Why is homophobia tolerated here?

[Haven]

If a person were to join this forum making racist comments, using and implying racial slurs, and saying that racial minorities were disgusting, evil, and inherently inferior, they would certainly be swiftly banned (and rightly so!). This person could say the same things about women, people from certain countries, people with disabilities, and the reaction would be the same -- a swift ban.

However, on this forum -- which prides itself on civility -- people can make bigoted and untrue comments about lesbians, gays, and bisexuals with absolutely no consequences. Not so much as a warning. Certain members have been making blatantly homophobic statements for years without even a moderator comment.

Why the double standard? Why is racism banned, but homophobia and heterosexual supremacy tolerated? Are LGB people somehow a less-deserving minority?

[enviousintheeverafter]

[Replying to post 104 by OpenYourEyes]

Factually, what is wrong with recognizing someone as their identified gender? Even if (to grant your insinuation) it's totally a choice, why would anyone go out of their way (by using incorrect pronouns, old names, etc.) to disrespect that?

The reason is because it is misleading. Biology matters and shapes how we interact with each other in various ways. For instance, if a man finds out that he cant get his wife pregnant who failed to disclose that she was formerly a he, then the whole marriage was based on a lie. If a pervert wants to watch women in the bathroom.or locker room then he can do so by claiming to be a woman.

If i am to accept a man who chooses to identify as a woman then by that standard i must accept a White or Black person who chooses to identify as a different race, or a kid who identifies as an adult, or a lycanthropic person who identifies as an animal - a wolf , etc, etc. Thats what the standard of choice gets you. And if gender dysphoria is not biological in origin and environment plays a role, then the condition would be no different than a treatable mental disorder.

I personally will not accept a transgender request unless i see evidence from brain scans, and physical and legal documentation from a government Health Department, etc.

In other words, you refuse to be either civil or reasonable in this respect. At least you just came right out and were honest about it, so that people, especially LGBT, know in advance to steer clear of you if they have any expectation of respectful conduct in debate. (and, once again- good gravy!)

[Haven]

The reason is because it is misleading. Biology matters and shapes how we interact with each other in various ways. For instance, if a man finds out that he cant get his wife pregnant who failed to disclose that she was formerly a he, then the whole marriage was based on a lie.

If a cisgender woman doesn't disclose to her husband that she can't get pregnant, is the entire relationship based on a lie?

If a pervert wants to watch women in the bathroom.or locker room then he can do so by claiming to be a woman.

Has there ever been even a single case of this happening? Even a single one? No, of course not. This type of imaginary threat only exists in the mendacious delusions of fundamentalism-addled transphobic bigots.

If i am to accept a man who chooses to identify as a woman then by that standard i must accept a White or Black person who chooses to identify as a different race, or a kid who identifies as an adult, or a lycanthropic person who identifies as an animal - a wolf , etc, etc. Thats what the standard of choice gets you. And if gender dysphoria is not biological in origin and environment plays a role, then the condition would be no different than a treatable mental disorder.

This is absurd. There is no serious movement of people identifying as different races (and race is a social construct at any rate), kids identifying as adults, and so on. Again, this is nothing more than religious-right claptrap put forth in a feeble attempt to justify willful, pretentious ignorance and odious hate.

I personally will not accept a transgender request unless i see evidence from brain scans, and physical and legal documentation from a government Health Department, etc.

This is exactly why we need LGBT rights protections (employment, housing, etc.) enshrined in law, with stiff financial penalties for any businesses that violate them. There are many people out there who are simply determined to discriminate.

[enviousintheeverafter]

[Replying to post 111 by Haven]

It should also be noted that this silly comparison between gender pronouns and wanting to be referred to as a god, or as a different ethnicity, is pitifully inappropriate since we don't have pronouns or designations for individuals split along such lines at all- pronouns and designations are split along gender lines (he/she/it, mr/mrs, etc.), not along ethnic/racial lines, or divine/mortal (or whatever you want to call it). Wootah and OpenYourEyes are clearly just fishing for whatever flimsy justification (for ignoring a perfectly reasonable request) they can find here when it ultimately boils down to nothing more than prejudice.

[OpenYourEyes]

If hormone treatments can help a man feel and develop feminine characteristics, then why cant that person try hormonal treatments to help them feel more like their NATURAL sex?

It should also be noted that this silly comparison between gender pronouns and wanting to be referred to as a god, or as a different ethnicity, is pitifully inappropriate since we don't have pronouns or designations...

Lycanthropy is the belief that one is a animal or can become one.

Lycanthropy is classified as an authentic disorder and a topic of psychiatry. You can start here, pg. 14 or here, pg. 1.

Shall we justify this by doing brain scans and allowing people to do surgical species change or genetic engineering? Ever watched the Island of Dr. Moreau? You should research on these things before calling them silly which seems to be a cop-out to avoid answering for the implications that i brought up.

[enviousintheeverafter]

Lycanthropy is the belief that one is a animal or can become one.

Lycanthropy is classified as an authentic disorder and a topic of psychiatry. You can start here, pg. 14 or here, pg. 1.

Shall we justify this by doing brain scans and allowing people to do surgical species change or genetic engineering? Ever watched the Island of Dr. Moreau? You should research on these things before calling them silly which seems to be a cop-out to avoid answering for the implications that i brought up.

Why? None of this changes the fact at hand; pronouns and designations are split along gender lines, as in mr/mr, he/she, etc., not along animal/human, god/mortal, or racial lines. The comparison remains both inappropriate and completely silly.

[Lion IRC]

Um, I think you need to review the definition/meaning of genetic fallacy.
I'm talking about the etymology of the word and its original meaning.

So you think I need to review the definition of a genetic fallacy... but you explicitly admit it is a genetic fallacy (in bold); what you're saying here is the etymological fallacy, a species of genetic fallacy, in a nutshell.

L.O.L.

Clearly this is a textbook case of the pot calling the kettle black.

I maintain that you are incorrectly making the accusation of genetic fallacy because it's
completely irrelevant to what I was saying.

I am NOT claiming that thing "X" is better/worse, true/false, superior/inferior on account
of that thing's prior origin.

You seem to be of the mistaken belief that;
Etymology - therefore I'm commiting a genetic fallacy.
Words change meaning over time - therefore I'm committing a genetic fallacy.
I don't regard myself as a homophobe - therefore I'm committing a genetic fallacy.

...The tag 'hate speech' and use of the word homophobe as an epithet or abusive ad hominem against ones ideological opponent actually IS a form of logical fallacy.

Nope. A fallacy, such as ad hominem, consists of an (invalid) inference- as in, "X, therefore Y". An ad hominem is a fallacy because, for instance, the fact that someone is a Christian, or atheist, or whatever, doesn't imply that their argument or claim is wrong.

I beg to differ.

An abusive ad hominem remark is an informal fallacy.
Why? Because such remarks have no logical basis for being included in the discussion. They serve no purpose in a discussion apart from denigrating the other person.

You can't insult your (ideological) opponent and then claim that your gratuitous insult is somehow quarantined from the argument you are otherwise making.

"...you're a @&#!%# oh and by the way, your arguments are also wrong"

Thus, to the extent that the word homophobe has come to be used as a derogatory label on anyone who differs in their moral or legal outlook vis-vis gay rights activism, such a label amounts to an abusive ad hominem remark in the context of said debate.

And to plead otherwise strikes me as hypocrisy coming from someone who, (I assume,) would regard it as derogatory if I called someone "a homosexual" or homo for short - by way of an intentional insult.

It wouldn't matter if the word "homosexual" had an etymology that was a simple matter of taxonomical fact. And yet many people would see nothing insulting about calling someone a homosexual.

The point I'm making is that I am not a homophobe insofar as phobias are concerned.
I neither hate nor fear gay people. But I realize full well that the word homophobe has come to mean something tantamount to a slur. And so I'm going to defend myself against any accusation like that because I regard it as defamatory.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 104 by OpenYourEyes]

Factually, what is wrong with recognizing someone as their identified gender? Even if (to grant your insinuation) it's totally a choice, why would anyone go out of their way (by using incorrect pronouns, old names, etc.) to disrespect that?

The reason is because it is misleading. Biology matters and shapes how we interact with each other in various ways. For instance, if a man finds out that he cant get his wife pregnant who failed to disclose that she was formerly a he, then the whole marriage was based on a lie. If a pervert wants to watch women in the bathroom.or locker room then he can do so by claiming to be a woman.

That man and his wife have a lot worse problems than her lack of disclosure. I realize gross dishonesty and perversion are, in your mind, as great a sin as homosexuality. But not everyone believes the way you do. Most don't, not even in private. You may be obeying your god, and giving your fellows confidence in your godliness, but to the rest of us, your religion and its beliefs are not significant or even relevant to the ups and downs of daily life. We don't care that you think its a sin. We don't need to know, you can live that way yourselves. Go after the adulterers, there are TONS of them. Now that's a sin you won't ever lose to biology.

If i am to accept a man who chooses to identify as a woman then by that standard i must accept a White or Black person who chooses to identify as a different race, or a kid who identifies as an adult, or a lycanthropic person who identifies as an animal - a wolf , etc, etc.

Do you need someone to tell you what you must accept or reject? Do you really not know what you should accept or not? You want a standard, or do you just want to enforce one? Have you heard of the Republic of Gilead?

Thats what the standard of choice gets you. And if gender dysphoria is not biological in origin and environment plays a role, then the condition would be no different than a treatable mental disorder.

You have decided this? Are you a psychologist, psychiatrist, in grad school pursuing a thesis? What other possible qualifications do you have to make such a confident hypothesis? According to you, (insert credentials here) 'environmental' origins (all of them, I guess) means 'it's no different than a treatable mental disorder'. This isn't even wrong. I was a psychiatric nurse for 17 years. Your hypothesis will cheer up the folks who already believe you (as long as they don't know anything about psychology or psychiatry). It's good enough for that. Don't quit your day job

I personally will not accept a transgender request unless i see evidence from brain scans, and physical and legal documentation from a government Health Department, etc.

I can see you demanding surgical records and a DNA test before gifting a person with the pronoun they identify with. Charming . They have to earn their pronouns, you don't just hand out pronouns to any old body.

[enviousintheeverafter]

I maintain that you are incorrectly making the accusation of genetic fallacy because it's
completely irrelevant to what I was saying.

I am NOT claiming that thing "X" is better/worse, true/false, superior/inferior on account
of that thing's prior origin.

You seem to be of the mistaken belief that;
Etymology - therefore I'm commiting a genetic fallacy.
Words change meaning over time - therefore I'm committing a genetic fallacy.
I don't regard myself as a homophobe - therefore I'm committing a genetic fallacy.

You can maintain that all you like, but you're patently mistaken. You've asserted that "homophobia" means fear of homosexuality, because this is what the word means, etymologically-

I'm talking about the etymology of the word and its original meaning.
homo (from homosexual) +‎ -phobia (morbid irrational fear)
Fear, dislike, or hatred of homosexuals.

But then, this is a textbook etymological fallacy; demonstrably, words often do not mean what their etymology would mean. And an etymological fallacy is one variety of genetic fallacy.

On etymological fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy
More on etymological fallacy: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/inde ... al-fallacy

I beg to differ.

An abusive ad hominem remark is an informal fallacy.
Why? Because such remarks have no logical basis for being included in the discussion.

Not really. You probably should actually read about this stuff a little rather than just making stuff up. A fallacy is a form of argument where the premises don't ensure the truth of the conclusion. Ad hominem is a fallacy because personal facts about a person (that they're dumb, or Republican, or atheist, or whatever) don't entail that their argument or claim is false:

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument" (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... minem.html)

"An ad hominem... used inappropriately, is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)

"Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.

Logical Form:

Person 1 is claiming Y.
Person 1 is a moron.
Therefore, Y is not true." (http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/inde ... em-abusive)

As you can see, my previous explanation was accurate.

The point I'm making is that I am not a homophobe insofar as phobias are concerned.

That's great, but irrelevant; that's not what "homophobia" means.

And so I'm going to defend myself against any accusation like that because I regard it as defamatory.

That is your right, but given your posts RE homosexuality, it looks like such efforts are bound to be futile; the shoe appears to fit.

[Lion IRC]

[Replying to post 117 by enviousintheeverafter]

I maintain that you are incorrectly making the accusation of genetic fallacy because it's
completely irrelevant to what I was saying.

I am NOT claiming that thing "X" is better/worse, true/false, superior/inferior on account
of that thing's prior origin.

You seem to be of the mistaken belief that;
Etymology - therefore I'm commiting a genetic fallacy.
Words change meaning over time - therefore I'm committing a genetic fallacy.
I don't regard myself as a homophobe - therefore I'm committing a genetic fallacy.

You can maintain that all you like, but you're patently mistaken. You've asserted that "homophobia" means fear of homosexuality, because this is what the word means, etymologically-

I'm talking about the etymology of the word and its original meaning.
homo (from homosexual) +‎ -phobia (morbid irrational fear)
Fear, dislike, or hatred of homosexuals.

But then, this is a textbook etymological fallacy; demonstrably, words often do not mean what their etymology would mean. And an etymological fallacy is one variety of genetic fallacy.

*sigh*
Please stop trying to explain what a genetic fallacy is - I already know.
Instead, please show that I have made such a fallacy argument.
Example
Lion IRC claims "X"
Lion IRC claims "Y"
And Lion IRC claims it follows by necessary inference that therefore "Z"

Please fill in the X, Y, Z gaps.

In order to commit the genetic I would have to be arguing that something was good/bad because its antecedent was good/bad.

And I am going to repeat for the last time, I accept that the meaning of the word "homophobia" has come to mean a much wider range of feelings and emotions than merely irrational fear or hatred.
So please stop acting as though I don't recognize this.

I beg to differ.

An abusive ad hominem remark is an informal fallacy.
Why? Because such remarks have no logical basis for being included in the discussion.

Not really. You probably should actually read about this stuff a little rather than just making stuff up. A fallacy is a form of argument where the premises don't ensure the truth of the conclusion.

"Not really" Is that all you got?
You think abusive ad homs might occasionally have a role to play?
How about instead of white noise cut-n-paste from nizkor, you demonstrate how an abusive ad hom fits any rational dialogue on the topic of homosexuality in society.

Here. I've used your own logical form example to show your error.

Person 1 (Lion IRC) is claiming Y.
Person 1 (Lion IRC) is a [strike]moron[/strike] bigoted homophobic hater.
Therefore, (Lion IRC) is not to be trusted/believed/listened to/etc.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 99 by Wootah]

In reality, you aren't a god. In reality, trans women are women (this has been objectively demonstrated by several scientific studies). That's the difference. Calling a trans woman by something other than her current name or using incorrect pronouns to misgender her isn't just a form of bullying and harassment, it's factually incorrect because she is not a man.

I'm sorry but rational thought doesn't proceed that way. You can, but shouldn't,ignore the irrational outcomes of your views. When an irrational outcome is highlighted use the irrational outcome as a signpost that something is wrong in your logic.

At the least it is not disrespectful to use common words to describe people. To be honest man and woman are biological terms more than anything else and have nothing to do with how one feels.