zlacker

[return to "The Origins of Wokeness"]
1. Pfhort+Wg5[view] [source] 2025-01-14 19:34:25
>>crbela+(OP)
> You can express your own religious identity and explain your beliefs, but you can't call your coworkers infidels if they disagree, or try to ban them from saying things that contradict its doctrines, or insist that the organization adopt yours as its official religion.

The issue with this is that it enshrines denial of identity in the same place as religion. If a trans colleague identifies a way that you disagree with, does this give you free pass to misgender them and deny their identity? That is cruel, and you would be denying a colleague their right of self-determination. This is bullying.

I'm not saying you should be stricken down for needing time to adjust to their pronouns and chosen name; I'm saying you shouldn't be cruel to them by denying them their identity, and that such cruel behavior should not be protected in society.

---

I would turn this entire discourse about "wokeness" on its head, especially the discourse from the pg's and Musk's of the world, and assert that they don't actually care about the way the ideological wind is blowing; They're afraid of the collectivist nature of it.

That many less-powerful people can band together in pursuit of social justice against them, entrenched titans of capital, those capable of steering mainstream discourse, can provide a counter-argument to their power structures, is what _really_ troubles them.

◧◩
2. susema+3j5[view] [source] 2025-01-14 19:42:04
>>Pfhort+Wg5
> If a trans colleague identifies a way that you disagree with, does this give you free pass to misgender them and deny their identity?

Yes, of course. If you believe that false claims of an opposite-sex identity constitute a harmful lie, why should you be compelled to endorse it?

◧◩◪
3. Pfhort+ip5[view] [source] 2025-01-14 20:07:49
>>susema+3j5
> Yes, of course. If you believe that false claims of an opposite-sex identity constitute a harmful lie, why should you be compelled to endorse it?

Because such behavior is a direct and targeted attack on an individual or individuals, not the concept of gender identity, transness, etc.

◧◩◪◨
4. susema+pt5[view] [source] 2025-01-14 20:25:58
>>Pfhort+ip5
If you believe that making false claims of an opposite-sex identity is a harmful lie, then being compelled under threat of punishment to, for example, refer to a male as "she", is also a direct and targeted attack.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. Pfhort+aK5[view] [source] 2025-01-14 21:50:30
>>susema+pt5
Being trans is identity, but being transphobic is ideology. Being a transphobe does not alter your identity in any way, nor change how you are referred to in society. Denying someone their identity and disrespecting someone in a professional setting is toxic and hostile.

If you want to be an asshole at home, you're free to do so insofar that it is legal. But if you want to be an asshole at work, that should not be enshrined in the same way as religious belief as pg suggests.

Unless you think it should be allowed, but what level of assholery is allowed? Is assholery against trans people the only assholery allowed? Is it okay to be an asshole to disabled people too? To women? To someone of a different color?

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. susema+4Q5[view] [source] 2025-01-14 22:21:51
>>Pfhort+aK5
Trans is also an ideology. It's the belief that each person has a "gender identity" which may or may not align with their sex, and that this "gender identity", rather than sex, is what makes someone a woman or a man or, somehow, neither.

By the same logic as you are presenting, it is toxic and hostile to impose this ideology upon others. If believers of this ideology want to use "preferred pronouns" and such, they should of course be free to do so.

But others who do not hold this ideological stance, including those who oppose it for whatever reason (e.g. because they see the concept and implementation of "gender identity" as fundamentally sexist), shouldn't be forced to pay lip service to it, any more than atheists should be forced to pray at work.

You call this refusal "assholery", but presumably that is because you are a believer of this ideology - including the belief that to reject it is "transphobic" (which is roughly equivalent to the religious zealots' cry of "heretic") and therefore, per this belief, reprehensible?

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. Pfhort+h16[view] [source] 2025-01-14 23:35:01
>>susema+4Q5
Let me put it another way. If you start a new job and introduce yourself as "Bob" and someone says, "haha no you're Herman. Hi Herman" and they continue to call you "Herman" at work from then on, then they're being an juvenile asshole to you. They're denying you your identity as Bob. Gender identity (including one's chosen name) is the same way.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. susema+Q36[view] [source] 2025-01-14 23:55:36
>>Pfhort+h16
This is not the same, because a man who introduces himself as a woman is not actually a woman. He might want everyone to pretend that he is, but it is not the reality of the situation.

It's more like if he introduced himself as being a young child or a dog. No-one should be under any obligation to play along with Bob's claims to be an infant or a canine when he is neither.

[go to top]