Moderator:Forum Administrators
Good to know. Now I don't distinguish between these two too much.linguoboy wrote:And you didn't. Being exasperated is not the same thing as being angry.hreru wrote:First, it was not my goal to make you angry.
It’s mentioned here a few times. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/normal My old Password gives only one definition: usual, with no special characteristics or circumstances.In which case, I'm going to need citations equating "normal" to "common" or "typical". Again, my dictionaries don't do this.
Criticism is all right. I didn't mean to suggest any harm suffered. Rather something like, why to choose this man as an example of homophobic behaviour? (But here there are the two different views on what he said, I read the less natural/abnormal neutrally so to me this was not homophobic, you took it as negatively meant.) And yes, if people said "this is so heteronormative" instead of "homophobic" I wouldn't protest. Still I wouldn't see a problem in it.What harm has Zelmerlöw suffered? He's had his public statements criticised.
But this is far from full acceptance. That's what I would call tolerance.Not everyone has to like that, but they do have to accept it--and that means altering their assumptions instead of treating the examples they come across as bizarre aberrations.
Bagemihl, Bruce. Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. (1999). You can find a selected list of species here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior.hreru wrote:Which reminds me, I haven't been given my "homosexuality among all animals" citations.
This is why it's your responsibility to make yourself aware. Why should this burden be on the person being hurt?hreru wrote:But to me it's very important if hurting was intentional or not. Not hurting the others is one of my main principles (much more important than helping them ) but oh my, I wouldn't be able to say a word if I should try not to hurt them while I'm unaware of doing so.
What does this last statement even mean? Individuals are not sui generis. Their group membership shapes their experiences and this, in turn, informs their behaviour. If you belong to a dominant group in society, it is your responsibility to consider how minority experiences might be different from yours and adjust your behaviour accordingly.hreru wrote:I don't like microaggression theory at all, accepting it would mean for me making all communication impossible. If someone feels hurt by something I do I want them to let me know. I think in the end it's always down to the two people involved, not a group against another group.
No, that's why I am put through that. Saying "should" makes it sound like I brought this upon myself, which I didn't.hreru wrote:Why should you be put through that? I don't want this to sound harsh but because you're in a minority.
So it would be unreasonable for the doctor to expect that he should be able to find gluten-free food in a big restaurant that claims ton serve everybody?hreru wrote:The physician whom you regard unsensitive to your natural concern to be considered legal husband might, I don't know, suffer from coeliac disease and think people unsensitive to his special needs. You can't expect majority to adapt to you.
If your thinking is so stereotyped that there's no room in it for possibilities that may affect only 1% of the population, you should get out of the medical field before you kill someone.hreru wrote:People have to think in stereotypes to some extent, you would never do anything if you take every situation as if it was new to you. If 99% of marriages are between a man and a woman you don't expect the next one you're going to meet be different.
I was simply flabbergasted that your imagination could be so limited. I felt like I was being asked to explain something so basic that I couldn't quite believe it was really happening.hreru wrote:Misunderstandings happen. I sensed in your second to the last reply to me quite an aggression I was unaware of having provoked, and I understood the "You can't imagine?..." as "you're stupid". It might be similar with your feelings of "you're abnormal" in the hospital.
hreru wrote:But this is far from full acceptance. That's what I would call tolerance.Not everyone has to like that, but they do have to accept it--and that means altering their assumptions instead of treating the examples they come across as bizarre aberrations.
linguoboy wrote:Bagemihl, Bruce. Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. (1999). You can find a selected list of species here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior.
This is why it's your responsibility to make yourself aware. Why should this burden be on the person being hurt?
If you belong to a dominant group in society, it is your responsibility to consider how minority experiences might be different from yours and adjust your behaviour accordingly.
I was simply flabbergasted that your imagination could be so limited. I felt like I was being asked to explain something so basic that I couldn't quite believe it was really happening.
Is it also the responsibility of animals to explain to us how our treatment of them is cruel or can we be expected to have the bare minimum of empathy necessary to figure this out for ourselves?Yserenhart wrote:If you belong to a dominant group in society, it is your responsibility to consider how minority experiences might be different from yours and adjust your behaviour accordingly.
If you belong to a minority group, it is your responsibility to explain how your experiences might be different from those of the dominant group.
I don't understand what you're talking about. What hreru said was:Yserenhart wrote:I was simply flabbergasted that your imagination could be so limited. I felt like I was being asked to explain something so basic that I couldn't quite believe it was really happening.
Believe it or not, there exist people for whom social and non-visual/non-verbal cues are confusing and incomprehensible. Furthermore, in many cases it is difficult, if not impossible to determine things like sexual orientation from non-visual/non-verbal cues.
That is, "How can you tell someone's gay in the absence of visual clues? "And the answer--from non-visual clues (such as being told directly)--is so bleeding obvious I could not understand how it did not occur to him. (Apparently, the confusion stems from his completely misunderstanding of the definition of "show", which is something I really didn't expect, as I've never met any English speaker in my entire life who didn't understand what this word means.)How do they know they’re gays when these don’t show it?
Or we could not, because homosexual behaviour is to be expected in mammalian species like humans.Yserenhart wrote:As for the meaning of the word normal, the definition most appropriate here is the first, "According to norms or rules." The definition for "norm" is "That which is regarded as normal or typical." If we then look at the definition for "typical" (as looking at "normal" gives us a nice infinite loop) that fits the situation best—"Normal, average; to be expected."—then we could indeed say that homosexuality is "abnormal"; synonymous to "atypical" or "uncommon".
linguoboy wrote:Is it also the responsibility of animals to explain to us how our treatment of them is cruel or can we be expected to have the bare minimum of empathy necessary to figure this out for ourselves?
Frankly I feel like LGBTQ people have done more than enough already to explain to the rest of the population how and why heterosexism hurts them. We can hardly be blamed if the majority keep ignoring our testimony. At this point, it's willful ignorance on their part.
Or we could not, because homosexual behaviour is to be expected in mammalian species like humans.
Recall my comparison to eye colour. What proportion of the population have green eyes? It's so unusual that I can't even find percentages for it. At most, maybe 1-2% of the human population are green-eyed. According to your logic, we should be comfortable calling green eyes "abnormal" as well. And maybe that would be acceptable in a research paper where one is using a strict scientific definition of "normal". But that's not how people ordinarily talk. No one says, "Her eyes are abnormal. They're green." Zemerlöw was giving a casual interview, not presenting scientific findings, and so I believe his use of avvilse in that context was wrong.
"abnormal"; synonymous to "atypical" or "uncommon"
Yserenhart wrote:If I remember correctly, the number normally given is 10% of the population are non-heterosexual (and a quick look at wiki gives me numbers vastly lower than that, less than 5% generally); therefore the vast majority are heterosexual, which makes heterosexuality the common, typical sexual orientation.
linguoboy wrote:Frankly I feel like LGBTQ people have done more than enough already to explain to the rest of the population how and why heterosexism hurts them. We can hardly be blamed if the majority keep ignoring our testimony. At this point, it's willful ignorance on their part.
Is it wilful ignorance, or is the testimony not being given in a way that actually reaches the rest of the population without them having to actively search for it (thereby implying they know about the problem in the first place)? In my experience, I come across such testimony more in places like UL, where people who identify as LGBTQ are a greater proportion of people than they are in the general population; and less in places that are more likely to reach the general population. So, in many ways, it seems like that testimony is more being given to the people who don't need the explanation, instead of to those that do.
vijayjohn wrote:Also, um, I have to ask, wtf are straight people doing trying to argue with gay people about discrimination against gay people on a forum where, like, most of the users are openly gay?
vijayjohn wrote:But don't you think that's precisely because of heteronormativity and its prevalence in the modern world, at least in part?
Is it really the fault of the marginalized population anyway for not making sure their testimony reaches the rest of the population? Is it possible that the dominant population takes measures to prevent this from happening? Is it possible that people are more likely to share their experiences about being marginalized in a space like UL where they can feel relatively safe about sharing those experiences than in places where they run a greater risk of being punished for saying something? And BTW, who says that people who don't need the explanation aren't getting it just because there are more gay people here on UL than in the general population? Don't you and I need the explanation, and aren't we getting it?
Also, um, I have to ask, wtf are straight people doing trying to argue with gay people about discrimination against gay people on a forum where, like, most of the users are openly gay?
Lauren wrote:Because the majority, the oppressors, like to be in power and tell everyone else how they should feel and behave instead of shutting the fuck and and listening to the oppressed.
Yserenhart wrote:Lauren wrote:Because the majority, the oppressors, like to be in power and tell everyone else how they should feel and behave instead of shutting the fuck and and listening to the oppressed.
But fortunately we have the minority to tell the majority to shut the fuck up instead of encouraging proper discussion in which all groups can be equally heard.
linguoboy wrote:If you care about not harming your fellow human beings, read this. If not, then ignore it and keep on doing what you've been doing:
https://medium.com/@schmutzie/why-it-is-not-my-responsibility-as-a-marginalized-individual-to-educate-you-about-my-experience-915b4ec08efd
Lauren wrote:You talk as if you're sarcastic, but you are actually right. When talking about LGBTQ lives, LGBTQ people know best, not heterosexual people. The same goes for other minorities; People of color know better about their lives than white people do. I'm white myself and know to shut up and listen to people of color in discussions about racism.
Proper discussion in this case is not letting the majority take over the conversation and letting the minority be heard, because historically the minority is oppressed and silenced by the majority. Make sense?
Lauren wrote:@Yserenhart: I'm not sure if you're ignorant of LGBTQ people's lives in society or you're trying to play devil's advocate where it's not appreciated.
You're doing #11 exactly:the marginalized individual’s existence and experiences are not actually up for your reasoned feedback or debate.
No. I encourage heterosexuals to keep assuming their sexuality is the prevailing one but to be aware at the same time there are people who have it different way and they're not less valuable just because of that. Still it doesn't mean they're not minority in this respect.linguoboy wrote:You are encouraging heterosexuals to keep assuming everyone else in the world is the same as them and acting accordingly. As long as they don't do this out of actual animus towards non-straights, it's okay. Right?
Right. I thought to show could be used to mean to manifest, to let know – regardless of the means. If I show regret or if I say "Let me show you how this works" does it mean I won't say I'm sorry and I won't explain verbally what's happening?linguoboy wrote: What hreru said was:That is, "How can you tell someone's gay in the absence of visual clues? "And the answer--from non-visual clues (such as being told directly)--is so bleeding obvious I could not understand how it did not occur to him. (Apparently, the confusion stems from his completely misunderstanding of the definition of "show", which is something I really didn't expect, as I've never met any English speaker in my entire life who didn't understand what this word means.)How do they know they’re gays when these don’t show it?
Yserenhart wrote:I will admit that I'm a bit doubtful that all of the discrimination shared here on UL that's attributed to heteronormativity is actually because of it. For example, part of linguoboy's testimony about the staff in hospital, and it being assumed that his husband was his father; I think that with any combination of genders, and swapping the ages of the two, it would still have been assumed to be a parent-child relationship rather than a married couple.
If someone isn't willing to learn, then it doesn't matter whether someone is willing to teach them or not. Ultimately, we all teach ourselves everything. Others just facilitate this process.Yserenhart wrote:20. 21. If noöne is willing to teach, then noöne will learn.
And yet you reject microaggression theory because it makes you feel bad. Sorry, but microaggressions don't cease to cause harm just because you don't want them to or like to believe that intent is all that matters.hreru wrote:No. I encourage heterosexuals to keep assuming their sexuality is the prevailing one but to be aware at the same time there are people who have it different way and they're not less valuable just because of that.linguoboy wrote:You are encouraging heterosexuals to keep assuming everyone else in the world is the same as them and acting accordingly. As long as they don't do this out of actual animus towards non-straights, it's okay. Right?
"Let me show you how this works" say nothing about whether a verbal explanation is part of the package or not. What it absolutely does mean, however, is that a visual demonstration is the central event. If you were giving only and explanation and not demonstrating anything, you would say "Let me tell you how this works".linguoboy wrote:I thought to show could be used to mean to manifest, to let know – regardless of the means. If I show regret or if I say "Let me show you how this works" does it mean I won't say I'm sorry and I won't explain verbally what's happening?
You are absolutely right to call me out on that and I owe you an apology--regardless whether this bothers you or not. I am sorry for the mistake and a promise not to make it again. It was sloppy of me not to check and I should be more careful.hreru wrote:If it's my responsibility not to hurt the other people, why do you refer of me as of him while my gender clearly states female just under my nick? Why didn't you check first? What if this is a sensitive issue for me? Well it isn't, really.
I'm not fretting and I'm not surprised. hreru's right, I didn't take the time to check (to be honest, I forgot there even was an option for including one's gender on one's posts) and as a result I made an easily-avoided mistake. I'm not going to beat myself up about it; I'm simply going to do better. That's all I ask of anyone.Lauren wrote:Don't fret, linguoboy, I was surprised too!
Return to “Politics and Religion”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests