Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bloodrose wrote

I 100% appreciate having my poor language choices pointed out. I do not experience the same crap you do so I am ignorant. Thank you so so much for calling me out and letting me know. <3 You rock!

6

DarkArmillary wrote

bloodrose, you deleted out the descriptor of "female" because someone hinted that it might be "TERF-y"? That's very unnecessary. This dynamic comes about due to the absurdities of authoritarian ideology — "you can't say that, or else you are a heretic, and exiled."

Sometimes it's a perfectly valid word to use, when appropriate. We can determine by context if it's used in a sexist patriarchal manner or as a more neutral/accurate descriptor.

Having someone police your language so that you edit out the word "female" is literally what's called "female erasure" — and it's endemic within patriarchal society; now it's dressed up in "woke" sophistry. You don't have to apologize and prostrate yourself to these ideologues.

−6

zoochotic wrote

It's not authoritarian to point out troubling language. People often want to know how their speech is being interpreted by others and bloodrose explicitly said that they appreciated the response.

6

bloodrose wrote

Absolutely! I should be better educated on this and it is no one's job to educate me on it so I appreciate the free education - someone took time outta their day to educate me. I feel thankful for that. :)

6

DarkArmillary wrote

u/zoochotic: Regarding harmful or "troubling" language: The N-word and the B-word and so on are fine to "call out/in" because they are actively harmful.

In contrast, the word "female" is not actively harmful. It is a descriptor. For the argument to be made that it is somehow harmful, it has to pass through at least two layers of subjective abstraction, based on an individual's interpretation. Again, contrast this subjective interpretation of "female" to actively harmful bigoted words which are well-established as socially harmful in practically every circumstance used.

Notice how none of us here actually have a problem typing out the word "female." We don't have to censor it. That's because there's nothing inherently wrong with it.

"When comparing the badnes of two words, and you can't say one of the words — that's the worse one."

u/bloodrose

−2

zoochotic wrote (edited )

Very bizarre argument you're making here. You seem to be suggesting that we should change our language not to accommodate or communicate better with other individuals we care about, who subjectively have an experience of a word different than our own, but instead to meet some fickle conservative social norms. The N-word is well-established as socially harmful, it wasn't 100 years ago. The B-word is barely established as socially harmful, it wasn't even just 10 years ago. So if 100 years ago someone voiced discomfort with you using the N-word around them you'd object? 10 years ago you'd tell women that the B-word isn't actively harmful? If you aren't making these decisions based on another person's subjective experience of the world, I don't know what the fuck you think you're doing. Like, is your interest here just in complying with social norms like an automaton? That's cop logic.

Notice how none of us here actually have a problem typing out the word "female." We don't have to censor it. That's because there's nothing inherently wrong with it.

That's because of context. If I said, "I was assigned female at birth", there is nothing offensive about that. If I said "trans women cannot use the women's bathroom because they are not females", that is clearly a problem. If I used the word "female" instead of "women", some people will get TERF vibes. For some people the word has connotations with TERFs that you yourself might not be familiar with, but you might want to be sensitive towards to a) make them more comfortable and b) not come across as a complete asshole or TERF.

"When comparing the badnes of two words, and you can't say one of the words — that's the worse one."

Mulaney is talking about the N-word versus "midget". Mulaney is simply saying that the former is worse, whereas you are arguing that calling little people midgets is fine and they should quit complaining - despite the problematic history of the word & the way people have used it towards them throughout their lives. Mulaney is not making the same point as you, and would disagree. And for the love of God please go read one of the books that you desperately need instead of getting your political philosophy from a comedian.

5

DarkArmillary wrote

So now I'm a conservative with cop logic, when earlier you called me a dumbass Marxist. You're all over the map here. I mean pick an insult and commit, buddy. Maybe you need clarification: I'm an anarchist. That's why I'm here, arguing with anarchists ;)

Very bizarre that you ignored key parts of my argument. My argument is not based on fickle norms of today or any other time, but rather a critical assessment of the harm that's actually done or clearly implied by the word. Bigoted words fall in that category. "Female" in itself does not fall into that category, and it is absolutely an absurd argument to say that the word itself is offensive. If it's used in a specifically patriarchally insulting way, then sure; but as a mere descriptor, that's an absurd argument to say it's offensive.

"If I said this then it's acceptable".. "if I said such and such then that is a problem."

What you're really trying to do is police my speech. I see it for what it is, authoritarian.

I have zero tolerance for hate speech and bigoted words. "Female" is not one of them and you will not convince me that it is.

0

zoochotic wrote

How's that all over the map? Most Marxists are conservative cops ;)

The person expressed exactly what the harm is. Harm is subjectively defined. Bigoted words used to not fall into that category, until over time & with much resistance they came to be. Language evolves when individuals voice their subjective experience with the use of language.

No one has said "female" is inherently bigoted. What is being said is that many TERFs use the word female instead of women to make a bigoted point about biology & gender, and it was suggested that the word women be used instead to make it clear that's not what bloodrose is doing. Bloodrose thought about it, and accepted the point as valid. There is no enforcement, punishment, coercion, or exclusion happening here - no policing. One person just spoke up about what the word represents to them and another appreciated the input.

If I were to use those coercive methods to force you to change your language, then you are correct, that would be policing. But I would not do that, and that is not what happened here at all. I don't understand why people, particularly men, have such a difficult time understanding the difference between policing and someone expressing their feelings about something you did.

4

DarkArmillary wrote

No, actually, there was no description of any harm caused, whatsoever. Apparently there was more discussion not on this thread, but as it appears here, the only thing that happened was someone suggested "oh no, you can't use that word, it's TERFy," so though the magic of social pressure (whatever you want to call it), they literally amended their words to erase the word "female." And you act like this rhetorical bullying doesn't happen all over rad-left spaces.

−2

zoochotic wrote

Immediately after that post bloodrose replied that they did not mean to be TERF-y so clearly they understood the harm, as did everyone else. If you didn't understand it, maybe ask the person?

Look, I'm usually the first to tell people to fuck off when it comes to language policing (policing not a simple criticism), but this just wasn't it.

5

[deleted] wrote

4

DarkArmillary wrote

Stupid trolls like you and the other one here degrade the quality of discourse in this entire space. Anarchism is not your personal social club for you to be snarky and get pats on the back from your buddies and some regular clique. I've seen it play out time and time again. It's fucking annoying. People like you give me less hope for Anarchism, as a movement.

−1

L0rdEMPRESS_GaLaXyBrAiN wrote

I've seen it play out time and time again. It's fucking annoying.

Yeah, class reductionist TERF's tend to not be treated to well here.

3

DarkArmillary wrote

Anarchist cliques and Anarchist egos and Anarchist snark is what gets played out time and time again. It's petty and toxic. Maybe that's just how humans are.

−3

Anarchox wrote

Thank you, comrade. I was inspired by this to speak up.

1

L0rdEMPRESS_GaLaXyBrAiN wrote

So now I'm a conservative with cop logic, when earlier you called me a dumbass Marxist.

Hate to break to to you, kiddo.

2

bloodrose wrote

because someone hinted that it might be "TERF-y"?

Also, want to point out, the user who called me out talked to me off-thread about why the language was problematic. It wasn't just a hint.

5

L0rdEMPRESS_GaLaXyBrAiN wrote

They're really reaching aren't they?

4

bloodrose wrote

Wait until they find out we actually get along quite well. :p

4

bloodrose wrote

Honestly, the word "female" was not the point of my argument. My argument was that often stuff produced by women is treated as fluff and calling something that discussed the hard work of women as "fluff" was inherently sexist. I used female not because I had carefully chosen my words or because it was a necessary word for my case. It was pointed out to me that the word female is often used to exclude trans women from womanhood. Using it in this manner made people feel that was what I was trying to do and distracted from my point. Therefore, I believed it was a poor word choice.

5

DarkArmillary wrote

u/bloodrose

I am familiar with that argument. What I wish to convey to you is that that argument is based on specious reasoning. Words are "exclusive" by their very nature. The very point of words is to define something specific, rather than something else or everything at the same time. Apologies if you find that obvious or insulting, that's not my intention. I'm just trying to show how that's an empty argument, linguistically.

You may have a different idea of what point was embedded in your argument, but in my interpretation of your comment, the word "female" is very relevant, and is in fact the operative word of your argument.

If you erase "female" from your comment, it reads: "Architects talking about how women interact with their environments = fluff piece. Sexist much?"

As it's phrased now, no it's not sexist. Because the descriptor of "female" is what would have made such a dismissive statement ("fluff piece") sexist in the first place. As it reads now, it's just... what, an anti-architect statement. But the fact that female architects were responsible for city planning is relevant, to the article/video and to such dismissive comments related to it.

Erasing the word "female" changed the entire basis of the argument; just as this broader rhetorical move of erasing "female" from political consideration changes the nature of rights affecting females.

−1

bloodrose wrote (edited )

If you erase "female" from your comment, it reads: "Architects talking about how women interact with their environments = fluff piece. Sexist much?"

As it's phrased now, no it's not sexist. Because the descriptor of "female" is what would have made such a dismissive statement ("fluff piece") sexist in the first place.

Is the fact that being dismissive about a piece about women enough to be considered sexist? I thought using "women architects" sounded too clunky. But I thought it was a valid point that people use "female" to mean "biologically female" to mean "those with a vagina." I did not intend to say "Architects who have vaginas" so I thought removing the word made more sense.

Edit to add: I also was comfortable with changing my framing to make those I was conversing with more comfortable talking with me.

5

DarkArmillary wrote (edited )

I think that being dismissive about stories about women could be, and most likely is, a sexist tendency, sure.

[Edit: it's also possible to be dismissive/critical of stories on the basis of media literacy, and being critical of the implicit ideology put forth in the piece.]

I can see your point about clunky wording, but don't you think the fact that those architects are female, is relevant to their influence on city design? Anyway, I think it is relevant. Not much more to add to that and what I've already said. Have a good one.

−1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

4

L0rdEMPRESS_GaLaXyBrAiN wrote (edited )

We can determine by context

There is no way in hell you are this lacking in self awareness. I'm kind of concerned... Maybe you deserve the medal.

3