Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
There seems to be a real gender gap between the tendency for women to equate expressing their emotions about a problem with actually solving the problem and the aversion to this in men.Women seem to interpret this aversion as “men must be programmed to counterproductively avoid feeling and expressing themselves because why else would they not want to solve the problem.”While me
You're mostly missing insight
We end toxic masculinity and teach men that it’s okay to feel and express their emotions like normal human beings?
There’s so many assumptions baked into this post that trying to understand what it means would be like trying to read the tea leaves.
There’s rarely a one size fits all solution to mental health, so why would an aggressive personality and misogyny be different?
Plus the idea of “toxic masculinity” quantifying over all toxic traits associated with masculinity is unhelpful to me. Sexual violence is shoved into the same category as being a cocky *******. How does that help men have a healthier relationship to their gender?
I'd never insult someone as severely as calling them normal
Do you think referring to straight people as "normal" is reasonable? What about white people in the US?
Obviously the point being made is that calling a set of people "normal" has the implication that other people who aren't in that set are not normal. It's not anything to do with gaslighting, it's purely being careful and respectful about what you might be implying with the language you use.
I didn't say cis wasn't the norm, I said no one was using it to describe normal guys. Language is hard I get it, but those are not equivalent statements.
Just like I would not be saying white people aren't the norm (in a selected area, for instance) if I said no one was using the term "white" to refer to "normal people."
Nobody is using it when describing normal guys. We're using it when describing non-trans guys.
Better not to use it at all, since it was coined to promote a false equivalence and particularly to make women and girls appear to be a mere subset of their own sex and indeed subordinate in all things to the other, newly invented subset.
Hard to believe that people on either side are getting worked up about this. He obviously (to me anyway) used the term because it was specifically in the context of people at a salon, where you might expect a greater proportion of trans (and gay) men than in a generic place. I probably would have even said "cishet" in that context, and I have never used that term except on this forum when trans or gay rights / issues were being specifically discussed.
Do you think referring to straight people as "normal" is reasonable? What about white people in the US?Obviously the point being made is that calling a set of people "normal" has the implication that other people who aren't in that set are not normal. It's not anything to do with gaslighting, it's purely being careful and respectful about what you might be implying with the lan
no
the problem is you're attaching insults to words where none is intended
if something is not the usual then it is not normal, there is nothing inherently bad with being not normal, the finest of everything is not normal
nba players are not normal basketball players, yet they are strangely the desired outcome of every little boy growing up playing horse and 21
ducy now?
No. It has a very distinct purpose.
since it was coined to promote a false equivalence and particularly to make women and girls appear to be a mere subset of their own sex and indeed subordinate in all things to the other, newly invented subset.
No. It is just the opposite of trans. It comes from the latin prefix cis- which is the opposite of trans-. Cisgender as a complete term has been around since the mid-90s as a means to avoid "othering" transgender people.
Using "normal" or associating normalcy with cisgender or heterosexuality is, intentionally or not, "othering" transgender/homosexuality. I do not think avoiding that is an reasonable stance.
Hard to believe that people on either side are getting worked up about this. He obviously (to me anyway) used the term because it was specifically in the context of people at a salon, where you might expect a greater proportion of trans (and gay) men than in a generic place. I probably would have even said "cishet" in that context, and I have never used that term except on this
this i wholly agree with, using cis there was perhaps required given that the stereotype of what kind of men you'd expect to be in a salon & that his statement was intended to shock and awe and go against that stereotype - that's a spot where i too would use the word cis even though i think it's by nature a needless word just as it's needless for me, a 6'2" male often sporting a beard shouldn't need to put he/him on his business card because one can naturally assume what it is without it - would honestly be less useful than putting down I'm a scorpio
however, trying to weaponize normal and not normal is just peak insanity and should be stamped down whenever possible
however, trying to weaponize normal and not normal is just peak insanity and should be stamped down whenever possible
I think you would just have to be unfamiliar with the
that "othering" can do to take that stance, but I'm not terribly surprised by this.
I think you would just have to be unfamiliar with the
that "othering" can do to take that stance, but I'm not terribly surprised by this.wild you just blanketly assume that I myself am not an other as well
that's your problem, you assume malice and evil intentions behind the poster and address that instead of the content of their posting
shame on you
wild you just blanketly assume that I myself am not an other as well
that's your problem, you assume malice and evil intentions behind the poster and address that instead of the content of their posting
I made no such assumptions. I would stand up against anyone trying to other you as well. And I have addressed the content of your posts in each of my replies to you. I really have no idea why you would think I haven't.
Further, a careful reading of my post would reveal I didn't ascribe your stance to evil or malice, but to ignorance.
Do you think referring to straight people as "normal" is reasonable? What about white people in the US?Obviously the point being made is that calling a set of people "normal" has the implication that other people who aren't in that set are not normal. It's not anything to do with gaslighting, it's purely being careful and respectful about what you might be implying with the lan
I see truth on both sides of this argument, and I assure you I’m not trying to use this as a “gotcha”, but what is your response when this argument is made on behalf of people dealing with and wanting to normalize pedophilia?
