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, but when this is not the result of past trauma - it is the negative assumption that is the prejudice. As in ‘they are black they might be aggressive’, ‘they are teens outside a supermarket, I won’t ask where the taxi rank is because they will nasty to me because all young people are like that’.
Social anxiety is different, in that it is rarely if ever the case that people have social anxiety about marginalised subsections of the population and nobody else.
No, you’re not, but when this is not the result of past trauma - it is the negative assumption that is the prejudice. As in ‘they are black they might be aggressive’, ‘they are teens outside a supermarket, I won’t ask where the taxi rank is because they will nasty to me because all young people are like that’.
Yes, I agree entirely. I think a lot of people are blind to their own prejudices of this nature. I don't think the negative assumption is always about violence though.
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.
Or possibly people parse emotions differently?
If I am in soul-searching mode, and notice that I am prejudiced against a certain group, that usually means that I feel discomfort in the presence of that group and would prefer to stay away from that group. In my head, I would categorise that as 'irrational fear' rather than 'hate', because 'hate' (to me) implies a positive desire for harm to come to that group, and so I find it bizarre that people are trying to draw a sharp distinction between irrational fear and prejudice. OTOH, you could argue that 'I hate sprouts' doesn't imply a desire to raze all sprout farms to the ground, and therefore what I feel is a form of hate.
The point I was trying to make in the Styx thread. Whatever emotion Transsexuality brings to a person: irrational fear, the 'ick factor' (which is my case), or even hatred, these emotions are morally neutral to me. I'll never condemn anyone for an emotion they have. It's the translation of these emotions into actions that carries moral weight.
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. I spend a vast amount of my time tying myself up in knots, because I'm concerned about how anything I say might be perceived.
Fellow school mom, grrrrrrreat with child (me, done with that) - should I say "how are you feeling?" "How have you been?" - both of which are obviously a reference to the...um...situation. But then, where do you go? "Isn't it hot?" (subtext: and we all know how fun that is when you're massively, massively, pregnant). But if you ignore it totally, when someone's about five feet around, is that, in itself, rude?
Someone else I see from time to time, clearly had bariatric surgery - a shadow of her former self. Am I supposed to say, "Wow, you look great?" - or does that imply that she looked bad before - or that thin is necessarily better (a prejudice for sure) - but if you don't say anything when someone's about a quarter of their former size, it's a very obvious omission.
On a flight from Sydney to NZ, last year, I was seated across an aisle from a trans person. She was wearing the coolest ankle-length skirt, and I wanted to say how much I admired it, and for three whole fucking hours I evaluated the pros and cons of doing so. In the end, I said nothing, for two reasons. Firstly, I was (so sue me) concerned that I would be perceived as 'being nice' - ie: initiating conversation where I might otherwise not have done, in order to show how woke I was. Secondly, I concluded* that if I was that person, I would want, above all things, to just be able to go about my daily business like every other person, and actually, the way I treat most people I'm crammed onto a plane with, is, I say 'hi', to those actually next to me, and then I leave them alone, and they do the same, and it works fine.
---
*yes, I know it is not my right to draw conclusions about what whole classes of people might or might not want or like, but, yeah, heads you lose, tails, you lose.
The other point is that the Ship position, whatever that is, is only part of the story. Wherever we are going, we all get there a step at a time. The Church at least is culturally conservative on this and related issues (albeit with notable exceptions) making it not entirely reasonable to expect people from within the church to engage with the issues from a starting point that is markedly more liberal than its culture.
This makes the Ship neither more nor less comfortable a place to be than the church, which is far from ideal, but I can't think of a reasonable alternative.
Someone who used to go my church (he moved to Australia) transed from a woman to a man. We just loved him. Not long after the operation we took him some vouchers for a men’s clothes shop. It was unusual to see it happen but it wasn’t a problem. It did bring up questions about being created by God a woman but that only goes so far. I was born with severe epilepsy which I grew out of by 10. Did God deliberately make me epileptic?
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?
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.
As I posted on the Purg thread, there is also the "Crying Game" fear that one may unsuspectingly end up romancing someone who isn't actually the sex you think they are.
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.
If Eutychus had been experiencing irrational fear, a few PMs would not be the likely cure. PMs are about rational interaction. That is a way of combating prejudice.
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?
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.
Or possibly people parse emotions differently?
If I am in soul-searching mode, and notice that I am prejudiced against a certain group, that usually means that I feel discomfort in the presence of that group and would prefer to stay away from that group. In my head, I would categorise that as 'irrational fear' rather than 'hate', because 'hate' (to me) implies a positive desire for harm to come to that group, and so I find it bizarre that people are trying to draw a sharp distinction between irrational fear and prejudice.
The problem is that you are characterising the difference incorrectly. One could believe all white people have poor rhythm without hating them. It is still a prejudice.
Irrational fears have no reason for them to exist. One can rationally understand that the feared object is not a threat, and one still feels that threat.
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. I spend a vast amount of my time tying myself up in knots, because I'm concerned about how anything I say might be perceived.
Fellow school mom, grrrrrrreat with child (me, done with that) - should I say "how are you feeling?" "How have you been?" - both of which are obviously a reference to the...um...situation. But then, where do you go? "Isn't it hot?" (subtext: and we all know how fun that is when you're massively, massively, pregnant). But if you ignore it totally, when someone's about five feet around, is that, in itself, rude?
O.M.G. EVERY. SINGLE. INTERACTION. in my life has the constant background in my head of Did I do that right?
Irrational fears have no reason for them to exist.
They don't have a rational reason. They still have a reason. It might not be a good one, but there will be a reason of some kind.
Depends on what you mean by reason. It is easy to look at something like arachnophobia and think "Spiders are dangerous, fearing them might be a little exaggerated, but it comes from a real danger" Same with flying.
Doesn't explain things like Erythrophobia: Fear of blushing
Not does it take into account the difference between not wanting to touch a spider to remove it from one's home because one is "scared" vs experiencing
sweating
abnormal breathing
accelerated heartbeat
trembling
hot flushes or chills
a choking sensation
chest pains or tightness
butterflies in the stomach
pins and needles
dry mouth
confusion and disorientation
nausea
dizziness
headache
At the sight of a spider, even in a film or in a picture.
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.
Or possibly people parse emotions differently?
If I am in soul-searching mode, and notice that I am prejudiced against a certain group, that usually means that I feel discomfort in the presence of that group and would prefer to stay away from that group. In my head, I would categorise that as 'irrational fear' rather than 'hate', because 'hate' (to me) implies a positive desire for harm to come to that group, and so I find it bizarre that people are trying to draw a sharp distinction between irrational fear and prejudice.
The problem is that you are characterising the difference incorrectly. One could believe all white people have poor rhythm without hating them. It is still a prejudice.
Irrational fears have no reason for them to exist. One can rationally understand that the feared object is not a threat, and one still feels that threat.
Not sure what difference you think I am drawing. Obviously prejudice, irrational fear and hate are not coterminous, but they overlap, and this thread seems to be describing what happens at the overlap.
Regarding your second paragraph and subsequent posts, if you are saying 'irrational fear' should be reserved for clinical phenomena that one might see on a DSM-whatever list, then I agree it is disingenuous to say 'irrational fear' when you mean 'prejudice', but I think most people would use the term 'irrational fear' more loosely.
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.
Or possibly people parse emotions differently?
If I am in soul-searching mode, and notice that I am prejudiced against a certain group, that usually means that I feel discomfort in the presence of that group and would prefer to stay away from that group. In my head, I would categorise that as 'irrational fear' rather than 'hate', because 'hate' (to me) implies a positive desire for harm to come to that group, and so I find it bizarre that people are trying to draw a sharp distinction between irrational fear and prejudice.
The problem is that you are characterising the difference incorrectly. One could believe all white people have poor rhythm without hating them. It is still a prejudice.
Irrational fears have no reason for them to exist. One can rationally understand that the feared object is not a threat, and one still feels that threat.
Not sure what difference you think I am drawing. Obviously prejudice, irrational fear and hate are not coterminous, but they overlap, and this thread seems to be describing what happens at the overlap.
Regarding your second paragraph and subsequent posts, if you are saying 'irrational fear' should be reserved for clinical phenomena that one might see on a DSM-whatever list, then I agree it is disingenuous to say 'irrational fear' when you mean 'prejudice', but I think most people would use the term 'irrational fear' more loosely.
Let us go back to the OP and the Purg post which spawned it. Eutychus says he had an irrational fear of transpeople, but an exchange of PM's sorted that out. There is a perfectly good word which describes Euty's state of mind prior to the PMs and that is called transphobia.
I am no mind reader, but him labelling it "irrational fear" would seem to be an attempt at avoiding applying the more apropos label to himself. And why that matters is two-fold: One is the shifting of agency and the other is that prejudice doesn't disappear so quickly. The remains of that prejudice affect current behaviour, thus DT's creating a Hell thread.
It doesn't matter if Euty is using the term loosely, it still hides the reality.
Why employ a loose usage of one term whilst there is a perfectly good one that is way the hell more apt?
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.
Or possibly people parse emotions differently?
If I am in soul-searching mode, and notice that I am prejudiced against a certain group, that usually means that I feel discomfort in the presence of that group and would prefer to stay away from that group. In my head, I would categorise that as 'irrational fear' rather than 'hate', because 'hate' (to me) implies a positive desire for harm to come to that group, and so I find it bizarre that people are trying to draw a sharp distinction between irrational fear and prejudice.
The problem is that you are characterising the difference incorrectly. One could believe all white people have poor rhythm without hating them. It is still a prejudice.
Irrational fears have no reason for them to exist. One can rationally understand that the feared object is not a threat, and one still feels that threat.
Not sure what difference you think I am drawing. Obviously prejudice, irrational fear and hate are not coterminous, but they overlap, and this thread seems to be describing what happens at the overlap.
Regarding your second paragraph and subsequent posts, if you are saying 'irrational fear' should be reserved for clinical phenomena that one might see on a DSM-whatever list, then I agree it is disingenuous to say 'irrational fear' when you mean 'prejudice', but I think most people would use the term 'irrational fear' more loosely.
Let us go back to the OP and the Purg post which spawned it. Eutychus says he had an irrational fear of transpeople, but an exchange of PM's sorted that out. There is a perfectly good word which describes Euty's state of mind prior to the PMs and that is called transphobia.
I am no mind reader, but him labelling it "irrational fear" would seem to be an attempt at avoiding applying the more apropos label to himself. And why that matters is two-fold: One is the shifting of agency and the other is that prejudice doesn't disappear so quickly. The remains of that prejudice affect current behaviour, thus DT's creating a Hell thread.
It doesn't matter if Euty is using the term loosely, it still hides the reality.
Why employ a loose usage of one term whilst there is a perfectly good one that is way the hell more apt?
Well I am no mind-reader either, but the explanation that springs immediately to mind is that, on that thread, the meaning and usefulness of the term 'transphobia' were in dispute. So it would make sense to use terminology that was not in dispute.
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.
Or possibly people parse emotions differently?
If I am in soul-searching mode, and notice that I am prejudiced against a certain group, that usually means that I feel discomfort in the presence of that group and would prefer to stay away from that group. In my head, I would categorise that as 'irrational fear' rather than 'hate', because 'hate' (to me) implies a positive desire for harm to come to that group, and so I find it bizarre that people are trying to draw a sharp distinction between irrational fear and prejudice.
The problem is that you are characterising the difference incorrectly. One could believe all white people have poor rhythm without hating them. It is still a prejudice.
Irrational fears have no reason for them to exist. One can rationally understand that the feared object is not a threat, and one still feels that threat.
Not sure what difference you think I am drawing. Obviously prejudice, irrational fear and hate are not coterminous, but they overlap, and this thread seems to be describing what happens at the overlap.
Regarding your second paragraph and subsequent posts, if you are saying 'irrational fear' should be reserved for clinical phenomena that one might see on a DSM-whatever list, then I agree it is disingenuous to say 'irrational fear' when you mean 'prejudice', but I think most people would use the term 'irrational fear' more loosely.
Let us go back to the OP and the Purg post which spawned it. Eutychus says he had an irrational fear of transpeople, but an exchange of PM's sorted that out. There is a perfectly good word which describes Euty's state of mind prior to the PMs and that is called transphobia.
I am no mind reader, but him labelling it "irrational fear" would seem to be an attempt at avoiding applying the more apropos label to himself. And why that matters is two-fold: One is the shifting of agency and the other is that prejudice doesn't disappear so quickly. The remains of that prejudice affect current behaviour, thus DT's creating a Hell thread.
It doesn't matter if Euty is using the term loosely, it still hides the reality.
Why employ a loose usage of one term whilst there is a perfectly good one that is way the hell more apt?
Well I am no mind-reader either, but the explanation that springs immediately to mind is that, on that thread, the meaning and usefulness of the term 'transphobia' were in dispute. So it would make sense to use terminology that was not in dispute.
Poor choice, then.
He has said in this Hell thread that he was describing prejudice. If one wished to describe this prejudice without using transphobia, it would be much simpler and very much more accurate to use the word discomfort. Or the even more accurate; prejudice.
One either has to take him at his word, or his past behaviours on the Ship.
Good grief. It's not enough to do whatever inner work about differences you feel you need to do--you have to use the Right (tm) words, too. It's not enough that you've changed.
(eyeroll)
This, we’ve got to let any new bigot who comes along ‘work through this’ - it would seem endlessly - that I object to. And I believe that Euty cuts that slack because he sees such folk as like he was, and therefore not so bad really.
It is one thing to be ignorant and ask questions in the first place, or to make a particular argument. But repetitively posting the same shite for the better part of a year is not that.
Essentially, my beef with Euty is he can’t see, or doesn’t wish to see, the issue with NoProfit (and more importantly, anyone else like NoProfit).
Is that what's happening? I can see NoProfit's drivel, endlessly recirculating, but all these threads have got me confused. The transgender thread is like shit, a billion flies can't be wrong.
This, we’ve got to let any new bigot who comes along ‘work through this’ - it would seem endlessly - that I object to. And I believe that Euty cuts that slack because he sees such folk as like he was, and therefore not so bad really.
The last part of that is a fair challenge.
What I know, speaking for me personally, is that I wouldn't have got to where I've got on certain DH issues if some people hadn't cut me some slack. And that sometimes that probably involved going over the same ground more than once in my mind. I don't think I'm alone in this.
It's also a fair challenge that my personal experience undoubtedly affects where I personally draw the line between my assessment of what constitutes asking sincere questions and posting repetitive shite, as you put it, because there is an agenda and no willingness to be convinced otherwise.
I hear your battle fatigue about having to keep answering the same objections, and I could point you to the exact post on the old Ship which made me realise how much of an issue that was in these matters, but I think it's unfair to pin that aspect of discussion on the Ship on me personally.
(I have exactly the same problem (repeatedly having to explain the same basic misconceptions, ones that directly and personally affect me, intimately, often to the same people, over and over again), in other areas of my life. It just comes with certain territories. Whether one takes up the battle to explain again and again and again, to whom, and for how long is entirely up to the individual, and depends on how important one thinks it is to engage those not directly affected by such issues).
I think that engaging those not directly affected by the type of issues under discussion here and challenging their prejudices is a big part of what the Ship is about; it's unrestful. The Ship doesn't always get it right, and neither do I, but my personal commitment to this place is very much about that.
That said, where the lines are drawn in terms of Ship policy is a conversation that's ongoing elsewhere. I have my own prejudices, but I'm not the only voice in that conversation, or the preponderant one.
As has been pointed out, and as you well know about how official Ship policy is formulated from your time backstage, it would be a big mistake to see where the Ship is at in terms of policy as a reflection of any one person's views, and it would also be a big mistake to see that policy as set in stone.
It's not the same questions repeatedly from different people, that's understandable. It's the same person repeating the same stuff that's been discussed extensively four, five, six, .. times before that's causing the battle fatigue.
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.
Or possibly people parse emotions differently?
If I am in soul-searching mode, and notice that I am prejudiced against a certain group, that usually means that I feel discomfort in the presence of that group and would prefer to stay away from that group. In my head, I would categorise that as 'irrational fear' rather than 'hate', because 'hate' (to me) implies a positive desire for harm to come to that group, and so I find it bizarre that people are trying to draw a sharp distinction between irrational fear and prejudice.
The problem is that you are characterising the difference incorrectly. One could believe all white people have poor rhythm without hating them. It is still a prejudice.
Irrational fears have no reason for them to exist. One can rationally understand that the feared object is not a threat, and one still feels that threat.
Not sure what difference you think I am drawing. Obviously prejudice, irrational fear and hate are not coterminous, but they overlap, and this thread seems to be describing what happens at the overlap.
Regarding your second paragraph and subsequent posts, if you are saying 'irrational fear' should be reserved for clinical phenomena that one might see on a DSM-whatever list, then I agree it is disingenuous to say 'irrational fear' when you mean 'prejudice', but I think most people would use the term 'irrational fear' more loosely.
Let us go back to the OP and the Purg post which spawned it. Eutychus says he had an irrational fear of transpeople, but an exchange of PM's sorted that out. There is a perfectly good word which describes Euty's state of mind prior to the PMs and that is called transphobia.
I am no mind reader, but him labelling it "irrational fear" would seem to be an attempt at avoiding applying the more apropos label to himself. And why that matters is two-fold: One is the shifting of agency and the other is that prejudice doesn't disappear so quickly. The remains of that prejudice affect current behaviour, thus DT's creating a Hell thread.
It doesn't matter if Euty is using the term loosely, it still hides the reality.
Why employ a loose usage of one term whilst there is a perfectly good one that is way the hell more apt?
Well I am no mind-reader either, but the explanation that springs immediately to mind is that, on that thread, the meaning and usefulness of the term 'transphobia' were in dispute. So it would make sense to use terminology that was not in dispute.
Poor choice, then.
He has said in this Hell thread that he was describing prejudice. If one wished to describe this prejudice without using transphobia, it would be much simpler and very much more accurate to use the word discomfort. Or the even more accurate; prejudice.
One either has to take him at his word, or his past behaviours on the Ship.
It's not really taking him at his word, though. It's taking him at a particularly uncharitable implication that you draw from his word. Which is a recipe for a string of 'well if you read what I actually said' posts.
In general, if someone posts X and I think X implies Y, and Y is a bad opinion, then I would tend to challenge this as a question ('Did you really mean to suggest Y?'), rather than reacting as though they'd said Y all along.
It's not the same questions repeatedly from different people, that's understandable. It's the same person repeating the same stuff that's been discussed extensively four, five, six, .. times before that's causing the battle fatigue.
Perhaps it is, but that's not something that can be laid at my door.
In general, if someone posts X and I think X implies Y, and Y is a bad opinion, then I would tend to challenge this as a question ('Did you really mean to suggest Y?'), rather than reacting as though they'd said Y all along.
This should be carved in stone in several languages and put... somewhere.
Battle fatigue is understandable, especially when you realise that these particular battles are going to be fought for at least the entire lives of babies born in Australia tomorrow. Surely in all questions of social change and equal rights, we are practically still at the start of the process.
A great way to deal with battle fatigue is to let someone else make the arguments and fight the battles while you recover your strength. Because it is about that - recovering your strength and enabling others to fight when you are tired. I know that's easier for some to do than others.
@Golden Key I think the extent to which people do this (seek clarification) actually serves as quite a good measure of their good faith in any given exchange.
In the present circumstances, I think this is pretty much how @Doublethink and I are actually having a conversation here (having overcome one such misunderstanding very early on), whereas trying to engage @lilbuddha sensibly at the moment is a bit like Arthur Dent trying to have a conversation with Agrajag.
This, we’ve got to let any new bigot who comes along ‘work through this’ - it would seem endlessly - that I object to. And I believe that Euty cuts that slack because he sees such folk as like he was, and therefore not so bad really.
I've thought this through with reference to the issues that affect me directly, i.e. homosexuality, and I have eventually decided I can't see an alternative.
In both cases, the culture of the overall body of Christiians as I have encountered it is suspicious to hostile. Confronting this on a collective level has to be part of the battle, but so, I have concluded is allowing anyone who is caught in this culture and wants to work through its implications, and hopefully out of them, to do so as and when they can. Otherwise, no change will come, or at least none that I will trust. I am intrinsically suspicious of imposed, centralised cultural change, because it drives those not in the absolute epicentre into resentful resistance.
As @Simon Toad says below, it is entirely permissible not to fight all of these battles, though I have given myself a long time off Dead Horses over the last couple of years. (Still resent having one of the central live issues in my life described as a deceased equine, but ho hum).
In both cases, the culture of the overall body of Christiians as I have encountered it is suspicious to hostile. Confronting this on a collective level has to be part of the battle, but so, I have concluded is allowing anyone who is caught in this culture and wants to work through its implications, and hopefully out of them, to do so as and when they can.
My sincere thanks, to you and those of similar mind (they know who they are), for helping people like me get to where we are, and for caring enough about the overall body of Christians, hostile or worse though it may be, to think they are worth the time, and doing so in the face of some strong encouragement to desist on the part of certain co-belligerents.
Battle fatigue is understandable, especially when you realise that these particular battles are going to be fought for at least the entire lives of babies born in Australia tomorrow. Surely in all questions of social change and equal rights, we are practically still at the start of the process.
A great way to deal with battle fatigue is to let someone else make the arguments and fight the battles while you recover your strength. Because it is about that - recovering your strength and enabling others to fight when you are tired. I know that's easier for some to do than others.
That's good advice. I've been involved in gender studies for 30 years, and boy, do I need to take a break from it from time to time. But usually, someone comes up with a fresh idea or angle, and I'm interested again. It's a huge field. I don't think anyone would have predicted the growth of transgender 30 years ago, or even 10. I see the great waves of liberation that have occurred, for women, for gays and lesbians, for trans people, and I rejoice.
PSA: While it is very tempting, if you're heavily engaged in a thread, to feel that you (an individual on one side of the argument) need to answer every bat-shit crazy post from an ignorant (or potentially malicious) doofus who clearly deserves a smack with the clue bat... someone else can take up the slack if the fight's worth having.
It's okay to step away, go outside, look up at the sky, go for a walk, read a book (preferably one of mine) and forget about That Person Who Is Wrong On The Internet. We all have our trigger points. Wisdom is recognising what they are. No one who matters will think badly of you if you take a time-out.
I guess one of the problems is that Eutychus is the admin defending issues in The Styx and elsewhere and is on record that he wants everything to be open for discussion as shutting down debate is unhelpful, which is why this Hell call. But on the Ship there has always come a point when individual Shipmates have been advised that what they are saying on an issue is unacceptable, particularly when it is being repeated ad nauseam. It feels for this topic that the Admins are being far slower to act than they have in the past for cases where the issue was sexism or racism (thinking of a couple of recent cases) and that seems to be a lack of knowledge of this issue among the admins.
[tangent]Do you want another of your books suggested as a Ship book club read? Not that I'm currently up-to-date with them[/tangent]
This, we’ve got to let any new bigot who comes along ‘work through this’ - it would seem endlessly - that I object to. And I believe that Euty cuts that slack because he sees such folk as like he was, and therefore not so bad really.
It is one thing to be ignorant and ask questions in the first place, or to make a particular argument. But repetitively posting the same shite for the better part of a year is not that.
Essentially, my beef with Euty is he can’t see, or doesn’t wish to see, the issue with NoProfit (and more importantly, anyone else like NoProfit).
ISTM that pointing and shouting "Bigot!" is apt to be counter-productive.
It may help the shouter feel better, and it might get the target's attention. But it's apt to make the target defensive--so maybe they'll lash out, or silently pull into themselves, or decide "yeah, I guess all that stuff about how awful is really true, so I guess it's not worth it to even *try* to get along with them or learn a little bit; bleep!"
Or they could just walk away--which might ease the current situation, but nothing else.
It feels for this topic that the Admins are being far slower to act than they have in the past for cases where the issue was sexism or racism (thinking of a couple of recent cases) and that seems to be a lack of knowledge of this issue among the admins.
From my perspective, any perceived corporate slowness to act has nothing to do with latent transphobia and everything to do with discerning what the appropriate course of action is.
It feels for this topic that the Admins are being far slower to act than they have in the past for cases where the issue was sexism or racism (thinking of a couple of recent cases) and that seems to be a lack of knowledge of this issue among the admins.
From my perspective, any perceived corporate slowness to act has nothing to do with latent transphobia and everything to do with discerning what the appropriate course of action is.
Pretty much. Particularly after the reaction we got last time.
I guess one of the problems is that Eutychus is the admin defending issues in The Styx and elsewhere and is on record that he wants everything to be open for discussion as shutting down debate is unhelpful, which is why this Hell call. But on the Ship there has always come a point when individual Shipmates have been advised that what they are saying on an issue is unacceptable, particularly when it is being repeated ad nauseam. It feels for this topic that the Admins are being far slower to act than they have in the past for cases where the issue was sexism or racism (thinking of a couple of recent cases) and that seems to be a lack of knowledge of this issue among the admins.
Comments
No, you’re not, but when this is not the result of past trauma - it is the negative assumption that is the prejudice. As in ‘they are black they might be aggressive’, ‘they are teens outside a supermarket, I won’t ask where the taxi rank is because they will nasty to me because all young people are like that’.
Social anxiety is different, in that it is rarely if ever the case that people have social anxiety about marginalised subsections of the population and nobody else.
Yes, I agree entirely. I think a lot of people are blind to their own prejudices of this nature. I don't think the negative assumption is always about violence though.
Or possibly people parse emotions differently?
If I am in soul-searching mode, and notice that I am prejudiced against a certain group, that usually means that I feel discomfort in the presence of that group and would prefer to stay away from that group. In my head, I would categorise that as 'irrational fear' rather than 'hate', because 'hate' (to me) implies a positive desire for harm to come to that group, and so I find it bizarre that people are trying to draw a sharp distinction between irrational fear and prejudice. OTOH, you could argue that 'I hate sprouts' doesn't imply a desire to raze all sprout farms to the ground, and therefore what I feel is a form of hate.
No. I spend a vast amount of my time tying myself up in knots, because I'm concerned about how anything I say might be perceived.
Fellow school mom, grrrrrrreat with child (me, done with that) - should I say "how are you feeling?" "How have you been?" - both of which are obviously a reference to the...um...situation. But then, where do you go? "Isn't it hot?" (subtext: and we all know how fun that is when you're massively, massively, pregnant). But if you ignore it totally, when someone's about five feet around, is that, in itself, rude?
Someone else I see from time to time, clearly had bariatric surgery - a shadow of her former self. Am I supposed to say, "Wow, you look great?" - or does that imply that she looked bad before - or that thin is necessarily better (a prejudice for sure) - but if you don't say anything when someone's about a quarter of their former size, it's a very obvious omission.
On a flight from Sydney to NZ, last year, I was seated across an aisle from a trans person. She was wearing the coolest ankle-length skirt, and I wanted to say how much I admired it, and for three whole fucking hours I evaluated the pros and cons of doing so. In the end, I said nothing, for two reasons. Firstly, I was (so sue me) concerned that I would be perceived as 'being nice' - ie: initiating conversation where I might otherwise not have done, in order to show how woke I was. Secondly, I concluded* that if I was that person, I would want, above all things, to just be able to go about my daily business like every other person, and actually, the way I treat most people I'm crammed onto a plane with, is, I say 'hi', to those actually next to me, and then I leave them alone, and they do the same, and it works fine.
I can relate to a lot of that!
This makes the Ship neither more nor less comfortable a place to be than the church, which is far from ideal, but I can't think of a reasonable alternative.
Nope.
As I posted on the Purg thread, there is also the "Crying Game" fear that one may unsuspectingly end up romancing someone who isn't actually the sex you think they are.
Irrational fears have no reason for them to exist. One can rationally understand that the feared object is not a threat, and one still feels that threat.
They don't have a rational reason. They still have a reason. It might not be a good one, but there will be a reason of some kind.
Or just not as xenophobic as others. It is a mistake to assume everyone is just like you but hiding it.
Doesn't explain things like Erythrophobia: Fear of blushing
Not does it take into account the difference between not wanting to touch a spider to remove it from one's home because one is "scared" vs experiencing
sweating
abnormal breathing
accelerated heartbeat
trembling
hot flushes or chills
a choking sensation
chest pains or tightness
butterflies in the stomach
pins and needles
dry mouth
confusion and disorientation
nausea
dizziness
headache
At the sight of a spider, even in a film or in a picture.
I mean a cause, a reason for the existence of the phenomenon.
Not sure what difference you think I am drawing. Obviously prejudice, irrational fear and hate are not coterminous, but they overlap, and this thread seems to be describing what happens at the overlap.
Regarding your second paragraph and subsequent posts, if you are saying 'irrational fear' should be reserved for clinical phenomena that one might see on a DSM-whatever list, then I agree it is disingenuous to say 'irrational fear' when you mean 'prejudice', but I think most people would use the term 'irrational fear' more loosely.
I am no mind reader, but him labelling it "irrational fear" would seem to be an attempt at avoiding applying the more apropos label to himself. And why that matters is two-fold: One is the shifting of agency and the other is that prejudice doesn't disappear so quickly. The remains of that prejudice affect current behaviour, thus DT's creating a Hell thread.
It doesn't matter if Euty is using the term loosely, it still hides the reality.
Why employ a loose usage of one term whilst there is a perfectly good one that is way the hell more apt?
Well I am no mind-reader either, but the explanation that springs immediately to mind is that, on that thread, the meaning and usefulness of the term 'transphobia' were in dispute. So it would make sense to use terminology that was not in dispute.
He has said in this Hell thread that he was describing prejudice. If one wished to describe this prejudice without using transphobia, it would be much simpler and very much more accurate to use the word discomfort. Or the even more accurate; prejudice.
One either has to take him at his word, or his past behaviours on the Ship.
ROTFL!
(eyeroll)
This, we’ve got to let any new bigot who comes along ‘work through this’ - it would seem endlessly - that I object to. And I believe that Euty cuts that slack because he sees such folk as like he was, and therefore not so bad really.
It is one thing to be ignorant and ask questions in the first place, or to make a particular argument. But repetitively posting the same shite for the better part of a year is not that.
Essentially, my beef with Euty is he can’t see, or doesn’t wish to see, the issue with NoProfit (and more importantly, anyone else like NoProfit).
The last part of that is a fair challenge.
What I know, speaking for me personally, is that I wouldn't have got to where I've got on certain DH issues if some people hadn't cut me some slack. And that sometimes that probably involved going over the same ground more than once in my mind. I don't think I'm alone in this.
It's also a fair challenge that my personal experience undoubtedly affects where I personally draw the line between my assessment of what constitutes asking sincere questions and posting repetitive shite, as you put it, because there is an agenda and no willingness to be convinced otherwise.
I hear your battle fatigue about having to keep answering the same objections, and I could point you to the exact post on the old Ship which made me realise how much of an issue that was in these matters, but I think it's unfair to pin that aspect of discussion on the Ship on me personally.
(I have exactly the same problem (repeatedly having to explain the same basic misconceptions, ones that directly and personally affect me, intimately, often to the same people, over and over again), in other areas of my life. It just comes with certain territories. Whether one takes up the battle to explain again and again and again, to whom, and for how long is entirely up to the individual, and depends on how important one thinks it is to engage those not directly affected by such issues).
I think that engaging those not directly affected by the type of issues under discussion here and challenging their prejudices is a big part of what the Ship is about; it's unrestful. The Ship doesn't always get it right, and neither do I, but my personal commitment to this place is very much about that.
That said, where the lines are drawn in terms of Ship policy is a conversation that's ongoing elsewhere. I have my own prejudices, but I'm not the only voice in that conversation, or the preponderant one.
As has been pointed out, and as you well know about how official Ship policy is formulated from your time backstage, it would be a big mistake to see where the Ship is at in terms of policy as a reflection of any one person's views, and it would also be a big mistake to see that policy as set in stone.
It's not really taking him at his word, though. It's taking him at a particularly uncharitable implication that you draw from his word. Which is a recipe for a string of 'well if you read what I actually said' posts.
In general, if someone posts X and I think X implies Y, and Y is a bad opinion, then I would tend to challenge this as a question ('Did you really mean to suggest Y?'), rather than reacting as though they'd said Y all along.
Perhaps it is, but that's not something that can be laid at my door.
This should be carved in stone in several languages and put... somewhere.
A great way to deal with battle fatigue is to let someone else make the arguments and fight the battles while you recover your strength. Because it is about that - recovering your strength and enabling others to fight when you are tired. I know that's easier for some to do than others.
Maybe on every wall in the US Congress?
But yes. I wonder if some version of it could be put into various of the Ship's "read before posting" guides?
In the present circumstances, I think this is pretty much how @Doublethink and I are actually having a conversation here (having overcome one such misunderstanding very early on), whereas trying to engage @lilbuddha sensibly at the moment is a bit like Arthur Dent trying to have a conversation with Agrajag.
I've thought this through with reference to the issues that affect me directly, i.e. homosexuality, and I have eventually decided I can't see an alternative.
In both cases, the culture of the overall body of Christiians as I have encountered it is suspicious to hostile. Confronting this on a collective level has to be part of the battle, but so, I have concluded is allowing anyone who is caught in this culture and wants to work through its implications, and hopefully out of them, to do so as and when they can. Otherwise, no change will come, or at least none that I will trust. I am intrinsically suspicious of imposed, centralised cultural change, because it drives those not in the absolute epicentre into resentful resistance.
As @Simon Toad says below, it is entirely permissible not to fight all of these battles, though I have given myself a long time off Dead Horses over the last couple of years. (Still resent having one of the central live issues in my life described as a deceased equine, but ho hum).
My sincere thanks, to you and those of similar mind (they know who they are), for helping people like me get to where we are, and for caring enough about the overall body of Christians, hostile or worse though it may be, to think they are worth the time, and doing so in the face of some strong encouragement to desist on the part of certain co-belligerents.
That's good advice. I've been involved in gender studies for 30 years, and boy, do I need to take a break from it from time to time. But usually, someone comes up with a fresh idea or angle, and I'm interested again. It's a huge field. I don't think anyone would have predicted the growth of transgender 30 years ago, or even 10. I see the great waves of liberation that have occurred, for women, for gays and lesbians, for trans people, and I rejoice.
It's okay to step away, go outside, look up at the sky, go for a walk, read a book (preferably one of mine) and forget about That Person Who Is Wrong On The Internet. We all have our trigger points. Wisdom is recognising what they are. No one who matters will think badly of you if you take a time-out.
[tangent]Do you want another of your books suggested as a Ship book club read? Not that I'm currently up-to-date with them[/tangent]
ISTM that pointing and shouting "Bigot!" is apt to be counter-productive.
It may help the shouter feel better, and it might get the target's attention. But it's apt to make the target defensive--so maybe they'll lash out, or silently pull into themselves, or decide "yeah, I guess all that stuff about how awful is really true, so I guess it's not worth it to even *try* to get along with them or learn a little bit; bleep!"
Or they could just walk away--which might ease the current situation, but nothing else.
Propriety forbids me. Also the non-advertising rule...
Pretty much. Particularly after the reaction we got last time.