Moderator:Forum Administrators
Lauren wrote:I just can't stand to watch/listen to cis men for stuff like this anymore. Haven't really been able to stand cis men in any way at all lately. So I do my best to avoid them.
Vlürch wrote:I'm going to assume you don't, but there are more and more people out there who do, and they are getting louder and louder and gaining more and more political power; sure, they may still be far from even opening their mouth without getting laughed at, but it's inevitable that eventually they'll have positions in government jobs and the justice system and whatnot.
linguoboy wrote:Vlürch wrote:I'm going to assume you don't, but there are more and more people out there who do, and they are getting louder and louder and gaining more and more political power; sure, they may still be far from even opening their mouth without getting laughed at, but it's inevitable that eventually they'll have positions in government jobs and the justice system and whatnot.
[citation badly needed]
Classical slippery slope fallacy. I know it can be frightening to see an oppressed group finally achieving some redress after centuries of uncontested domination, but it doesn't follow from this that they will eventually gain enough power to turn the tables and oppress you instead. But if the possibility worries you, then it behooves you to do what you can do to meet more moderate demands for equality, since this will have the effect of undercutting support for more radical solutions.
dEhiN wrote:At the core, I see Lauren's comment as going beyond simple redress to reverse discrimination.
dEhiN wrote:On what grounds has she not been able to stand cis men in any way lately? If mostly or solely on the basis of them being cis, while everyone is entitled to their personal opinion, I contest her ability to state that in a public forum if the reverse were not true. That is, if I or any one of the cis men here, were not able to state that they have not been able to stand trans women in any way lately without getting a backlash from at least Lauren herself, then I don't think she should have a right to state that. At the least, a statement like that from her, based on her responses and comments in the past, sounds hypocritical. And at the most, it sounds out and out discrimanatory.
linguoboy wrote:dEhiN wrote:At the core, I see Lauren's comment as going beyond simple redress to reverse discrimination.
Which would be a valid complaint if "reverse discrimination" were a thing. But Aamer Rahman lays out pretty lucidly why it's not:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw_mRaIHb-M
linguoboy wrote:dEhiN wrote:On what grounds has she not been able to stand cis men in any way lately? If mostly or solely on the basis of them being cis, while everyone is entitled to their personal opinion, I contest her ability to state that in a public forum if the reverse were not true. That is, if I or any one of the cis men here, were not able to state that they have not been able to stand trans women in any way lately without getting a backlash from at least Lauren herself, then I don't think she should have a right to state that. At the least, a statement like that from her, based on her responses and comments in the past, sounds hypocritical. And at the most, it sounds out and out discrimanatory.
So how exactly are you, I, or any of the other cis men on this forum being "discriminated against"? How does Lauren's opinion as expressed here have any impact on our lives at all? Are you some how being prevented from doing or saying any of the things you would have before she spoke up?
As for your "rights", this is as perfect an example of the right to freeze peach as anyone could ask for. She expressed an opinion you dislike and you and Vlürch expressed your dislike of that opinion. No one has faced any sanction for their words, so where exactly is the problem?
linguoboy wrote:Which would be a valid complaint if "reverse discrimination" were a thing. But Aamer Rahman lays out pretty lucidly why it's not:
dEhiN wrote:Perhaps the term "reverse discrimination/racism/prejudice/etc." is not correct, but I disagree that someone from a group that has traditionally been discrimnated against cannot themselves become a discriminator. It all depends on your motivation, in my opinion. If I start having a dislike or even hatred toward anyone whose skin colour is white, solely on the basis that their skin colour is white, how is that not being racist?
dEhiN wrote:second of your response to Vlürch's comments as an attack on his ability to express dislike of her comment.
linguoboy wrote:dEhiN wrote:Perhaps the term "reverse discrimination/racism/prejudice/etc." is not correct, but I disagree that someone from a group that has traditionally been discrimnated against cannot themselves become a discriminator. It all depends on your motivation, in my opinion. If I start having a dislike or even hatred toward anyone whose skin colour is white, solely on the basis that their skin colour is white, how is that not being racist?
You can be bigoted against any class of people you like--cis men, Estonian-Americans, people named "Sylvia". But if you don't have significant societal power reinforcing your prejudices, their impact will be nugatory. We've explained this dynamic several times over by this point, in the Racism thread and elsewhere.
linguoboy wrote:I'll ask again: in what way are you being "discriminated against" here? What is the concrete effect of Lauren saying she's fed up with cis men and how does it differ from the concrete effect of someone else saying they've had it with people on Facebook or guys who wear vests?
linguoboy wrote:dEhiN wrote:second of your response to Vlürch's comments as an attack on his ability to express dislike of her comment.
I didn't make any mention of Lauren's comments in my response to Vlürch. My reply focused solely on an argument he made in his third paragraph of tangential ranting about how the "radfems" are coming someday to cut our balls off.
Lauren wrote:2) It's funny how cis men are trying to tell me, a trans woman, who is frequently the target of both transphobia and misogyny, that I should be nicer to cis men, who are privileged as fuck and never targets of transmisogyny. Check your privilege, please.
dEhiN wrote:I agree that systemic bigotry wherein societal prejudices are feeding into your bigoted worldview exists, and the impact of said systemic bigotry is large. But I don't believe that means the impact of someone who is a bigot but toward some group where there is no societal prejudice is nugatory. At least it may seem that way to the general populus. But not if that person decides to take harmful action against a member of the group they have a prejudice toward.
dEhiN wrote:linguoboy wrote:I'll ask again: in what way are you being "discriminated against" here? What is the concrete effect of Lauren saying she's fed up with cis men and how does it differ from the concrete effect of someone else saying they've had it with people on Facebook or guys who wear vests?
In my eyes, the difference between someone saying they've had it with people on Facebook versus they've had it with a particular cross-section of society that's based on race/gender/sexual orientation/religion is potentially quite large. The reason being historical experience. If someone gets fed up with people on FB, there isn't the possibility of them deciding to carry out unwelcoming and potentially eventually harmful actions toward all those on FB.
dEhiN wrote:And as for how was I being discriminated against, it was the thought of what an attitude such as what she wrote could lead to.
dEhiN wrote:So that's really what I'm attacking here - the fact that if someone on this forum could not write "I'm fed up with women" without facing a backlash, then someone on this forum should not be able to write "I'm fed up with cis men" without also facing a backlash.
linguoboy wrote:dEhiN wrote:I agree that systemic bigotry wherein societal prejudices are feeding into your bigoted worldview exists, and the impact of said systemic bigotry is large. But I don't believe that means the impact of someone who is a bigot but toward some group where there is no societal prejudice is nugatory. At least it may seem that way to the general populus. But not if that person decides to take harmful action against a member of the group they have a prejudice toward.
So what you're saying is that a person's harmful actions targeted against another specific person are more injurious to that person than a harmful action targeted against a class of people to whom that specific person happens to belong?
dEhiN wrote:I also think that discrimination of any form, regardless of societal influence or not, is not correct.
Return to “Politics and Religion”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests