View Single Post
  #132  
Old 06-07-2012
littletwink littletwink is offline
Apprentice Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 46
littletwink can only hope to improve
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
What is most notable about your latest response is how you have sought to shift the terrain. Earlier, you wrote:

When you take up my shopkeeper example, you write that the shopkeeper has a right to view black customers as non-persons, but may still be required to accept black customers.

What good is the shopkeeper's "right" to his belief if it cannot be actuated? Does it transcend the right of the black person to enter his shop? When a dispute erupts, which right should be defended by law? The right of conscience or the right of access?

Rights of conscience are tricky things. They are used by people to deny the obvious truth (blacks are, indeed, persons) and justify the denial of reasonable rights to others for all sorts of reasons.

You write regarding language, and of course you are correct that "language alone is not a guarantee ... for understanding." But you are wrong that language is not a requisite for understanding.

Most important, you write that you are "not bothered by another person's refusal of my self-identification." I suspect that you have not had your rights infringed in the manner of the black person in my example. I would not pretend to know anything about you specifically, but in my experience, those who have never truly felt the lash of outright discrimination are the one's who can most readily cede the pseudo-"right of conscience" to those who wield the lash.
I cannot possibly know what it was like to live in those times. No, I have never been told "we don't serve your kind here", and thankfully, I've never been the victim of a violent crime. Sure, I got beaten up a few times when I was younger and won a few fights, too, but I wouldn't consider those incidents criminal, even if I was sometimes teased for being 'different'.

I've been called names (who hasn't?) and teased behind my back, but no, I have never been called "queer" by someone who had something I wanted like a job or service. I'm not saying I want to experience that treatment either, but being called certain names doesn't bother me like it does many others, because to my knowledge, I've only ever been called those names by idiots. If others chose to discriminate against me on less trivial matters, I was never aware of it.

With regards to my prior statement, I appreciate your further explanation, but I don't think any modification is in order. What I identify myself as is in no way predicated upon how another will choose to identify me. Granted, I have the good fortune of being quite secure in both my manhood and my womanhood separately, plus I am also very happy with my androgyny, but I am the only one who determines how I will identify myself.

If others choose not to accept my identification, it's their right to make that choice. I don't want to make the argument too circular in restating too many points, but I don't WANT the power to force my personal thoughts and beliefs upon another person, nor would I ever grant anyone the power to do it to me. I may be a sub, but not even I am that submissive.
Reply With Quote