The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
People found guilty of hate speech face a fine or up to a year in jail for private remarks, and a maximum of three years in jail for public comments, according to the penal code.
And the maximum sentence for murder is something like 25 years, right? Rude comments = 1/8th of a murder.
People found guilty of hate speech face a fine or up to a year in jail for private remarks, and a maximum of three years in jail for public comments, according to the penal code.
And the maximum sentence for murder is something like 25 years, right? Rude comments = 1/8th of a murder.
I mean, applying this math to any penal system will give you ridiculous results.
People found guilty of hate speech face a fine or up to a year in jail for private remarks, and a maximum of three years in jail for public comments, according to the penal code.
And the maximum sentence for murder is something like 25 years, right? Rude comments = 1/8th of a murder.
I mean, applying this math to any penal system will give you ridiculous results.
Can't do this math if the sentence is indeterminant (multiple life sentences is how many years?).
Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm Posts: 22543 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Bammer wrote:
This is the first thread I found with gender in the subject line so as hood a place as any, I suppose:
I just heard people referred to as either a “penis owner” or a “vulva owner.”
I suppose that's creative, but it's probably less useful and more offensive than just referring to people as the gender they'd prefer. The transgender kid in my son's Scout Troop is, I assume, a "vulva owner," but he would definitely rather be just a "boy" or a "man."
_________________ Everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?
This is the first thread I found with gender in the subject line so as hood a place as any, I suppose:
I just heard people referred to as either a “penis owner” or a “vulva owner.”
I suppose that's creative, but it's probably less useful and more offensive than just referring to people as the gender they'd prefer. The transgender kid in my son's Scout Troop is, I assume, a "vulva owner," but he would definitely rather be just a "boy" or a "man."
If he'd rather just be a boy or a man, why refer to him as the transgender kid? Just refer to him as a boy, his past history is irrelevant.
I see far too often a reference to transgender man or woman, rather than just man or woman. It's like a separate but equal gender identify is trying to be created.
_________________ Think I’m going to try being kind to everyone a chance.
Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm Posts: 22543 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
surfndestroy wrote:
B wrote:
Bammer wrote:
This is the first thread I found with gender in the subject line so as hood a place as any, I suppose:
I just heard people referred to as either a “penis owner” or a “vulva owner.”
I suppose that's creative, but it's probably less useful and more offensive than just referring to people as the gender they'd prefer. The transgender kid in my son's Scout Troop is, I assume, a "vulva owner," but he would definitely rather be just a "boy" or a "man."
If he'd rather just be a boy or a man, why refer to him as the transgender kid? Just refer to him as a boy, his past history is irrelevant.
I see far too often a reference to transgender man or woman, rather than just man or woman. It's like a separate but equal gender identify is trying to be created.
Well, I don't call him that to his face, but he may have issues that ignoring his transgender status would exacerbate.
_________________ Everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:35 pm Posts: 32286 Location: Buenos Aires
B wrote:
Bammer wrote:
This is the first thread I found with gender in the subject line so as hood a place as any, I suppose:
I just heard people referred to as either a “penis owner” or a “vulva owner.”
I suppose that's creative, but it's probably less useful and more offensive than just referring to people as the gender they'd prefer. The transgender kid in my son's Scout Troop is, I assume, a "vulva owner," but he would definitely rather be just a "boy" or a "man."
I've encountered this too. Usually it's in the context of issues related to physiology (usually genitals) without wanting to exclude trans people by addressing it merely to "men" or "women".
Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm Posts: 22543 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Not to mention, the only people who need to know about your penis and/or vulva ownership, are those people with whom you choose to share those body parts.
_________________ Everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?
This is the first thread I found with gender in the subject line so as hood a place as any, I suppose:
I just heard people referred to as either a “penis owner” or a “vulva owner.”
I suppose that's creative, but it's probably less useful and more offensive than just referring to people as the gender they'd prefer. The transgender kid in my son's Scout Troop is, I assume, a "vulva owner," but he would definitely rather be just a "boy" or a "man."
I've encountered this too. Usually it's in the context of issues related to physiology (usually genitals) without wanting to exclude trans people by addressing it merely to "men" or "women".
Men and women are gender signifiers. I am not sure how using man or woman is exclusionary in any way. It includes all who identify as man or woman.
I can't believe I am the one saying this but I think if we want an inclusive and equal society that when you want to refer to a group by their sex, you use male or female or cis man or cis woman. Keep man and woman for gender and stop using trans this or trans that. They identify as man or woman, that's good enough for me.
_________________ Think I’m going to try being kind to everyone a chance.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:35 pm Posts: 32286 Location: Buenos Aires
surfndestroy wrote:
Men and women are gender signifiers. I am not sure how using man or woman is exclusionary in any way. It includes all who identify as man or woman.
Right. And if we agree that gender doesn't necessarily line up with genitalia, then you probably see why addressing a question about penises to "men" excludes trans women who have penises. See what I mean?
Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm Posts: 22543 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
surfndestroy wrote:
I can't believe I am the one saying this but I think if we want an inclusive and equal society that when you want to refer to a group by their sex, you use male or female or cis man or cis woman. Keep man and woman for gender and stop using trans this or trans that. They identify as man or woman, that's good enough for me.
I agree with you to a point. For the most part, the use of "trans/transgender" serves little purpose. Certainly, transgender people would prefer to be treated like any other man or woman in their day-to-day interactions, but I can't go as far as you, b/c ignoring transgender status of an individual is the same as seeing no color when talking about race issues.
Transgender individuals have very specific issues involving health, law, and abuse, and ignoring trans status, makes you unable to address those issues.
_________________ Everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?
Men and women are gender signifiers. I am not sure how using man or woman is exclusionary in any way. It includes all who identify as man or woman.
Right. And if we agree that gender doesn't necessarily line up with genitalia, then you probably see why addressing a question about penises to "men" excludes trans women who have penises. See what I mean?
Penis/vulva owner is meant to be exclusionary and insulting to trans people. Whereas I think using cis-man or woman is just refining a subset of humans.
_________________ Think I’m going to try being kind to everyone a chance.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:35 pm Posts: 32286 Location: Buenos Aires
surfndestroy wrote:
Jorge wrote:
surfndestroy wrote:
Men and women are gender signifiers. I am not sure how using man or woman is exclusionary in any way. It includes all who identify as man or woman.
Right. And if we agree that gender doesn't necessarily line up with genitalia, then you probably see why addressing a question about penises to "men" excludes trans women who have penises. See what I mean?
Penis/vulva owner is meant to be exclusionary and insulting to trans people. Whereas I think using cis-man or woman is just refining a subset of humans.
I don't see how it's "meant" to be exclusionary or insulting to trans people. It's being extremely matter of fact. As an example: "penis owners should get their prostate checked by age 50." By putting it in those terms, you are including men, women, and non-binary folks who have penises. That's not "insulting" at all. If you made the same statement but replaced "penis-owners" for "cis men," you are effectively leaving out trans women, who are not cis men.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:35 pm Posts: 32286 Location: Buenos Aires
I don't know the context around where Bammer saw that term, and certainly I can imagine scenarios where it could be meant as an insult, but I think taken at face value it's not inherently insulting. It's drawing the same differentiation between gender and sex that you made earlier.
The term is clunky and funny-sounding but I can see what it's aiming for
Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm Posts: 22543 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Jorge wrote:
I don't know the context around where Bammer saw that term, and certainly I can imagine scenarios where it could be meant as an insult, but I think taken at face value it's not inherently insulting. It's drawing the same differentiation between gender and sex that you made earlier.
The term is clunky and funny-sounding but I can see what it's aiming for
Leave it to bammer to find the only transphobic person in Seattle.
_________________ Everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?
I can't believe I am the one saying this but I think if we want an inclusive and equal society that when you want to refer to a group by their sex, you use male or female or cis man or cis woman. Keep man and woman for gender and stop using trans this or trans that. They identify as man or woman, that's good enough for me.
I agree with you to a point. For the most part, the use of "trans/transgender" serves little purpose. Certainly, transgender people would prefer to be treated like any other man or woman in their day-to-day interactions, but I can't go as far as you, b/c ignoring transgender status of an individual is the same as seeing no color when talking about race issues.
Transgender individuals have very specific issues involving health, law, and abuse, and ignoring trans status, makes you unable to address those issues.
Would you introduce me as an immuno-compromised, single male parent man? Those are very relevant to issues regarding health, law, systematic misandry in court I and others in my situation have faced. Or would I just be a guy you know from online?
I ask not because I think you are wrong but more because I struggle understanding the need by some to constantly identify who they are in much more detail than required by the situation.
_________________ Think I’m going to try being kind to everyone a chance.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 68 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
