I'm going to group a couple of spread out points as one, since they both address gender as opposed to sex.
Easy to grasp, maybe; to find, not so much. It was buried amid far too much condescension, insult and provocation, which I suspect is what most people took exception to (but I may be projecting there.)
Also, his thesis ignored the distinction between gender and sex, which is curious, because I suspect he is sufficiently familiar with foreign languages to be well aware of it. In a sense, one could argue the difference between APPEARANCE or USAGE and NATURE is exactly the difference. To take an example many Americans would recognize, "el pollo" is Spanish for "the chicken" and "la gallina" for "the hen." Of course, a hen is both a chicken and one of the female variety, but if one were to reference a hen generically in Spanish as a chicken it would NOT be correct to say, "la pollo," because the word "pollo" is NEVER of feminine gender even though hens are EXCLUSIVELY SO. By accident or design, the term transGENDER is precisely accurate.
Right, Cannoli already attributed that analogy to Lincoln, and several people have already addressed it: Call an elephant COW "LA elephante" rather than "EL elephante" and any fluent Spanish speaker will assume you an idiot.
First, true, his thesis may have been misplaced, but he's not writing an academic paper, he was tossing out some points on a message board. As for insult, it's been, oh, a week or so since I've read anything but this thread I (unfortunately) started, I don't really remember him insulting anyone; however, condescension and provocation are, I'm pretty sure, Cannoli's bread and water, so I can't fault him too much for that.
Secondly, on gender(and as an aside, I make no claim to being a language professional. If I err, it is from ignorance, not malice or the need to be right); you have an excellent point about the distinction between gender and sex... if this discussion was based on current events in Mexico or Spain. But, this discussion is based on America, and in English, sex(as in, whether you're male or female, not the act) and gender have always been synonymous.
I guess, on this respect, my lack of expertise may be killing my argument, and that's fine, I suppose. I probably shouldn't even be debating this, but I do feel I need to at the very minimum address your points with the understanding that I have.
As for your other points in the first quote, I will say roughly the same thing I said to beet yesterday. Not liking a group of people because of personal preferences DOES make you an -ist, I will not debate that. I am from the South, so, I have seen and known more than my fair share of -ists, both to races and other groups. However, not supporting a group of people because of their actions, based on honestly held religious or moral beliefs, does not make you an -ist. Being a dick about those beliefs may make you an -ist, but if you treat the group you do not support as you should treat any other person(Golden Rule...), then you're not being offensive, and as such, nobody has any call to label you with the assholes. That's, I guess, basically my issue with calling religious people -phobes. See the end of my response to beetnemesis for this in more depth.
Nah, everyone still has the right to be heard: Including those disgusted by some things they hear from some others. Likewise, everyone remains entitled to their own opinions and beliefs--which in no way precludes bigotry, something almost entirely a matter of opinion, often in defiance of fact. Simply disliking one INDIVIDUAL, or even several, does not prove bigotry (at least not beyond being a "Frankist"
--but disliking ALL people with a certain attribute DOES prove one bigoted against that attribute. So does disliking all people with that attribute "except my [token] friend so-and-so; s/he is one of the good ones." Anyone who feels a group so CATEGORICALLY bad the "few" exceptions merit special notice simply for BEING exceptions to bigotry remains a bigot.
I am prescriptivist enough to dislike the term "-phobe" (although fear is a common cause of hatred, or hatred a common cloak for fear, if one prefers) but someone who "dislikes gays" (i.e. not a particular incidentally gay person disliked for something that particular person did, but ALL gays, even those of whose existence they are unaware) is definitely a "homoist." I DISAGREE with homosexuality, but neither fear nor hate homosexuals. Like all decent people, my bigotry is against conservatives.
Yes, everyone does have the right to be heard, and yes, everyone is entitled to their beliefs. I've never argued against someONE saying I'm a -phobe, I've simply argued against anyone being labeled in any way. If someone reads my posts on this thread and decides I am the asshole spawn of Hitler and Stalin themselves, fine, that's your opinion and I have no issue with that. But label me a 'nazi communist fuckwad', and that's where I have problems.
You also caught one of my big issues with the word -phobe, of which I am glad. I don't fear any one in the LGBT community (though that could change if I got cornered by a 7'6" 325 gay NFL linebacker threatening to beat the shit outta me for my comments this thread...), I, and other legitimately religious people I know, simply do not like or support their actions.
As for your 'bigotry against conservatives smileyface', well, that's your opinion and I can't say you're wrong. I myself have several issues with conservatives(lack of empathy or any attempt whatsoever to help the poorest of us, lack of understanding of simple economics[trickle-down my ass...]), but, since most of my issues with conservatives are secular, and my issues with liberals are entirely moral, I simply must stand with the conservatives.
Correct again: The problem emerges with declaring people fundamentally and inherently wrong and dysfunctional. They ARE, but no more than anyone, so no more worthy of censure. One should certainly seize any OCCASION and opportunity to state their case on MERIT and with the same basic universal respect and consideration every person deserves. Note that does NOT include (and actually PRECLUDES) vicious insults and belittling. Not only does such an approach "persuade" no one of anything (except that the speaker is an ass) and instead prompt justified angry dismissal of deeply offensive remarks, it would be wrong regardless because one should not speak to fellow human beings like a stray dog that just sprayed their carpet.
The bottom line is always the same: Rational consenting adults are entitled to do as they please individually and collectively. I have never heard of anyone who PREFERRED hallucinating bugs beneath their skin, but if someone who does finds a doctor who believes implanting them is consistent with the hippocratic oath, I wish them both all the luck they shall need. If one of them mentioned it to me I would certainly do my best to talk them out of it, but not by calling them deranged perverts (in fact, I would consciously avoid that because rather than hearing me out they would THROW me out, and be justified.)
Yes, the problem is people being declared 'fundamentally and inherently wrong and dysfunctional'. Because, as you say, everyone is dysfunctional. As I said to beet, there is no such thing as a 'normal' human brain, and trying to group people by being 'abnormal' is wrong.
However, again, there is a huge difference between saying 'There's something wrong with this person' and saying 'What this person is doing is wrong'. Now(and again, see my response to beet), transsexualism does hit every checkmark of being a mental illness, as defined by the Mayo Clinic. It certainly seems to be a severe body image issue, similar to anorexia/bulimia. I could be 100% wrong; I make no claims to being a mental health professional. However, straight up ignoring the possibility that it IS a mental illness, prevents any possibility of help.
Bruce Jenner was a mature adult, and he felt that he should be a she. Fine, she can do that, because she is an adult. But take a 15 year old girl who thinks she's a human balloon, and suffers from bulimia. Should she receive help? Of course, because she needs it! Likewise, a 15 year old girl who thinks she should have been a man, should not receive wholesale support from those around her. Mental health professionals need to work with her, because there is a massive disconnect between what she believes and what she is, exactly the same as with bulimia.
Addressing a thesis' supporting arguments is not arguing about "nothing," it is arguing about the thesis. If someone disputed Cannolis point without addressing ANY of his supporting arguments, he would (enthusiastically) shred them for closed minded denial that ignored his logic and evidence.
Yes, some have addressed his points. But, come on, man, look at the 74? 75? posts in this thread. You can not argue that most, or even a large minority, have been in any way except tangentially related to Cannoli's thesis. Hell, you and random thoughts are debating the very existence of an omnipotent being. How is THAT related at all?
"Theses," and which cannot be constructively debated without also addressing their supporting arguments. Since those arguments are (ideally) the bulk of arguments of which the thesis is only the principal one, and since that principal argument stands or falls SOLELY on those supporting arguments, those are the primary ones responders have addressed. No one has ignored the thesis, only defeated it in detail, as it advanced in detail, as is proper.
Shit! I should have known that. 
As for the other part of this, very related to the last point. Some have addressed his thesis by discussing his arguments, you being about the only one I can think of off the top of my head. But, to say that 'no one' has ignored his thesis is straight up wrong.
Oh, that last part required no aid, but few (if any) people have ignored Cannolis pointS, not even his thesis. People have simply addressed far more of his pointS than JUST the thesis, because simply shouting, "NUH UH!" is in no sense debate (even if Monty Python makes the case it IS an argument. )
Well, heh, Cannoli seems to be a passionate person. Just look on the WoTMB. But simply being vehement in support of your personal stance does not make you offensive, and most of Cannoli's venom has been to people who basically said 'nuh uh', and to the way liberals pick and choose when they apply scientific principles, not towards LGBT people. So, calling him a -phobe is wrong, as he exhibited none of the hallmarks of -phobia(not even the loosely defined -phobia that are applied to everyone who dislikes anything).
___
In closing, I don't really have too much to say except, I accept the (seemingly inevitable) realization that my understanding of the synonymity of 'sex' and 'gender' may be wrong, so my arguments there may not hold much weight. However, I still stand by my issues with labeling people(any people; either those I oppose or those I agree with), and my defense of Cannoli, AND my statement that very few people have actually discussed Cannoli's thesis.
- 10/06/2015 12:05:10 AM
640 Views
- 24/06/2015 04:42:37 AM
511 Views