Misgendering

Where did I say I’m championing any of this???
So again I’ll ask...What is it that you think is going to “turn and bite me” specifically?

 

Asking that you be called by the name and gender you are used to being referred by isn't rude, its helping the other person interact with you better. In fact it is often rude to leave people in the dark when they make a mistake that they might repeat over and over again with you. When you are interacting with people, half of the interaction is about you. And you have the right to make half of the interaction about you. And that means you can assert yourself, but also respect that other people might politely assert themselves too. The best interactions are a two-way street where both people are assertive. Rather than avoiding any form of conflict with other people, it is better to pick your battles and diplomatically get your point across.

And lets say that you are completely right and they shouldn't have corrected you. Well, every person is different, and most people will make mistakes in social interactions. Lots of people will correct you when you get something wrong, even when its about something mundane that doesn't matter. When they do, even when they are wrong, just call them what they want to be called, because its pointless to start a fight over a name.

If you think its annoying that someone corrects you, then its absolutely enraging to them when they have corrected you, and you have openly refused to call them what they want to be called. So just call people what they want to be called.

 

This just needs to be emphasized.

 

Good grief!

Just because a handful of theist morals happen to align with secular laws does NOT make them legislated morality!

What about the theist morality that demands the death penalty for a child that swears at their parents? Nowadays we know that to be a symptom of Tourette Syndrome but how many children would be executed if that morality was included in the penalty for murder?

The FUNCTION of have a SECULAR government and Law of the Land is to establish a wall of separation between church and state. The Founding Fathers did this BECAUSE they KNEW the HARM caused to society by theist morality and what happens when it is perverted into the Law of the Land.

In SPITE of that wall of separation there was still a great deal of theist CONFLICT right here in America between Catholics and Protestants. Prohibition was a MANIFESTATION of the BREACHING of that wall of separation where Protestants LEGISLATED their "morality" against the Irish Catholics. Nowadays Evangelicals demonize atheists and the LBGT community in much the same way that their forebears demonized Catholics. The DOMA legislation was another breach of that wall of separation.

This thread is about demonizing the LBGT community and it filled with faux outrage about the imaginary impositions that might stem from a handful of transgenders. The goal being to legislate their morality by enabling them to deny their fellow Americans their right to choose how they want to be addressed.

 

Not all morals are theist. Even atheists have morals against theft, murder and many other things. I would even go so far as to say that we have a moral with regards to protecting the rights of all and ensuring equality. I think you are too hung up on morals can only be theist somehow. That's what it seems like at least.

 

I uphold your right to your fallacious assumptions and misrepresentations of my position.

Have a nice day!

 

There is a reason I used the word "seems". Are you claiming that an atheist cannot have morals against theft and murder?

 

Predictable strawman fallacy!

 

Your opinion is based on fear, misunderstanding, and abhorrence, is it not? You don't like homosexuals or transgenders mostly because they are so extremely weird to you, which I can understand. But you didn't answer my question: Why get your boxers in a bunch over people who do not affect your life?

 

You brought it up, crank. If you don't need to address transgenders, why are you on this thread talking about how to address them?

 

I always laugh out loud when people say this sort of crap. Official you have no earthly idea what you're talkin about. And it's funny how smart you pretend to be.

I don't have any problem with homosexual I'm married to one, and I am one myself so nice try next time try not being psychic you suck at it.

Why do you fantasize about everyone having their boxers in a bunch? I hate to disillusion you on your silly little fantasy but I don't wear boxers. You'll have to picture something else

 

Eew. I'd rather not!

 

Then don't worry about how I wear my underwear.

 

What strawman? I have claimed you said something, I claimed it seemed you were saying something and asked for clarification.

So let's review. Feel free to correct if I get it wrong. You claimed that no effort to legislate morality has worked well. I pointed out that some has. You then said something about theist morality coinciding with civil law. I pointed out that not all morals are theist in nature and then you went off on false assumptions.

What am I assuming false? Do not atheists have morals that are shared with theists? Are they not successfully integrated into law? I am not trying to claim that there are a lot of these. And I agree that any morality that is strictly of one religion or another has and will fail. I'm just not willing to do blanket statement morals not being able to be successfully legislated.

 

It’s not my fault if someone displays both male and female characteristics.

 

I'd just as soon not come at them at all. If they come at me, they have no reasonable expectation of whatever passes for respect from their (and, apparently, your) twisted perspective.

Really? You think Christ never caused anyone any pain?

Really??

First you'll have to convince them you have at least the tiniest glimmer of a clue as to what that is.

 

LOLs

 

It's not your problem, either.

 

If you've literally never considered what legal self-identification means (and judging by your painfully naive questions, I'm going to assume that's the case), I suggest you start to consider it.

In a nutshell, it means ... anyone is whoever or whatever they claim to be, and no one can legally dispute it. It means every one of us can simply choose what benefit we'd like to derive, then adopt whatever identity we need to adopt to access that benefit. Worse, once that benefit has been plundered to its limits, we can simply change our identity to that which will pay next. We won't all exploit the law of course, but a HUGE proportion of us will - since it's human nature to exploit.

 

You have quite the fantasy going on in your head. None of the nonsense you spewed above is anything that will “turn and bite me”. You really shouldn’t go through life so scared. Take a breath and try to enjoy life.

 

This isn't about me being corrected. It's not about me at all. It's about respecting the right of others to think of me however they see fit, and refer to me in any way they see fit. If you like to ask strangers how they'd like to be addressed, then you do that. If someone says to me "Hi, I'm Bobby", and I'm uncertain of their sex ... I would never actually ask them. I would also never respond with "So you do prefer Bobby, Robert, Robby, or Bob?" CLEARLY they want to be called Bobby, so any further enquiry would actually be me imposing my own stuff into the situation.

PS: If someone is 'enraged' by hearing their title/name etc mispronounced or ignored, they have issues MUCH larger than anything ordinary civil discourse encompasses. That's pathology, and the general public cannot be expected to play to that.

 

And normal people aren't upset when others get their name or title wrong. That's the actual key to it, since none of us can control the world.

 

Oh it will. It will bite all of us in one form or another.

If you have even the least interest in social justice or any kind of consciousness of the welfare of your community/nation etc, you will immediately extrapolate all of this to massive abuse of welfare and social programs. Not to mention the impact on women and girls (who are already being defined out of existence as we speak).

 

Holy hyperbole. Your imagination is in overdrive now.