PC Principal thread

[EternityEnd]

I can't get the full article to load for some reason, so I can't yet comment on its entirety.

[Yuri-G]

It might not be worth your time. It's mostly a masturbatory piece about how fantastic conservatives are. I just liked that excerpt because the concept of gender is deeply rooted in sexuality and evolutionary biology, and that's ok. Given that gender is a creation of society each individual has the option of experiencing gender as best befits them, but that doesn't negate the connection.

[dasva]

Can we take a moment to soak in how great a word problematizing is?

[Niiro]

You get the feeling that that author doesn't quite understand the difference between gender and sex, or what homosexuality is at all.

When you get the impression that the author is writing under the delusion that minors are regularly undergoing sex changes at the whims of childhood fancy (it's even implied that it can be done against their will) it's hard to take the rest seriously.

[Gredival]

You get the feeling that that author doesn't quite understand the difference between gender and sex, or what homosexuality is at all.

Well he's gay so I figure he has some idea about it.

The argument is that exceptions only exist because rules do. While transgender and intersex persons exist, for the vast majority of persons, their gender matches their birth sex. Modern identity politics constantly attempt to deconstruct this link and the idea of inherently male/female characteristics even though the very ideas of transgender and homosexuality are nonsensical in a world where there are no inherent contrasting concepts of masculinity and femininity

[EternityEnd]

My main critique of the article would be his superimposition of various ideas onto this monolithic "left" he talks about, many of which I rarely, if ever, encounter -- let alone as a majority opinion.

Speaking of ideology versus reality, there is, it seems to me, a parallel on the left. That is the current attempt to deny the profound natural differences between men and women, and to assert, with a straight and usually angry face, that gender is in no way rooted in sex, and that sex is in no way rooted in biology. This unscientific product of misandrist feminism and confused transgenderism is striding through the culture, and close to no one in the elite is prepared to resist it.

Who is denying the intrinsic connection between one's sex and biology? That's what sex is: the physical manifestation of one's chromosomes through hormonal release.

Most trans people I encounter wouldn't insist that gender is "in no way rooted in sex," but that it can occasionally be divorced from it... hence transgenderism, and the effort to correct their image of themselves via hormonal and physical alteration.

To suggest this idea he's touting is "striding through our culture" is extraordinarily hyperbolic, since it seems like a complete misunderstanding (but hey, maybe I'm the one misunderstanding).

And so we have the establishment of gender-neutral birth certificates in Canada; and, in England, that lovely old phrase, “Ladies and Gentlemen,” is being removed from announcements on the Tube, for fear someone might feel left out. We have dozens of new pronouns in colleges (for all those genders that have suddenly sprung into existence), and biological males competing in all-female high-school athletic teams (guess who wins at track). We also have irreversible genital alteration for minors, who believe, as many kids often have, that they are girls in boys’ bodies and vice versa. We have elections about who gets to go to which bathroom.

This made me laugh. Dozens of genders suddenly springing into existence? Come on. Tumblr is not "the left," and many of those terms in the linked article aren't new or remotely relevant to colloquial conversation.

Worse, we have constant admonitions against those who actually conform, as most human beings always have, to the general gender rule. Boys who behave like boys have always behaved are suddenly displaying “toxic masculinity” and must be reprogrammed from the get-go.

This is clearly a troll. They linked an article in salon that explicitly states that most masculinity is not "toxic masculinity." I'll quote the salon article:

So, to be excruciatingly clear, toxic masculinity is a specific model of manhood, geared towards dominance and control. It’s a manhood that views women and LGBT people as inferior, sees sex as an act not of affection but domination, and which valorizes violence as the way to prove one’s self to the world.

There's nothing abnormal or extremist about what it's saying. As a man, there is absolutely a subsect of men who think this way, some of whom are abusive or violent. Case in point: the Pulse shooter, who the article is about. Let's continue with the NYMAG piece:

Girls who like pink and play with Barbies are somehow not fully female until they’ve seen the recent Wonder Woman movie or absorbed the stunning and brave decision to make Doctor Who a woman. We have gone from rightly defending the minority to wrongly problematizing the majority.

This isn't well-written. It's some 4chan shit. I've heard of literally zero people decrying girls who like pink or play with dolls.

It’s also a subtle, if unintentional, attack on homosexuality. Most homosexuals are strongly attached to their own gender and attracted to traditional, natural expressions of it. That’s what makes us gay, for heaven’s sake.

Really? Someone needs to do a little studying on the history of homosexuality. While I, personally, would probably be identified as masculine, there's a pretty decent chunk of homosexuals who are feminine, including major actors of the LGBT movement spanning back centuries.

They're both there. Neither is less valuable. Cultures across the world had concepts of masculinity that would be more in-line with Western femininity, and yet ours is a "traditional, natural expression" of our sex? Okay.

Many of the subsequent paragraphs are coiled around the singular premise that "the left" is pushing that gender doesn't exist, which is just laughable. This gem:

Gay people exist and should not be coerced into behaving in ways they find alien to their being.

Who is coercing gay people into behaving any certain way . . . except the author of this article? lol.

[Yuri-G]

I don't have time to address all of that right now - ok I do have time, I'm just lazy - but the last line caught my eye. I can speak to a personal experience where I was shamed for using the word "she" in reference to another man because "that might be offensive to trans people." Now I didn't give a fuck because that person was a cisgendered gay man who was clearly SJW but still, it does happen. And we've all seen people get shamed for preferring "straight-acting" men, which - while not the best terminology to use - is a personal preference toward heteronormative masculinity that anybody should be able to enjoy if they wish.


I agree with some of your other criticisms, though. The author makes some good points but also reeks of "because people want the right to be different, the norm is persecuted" which is a favorite logical fallacy of the majority.

[GoggleHead]

Can we take a moment to soak in how great a word problematizing is?

We used to call it demonizing and understand that it was morally wrong. Then we started doing it to certain demographics and had to change the word to make the behavior magically acceptable all of a sudden.

[EternityEnd]

I can speak to a personal experience where I was shamed for using the word "she" in reference to another man because "that might be offensive to trans people." Now I didn't give a fuck because that person was a cisgendered gay man who was clearly SJW but still, it does happen.

I'm afraid there's not enough context to really comment on your anecdote, except to say that that it doesn't sound like a situation worth commenting on at all. Person was dumb, and the whole thing sounds petty and forgettable.

And we've all seen people get shamed for preferring "straight-acting" men, which - while not the best terminology to use - is a personal preference toward heteronormative masculinity that anybody should be able to enjoy if they wish.

This is what I really wanted to touch on. That's explicitly not what the author is referring to. Here's their words:

Gay people exist and should not be coerced into behaving in ways they find alien to their being.

Your example is akin to what happened earlier in this thread, where (I believe it was?) Ksandra attempted to shame members for not being attracted to X race/characteristic. The author's example isn't about people being shamed for "preference," but "behaving in ways they find alien to their being."

I don't know about you, but I've personally never encountered anyone -- gay or straight -- who attempted to shame a gay man for behaving masculinely. Typically, it's the opposite, where gay men are shamed for acting femininely... and I get the distinct impression the author engages in that very behavior.

[archibaldcrane]

I just laughed at the idea that Hillary's simple recognition of the existence of transgendered people is seen as an assault on people's core identity.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[dasva]

My main critique of the article would be his superimposition of various ideas onto this monolithic "left" he talks about, many of which I rarely, if ever, encounter -- let alone as a majority opinion.

Welcome to most political speech... or really much speech that talks about groups.

[Greatguardian]

>"I don't really ever see this behavior in my personal social and professional circles"

>"Here's this one time this thing happened in my personal social circle"

>"That sounds petty and dumb and not even worth talking about"

People spend a lot of their time in bubbles comprised of like-minded people. You tend not to see behaviors or attitudes you dislike because any reasonable person would simply choose not to insert themselves into situations that annoy or frustrate them. That doesn't mean these behaviors or attitudes are uncommon. It just means your exposure to them has already been minimized.

[Zetanio]

I'm afraid there's not enough context to really comment on your anecdote, except to say that that it doesn't sound like a situation worth commenting on at all. Person was dumb, and the whole thing sounds petty and forgettable.



This is what I really wanted to touch on. That's explicitly not what the author is referring to. Here's their words:



Your example is akin to what happened earlier in this thread, where (I believe it was?) Ksandra attempted to shame members for not being attracted to X race/characteristic. The author's example isn't about people being shamed for "preference," but "behaving in ways they find alien to their being."

I don't know about you, but I've personally never encountered anyone -- gay or straight -- who attempted to shame a gay man for behaving masculinely. Typically, it's the opposite, where gay men are shamed for acting femininely... and I get the distinct impression the author engages in that very behavior.

I remember this thread and laughing at Ksandra.

[EternityEnd]

>"I don't really ever see this behavior in my personal social and professional circles"

>"Here's this one time this thing happened in my personal social circle"

>"That sounds petty and dumb and not even worth talking about"

People spend a lot of their time in bubbles comprised of like-minded people. You tend not to see behaviors or attitudes you dislike because any reasonable person would simply choose not to insert themselves into situations that annoy or frustrate them. That doesn't mean these behaviors or attitudes are uncommon. It just means your exposure to them has already been minimized.

That's some cryptically enlightening stuff. What "behaviors or attitudes" are we even talking about? The ones the author of the article boldly applies to an entire political spectrum of people are, frankly, just not in wider evidence.

And I never once related anything to what I've seen in my personal/professional circles. But considering I live in a southern metropolis, the people I interact with run the political gamut.

The author just comes off as a raving lunatic for much of it.

"Girls can't like pink anymore!"

"Boys being boys and shooting up gay night clubs is being portrayed as 'toxic masculinity!'"

"Children are literally being forced to undergo hormone therapy!"

"Liberals are trying to erase gender!"

"Something something Canadian birth certificates!"

Dear lord, man. This isn't about social bubbles. It's about facts, and the article's dearth of them. Yuri-G's anecdote about one stupid person being PC was pretty irrelevant to the article's raving context.

[Day]

I thought the author's point was that the gays shouldn't be pressured into being masculine, not that they shouldn't be ridiculed for being masculine, maybe I'm reading it wrong. I've also never heard of such a thing so I don't know why the author would have.

[EternityEnd]

It's possible. The paragraph that quote was from was frustratingly unclear. Considering the rest of the article's tone and unnecessary defense of masculinity/conservatism, I'm skeptical.

Regardless, the entire article is predicated on the lie that "the left" is trying to erase gender. The entire concept of transgenderism necessitates gender (while homosexuality has nothing to do with it -- hence "sexuality").

Seems like he was conflating the questioning of certain things' relation to gender (color, toys) with its erasure.

[Greatguardian]

That's some cryptically enlightening stuff. What "behaviors or attitudes" are we even talking about? The ones the author of the article boldly applies to an entire political spectrum of people are, frankly, just not in wider evidence.

And I never once related anything to what I've seen in my personal/professional circles. But considering I live in a southern metropolis, the people I interact with run the political gamut.

The author just comes off as a raving lunatic for much of it.

"Girls can't like pink anymore!"

"Boys being boys and shooting up gay night clubs is being portrayed as 'toxic masculinity!'"

"Children are literally being forced to undergo hormone therapy!"

"Liberals are trying to erase gender!"

"Something something Canadian birth certificates!"

Dear lord, man. This isn't about social bubbles. It's about facts, and the article's dearth of them. Yuri-G's anecdote about one stupid person being PC was pretty irrelevant to the article's raving context.

You really aren't going to run into far-left socially progressive wonderkin in the middle of a southern metropolis - certainly not in large enough numbers to register on your radar. I remember the anti-trump march on the local university campus here (50k+ students) back in November looked like it couldn't have been more than 20 students and a banner, with a couple patrolmen following behind as a token escort. This is not a Trump-friendly area. It's just apathetic, like much of the metropolitan South. That's actually one of the reasons I recommend universities in the South to friends and family coming from overseas to study in the US. You're far less likely to be diverted by riot police on your way to class or end up with a tear gas grenade in your dorm room balcony here than I was doing my undergrad in the Northeast.

The "Left" is a pretty massive tent right now. It includes basically anyone who isn't either clinging to a conservative ideal that's faded from modern legislative practice or getting their news from Alex Jones. Centrists, Neoliberals, Social Progressives, and everyone else in the tent spend as much time fighting one another as they do the Republican party. I think it's abundantly clear which groups of people the author of that article was addressing and which groups he wasn't.

It's easy to argue from authority being a moderate on the left and assume that the more extreme voices in the tent are a minority that will quickly be dismissed by anyone with two brain cells to rub together. Just as, I assume, it's easy for educated conservatives to ignore the more extreme elements of their own party. But the fact is that people do believe that girls can't like pink any more and gender should be erased. They exist. This thread exists to laugh at them. But the more attention their ideas get, the more normalized they become. I guarantee I could show some of the videos or articles linked in this thread to high school or college students of mine and they'd legitimately fail to understand why I find them so ridiculous.

[djzombie]

IMO:
Gender is the tools you were born with.
Sex is what you do with those tools.

----

If you want to go the PC route:
Gender is what sex you self identify as. (which in my opinion is just a shitty rationalization for being attracted to the same sex so you don't have to feel guilty[not that there is any reason to feel guilty in actuality] about being a homosexual)
Sex is what tools you were biologically equipped with.

I get people that want a sex change to be closer to who they feel like they are as a person - but biologically, getting a sex change is just cosmetic and does not actually change your gender. You don't suddenly grow a set of ovaries when they chop your dick off and sell it to china.

What I don't get are the people that claim to be gender fluid. That sounds like complete bullshit to me. To me, if you feel like a woman one day and a man the next, I would call you bisexual. I guess you could feel like a woman who likes woman but still be a man. That is where this argument about gender/sex/self identification fails for me.

Just so everyone knows, I self identify as a UH-60 Blackhawk. Tomorrow I might self identify as a sturgil simpson. Neither one of these self identifications change what I am biologically, a motherfuckin sexy piece of man meat.

[Fiye]

Well he's gay so I figure he has some idea about it.

The argument is that exceptions only exist because rules do. While transgender and intersex persons exist, for the vast majority of persons, their gender matches their birth sex. Modern identity politics constantly attempt to deconstruct this link and the idea of inherently male/female characteristics even though the very ideas of transgender and homosexuality are nonsensical in a world where there are no inherent contrasting concepts of masculinity and femininity

Becauae bathroom bills obviously effect gay people.

[EternityEnd]

I don't believe I ever argued these people don't exist, but their beliefs vary from person-to-person to stoke their own individuality, and to portray them as exemplifying the beliefs or direction of "the left" as a whole is erroneous. His gender commentary is pants-on-head ridiculous and uninformed.

They represent such a tiny fraction as to be irrelevant, let alone representative -- indeed, they utterly lack representation in government, unlike his example of the right's equivalent. The author is completely disingenuous throughout.

The complaint most people have is generally levied at obnoxious college students . . . who have always been just that, and never been paid attention to, in any generation.

Do I have to remind you that this author mocked the concept of "toxic masculinity" with a hyperlink to an article about the Pulse shooter, which specifically said masculinity is generally not toxic, but can be? Dishonest.