|
Post by sniperserpent on Mar 3, 2014 22:16:39 GMT
If Lois lane had a dick - I would not take that as anything as an implicaiton about girls as a whole. If I say if Girls had dicks- then that is a more absolute statement about the gender. You're right, there is a slight distinction between using the singular specific and the plural general. I do understand that if Tom had said "If girls had dicks then blah blah..." there would have been a different connotation to his twoot. Not enough to get grade-A butthurt, but a correction from a follower would be in order. But Tom's exact words were "If she had a dick, it would be larger than the person she was talking to!" And I know those are his exact words because I took a screenshot of his twoot, anticipating a shitstorm. This is different for one reason: he used "If she"- the singular specific. Not meant to be taken as an implication about bedicked girls. Oh, my bad, I was misremembering the exact wording. Grammatical point to you sir. And yeah, by peeved I did not mean really pissed, more a mild annoyance.
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Mar 3, 2014 22:28:50 GMT
While you are well within your rights to feel any way you like, I do not agree with your contention that Tom's wording implies or could be reasonably construed to imply anything like what you are saying.
|
|
|
Post by sniperserpent on Mar 3, 2014 22:32:35 GMT
While you are well within your rights to feel any way you like, I do not agree with your contention that Tom's wording implies or could be reasonably construed to imply anything like what you are saying. I personally, if it was worded how I am informed it was, don't really take offense to it myself, but see why people might. An important thing to remember with a lot of these issues as what may seem a small thing to someone who doesn't have to deal with any of it is often just one more thing along a mountain of much more serious sleights, so people may react more severly than appears appropriate to just the thing in question.
|
|
|
Post by Señor Goose on Mar 3, 2014 22:38:56 GMT
While you are well within your rights to feel any way you like, I do not agree with your contention that Tom's wording implies or could be reasonably construed to imply anything like what you are saying. I personally, if it was worded how I am informed it was, don't really take offense to it myself, but see why people might. An important thing to remember with a lot of these issues as what may seem a small thing to someone who doesn't have to deal with any of it is often just one more thing along a mountain of much more serious sleights, so people may react more severly than appears appropriate to just the thing in question. I agree that there is a lot of adversity facing transgendered individuals, and that at best it will be another several decades before things start to get better for them. There is truly a mountain of shit that these people deal with constantly, and that makes them strnger than I could ever hope to be for it. A bad dick joke, though?
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Mar 3, 2014 22:44:51 GMT
While you are well within your rights to feel any way you like, I do not agree with your contention that Tom's wording implies or could be reasonably construed to imply anything like what you are saying. I personally, if it was worded how I am informed it was, don't really take offense to it myself, but see why people might. An important thing to remember with a lot of these issues as what may seem a small thing to someone who doesn't have to deal with any of it is often just one more thing along a mountain of much more serious sleights, so people may react more severly than appears appropriate to just the thing in question. It wasn't just a small thing, it was nothing. If people go through life looking for things to be offended by, they will find them. If you decide to let other people dictate how you feel you are going to have a bad time.
|
|
|
Post by sniperserpent on Mar 3, 2014 22:50:43 GMT
And If people keep throwing shit in your face, sometimes you are going to see it even when its not there.
|
|
|
Post by Señor Goose on Mar 3, 2014 22:59:55 GMT
And If people keep throwing shit in your face, sometimes you are going to see it even when its not there. Wise words. Anyway, I can't recall you ever getting a proper introduction. Welcome to the forum! Enjoy your stay, be productive, and don't try to repurpose old threads into general discussion threads. GK Sierra hates when I do that.
|
|
|
Post by sniperserpent on Mar 3, 2014 23:02:25 GMT
Thanks. I'm not entirely sure what constitutes productive on a forum, but I'll strive for it nonetheless.
And I'm glad everyone can handle this as a civilized conversation. More than I can say about a lot of other places.
|
|
|
Post by thedoomblahsong on Mar 4, 2014 0:51:57 GMT
You're right, there is a slight distinction between using the singular specific and the plural general. I do understand that if Tom had said "If girls had dicks then blah blah..." there would have been a different connotation to his twoot. Not enough to get grade-A butthurt, but a correction from a follower would be in order. Hi sniperserpent and welcome. You've scaled back your criticism of Tom after Señor Goose pointed out he was using the singular "she" in his tweet, but I'm guessing you WOULD have a problem with the tweet if he had used a plural term such as women. Goose too concedes that "a correction...would be in order". Personally, I don't see why this should be. I think we all understand the semantic distinction between 'sex' and 'gender identity' which has been introduced in the last few decades as part of our developing awareness of human diversity. But if I say "suppose women had penises", why should that be taken to mean "suppose those of female gender identity had penises"? That really wouldn't make any sense. But it could also be taken to mean "suppose those of female sex had penises", which makes sense and doesn't require a correction. Since it's usually clear from context whether you're talking about sex or gender (as it was in Tom's case), it is unreasonable to expect everyone to make a disclaimer referring to transgender, transex, or any other distinction every time you use the words 'man' or 'woman'. It is much worse to berate someone and call them cissexist just because they didn't make the disclaimer. I know some people want 'man' and 'woman' to refer to gender identity by default, but they don't own the words, and a lot of times you just want to refer to that broad group of people with two X chromosomes and vaginas without getting into a sociology debate. I've said in my last post that I think Tom, for his own sake, might want to clarify what he meant to his twitter followers. Nevertheless, if you understood the context of Tom's tweet, it would be clear that he was talking about hollywood token female characters. These characters A) don't exist, and unlike real, diverse human beings B) are all cisgendered females, which C) may well be one reason Tom chose to criticize this trope in this very tweet! Discussing this movie trope, even saying "suppose all these female film characters had penises", does not imply real trans women do not exist, does not disparage them in any way
|
|
|
Post by sniperserpent on Mar 4, 2014 1:09:51 GMT
But he was talking about gender, since the whole point of the point of the tweet was dealing with gender roles in media.
Also, difference between sex and gender isn't a last few decades thing. You can see it throughout history, for example, the norse people were pretty accepting of transgender people.
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Mar 4, 2014 2:45:43 GMT
But he was talking about gender, since the whole point of the point of the tweet was dealing with gender roles in media....and it had absolutely nothing to do with transgender people. Here. I have created a three-step guide for moving on with your life if your jimmies remain rustled by this tweet:
Step 1: Step down off of soapbox Step 2: Stow your struggle Step 3: Find a better hill to die on
|
|
|
|
Post by sniperserpent on Mar 4, 2014 2:54:39 GMT
But he was talking about gender, since the whole point of the point of the tweet was dealing with gender roles in media....and it had absolutely nothing to do with transgender people. Here. I have created a three-step guide for moving on with your life if your jimmies remain rustled by this tweet:
Step 1: Step down off of soapbox Step 2: Stow your struggle Step 3: Find a better hill to die on
|
Calm yourself. I have never said the tweet had anything to do with Transgender issues, except maybe by accident. By gender roles I meant the role of women in media.
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Mar 4, 2014 3:02:07 GMT
Funny- I was about to say this to you, but it struck me as too much. Perhaps I should reconsider. I have never said the tweet had anything to do with Transgender issues, except maybe by accident. I'm glad that we agree there is no issue with someone exercising free speech to make a joke and that the people who are still offended are not being reasonable. Now that we've established that Tom is not a trans-bashing monster, there is no reason to remain "fannytroubled" as Senor Goose so eloquently put it.
|
|
|
Post by sniperserpent on Mar 4, 2014 3:04:44 GMT
I don't know at what point I might have given the image of being anything but calm. It's not like I suggested you find a hill to die on. No, I'm just trying to explain why some people feel what they felt.
|
|
eskhn
Full Member
You like 'em? Huh? You like 'em?
Posts: 167
|
Post by eskhn on Mar 4, 2014 3:13:32 GMT
Let me ask you this, sniperserpent (if it's not too uncomfortable a question, and feel free to say if it is): Do you, yourself, identify as trans*?
|
|
|
Post by sniperserpent on Mar 4, 2014 3:14:10 GMT
Yeah. It's a pretty recent development though.
|
|
|
Post by Covalent on Mar 4, 2014 4:03:13 GMT
This is all I can think of: And because of Tumblr SJWs, I will never be able to take those prefixes seriously.
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Mar 4, 2014 4:06:40 GMT
This is all I can think of: And because of Tumblr SJWs, I will never be able to take those prefixes seriously. Why? Crude robot translations are like this every other time. But hey, aren't you a scientist? By now thorougly failed Masquerade opens wide the field of xenobiology before you, and you can't take it seriously?
|
|
|
Post by Señor Goose on Mar 4, 2014 4:28:19 GMT
This is all I can think of: And because of Tumblr SJWs, I will never be able to take those prefixes seriously. Don't worry Covalent. I see what you did there.
|
|
|
Post by Stately Buff Cookie on Mar 4, 2014 6:49:57 GMT
I'd say she is pretty transgender and vulnerable to harassment after that comment. Do you mean her comment or Tom's? From the rest of your post, I take it you mean hers. In which case I agree with you it was careless and she only has herself to blame. Tom did not force her to reply to it. Unless he has secret mind control powers. Then he he would go to jail.. if we had laws governing on how one is allowed to use mind control powers. Since this is unlikely, I don't see why this is even a discussion. If you mean Tom's, I still don't know where you're coming from. Nobody is responsible for words put in their mouth by miserable people going around looking for reasons to be even more miserable. It's appalling how she took a situation that had nothing to do with her and somehow twisted it to make it about herself. Though I guess that's how attention whores tend to work. Sadly, that's fairly common among internet self diagnosed trans.
|
|