Ungendering and a Lack of Respect

[smc]

Originally Posted by wxhluyp

I advocate inclusivity and growth. I am against subjected or self-imposed limitation.

I didn't expect such hostility...

Again, that's fine. But even if you find it an example of "self-limitation" that someone on this site chooses to identify himself or herself a certain way, you don't get to undo that. Period.

And this isn't "hostility." It's clarity.

[wxhluyp]

Originally Posted by smc

Again, that's fine. But even if you find it an example of "self-limitation" that someone on this site chooses to identify himself or herself a certain way, you don't get to undo that. Period.

And this isn't "hostility." It's clarity.

Ofcourse. There are times when theorizing is more appropriate than others. Theres a false common-sense idealization of identity which must be overturned in society. Gender is positively multiple.

The accusation of sophism and lack of clarity in my mere "opinion" was pretty hostile. I don't know whether it was intentional, but it did seem so.

[smc]

Originally Posted by wxhluyp

Ofcourse. There are times when theorizing is more appropriate than others. Theres a false common-sense idealization of identity which must be overturned in society. Gender is positively multiple.

The accusation of sophism and lack of clarity in my mere "opinion" was pretty hostile. I don't know whether it was intentional, but it did seem so.

Let me clear up a couple of things.

First, my comment about "clarity" referred to my posts, not yours -- that is, they were to explain that I was posting my message about ungendering and how we view it on this site for the purpose of clarity.

Second, regarding "sophism": I apologize for not having written more carefully. I did say "as it may be," but that was insufficient for expressing that I was hypothesizing the possibility that your opinions was sophistic (not definitively characterizing it as such). By "sophism" in this regard, I do mean an argument of considerable ingenuity in reasoning that is put forth with the objective of deception. I hypothesized that your argument was designed to deceive the self-identifier (the person who identifies her/his gender in her/his own self-determined way) to accept the rationale of your argument and thus abandon her/his own self-determination. That is, technically, a sort of sophism, but the word sophism does come laden with other baggage in its meaning that was genuinely not intended.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by smc

The funniest part, in my opinion, is what the husband of the Wanda Sykes character says. He wants the chicken despite what Randal has said:

"Baby, you can't taste racism!"

Unless there's a racist guy in the kitchen who spunks in black people's burgers....

[Julie77]

This is a really good thread. I feel I was born a lady and want to be treated like one. When I am dressed up I feel it is an insult to be called a male name. Hope you all don't mind my two cents worth.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Julie77

This is a really good thread. I feel I was born a lady and want to be treated like one. When I am dressed up I feel it is an insult to be called a male name. Hope you all don't mind my two cents worth.

I especially value the perspective of those for whom the respect we speak of in this thread is shown. Thank you for your contribution.