I take a different stance on this. I believe people aught be addressed as they wish, or at the very least have a right of Veto over being named. To me it is a violation of a very basic right to personal identity. This cuts both ways. If a person does not wish to be addressed as Homosexual, for example, then they aught not be forced to accept it. In matters of scientific study, some sort of labeling mechanism must be established, however, if it is found offensive, it aught be limited to those studies and not thrown in their faces as a matter of courtesy. Now, having read your exposition on Gender Identity, I can see you have also wrestled with the idea of right to define self vs scientific classification. I just like to er on keeping the scientific terms in the lab. I am aware that this can lead to greater social confusion, to which I can only say I really wish the general populace would lighten up about many things. they also need to accept that there needs to be clarification.... but they need to be willing.
"As described by the very nice lady at Femmessay, there is a huge worlds' of difference between having your feelings hurt by a phrase that doesn't sound nice or seems unfun being applied to you and being subjected to a level of oppression that defies description." This. This smacks to me of a double standard. It aims at trivializing another group's right to identity definition. I have trouble reading that as anything other than: "They haven't suffered like us, so their objects on this matter are unimportant, altho we reserve the right to be enraged over the very same thing."
Suffering breeds a sense of entitlement. Privilege. Privilege creates an inequality. Inequality leads to resentment. Resentment causes more suffering, often for all involved.
I can't help but worry that this throws more fuel on a fire that needs to be squelched. While I personally support the use of Cis-gender terms... I can't conscience forcing others to.
no subject
I believe people aught be addressed as they wish, or at the very least have a right of Veto over being named. To me it is a violation of a very basic right to personal identity. This cuts both ways. If a person does not wish to be addressed as Homosexual, for example, then they aught not be forced to accept it.
In matters of scientific study, some sort of labeling mechanism must be established, however, if it is found offensive, it aught be limited to those studies and not thrown in their faces as a matter of courtesy. Now, having read your exposition on Gender Identity, I can see you have also wrestled with the idea of right to define self vs scientific classification. I just like to er on keeping the scientific terms in the lab. I am aware that this can lead to greater social confusion, to which I can only say I really wish the general populace would lighten up about many things. they also need to accept that there needs to be clarification.... but they need to be willing.
"As described by the very nice lady at Femmessay, there is a huge worlds' of difference between having your feelings hurt by a phrase that doesn't sound nice or seems unfun being applied to you and being subjected to a level of oppression that defies description."
This.
This smacks to me of a double standard. It aims at trivializing another group's right to identity definition. I have trouble reading that as anything other than:
"They haven't suffered like us, so their objects on this matter are unimportant, altho we reserve the right to be enraged over the very same thing."
Suffering breeds a sense of entitlement.
Privilege.
Privilege creates an inequality.
Inequality leads to resentment.
Resentment causes more suffering, often for all involved.
I can't help but worry that this throws more fuel on a fire that needs to be squelched.
While I personally support the use of Cis-gender terms...
I can't conscience forcing others to.