Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Chat]elaide United

1235738

Posts

  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2008
    syndalis wrote: »
    Basically, I do not fault a company for not hiring a blatantly transgendered person into a public position, because society would shun the company in all but the most liberal of places (NYC, SF, etc.). But at the same time, I want the transgendered people to keep trying, so that over time society will see their plight and will accept them.

    I am sure I rambled a bit.
    So you want us to keep trying, but because you -- and no one else, apparently -- will be faulting the company, how do you expect us to get anywhere?

    words
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    Let's just all get new jobs! There's always new jobs! Let's not fight discrimination or irrational control of entities over gender roles and narratives! Let's not fight the things worth fighting!

    You are scum.
    You're talking about fashion, Oboro, not some righteous crusade.

    This is the fundamental point, totally unrelated to the legal question, that we don't see eye to eye on.

    Your appearance affects the way people perceive you. I would expect you, of all people, to acutely understand this. I don't at all consider it inappropriate for a company to want to give off a certain appearance. It's the same type of thing at work when art gallery owners have a counter-culture fashion about them. It's all part of their "brand" as well. If they did their gallery openings dressed like they were going to Church on Sunday, I imagine the price they could sell their art at would drop as well.

    SUCH IS THE WAY OF THE WORLD.

    I don't see a fashion revolution occurring, nor do I consider it necessary.

    Race, sex, and gender are wholly different than fashion choices.

    wisdom wrote:
    if knowledge is power and power corrupts, be smart, be evil
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2008
  • DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    syndalis wrote: »
    Basically, I do not fault a company for not hiring a blatantly transgendered person into a public position, because society would shun the company in all but the most liberal of places (NYC, SF, etc.). But at the same time, I want the transgendered people to keep trying, so that over time society will see their plight and will accept them.

    I am sure I rambled a bit.
    So you want us to keep trying, but because you -- and no one else, apparently -- will be faulting the company, how do you expect us to get anywhere?

    Slowly but surely until you can find a catalyst. This isn't that catalyst.

    steam_sig.png
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    syndalis wrote: »
    Basically, I do not fault a company for not hiring a blatantly transgendered person into a public position, because society would shun the company in all but the most liberal of places (NYC, SF, etc.). But at the same time, I want the transgendered people to keep trying, so that over time society will see their plight and will accept them.

    I am sure I rambled a bit.
    So you want us to keep trying, but because you -- and no one else, apparently -- will be faulting the company, how do you expect us to get anywhere?

    Slowly but surely until you can find a catalyst. This isn't that catalyst.
    There can't be any catalyst if no one gives a shit that we're fucking dying.

    I hate you both so, so much tonight. I don't think I can ever think of you the same way again.

    words
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    syndalis wrote: »
    Basically, I do not fault a company for not hiring a blatantly transgendered person into a public position, because society would shun the company in all but the most liberal of places (NYC, SF, etc.). But at the same time, I want the transgendered people to keep trying, so that over time society will see their plight and will accept them.

    I am sure I rambled a bit.
    So you want us to keep trying, but because you -- and no one else, apparently -- will be faulting the company, how do you expect us to get anywhere?

    Slowly but surely until you can find a catalyst. This isn't that catalyst.

    Um, the entire point of laws protecting classes of people is to ensure that those classes of people end up in visible jobs, thereby reducing the public's reaction of novelty when they see such people in those jobs.

    In other words, if companies hired more transgendered people, then transgendered people would be more visible in the workplace, and the public would come to accept them more.

    This is a classic example of a community action problem.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2008
    Can someone support me? Please? Anyone? Someone agree with me? A lurker?

    There are lurkers reading right now, aren't there? Someone make me feel less alone. I'm so sick of fighting the world on my lonesome. :|

    EDIT: I love you Feral. <3

    words
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Q to Oboro:

    Do you consider it appropriate that companies are allowed to refuse someone employment if they have a neck tattoo?

    wisdom wrote:
    if knowledge is power and power corrupts, be smart, be evil
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Wait I don't get it.

    Oro are they saying you can't wear long hair as a man at your job? If that's the case couldn't you go as a woman?

    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
  • DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    Oboro wrote: »
    syndalis wrote: »
    Basically, I do not fault a company for not hiring a blatantly transgendered person into a public position, because society would shun the company in all but the most liberal of places (NYC, SF, etc.). But at the same time, I want the transgendered people to keep trying, so that over time society will see their plight and will accept them.

    I am sure I rambled a bit.
    So you want us to keep trying, but because you -- and no one else, apparently -- will be faulting the company, how do you expect us to get anywhere?

    Slowly but surely until you can find a catalyst. This isn't that catalyst.
    There can't be any catalyst if no one gives a shit that we're fucking dying.

    I hate you both so, so much tonight. I don't think I can ever think of you the same way again.

    Most of us never claimed that there was anything wrong with what you want but the problem is getting other people to agree with that. I'm looking at this from an entirely realistic viewpoint. Most of us here are in someway at least kind of sort of on occasion intelligent. How do you think your average joe would look at this entire issue? The people that don't even understand transgender identity. The people who wouldn't vote for Hilary because she's a woman and wouldn't vote for Obama because he's black. There's a fuck ton of those people around and until there is an event that can convince enough of them of their error attempting a case at this current juncture in time does not stand to gain very much.

    It's the right thing to do sure but you have to judge the personal cost of such a thing. There are other ways to go about furthering your cause and I just don't think there can be a landmark case at this moment.

    steam_sig.png
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    edited September 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Oboro wrote: »
    syndalis wrote: »
    Basically, I do not fault a company for not hiring a blatantly transgendered person into a public position, because society would shun the company in all but the most liberal of places (NYC, SF, etc.). But at the same time, I want the transgendered people to keep trying, so that over time society will see their plight and will accept them.

    I am sure I rambled a bit.
    So you want us to keep trying, but because you -- and no one else, apparently -- will be faulting the company, how do you expect us to get anywhere?

    Slowly but surely until you can find a catalyst. This isn't that catalyst.

    Um, the entire point of laws protecting classes of people is to ensure that those classes of people end up in visible jobs, thereby reducing the public's reaction of novelty when they see such people in those jobs.

    In other words, if companies hired more transgendered people, then transgendered people would be more visible in the workplace, and the public would come to accept them more.

    This is a classic example of a community action problem.
    And I agree with this 100%... but it takes a few brave companies making a difficult decision to get the ball rolling, and I will not fault someone for not wanting to be that guy/gal. We can't just flip a switch and fix the problem... if we could, then we would not remember Rosa Parks, Harriet Tubman, or MLK... because one day without any catalyst blacks were suddenly accepted in society.

  • DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Wait I don't get it.

    Oro are they saying you can't wear long hair as a man at your job? If that's the case couldn't you go as a woman?

    Job applications tend to have strict sex definitions. So no.

    steam_sig.png
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Wait I don't get it.

    Oro are they saying you can't wear long hair as a man at your job? If that's the case couldn't you go as a woman?
    That's my point! If I can just say 'I am a woman, actually,' what's the merit of having that distinction in the first place? It's pointless to have anything but universal restrictions.

    And t cel -- yes, you can do that. It's completely unrelated. On the other hand, I would not say that you can allow women to have neck tattoos but not men.

    words
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Wait I don't get it.

    Oro are they saying you can't wear long hair as a man at your job? If that's the case couldn't you go as a woman?

    Job applications tend to have strict sex definitions. So no.
    That information doesn't actually exist, even if you volunteer to provide it.

    ... it's complicated.

    words
  • DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Oboro wrote: »
    syndalis wrote: »
    Basically, I do not fault a company for not hiring a blatantly transgendered person into a public position, because society would shun the company in all but the most liberal of places (NYC, SF, etc.). But at the same time, I want the transgendered people to keep trying, so that over time society will see their plight and will accept them.

    I am sure I rambled a bit.
    So you want us to keep trying, but because you -- and no one else, apparently -- will be faulting the company, how do you expect us to get anywhere?

    Slowly but surely until you can find a catalyst. This isn't that catalyst.

    Um, the entire point of laws protecting classes of people is to ensure that those classes of people end up in visible jobs, thereby reducing the public's reaction of novelty when they see such people in those jobs.

    In other words, if companies hired more transgendered people, then transgendered people would be more visible in the workplace, and the public would come to accept them more.

    This is a classic example of a community action problem.

    I don't think i've said anything contrary to this. The community is the problem.

    oh hey a circle.

    steam_sig.png
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    How do you think your average joe would look at this entire issue?

    That doesn't really matter.

    When the "average joe" comes out and passes a law banning gay marriage in a state, this forum comes crawling with people bemoaning homophobia and stupid rednecks and lolfundies.

    The average joe is fucking stupid. If you're defending the average joe in this situation, it means you don't think transgender identity is as important as gay marriage, racial equality, sexual equality, teaching evolution in schools, having effective sex education, having a working healthcare system, not banning books, or any number of other progressive policies that we regularly criticize Joe Q. Redneck for failing to support.

    It's basically saying, "We want Joe Q. Redneck to wake the fuck up and stop being a racist homophobe fundie... but supporting transgenders? Oh, that's too much to ask. Gotta draw a line there."

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • JamesJames Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Ha, a Dawntreader (awesome local band) song is in the playlist. <3

  • DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Wait I don't get it.

    Oro are they saying you can't wear long hair as a man at your job? If that's the case couldn't you go as a woman?

    Job applications tend to have strict sex definitions. So no.
    That information doesn't actually exist, even if you volunteer to provide it.

    ... it's complicated.

    Really? Ohhh..

    I get you. But still this comes down to the imperfections of the application process. A twitch in your eye could cause you to lose a job when it really shouldn't.

    steam_sig.png
  • DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    How do you think your average joe would look at this entire issue?

    That doesn't really matter.

    When the "average joe" comes out and passes a law banning gay marriage in a state, this forum comes crawling with people bemoaning homophobia and stupid rednecks and lolfundies.

    The average joe is fucking stupid. If you're defending the average joe in this situation, it means you don't think transgender identity is as important as gay marriage, racial equality, sexual equality, teaching evolution in schools, having effective sex education, having a working healthcare system, not banning books, or any number of other progressive policies that we regularly criticize Joe Q. Redneck for failing to support.

    It's basically saying, "We want Joe Q. Redneck to wake the fuck up and stop being a racist homophobe fundie... but supporting transgenders? Oh, that's too much to ask. Gotta draw a line there."

    Whoa don't extrapolate so far. I guess to rectify my argument I should say that your average joe type of person needs to have a little less influence in these matters as seen with all of the cases you mentioned. Eventually enough people were able to influence powerful people into making the needed changes to protect people from the idiocy of joe average guy.

    we're seriously agreeing on everything but the end result here.

    steam_sig.png
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Wait I don't get it.

    Oro are they saying you can't wear long hair as a man at your job? If that's the case couldn't you go as a woman?
    That's my point! If I can just say 'I am a woman, actually,' what's the merit of having that distinction in the first place? It's pointless to have anything but universal restrictions.

    And t cel -- yes, you can do that. It's completely unrelated. On the other hand, I would not say that you can allow women to have neck tattoos but not men.

    In that case I am extremely sympathetic to your cause, here. You're talking to the guy who would fight tooth and nail to get "one nation under god" removed from the currency.

    But unfortunately in this case it seems to be one of those retarded instances where society's gender roles are set in stone. I think hair length is fucking abysmally retarded as a dress code to enforce those gender roles, especially since a lot of women nowadays wear hair short and men wear hair long all over the place. But extending the analogy, let's say a company prohibited men from wearing skirts whereas women could wear either. This is the case in most companies' dress codes. That's another example of a retarded law from an objective standpoint, but it's also an example of a reflection of society at large's iron-clad dress/gender issues.

    So while I think this hair issue is completely retarded of the company, it's merely another symptom of the larger dress and gender issue that's unfortunately, pretty much not going anywhere any time soon.

    That doesn't mean a fight wouldn't be worth it, however.

    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    And t cel -- yes, you can do that. It's completely unrelated. On the other hand, I would not say that you can allow women to have neck tattoos but not men.
    Well now we reach a more interesting point, because it would take a truly bizarre hypothetical business for me to disagree with that.

    The main distinction I would bring is: hair fashion is closely tied to how we define and perceive gender, and what is "conservative" or "edgy" fashion. Just as men are supposed to have short hair, I wouldn't find it too terrifically odd if a company had a provision for minimum length for women's hair (I wouldn't want to work for that company or give them my business, but I begrudge them this right...). Neck tattoos, on the other hand, don't really serve any purpose in traditional gender fashions. Neck tattoos are always "edgy," never "conservative," regardless of gender.

    So therein lies our distinction. Again, we're back at the man wearing a skirt to work. I would consider this inappropriate, although obviously you probably wouldn't have it written, "NO SKIRTS."

    Fashion and gender are related. I'm not a person trying to destroy gender, I just think our traditional genders should be more open, more encompassing. I like being a boy, and I like girls, and I don't want those distinctions to go away. Fashion is a part of that. Hair fashion is also a part of that.

    These are things against which I am not revolting.

    Sorry.

    wisdom wrote:
    if knowledge is power and power corrupts, be smart, be evil
  • DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    this isn't the time or place to say this but dude cel the world would be so much better without those distinctions.

    steam_sig.png
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    this isn't the time or place to say this but dude cel the world would be so much better without those distinctions.
    Disagree, but now we're really falling off the deep end.

    I have to go to bed soon, sorry -- this discussion is pretty interesting.

    I don't care how much you cuss me out, Obo, I know you're a good egg. Sorry if I've disappointed you.

    wisdom wrote:
    if knowledge is power and power corrupts, be smart, be evil
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    And t cel -- yes, you can do that. It's completely unrelated. On the other hand, I would not say that you can allow women to have neck tattoos but not men.
    Well now we reach a more interesting point, because it would take a truly bizarre hypothetical business for me to disagree with that.

    The main distinction I would bring is: hair fashion is closely tied to how we define and perceive gender, and what is "conservative" or "edgy" fashion. Just as men are supposed to have short hair, I wouldn't find it too terrifically odd if a company had a provision for minimum length for women's hair (I wouldn't want to work for that company or give them my business, but I begrudge them this right...). Neck tattoos, on the other hand, don't really serve any purpose in traditional gender fashions. Neck tattoos are always "edgy," never "conservative," regardless of gender.

    So therein lies our distinction. Again, we're back at the man wearing a skirt to work. I would consider this inappropriate, although obviously you probably wouldn't have it written, "NO SKIRTS."

    Fashion and gender are related. I'm not a person trying to destroy gender, I just think our traditional genders should be more open, more encompassing. I like being a boy, and I like girls, and I don't want those distinctions to go away. Fashion is a part of that. Hair fashion is also a part of that.

    These are things against which I am not revolting.

    Sorry.

    I have to say I find your position pretty incoherent for a variety of reasons. Just what is it you're trying to say, here?

    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
  • DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    this isn't the time or place to say this but dude cel the world would be so much better without those distinctions.
    Disagree, but now we're really falling off the deep end.

    I have to go to bed soon, sorry -- this discussion is pretty interesting.

    I don't care how much you cuss me out, Obo, I know you're a good egg. Sorry if I've disappointed you.

    I have to know what context you base your disagreement on. I need to know one seriously good reason how saying this person is a man and can do X or this person is a woman and can do Y has ever advanced society.

    people are people dude. nothing else matters.

    steam_sig.png
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    How do you think your average joe would look at this entire issue?

    That doesn't really matter.

    When the "average joe" comes out and passes a law banning gay marriage in a state, this forum comes crawling with people bemoaning homophobia and stupid rednecks and lolfundies.

    The average joe is fucking stupid. If you're defending the average joe in this situation, it means you don't think transgender identity is as important as gay marriage, racial equality, sexual equality, teaching evolution in schools, having effective sex education, having a working healthcare system, not banning books, or any number of other progressive policies that we regularly criticize Joe Q. Redneck for failing to support.

    It's basically saying, "We want Joe Q. Redneck to wake the fuck up and stop being a racist homophobe fundie... but supporting transgenders? Oh, that's too much to ask. Gotta draw a line there."

    Whoa don't extrapolate so far. I guess to rectify my argument I should say that your average joe type of person needs to have a little less influence in these matters as seen with all of the cases you mentioned. Eventually enough people were able to influence powerful people into making the needed changes to protect people from the idiocy of joe average guy.

    we're seriously agreeing on everything but the end result here.

    I'm not getting what the argument is then. My perception of the argument here is that you don't think that Oboro should (if she were hypothetically seriously considering it) challenge her employer's dress code in court... it appeared that you were defending the right of a company to enforce a dress code that is, basically, discriminatory against transgenders, because otherwise they might lose customers.

    If all you're arguing is that "change takes time, and changing public opinion takes a lot of time" - well, I can't disagree with you there. Realistically, we're barely on the crest of the wave that'll take us past institutional homophobia, and I don't think Joe Q. Redneck is going to accept transgendered people for a while yet.

    However, that doesn't mean that TGs and TSs should be blamed if they try. TGs - those who are willing and capable of making the necessary sacrifices (ie, not TGs who have just moved to a new state within the last two weeks and are wondering how to eat on $5) - should be admired when they fight for their rights in courts, when they lobby Congress, when they make themselves visible. When the gay community came up with "We're here, we're queer, get over it!" it was a stroke of genius - because that's what needs to happen. TGs and TSs need to stand up and go, "I am normal" and those of us who accept them need to cheer and applaud when they do, not shake our heads and say, "Oh, but the public thinks you're abnormal... sorry." Sure, it's going to be an uphill battle for them, but sometimes the line between a cynical acceptance of the status quo and a conservative defense of the status quo isn't really all that clear.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Let me break it down a little bit:
    So therein lies our distinction. Again, we're back at the man wearing a skirt to work. I would consider this inappropriate, although obviously you probably wouldn't have it written, "NO SKIRTS."
    Of course it's "inappropriate" given the way our gender dress is defined. The question is, should it be.
    Fashion and gender are related. I'm not a person trying to destroy gender, I just think our traditional genders should be more open, more encompassing. I like being a boy, and I like girls, and I don't want those distinctions to go away. Fashion is a part of that. Hair fashion is also a part of that.
    This is incoherent. Please clarify.

    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Sure, it's going to be an uphill battle for them, but sometimes the line between a cynical acceptance of the status quo and a conservative defense of the status quo isn't really all that clear.

    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
  • DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    How do you think your average joe would look at this entire issue?

    That doesn't really matter.

    When the "average joe" comes out and passes a law banning gay marriage in a state, this forum comes crawling with people bemoaning homophobia and stupid rednecks and lolfundies.

    The average joe is fucking stupid. If you're defending the average joe in this situation, it means you don't think transgender identity is as important as gay marriage, racial equality, sexual equality, teaching evolution in schools, having effective sex education, having a working healthcare system, not banning books, or any number of other progressive policies that we regularly criticize Joe Q. Redneck for failing to support.

    It's basically saying, "We want Joe Q. Redneck to wake the fuck up and stop being a racist homophobe fundie... but supporting transgenders? Oh, that's too much to ask. Gotta draw a line there."

    Whoa don't extrapolate so far. I guess to rectify my argument I should say that your average joe type of person needs to have a little less influence in these matters as seen with all of the cases you mentioned. Eventually enough people were able to influence powerful people into making the needed changes to protect people from the idiocy of joe average guy.

    we're seriously agreeing on everything but the end result here.

    I'm not getting what the argument is then. My perception of the argument here is that you don't think that Oboro should (if she were hypothetically seriously considering it) challenge her employer's dress code in court... it appeared that you were defending the right of a company to enforce a dress code that is, basically, discriminatory against transgenders, because otherwise they might lose customers.

    If all you're arguing is that "change takes time, and changing public opinion takes a lot of time" - well, I can't disagree with you there. Realistically, we're barely on the crest of the wave that'll take us past institutional homophobia, and I don't think Joe Q. Redneck is going to accept transgendered people for a while yet.

    However, that doesn't mean that TGs and TSs should be blamed if they try. TGs - those who are willing and capable of making the necessary sacrifices (ie, not TGs who have just moved to a new state within the last two weeks and are wondering how to eat on $5) - should be admired when they fight for their rights in courts, when they lobby Congress, when they make themselves visible. When the gay community came up with "We're here, we're queer, get over it!" it was a stroke of genius - because that's what needs to happen. TGs and TSs need to stand up and go, "I am normal" and those of us who accept them need to cheer and applaud when they do, not shake our heads and say, "Oh, but the public thinks you're abnormal... sorry." Sure, it's going to be an uphill battle for them, but sometimes the line between a cynical acceptance of the status quo and a conservative defense of the status quo isn't really all that clear.

    I am arguing the second thing and noting the third thing to come to the conclusion that it does not behoove Oboro but it is a thing that should be done and ideally would be done today.

    Cynical acceptance here. I guess by elaborating the viewpoint I may have come across as defending the conservative notion.

    steam_sig.png
  • BobCescaBobCesca Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    i'm slightly worried my post is being put under the whole "anti-TG" camp...I'm not.

    My post was just trying to go - hi, I'm a girl, these are the things society expects and no court in the land is going to care if my boss expects me to wear make-up (and I know hair-length isn't the same).

    I'm starting to wish I'd gone for my shower earlier...

  • DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    If I was going to say Aquinas' Thesis.

    would it be aquinas's thesis

    or the first way?

    steam_sig.png
  • BobCescaBobCesca Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    If I was going to say Aquinas' Thesis.

    would it be aquinas's thesis

    or the first way?

    please use the first way, please. Pet peeve number 365 = the second way.

  • JamesJames Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    If I was going to say Aquinas' Thesis.

    would it be aquinas's thesis

    or the first way?

    Either is acceptable, though the first is prefered.

  • DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    BobCesca wrote: »
    If I was going to say Aquinas' Thesis.

    would it be aquinas's thesis

    or the first way?

    please use the first way, please. Pet peeve number 365 = the second way.
    James wrote: »
    If I was going to say Aquinas' Thesis.

    would it be aquinas's thesis

    or the first way?

    Either is acceptable, though the first is prefered.


    Oh god i'm so glad i'm not crazy. I've had so many people tell me that I should add that s overtime that I started to doubt myself.

    thank you

    steam_sig.png
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    edited September 2008
    And I am of the opinion that anyone of any religion/race/biological imperative that does not harm anyone should be allowed to do what they want freely in society. But I also am a pragmatic person who expects there to be a battle of inertia and does not expect everyone to accept everything right on the spot.

  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I have to know what context you base your disagreement on. I need to know one seriously good reason how saying this person is a man and can do X or this person is a woman and can do Y has ever advanced society.

    people are people dude. nothing else matters.
    I like and want to preserve "boy/girl" gender distinctions, defined primarily along the basis of biological sex.

    I want "boy/girl" gender definitions to be less restrictive on both sides of the fence, and I want to reduce and/or eliminate the power disparity between those two, but I do still want limits, restrictions, and traditional definitions to help guide us and hold our society together.

    Fashion, as a result, is wrapped up in this, and I'm pretty okay with that. I'm hoping this tangentially answers Mike's question.

    Being able to wear whatever I want, whenever I want, is not just a revolution I don't care about, it's a revolution I don't want to happen. People always group and define each other, and that's fine, a-okay, just keen and dandy by me. I want to be able to self-select things like fashion to help group and define myself along with them. What I want is to eliminate the (gross*) power disparities between groups, but not the groups themselves.

    Make any sense?


    *because seriously there will always be some power disparity, and frankly that's a good thing.

    wisdom wrote:
    if knowledge is power and power corrupts, be smart, be evil
  • JamesJames Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Hey syndalis, I wasn't going to say it in the other thread because it's kinda off topic, but if there are any other songs you want to collaborate on, I would be up for it. Or if not, that's cool too.

  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    BobCesca wrote: »
    If I was going to say Aquinas' Thesis.

    would it be aquinas's thesis

    or the first way?

    please use the first way, please. Pet peeve number 365 = the second way.
    James wrote: »
    If I was going to say Aquinas' Thesis.

    would it be aquinas's thesis

    or the first way?

    Either is acceptable, though the first is prefered.


    Oh god i'm so glad i'm not crazy. I've had so many people tell me that I should add that s overtime that I started to doubt myself.

    thank you

    Though I agree the first looks more elegant, Strunk and White say to add another "s" no matter what.

    So, that's where people are getting it from. Either way has academic backing.

    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Cynical acceptance here. I guess by elaborating the viewpoint I may have come across as defending the conservative notion.

    Noted.

    Frankly, I read your post without thinking about who it was or what you've posted in the past. I just read the content of the post, in a contextual semi-vacuum, and responded to that.

    So when I extrapolated from your position to slightly more extreme, slightly more conservative position, it wasn't personal, and I apologize if it came across that way.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • BobCescaBobCesca Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    did evil ever post the judging stuff for the music thread?

This discussion has been closed.