Do you believe being Cis-gendered is a form of privilege? (1 Viewer)

[Intensesaint]

Just curious what people think.

I personally do not see there being any kind of special privilege to being comfortable in your own skin.

 

[samiam5211]

She entered the ranks of the unemployed because she expressed her belief there are two genders.

The Thought Police have become a manifest reality.
Newspeak standards are effectual.

She’s unemployed because her employer choose to terminate her for a reason that was not protected by the law.

You won’t say whether you believe the government should have intervened, or how you suggest they go about intervening.

You’re just complaining.

 

[Dadsdream]

She’s unemployed because her employer choose to terminate her for a reason that was not protected by the law.

You won’t say whether you believe the government should have intervened, or how you suggest they go about intervening.

You’re just complaining.

So? I can't complain?

My main concern is that trends in the UK sometimes translate across to the US.

I don't like the idea of employers in the US weeding through their employees' social media and not renewing their contracts (effectually firing them) because they express a belief there are only two genders and they use their pronouns accordingly. Utterly ridiculous. Thought control in extreme.

I'm not sure how you fix this for Spanish-speaking people.

Nouns in Spanish are either masculine or feminine . . . if it ends in an "a" and is preceded by the feminine form of the word "the" like "la casa" (the house), it's feminine and has female connotations . . . if it ends in an "o" and is preceded by the masculine form of the word "the" like "el camino" (the road) it is masculine and carries a male connotation.

If you had to make every noun in Spanish gender neutral, that would be a very tall order. You'd have to rewrite every book and rewire everybody's brains.

 

[dtc]

She entered the ranks of the unemployed because she expressed her belief there are two genders.

The Thought Police have become a manifest reality.
Newspeak standards are effectual.

Yet, instead of pointing that out, the post in question expressed untrue statements clearly crafted to characterize the facts in a misleading way.

Wow! I just got fired by a client for finishing their house on time and on budget. LOOK!!!!

Just because I finished up and they love their house they fired me by not renewing my contract and building another one!

Color me naive, but I just think the world would be better with less BS.

 

[samiam5211]

So? I can't complain?

My main concern is that trends in the UK sometimes translate across to the US.

I don't like the idea of employers in the US weeding through their employees' social media and not renewing their contracts (effectually firing them) because they express a belief there are only two genders and they use their pronouns accordingly. Utterly ridiculous. Thought control in extreme.

I'm not sure how you fix this for Spanish-speaking people.

Nouns in Spanish are either masculine or feminine . . . if it ends in an "a" and is preceded by the feminine form of the word "the" like "la casa" (the house), it's feminine and has female connotations . . . if it ends in an "o" and is preceded by the masculine form of like "el camino" (the road).

If you had to make every noun in Spanish gender neutral, that would be a very tall order.

I trust the judgement of employers for the most part.

I don’t mind someone being fired if they purposely don’t use a trans employee’s preferred pronoun.

I don’t expect to see many people get fired for accidentally calling Caitlin Jenner “he.”

 

[Beach Friends]

You said fired. She wasn't.

If it were up to me, I'd prefer the truth rather than some misleading and inflammatory hyperbole.

Given your journalistic background, I'd have assumed you would agree.

Maybe Proctor & Gamble was right.

 

[dtc]

So? I can't complain?

My main concern is that trends in the UK sometimes translate across to the US.

I don't like the idea of employers in the US weeding through their employees' social media and not renewing their contracts (effectually firing them) because they express a belief there are only two genders and they use their pronouns accordingly. Utterly ridiculous. Thought control in extreme.

I'm not sure how you fix this for Spanish-speaking people.

Nouns in Spanish are either masculine or feminine . . . if it ends in an "a" and is preceded by the feminine form of the word "the" like "la casa" (the house), it's feminine and has female connotations . . . if it ends in an "o" and is preceded by the masculine form of like "el camino" (the road) it is masculine and carries a male connotation.

If you had to make every noun in Spanish gender neutral, that would be a very tall order. You'd have to rewrite every book and rewire everybody's brains.

You could have said all this instead of posting a deliberately misleading statement, right?

All of the above is reality.

She was not fired. That's not true.

 

[dtc]

Maybe Proctor & Gamble was right.

You mean they were right to remove female symbols from tampon packaging?

Perhaps. it's clear there are a lot of men who could benefit from using them.

 

[Beach Friends]

You mean they were right to remove female symbols from tampon packaging?

Perhaps. it's clear there are a lot of men who could benefit from using them.

That's pretty funny. I wish I had thought of that.

 

[JimEverett]

I agree.

For example, if I, as a white male, failed to hold the door open for a brown person, they might wrongly assume that I'm racist. Wrongly assuming racism is a form of discrimination.

I do think that there is an important difference in the impact of discrimination when it is against a class that is in the majority or generally holds power in a culture.

Racism against white people isn't nearly as impactful as the reverse. It doesn't make it any better, but it is less meaningful.

Why would racism against whites be less meaningful based on what you are saying unless it comes from a belief that non-whites do not hold power in this culture or a culture that exists here. Is that what you are saying?

 

[samiam5211]

Why would racism against whites be less meaningful based on what you are saying unless it comes from a belief that non-whites do not hold power in this culture or a culture that exists here. Is that what you are saying?

It is still far more likely to run into a white racist with power than a non white racist with power.

Im not going to bother entertaining the notion that it’s not.

 

[JimEverett]

It is still far more likely to run into a white racist with power than a non white racist with power.

Im not going to bother entertaining the notion that it’s not.

yeah, that really has nothing to do with what I was asking.

You seem to be setting up a class of non-whites and whites, at a minimum. In the class of whites you ascribe an additional quality - "generally holding power"

I was just wondering if you thought non-whites do have power. I think they clearly do, but wasn't sure what you were saying.

The problem should start being obvious. Why take a large class of people - whites - and then ascribe a trait that not all share - power - yet ascribe less meaning to discrimination against the class without counting for the particular attribute (that has already been set up) that not all share, namely power.

Of course, if you are saying non-whites don't have power as a rule then its different.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Privilege is obviously context dependent.

In many circumstances being white, or male, or cis-gender is easier than being something other than that given all other things being equal (wealth, educational opportunities, etc). In rarer cases, the opposite is true - either due to people trying to correct past injustices or false assumptions about the presumed privilege.

Statistically, being white, or male, or straight or cis-gendered is likely to be more beneficial than the alternative. And that's where the discussion should remain, on a statistical level. At the individual level, there are many variations that can add or subtract someone's advantages.

 

[JimEverett]

Statistically, being white, or male, or straight or cis-gendered is likely to be more beneficial than the alternative. And that's where the discussion should remain, on a statistical level. At the individual level, there are many variations that can add or subtract someone's advantages.

I disagree. Why should we apply some sort of privileged status, or non-privileged-status, on a group when individuals in that group in a given context don't fit the status?

 

[SystemShock]

You could have said all this instead of posting a deliberately misleading statement, right?

All of the above is reality.

She was not fired. That's not true.

So she wasn't fired, but her contract was not renewed... which are different means, yet the end is the same: she became unemployed because of her actions. Of course, that assumes that there was no other reason to not renew her contract.

 

[SystemShock]

to me, using a pronoun that somebody prefers costs me absolutely nothing, and if it makes them feel more like they belong in society or more like a “real” person, I’m happy to do it. Seems like the decent thing to do.

I don't think the issue here is about being nice and calling someone what they want to be called. The issue is in forcing someone to call someone else what they want to be called under penalty of law or the threat of employment termination.

As it refers particularly to transgenders, if for whatever reason I don't want to call this person "he" because I know this person has ovaries, I can refer to this person in different ways, which are not disrespectful at all, and don't acknowledge any gender. I can simply use the person's first name or last name every time I refer to this person.

But if you tell me I must refer to this person as "he" and I must accept this person with ovaries is a man or I am going to get fired? I have a huge problem with that.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I disagree. Why should we apply some sort of privileged status, or non-privileged-status, on a group when individuals in that group in a given context don't fit the status?

I'm not following. What do you mean by "apply some sort of privileged status, or non-privileged-status"?

Do you disagree with the statement that all other things being equal, a person's race is likely to have an effect on their job prospects, probability of police scrutiny, threat of racist violence, probability of being harassed in high end stores, etc? There is both anecdotal and statistical data which suggests that this is true.

In general I don't think the discussion about privilege is helpful, b/c it just makes people defensive which prevents empathy which is what a discussion of privilege should be about.

 

[Taurus]

I'm not following. What do you mean by "apply some sort of privileged status, or non-privileged-status"?

Do you disagree with the statement that all other things being equal, a person's race is likely to have an effect on their job prospects, probability of police scrutiny, threat of racist violence, probability of being harassed in high end stores, etc? There is both anecdotal and statistical data which suggests that this is true.

In general I don't think the discussion about privilege is helpful, b/c it just makes people defensive which prevents empathy which is what a discussion of privilege should be about.

I agree that the packaging on this issue needs work. "Privileged" is a derogatory term in America, nobody willingly cops to it.

 

[Dadsdream]

I'm still confused about how you fix the Spanish language to omit gender, when every noun in the language is gender specific . . . el arbol (the tree, masculine), la Paloma (the bird, feminine), la mesa (the table, feminine), el auto (the car, masculine) . . .