Cancellations

[vimothy]

equally I think its strange to say they're 100% disconnected. "I'm a woman". "no you're not". this is an argument about some kind of underlying principle

 

[vimothy]

I'm not saying they're morally equivalent, that's very different

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I think its strange to say they're 100% disconnected

that is not what I said at all. of course it's an argument.

they're still fundamentally different anxieties

one is about being accepted for who you feel/know you are

the other is about feeling as if your own validity is threatened by extending it

 

[vimothy]

they really aren't. the principal is simple: be as inclusive - i.e. accepting of other people's identities as valid - as possible as often as possible

what does it mean to be as "inclusive as possible"? men and women are exclusive terms. "omnis determinatio est negatio".

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

we (society) go through something like this every time a marginalized group starts asserting itself

this one is more complicated than say, racism, because the extension of validity is between two subordinated groups

 

[vimothy]

ok, but they're still responses to the same thing - will I be accepted for who I am, why should i accept this person for who they are

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

men and women are exclusive terms

no, they are constructs. just as the nation-state is a construct.

any very cursory survey of relevant anthropology will tell you there have been many gender identities outside of binary man/woman in human cultures

 

[IdleRich]

equally I think its strange to say they're 100% disconnected. "I'm a woman". "no you're not". this is an argument about some kind of underlying principle

They are arguing about the same issue. That's trivial. Any real argument meets that condition. The stakes and the level of investment - what it means for the people involved - are hugely different. That's why it seems so weird that people are so fucking worked up about something that has very little bearing on their lives and which is clearly a hugely important, existential struggle for the people they are bullying. Particularly in this case where it's not really about gender, it's about the people who need to have the test. The language used is clearly the most precise way of defining this, people disagreeing with that aren't even making the point they think they are.

 

[vimothy]

any construct is exclusive, by definition

 

[vimothy]

They are arguing about the same issue. That's trivial. Any real argument meets that condition. The stakes and the level of investment - what it means for the people involved - are hugely different. That's why it seems so weird that people are so fucking worked up about something that has very little bearing on their lives and which is clearly a hugely important, existential struggle for the people they are bullying. Particularly in this case where it's not really about gender, it's about the people who need to have the test. The language used is clearly the most precise way of defining this, people disagreeing with that aren't even making the point they think they are.

well, that's what's interesting, isnt it? where does this anxiety come from? why are ppl so invested in it

 

[vimothy]

it doesnt actually matter, so they shouldn't care. and yet they do care

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

any construct is exclusive, by definition

the boundaries of a construct, because it is constructed, can be changed

but also, not everyone fits into man and woman, even extended to include trans people

hence non-binary, genderqueer, etc - the rejection of any category (which, before you say it, I'm sure thereby become a category unto itself)

 

[vimothy]

that's true, but the boundaries exist all the same, that's what gives the concept meaning

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

that's true, but the boundaries exist all the same, that's what gives the concept meaning

who says they don't

borders change, meanings change

there are still borders, there is still meaning

 

[vimothy]

boundaries imply exclusivity

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

boundaries imply exclusivity

inclusivity of identities still allows for exclusivity of category

one can choose one's category. in addition, there are new categories. neither of these means the old categories no longer exist, or are invalid.

 

[vimothy]

meaning implies exclusivity. you cant make inclusiveness a general principal - its always a question of _who_ will be included into _what_.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

its always a question of _who_ will be included into _what_

this is why I qualified it - twice - with "as possible"

 

[vimothy]

then it's no longer about inclusivity in general, it's about the legitimacy of the constructs, or the rules for inclusion

 

[IdleRich]

Some people are areseholes (or being manipulated by arseholes), I don't find that particularly interesting.
OK, that's not the whole story but for a lot of people that is what it boils down to.