Support NeoGAF

[EdibleKnife]

You see how this leads to very random rules being applied, and people getting confused. And then they are told that the language they used is offensive, while there are no clear rules surrounding this.

When you tell people the perfectly normal terms they use are now wrong, expect push back.

No I don't see because as mentioned, there's no indicator that there was any "offense" on the part of the gender neutral people who asked for this change. There were no marches or yelling or tearing down of the train offices to ask for this and this change was only requested of the people running the train, not all of greater society. If you want to see it as an attack, that's your prerogative but your perception seems to be clouded by the idea that all language is wrong simply because this one thing changed. If you feel you want to say "ladies and gentlemen" all the live long day go ahead. But the fact that someone who was simply asked to make an adjustment to how they speak did because they felt it was a gesture that was easy to implement for them, shouldn't come off as a war on language to you.

But you say it is needed. But then only when they can? So we can use the gendered terms when no alternative is available. This all just sounds so random that you can't expect people to follow it.

Yet people do follow it. Not only in this example but people all over the world have made the effort for the sake of people outside traditional gender norms. If you don't feel you can follow it, you're free not to. No one will arrest you or prosecute you or kill you. But your situation isn't the same as people who are willing to think twice about what they say and when they say it when they have the opportunity. I decided on my own to adjust my language to not be gendered and I have few words for the people who don't feel they can do it. Some people try and make mistakes and that's not a death sentence.

 

[PackAPunchedMick]

So if you're not a man or a woman are you considered to be the gender equivalent of a Jedi?

 

[Soulscribe]

Because it's an empathetic thing to do, many people don't fall into a gender binary and this way everyone can feel included. It reinforces the notion that we all have a seat at the table. I challenge everyone who scoffs at this to consider that their social/political blind spots are getting the best of them.

 

[deli2000]

Because it's an empathetic thing to do, many people don't fall into a gender binary and this way everyone can feel included. It reinforces the notion that we all have a seat at the table. I challenge everyone who scoffs at this to consider that their social/political blind spots are getting the best of them.

I should be shocked that this has to be said to bunch of people who identify themselves as progressives. But there's been so many closed-minded views when it comes to gender issues on this forum that I can't even feign surprise anymore. People just cant wait to label folks as hysterical authoritarians when people are just asking nicely for small changes.

 

[ClosingADoor]

No I don't see because as mentioned, there's no indicator that there was any "offense" on the part of the gender neutral people who asked for this change. There were no marches or yelling or tearing down of the train offices to ask for this and this change was only requested of the people running the train, not all of greater society. If you want to see it as an attack, that's your prerogative but your perception seems to be clouded by the idea that all language is wrong simply because this one thing changed. If you feel you want to say "ladies and gentlemen" all the live long day go ahead. But the fact that someone who was simply asked to make an adjustment to how they speak did because they felt it was a gesture that was easy to implement for them, shouldn't come off as a war on language to you.

I don't feel personally attacked, but if nobody asked for it, then it just seems like a strange thing to implement. Because the implication is that using that term is wrong, because otherwise, why stop using it. And from that point of view, I can understand why a lot of people will shrug their shoulders and not do this. On the other side, I do think the people going online and starting to offend on purpose surrounding this issue are idiots.

Yet people do follow it. Not only in this example but people all over the world have made the effort for the sake of people outside traditional gender norms. If you don't feel you can follow it, you're free not to. No one will arrest you or prosecute you or kill you. But your situation isn't the same as people who are willing to think twice about what they say and when they say it when they have the opportunity. I decided on my own to adjust my language to not be gendered and I have few words for the people who don't feel they can do it. Some people try and make mistakes and that's not a death sentence.

But again, you are talking about English mostly. How do Italians, Spaniards, French, Dutch, etc, etc adapt their languages to this? Yes, we can stop using certain terms and change them to something else. But not with all words without changing the language. Do we just remove the female form and only use the male one, or the other way around, do we add a third one.

The issue here is that it seems pretty random. So when people then say: this is wrong, but that isn't, how can people follow that. I have read multiple topics surround these things on GAF, followed some links, read up there, and still it is unclear. So you can't really expect a random person to adapt, which was my understanding of what you want, since you mentioned how language needs to change.

 

[Human Trashcan]

The Netherlands in general is a culture of "live and let live" so that's good.

We really aren't. Yeah if you don't rock the boat maybe, but as soon as you suggest that we should examine any part of our culture or national identity, no matter how small, people get FURIOUS. See also: zwarte pieten, any discussion of racism/sexism/bigotry, this. We can and should do better. Dutch culture is a trash fire imo. I remember the VOC being taught in school and slavery barely being a footnote, no self-awareness of the term "Golden Age" at all, despite it resting on our colonialism.

 

[Chuckie]

Dutch culture is a trash fire imo. I remember the VOC being taught in school and slavery barely being a footnote, no self-awareness of the term "Golden Age" at all, despite it resting on our colonialism.

Noticed how the wars we waged in Indonesia after 45 are still called 'police actions'.

 

[prag16]

Gender neutrality is a good thing given there are so many people who don't identify themselves as being part of a particular gender.

Are there though? By what measure? Are we confusing the gaf population as a representative cross section of society?

I don't have a strong opinion on this topic, but let's not forget that we're talking about a tiny tiny percentage of the population. That obviously doesn't mean they don't "count", but it's easy to understand the view that it's hard to expect to be able to strong arm the 99.5% (minimum, probably higher?) to change their everyday language.

 

[LinLeigh]

Noticed how the wars we waged in Indonesia after 45 are still called 'police actions'.

I wonder where you went to school. Because all the history books where we were taught about it explained that the Dutch used police actions to hide the true nature and that the international community was not fooled.

Even the NPO has this as the explanation:

De politionele acties verwijzen naar een bloedige oorlog die Nederland tussen 1945 en 1949 voerde in Nederlands-Indië om te voorkomen dat de kolonie zelfstandig zou worden. Tot op de dag van vandaag blijft de oorlog de gemoederen bezig houden, vooral omdat Nederlandse soldaten oorlogsmisdaden pleegden.

 

[Chuckie]

I wonder where you went to school. Because all the history books where we were taught about it explained that the Dutch used police actions to hide the true nature and that the international community was not fooled.

That must be something recent then, because it wasn't taught that way 20 years ago. It was a sidenote in history books and it is rather recent that the Dutch are actually starting to acknowledge the war crimes.

 

[Keasar]

It doesn't really feel like that big of a change that should cause real issues, the only reason why I personally have some issue with "citizens" in this scenario is due to my association of the word with authoritarianism, 1984 style. A cold lumping together of a group of people as a sort of "resource" rather than human beings.

I have a question though regarding the non-binary gender matter: is "laziness" (not the right word I am sure but the one I can only think of right now) a possible reason for the backlash or resistance?

I remember watching a show a while ago interviewing a non-binary gendered person and the person in question said that optimally, when being introduced to a new group of people everyone should always ask for both a name and how that person likes to be addressed in terms of pronouns. I will, shamefully, admit that when hearing that and thinking of the many ways a person can identify, I did groan a bit at the thought of having to learn possibly tons of different pronouns, having to associate them with specific people and memorize that, especially such ones I may or may not have ever heard of.

Could this be a possible reason why people put up a resistance to gender neutrality? Especially for what could be a small minority of the total population? As:

Are there though? By what measure? Are we confusing the gaf population as a representative cross section of society?

I don't have a strong opinion on this topic, but let's not forget that we're talking about a tiny tiny percentage of the population. That obviously doesn't mean they don't "count", but it's easy to understand the view that it's hard to expect to be able to strong arm the 99.5% (minimum, probably higher?) to change their everyday language.

I am also interested in knowing this.

That being said, no matter how small that population might be, I still think it is important that we make it clear no matter how they identify, everyone should be part of and respected as any other person in society.

 

[EdibleKnife]

I don't feel personally attacked, but if nobody asked for it, then it just seems like a strange thing to implement. Because the implication is that using that term is wrong, because otherwise, why stop using it. And from that point of view, I can understand why a lot of people will shrug their shoulders and not do this. On the other side, I do think the people going online and starting to offend on purpose surrounding this issue are idiots.


But again, you are talking about English mostly. How do Italians, Spaniards, French, Dutch, etc, etc adapt their languages to this? Yes, we can stop using certain terms and change them to something else. But not with all words without changing the language. Do we just remove the female form and only use the male one, or the other way around, do we add a third one.

The issue here is that it seems pretty random. So when people then say: this is wrong, but that isn't, how can people follow that. I have read multiple topics surround these things on GAF, followed some links, read up there, and still it is unclear. So you can't really expect a random person to adapt, which was my understanding of what you want, since you mentioned how language needs to change.

Someone did ask for it and the implication is that a more inclusive word could be used. The only one making judgments on the idea that "ladies and gentlemen" is wrong and the people who use it are somehow "bad" is only the people who are pushing back against it so hard. All these implications are only happening in your head and gender neutral people can't really concern themselves with that. Gender neutral people shouldn't be expected to placate the misguided emotions of greater society when they simply asked for this one thing from one party. Continuing to say "you're not a bad person for using 'ladies and gentlemen'" shouldn't be an expectation when no one claimed that anyone who used it before or continue to use it after is inherently bad. I mean, you wouldn't say "Is how we all sit now wrong?" if an adjustment was made to a seating set up on the train to accomidate disabled peoples who asked for it. The term isn't wrong, it just can be more inclusive if someone is willing to try. That's all. And no one can help with any specters that pop up in your or anyone else's mind about that because there are thousands of words, phrases and language tics that have been phased out of modern vernacular not because they were bad or wrong but because something different came along that was more useful or that people just like to use more. Which brings on the next question.

Again: things that exist in each of those languages today, weren't on the books hundreds of years ago or even 10 years ago. Language doesn't need to change. It does change. Period. New words, phrases, and adjustments to the language take place on a daily basis. There's no need for a summit to exist on neutralizing those languages since changes can just take place on an individual basis. If you feel it's random or unreasonable, you're free to. But there are already individuals in each of those language groups, gender neutral and otherwise who are already doing the work to figure out new ways to utilize their language. The change won't and shouldn't be expected to happen overnight. There are no "rules" and it only seems "random" because acceptance and consideration for people outside the gender binary has literally just started. No one is or will be prosecuted for not adapting right now. Society still needs time to grow. Those languages aren't somehow worse or bad but they aren't static either.

 

[LinLeigh]

That must be something recent then, because it wasn't taught that way 20 years ago. It was a sidenote in history books and it is rather recent that the Dutch are actually starting to acknowledge the war crimes.

I went to school 20 years ago and the history exam subject was the independence of Indonesia and we went into the police actions with great detail. They did rotate the subjects so perhaps missing it as an exam subject give you another view.

 

[LinLeigh]

Again: things that exist in each of those languages today, weren't on the books hundreds of years ago or even 10 years ago. New words, phrases, and adjustments to the language took place. There's no need for a summit to exist on neutralizing those languages since changes can just take place on an individual basis. If you feel it's random or unreasonable, you're free to. But there are already individuals in each of those language groups, gender neutral and otherwise who are already doing the work to figure out new ways to utilize their language. The change won't and shouldn't be expected to happen overnight. There are no "rules" and it only seems "random" because acceptance and consideration for people outside the gender binary has literally just started. No one is or will be prosecuted for not adapting right now. Society still needs time to grow. Those languages aren't somehow worse or bad but they aren't static either.

I don't have an issue with the change and I actually think it is nice. But I think the issue for some is hat acceptance of woman as and equal gender isn't fully done yet and some feel it is now being erased before it was fully embraced.

Especially on the internet where things get a bit more heated.

Which is of course not a reason not to do it and I can think of many more examples where we need to pick m/f for no reason. I mean why does my energy supplier need to know my sex.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Someone did ask for it and the implication is that a more inclusive word could be used. The only one making judgments on the idea that "ladies and gentlemen" is wrong and the people who use it are somehow "bad" is only the people who are pushing back against it so hard. All these implications are only happening in your head and gender neutral people can't really concern themselves with that. Gender neutral people shouldn't be expected to placate the misguided emotions of greater society when they simply asked for this one thing from one party. Continuing to say "you're not a bad person for using 'ladies and gentlemen'" shouldn't be an expectation when no one claimed that anyone who used it before or continue to use it after is inherently bad. The term isn't wrong, it just can be more inclusive if someone is willing to try. That's all. And no one can help with any specters that pop up in your or anyone else's mind about that because there are thousands of words, phrases and language tics that have been phased out of modern vernacular not because they were bad but because something different came along that was more useful or that people just like to use more. Which brings on the next question.

Again: things that exist in each of those languages today, weren't on the books hundreds of years ago or even 10 years ago. Language doesn't need to change. It does change. Period. New words, phrases, and adjustments to the language take place on a daily basis. There's no need for a summit to exist on neutralizing those languages since changes can just take place on an individual basis. If you feel it's random or unreasonable, you're free to. But there are already individuals in each of those language groups, gender neutral and otherwise who are already doing the work to figure out new ways to utilize their language. The change won't and shouldn't be expected to happen overnight. There are no "rules" and it only seems "random" because acceptance and consideration for people outside the gender binary has literally just started. No one is or will be prosecuted for not adapting right now. Society still needs time to grow. Those languages aren't somehow worse or bad but they aren't static either.

I am not talking about prosecution. No idea why you keep bringing that up as if that is something I suggest will happen.

Language does not change because a very tiny amount of people want a change. It changes when the majority wants it changed and start using certain terms. So it seems pretty important to me, that if you think it should change, to also concern yourself with the responses you get to those suggested changes. Otherwise it is telling people what to say and what is wrong, and not an evolution of the language. And well, certainly in Holland, expect people to complain when they get the impression they are being told what to do.

I don't really see these languages that are now very heavily gendered in the ways they are written and spoken changing anytime soon to adapt to this.

 

[EdibleKnife]

I don't have an issue with the change and I actually think it is nice. But I think the issue for some is hat acceptance of woman as and equal gender isn't fully done yet and some feel it is now being erased before it was fully embraced.

I can only say that it's not being erased because the phrase "ladies and gentlemen" isn't going anywhere. So far this is the decision of only one train station in one city. There's no unilateral erasure of this phrase taking place.

I am not talking about prosecution. No idea why you keep bringing that up as if that is something I suggest will happen.

Language does not change because a very tiny amount of people want a change. It changes when the majority wants it changed and start using certain terms. So it seems pretty important to me, that if you think it should change, to also concern yourself with the responses you get to those suggested changes. Otherwise it is telling people what to say and what is wrong, and not an evolution of the language. And well, certainly in Holland, expect people to complain when they get the impression they are being told what to do.

I don't really see these languages that are now very heavily gendered in the ways they are written and spoken changing anytime soon to adapt to this.

I bring it up because you and other people in this topic continue to paint this as a militant move made by an angry group of "offended" gender neutral people. You and others seem genuinely scared that somehow something bad will happen if you decide you don't want to adjust your language for people outside the gender binary. You continue to use terms like "being told what to do" when you admit that's only an impression you get. I haven't ordered anything and I will also reiterate that I said language can change and has before. Whether you think it should change for a minority is irrelevant when the point is that the minority being accepted as a societal norm by the majority will adjust the language. Things are only the way they are now because the gender binary is literally the only way we've thought about gender as humans for years. Language has changed about how we talk about sex and relationships as the majority has accepted that maybe straightness and monogamy isn't the only way people live. As the perception changes, the language can change.

 

[InterMusketeer]

I remember the VOC being taught in school and slavery barely being a footnote, no self-awareness of the term "Golden Age" at all, despite it resting on our colonialism.

I see this argument return again and again, and I have to wonder: what kind of school did all these people go to? Slavery had its own chapter in my high school history book. So did Dutch colonialism in Indonesia and their fight for freedom. I finished high school ten years ago.

 

[LegendofDragoonLives]

Because if THEY are changing, maybe it means they think something is wrong with me?!?!

They view it as an attack on their thoughts, like because Starbucks says Happy Holidays that they are saying fuck you to people that like "Merry Christmas" and you have the whole "War on Christmas" bullshit.

what do you mean bullshit? People say happy holidays because some atheists or someone of a different religion complained about it. There's nothing bs about it, that's what happened.

 

[ClosingADoor]

I can only say that it's not being erased because the phrase "ladies and gentlemen" isn't going anywhere. So far this is the decision of only one train station in one city. There's no unilateral erasure of this phrase taking place.

No, this is not one train station. This is one train company which changes it for all their trains and stations. Which is pretty much 90% of the trains in Holland, since this was the old state company that used to have a monopoly on it. Not that it matters much, but just to correct it to the actual situation.

I bring it up because you and other people in this topic continue to paint this as a militant move made by an angry group of "offended" gender neutral people. You and others seem genuinely scared that somehow something bad will happen if you decide you don't want to adjust your language for people outside the gender binary. You continue to use terms like "being told what to do" when you admit that's only an impression you get. I haven't ordered anything and I will also reiterate that I said language can change and has before. Whether you think it should change for a minority is irrelevant when the point is that the minority being accepted as a societal norm by the majority will adjust the language. Things are only the way they are now because the gender binary is literally the only way we've thought about gender as humans for years. Language has changed about how we talk about sex and relationships as the majority has accepted that maybe straightness and monogamy isn't the only way people live. As the perception changes, the language can change.

But this already assumes the perception will change and people will adapt to that. Maybe I'm not totally up to date, but I doubt that is happening on a large scale or going to happen anytime soon.

There is nothing to be scared about, I just really doubt if such changes are 1) necessary and 2) the best way to implement them to gain acceptance for the groups you talk about.

And yes, it is about impressions people get, because we are talking about language and what the other assumes you mean by using certain language. You say I have the impression of being told what to do with changing the way we use our language - which I don't, I happily decide for myself, but I find the discussion interesting - but on the other side of the coin, you have the impression that by not changing the language a group of people is excluded and hurt by that.

I see this argument return again and again, and I have to wonder: what kind of school did all these people go to? Slavery had its own chapter in my high school history book. So did Dutch colonialism in Indonesia and their fight for freedom. I finished high school ten years ago.

Same here. I was never thought the VOC or our colonialism was something to be proud of. The things in a positive light was mostly kicking the Spaniards out and kicking the English ass from time to time on the sea. Most other history was brought pretty neutral or even in a negative light when the subject matter were things like slavery.

 

[RM8]

what do you mean bullshit? People say happy holidays because some atheists or someone of a different religion complained about it. There's nothing bs about it, that's what happened.

It still wasn't war on Christmas, not even an attack on Christmas. Lol, I guess being inclusive does feel like an attack for some people.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

I went to school 20 years ago and the history exam subject was the independence of Indonesia and we went into the police actions with great detail. They did rotate the subjects so perhaps missing it as an exam subject give you another view.

I think I've done the same exam. I don't remember much of it, but it was a lot more in-depth than the usual courses were before that. (another subject was WWI in more detail)

Also, you can't directly compare a pre-90s and 90's education path, with vast changes in its curriculum and information even while you were in school, with the one being used today. For one, most of the information given and required can be gained by reading wikipedia instead of having to go to a physical library, which usually deters 90% of students from actually doing so.

More importantly, while your middle school may have described the VOC without its darker pages, high school certainly should have. I recall there was a distinct discussion on it in the form of Leo de Jong assertions towards war crimes in the '60s.
If you didn't get taught that, then honestly your tutors or institution fucked up.

Also, are we really evaluating our current understanding of the world given an age on instant access to almost all information the human race has produced, by a -poor- selection of it that you ( Tence, Trashcan) got twenty years ago? I think you're bigger problem is assuming that people stop learning anything once they're out of school. While typically so, in general people do learn some things either by their own actions, osmosis of changing times, or influential publications.


Like say, that neutral gender terms can be a more accessible way to reach the majority of costumers without pissing any of them off or making them ignore the message.
The response is just typical: "I don't like change, therefore it's ridiculous", without understanding that it's simply good business. There's no genuine backlash here, just odd commentaries.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

what do you mean bullshit? People say happy holidays because some atheists or someone of a different religion complained about it. There's nothing bs about it, that's what happened.

"When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression"

 

[Sec0nd]

If I had to guess and it's something I feel myself. At least this is how I look at it and probably is different from yours but maybe help understand? Maybe?

Basically I think for me it's the idea that deep down you don't want to think that up until this point in your life that you're wrong. Like if you're a person who likes to write, you start to think if it's wrong that you use he, she, and such in your stories. Are you a bad person for having done so?

It's not exactly logical and no one is telling you need to to just that but you still feel like it regardless. More like a perception vs reality.

Does that make sense? At all?

Maybe. Maybe it's a part of that. I think it's just primarily because I just can't relate to being offended by ladies/gents. I try to understand it, but since it's not part of my life experience I can't possibly relate to it. That makes it hard to care about it on some level. Making it with the combination of media attention and forced change something my lizard brain can get annoyed by thinking about it.

Once again, it's a good change if people's live is improved by it. It's just that it's bothering me that some part of me is bothered by it.

 

[Sai-kun]

Maybe. Maybe it's a part of that. I think it's just primarily because I just can't relate to being offended by ladies/gents. I try to understand it, but since it's not part of my life experience I can't possibly relate to it. That makes it hard to care about it on some level. Making it with the combination of media attention and forced change something my lizard brain can get annoyed by thinking about it.

Once again, it's a good change if people's live is improved by it. It's just that it's bothering me that some part of me is bothered by it.

why do y'all keep thinking it's about this

it's not about taking offense, it's about not feeling included in your society. that isn't to say that people don't take offense at not being included, but feeling offended is not the primary emotion when talking about stuff like this.

 

[Psoelberg]

Wait, What? What privilege? The privilege of being called ladies or gentleman?

No, of course it’s not simply the privilege of being called ‘ladies’ or ‘gentlemen’. My next sentence in that post where revealing that there are more to it. The key words in my post are “larger discourses” - discourse as in relationships between social patterns, social categories and social power. Discourse analysis as in you and I asking the questions: how is power abuse enacted, reproduced and legitimised. This is where gender, privilege and inequality becomes interesting.

I know this might sound Eurocentric, but there’s still some truth to it, I think:

If we look at the empirical person who enjoys the ‘rights of man’, this person is in large parts of the world a well-off citizen, a heterosexual, white, urban male. Feeling the ‘rights of man’ in your everyday life should not be a privilege. But unfortunately it is. Think about that - it is a privilege to be acknowledged as a human being on an equal footing as all others.

Many transsexual people are fighting for acknowledgment every day. And just like racism against other people, gender neutrality is not just a question of simplification of other humans. It is complex and embedded in society to such an extent that - for many people - it saturates both the everyday and their structural components of their life. It’s a privilege to not be aware of these things. It’s a privilege to not constantly be facing negative points of view because of your gender, colour, race, or ethnicity.

The history of human rights is the ongoing and always failing struggle to close the gap between the accidental surface differences (such as colour and gender). The fight of whether all human beings deserve equal amount of respect and acknowledgment is fought over constantly today by universalists and relativist.

I think: Every person is a world and comes into existence in common with all others.

 

[Soph]

NS should have just changed it, noone would even bat an eye. It's a big deal now because they made it a big deal. They wanted the "positive" PR, that's why they announced it. Why is it so hard to just treat it like the most normal thing on earth.

I even had to explain to my dad why this was needed, him being an insanely progressive left leaning guy. We're losing more than we win with this shitshow.

 

[Laiza]

New page, and it bears repeating:

Until we get to the point where people are as free to identify as non-binary as anything else ("free" in this case meaning both properly educated on the matter and being free of social pressure to conform, quite unlike the case today), we can't know for certain how many people would identify as something other than man or woman. Any assertions that the numbers as they stand today are indicative of the total number of people who would benefit from changes in our language are wholly presumptuous, if not disingenuous.

Even now the majority of places on the Internet laugh at me if I assert my non-binary status in any way. "There are only two genders" is a particularly common refrain. Small steps like this can help get the word out that there are other possibilities, though really, it's just a nice thing to do in general. I imagine for most "ordinary" folks this isn't something you think about at all, but for me virtually every conversation is a reinforcement of the binary, and it can be utterly insufferable at times.

Even if I'm part of a tiny, tiny, tiny minority... it'd be really fucking nice to have some consideration every now and then, you know? Instead of being completely invisible or mocked or the subject of outright hostility, I mean. I don't even know why we're arguing that point, really. Even if we are 0.1% of the population - and again, I must reiterate that I do not believe you can genuinely argue that this is the case - making our lives just a little bit easier surely can't be that much of a challenge, can it? Especially when things are as bad as they are now. Really.

Not gonna lie, I really hate that argument. I really, really do. "They're too few in number, we can't be bothered" is the refrain of the privileged majority - good for you if you have that privilege, I guess, and sucks to be us? That kind of makes you an asshole, you know? It's not like we're completely nonexistent. Hell, you're running into one (of several) right now, on this very forum, so are you going to argue that you can't be arsed to give me the minimum level of consideration because I'm just one person? I would hope that's not the way you think. Especially when I've done nothing to invite one's ire in any way.

And really, on the Internet, it's kind of rude to assume that everyone's a guy. It sucks that that's how we operate. It'd be nice to women too if we started using gender-neutral pronouns to refer to people we can't know the gender of, not just to us, the "tiny minority" of non-binary people. Considering that, isn't it a natural conclusion that, if we change our language on the Internet to accommodate, that our language in the physical world would have to follow as well? I would hope that that's the way things would go eventually. I mean, if we're really serious about not being dicks to people just because they're small in number.

I hope I'm not coming across too passive-aggressively here, but for me this is an issue that lies very close to my heart. It's not a nice feeling, you know, having most everyone I run into feel like my identity is some kind of delusion or invention, or just assuming things of me based purely on physical factors. Constantly being reminded that most of the population just doesn't give a shit. Bathrooms being divided the same way, with no third option in the majority of locations, so I always feel out of place wherever I go (seriously folks, this shit sucks - think about those stories of cis people being mistaken as trans in bathrooms and shit, it's not fun). Doctors not taking this shit seriously and gatekeeping treatment that I actually need to feel secure in my own body. So on and so forth.

For me, small things like this are just tiny, tiny steps towards a world that I can more freely inhabit without constant micro-(and even macro-)aggressions hounding me everywhere I go. That's all it is. It's a small step, an insignificant step, one that really doesn't make any difference at all to me personally because I don't live there, but it's still a step. I don't know if I can get any of you guys to understand what that actually means to me, but it definitely means something to me.

The fact that it makes some folks feel uncomfortable... well, I can't really do anything about that. All I can do is hope folks learn to understand. Maybe get a little empathy. I don't know how much I can actually do about that, though.

Just one step at a time, I guess.

 

[Dehnus]

I've read your whole post but im going to snip it here. It is completely nonsense to think that people that criticize this are only people that defend racism or are racist. Stop it with this kind of exclusionary statements.

WOW, someone is triggered.

I said that often the same people that defend racism are now attacking gender equality and neutrality (And yes biologically there are more than 2 genders, that is a construct that is cultural not biological considering we have XXY and XXXXY people).

It is because it gives them the attention they crave. They can blow a small thing like gender neutral bathrooms out of proportion so the people that have some light anxiety about change in general (or about feeling safe) can be beaten in a frenzy to their war drums.

Yes, I am pretty sure that some of the people that defend racism are not racist and are only in it for money and power. There are some true believers out there, but also quite a few that just do it for reasons of power.

And exclusionary? you want me to be inclusive to racists and transphobes now? Sorry mate go screw yourself, I'll never tollerate the intolerant. ANd I won't be PC about it either. I bloody hate PC, especially the current Right Wing PC that is sweeping the world. Like having a counter point to climate change, since otherwise conservatives scream about not being fair. Boycotting comics for changing a characters gender and other right-wing safespace/PC shit.

Fact is, Annabel Naninga is a RACIST FUCK, that literally called refugees "Dobbernegers" which (if my rusty Dutch is correct) translate to "Floating Negroes" or more liberal translated to :"DingyNegroes".

But hey let's be inclusive of that vile woman and give her a safe space, so she can be racist and transphobic without ever being called out. And no, she did not say it as an "edgy joke".

 

[moggio]

what do you mean bullshit? People say happy holidays because some atheists or someone of a different religion complained about it. There's nothing bs about it, that's what happened.

Except this is a load of old toot.

 

[Sony]

Obligatory irony:

WOW, someone is triggered.

Sorry mate go screw yourself

Listen Dehnus, topics like this are already difficult to discuss due to its sensitive nature, so before going all ballistic and throwing dirt, properly read and try to understand what I said because you completely missed the point.

I said that often the same people that defend racism are now attacking gender equality and neutrality (And yes biologically there are more than 2 genders, that is a construct that is cultural not biological considering we have XXY and XXXXY people).

No you didn't. You said: "If you watch who is criticizing it you'll see that it is the exact same people who will defend racism". Ergo, if you critisize gender neutrality, you're a racist/person defending racisim. Leading to:

And exclusionary? you want me to be inclusive to racists and transphobes now? Sorry mate go screw yourself, I'll never tollerate the intolerant. ANd I won't be PC about it either. I bloody hate PC, especially the current Right Wing PC that is sweeping the world. Like having a counter point to climate change, since otherwise conservatives scream about not being fair. Boycotting comics for changing a characters gender and other right-wing safespace/PC shit.

With exclusionary, I meant your stement that the people who are against gender neutrality are the exact same people who will defend racism. The group of people who is against gender neutrality is not exclusive to racists. If you exclude the other type/groups of people, you're not giving the issue the attention it deserves. I didn't mean that society should be inclusive to racists/bigots, nor did I imply that. Read.

Fact is, Annabel Naninga is a RACIST FUCK, that literally called refugees "Dobbernegers" which (if my rusty Dutch is correct) translate to "Floating Negroes" or more liberal translated to :"DingyNegroes".

I know she's a racist, bigoted, sad excuse for a human being who I see lower than dirt and that is the embodiment of all the uneducated right wing opinions in the Netherlands. You don't have to tell me. I'm not even sure why you mentioned her in a reply to me as I said nothing about her.

 

[Dehnus]

Obligatory irony:


Listen Dehnus, topics like this are already difficult to discuss due to its sensitive nature, so before going all ballistic and throwing dirt, properly read and try to understand what I said because you completely missed the point.

There is nothing sensitive about it, there are people who have things to gain from peddeling hate. Nobody in the Netherlands would mind gender neutral language, until they are told it is an issue by people like this person. And if I want to call that out I can call that out.

No you didn't. You said: "If you watch who is criticizing it you'll see that it is the exact same people who will defend racism". Ergo, if you critisize gender neutrality, you're a racist/person defending racisim. Leading to:

I said that it is the exact same people that attack it. If you look at TV and you see who criticizes they belong to the same group or even the same person. It's the same in the USA and you know it. They know that by catering to anxiety and drumming that up in to a fear (By for instance using bullshit as "Sexual predators are after your daughter!"), they can get the attention.

DO you really think Republicans that had a college education don't know about extra gender chromosomes? I call bullshit. Unless they are idiots like some Teaparty fellows, most of them are just doing it to get what they want out of it.

With exclusionary, I meant your stement that the people who are against gender neutrality are the exact same people who will defend racism. The group of people who is against gender neutrality is not exclusive to racists. If you exclude the other type/groups of people, you're not giving the issue the attention it deserves. I didn't mean that society should be inclusive to racists/bigots, nor did I imply that. Read.

The way you attack me is the same way the left always attack those that aren't politically correct on their side, are more willing to fight dirty against a common enemy or otherwise did some slight in their eyes. THe left attacking the left is one of the main reasons we fail. You implying that I said "all people that are against gender neutrality" are racists, is the same kind of wording. I clearly phrased it as if I was talking about the media. Not every Joe Schmoe gets a talk segment on TV, but those that do are often the same apologists for shooting black people by cops.

There is very little to deny that. Furthermore I do think that many people that are against gender neutrality are also racist but not by their own choice. That is a personal opinion I am allowed to have. Many of us are racist without us knowing, or fear the unknown. Some of us tend to face that fear, and overcome it. Others go mental and follow someone like Donald Trump. It is people like Trump and Nanninga that fane these small kindling of inner fears of unknown and strange, into fires of hate.

Wether it is gender neutrality, feminism or racism.. it all comes down to the same inane fear fanned by these jerks, who gain financially or politically from doing so. Outside of a few that actually believe this crap. Most of the people involved are just like I said, slightly anxious, but they belong in the same target group for these politicians.

I know she's a racist, bigoted, sad excuse for a human being who I see lower than dirt and that is the embodiment of all the uneducated right wing opinions in the Netherlands. You don't have to tell me. I'm not even sure why you mentioned her in a reply to me as I said nothing about her.

Because the topic was about Amsterdam, and I remember her segment from NPO.nl. She had little to no opposition. As per usual agreement when these bastards come over to talk, they agree that they have a set time to do their talk points without interruptions or they refuse to come over and attack the media venue on their publication for being "extreme left".

It is their usual modus operandi, and I just state that it is. Unlike many, I don't like appeasing and I am harsh in my criticism. Worker rights, gay rights, Skin tone equality, Gender equality... none of that was established by being nice. Even Ghandi sought for conflict, you have to fight for your rights, or these bastards will win. They want to hurt you to gain politically from it, and you are more than welcome to defend yourself against them.

That you rather attack me over "you said all of them are racist boohoo", rather than see the intended context of those that fan the flames in the media for their own gain, is a textbook example of Left attacking Left.