Everything I have to say comes down to 'Circumstance = Difference', but I'll keep going. That's just the TL;DR.
crayzz wrote:
You then go on to demonstrate that you're consistent on pronouns. You are; I never denied that. Your multiscreener was a waste of time.
What I actually was noting was your willingness to call people stupid for wanting their identity recognized along side your indignation (apparently due to the assumption that "you're wrong" necessarily means "you're an idiot") at me stating another's beliefs were untenable.
Okay, fine, I'll concede the first point. That has to do with your implication not my inferrence. Turns out, that's a big theme with the rest of this shit.
However, intent is the other major hinge. My indignation is that you actually think that people who believe a thing or act a certain way are inferior. No matter what I think about gender attribution, NO ONE is inferior. Even if I think those people are wrong for thinking of gender and sex in those ways, it does not make them inferior. It doesn't make them stupid for believing it.
In the end, it comes down to 'what I think' not what is or isn't. In that way, I am not being inconsistent, you just decided to consider it such because you are only looking at my words and failing with regards to my intentions. I'll admit, I'm not entirely forthcoming about my intentions. I said it here:
RyukaTana wrote:
I have much more complex thoughts on the issue, but I don't discuss them in this context because all I'll get is stupid. Instead, I discuss them with my friends and trans individuals I meet, because those are the only people who I give two fucks to know what they think about the issue in the long run.
That's all I have to say about my deeper intentions. It's just one of those things not worth the time to argue about without random internet dicks (I'm not using dicks as an insult, just a casual term here, unless you want to take it as an insult, in which case you can probably rightly assume I mean it that way in your case).
I would also note, where Packbat said:
Packbat wrote:...then why did the things we post inspire such fury in you?
I was literally answering
that question.
crayzz wrote:Ryuka Tana wrote:Plenty of people use 'he' as a gender-neutral term.
This actually bugs the ever loving shit out of many women.
I know, I'd equally argue against that. In fact, I basically am.
crayzz wrote:Ryuka Tana wrote:In the end, I don't care to be normal, and it doesn't change the most important fact that no one has to interact with me that does not wish to do so.
This is empirically false, unless you never leave your home. Further, forcing someone into a position of "be comfortable with my refusal to respect your identity or get out of my life" is nothing short of being an asshole for no reason.
Fine, if you can't handle a little bit of
perceived offense for long enough to decide to leave my presence, then I consider you weak and foolish and in that case I just don't care what you think about 'offense'. I'm not being an asshole for no reason, but I'll accept I'm being an asshole. I have very close friends who will tell you that, but they respect me for why I do the things I do.
crayzz wrote:Ryuka Tana wrote:If someone asks me to refer to them as 'Master', unless I agreed to it ahead of time, I'll tell them to fuck off... So no, that mentality doesn't work.
And you crash your entire argument in one sentence.
"Master" is just a word; a pronoun. You cannot construct an argument against using preferred pronouns without constructing an argument for not referring to someone as "master".
Nope... Sorry, wrong. I can absolutely do that. 'Master' is just a word, but 'asking/telling me to call you 'Master'' is an ACTION. It's asking me to submit some part of myself to you (not even because of the word 'Master', necessarily, I would disrespect it if someone asked me to call them 'James' if the connotation were that I must submit myself to him (or her) because of that). The premise is clear, 'Call me master, and submit to me'.
Wait, 'The premise is clear...' Based on circumstance. Don't try to turn that shit on me. If my girlfriend asked me to call her 'Master' or 'Mistress' in a sexual situation, I would do so. Circumstance changes the nature of the action. If I were dealing with a trans individual I would likely have had a discussion with them about their trans****ism and what that means to both of us. Circumstance changes the nature of what I am calling them.
Also, most of your arguments are basically 'Rules Lawyering'. You attack the argument instead of the premise or intention because you have little substance. Again now, I'm done with you in this. I don't need to engage any further in your shitty tactics. I maintain the arguments here against you because they also connect to my discussion with other people.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Packbat wrote:
The fact that there are more important issues - and the fact that there are issues being neglected - has no actual bearing on the issue of pronouns in language.
Also, most of the people you're complaining about - feminists, LGBT activists, sex-positivity advocates, research psychologists, et cetera - do care about other issues.
Also, it doesn't actually matter if they care about other issues any more than it matters that there are other issues.
No, that's the point. It all interconnects. Time and effort are constraints, and that any of it is placed in one place, does detract. In fact, 'it all interconnects' is really the problem. I can't argue every related thing, and people love to think everything is a separate cause or issue that has nothing to do with anything else. So I can only reasonably argue the one facet we're discussing here.
To go beyond the topic would only inspire questions that require going farther and farther until we reach a point where we're discussing everything.
The topic at hand, for me, is that I can call people whatever the fuck I want. The words I say are mine, not anyone else's, and I don't owe them words. Not at all. That's it. I'm not even arguing common courtesy or my feelings on the topic of sex and gender, because that's not the topic. As I've said, I'm not arguing the latter with random internet dicks.
Packbat wrote:
When you speak English, be willing to use the gendered pronouns that people prefer and be aware that the male pronoun is not gender-neutral. That's really all we're asking.
Thus, fuck this. You don't know me, you don't know the strawman trans individual you're defending, and it's none of your business. I will call them, and you, as I please. So far, I've chosen to address you the way you seem to desire (Packbat and 'he', you haven't corrected me so far) because I respect you (or because I don't have any reason otherwise, but in your case, it is with general respect). I will call any person what works for me based on my mutual relationship with that individual, and that has nothing to do with you. That means I might call them 'fucktard asshole bitch', and that's my choice, and if that's what I feel they've earned, too bad if it bothers them or you. Stop talking to me if you (anyone) finds my actions objectionable (or whatever you deem as the reason you don't want to talk to me anymore).