The secret origins of political correctness

reply to post by JuniorDisco




You should really just ignore the trolls man.
Certain posters just make divisive, silly threads...

Skyfloating
Hows this for denial of biological reality:

Preferred Pronouns gain traction at US Colleges

On high school and college campuses and in certain political and social media circles, the growing visibility of a semantically committed cadre of young people who, like Crownover, self-identify as "genderqueer" — neither male nor female but an androgynous hybrid or rejection of both — is challenging anew the limits of Western comprehension and the English language.

They think if they self-identify as neither "He" nor "She" then that makes it true.

edit on 3-12-2013 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)

What does this have to do with your central thesis? These are a bunch of teenagers in a small college asking people to use a particular pronoun when addressing them. It's not a big scary government ordering that dissent be banned.

You may find their preferences a bit silly, but surely it's up to them what they want to be called, and up to others to treat them with politeness? Apparently - and ironically - it's you who is imposing a centralised identity and form of address on them, so maybe you should back up with the authoritarian rigidity and inflexible language?

The fascists you got excited about earlier were also fond of rigidly defined social roles enforced by language. Just saying

reply to post by JuniorDisco

JuniorDisco


The fascists you got excited about earlier were also fond of rigidly defined social roles enforced by language. Just saying

One of the claims of PC is that gender roles are "social constructs".

I`d submit that they are biological realities.

You, apparently being of the PC-mindset associate me with "fascists" for believing in the biological reality of genders.

"Hey, you believe in men and women? Why, what a fascist you are!"

Ridiculous.

PC is as simple, and as stupid, as this - At my alma mater we have a saying EMAW. It means Every Man A Wildcat. This has been a traditional phrase for decades ... right up until we both got a new university president, and one feminist student complained because of the word "man" in the phrase. Then, despite the big song and dance from the new president about how he was committed to "tradition," we all of a sudden were not allowed to have our band spell out EMAW on the field before the football games along with the other things anymore, and there was a big push to try to make everyone accept EPAW, Every Person A Wildcat. No one was given any voice in this matter except for the offended party.

That is PC at work.

It is also PC that drives towns to open up their holiday displays to every comer and try to do it fairly, and then it becomes such a hassle for the town that it finally decides not to have any displays at all. Then, there are no displays which is precisely what the atheists who almost always start the ruckus want - the absence of any displays of religion.

That is PC at work.

It is PC that drives out any display of personal or gender-based individuality in favor of a mythical equality because someone might become offended while at the same time paradoxically dividing people by labeling them. We are no longer simply all American. Rather, we must be African-American, Mexican-American, Native American, Indian-American, Chinese-American, etc.

PC is what tells you that a person is precisely what gender he or she thinks she thinks he or she is rather than the one his or her biology makes self-evident, and if your son or daughter is offended at being forced to share a bathroom with that person ... too bad. PC demands that your son or daughters' feelings take a backseat to the feelings of the transgendered.

So when your grade school child comes home and asks you why little Suzy has a penis or little Bobby doesn't ... that is PC at work.

PC is what tells you that even though you paid a hefty fee to get your son or daughter onto a competitive sports team, so did Mr. Lewis whose son is in a wheelchair. And that child has every right to expect to play and play a lot. So, when your son's team never, ever wins because your son's team is the only one in the league with a kid in a wheelchair who might try very hard, but well, just isn't as athletically able for obvious reasons, you all just have to bite your tongues and hope you can find a different team for you kids next year.

PC is where competition takes a backseat to mainstreaming absolutely everyone because how dare you imply that some people just won't be able to do some things!

PC is what tells people that every single work place should be comprised of a perfectly proportional representation of the population. So a company goes out of its way to find minority workers even to the point of ignoring perfectly qualified majority workers for fear of being accused of discriminatory hiring practices. Sometimes, underqualified or less able minority employees get hired for some positions in order to fulfill quotas to make the workplace more diverse, and if you are a majority applicant in competition with a minority applicant, you better hope you are clearly more qualified because if all things are equal or close to equal, you will lose the position in favor of diversity.

PC is where ethnic minority status is prized over ethnic majority status to satisfy racial diversity in the workplace, and in a down economy, it can really mean the difference between making it or not.

JuniorDisco



It will, because I didn't say you endorsed apartheid. I said that your argument was endorsed by apartheid..

"I didnt say this, I didnt say that".

You keep subtly associating my views with fascism, apartheid, racism, etc. without directly saying it.

My views have nothing at all to do with fascism, apartheid, racism or any other far-right ideology.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Hey look!

Perfect for this - men's and women's brains tend to be wired differently!

It seems that our brains wire themselves differently based on our gender. Men's brains wire more back to front and women's wire more side to side across hemispheres giving each gender different strengths.

blupblup
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

You should really just ignore the trolls man.
Certain posters just make divisive, silly threads...

Just off-putting when it comes from a Moderator.

Skyfloating

One of the claims of PC is that gender roles are "social constructs".

Straw man erected.

I`d submit that they are biological realities.

Straw man bundled over.

You, apparently being of the PC-mindset associate me with "fascists" for believing in the biological reality of genders.

It's a biological reality that gender is not fixed in the sense which you seem to think it is. But in the end what has this to do with your central thesis, beyond a basic grumbling about modernity?

Why do you care what people call themselves? The fact that you do care and seek to impose a set of your rules on them certainly gives you something in common with authoritarian regimes, doesn't it? Nothing in your examples suggests a top-down conspiracy to impose language norms on these people, or by them. Ironically it's you who is doing that.

ketsuko
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

Hey look!

Perfect for this - men's and women's brains tend to be wired differently!

It seems that our brains wire themselves differently based on our gender. Men's brains wire more back to front and women's wire more side to side across hemispheres giving each gender different strengths.

You do realise that nothing in that article supports what he says about the rigidity of gender, right? i mean there's even a clue in the title.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


Ok, I don't care that Cher's daughter decided she was a he and mutilated her body to imitate a man.

However, I do very much care if another person at my son's school has a daughter how decides to play at being a boy and the school decrees she should have open access to my son's bathroom and it upsets my son.

Why should that person's daughter's feelings supersedes my son's just because she chooses to think she's a boy while my son remains a boy? Either way it's decided, one of them is going to be upset about the bathroom arrangements, so why are her feelings more important than my son's and all the other little boys' feelings on this matter?

Just to note, PC decrees that her feelings will always be more important than my son's and any other little boy's feelings if they are offended at having what appears to be a girl using their restroom.

Skyfloating


"I didnt say this, I didnt say that".

Well, I didn't. My expression was precise.

You keep subtly associating my views with fascism, apartheid, racism, etc. without directly saying it.

I have directly stated it: the arguments you have employed about freedom of trade are exactly those used by pro-apartheid activists in the 70s and 80s; the tenor of your arguments regarding your desire to impose rigid labels on people are reminiscent of fascism.

This is about as direct as I can be, and it's exactly what I wrote above.

You'll note that I have tried to engage directly with your examples and answer your questions. That's not a courtesy you've extended to me, although I'm not particularly surprised. It's of a piece with the usual self-definition of people with your type of entrenched viewpoints as 'straight talkers'. It's as fantastical as your other claims.

My views have nothing at all to do with fascism, apartheid, racism or any other far-right ideology.

Besides their similarity.

ketsuko
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

Ok, I don't care that Cher's daughter decided she was a he and mutilated her body to imitate a man.

However, I do very much care if another person at my son's school has a daughter how decides to play at being a boy and the school decrees she should have open access to my son's bathroom and it upsets my son.

Why should that person's daughter's feelings supersedes my son's just because she chooses to think she's a boy while my son remains a boy? Either way it's decided, one of them is going to be upset about the bathroom arrangements, so why are her feelings more important than my son's and all the other little boys' feelings on this matter?

Just to note, PC decrees that her feelings will always be more important than my son's and any other little boy's feelings if they are offended at having what appears to be a girl using their restroom.

edit on 3-12-2013 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

I doubt your son's particularly "upset". Unless of course he's very gay.

JuniorDisco

ketsuko
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

Ok, I don't care that Cher's daughter decided she was a he and mutilated her body to imitate a man.

However, I do very much care if another person at my son's school has a daughter how decides to play at being a boy and the school decrees she should have open access to my son's bathroom and it upsets my son.

Why should that person's daughter's feelings supersedes my son's just because she chooses to think she's a boy while my son remains a boy? Either way it's decided, one of them is going to be upset about the bathroom arrangements, so why are her feelings more important than my son's and all the other little boys' feelings on this matter?

Just to note, PC decrees that her feelings will always be more important than my son's and any other little boy's feelings if they are offended at having what appears to be a girl using their restroom.

edit on 3-12-2013 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

I doubt your son's particularly "upset". Unless of course he's very gay.

Come on mate.

That was weak. This poster's son could be a prepubescent. Boys are not the biggest fans of girls until they hit puberty.
And calling someone's son 'very gay' is a stupid obvious red-herring.

While I did chuckle at the post, it was a poorly crafted argument.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


Really?

Now, you're just pulling out the ad hominems.

Try reversing the situation. Change my son into a daughter and go the other way with it.

Why should your son's feelings supersede my daughter's just because your son thinks he's a girl and she's more or less normal? Why should she and other girls be offended in that way?

The point still stands - no matter what happens, someone will be upset about the restroom arrangements, but PC demands that the most people will have to be offended to avoid upsetting your son who is "special" or more specials than everyone else and thus his "offense" is potentially more damaging or something.

reply to post by ketsuko


Okay. Well I'm happy to concede that your son's needs are of equal importance to anyone else's. However I do think that this ridiculous situation that you've contrived ("won't somebody PLEEEASE think of the children") has very little to do with any of this discussion.

Obviously one can extrapolate and find situations where allowing a measure of personal freedom and treating others with some sensitivity might cause problems. But one can also find situations where wearing shoes might cause problems. It doesn't mean that one abandons them altogether.

kyviecaldges

JuniorDisco

ketsuko
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

Ok, I don't care that Cher's daughter decided she was a he and mutilated her body to imitate a man.

However, I do very much care if another person at my son's school has a daughter how decides to play at being a boy and the school decrees she should have open access to my son's bathroom and it upsets my son.

Why should that person's daughter's feelings supersedes my son's just because she chooses to think she's a boy while my son remains a boy? Either way it's decided, one of them is going to be upset about the bathroom arrangements, so why are her feelings more important than my son's and all the other little boys' feelings on this matter?

Just to note, PC decrees that her feelings will always be more important than my son's and any other little boy's feelings if they are offended at having what appears to be a girl using their restroom.

edit on 3-12-2013 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

I doubt your son's particularly "upset". Unless of course he's very gay.

Come on mate.

That was weak. This poster's son could be a prepubescent. Boys are not the biggest fans of girls until they hit puberty.
And calling someone's son 'very gay' is a stupid obvious red-herring.

While I did chuckle at the post, it was a poorly crafted argument.

He might be prepubescent, certainly, but he might also be gay. Both are valid, given that I don't know his son

Obviously I was joking, but basically my (implied) point is that his creation of this situation, with
the usual sacred-cow signifiers - traumatised kids, for example - is absurd. In a very literal sense. I can conjure a situation where my son is terrified by elephants. It doesn't mean we should ban zoos because of their unnatural holding of animals.

reply to post by ketsuko


Oh and by the way, it's not really an ad hominem to call your son gay.

ketsuko
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

Really?

Now, you're just pulling out the ad hominems.

Try reversing the situation. Change my son into a daughter and go the other way with it.

Why should your son's feelings supersede my daughter's just because your son thinks he's a girl and she's more or less normal? Why should she and other girls be offended in that way?

The point still stands - no matter what happens, someone will be upset about the restroom arrangements, but PC demands that the most people will have to be offended to avoid upsetting your son who is "special" or more specials than everyone else and thus his "offense" is potentially more damaging or something.

This very situation is exactly why the founding fathers were adamantly against a direct democracy.

They called it the tyranny of the masses.

The Federalist Papers number 10 written by James Madison speaks about this subject in particular discussing how a government is responsible for controlling factions.
A republic does that by enabling each man with with liberties that are unalienable unless they injure or harm another, and if that is the case then a common law trial by jury is heard.

It is the collection of jury rulings of a recurring issue that then become the common law stare decisis in this situation. This puts the government in the hands of the people and not the lawyers.
Don't forget that many lawmakers are lawyers and the entire lobby employs lawyers to write the statutes that control our lives.

It's funny when I read the Federalist Papers, because they really make a federation sound appealing.
And the Anti-Federalist, who were basically using a logical fallacy slippery slope argument against a Union, were right all along.

JuniorDisco
reply to post by ketsuko

 

Oh and by the way, it's not really an ad hominem to call your son gay.

It's an attack on him is he's not or if you use it in such a way as to convey a negative connotation.

So maybe strictly not an ad hominem toward me, but the intent was to annoy me.

JuniorDisco

kyviecaldges

JuniorDisco

ketsuko
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

Ok, I don't care that Cher's daughter decided she was a he and mutilated her body to imitate a man.

However, I do very much care if another person at my son's school has a daughter how decides to play at being a boy and the school decrees she should have open access to my son's bathroom and it upsets my son.

Why should that person's daughter's feelings supersedes my son's just because she chooses to think she's a boy while my son remains a boy? Either way it's decided, one of them is going to be upset about the bathroom arrangements, so why are her feelings more important than my son's and all the other little boys' feelings on this matter?

Just to note, PC decrees that her feelings will always be more important than my son's and any other little boy's feelings if they are offended at having what appears to be a girl using their restroom.

edit on 3-12-2013 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

I doubt your son's particularly "upset". Unless of course he's very gay.

Come on mate.

That was weak. This poster's son could be a prepubescent. Boys are not the biggest fans of girls until they hit puberty.
And calling someone's son 'very gay' is a stupid obvious red-herring.

While I did chuckle at the post, it was a poorly crafted argument.

He might be prepubescent, certainly, but he might also be gay. Both are valid, given that I don't know his son

Obviously I was joking, but basically my (implied) point is that his creation of this situation, with
the usual sacred-cow signifiers - traumatised kids, for example - is absurd. In a very literal sense. I can conjure a situation where my son is terrified by elephants. It doesn't mean we should ban zoos because of their unnatural holding of animals.

I used this example specifically because it is happening through PC in two states now - Massachusetts and California. In both these states, children at both elementary and secondary levels can pick bathrooms and sports teams according to which gender they identify with. So I did not just create and ridiculous example to make this "all about the children." In some places, it really is about the children.