Quote:
Originally Posted by ScandalAndy
Chazz, this response is directed solely in reference to the above post you made. However, I am hopeful that if I have misinterpreted you that someone will take it upon themselves to try and explain your meaning to me as I fear you and I have incredibly different styles of communicating and will be unable to share ideas in a way that doesn't ruffle feathers.
|
I'm sure someone will take it upon themselves to explain me. It's been happening. My feathers don't ruffle easy, so don't concern yourself with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScandalAndy
Is everything always so black and white with you? I see an awful lot of generalization, broad characterization, and "many people agree with me about this" or "how can you expect that". I find that accusatory and, frankly, I don't care who agrees with you about what, I want you to represent what you personally think and let everyone else who has thoughts and feelings on the subject speak for themselves. I don't want you to presume to speak for me, either.
|
No, some things aren't black and white with me, except when they are.
I'm not presuming to speak for anyone but myself. I am putting it out that some people are afraid to speak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScandalAndy
Who are you coming after with this post? I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with CherylNYC. Your use of "once men" is inappropriate no matter what the setting, I certainly don't approve of you repeating it, no matter the context you are trying to place it in.
|
Coming after????
Your "policing" of my terminology, opinions and communication style is duly noted. I find the use of the term cisgender/ed offensive and alienating as a butch lesbian; I've said as much in a number of threads. It's use continues unpoliced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScandalAndy
I don't see only one ideology being voiced. I disagree completely with your blanket statement that only one ideology is being voiced and therefore "we" cannot expect to have a meaningful discussion. Who are you to make that judgment call?
|
I take you at your word that you don't see it - which is precisely my point. Certain perspectives have become so entrenched and "normalized", they've become embedded in "our" psyches and the "community" lexicon. When something is said that challenges any of that (i.e. does not comport with the ideology or the sanctioned neologisms) it's deemed a TILT and deemed phobic. That's a death knell for critical thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScandalAndy
The whole post feels judging, like you have something to prove and won't be satisfied until everyone else agrees with your point, and until then you will continue to be adamant to the point of militance about your beliefs. Am I incorrect about this? I cannot help how I feel, but it would be good to know in advance if this is just a misinterpretation.
|
You're entitled to your feelings. Your opinion about my motives is entirely wrong, though. I'm not remotely invested in anyone agreeing with me. Really and truly, I'm not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScandalAndy
I guess at the end of the day, I am missing what the point is that you are trying to make. i've read the paragraphs over and over and I don't get it. It looks less like you're questioning trans/gender ideology and more like you're questioning whether or not to be inclusive of trans people. That feels crappy to me.
|
You see, ScandalAnd, you've just pointed to the problem. Questioning trans/gender ideology, politics and behavior is NOT a call to NOT INCLUDE trans people. Though that is too often the conclusion many people jump to. That jump justifies calling people who disagree with the ideology, transpobes.... My issue is NOT WITH TRANS PEOPLE, it's with aspects of an ideology, politics and behavior which I see as anti woman/lesbian/Feminist.