Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ziq wrote

"sucks", "blows"

7

NOISEBOB wrote

Yeah... I hung out with a very gay guy who always added "...in a bad way" when the word "sucks" came out of my mouth.

7

subrosa wrote (edited )

"You do realize [...], right?"

Especially when used in conversations and debates about highly complex topics. I don't know, the phrase just seems a little too condescending and smug for it to be so common.

Edit: not 100% on topic of this thread, I'll keep it anyway

6

dred wrote

Because it is, I use it when I think the other person is ignorant of something obvious aka when I feel smug.

5

masquerademinutes wrote

It has the same energy as "[...], don't you agree?".

No, damn. What am I supposed to say? I know some people use it without harmful intentions, but manipulators and people who appeal to hierarchy like to pull that expression to reduce confrontation.

Luckily, I'm not annoyed or triggered by this expression, so I speak my mind, but I see how it can be used almost as semi-gashlighting. "Don't you agree? Good."

4

Majrelende OP wrote

“Developing”, “development” and “pre-industrial” sounds like cruel euphemisms and threats respectively.

“Biologically female/male/etc.” is what people use to try not to offend transgender people while still having transphobic ideas ingrained in their minds.

5

[deleted] wrote

5

masque wrote (edited )

I feel like there's a lot of variety in how the phrase "gender identity" or "identifying as [insert gender]" can be interpreted. In most non-gender-related cases, when people talk about "identifying" something or someone there is no implication of choice, but there is a cognitive process involved. This contradicts some people's feeling that their gender is an innate neurological property and not the result of classifying themselves according to some cultural concept, so I can see why some people don't like this language.

But at the same time, some people insist that "gender identity," whatever it means, is actually the single determining feature of gender, and if you want a definition of gender that respects everyone's own claims about what their own gender is then it's hard to avoid something like this definition. Basing your definition primarily on dysphoria, for instance, leads to transmedicalist ideas that exclude a lot of people.

After 2-ish years of reading about this stuff & questioning my own gender, I've come to the conclusion that there is currently no "unified theory/definition of gender" that doesn't conflict with a lot of people's interpretation of their own experiences, which is unfortunate.

3

[deleted] wrote (edited )

3

masque wrote (edited )

Ah, I see. When someone says "identifies as" in a situation where "is" would normally be used for cis people, then that's definitely a conspicuous way to avoid actually saying that someone is the gender that they identify as. So in that context it's bad regardless of your view on the use of "gender identity" in general.

There definitely are a large contingent of people who object to most discussion of "gender identity" as a concept, though, which is what I was thinking of in the previous comment.

3

masque wrote (edited )

I have a non-correctable retina problem, but also have glasses for something correctable. When, on occasion, I explain that I'm visually impaired and (politely) ask someone to read something distant for me, they invariably respond by saying "you should probably get better glasses."

It's only mildly annoying, but still...

5