Quote from: Cindo on October 18, 2015, 01:21:55 AM

as if respecting other people and their boundaries and generally not being a total cunt to everyone you meet just because you can is some sort of new revolution that them gol-dern lefties have brought upon the world to wreak havoc. I'm not really gonna touch on that too much because the stupidity in that sentence should be pretty damn obvious (hint hint: it's always been a thing to generally not be a cunt and the fact that we've started extending that thing to more and more people by making words like "nigger", "faggot", "trannie", and so on unacceptable only shows a wider range of acceptance, not fucking censorship and the elimination of free speech),

You know the entire tone of your post makes it seem like you're quite fine with being a total cunt to people you disagree with, what with the constant insults and holier than thou attitude you've got going on; so already I don't see much point in having a serious discussion.

But I will say this; I can tolerate a very specific kind of censorship, consider a classroom that teaches say, mathematics; of all the possible things that could be discussed, everything but maths is censored, and then of every possible math topic that could be discussed, everything but the specific skills being taught is censored, and even then the wider implications of those ideas are censored to focus on simply learning what's in the curriculum. THAT is the only acceptable form of censorship because that is the only kind that has clear and tangible benefits to everyone involved, and I would argue that it is impossible to teach someone something without censoring information to some degree. If you want to get technical then this really is just creating context, but I digress.

Now without even discussing how censoring words only gives them more power and draws people to them, I want to make it very clear that you fundamentally misunderstand the concept of free speech. It is entirely about being able to say things that are offensive, things that some people would rather be hidden away and never mentioned, about being able to say something that everyone around you, maybe even the entire world, disagrees with. It is almost heartbreakingly said that you think free speech means "you are allowed to say the words that we have approved of and nothing else".

You've misunderstood my point if that's what you think I think free speech means.

Of course you're allowed to say anything you'd like, so long as there is no actual physical consequence associated with it. However, others are perfectly allowed to call you out on what you're saying, and should rightfully do so if it's against what is considered socially acceptable.

The KKK and Westboro Baptist church both exist in today's society and I fully support their right to without supporting the groups themselves - but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't take a metaphorical shit all over one if they tried picketing outside my house.

Honestly I couldn't disagree with you on this from a logical standpoint, but I'm gonna have to disagree anyways simply because of how I view hateful language.

I wouldn't use offensive terms to refer to people if I wasn't in a place that I found to be friendly and accepting. Among my close friends, for example, we insult each other all the time. My good friend Micheal, for example, could probably call me a "fucking trannie queer" at any given point just because I know there was no real venom behind the words - but that's only so long as he'd be alright with me retaliating by calling him something along the lines of a "lawnmowing spic".

Well yeah, of course. Banter, jocular language, probably should go in its own separate category. I thought you were going to make that point, and it makes sense. I guess it's all a matter of whether your friends are comfortable with it. Some friends actually don't appreciate banter, believe it or not--either because they don't understand the concept of it, or because they just think it's immature, or whatever. In your case, since you have people that you know won't be offended by anything you have to say, I guess it's permissible... in the sense that you're aware that other people may not be so open.

Quote from: Cindo on October 18, 2015, 01:10:50 PM

And I'm awake

I'll respond to a dickload of comments after I finish breakfast

what you eat fam?

Poptarts, lad

Why are there so many trans people on this site?

And conversation isn't the medical table. Conversation involves social cues and convention. When you say "she", you expect someone who appears female, not just someone who is on a chromosomal level.

Quote from: SuperIrish on October 18, 2015, 03:13:44 AM

My main concern is the censorship ma-bobby.

In your example it's perfectly reasonable to not be a cunt because someone's this or that, whether or not you have the freedom of speech to say it.

The problem lies when people try to give valid criticism, and when they can't (or simply won't) answer to it, they can claim it's insensitive or offensive and block off reasonable discourse about the topic simply because it entails some controversial topic.

E.g. I used to know nothing regarding trans people, how or why they felt that way, methods of going about changing, etc, etc until around last year (mostly because of this place). But I can't just ask a question about in case I offend someone because it might have something behind it that may offend someone.

I'd like to understand at the cost of a few slip-ups and offending some people so I can get a good view on the topic and discuss it like most want to and maybe even accept it, rather than remaining in the dark, not discussing it and blindly accepting by faith just to keep people happy. If someone wants honest discussion, you don't go into it with no facts whatsoever and blurt out whatever some biased party (on either side) has said.

Well, I kinda tried to cover that in the main post, but I guess I didn't do a good job at addressing that - only talking about the inverse.

Yeah, I believe it's pretty stupid to shut down any discourse about a person just because it may or may not be offensive to them. The type of people who scream "educate yourself" and then offer no solution piss me off as much as the ignorant type who refuse to learn anything new on the subject.

But the thing is - it has to be a relevant question. If you're legitimately asking questions or trying to clear up things about a trans person, then that's fine, but if you're getting upset at people for shutting you down when you ask why it's not okay for you to call a trans person slurs and purposefully misgender them - and refuse to listen to the reasons why - then that's very different.

Oh that's perfectly fair enough.

Thanks for clarity on this, for a bit there I was reading it as "unless you're X, you can't discuss it or ask questions", and that I refuse to abide by.

Quote from: Cindo on October 18, 2015, 01:25:22 PM

Quote from: SuperIrish on October 18, 2015, 03:13:44 AM

My main concern is the censorship ma-bobby.

In your example it's perfectly reasonable to not be a cunt because someone's this or that, whether or not you have the freedom of speech to say it.

The problem lies when people try to give valid criticism, and when they can't (or simply won't) answer to it, they can claim it's insensitive or offensive and block off reasonable discourse about the topic simply because it entails some controversial topic.

E.g. I used to know nothing regarding trans people, how or why they felt that way, methods of going about changing, etc, etc until around last year (mostly because of this place). But I can't just ask a question about in case I offend someone because it might have something behind it that may offend someone.

I'd like to understand at the cost of a few slip-ups and offending some people so I can get a good view on the topic and discuss it like most want to and maybe even accept it, rather than remaining in the dark, not discussing it and blindly accepting by faith just to keep people happy. If someone wants honest discussion, you don't go into it with no facts whatsoever and blurt out whatever some biased party (on either side) has said.

Well, I kinda tried to cover that in the main post, but I guess I didn't do a good job at addressing that - only talking about the inverse.

Yeah, I believe it's pretty stupid to shut down any discourse about a person just because it may or may not be offensive to them. The type of people who scream "educate yourself" and then offer no solution piss me off as much as the ignorant type who refuse to learn anything new on the subject.

But the thing is - it has to be a relevant question. If you're legitimately asking questions or trying to clear up things about a trans person, then that's fine, but if you're getting upset at people for shutting you down when you ask why it's not okay for you to call a trans person slurs and purposefully misgender them - and refuse to listen to the reasons why - then that's very different.

Oh that's perfectly fair enough.

Thanks for clarity on this, for a bit there I was reading it as "unless you're X, you can't discuss it or ask questions", and that I refuse to abide by.

Yeah, that type of thinking is some silly shit. Glad I could clear it up, lad.

Quote from: Cindo on October 18, 2015, 02:00:25 PM

Quote from: HEAT SEEKING GHOST OF SEX on October 18, 2015, 01:52:20 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on October 18, 2015, 01:48:14 PM

Quote from: HEAT SEEKING GHOST OF SEX on October 18, 2015, 01:45:50 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on October 18, 2015, 01:19:06 PM

Quote from: HEAT SEEKING GHOST OF SEX on October 18, 2015, 01:12:07 PM

It would be objectively false to refer to me as she. I am biologically male.

If I were biologically male but preferred to be referred to as she, then there's a discussion to be had.

"Biologically" and "preferred" are the keywords, aren't they?

I take it you believe that biological sex takes priority over personal preference.

Is there any logical reason to have reached that conclusion, though?

Biological sex is concrete and objective. Fluid or static as gender may be, physical sex is empirical and well defined.

Not really. What are intersex and chimeric individuals? XXY?

If you have a penis you are male. If a vagina, female. If neither or both I'd stick to gender neutral terms until I'm told to use male or female terms

So if someone looked 100% female, but still had a penis, you would think of them as a man rather than a woman?

Because this person just screams "male" to you?

I'm going to stick with what I can gleam from my observations. I can't see through clothes, obviously.

That said, VERY few crossdressers can pass as well as the picture, if that is one. There's generally a pretty clear giveaway.

>Crossdressers

You...don't understand much about trans people, do you?