That's not what i asked though? You objected to someone using the word "normal" to describe the 99.99999999999999999999% of families with cis parents. Are there any circumstances, ever, under which it is okay to use that word?
And as to using the word 'normal', isn't this clearly and obviously a contextual thing? If using it implies that other groups are 'abnormal', and those other groups are simply rare or relatively unusual within a population, then we should be careful not to taint them with other associations, such as 'deviancy' or 'lack of correctness'.
If it's so simple to think about, why can't you answer the simple question I asked you, instead of passive-aggressively avoiding that question?
Are there any circumstances, ever, where it's okay to use the word "normal"? This should be pretty easy to answer, if it's as simple to think about as you claim it is.
Avoiding the question? Why on Earth would I have any reason to?
I thought my answer was pretty satisfactory: by it being contextual, the clear implication is that of course there are circumstances where it's fine to use 'normal'.
Say: a normal serving of English Breakfast comes with toast.
The normal height for an adult person is between 4- and 7-feet tall.
It is normal to take a shower before breakfast. (In this case, we're emphasising the inclusivity of this behaviour within normality, not the exclusivity.)
The normal height for an adult person is between 4- and 7-feet tall.
Doesn't that mean that all adults below 4 feet tall are abnormal? Why are you associating them with deviancy and lack of correctness?
It is normal to take a shower before breakfast.
Does that mean showering after breakfast is abnormal? Why are you associating people who eat breakfast first with deviancy and lack of correctness?
a normal serving of English Breakfast comes with toast.
So people who have their English breakfast without toast are behaving abnormally? Deviancy, incorrectness etc.
From where I can see, there's no consistent standard here at all, and the only context is that in some cases you're looking for an excuse to be offended and in some cases you aren't.
In this case, we're emphasising the inclusivity of this behaviour within normality, not the exclusivity.
Please if possible explain how this is anything other than nonsense, because I'm trying here and I honestly can't see it.
If you don't try so hard to resist getting this, you'll find it comes rather easily.
The examples I gave were ones where the context -- that is, the shared understanding between users of the language and, possibly, the ones involved in the exchange -- does not lead to expectations of there possibly being an implied abnormal co-set. This is really not hard to understand.
In this case [ It is normal to take a shower before breakfast. ], we're emphasising the inclusivity of this behaviour within normality, not the exclusivity.
Please if possible explain how this is anything other than nonsense, because I'm trying here and I honestly can't see it.
The implication is that normal behaviour includes this, not that normal behaviour is exclusively this.
The examples I gave were ones where the context -- that is, the shared understanding between users of the language and, possibly, the ones involved in the exchange -- does not lead to expectations of there possibly being an implied abnormal co-set.
Except that it does, as I already demonstrated.
The only difference is that in these cases you aren't looking for something to be offended about, so you ignore the necessarily implied abnormal co-set, while in the case of trans people, you are looking for an excuse to be offended, so the implication of an abnormal co-set is a bfd.
The implication is that normal behaviour includes this, not that normal behaviour is exclusively this.
Then it was certainly nonsense, because the implication is absolutely that normal behavior is exclusively this, or at least that "this" is included within a scope of normal behaviors which nonetheless excludes other behaviors.
If you dont try so hard to resist getting this, you'll find it's all remarkably easy to under even jokingly being this passive aggressive and condescending feels gross, I dont know how you can manage to do it sincerely.
You can always play the ambiguity game, and play upon changing the expected meanings and and context of words; that's how so many jokes work, after all. So? Language is always based around an assumption of shared understanding and context, and the examples I gave were ones were the expectations were fairly obvious.
Then it was certainly nonsense, because the implication is absolutely that normal behavior is exclusively this, or at least that "this" is included within a scope of normal behaviors which nonetheless excludes other behaviors.
I've bolded where you've simply rephrased what I said. You're welcome!
I dont know how you can manage to do it sincerely.
I'm glad I got you to move from condescending passive aggression to outright insults, this is progress!
And no, I am in no way being "intentionally" dense. I have my own perspective on this issue that is utterly and entirely sincere, and my dogged refusal to fall over and agree with you is not some mean trick I'm playing on you for lulz, it's because I sincerely find you to be wrong. If you can't get your head around the idea that other people believe the things they believe, and aren't just trying to punish you by believing things you dont like even though you're so obviously right about everything, I'm afraid you're the dense one.
What am I wrong about? That we should be careful about how our language use with respect to things like 'normality' as it concerns marginalised groups, because we might end up accidentally reinforcing incorrect notions of wrongness?
How can you be having this conversation without understanding Prescriptivist v. Discriptivist language theory? Yes, there are a lot of arguments against exactly the position you are taking :that language actively shapes thought/actions and that correct language leads to correct thought and action. This is not a unique or factually true argument, and you should read more before you decide it's a hill you want to die on.
Your height example is literally the exact same thing, except you aren't emotionally primed to be offended by anything related to height. It is no different to claim that by your statement Yao Ming is abnormal and defective in some way, and this is offensive to him. You are wrong
Again, this is the exact sort of social given context I'm talking about, and goes to show that there's genuine potential for offence when that expectation is broken.
Yeah it's probably way more than that because actual not your generic tumblr transmentals, but actual trans people who simply can't function properly without transitioning aren't common, happily.
It is the correct terminology. So why does it have negative connotations? How does that change the argument the other person put forward? Does different language actually change the connotations, even if it is just a synonym?
Either you can answer these questions or your entire argument is ad hominem.
You say you don't play stupid games after arguing that the tone of the word 'normal' used in the context it exists for is inappropriate.
You have no argument to back up your retarded claims, and based on your stupid replies likely are too busy trying to be smug to realise you failed at high school level English, as you cannot even construct a basic argument.
You failed "who, what, when, and why?" - a basic method taught to primary school students, too.
My advice going forwards is not to vote ever again, because you lack the ability to understand basic language concepts makes you a threat to democracy.
arguing that the tone of the word 'normal' used in the context it exists for is inappropriate.
I'm not the one making ridiculous statements and unjustified statements like that, then demanding that be countered.
the context it exists for
What is that meant to mean, exactly? '[I]t exists for'. Exists for?!
The term still has negative associations, and those still matter. Nothing you've attempted to say changes that. It's a fact of the language, and of the social issues. Tit.
I'm not the one making ridiculous statements and unjustified statements like that
Except you did, and admitted as much when asked.
What is that meant to mean, exactly? '[I]t exists for'. Exists for?!
It is what it means by definition; the primary meaning of the word outside of specific terminonology such as medical practice.
The term still has negative associations, and those still matter
After repeatedly refusing to answer the question of what your argument is you finally answer...
And lo' and behold you are wrong. Association is based on context, and within the context the word was originally used in - in the original post in the linked thread - was within the context of population distributions, not the description of a group of people, nor as a way of descriminating them.
Nothing you've attempted to say changes that. It's a fact of the language, and of the social issues.
I just did now that you actually posted your arguing point, but for future reference no one has to refute the imaginary. The burden of proof to prove your point as factual is on you, playing 20 Questions with people trying to get you to explain your point won't change this.
Of a low population? Small in number? Pretty sure the point was out of a million kids who sees the picture of transgender parents, maybe a dozen will be able to relate to the picture.
Let me tell you, there is nothing r/Drama loves more than a freshly shaved trap bussy, but if your goal is for schools to show pictures of every single possible combination of differences in people, then I'm afraid you'll be quite disappointed.
Are you implying that transgender parents are abnormal?
uhhh yeah that is exactly what they're saying. Having gay parents is also abnormal, doesn't make it bad thing. It's dumb to act like trans is the default, come on now /u/rosyatrandom
thinking, and caring, about the words we use around sensitive issues
delusional
I know, I know, it's tough to tell these kinds of thing apart when you've built up so much personal pride in what you think of as a 'non-nonsense' persona.
Isn't a big part of this whole topic how the careless or unchecked use of loaded language is subtly controlling people, and how we need to work against that? If you don't like your yet of language being called into question, perhaps it's because you don't like the idea that you're using that control yourself.
I wholesale discount the belief that language choice is some how affecting peoples opinions to the degree you do.
Abnormal was appropriate word choice and you keyed off on it. Successful was appropriate word choice and you keyed off on it.
It's possible to engage these words and the ideas those using them are trying to possess without becoming mired in unsensed biases and pre-formed conclusions.
You approach ideas with an open mind and work them until you understand what the other person wants you to understand.
Well, I do, what you do is check the careless use of loaded language or whatever you think it is that you're doing.
The end I am for is to understand better what another is trying to express. The end you go for - I can't tell.
If you don't like your yet of language being called into question, perhaps it's because you don't like the idea that you're using that control yourself.
I don't follow this. I don't like you calling into question my use of language because I believe it shows that you're trying to control how I express my thoughts. I believe I express my thoughts well enough and without malice.
In what way was 'successful' an appropriate word choice? All you wanted to say was that there weren't many trans parents, but by adding that adjective you changed the meaning: it implied that, however many trans parents there are, they are mostly unsuccessful.
It turned this from a rarity point to a wrongness one, and... [ sigh ]... this is the exact fucking point I'm making; how easy it is to slip, by careless use of language, from one to the other. Words mean something.
78 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-04-27
Gay porn is a genre that cuts across all demographics and the stigma that you have to be gay to enjoy it needs to come to an end right now.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 Honk4Tits 2018-04-27
I say let them be whatever they want unless they are forcing you to suck their mussy than I see no harm.
1 HauntedFurniture 2018-04-27
Smh you TERF, it's 'xussy'
1 nmx179 2018-04-27
u/rosyatrandom how many transgender parents do you think there are in the entire world?
A dozen? Two dozen?
1 Pol_Pots_Crockpot 2018-04-27
Every parent is trans they’ve just internalized oppression enough to force it deep within them smh
1 rosyatrandom 2018-04-27
'Abnormal' is not a word you use here, unless you are OK with the negative associations it has. I assume that you are, right?
1 nmx179 2018-04-27
That's not what i asked though? You objected to someone using the word "normal" to describe the 99.99999999999999999999% of families with cis parents. Are there any circumstances, ever, under which it is okay to use that word?
1 rosyatrandom 2018-04-27
Hmmm. Might want to check your numbers on that.
And as to using the word 'normal', isn't this clearly and obviously a contextual thing? If using it implies that other groups are 'abnormal', and those other groups are simply rare or relatively unusual within a population, then we should be careful not to taint them with other associations, such as 'deviancy' or 'lack of correctness'.
This isn't really hard to think about, is it?
1 [deleted] 2018-04-27
[deleted]
1 nmx179 2018-04-27
If it's so simple to think about, why can't you answer the simple question I asked you, instead of passive-aggressively avoiding that question?
Are there any circumstances, ever, where it's okay to use the word "normal"? This should be pretty easy to answer, if it's as simple to think about as you claim it is.
2 rosyatrandom 2018-04-27
Avoiding the question? Why on Earth would I have any reason to? I thought my answer was pretty satisfactory: by it being contextual, the clear implication is that of course there are circumstances where it's fine to use 'normal'.
Say: a normal serving of English Breakfast comes with toast.
The normal height for an adult person is between 4- and 7-feet tall.
It is normal to take a shower before breakfast. (In this case, we're emphasising the inclusivity of this behaviour within normality, not the exclusivity.)
1 nmx179 2018-04-27
Doesn't that mean that all adults below 4 feet tall are abnormal? Why are you associating them with deviancy and lack of correctness?
Does that mean showering after breakfast is abnormal? Why are you associating people who eat breakfast first with deviancy and lack of correctness?
So people who have their English breakfast without toast are behaving abnormally? Deviancy, incorrectness etc.
From where I can see, there's no consistent standard here at all, and the only context is that in some cases you're looking for an excuse to be offended and in some cases you aren't.
Please if possible explain how this is anything other than nonsense, because I'm trying here and I honestly can't see it.
1 rosyatrandom 2018-04-27
If you don't try so hard to resist getting this, you'll find it comes rather easily.
The examples I gave were ones where the context -- that is, the shared understanding between users of the language and, possibly, the ones involved in the exchange -- does not lead to expectations of there possibly being an implied abnormal co-set. This is really not hard to understand.
The implication is that normal behaviour includes this, not that normal behaviour is exclusively this.
1 nmx179 2018-04-27
Except that it does, as I already demonstrated.
The only difference is that in these cases you aren't looking for something to be offended about, so you ignore the necessarily implied abnormal co-set, while in the case of trans people, you are looking for an excuse to be offended, so the implication of an abnormal co-set is a bfd.
Then it was certainly nonsense, because the implication is absolutely that normal behavior is exclusively this, or at least that "this" is included within a scope of normal behaviors which nonetheless excludes other behaviors.
If you dont try so hard to resist getting this, you'll find it's all remarkably easy to undereven jokingly being this passive aggressive and condescending feels gross, I dont know how you can manage to do it sincerely.1 rosyatrandom 2018-04-27
You can always play the ambiguity game, and play upon changing the expected meanings and and context of words; that's how so many jokes work, after all. So? Language is always based around an assumption of shared understanding and context, and the examples I gave were ones were the expectations were fairly obvious.
I've bolded where you've simply rephrased what I said. You're welcome!
It's because you're being intentionally dense.
2 nmx179 2018-04-27
I'm glad I got you to move from condescending passive aggression to outright insults, this is progress!
And no, I am in no way being "intentionally" dense. I have my own perspective on this issue that is utterly and entirely sincere, and my dogged refusal to fall over and agree with you is not some mean trick I'm playing on you for lulz, it's because I sincerely find you to be wrong. If you can't get your head around the idea that other people believe the things they believe, and aren't just trying to punish you by believing things you dont like even though you're so obviously right about everything, I'm afraid you're the dense one.
1 rosyatrandom 2018-04-27
What am I wrong about? That we should be careful about how our language use with respect to things like 'normality' as it concerns marginalised groups, because we might end up accidentally reinforcing incorrect notions of wrongness?
1 Unicorn_Abattoir 2018-04-27
How can you be having this conversation without understanding Prescriptivist v. Discriptivist language theory? Yes, there are a lot of arguments against exactly the position you are taking :that language actively shapes thought/actions and that correct language leads to correct thought and action. This is not a unique or factually true argument, and you should read more before you decide it's a hill you want to die on.
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2018-04-27
yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarfism
1 MostMiserablyYours 2018-04-27
Your height example is literally the exact same thing, except you aren't emotionally primed to be offended by anything related to height. It is no different to claim that by your statement Yao Ming is abnormal and defective in some way, and this is offensive to him. You are wrong
1 rosyatrandom 2018-04-27
Again, this is the exact sort of social given context I'm talking about, and goes to show that there's genuine potential for offence when that expectation is broken.
1 ExtraChromosomeSpork 2018-04-27
Because he's a giant faggot, obv
1 PurpleIcy 2018-04-27
Yeah it's probably way more than that because actual not your generic tumblr transmentals, but actual trans people who simply can't function properly without transitioning aren't common, happily.
1 Gtyyler 2018-04-27
Tbh it is semantics. And regularly arguing semantics with people on the internet makes you either abnormal or not a parent.
2 rosyatrandom 2018-04-27
Semantics can be important. They're important here.
1 Unicorn_Abattoir 2018-04-27
Not to anyone else.
1 RollBread 2018-04-27
It is the correct terminology. So why does it have negative connotations? How does that change the argument the other person put forward? Does different language actually change the connotations, even if it is just a synonym?
Either you can answer these questions or your entire argument is ad hominem.
1 rosyatrandom 2018-04-27
According to whom?
Why does the term 'abnormal' have negative connotations? What do you want, a historical linguistic analysis of the word?
What argument?
Of course, because synonymous !== identical.
1 RollBread 2018-04-27
The definition of the word. That is its intended use.
Yes. Providing an actual debating point is what separates having an argument from being full of shit.
The one you started in the original comment chain.
That is half a statement, it is not identical because of what?
1 rosyatrandom 2018-04-27
You're not actually saying anything about anything now.
1 RollBread 2018-04-27
You're saying your issue with the use of the word normal is pointless?
1 rosyatrandom 2018-04-27
I'm saying you haven't got a clue what you're trying to witter on about
1 RollBread 2018-04-27
Did you say this?
1 rosyatrandom 2018-04-27
Do go on
1 RollBread 2018-04-27
Did you say it?
1 rosyatrandom 2018-04-27
Of course I did; I'm not playing stupid games, here. Do go on with yours.
1 RollBread 2018-04-27
You say you don't play stupid games after arguing that the tone of the word 'normal' used in the context it exists for is inappropriate.
You have no argument to back up your retarded claims, and based on your stupid replies likely are too busy trying to be smug to realise you failed at high school level English, as you cannot even construct a basic argument.
You failed "who, what, when, and why?" - a basic method taught to primary school students, too.
My advice going forwards is not to vote ever again, because you lack the ability to understand basic language concepts makes you a threat to democracy.
Namaste, friendo.
1 rosyatrandom 2018-04-27
I'm not the one making ridiculous statements and unjustified statements like that, then demanding that be countered.
What is that meant to mean, exactly? '[I]t exists for'. Exists for?!
The term still has negative associations, and those still matter. Nothing you've attempted to say changes that. It's a fact of the language, and of the social issues. Tit.
1 RollBread 2018-04-27
Except you did, and admitted as much when asked.
It is what it means by definition; the primary meaning of the word outside of specific terminonology such as medical practice.
After repeatedly refusing to answer the question of what your argument is you finally answer...
And lo' and behold you are wrong. Association is based on context, and within the context the word was originally used in - in the original post in the linked thread - was within the context of population distributions, not the description of a group of people, nor as a way of descriminating them.
I just did now that you actually posted your arguing point, but for future reference no one has to refute the imaginary. The burden of proof to prove your point as factual is on you, playing 20 Questions with people trying to get you to explain your point won't change this.
Bussy.
1 PurpleIcy 2018-04-27
It's okay, it's normal to be retarded.
1 buttcoinbuttcoin 2018-04-27
Of a low population? Small in number? Pretty sure the point was out of a million kids who sees the picture of transgender parents, maybe a dozen will be able to relate to the picture.
Let me tell you, there is nothing r/Drama loves more than a freshly shaved trap bussy, but if your goal is for schools to show pictures of every single possible combination of differences in people, then I'm afraid you'll be quite disappointed.
1 PurpleIcy 2018-04-27
Is autism normal or abnormal?
1 TotesMessenger 2018-04-27
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
1 Pol_Pots_Crockpot 2018-04-27
u/rosyatrandom a better book to make about trans parents would be titled “Mentally Ill Parents” :)
1 TaylorSwiftOfRdrama 2018-04-27
uhhh yeah that is exactly what they're saying. Having gay parents is also abnormal, doesn't make it bad thing. It's dumb to act like trans is the default, come on now /u/rosyatrandom
1 rosyatrandom 2018-04-27
If you don't care about the negative connotations words like 'abnormal' have, then this really isn't the sort of topic for you.
1 TaylorSwiftOfRdrama 2018-04-27
well, I guess you're just too delusional to reason with, eh?
1 rosyatrandom 2018-04-27
I know, I know, it's tough to tell these kinds of thing apart when you've built up so much personal pride in what you think of as a 'non-nonsense' persona.
1 TaylorSwiftOfRdrama 2018-04-27
wEW that's a lot of projecting
2 rosyatrandom 2018-04-27
Look at your username. Look at this sub. It's not rocket science, is it?
1 TaylorSwiftOfRdrama 2018-04-27
You still aren't making any sense, but I guess that means you have the "unfounded accusations and hysteria" part of being a woman down pat.
1 rosyatrandom 2018-04-27
Oh, good; my wife loves it when I embrace my feminine side.
1 Power_Incarnate 2018-04-27
Is that cause it means its her turn to fuck your ass?
1 rosyatrandom 2018-04-27
Oh, no, she had to wait for your dad first
1 buttcoinbuttcoin 2018-04-27
So... his dad fucked your ass? Boy, what a burn!
1 rosyatrandom 2018-04-27
I know, but thankfully I barely felt a thing
1 XhotwheelsloverX 2018-04-27
Post trussy
1 shaneoffline 2018-04-27
Lol. How ever you phrase the same connotations will be there. Parents tend not to be trans.
1 rosyatrandom 2018-04-27
But they shouldn't be looked upon as deviant, instead of rare, which is precisely what this is all about.
1 shaneoffline 2018-04-27
There havent been many successful transparents in history. People should be allowed their skepticsm.
It's abnormal, untested, and odd.
1 rosyatrandom 2018-04-27
Source?
1 shaneoffline 2018-04-27
LOL
1 rosyatrandom 2018-04-27
I see
1 shaneoffline 2018-04-27
Ok, let me clarify. There haven't been many transparents, ergo, not many successful ones.
Do you need a source on an almost certain truth?
1 rosyatrandom 2018-04-27
Kind of a misleading way to emphasise 'successful', isn't that?
1 shaneoffline 2018-04-27
How is word use always misleading or loaded in some way with you?
The point I made is straight forward.
1 rosyatrandom 2018-04-27
Perhaps because I can't tell if you're being this awful intentionally
1 shaneoffline 2018-04-27
My points are honest, straight forward, accurate, sympathetic to people that you don't like.
That's not being awful. It's being a capable adult with an open mind.
1 rosyatrandom 2018-04-27
And yet, here we are
1 shaneoffline 2018-04-27
Yeah, because you're trying to bully me instead of engaging my points.
I can't help that you won't meet me at the higher standard.
1 rosyatrandom 2018-04-27
If you stop slipping in problematic and misleading turns of phrase for no reason, perhaps that would make this more efficient.
1 shaneoffline 2018-04-27
You don't get to police my use of language because you sense it to be problematic or misleading.
You don't engage ideas, you try to control people.
1 rosyatrandom 2018-04-27
Isn't a big part of this whole topic how the careless or unchecked use of loaded language is subtly controlling people, and how we need to work against that? If you don't like your yet of language being called into question, perhaps it's because you don't like the idea that you're using that control yourself.
1 shaneoffline 2018-04-27
I wholesale discount the belief that language choice is some how affecting peoples opinions to the degree you do.
Abnormal was appropriate word choice and you keyed off on it. Successful was appropriate word choice and you keyed off on it.
It's possible to engage these words and the ideas those using them are trying to possess without becoming mired in unsensed biases and pre-formed conclusions.
You approach ideas with an open mind and work them until you understand what the other person wants you to understand.
Well, I do, what you do is check the careless use of loaded language or whatever you think it is that you're doing.
The end I am for is to understand better what another is trying to express. The end you go for - I can't tell.
I don't follow this. I don't like you calling into question my use of language because I believe it shows that you're trying to control how I express my thoughts. I believe I express my thoughts well enough and without malice.
1 rosyatrandom 2018-04-27
In what way was 'successful' an appropriate word choice? All you wanted to say was that there weren't many trans parents, but by adding that adjective you changed the meaning: it implied that, however many trans parents there are, they are mostly unsuccessful.
It turned this from a rarity point to a wrongness one, and... [ sigh ]... this is the exact fucking point I'm making; how easy it is to slip, by careless use of language, from one to the other. Words mean something.
1 shaneoffline 2018-04-27
No, what I wanted to say was that there weren't many successful trans parents.
To bolster the point that people should be allowed their skepticism.
Do you follow the thought?
1 Awayfone 2018-04-27
Of you don't talk on my terms and my view , shut up
1 rosyatrandom 2018-04-27
if you can't even see that the issues are issues, discussions about them might pass you by
1 boyoyoyoyong 2018-04-27
u/rosyatrandom someone who thinks they're another sex with a suicide rate of 40% not sure how any of that is normal
1 rosyatrandom 2018-04-27
Well, look at me surprised to see you here
1 danklord9938437343 2018-04-27
It's not like he's wrong
1 WeWuzKANG5 2018-04-27
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/8fajqx/we_need_to_keep_trans_politics_out_of_schools/dy1ye8u/
Yes, that is exactly what's being implied you nonce.
1 YourLocalMonarchist 2018-04-27
ITT: trannies upset they cant groom future boy slaves in public