Jump to content
  • entries
    6
  • comments
    134
  • views
    1678

Introduction


*anoyoruniyakusokushita

733 views

Hello, I'm Sana and I'm starting a blog about social justice. Social justice, you might ask, what is that? Social justice is mostly about left-wing people trying to make the world a better place. We want equality for all kinds of people, no matter what their gender, race, body, sexuality and any other thing is. However, such equality can only be achieved through differences in treatment.

It might seem a bit weird requesting different treatments for equality, but that's actually the way it works. I'm gonna delve into this later, but the majority of people are already born privileged. This means that, if we were to treat everyone the exact same way, we would be only perpetuating privileges and discrimination of the minorities. If you read any constitutional law book, you will see this. This is not my mere opinion, it's actually a fact. For example, if there were no special parking lots for disabled people, those people would suffer. You cannot simply deny that because "equality". Extreme liberalism is an outdated concept, that never really worked, as it only emphasized the status of the privileged people. Equality in rights is in no way enough, there must also be social equality. And that, my friend, is our ultimate goal.

As this is a very broad topic, there will be lots of issues to cover. By learning about those things, you will learn to treat people better and try to make the world a better place for all humans (and non-humans) to live. As I'm very open-minded, feel free to drop your comment whenever you feel like it, whether you agree with me or not.

8 Comments


Recommended Comments

Okay, I'm listening. I warn you that, having stated that you are open-minded (a surprisingly hard thing to be, additionally so when you have a mission), if that turns out not to be the case, I'm going leave the discussion immediately. I personally, can't stand people who do that.

Also welcome to the Fuwanovel.

Link to comment
Your second blog post disappeared, so I'll go reply here.
 
Firstly, two reasons why people react warily to people who announce the unusual state of their identity, or preach in a SJW manner, is that those two actions can be driven respectively by people seeking attention, and, people wishing to attach themselves to a Great Cause, making themselves feel better by perceiving the rest of the world as 'uneducated' or 'wrong'.
 
Now actually on to my reply.
 
The reasons why I don't ask people their pronouns:
1. By current sensibilities, it feels silly
2. Inertia
3. In the current socieity, doing so will lower many people's impression of me.
 
The third reason is the largest reason. If it was acceptable, after getting over the change, I wouldn't mind saying that as a courtesy. Though imo that's all it is, a courtesy.
 
 
 
The issue I take with how you present otherkin (thank you google-sensei), etc. is that identity is a lot of things. 
 
Going off of personal experience, there are things I really liked, that really meant a lot to me, so much that I would consider the state living while 'rejoicing or revering' them part of who I was at that given moment.
Heck, there was a time where I thought all characters of a series to existed to me. I'm pretty sure that counts as something spiritual.
I think there's some other forum members who for this kind of thing holds true too. What I'm saying is that identity is who you are at this given moment. None of it is worthless, of course.
 
What I disagree is giving such thing a label and elevating it to being something that others must always understand.
 
Your basis of elevation is that for that element of your identity, you did not choose to become that. I'm not sure I agree with that. I think identity in this context is often a process of exploring areas until you find something which feels right to you. When you say "I was meant to be like this \ I'm sure this was how I was born", you really are just attesting to how right it feels, which is a subjective feeling. 
 
To take a part of one's identity and share it, and tell people to acknowledge it, is basically putting oneself as a topic out there and wanting people to notice you and share (by understanding) in that part of your identity. However, doing this outside the appropriate times is still a social faux paus. Understanding someone is requires time and effort by the other person. It's inconsiderate to impose that on people automatically.
 
Edited by Chronopolis
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Chronopolis said:
Now actually on to my reply.
 
The reasons why I don't ask people their pronouns:
1. By current sensibilities, it feels silly
2. Inertia
3. In the current socieity, doing so will lower many people's impression of me.
 
The third reason is the largest reason. If it was acceptable, after getting over the change, I wouldn't mind saying that as a courtesy. Though imo that's all it is, a courtesy.

You know, I don't really think you're wrong here. I don't think you should be asking whatever person you see their pronouns or gender, because most might even not have any idea of what you're talking about. I think you should just wait for the person talk about it (usually non-binary people will tell you when they can). Because, honestly, some people we will just meet once or twice, so learning their pronouns will be useless. And the ones that will become part of your daily life will probably tell you at some point. My advice is just to try as best as you can not to assign any gender to anyone.

What I said in my last post is about perpetuating social issues. It's about seeing a situation which privileges you and emphasizes other people's suffering, and doing nothing about it. Although you yourself wouldn't be racist, or transphobic, ableist or whatever if you did that, you also wouldn't be contributing for the world to be a better place. That's why some individuals (that's kind of a discriminatory term, but keep in mind I used it because I don't like repeating the word "people") from minorities don't like privileged people at all.

20 minutes ago, Chronopolis said:
What I disagree is giving such thing a label and elevating it to being something that others must always understand.
 

No, I don't think others must always understand nor do I expect that to happen. People don't need to understand to respect something. It's like atheism. One of my friends once told me that, on her former school, the teachers forced her (an atheist) to attend the church mass. I don't think the teachers should understand how she felt to respect her lack of belief. Actually, respect is about treating people well even if you do not understand them.

34 minutes ago, Chronopolis said:
Your basis of elevation is that for that element of your identity, you did not choose to become that. I'm not sure I agree with that. I think identity in this context is often a process of exploring areas until you find something which feels right to you. When you say "I was meant to be like this \ I'm sure this was how I was born", you really are just attesting to how right it feels, which is a subjective feeling. 
 

I don't think I understand exactly what you mean. So you think identity is a choice? Well, there's no way to actually be sure if you were born a certain way or if you became that way as a result of environmental stimuli. But either way, it doesn't really matter. It's still not a choice. Like, back to the atheism example. I don't think anyone is born an atheist, but it's not like we chose to be one. What we saw, what we heard, what we experienced in our lives, all that led us to the lack of belief in a god. If a person was raised in a religious family, and does not want to go through all the stress of coming out, they would obviously choose "not to be an atheist" if they had that choice. I've even seen some of my friends saying they wish they could believe in something, but they can't. So, despite not being something genetic, it's still part of what a lot of people are, and those people must be respected, even if they aren't comprehended.

46 minutes ago, Chronopolis said:
To take a part of one's identity and share it, and tell people to acknowledge it, is basically putting oneself as a topic out there and wanting people to notice you and share (by understanding) in that part of your identity. However, doing this outside the appropriate times is still a social faux paus. Understanding someone is requires time and effort by the other person. It's inconsiderate to impose that on people automatically.
 

Again, why does acknowledging someone's identity must involve understanding and sharing it? If I tell my straight friend I'm gay, he needs neither to be gay as well nor to understand how it feels to be one in order to acknowledge my identity.

Link to comment
Quote

You know, I don't really think you're wrong here. I don't think you should be asking whatever person you see their pronouns or gender, because most might even not have any idea of what you're talking about. I think you should just wait for the person talk about it (usually non-binary people will tell you when they can). Because, honestly, some people we will just meet once or twice, so learning their pronouns will be useless. And the ones that will become part of your daily life will probably tell you at some point. My advice is just to try as best as you can not to assign any gender to anyone.

That's why I disagree with telling people to be ask people for pronouns. It's an action that catches people's attention (and scoff), but isn't really the important one. It's not really practical to wonder forever (that someone could be any gender-orientation), so I suppose the take-away is to not to unduly assume.

Quote

I don't think I understand exactly what you mean. So you think identity is a choice? Well, there's no way to actually be sure if you were born a certain way or if you became that way as a result of environmental stimuli. But either way, it doesn't really matter. It's still not a choice.

But people's environment is affected by their decisions. Also as a person, you can influence yourself by the lines in which you choose to think. I mean, probably not for gender and sexual orientation, but that could shape the finer things.

It's possible that a person couldn't help but becoming the person they are. It's also possible that, they had a mental want or desire that influenced their mind, actions, and thoughts, and eventually lead to a different identity. In a way, these people came to possess that identity because doing so makes them feel comfortable. This would sort of be their choice.

As an outsider, we have no way of knowing whether it was that person's choice. In a ideal world, we should respect people's choices regardless, but to the modern person's sensibilities, there is a big difference between 'choice' and 'had no choice'. People react differently: they are a lot more sympathetic if the person 'couldn't help it'. Just a thought, maybe those two shouldn't be treated as differently as they are now...

Anyways, I agree that one shouldn't have to change who they are (besides the extreme case of not being able to coexist), even if choice had an effect on that part of their identity.

 

Quote
2 hours ago, Chronopolis said:
What I disagree is giving such thing a label and elevating it to being something that others must always understand.

No, I don't think others must always understand nor do I expect that to happen. People don't need to understand to respect something. It's like atheism.

I didn't mean 'significantly understand'. (I agree with what you said in the atheist example, and the acknowledgment part after. I guess I get the impression from the people that present this information, that they are seeking "learn and propagate" out of you, rather than "acknowledge".

The way I take what you said was "people must make these courtesies/adjustment for these minority groups".  To be able to do that, you'd have to know a something about of what those groups entail. I suppose the purest form of disadvantage minorities have is a lack of understanding. Spreading information (strictly information) in the hopes of increasing awareness, is not a bad thing. Though it's not the the outsider's responsibility to learn about every minority.

Some assumptions are necessary or preferred. I think the minority groups should acknowledge this, and recognize the other person's perspective. The fact is not that these people are special, it's that they are different and they should be allowed to be different.

I see consideration from the other side as:

  1. Not acting like you're special. (Ideally, this is the same as doing so without the gender/identity elements.)
  2. Not telling me how someone must treat you differently. (This is different from an atheist leaving in a religious family, as it's not like the other person isn't rejecting who you are or treating your worse for it. Beyond that, I really don't think one should act like people should adjust to you, as that is an effort on their part.)

Then it's up to the other person's to be open-minded and not to reject that person's identity. This is what I think should be the goal.

Edited by Chronopolis
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Chronopolis said:

As an outsider, we have no way of knowing whether it was that person's choice. In a ideal world, we should respect people's choices regardless, but to the modern person's sensibilities, there is a big difference between 'choice' and 'had no choice'. People react differently: they are a lot more sympathetic if the person 'couldn't help it'. Just a thought, maybe those two shouldn't be treated as differently as they are now...

Anyways, I agree that one shouldn't have to change who they are (besides the extreme case of not being able to coexist), even if choice had an effect on that part of their identity.

Yes, I very much agree with you here.

4 hours ago, Chronopolis said:

I didn't mean 'significantly understand'. (I agree with what you said in the atheist example, and the acknowledgment part after. I guess I get the impression from the people that present this information, that they are seeking "learn and propagate" out of you, rather than "acknowledge".

The way I take what you said was "people must make these courtesies/adjustment for these minority groups".  To be able to do that, you'd have to know a something about of what those groups entail. I suppose the purest form of disadvantage minorities have is a lack of understanding. Spreading information (strictly information) in the hopes of increasing awareness, is not a bad thing. Though it's not the the outsider's responsibility to learn about every minority.

Of course the outsider isn't responsible for his lack of knowledge. That's why we're trying to spread information so that people can acknowledge us and respect us. I won't blame someone for misgendering me, but I correct them politely, and explain to them what they don't know about gender. 

4 hours ago, Chronopolis said:

Some assumptions are necessary or preferred. I think the minority groups should acknowledge this, and recognize the other person's perspective. The fact is not that these people are special, it's that they are different and they should be allowed to be different.

I recognize that most people see some assumptions as necessary or preferred, and that's why I try to make people realize they aren't. The problem with those assumptions is that they cause a lot of issues. For example, when most people see a manly guy, they assume he's straight. And that makes things a lot more difficult for him to come out, as he would be breaking everyone's expectations. If people didn't assume that and asked the guy's sexuality if they were curious, things would be a lot easier. 

Of course people shouldn't freak out because of that, but unfortunately, many do. But honestly, it's not hard for me to see why. Most people don't know how hard it is to live inside a closet. You see people telling jokes that are indirectly making fun of you but you can't say anything, you are put in difficult situations and you fear with all your heart they do not suspect you are what you are, you can't tell your parents because you're afraid of their reaction... We try our best (most of us, in fact) to control ourselves, but living with secrets within yourself because of societal impositions is not easy in any way, and sometimes, we end up exploding.

I think both sides should try to look through the other perspective, but that is a really hard task.

5 hours ago, Chronopolis said:

I see consideration from the other side as:

  1. Not acting like you're special. (Ideally, this is the same as doing so without the gender/identity elements.)
  2. Not telling me how someone must treat you differently. (This is different from an atheist leaving in a religious family, as it's not like the other person isn't rejecting who you are or treating your worse for it. Beyond that, I really don't think one should act like people should adjust to you, as that is an effort on their part.)

Then it's up to the other person's to be open-minded and not to reject that person's identity. This is what I think should be the goal.

But like, if a person with Asperger's Syndrom has difficulty discerning people's feelings based on their facial expressions and such, can't that person ask others to keep that in mind while interacting with them? To make their intentions clearer or stuff like that? Different people must be treated differently to reach equality. That is the basis of second generation rights (social rights).

I don't really get what you mean with 1. 

Link to comment
Quote

I recognize that most people see some assumptions as necessary or preferred, and that's why I try to make people realize they aren't. The problem with those assumptions is that they cause a lot of issues. For example, when most people see a manly guy, they assume he's straight. And that makes things a lot more difficult for him to come out, as he would be breaking everyone's expectations. If people didn't assume that and asked the guy's sexuality if they were curious, things would be a lot easier. 

So when you say 'Don't assume someone's gender', it's not because the assuming itself is particularly wrong, but because of the additional pressure it could cause a different gendered person, given today's state of relative non-acceptance. (If being differently-gendered was widespreadly accepted, assuming without ill intention, while it would make breaking the truth harder, would not be a huge deal.) Honestly, I did not see this nuance until now. Now I think that 'Don't assume someone's gender' is ill-suited as a opening statement as it leads people to think that you are saying 'assuming makes you wrong' and 'you must stop prematurely using pronouns to resolve this issue'.

Talking about in practice, if the person does not tell me that they are different-gendered, it's not practical for me to treat everyone as a third class until I get confirmation (which the person might not give because they aren't comfortable). What does "treating like a third class" mean, anyways? What is the objective? If the objective is take considerations in ways we can towards different-gendered people living in this age, then I propose the following:

  1. Not unduly assuming. Referring to someone using the label 'he' has a good reason for it. Assuming gender qualities about them besides from strictly how they act is unnecessary and a good example of something to avoid.
  2. If you suspect a friend might be different-gendered (etc.), you could slip in a remark or few that would reassure the friend that you would be accepting and confide-able, if such were the case.
Quote

I don't really get what you mean with 1. 

Basically, what I was trying to say is that people who are differently-gendered should be aware and try to avoid doing this. And other people should be more tolerant of different gendered people who display that behavior, since, it's basically the same human flaw we see in lots of people. Even more so, they should try to not treat other different gendered people badly because of bad experiences they have had in the past (it's also the case that the 'attention-seekers' are disproportionately visible)

I suppose the reason why I felt the urge to say #1 was because:

  1. I've seen one cross-gendered person on facebook who was clearly seeking attention
  2. From looking briefly at gender-fluid forums, and also having seen a few people introduce themselves online. 

About online introductions. Regarding those people, they usually draw too much attention to the fact. For this, tone is important, too. Like others have mentioned, in a forum environment, we usually don't really visualize gender while assessing people, which is why it appears unnecessary and a little baffling that someone would spend more than a line or two talking about their gender. Of course, that's just our impression.

 

Quote

But like, if a person with Asperger's Syndrom has difficulty discerning people's feelings based on their facial expressions and such, can't that person ask others to keep that in mind while interacting with them?

I can't say I know. I, mostly unashamedly have not given much thought on people with such mental disorders.

Quote

Different people must be treated differently to reach equality.

Well, what exactly is equality?

Looking at wheel-chair parking and accessible buildings. Somebody has decided and today's community agrees that we want to do this. The driving reason being that those people would be severely more disadvantaged otherwise. I suppose you could call this 'for equality'.

These are concessions supported by the majority, for the benefit of the minority.

Adjusting to someone with Asperger's Syndrome would be also be a concession, requiring personal effort and perhaps having to bear unpleasantness. I wouldn't doing it once out of courtesy. But most people avoid contact with those people because it is less desirable (more effort, natural human revulsion to disabled people). I suppose we apply our social standards, which are "we choose who we hang out with, and it doesn't matter if someone is left alone". As a nation, we do hire some special aid workers to assist these people in learning and life, so that they aren't severely more disadvantaged, at least in matters of education.

Everyone using non-gendered pronouns before confirmation would help other-gendered people. But it's not a concession people would want to make.

Thus, saying "to reach equality" in this sense is obscuring the fact that this is really a concession/benefit problem, which is why I don't like it.

Edited by Chronopolis
Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...