and against; “stupid” as such cannot, although one can argue someone is stupid because they’re uneducated. Calling someone a bigot is not an argument, but a conclusion. That’s why I’ll go with what I think is in this context the closest synonym to bigotry – hypocrisy.

No, I don’t think I’m a hypocrite because I want to remain neutral. In my understanding, what LGBT fight for is social neutrality: they want the same social and legal rights as everyone else, they want to share societies with others. In this sense we have the same goals – we don’t wish to be bothered because of our views/who we are. I don’t think, however, that many of their actions prove it: they, in a way, want to have more than “straight people”, or whoever else is not in their group, do – for reference, please watch this poorly acted, unfunny skit, that kind of shows what I mean. I want them to be equals. But some demand, as the video points out, that others accept who non-heterosexuals are, even if they invade everyone else’s private space. It is now socially acceptable that the “openly homosexual man” from the video be allowed crass behaviour that others are not allowed. It’s unfair. Especially to those who have never discriminated against anyone for their sexuality. I don’t want them to hide, nor do I want them to show “what they are” as it’s shown in the video. Such people stigmatise themselves. It’s not self-expression, it’s crass. Do you think someone bedecked with whatever heterosexual symbols might be, would be met with social acceptance? Someone with a t-shirt picturing a vagina and a penis would be fined at best. But that’s not to say that I want to be crass. I don’t. And I’d rather “they” (whoever “they” are) weren’t, either.

Likewise, blaming someone for having “privileges” because they were born heterosexual is just the same as blaming someone for being different because they were born homosexual or born trapped in their bodies as the opposite gender. It’s a stupid, unfair argument.

I want moderation in the way people express themselves, that’s all. Moderation is fair.

I find the situation pictured in the video a bit similar to that of having someone agree to changes to a language. Language is a means of expressing oneself, if you change the language, you change the way someone expresses themselves. Question is, how much do you change that person when you change the way they express themselves?
From that link:

In addition to the secret language employed by government officials, there were the numerous issues of Sprachregelung (language regulations). One part of them dealt with the “Germanization” of the language by replacing foreign words (Fremdw–rter) with German ones: e.g. Lichtbild instead of Photo, Fernsprecher instead of Telephon, Fernsehrohr instead of Teleskop. However, not all the official suggestions were accepted by the public and some of them never established themselves in the German vernacular. Others entered common usage and remained beyond the Nazi period. For instance, Fernsprecher has only recently been changed to the more international term Telefon on public phone booths in Germany.
Changes to a language take roots very deep. They should be thought-through.

Do you truly think a very tiny—for the most part, completely hidden from a huge percentage of society—change/addition to language is all that seriously oppressive?

Could you define “seriously oppressive”? I don’t feel oppressed as such, if that’s what you mean. But I do think that imposing artificial vocabulary on people is oppressive. In case that isn’t clear, I can estimate the weight of an item, but I don’t need to describe it as heavy. The thing is, I want to be the one who decides what I am supposed to carry, regardless of its weight. If it’s something I don’t wish to touch, I won’t lift it up, if I don’t have to.

I’m just not yet able to rectify this strong objection you are showing to modification/evolution of “labels” for things that are very public and need some “handles” by which a modicum of rational discussion can be had by the largest amount of ppl possible.

I thought we agreed that if it must be done artificially, rather than naturally, philologists should be the ones to do it?

Also, sorry, but I’m a bit confused as to how you can call the problem simultaneously “very public” and “completely hidden from a huge percentage of society”. Aren’t these expressions mutually exclusive?

I’m sorry that may have been a reason you mistook my meaning about how I can always use a PROPER noun in place of a pronoun.

No, no – I didn’t mistake it; I meant to take another approach, which is why I said it was going to be a caricature of your point.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:
Not that I’d normally give a damn about hurting their overzealous feelings,

That’s what this is all about – there is no moderation. Everyone is overzealous, oversensitive, and it’s almost as if they seek opportunities to accuse someone of hurting their feelings.

what’s unusual are people like the friend I brought to the parade, who I can have a good discussion with, who will correct me if i’m being offensive, but won’t bite my head off in the process.
And that’s both disappointing and detrimental to all possible discourses that such attitude is unusual. For the most part, it wastes the efforts of those involved.

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Specifically that the same problems biguglyorc has about changing the nature of language and the uncertainty of whether a transgendered person is ‘really’ devoted to his/her new gender or not, could, with a little tweaking, easily come out of the mouth of a radfem.

Maybe just a tad more tweaking than just “a little”, but sure, although the article you provide quotes such responses as:
All transsexuals rape women’s bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves,
I will not call a male “she”; thirty-two years of suffering in this androcentric society, and of surviving, have earned me the title “woman”; one walk down the street by a male transvestite, five minutes of his being hassled (which he may enjoy), and then he dares, he dares to think he understands our pain? No, in our mothers’ names and in our own, we must not call him sister.
I understand where they’re coming from, but I find them vastly exaggerated; yet – in my understanding of radical feminism – I like them for not being hypocritical, as compared to radfems’ typical, uh, reluctance to men. I can’t say that they lack consequence/ramification – makes it clear it isn’t about “hating on the phallus”.
Originally posted by vikaTae:
You are aware that one of the requirements for that surgery is them living as their desired gender full time for years beforehand, right? That they’re taking hormones with permanent effects?

Yes. And yet, some representatives of the LGBT community equate transvestites with transsexuals – the transsexual from my “anecdote” used to do that, for one, claiming that it’s just all about “finding one’s true self”. I understand such stance, yet there are people who dress as the opposite sex for reasons different to identifying themselves as such. Sexual fantasies and psychological repressions being the two most obvious ones. I don’t want to engage in either, that’s why I wouldn’t refer to them as whatever they’d like to come off as, were I to know they are not what they claim to be, but I wouldn’t check it.

The female penis is the clitoris.
And yet only one of these expressions has an ideological ring to it. The word “clitoris” is medical and the only meaning it carries is that it’s a certain part of a woman’s body. “Female penis”, on the other hand, brings up the topic of societal inequalities, etc. If a gynecologist used that term while examining a patient, they would, in a way, engage in a political debate – and it would be very unprofessional of the doctor to use such terminology, as it’s neither medical, nor informal/colloquial, but it’s ideological.

They’re the exact same organ, just that the female one is much smaller, and mostly embedded.

Don’t get me wrong, I take it for a fact that you’re more qualified to say such things, but isn’t it so, that the penis and the clitoris just derive from the same cells whilst being formed in the womb? They might be the exact same organ for a foetus, but not for an adult. As an argument, I’d say that the clitoris isn’t a part of a woman’s digestive system – the penis is for a man. The penis is also a reproductive organ, while the clitoris doesn’t serve reproduction as such, although it improves it by enhancing stimulation.

What I think you misunderstood, is that this sentence:

(I still don’t know what that is and something tells me googling it isn’t the best idea)
was a jab at transsexualism being heavily affiliated with pornography, and at having to deal with unclear, obfuscating terminology at the same time.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

I’m going to use this post to attempt to rectify what appears to be some lack of full understanding of my position on the matter of transgenderism.

I referred to transgenderism when talking about LGBT – I think both movements have mutual goals regarding transsexuals.

From that defining, I think I see a “pronoun” that could be worthy of debate: “trans”. He, she, & trans. It certainly is similar to tranny/trannie; however, it would hopefully leave the pejorative behind and focus more on the actual concept of trans as being a movement from one phase to another.

You already know that I don’t like messing around with grammar like that. But I think it would be best if such changes were to develop naturally – I’m thinking here of cultures that are more, say, open about sex (as an act), sexes and genders than modern culture is. Yes, I claim they were more open, because solutions to the same problems we struggle against today would come to them naturally; we create those solutions, rather than wait patiently until they’re a fruit of natural social acceptance, as opposed to that gained by fighting for one’s rights. It’s much more complex than that, of course, but that’s the gist of it.

If I were transsexual and in charge of their movement(s), I would tone it down (not as in: crawl back under my rock; legal equality should still be addressed, it’s the social acceptance/tolerance that concerns me here) and advise my successors to do so as well; then, to simplify, the problem would just “sink in” the society, and the solution would come up naturally. To be honest, I’m not sure if in the end it would really take longer than what is being done in this regard today does: people already grow tired of it being “a hot political debate topic”, and that fatigue affects their opinions. But I’m not transsexual and I’m not in charge, in case anyone needs to sigh with relief.

What I was looking for from you is why you invest so much in something I see as being quite minor in the general overview of this hied evolution.
I would like to know more about where/why you’ve taken the position that there is this “demanding” and “forcing” ya’ve mentioned several times.

I actually thought I was being rather clear about these two.
A language belongs to its users, it develops along with them, and as such is formalised to address the needs of the users as a whole; if it’s a group of users altering a language, it’s a jargon or a dialect, it affects only them. If said group of users wants to make said jargon the official language, it’s a problem for all those not belonging to that group. I keep saying that I want to be neither an active supporter of that group, nor an active “basher”, I want to be right in the middle, not bothered by either of the parties. I want to use a language unaffected either by “hate speech” (that’s why I mentioned the word “nigger” earlier), nor “love speech” (which is why I won’t use terms like “female penis” when discussing clitorides). One is derogatory and the other nonsensical. My “desires” – regardless of what vocabulary I choose to use – fall short however, if everyone else (including gynecologists mentioned earlier) speaks like that, I’m forced to know what those terms mean and accept them, and the best I can do is turn a blind eye to it. It doesn’t matter which group demands that a certain set of words be socially accepted, I – and anyone else who wishes to maintain neutrality – lose regardless. It is oppressive. It’s a kind of oppression different to the one various minorities have to deal with, but it’s still oppression nonetheless.

I will use their name when talking about them, as opposed to a pronoun. If I don’t know their name, will make up a name and hope to be corrected by someone who does know it.

Sure, that’s one solution. But, to caricature this notion, what if someone claims their name is a word you find disgusting/derogatory/in contradiction with your beliefs? “Hi, my name is Nigger, you can call me Nig” – or any other “trigger word” that works on you. Is there a limit to your tolerance regarding naming people?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

This is going to be one hell of a text-wall.

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Why does the surgery matter? It’s not like you’re going out of your way to see the parts of the body affected after all.

Nope, it isn’t like I’m going to check their genitals. I’m willing to restate that as “is undergoing surgeries or hormonal therapy” or is about to do either. It’s rather irrational, but I know that such choice and having to go through procedures required to fulfill it are difficult, so I think a person who wants to be a man on Tuesdays and a woman on Sundays is just mentally ill, and I don’t want to play games with them, by referring to them accordingly to their moods.

Also why is she in quotes?

Because “she” is a pronoun, modifying it with an article is informal.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Ya may know WHO part of TheBSG is; but, do ya know WHAT he is?
Yup, I do. I appreciate your effort in defending him and his reasoning, but I still think it would be best if you and I left it to his judgment whether or not this thread is worth his attention – it is partly my fault it has taken such form, although it wasn’t my intention.
I read that link and found it to be disgustingly similar to a lot of shit I’ve encountered over the years where ppl, who have the cognitive capability to know better, use all manner of “logic” to denigrate something when all it really comes down to is their merely having a bigoted bias. This is NOT to be construed as me saying I think this applies to YOU.

I’m afraid it does apply to me, in the sense that I stand by what I said earlier, that I am in almost complete agreement with that article.

Most of my knowledge on transsexuals comes from them directly and from largely liberal media. It’s biased. I avoid reading comments on events involving sexual minorities made by people defining themselves as conservative, although fanatic liberals are just as annoying, because I know what to expect from them – and I realise I probably come off here as a conservative (frankly, I don’t mind that, either); maybe not a raging one, but still. That’s why, lacking comparison, I find that article a valuable “counterbalance”: I think it does a good job of highlighting the other side of inevitable changes, the idiocy of taking rash, ill-considered decisions that, after all, impact entire society. It isn’t so, that changes to a language will affect only the minority in question; I dislike and personally don’t use terms like “nigger”, “cracker” or “faggot”, yet I don’t think people should go to jail for saying them out loud (although, the word “cracker” is for some reason the most socially acceptable out of these three). Legal consequences aside, some people just don’t want to be rude to strangers and unintentionally hurt their feelings; sadly, there is a point of balance where you have to choose whom you’re going to insult more, as the author of that article predicts.

That’s why, with reference to this:

The only real objection I’m seeing you proffer is how it would horribly, Newspeakly, unprofessionally, lexicon-shatteringly bring an end to meaningful language.
All this artificial nomenclature does is cause confusion… How many posts were there in SD that were dedicated to finding inoffensive names for Black people? It’s similar with “female penises” (I still don’t know what that is and something tells me googling it isn’t the best idea) and the like. It took humanity (or rather first world countries) over a thousand years to be able to talk about sexuality again, without crass vocabulary or awkward metaphors. What’s going on now is a step backwards, and when I see more and more words, phrases or entire pieces of literature that were fine yesterday and today are forbidden for some stupid reason, I agree that in the future it’s going to get difficult for anyone trying to make some sense of reality. I’m just old-fashioned like that, I guess.

Seriously, BOU….I’m seeing you express NO concerns (as would a bigot) about ppl of alternative sexual makeup. But, I’m seeing a whooooole lot of objection to the simple concept of how to refer to them in the “pronoun area”.

It’s because that’s what I preferred to talk about, really. I feel rather confident in my relations with transsexuals, and none of them have ever had me assure them of my concerns about them (other than maybe one time, which I’ll mention later), which have been questioned too many times in this thread for me to dwell on it more than I will in the other part of this post.
I don’t mean your questions here, I appreciate your tone and points, however I expand on this bit in my response to Sharangir, who doesn’t seem very willing to cooperate in listening to me answering his accusations, so he extorts “special treatment”… But I doubt you’re going to be very fond of my views there, they are much like the ones presented in that article.

Originally posted by Sharangir:
Pretending LGBT people oppress straight people.
Not only straight people; not every lesbian, gay, bisexual or transsexual likes to be associated with LGBT community – which is what I phrased it as in the post you’re slightly misquoting.

I personally know gays who distinguish feminine male homosexuals as “queers”, claiming they bring nothing but contempt for male homosexuals as a whole. Before you misunderstand me again, though, it isn’t necessarily my opinion. I’m giving you this example to show you that the world is not divided into two camps: LGBT supporters, aka all homo-, trans- and heterosexuals willing to support them, and LGBT bashers, aka all straight people, including those just who don’t wish to support them, even though they don’t mind them.

As for oppression – don’t get me wrong, I am not going to say that having to listen to endless tirades on transsexuals’ struggle is anywhere close to what they, or other minorities, have to go through on every day basis because of people who despise them for what they are.

It is, however, a form of oppression in the sense that it is now socially acceptable to be proud of being e.g. transsexual, but it is not acceptable to be “proud of being heterosexual” (note the quotation marks). The roots of it go deep: it’s analogous to Whites oppressing Blacks in the past, so everyone now finds it only fair that Blacks should not be targeted for their race today – which, on one hand causes some Whites to cower away just at the sheer thought of being accused of racism, and on the other – some are just racist, no matter how you cut it; it’s okay to be proud to be Black (because ancestry, because culture, etc.), it’s not okay to be proud to be White (because slavery, because Nazis, because Ku Klux Klan, etc.). Also, I’ll disappoint you here – I’m not exactly White.

I will emphasise once again, however, that while what sexual minorities have to go through because of some heterosexuals is often horrid, it doesn’t mean that every heterosexual who doesn’t actively help them is responsible for that, or that they feel “threatened” or whatever you were trying to imply, nor does it mean there is no counter-oppression.

I don’t feel threatened, and I don’t go out every second Friday to stone a gay. I know a couple of homo-, bi- and transsexuals, we get along just fine, even though when asked, I tell them what I’m saying here. They don’t mind my views, some even agree with me, I don’t mind their views, in some cases I agree with them. Such is life.

Equating trans issues to someone having fun by dressing up like a pony.

Technically, yes. If I agree to refer to a person as “them”, just because they want to be referred to as such, I’d have to agree to refer to Shyenne as a “mare”, if she wants to be referred to as such. Just because someone wants something, doesn’t mean it should be granted without giving it a thought.

I refer to male-to-female transsexuals as “she”, female-to-male as “he”, because it makes sense to me that they identify themselves as such; I don’t know what someone who wishes to be called “they” identifies themselves as; if they don’t identify themselves as either of the genders, alright, but why should I go out of my way and accept some re-made, nonsensical pronouns if that person doesn’t wish to go out of their way and just accept being referred to as whatever sex they were born as? You know, I mean positions like, “I know who I am anyway, so I’ll let people refer to me however they find appropriate”? If they coin a new sex (or gender), which factually affects no-one other than themselves, must they coin a new pronoun, that will affect everyone, as well? What if I ask them not to coin new pronouns? Will it, again, be rude of me? I know them, I don’t mind them, I owe them nothing, they owe me nothing, but it’s their initiative. It’s questionable what society as such owes them, yes, but not each individual alone.

That seems to be the bit you hate the most.

Claiming LGBT people demand “special treatment” when at the same time, you already have all of your special treatment.

Stop speculating, you’re getting boring.

Claiming oppressed people should stfu and wait till people like you give permission.
Wow, gee. I’m afraid to ask what those “people like me” must be like. I trust they’re worse than “people like you”?

And no, it isn’t so that they should stfu and wait till they’re given permission. I do agree that the quoted sentence was awkwardly phrased, like many other, but I also expected more mature feedback – not getting scolded for thinking differently than you, which is what you’ve been consistently doing throughout the last page.

Anyway… the way I see it, and I know I’m not the only one to see it that way, if social awareness of a problem is forced, extorted, people tend to do the contrary to what they’re expected to do. “Force someone to love you to make them hate you”; it’s analogous to reverse psychology. I, for one, don’t mind Gay Pride parades and the like, but I don’t attend them just as I don’t attend any other parades: Veteran’s Day, important anniversaries, etc. It just isn’t my thing. One of the aforementioned transsexuals I knew (mind you, I would get along with her just fine, we’ve had quite a few enlightening conversations on this) claimed that I was a bigot, as she knew I had nothing against sexual minorities, yet it wasn’t enough to make me support them more actively by participating in one of those parades. This is a stance that seems similar to yours: you simplify it to “you’re with us or you’re against us”. I don’t want to be either.

You can’t force someone to support you, and you can’t demand from people to tolerate you if the only means of interaction between “you” and the “people” are your demands; such is the case with transsexuals: blame it on bad press, but the only time the average citizen is “reminded of” their existence, is when they have their parades. That’s the whole point of them, yes, but on the other hand, the execution is just crass. Statistically, whenever the average Joe sees a transsexual, it’s a dude with boobs holding a banner. As I’ve said, there needs to be a dialogue, not endless manifestos.

Using other people as a shield to hide behind because you don’t want to do a little effort to meet minimum standards of human decency.
What other people…? What am I hiding from? I only understood that I’m now indecent. Is what you’re doing in this thread a symptom of decency, then? Is this contagious?
The person you quoted says that it would be difficult not to use violence against trans people because they’re not attracted to trans people. You agree with them.
No, she doesn’t. She says that everyone would feel offended at such questions, and those who would ask them, would get their cheeks slapped and asses kicked for asking stupid, inappropriate, crass questions. Yes, I agree that’s possible. What’s your point, again?
Is that what this is about? You want to deny these people’s existence and rights because you don’t want to have sex with them?
Let me get this straight. You accuse me of spilling bullshit, comparing transsexuals to animals, bigotry, indecency, and then you come up with a line like this? I’ve heard enough from you.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

If you have such difficulties understanding text so as to draw such conclusions – none of which are any close to what I said, while some are just laughable – reading my posts must have been a real challenge for you to go through. I appreciate your effort, I really do, but that’s about it.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Well, no. If someone identifies themselves e.g. as a woman (and has gone through necessary surgeries), I don’t see a problem calling that person a “she”. I’m only carping at “they, them, theirs” in reference to people whose gender is known, and who are “singular” – that’s what MmeBunneh advocated in her post. I later extended my grouching to communication, or lack thereof, in general, hindered by changing the language in accordance with transsexuals’ demands, and in contradiction with how languages naturally evolve.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

I meant to say it in an edit, but since a post had been made meanwhile:

I don’t mind my “views” (if that’s the correct word, since only the linguistic part is now discussed) being investigated, which karma is doing; I don’t like, however, labelling my “theses” as such or other, without presenting counterarguments to them – there’s no discussion in that. I haven’t seen any counterarguments yet, other than karma’s suggestion that I might be exaggerating in ascribing proper scales to this problem – which I don’t really think I am, although estimating reasonable degrees to this subject is a matter of opinion only. The way I see BSG’s post, it says more or less “even if it’s Newspeak, accept it” – and that’s not an argument, it’s a conclusion. You, Sharangir, on the other hand, refuse to discuss it – no problem – and chime in just to present your unwarranted opinions on what I say, that frankly don’t bring anything to the discussion, because they don’t even refer to it; they’re just an attempt at dismissing a point I made, while providing nothing to support them.

I’m really speaking only of alterations to language(s), not bodies.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Originally posted by Sharangir:
I also liked the part where you used nonsense like “deliberately obfuscating someone’s gender”, whatever that means and the part where you called it newspeak without explaining either.

While we’re still liking parts, I also like the one where you explain why it’s nonsense to you, because why it is not nonsense seems rather self-explanatory to me. It’s arguable if it’s good or bad, but referring to someone whose gender you know as “they” is tantamount to obfuscating their gender. If it’s done in order to emphasise lack of differences between genders, rather than hiding/protecting someone’s identity, it’s a means of supporting an ideology. Obfuscating ideas to support an ideology is a quality of Newspeak, and that’s why I didn’t explain it any further in that post than I did.

I also like the part where you don’t give a shit about LGBT people,
I said no such thing. I also don’t see why my opinion on “LGBT people” would matter here: my point that certain changes to a language bear resemblance to Newspeak has been challenged, and that’s what I’m focusing on.
the only thing you care about is that it shouldn’t become the next “hot political debate topic”.
Stop speculating on what I care about and what I don’t care about, and don’t tell me what I should care about.
Also, mentioning necessity of “it” becoming “the next hot political debate topic” isn’t very observant, as “it” already is an “on-going hot political debate topic”. If you read my later posts, you’d know that I don’t want it to be heated.

But then again, if all you make out of my posts here is that they’re bullshit – fine, your opinion – spare me the sanctimonious comments on what I care about.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
First: read BSG’s profile. That alone should give ya an insight about what I’m talking about in the area of “being outside of the norm”.

Yes, I know who he is.

Either way, let’s leave any possible clarifications to him, if he deems them necessary.

Do ya not see how you are using a huge superlative to address a very minor aspect?
Who is saying ANYTHING about “reconstructing a (entire?) language”….esp. at the cost “of everyone else”?

Since when is finding a NEW term—NOT eliminating any old ones—to address a very small (therefore likely to be rarely used) group of ppl going to entail anything like a “reconstructing”?

My analogy of a language being similar in this context to an operating system certainly wasn’t perfect, and I’d understand if it didn’t convince you, but I thought it explained rather well how I see it. Did you have a look at that link? That article, although slightly biased by the end, shows this topic isn’t limited to just a few single words that could just as well be ignored; it already affects “official terminology” (“sex” vs “gender”; the “true” meaning of “female” or “male”, etc.) – those are minor changes, but apparently necessary if scientific evidence has been presented in their favour. The problem is, there are more and more “minor changes”, and together they make it a “major change”; whether or not necessary, they make it difficult for people to communicate, as the author of that article points out here:

I feel sorry for heterosexual men and lesbian women in the future. I never, ever condone violence, but really, it’s going to get difficult. Someone is going to have to figure out how to ask, delicately, that all-important question: “Are you the kind of woman with a vagina or the kind with a penis?” Because really, lesbian women and straight men don’t care about any “cotton ceiling.” They’re attracted to adult females with the parts they expect. And there’s nothing wrong or bigoted or transphobic about that.
I’d say it doesn’t sound as crass when read as a coherent part of the article, but maybe that’s just me.
What is this “cost” going to be?
It already makes things utterly nonsensical at times, and hinders communication. Simple concepts get complicated and when people try to go around them in order to actually get a response, they come off as crass (as in the quoted part of the article).

Who is this “EVERYONE else”?

Everyone who isn’t a part of this minority (but, it’s worth mentioning that there are transsexuals who just live their lives as whatever they’ve chosen to be, and find it unnecessary to dwell on all of this; and there are “normal people” – to use the word from BSG’s scene – who actively support all those changes) and speaks given language. That’s the whole point. Languages “belong to” their users (especially those to whom they’re native), not minorities or majorities; they shouldn’t be altered by either one of them – I’m excluding jargons, local dialects and the like here; those belong to smaller groups, etc., etc. There’s another problem with languages known widely, like English, because you can’t really determine who should and who shouldn’t decide what words ought to be accepted or modified, which grammatical structures should be considered obsolete. Such evolution normally takes place within a group of language speakers as a whole – some words naturally “fade away”, new phrases naturally “pop up”, there’s no voting. Why Newspeak is bad (and why I compare “transsexual vocabulary” to it), is because it’s purely artificial, whilst created to control, and that lack of naturalness of language is what makes it hard to understand. The difference between Oldspeak and Newspeak is that the former is a tool used to communicate, describe things, while the latter – to obfuscate ideas.

Where is this “done for political reasons” come from?

LGBT is as much a social movement, as it becomes a political one, with politicians supporting it or condemning it; they aim to change the law in their favour (don’t get me wrong, I’m fine with it), which also cannot be done without involvement in politics. Sooner or later one political party or another will either gain or lose voters just for supporting or condemning LGBT, and that’s, I think, when things will start to get “sinister”.

Are ya saying we should involve those professionals in a simple effort to come up w/ a few terms by which we can identify an emerging social demographic?

If it’s really necessary, better give the job to them than to politicians. I say it would be best if words were to develop naturally, but that’s not going to happen, since transsexuals are so impatient – which is completely understandable, but I still blame this one on them. Sorry.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
I know a few things about BSG, that ya possibly don’t, which might be viewed by some as being a fuel for his emotional investment in the issue. His life circumstances most certainly do give him a wealth of experience, that most of us don’t have, from which to manifest some serious opinions in this area.

I’ve read quite a few of BSG’s posts in the past, and I do praise many of them for being valuable and their points precise, and that’s exactly what leads me to believe that the post in question was directed at me – someone who knows how to formulate their thoughts with such accuracy shouldn’t have much trouble estimating how they’re going to be received. If that isn’t good enough as a reason, such apostrophes as:

You’re the one who’s being unreasonable. Someone asked you to respect them, showed you how, and you didn’t want to because of the sanctity of grammar.
woven in the rest of the response make it, at least for me, interpretable in one way. If anything, I read it as “me and everyone else like me”. That’s why I assumed what I assumed.

However, if it is how you say it is, fine.

It isn’t about fulfilling people’s requests as to how they wish to be called, I can work with that (although, I’m still not going to refer to them as “them”, if “they’re” singular, and I know who “they” are).

Sorry. I’m a bit confused here.
On the one hand, ya say you’re willing to participate positively in showing a kind of respect for such groups; but, on the other ya’re drawing a largely unnecessary line in the sand.

I draw the line at reconstructing a language so that it suits the needs of a group at the cost of everyone else – which is why I compare it to Orwell’s Newspeak (more on that in that last link I provided, without clumsy comparisons, and explained better, but regarding only terminology, not grammar).

If a poet or a writer (like Orwell himself) does that, it’s a work of an individual contained within their piece; licencia poetica. If a real life, non-artistic, group does that on language-structure level, and expects everyone else to buy it, then I have a problem with it. It’s not as simple as coining a new term to be used as a word for something unknown before; it’s changing the language itself: it’s a bit like rewriting a line in the code of an operating system on a computer that belongs to everyone who uses it, and then overwriting the file, so now everyone uses that instead of the previous one, and without agreeing to the new rules that come with it. Such changes need to be sanctioned by the company that made that OS (or, to drop this awkward analogy, a language regulator – which is a bit fuzzy with English, as there are so many dialects), they can’t be freely made by each and every user.

That’s why, with reference to this:

How difficult is it going to be to simply address, in the INFORMAL area, someone by a moniker they prefer?
Informal area as such doesn’t bother me in the slightest. However, messing around with grammar, something very essential to any language, is something deeper in nature, and if done for political reasons (which is the case here, after all) may lead to some really vile results, as Orwell pointed out.

The problem with informal/colloquial language is that it quickly becomes official/standard. That’s how languages evolve, and pushing them in desired directions is what professional philologists should do, not politicians.

White privileged people


“Thank you for your input. I especially liked the part where you explained in detail why you thought that was bullshit, and presented counterarguments to the text you quoted only proving its being bullshit.”
Yeah, I take this point.

I still dislike it as an argument; all it does is set the discussion to “victims vs prosecutors”. That’s why, in my arrogance, I didn’t edit it out. Also, it was a missed shot, but I’ll leave it at that.

What I saw BSG doing there is a demonstration of how strongly rejected are most attempts to change a newly recognized “injustice” in a society.

Sure, but still – regarding this, I only touched “demanding attitude”: there needs to be some sort of agreement between the parties; all I see is a bunch of manifestos on either of the sides. One side yells “We demand new pronouns and free swimming pool tickets!”, the other responds with “we demand you disappear!”, and other delightful absurdities. I’m not fine with either.

I’ll probably get scolded now for comparing respectful treatment to tickets, but oh well. Let it be noted that I’m aware of that, but I’m really tired of emphasising each and every detail so that nobody would feel offended, even more so when my efforts are in vain.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Call people by the pronouns they ask you to and get the fuck over yourself.

Then I’d like to ask you to pop a molly and calm down, getting the fuck over yourself is optional. Is this a request you’re going to fulfill just because it was made?
If yes, can I ask you to just take my opinions as granted and leave them unattended, if you must insist on commenting on them like you are? Disagree with me all you want, but do so in a civilized manner.

It isn’t about fulfilling people’s requests as to how they wish to be called, I can work with that (although, I’m still not going to refer to them as “them”, if “they’re” singular, and I know who “they” are).

Originally posted by TheBSG:
“My name is Adam.” “Nah, I’m going to call you Larry.” “Why?” "Because I have some deep convictions about words that supersede your’s, and I’m the “normal” one between us."

This is beyond the case. If you want to compare it to names, how about a scenario involving a guy whose ID said his name was Larry, who says he prefers to be called Adam? I could call him Adam, no problem, but a clerk would still call him Larry, because that’s what his real name is, at least until he changes it. What if said Larry says his real name is Adam, although he has not changed it, and everyone still calls him Larry? Then it’s a just a lie.
White privileged people


“But that person-” shut up. “What if I want to” shut up. “It isn’t fair that…” Shut. The. Hell. Up.

Never said any of it.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state as a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality, and peace. Any form of thought alternative to the party’s construct is classified as “thoughtcrime”.

The way I see it, changing the grammar of a language just so that a minority would feel better falls under this bit I’m quoting. In 1984, much like in any modern totalitarian country, it’s a small group of people benefiting from such changes: they reformat people so that they would express themselves in a way that suits those responsible for said alterations.

Consequently, addressing someone differently than what they wish to be addressed as, even if inoffensive – or even polite – and grammatically correct, is a “thoughtcrime”. It’s related to this:

The language follows, for the most part, the same grammatical rules as English, but has a much more limiting, and constantly shifting vocabulary.

It’s against common sense, or reason at all. By extension, I should be now legally forced to address this woman as “mare”, just because she wishes to be treated like a horse. Well, too bad. If refusing to give a cube of salt to an adult woman is what it takes to get me locked up, so be it.

I don’t see how a society/culture that is heavily rife with all manner of slang, a huge selection of more formal lexicon, and touts claims of how it is highly tolerant of diversity, can have any too much of an issue w/ a small effort to be inclusive of fellow humans

Tolerance, sure. Acceptance, sure. But some consider it bad manners when someone “new” to a society demands special, beneficial, treatment just for being new (transsexuals, in this context, are relatively “new”, both factually and as legal subjects).
I’m phrasing it very awkwardly, I realise that, but to give you a hint as to what I mean, please check this link. In a politically correct world, local (in the case of the linked article: continental) tradition always loses to the feelings of “outsiders”.

I think that transsexuals, and also most other minorities, should be given more “slack”, that they deserve tolerance, but I hate this demanding attitude (speaking of e.g. those willing to implement said alterations in the language). Tolerance should be “given”, not “demanded”, although some dialogue is required. Dialogue, not shouting, and screaming and monologues or endless manifestos on either of the sides.

Awareness is often difficult. Self-awareness is even harder.

Sure, I agree. But there’s still a difference between being offensive, and taking offence at everything. One should give some thought to what vocabulary they use, sure, but if we take into consideration all “trigger words” there are, we’ll be left with a very modest lexicon, if any at all.

I don’t know what this blogger is known for, which political wing she likes to be associated with, I haven’t read any other articles by her, but I’m in almost complete agreement with this. That’s more or less the stance I’m trying to advocate here.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Originally posted by Sharangir:
Sorry but that’s bullshit.

Thank you for your input. I especially liked the part where you explained in detail why you thought that was bullshit, and presented counterarguments to the text you quoted only proving its being bullshit.

I’m willing to give arguments supporting what I said in that post, but I’m certainly not going to put that much effort in replying to one-liners that bring nothing of value to the discussion and are far from constructive critique.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

I realise it’s personal for you, but since you posted it on a public forum, I’ll just try not to come off as rude.

Originally posted by MmeBunneh:
If you’re an OTer and you just magically read this, congratulations, you now know something that all of my friends, coworkers, and people who matter in my life, have known for months. Also those threads a few months ago that were made about me with the pretense that I was trying to hide it, lulz.
I’m not sure if you intended to come out of the closet with this post – I’m only assuming that based on your hesitation expressed here:
I’ve told myself I won’t regret posting here but eh, here goes.
but if you did intend to do so, I guess you’d need to state it more openly, as I can only guess you’re trying to say you’re backing it up with personal experiences.

Either way – as in, whether or not you’re undergoing sexual transition – I’ll have to partly disagree with this line:

An issue or argument I tend to see a lot is that trans people are very “visible.” I’d like to say: no. Yes there are some very visibly trans people as there are very visibly masculine women or very visibly feminine men.
Many of the otherwise “invisible” ones are “visible”, because they want to be “visible”. I’m not even talking about drag-queens and the like – I personally knew one or two transsexuals and they just wouldn’t shut up about their transition, sexuality, etc. It was a lot like Mafefe argued in his now removed post: LGBT community tends to drag every topic down to whatever they fight for; many of them ruthlessly impose their beliefs on others and label anyone who doesn’t agree with them as sworn enemies and consequently fight them as sworn enemies. They feel oppressed by people who are against them – which is understandable – so they oppress people who don’t really mind them/don’t have an opinion/simply don’t care – which is just stupid and only makes the situation worse.

No-one will disagree that the life of a transsexual is burdened with a lot of struggle, against themselves and against the rest of the world, but seriously, no-one really cares what each and every stranger they see in the streets defines themselves as, as long as said stranger doesn’t deliberately draw attention, because attention brings recognition and recognition makes the stranger more familiar to those around them. And whether people laugh at such individual or show them sympathy is entirely up to them only.

Also, although less on-topic, I have to say that I really dislike this:
Pronouns: it’s becoming much more common to just use, “they, them, theirs,” for pronouns but they may change their pronouns or they may not, or maybe just use their name only
Using gender-neutral pronouns in sentences that refer to people of “any” or unknown gender is one thing, another is deliberately obfuscating someone’s gender in order to support one’s ideology. That’s newspeak.

Flag Post

Topic: Gravitee Wars Online / Suggestions megathread

I’d like this game to be more about skill than weapons. Planet shield, diggers/drills, meteor/meteor storm should be nerfed. They’re extremely effective, require no skill to use efficiently and can’t really be countered – if you hide from a player, you’re prone to meteors, if you hide from meteors, you’re prone to players; it’s similar with diggers, but you can try hiding at the right angle relative to someone who’s shooting at you. They still are one of the most damaging weapons (they deal at least 75 damage on a direct hit) and send targets into space very easily. All cons of planet shield have already been mentioned, so I’ll skip that.

How would I nerf them? I’d change the way Planet shield II works, so that it’s just like the basic version, but I’d increase the number of barriers to 5 – or, alternatively, reduce the number of barriers to 2 and then allow shooting outside of the planet. I’d change diggers’ blast radius to minimum, so that they don’t send anyone into space; the damage of 75 points is still better than that of sniper rifle, so it’s good enough. With drills, I’d just reduce the amount of ammo to two per match and/or make them have the same blast radius and damage as they have now, but so that they wouldn’t send anyone into space, either. As for meteors… Honestly, I’d remove them entirely. What’s the point in long-range 1v1’s if both parties can just order a strike from the outside rim of the system?

Also, I’d like to see decontaminator boosted. Nukes/other radioactive shots are very easy to use, require little or no aim at all, and there are three ways to counter them/reduce their effects: one is to leave the planet, which costs you a turn and at the beginning of a match when rad shots are most often used, it means you’re one double/triple/quadruple/etc. kill behind everyone else; another option is to get a lot of HP, but it’s troublesome at lower levels, as it costs you a lot of accuracy; and finally, you can use a decontaminator, that once used, neutralises radiation at the cost of one turn (so the cost is the same as with leaving the planet), and… that’s about it. Your characters are still, most likely, awfully close to each other, and you still lose a turn. This problem could be easily fixed if you made decontaminator heal everyone on the planet for, say, 20 HP if (and only if) radiation was removed (as in, it wouldn’t heal anyone if used on a non-radioactive planet). That way, people would think twice before spamming radiation, as it may end up healing their enemies.

Another solution would be changing radiation damage from direct 5/10/15 to everyone on the planet to a percentage value of maximum HP of units. Maybe 5% for level 1, 7.5% for 2, and 10% for 3: if a unit’s HP is 50, they’d receive 2.5 (rounded up = 3), 3.75 (4) or 5 damage per turn, if it’s 200, they’d receive 10, 15 or 20 damage per turn. That would also restore some of the balance when playing levels 50+.

Another thing is farming. I really don’t like it that so many people abuse the system of the game by endlessly repeating the same one-minute maps to gain level and money. Sometimes, you just can’t find normal maps played for fun, as everyone is setting up one-hit-win matches. I’d like a player’s level to represent their skill or experience, not their ability to kill units set right next to mines and other units. How about reduced exp/money gain from custom maps?

Also, skillshots. Please, make them worth the trouble. Maybe increase the threshold path for “long range shot”, because it takes no effort to get that one, and at the same time increase the damage boost skillshots get? As it is now, it’s starting at 1.25 for long range; if you increased traveled path required for that bonus to take effect, you could increase the bonus damage to 1.5, and then going up to the max of 3.0 for “mega long shot” – which, honestly, is so rare, it deserves a boost. Bounces, on the other hand, could give just slight damage boost after one bounce (like 1.2, because it’s easy), and then a significant one after two bounces (around 1.6-1.8, because it’s often hard to find an opportunity for that, and it should be rewarding if such opportunity is found), a massive one after three, etc. Blast radii should also be (slightly) increased with skillshots, because some of them require precision unachievable by a player due to game mechanics (differences of a half degree or half a pixel, which can’t be worked around otherwise, if you don’t plan on changing the resolution of the game).

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should women serve in the military?

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Unlike that shitty thread, your criticisms aren’t hypothetical, but SD has apparently decided to ignore that.

Wouldn’t it be more discussion-worthy, though, if this topic was contained in one thread, where people could confront opinions, theories, facts and now personal experiences with one another? Personal experience was what that thread lacked in, and while I think the OP provides some fine observations on the topic, they’re still relevant to points made there – some would be supported, while other would be finally dismissed.
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
OP, if ya really want to discuss this issue, I suggest you go to that thread & read ALL of it; and then, if you still think ya have something of significance to add to it, necro it.

Eh, maybe not all of it, as it’s mostly elementary school level comments, but it’s worth skimming through if you’re interested in this, OP.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should women serve in the military?

This topic has already been flamed over.

Flag Post

Topic: The Arts / Artwork for an MMORPG / TCG

I definitely like the new design of your characters better than the old one. Still a tad cartoonish, but I take it that’s what you want your game to look like, and I’ve got nothing against it.

Would it be in contradiction with your vision, though, if you used some shading, accentuated the details and made the contours more visible? I think the look of your characters would only gain from it.

Flag Post

Topic: Gravitee Wars Online / Suggestions megathread

How about some auto-filter for levels? I’m really tired of playing campaign maps against people thrice my level. I can’t really hope to get a gold medal, because others always have more units with better weapons. Also, I’d like a possibility to play vs one or two players, waiting to get a full room may take a while sometimes.

And some sort of team match feature would be appreciated. Like, your team and somebody else’s vs two other player-controlled teams.

I also want to be able to arrange my in-game inventory. I waste a lot of time just looking for the weapon I want to use, because their icons look fail to describe what they’re meant to do.

A practice range would do nicely, too. Something like the thing for custom weapons, but where you could test all weapons (especially those you think of buying, as they’re all damn expensive).

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Minimum Definition of God

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Well, not all of them are going to be literary figures.

I disagree. I’d ask you to back that up with examples of gods whose stories have never been told, but that would be, obviously, impossible for you to do. Gods, no matter what one’s beliefs are, may exist in culture only if they’re spoken of, one way or another.

I think that would also lead to another possible answer to the OP – the minimum definition of a god would be “any worshipped being”: regardless of the abilities, or lack thereof, that entity were to possess, it would be made a god as soon as it would find a circle of worshippers. It doesn’t even need to be sentient, as there were peoples worshipping the sun or the moon, without personifying them.

[gods] can all be killed under the right circumstances.
The monotheistic gods don’t actually “live”, they just “are”, so they can’t be born or killed.

However, what I am saying is it winds up more difficult or more effort required to kill a god than a more run-of-the-mill individual.

Meh, I personally dislike durability alone as an indicator of divinity. It makes zombies, vampires, werewolves, ghosts, etc. gods, and it would mean that in some literary universes, like The Walking Dead, there are more gods than humans, and it’s in contradiction, I think, with what you said earlier, which I agree with, that a god should be somehow unique. It’s quite the opposite there, because in a “fair” fight, a single zombie stands little to no chance against a human; in that series, compared to zombies, humans are almost like gods, although less durable and completely mortal.

That’s another thing that a god isn’t a god to another god in the same literary universe. Loki and Thor may be equals, but Odin is the Allfather – there is some hierarchy in that uniqueness.

But, if Achilles was run over by a train would he have survived? If he was involved in a car-crash, would he have survived? If he was shot, stabbed, burned alive, would he ultimately have survived?

According to ancient Greeks, unless his heel was damaged, he would have survived, yes. On the other hand, I’m guessing, he could have died if he trod barefoot on a sharp rock.

My point was, most of Achilles’s body may have been “less squishy” than a human’s, but the only part that wasn’t, was “far more squishy” than a human’s. People’s limbs can be shot at, stabbed, sliced off, pierced through, crushed, torn apart, ripped to pieces, and as long as the bleeding is stopped (and when there’s no infection or poison, etc.), they won’t die.

One particular method did work, but only that particular method. For a non-god, they all would have worked, no question about it.
And, if you turn that around, the only thing that could, and eventually did, kill Achilles, would never kill a human. Does that mean that, exclusively in the context of the heel, a human is a god to Achilles?

It only gives that individual the powers of a god; it does not give them the durability of a god.

“the Deathly Hallows make one the master of death” – while probably not a direct quotation, a similar line appears in the last volume of Harry Potter; the Cloak of Invisibility, other than doing the obvious, also protects from magical harm – hostile spells either bounce off of the wearer, or don’t work on them.

As I’ve said, I don’t see durability alone as crucial to one being a god, but the Cloak of Invisibility clearly enhances it. It does make the wearer godlike (not “a god”, which – mind you – I’ve never advocated in this thread), as it prevents them from dying the most common death a wizard can die in the Harry Potter universe – from hostile spells.

That’s why:

It’s no different really to you purchasing a chainsaw and declaring it makes you a god; all the power is in the saw, not in you. The chainsaw isn’t even a part of you, and can be removed from you fairly easily.
I think it’s, again, about uniqueness of a tool for it to make one godlike, as it is about uniqueness of gods for them to be gods. The Cloak of Invisibility was one of a kind, so were the other two Deathly Hallows. As you’ve said (in between the lines) here:
wands themselves were living entities who chose the wizard they would work with, not the other way around.
a wand would never pick a muggle to work with.

What makes a wizard an option for a wand to choose from, is that he is not a muggle, he’s unique. And what makes a wizard want a wand, is that it is not an ordinary stick, but it’s imbued with magic, it’s unique, too. And, as we’ve agreed, a wizard is much like a god, compared to muggles, and that’s thanks to his magic only; and for a muggle it’s, again, a unique trait: ability to cast spells, as muggles can’t normally do it, because they have no magical abilities, that could be further enhanced if they had a wand. And, consequently, for a wizard with a wand, a wandless wizard isn’t much different from a muggle. The wizard with a wand, however, would not be perceived by the wandless one as a god, because the latter is able to comprehend the power of the first.