Eutychus

DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
From the Transgender thread:
Eutychus wrote: »
It pulled me up short to realise I would probably never have started interacting with her had I known she was transgender, through sheer phobia, in the proper sense of the term: an irrational fear.

Yes, I know this is short of context and you no longer afraid a trans person will reach through the computer screen and rip your cock off, or what ever you irrationally feared would happen - good, well done.

However.

If you declared you used to have an irrational fear of black people, I would say you used to be racist - not do a highly suspect etymological dance around the subject.

Which matters because I believe half your engagement to on that thread and the related Styx thread, is because accepting the arguments about impact of the way the debate is conducted on trans people means accepting that you were once prejudiced about them.

It threatens your concept of yourself and that’s why you don’t want to hear it.

(Please note that for the sake of argument, I am not contesting your self assertion that you have entirely sorted your ‘irrational fears’ out now.)
«134567

Comments

  • If you want to call everyone to Hell who used to be racist or homophobic or sexist or transphobic or anti-Semitic or whatever, sure. But I'll close those threads like I'm closing this one.

    DT
    HH
  • Right then. Thread re-opened.

    If you don't usually post in Hell, these guidelines are for both your education and your protection.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    If you declared you used to have an irrational fear of black people, I would say you used to be racist - not do a highly suspect etymological dance around the subject.
    I wrote what I wrote because it best expressed how I felt*. I wasn't intending to hide the fact that it was prejudice and I freely admit that it was (for the avoidance of doubt, I was poised to do so minutes after you'd posted when I discovered the thread had been closed).
    accepting that you were once prejudiced about them.
    Again, no problem in accepting I was once prejudiced in that respect.
    It threatens your concept of yourself and that’s why you don’t want to hear it.
    It's kind of ironic in the context of a debate about people's right to affirm their own concepts of themselves that you feel free to impose your ideas as to mine.

    As far as I'm concerned, my life is (amongst other things) an endless succession of discovering my multiple prejudices, trying to overcome them, feeling all smug about it, discovering new ones, and sometimes discovering that the ones I thought I'd overcome were still lurking there.

    That leaves me trying to adjust my behaviour in that respect, first and foremost in RL.
    (Please note that for the sake of argument, I am not contesting your self assertion that you have entirely sorted your ‘irrational fears’ out now.)
    Where did I assert that? I'm sure I haven't entirely sorted them. What I can say is that I doubtless still have prejudices, and have more I haven't discovered yet.
    I believe half your engagement to on that thread and the related Styx thread, is because accepting the arguments about impact of the way the debate is conducted on trans people means
    I honestly don't know which arguments you are referring to. To the best of my knowledge, I have never denied the potential impact of the way the debate is conducted on trans people. Can you provide an example?

    Where I think we differ is in whether that potential impact should alter the Ship's policy in this respect further than it already has. I have my own views on that, and they happen to align more or less with current Ship policy for now, but as has been pointed out the policy as announced is not mine, but a policy agreed by the Crew. I suggest you take that part of your complaint to the Styx.

    ==

    *And @lilbuddha, it is total bullshit to allege that what I wrote was
    or that I

    As is obvious to anybody who reads what I said in context, it was a straightforward reply to a straightforward question at the end of the immediately preceding post:
    Golden Key wrote: »
    If I may ask, what was it about her that helped you, that got you onto the Ship? If you feel you shouldn't answer that, don't.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    .
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    Eutychus wrote: »
    *And @lilbuddha, it is total bullshit to allege that what I wrote was
    or that I

    As is obvious to anybody who reads what I said in context, it was a straightforward reply to a straightforward question at the end of the immediately preceding post:
    Golden Key wrote: »
    If I may ask, what was it about her that helped you, that got you onto the Ship? If you feel you shouldn't answer that, don't.
    Doesn't change that you framed the reply in a way that makes you look good. Typical of your MO. And you are still trying to differentiate between your "irrational" fear and transphobia. One is not cured of an irrational fear by a few PMs, that is how one begins to overcome prejudice.

    BTW, that you reply to my comment before addressing the one that opened this thread is telling.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Doesn't change that you framed the reply in a way that makes you look good.
    Oh, sorry, I'll make sure to frame all future replies in such a way as to make me look bad.

    My reply to GK was the straight-up truth as far as I'm concerned.
    Typical of your MO.
    Typical of yours is to throw all types of shit, indiscriminately, and see what sticks. You can't fault my argument so you try and find a different fault.
    And you are still trying to differentiate between your "irrational" fear and transphobia. One is not cured of an irrational fear by a few PMs, that is how one begins to overcome prejudice.
    Phobia is by definition irrational. And I never claimed my prejudice had been overcome. I told the straight-up truth about what it did do.

    (I do however note that you are joining the long line of people eager to explain my internal thought processes and motive and assume they match yours).
    BTW, that you reply to my comment before addressing the one that opened this thread is telling.
    I think it's telling about your ability to read. I composed most of my reply to DT before you started doing Hell by proxy in the Styx, as is evidenced by the fact that it comes at the top of my post, and added my response to you after I'd finished composing to DT. The reply to you is a footnote and came later. I considered putting it in a second post but decided against it. That is the straight-up truth. No doubt you'll be along to tell how this reply is framed in a way to make me look good, or throw something else.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    It is such a shame that English chose to use phobia, which describes an irrational fear, as a suffix when the phenomenon being described in most cases is hate.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    It is such a shame when the only way some people think they can advance a cause is to persistently switch the terminology used by their opponents to something with an entirely different and more extreme meaning, in lieu of an actual argument.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    Eutychus wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Doesn't change that you framed the reply in a way that makes you look good.
    Oh, sorry, I'll make sure to frame all future replies in such a way as to make me look bad.
    You manage that on a regular basis, so no need to make an effort.
    But rather than derail this further, I am going to stick to the referenced post.
    You claim an irrational fear, I claim bullshit. Why? Because irrational fears are not overcome by a few exchanges, because they are irrational.
    You want to posit your phobia in the context of something like agoraphobia, when it seems more apropos to something like homophobia. Which is prejudice.
    Your account of your interaction reads exactly like the process of working through prejudice and even references other prejudices.
    And working through prejudice is a good thing.
    However, using the incorrect definition of transphobia does not help in a discussion of transphobia.
    In doing so you minimise the problem and give excuse.
  • Caissa wrote: »
    It is such a shame that English chose to use phobia, which describes an irrational fear, as a suffix when the phenomenon being described in most cases is hate.

    Interesting point. It is hard to see what transphobia and arachnophobia have in common.
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    Irrational fear of trans people ≠ transphobia.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    LeRoc wrote: »
    Irrational fear of trans people ≠ transphobia.
    Exactly. And Eutychus anecdote resembles actual transphobia, not an irrational fear.
  • LeRoc wrote: »
    Irrational fear of trans people ≠ transphobia.

    True. But is fear of trans people even a thing? One can deduce a logical basis to claustrophobia and at a stretch agoraphobia, but what logical basis can there be for a fear of trans people?

    One could perhaps see a person who has difficulty accepting trans people as having a form of OCD where the existence of trans people interferes with their need for order.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    What I meant was an irrational fear of difference.

    @lilbuddha it's hardly my fault if I come to my senses faster than you.
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    But is fear of trans people even a thing? One can deduce a logical basis to claustrophobia and at a stretch agoraphobia, but what logical basis can there be for a fear of trans people?
    Do I even need to explain this? There exist fears that have no logical basis. That's what the word 'irrational' means.

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    What I meant was an irrational fear of difference.

    @lilbuddha it's hardly my fault if I come to my senses faster than you.
    You have not as yet, so how is this faster?
    Overcoming an irrational fear is NOT coming to one's senses. One can intellectually understand why the fear is irrational. That does not describe what you posted.
  • LeRoc wrote: »
    But is fear of trans people even a thing? One can deduce a logical basis to claustrophobia and at a stretch agoraphobia, but what logical basis can there be for a fear of trans people?
    Do I even need to explain this? There exist fears that have no logical basis. That's what the word 'irrational' means.

    But a fear of trans people is not the same kind of fear as one might have of restricted spaces or spiders. We call racism racism and no one thinks it needs some "phobia" attached to it. Calling it a phobia of any kind exonerates the person who has it.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    LeRoc wrote: »
    Irrational fear of trans people ≠ transphobia.

    True. But is fear of trans people even a thing? One can deduce a logical basis to claustrophobia and at a stretch agoraphobia, but what logical basis can there be for a fear of trans people?
    Despite having the same suffix, transphobia not in the same catagory as agoraphobia. It is the same as homophobia in that neither actually describes fear
    Does no one have a freaking dictionary?
    One could perhaps see a person who has difficulty accepting trans people as having a form of OCD where the existence of trans people interferes with their need for order.
    There are all sorts of fringe reasons one could have transphobia, the far and away most common reason is prejudice. Occam's motherfucking razor, people.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    LeRoc wrote: »
    Irrational fear of trans people ≠ transphobia.

    True. But is fear of trans people even a thing? One can deduce a logical basis to claustrophobia and at a stretch agoraphobia, but what logical basis can there be for a fear of trans people?
    Despite having the same suffix, transphobia not in the same catagory as agoraphobia. It is the same as homophobia in that neither actually describes fear
    Does no one have a freaking dictionary?
    One could perhaps see a person who has difficulty accepting trans people as having a form of OCD where the existence of trans people interferes with their need for order.
    There are all sorts of fringe reasons one could have transphobia, the far and away most common reason is prejudice. Occam's motherfucking razor, people.

    Prejudice is the result of an irrational fear or hatred but I don't think it's synonymous with the irrational fear/hatred.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    LeRoc wrote: »
    Irrational fear of trans people ≠ transphobia.

    True. But is fear of trans people even a thing? One can deduce a logical basis to claustrophobia and at a stretch agoraphobia, but what logical basis can there be for a fear of trans people?
    Despite having the same suffix, transphobia not in the same catagory as agoraphobia. It is the same as homophobia in that neither actually describes fear
    Does no one have a freaking dictionary?
    One could perhaps see a person who has difficulty accepting trans people as having a form of OCD where the existence of trans people interferes with their need for order.
    There are all sorts of fringe reasons one could have transphobia, the far and away most common reason is prejudice. Occam's motherfucking razor, people.

    Prejudice is the result of an irrational fear or hatred but I don't think it's synonymous with the irrational fear/hatred.
    Prejudice is preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. Not the same as irrational fear.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    You have not as yet, so how is this faster?
    All I can say is my discussions with a trans person led to some rapid adjustments in my thinking in that respect and some enduring life choices. That doesn't mean I've overcome all my prejudices against everything, as I made clear.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Prejudice is preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

    Or, I would add, extrapolating from scant evidence (such as one bad experience with a black person or a gay person) to imply a sweeping generalization(s) about the whole.
  • I think sometimes an irrational fear can be largely based on an unknown, and so I can see situations where actually encountering someone who is racially different/non-heteronormative can remove that unknown. Though this can be present alongside prejudice as the one example takes on some kind of exceptional status.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    I think the problem here is that there is an inevitable tendency for somebody immediately concerned by the issue to take others' opinions personally, all the more so when the issue is wrapped up with one's sense of self-identity.

    However, there has to be room for these 'others' to work through their opinions. It's simply not realistic to expect the 'others' to immediately conform to individuals' opinions about their own lives, however painful that may be. Lashing back out is likely to reinforce prejudice, not overcome it.

    (My emphasis)

    Firstly, I note your response that you were meaning to convey that you had been prejudiced - which is not how I had interpreted what you wrote - I apologise for misinterpreting that.

    I nonetheless believe you are allowing waaaaay too much benefit of the doubt in thinking about the border between ignorance and bigotry.

    Speaking as member of the lgbt community, the way you post reads as somewhat like engaing with someone who is saying “I’m not racist but I just want to have a reasonable discussion about immigration, some of my best friends are black”. Or perhaps more accuratetly, “I’m not racist but I just want this nice white chap to be able to have a sensible discussion about immigration, because talking to those dark chaps really made me have a bit of a rethink.”

    The queer community don’t exist to help you on your life journey.

    You keep stating this is a debate forum, well yes, so it is - it’s not therapy or personal development work. So debate needs to be in good faith, not a case of - convince me you’re not disgusting and corrupting children with strange ideas and vats of hormones at the drop of a hat. Your not ? Oh but here is some shite ‘information’ I found and spent less than nanosecond evaluating, rinse and repeat 14 times. If you see that, and think it’s not bigotry, you are blind to bigotry.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin
    edited July 2019
    My only observation at this point is that you are allowed to talk about the thing without deploying hideously tortured analogies and metaphors which introduce more confusion and derailing and tangents than would otherwise happen if you did, indeed, just talk about the thing.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    You have not as yet, so how is this faster?
    All I can say is my discussions with a trans person led to some rapid adjustments in my thinking in that respect and some enduring life choices. That doesn't mean I've overcome all my prejudices against everything, as I made clear.
    This is not about where you are with your prejudices, it is about framing prejudice as an irrational fear.

  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Firstly, I note your response that you were meaning to convey that you had been prejudiced - which is not how I had interpreted what you wrote - I apologise for misinterpreting that.
    Thank you, no problem. Too bad we couldn't get that sorted out at around 9.15am this morning :sunglasses:
    The queer community don’t exist to help you on your life journey.
    Of course not, but it's a fact that my life journey has been changed by longsuffering denizens of Dead Horses who have been willing to interact. That's their choice; if others don't want to engage, that's fine by me.
    You keep stating this is a debate forum, well yes, so it is - it’s not therapy or personal development work.
    Um, yes, of course. But it's a good place to come and ask good-faith questions and get reasoned answers.
    So debate needs to be in good faith, not a case of - convince me you’re not disgusting and corrupting children with strange ideas and vats of hormones at the drop of a hat.
    I really don't think rephrasing your opponent's arguments in more extreme terms is good faith, and I don't think your quarrel in respect of that caricature is with me.
    Your not ? Oh but here is some shite ‘information’ I found and spent less than nanosecond evaluating, rinse and repeat 14 times. If you see that
    But why should I see it? My Purg hosting days are long gone.
    and think it’s not bigotry, you are blind to bigotry.

    Google tells me that word means
    intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.
    To me, branding somebody a bigot basically means accusing them of refusing to change their deeply entrenched opinion - often to another deeply entrenched opinion that is deemed preferable by the holder.

  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Some deeply entrenched opinions are in fact right and true.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    I think sometimes an irrational fear can be largely based on an unknown, and so I can see situations where actually encountering someone who is racially different/non-heteronormative can remove that unknown. Though this can be present alongside prejudice as the one example takes on some kind of exceptional status.
    No. Fear based on an unknown is at least somewhat rational. It might be unfounded, but that is not the same thing.
    A phobia is an intense fear of something that, in reality, poses little or no actual danger
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    You have not as yet, so how is this faster?
    All I can say is my discussions with a trans person led to some rapid adjustments in my thinking in that respect and some enduring life choices. That doesn't mean I've overcome all my prejudices against everything, as I made clear.
    This is not about where you are with your prejudices, it is about framing prejudice as an irrational fear.

    *Sigh* @lilbuddha if you would like to in your own mind edit the part of my post @Doublethink quoted and replace the words "phobia, in the proper sense of the term: an irrational fear" with "prejudice", go for it with my blessing.

    I made that clear in my first post on this thread (in the part that wasn't all about you that you may understandably have missed), @Doublethink has understood that, she and I have cleared up the misunderstanding, and I'm done with regard any further exegesis of my post from you along those lines.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited July 2019

    Firstly, I note your response that you were meaning to convey that you had been prejudiced - which is not how I had interpreted what you wrote - I apologise for misinterpreting that.
    You did not misinterpret what he said.
    Eutychus wrote: »
    It pulled me up short to realise I would probably never have started interacting with her had I known she was transgender, through sheer phobia, in the proper sense of the term: an irrational fear.
    Speaking as member of the lgbt community, the way you post reads as somewhat like engaing with someone who is saying “I’m not racist but I just want to have a reasonable discussion about immigration, some of my best friends are black”.
    A not uncommon type of post from Eutychus

  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Interpreting one's own internal mental state is like trying to clean a pair of glasses when all you have to see with is that pair of glasses. Are we really trying to argue the toss about the different kinds of Bad Feelings one could feel towards transgender individuals?

    Lilbuddha, you basically just don't like Eutychus. Why don't you just say so, and quit trying to rationalise it?
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Interpreting one's own internal mental state is like trying to clean a pair of glasses when all you have to see with is that pair of glasses. Are we really trying to argue the toss about the different kinds of Bad Feelings one could feel towards transgender individuals?
    We are discussing how misrepresenting why people are transphobic is harmful. Claiming it as an irrational fear lessens agency.
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Lilbuddha, you basically just don't like Eutychus. Why don't you just say so, and quit trying to rationalise it?
    I do not like Eutychus because of his postings. That is rational, not rationalisation. He's said racist, homophobic and sexist things then either tried to backpedal or claim he could not be because of some convenient anecdote.
    "I cannot be sexist because I just gave a talk about women" and such.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Don't worry. Sending H&A's chocolate is not obligatory. Yet.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    I will not stir the pot
    I will not stir the pot
    I will not stir the pot

    (That exercise got a lot easier after copy and paste was invented)
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    LeRoc wrote: »
    Irrational fear of trans people ≠ transphobia.

    But is it fear? More like irrational hatred in most cases.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    LeRoc wrote: »
    Irrational fear of trans people ≠ transphobia.

    But is it fear? More like irrational hatred in most cases.

    Yes, what's to be afraid of? Cooties? Transmission of transgenderism (aka transtrans)? That they'll swarm the church and turn the whole enterprise into a pansexual love feast?
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    The only sort of fear which may, just may, have some sort of rational basis is the comment that men posing as trans may thereby gain entrance to women's facilities and abuse them. The rest is just hate. As an aside, the mainstream press here is clearly pro-trans not the anti-trans that others have reported in their location.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    I do not like Eutychus because of his postings. That is rational, not rationalisation. ...
    That is not how it comes across.


  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Jeepers. Here's what happens in the real world, as opposed to all these airy theories. I have a mere handful of encounters with trans people. In one case, a co-worker whose outward appearance would lead a casual observer to ID "male" was transitioning to female and requested advice on make-up and clothing (why from me, I can't guess -- not a fashion plate). This was a comfortable series of encounters; this was a person with a good mind, people skills, very "relatable."

    Two folks in a theatre company I belonged to for a couple of years: one transitioning female to male, one transitioning male to female. In both cases, I found it hard to relate to them. In both cases, the persona projected seemed almost gender parodies. He came across as a sort of salesman hail-fellow phony; she came across as shallow and air-brained.
    But this may be unfair, because we are talking about American theatre, which attracts a fair number of folks who are odd in any number of ways -- a bit "bigger than life," people who are "on" all the time, on and on. I decided that these two folks were just "theatre-odd" and this had nothing to do with their trans status. I still wasn't comfortable with either of them, wouldn't have befriended either, but managed OK work relationships with them.

    Two folks in two different church groups, both male-to-female trans: In both cases, I found them completely unrelatable. One I couldn't stand because she was constantly begging for reassurance about her femininity, and that's a topic that I can stay interested in for maybe 3 minutes before turning to the weather, the sermon, the outreach committee, the fundraiser, etc. People who need constant reassurance about something or other bug me. I'm prepared to offer some, but once I've given it, let's talk about something else.

    The other person would go on endlessly about her various procedures, medications, upkeep, and so on. It was like visiting with one's elderly aunt whose life has contracted to a round of doctor visits, and has either never developed outside interests or lost them, and all she has to occupy her now is her gout and her arthritis and her edema and her bowels. I understand that the medical aspects of transition are a staggering commitment, but again, couldn't we talk about the sermon instead of your record number of enemas?

    Does this make me transphobic? I wasn't afraid of these folks; I didn't hate them; I just wasn't interested in them.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    The only sort of fear which may, just may, have some sort of rational basis is the comment that men posing as trans may thereby gain entrance to women's facilities and abuse them. The rest is just hate. As an aside, the mainstream press here is clearly pro-trans not the anti-trans that others have reported in their location.

    The reason this is stupid is that men have always been able to dress up as women and infiltrate the ladies' room. The existence or recognition of Trans people doesn't change this a whit.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    In my experience men who want to harass and abuse women don't make a point of dressing up to do it.
  • Ruth wrote: »
    In my experience men who want to harass and abuse women don't make a point of dressing up to do it.

    Rendering that whole line of reasoning (line of fear) totally absurd.
  • And those men who want to access single sex facilities to harass or assault women do so anyway, male dress or not*. Those statistics are not collected in the latest crime survey, although some statistics in venue of the assault are collected and most are reported to be in either the victim's or assailant's homes, there is a significant number of other venues, not categorised. Women are more vulnerable: reported assault victims are 20% male: 80% female (0.8% : 3.1% of the population) source: Sexual offences in England and Wales: year ending March 2017

    * been there, got that t-shirt - we had a man or men accessing all the female only places at university: the women's toilet was isolated up a flight of stairs from the rooms used. After at least one rape there were eventually rape alarms fitted. I encountered a peeping tom in that space before the alarms, others had faces peering over into their baths.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    In my experience men who want to harass and abuse women don't make a point of dressing up to do it.

    Rendering that whole line of reasoning (line of fear) totally absurd.

    Exactly.
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Yes, what's to be afraid of? Cooties? Transmission of transgenderism (aka transtrans)? That they'll swarm the church and turn the whole enterprise into a pansexual love feast?
    I see the concept of irrational fear is difficult for some to grasp.

    I can't speak for Eutychus's past emotions, but I can well imagine that for some people, when they see a trans person, they have an emotion that carries all the symptoms of fear (whatever these are for that person), but they don't know exactly why.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    LeRoc wrote: »
    I can't speak for Eutychus's past emotions
    Thank you.
    but I can well imagine that for some people, when they see a trans person, they have an emotion that carries all the symptoms of fear (whatever these are for that person), but they don't know exactly why.

    Me too, but that wasn't what I was talking about.

    Am I the only person who may instinctively not gravitate towards certain people purely because I'm unsure how the interaction might go (or alternatively because I make negative assumptions about how it might go)?
  • No, you're not, Eutychus.

    Maybe many of the Shipmates who don't understand that aren't wired for negative instincts or knee-jerk fears? They sound like they've never been uncomfortable with any person's differences, of whatever type.

    FWIW.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    Or they aren't very self-aware (or not letting on).
  • I've had to work hard to overcome a discomfort around certain characteristics, for example, after being assaulted by a man of a certain race it was difficult not to flinch around others of that race for a while.
This discussion has been closed.