Hiku said:
I made the clarification because you inexplicably interpreted it as "has nothing to do with their identity" when I said no such thing.
That's an inaccurate analogy. The whole "nothing to do with their identity" was your idea. I simply said that this did not come from my mouth.
Yes, and in more than one way. One I already described above. The reason I felt the need to clarify this to you, aside from the fact that I did not say it, is because there you are dealing in absolute terms. Secondly, when I later (after you already pointed out some irony I've yet to see explained) used the term "is not a factor" I was also trying to avoid "has nothing to do with their identity". The reason I brought up asexual people is because their sexuality and its effect on their identity can vary more than between 'normal people'.
So you're saying that because moderators exist, you don't expect anyone to react badly to something that may otherwise provoke a negative response?
I did not post the specific details because it's our policy to try to keep those in PM, or in the moderator topic. I'll just reiterate two things. Secondly, when I go through someone's mod notes, and there is a scroll bar even though I'm viewing it in full page mode, that's usually not a good indication for me personally. Of course, things like being warned for sig length I consider fairly irrelevant to cases where there may be trolling, flaming, etc.
He's saying that the child in question was always female. Or always considered themselves female, once they figured things out. Not that they were a man, and then changed to a woman. However, I can understand why you might phrase it that way, so on the idea that you were trying to flamebait a particular large group with your comment, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and conclude that that was not your intention. But let me also explain why your comment may be perceived that way by others. When you say "fighting to reduce differences", people are going to think about actual differences between men and women that people are fighting to reduce. So you could easily be reported by someone for trying to instigate unnecessary arguments with a group of people. |
"The reason I felt the need to clarify this to you, aside from the fact that I did not say it, is because there you are dealing in absolute terms."
to say something is not a factor for something is an absolute statement but i was wrong to not specify that you were not referring to all asexual people
"Partially because some asexual people do have a sexual drive"
this doesn't make any sense to me, asexuality is literally defined as the absense of sex drive wouldn't that simply be a case of low libido?
"So you're saying that because moderators exist, you don't expect anyone to react badly to something that may otherwise provoke a negative response?
I'm still not sure what you're trying to say."
possibly because you're trying to read ill intent in my posts that has never existed
to correct my mistake earlier my point was that we have moderators on forums to ensure that people behave despite hoping that people will behave themselves without intervention from moderators
"He's saying that the child in question was always female. Or always considered themselves female, once they figured things out."
fair enough and how would feminists be able to distinguish as a result who is a woman and who is a man if we simply determine this based on what they claim to be? i'm saying its contradictory because feminist rhetoric in other contexts seeks to paint men and women as being radically different from each other such as the idea of sexualisation, rape culture, violence etc etc etc
"What Sundin is saying here is what he perceives to already be true. Not a "difference that he is fighting to reduce.""
in this context i'm saying there is a fight to reduce differences because the notion is essentially that the only thing that determines who is man and who is woman is the declaration of the individual person, which obviously is throwing away a lot of the other factors that have been used to distinguish between the two
'He thinks that this is how it is. That some women are born in male bodies, and vice versa."
fair enough, am i not allowed to think that this is nonsense and disagree with him?
how does this work mechanically btw? is the claim being made that these people have a soul or a spirit that is gendered?
"So you could easily be reported by someone for trying to instigate unnecessary arguments with a group of people."
even if i can validate my argument and demonstrate what i'm referring to?