The resurrection
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-02-2017, 10:35 AM
RE: The resurrection
(24-02-2017 09:49 AM)Alla Wrote:  I understand your point. It is always good at least to try to understand another side and reasons of their actions, proposals.
Because I want to be kind to all people, because I hate to offend people I have no problem with using terms "cisgender" and "transgender" as long as I am not forced to forget or to completely reject THE TRUTH/FACTS.

So,
1)do you believe that with time in some future banning term "gender non-normative" will decrease discrimination?
2)who came up with the term "gender non-normative"? do you know?
Heart

Thanks Alla! I don't want people to forget truth or facts, either.

1) To be clear, I don't have any intent on banning the term. But I don't prefer it, and I find it to be alienating. People largely don't use it now. It's not even a medical term included in the diagnoses I've seen or been given. I.E. - I don't think there's a medical diagnosis code for "gender non-normative".

2) Nope, I don't know. Normativity itself is not a concept only applied to gender or gender norms. It's a sociology term, and I would guess that "gender norms" are just the subset of "social norms" having to do with gender roles. And normativity is just the term applied to describe the measurement of how much a thing or person aligns with the social norms of their region and time period. Norms and normativity will change within a society over time and from region to region. Again, just my guesses based on the language used.

And language matters, as does context. So, while I don't want to ban any particular language being applied here, I think it's worth considering the context and potential implications of the language people choose to use.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Emma's post
24-02-2017, 10:36 AM
RE: The resurrection
(24-02-2017 08:59 AM)Emma Wrote:  Rob, that was a fantastic video, thank you for sharing. And you are correct on all your points. A segregated bathroom is not the solutions. Providing a family single-occupancy bathroom for those most comfortable using it is fine- but regulation requiring trans people use it is beyond the pale and no different than insisting people of color use a different bathroom or water fountain, as happened during the years of segregation in the US (and, as if to further compound the situation for people of color, the trans people in the greatest danger of being victims of violence are trans women of color).

Floor-to-ceiling stalls are just a no-brainer for those worried about safety, in my opinion.

Unisex bathrooms are fine with me, though they understandably difficult for some people who feel unsafe- especially survivors of sexual assault. So a single-occupancy washroom ought to also be available, in my opinion.

But- all of those things will be difficult, or impossible for some businesses to provide. And since there's just no basis for a change in requirements, why change anything at all?

Rocket- I love John Oliver's piece on trans issues, too. Very good video. I can't express how it made me feel to see him say something. I never expected it. Both 2015 and 2016 were good for trans people- but unfortunately a whole lot of that promise died away when Trump was elected.

Thank you Emma, I'm really glad you liked it! Smile

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
24-02-2017, 11:08 AM (This post was last modified: 24-02-2017 11:15 AM by Alla.)
RE: The resurrection
Heart EMMA Heart


Thank you for your answers.
I am glad that I said that I believe in resurrection and then GirlyMan asked me to tell him about it, and I talked about gender, and you read it and asked me a question. All this lead us to a very important and interesting discussion.
The right sees it as state rights, the left sees it as civil rights. I think I can see it as civil rights. May be it is because you explained to me very well what is behind the proposal.
May be you have to be the spoke person for the cause. I think you would be great.

But this conversation leads to another hot topic - about implications of the language people CHOOSE to use. I am talking about the 1st Amendment.
Some say this would be an attack on the 1st Amendment. I can not CHOOSE some words, and it seems that the number of the words is growing. I am FORCED not to say some words any more - words I want to CHOOSE.
What is your response? Do you agree with them?
P.S. I agree with you that words matter. I don't think anybody would deny this.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Alla's post
24-02-2017, 11:24 AM
RE: The resurrection
(24-02-2017 11:08 AM)Alla Wrote:  Heart EMMA Heart


Thank you for your answers.
I am glad that I said that I believe in resurrection and then GirlyMan asked me to tell him about it, and I talked about gender, and you read it and asked me a question. All this lead us to a very important and interesting discussion.
The right sees it as state rights, the left sees it as civil rights. I think I can see it as civil rights. May be it is because you explained to me very well what is behind the proposal.
May be you have to be the spoke person for the cause. I think you would be great.

But this conversation leads to another hot topic - about implications of the language people CHOOSE to use. I am talking about 1st Amendment.
Some say this would be an attack on the 1st Amendment. I can not CHOOSE any more some words, and it seems that the number of the words is growing. I am FORCED not to say some any more - words I want to CHOOSE.
What is your response? Do you agree with them?
P.S. I agree with you that words matter. I don't think anybody would deny this.

Wow- thank you! Although I think I would be terrible at being a spokesman, personally. I would get all flustered and struggle with the words I want to use in person lol. I'm really glad we talked, too!

So- when you say it would be a 1st Amendment issue- what exactly are you referring to? Banning of language? Or forcing someone to choose specific language?

I don't want to force anyone to use specific language. In the case of talking to SYZ, for example, I don't want to force him to use my preferred language. But I would like if it he considered why I choose to use the language that I do. And I would really like it if he decided that my argument to be persuasive. But I will not force him to say "cis" if he doesn't want to- and I don't want anyone else to do so. But I do reserve the right to be mean to him. That's also part of the 1st Amendment. But I don't want to be mean to him. He took the time to explain some of his argument to me, and I did the same for him in return.

So, you are free to say all sorts of words that other people will find offensive. But you also have to deal with the consequences of that. You'll make some people mad, and they will take retaliatory actions- boycotts, marches, blog posts, calling you names, etc. Society has ebbed and flowed in different directions on which words are acceptable and in which situations. Though, in the US specifically, we don't have laws about what you can and cannot say (with very few exceptions in specific situations). Language is also part of social norms- to bring it all back together LOL.

So- I wish people would respect the preferences I have for language, and the reasons behind them. But I don't want to force them to. I might get mad and yell at them if they don't. But I don't want words banned by our government. I think that would be extremely dangerous for our free speech.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Emma's post
24-02-2017, 11:54 AM
RE: The resurrection
Alla - You may not understand that "THE TRUTH" does not necessarily mean it's okay to use "not-normal" in describing a rare but significant percent of the population. Trying to avoid language that designates most people as "normal" and others as "not" is a small step to "others = freaks" in the minds of far too many bigots. Kids are generally obsessed at that age with "fitting in", and don't need much of a push to discover there's an out-group they can torture... especially if the people who usually try to restrict and correct such behavior (staff/teachers) give the signal that it's okay to do it to THIS group.

So we look for ways of phrasing it that are still scientifically accurate (THE TRUTH), while not handing a weapon to the sort of people who would use it to bludgeon vulnerable others with it. It's the truth either way, but often the way we frame or phrase something really matters.

I think perhaps it would be easier if you looked at it from a "pure biology" point of view.

When a sperm fertilizes an egg, a new combination of genetic "instructions" (for lack of a better term) begin to unfold a series of operations that make new proteins and cells, fold those groups of new cells into layers, and switch other genes on-and-off in sequence to "construct" a human (or whatever else). Those instructions are not only complex, but highly variable-- that's why there's such variety of people!

Along the way, many many many things can "go wrong", due to the complex interactions of so many genes, hormone levels, and environmental factors, switching on and varying as the process continues to make a zygote into a person. In literally almost every case, something goes wrong... I can guarantee you that you've never met a person whose phenotype (the result) matches the genotype (the instructions). And you never will. Nobody on earth meets the norm in every respect. We are all "freaks" in some way.

To single out those whose centers of sexuality and/or gender identity do not match "normal" development is to choose one element essemntially at random and make it suddenly Really Important™, while ignoring or accepting many others. To torture people for that characteristic is simply insane, as well as inhumane. It is, from a more neutral point of view, the result of the odd focus that Judeo-Christianity (and its derivatives/analogues) has adopted on gender roles and sexuality, and not really logical.

For instance, did you know that for most of the history of Homo sapiens in Europe, there were no white (Caucasian) people? We now know from genetic analysis that it cropped up less than 20,000 years ago, and possibly closer to about half that long ago, around the time of the agricultural revolution in the Caucasus region, and spread out from there. Back then, tribes on that continent which had large numbers of people with the odd gene-set we now take for granted as "white European" would have been the not-normals, the "freaks". But do you consider yourself a freak because you have non-normal, non-brown skin?

Of course not. It's just another way to be.

Now imagine you are just as you are, but surrounded entirely by 99% people who are not like you, and too often do see you as a genetic "defect" because you are not-normal. Would you prefer that people use the term "Caucasian" or "non-normative pigmentation" around you?

Both are true... but phrasing matters. It especially matters when the amount of torment that too many kids who are outside the norm go through is so severe that many kill themselves, rather than face another day of that social torture. It matters when a few people think that the "freaks" are free targets for their anger, discrimination, and violence, while most people don't lift a finger to care or stop it.

It matters.

I am proud of you for asking, rather than telling, though! I wish more religionists would stop taking their preacher's (or social group's) word for How Things Are™, and actually bother to find out.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
24-02-2017, 11:57 AM
RE: The resurrection
In the long run...
Sticks & stones may break my bones
But words will never harm me

Much
As long as one learns from the experience. Dodgy

***
Words can hurt and often do when flung about passionately. Views can be explained and words can be apologised for.

When words are used with a pervasive air of deliberate intent to harm ... this is where things can become muddled and confused. BUT this can also be where true intent and ignorance is discovered.

So...
The first amendment:
No pain, no gain. Shy

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
24-02-2017, 12:27 PM
RE: The resurrection
Thank you for your response. I like everything you said and I agree with you 100%.

Emma Wrote:I think I would be terrible at being a spokesman, personally.
You should have more faith in yourself.
Emma Wrote:I would get all flustered and struggle with the words I want to use in person lol
This I can understand.

I want to share with you something.

Back in Soviet Union, in schools children had to memorize different poems every week. Then we had to tell them in front of whole class. I had no problem with doing it. Until one day my Russian literature teacher said to whole class:"Alla is very, very good at telling poems." Not because I remembered them very well but because of how I told them.
I don't know why but I got very embarrassed. I hated that she gave me this attention. From that moment I couldn't speak in front of the public. I would continue to memories poems but when it was my turn to tell them I would stand like an idiot and wouldn't be able to say a word. It was like a spasm in my throat. It was paralyzed because of fear. All eyes were on me. It was so humiliating.
Teacher would ask me: "Alla, why didn't you do your homework(didn't memorize the poem)?" I didn't answer. I let her to believe that I didn't know the poem. She would give me "2". It is grade that = to F.
When I joined LDS Church everything changed. Let me explain. Once a month we have testimony meetings. Anybody can share testimony in front of the whole congregation. I was burning inside. I really wanted to share my testimony with the whole world not only my ward. But fear never let me do it. I was miserable.
Until one day I learned that God wants me to be outside of my comfort zone once in a while. This would help me to grow and to see my potential. God says that I am His child, I have royal lineage. I have divine nature. BTW, I believe you too, I believe you have divine nature, royal linage, great potential.
One day when I was burning to share my testimony I decided to stand up and to go up on the stage and to say at least something. No matter how ridiculous I would look or sound.
So, I went, my voice was shaking, my face was on fire and red, I was scared but I DID IT!! I shared my testimony. I didn't share it the way I wanted. But I said everything I wanted to say.
Now I am the one who shares testimony very often and I am doing better and better.
It feels good to overcome fear and to be able to share with others what you believe. Because I am still nervous every time I talk in front of lots of people, sometimes my voice is still shaking, my face is super red all the time. I hate it. I hate it. I hate it. But people think it is because I am very emotional about what I say. It seems that people like it. They also get emotional.

Emma Wrote:I'm really glad we talked, too!
Me too. Hug

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Alla's post
24-02-2017, 12:58 PM
RE: The resurrection
RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:So we look for ways of phrasing it that are still scientifically accurate (THE TRUTH), while not handing a weapon to the sort of people who would use it to bludgeon vulnerable others with it. It's the truth either way, but often the way we frame or phrase something really matters.
I understand. I agree.

RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:Now imagine you are just as you are, but surrounded entirely by 99% people who are not like you, and too often do see you as a genetic "defect" because you are not-normal. Would you prefer that people use the term "Caucasian" or "non-normative pigmentation" around you?
I get your point.

RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:Along the way, many many many things can "go wrong", due to the complex interactions of so many genes, hormone levels, and environmental factors, switching on and varying as the process continues to make a zygote into a person. In literally almost every case, something goes wrong... I can guarantee you that you've never met a person whose phenotype (the result) matches the genotype (the instructions). And you never will. Nobody on earth meets the norm in every respect. We are all "freaks" in some way.
I know and I agree.

RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:I am proud of you for asking, rather than telling, though!
Thank you.
I like to ask questions. This is what my atheist father taught me to do. He was one of the best programmers in the Soviet Union. He was great mathematician. He worked on theory of graphs, and simple numbers (I am not sure if this is how it calls in English). So I asked him once when I was about 12 years old. How do you know in relatively short period of time how to write the program for a process that you never knew about before? He told me this: "I am asking right questions. It is very important to ask right questions."
I don't know why this words impressed me a lot. I could never forget those words. I never asked him though how he knew what questions were right

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Alla's post
24-02-2017, 03:20 PM
RE: The resurrection
(23-02-2017 12:41 PM)SYZ Wrote:  I'm sorry, but I have to let you know that I find the "cis" prefix offensive.
...
As a male, I describe myself, initially, as heterosexual or—more clinically—as gender-normative. I also think that it's condescending whenever a non-normative gendered person opts to put their own label on me. I would never define myself as a "cis-man".

Why in the hell would you find this offensive? The function of language is to communicate. It wasn't until recent years that there has been so much more open-minded discussion about different sexual orientations other than male and female so there hasn't been a perceived need before for legitimate terms. At this point, we need those terms for accurate communication. When you suggest that "cis" is offensive, you're not recognizing that there is a need to differentiate between the traditional meaning of "male" and "female" and the other variations coming from people in the LGBT communities. Honestly, I think you're just not used to the term. I think if "cis" improves communication accuracy, then who cares? I have no idea why you would find it offensive or condescending.

What's offensive to me is "gender-normative", as if there is something "normal" about people who are cis-gendered. The word "normal" is meaningless when it comes to sexual identity. Each sexual orientation is among what's "normal". It's just that people up until now haven't understood this and too many still don't.

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Impulse's post
24-02-2017, 03:30 PM
RE: The resurrection
I found these googling around for what the Bible says about an afterlife or resurrection.

"His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish." - Psalm 146:4

"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten." - Ecclesiastes 9:5

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: