I can't believe I made it through the whole thread...wow. I felt like it was one of those social gatherings where it starts off with a bunch of people ready to engage and interested in the discussion except then there's that 1 person who slowly drives everyone away with their unwavering arrogance of expertise on the subject. I had a philosophy professor like that once. Drove the class frickin' crazy to the point that on review day we all openly discussed how we were going to rate him so no one else ever had to suffer through the shit we did.
It broke down for me right away when I was basically accused by the Professor of being homophobic because he sees my views (actually it was just one statement) as being "linked quite directly to a long historical line of prejudice" and went on to say that "while I do not necessarily think you purposefully engage in that hate,
your speech/views here are linked quite explicitly to the speech/views
of those who do. " WTF? Like that is supposed to somehow be an incentive to get me to sit at the feet of the master and be enlightened. Besides which, the Prof obviously does not know me very well. Somebody get me a bucket!
I’ve never really understood the tendency to respond to “something you just said is mildly offensive” with “you don’t know me! Stop calling me a bad person.”
i like to learn, so I will ask a question to the board that will be a learning opportunity for me:
Describe to me instances when someone has effectively convinced you your behavior/words were inappropriate when you initially thought they were fine? I’m genuinely curious what methods have worked. Because, believe it or not, I’d like to be a more effective advocate.
First of all, you never said what I said was "mildly offensive", you referred to me as being prejudiced. And I did not ask you to "stop calling me a bad person". You of all people, Professor, should know it is not good debating to misquote yourself or the other person.
As far as your loaded question scenario, I can't help you there bud because I have said nothing that isn't true. I respect your right to have your beliefs, but I don't respect you being so full of yourself. You might consider that, as I'm obviously not the only one here who thinks that is the case. And as far as wanting to be a more effective advocate, you might consider looking at your own self-inflated way of discussing an issue instead of insinuating the problem is with the other person. At this point, you've totally lost me as seeing you as an effective advocate.
And, no, you obviously don't know much about me.
See, here's the thing: I'm asking to learn. I have a sense that it is impossible to convince you that you're wrong in certain areas, but I'm happy (ecstatic) to be proven wrong. I'm asking how others have accomplished this seemingly simple feat. Has it ever happened? To phrase that differently, what have others done that made you see them as "an effective advocate?"
And, while this will go nowhere: yes, I said you were being mildly offensive. I said your statement was directly linked to a historical line of prejudice. That's basically what it means to be mildly offensive in my book: you've said something that unintentionally reinforces marginalizing discourse.
And, lastly, the "you . . . don't know much about me" is why it sounds like you think I'm calling you a bad person. I don't have to know you to know that statement's relationship to discourses of prejudice. I'm not passing judgment on you; I'm passing judgment on your words.
Jesus Christ man, calling someone prejudiced in my book is not mildly effective.
The vibe here sucks and I'm turning into a complete asshole as a result. I am fucking done here.
Hey are you going to an Oakland show? I'll be at both. Would love to get a beer with you one day.
Sorry to say, no, I'll miss the show. My tinnitus and hearing issues have gotten so bad that I probably won't be able to do plugged in shows ever again (no need to feel sorry for me though- I've seen so much great music including that killer PJ performance in Missoula in 2012!) We do get down to S.F. now and then. When is the Oakland show? I'd love to meet up if possible!
I believe 4/18-19. That sucks about your tinnitus. Is that caused by years of great shows?
I'll keep that date in mind!
No, the tinnitus started in September, 1993 as a result of a student in a class I was teaching igniting a bottle containing hydrogen and oxygen as part of a demonstration he was kindly doing for the class. It's basically an auditory nerve issue and resulted in hyperacusis and loud 24/7 tinnitus. I suppose it's possible that going to many shows in years prior to that event may have influenced the issue but I never had problems like that before the explosion. Funny story- I met Paul Westerberg in 2004 and told him I had really bad tinnitus. He said, "That's from crankin' the music too much!" I said, "Actually, mine is from an explosion." He kind of screwed his face up and gave me this funny look. LOL, great guy though!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I can't believe I made it through the whole thread...wow. I felt like it was one of those social gatherings where it starts off with a bunch of people ready to engage and interested in the discussion except then there's that 1 person who slowly drives everyone away with their unwavering arrogance of expertise on the subject. I had a philosophy professor like that once. Drove the class frickin' crazy to the point that on review day we all openly discussed how we were going to rate him so no one else ever had to suffer through the shit we did.
It broke down for me right away when I was basically accused by the Professor of being homophobic because he sees my views (actually it was just one statement) as being "linked quite directly to a long historical line of prejudice" and went on to say that "while I do not necessarily think you purposefully engage in that hate,
your speech/views here are linked quite explicitly to the speech/views
of those who do. " WTF? Like that is supposed to somehow be an incentive to get me to sit at the feet of the master and be enlightened. Besides which, the Prof obviously does not know me very well. Somebody get me a bucket!
I’ve never really understood the tendency to respond to “something you just said is mildly offensive” with “you don’t know me! Stop calling me a bad person.”
i like to learn, so I will ask a question to the board that will be a learning opportunity for me:
Describe to me instances when someone has effectively convinced you your behavior/words were inappropriate when you initially thought they were fine? I’m genuinely curious what methods have worked. Because, believe it or not, I’d like to be a more effective advocate.
First of all, you never said what I said was "mildly offensive", you referred to me as being prejudiced. And I did not ask you to "stop calling me a bad person". You of all people, Professor, should know it is not good debating to misquote yourself or the other person.
As far as your loaded question scenario, I can't help you there bud because I have said nothing that isn't true. I respect your right to have your beliefs, but I don't respect you being so full of yourself. You might consider that, as I'm obviously not the only one here who thinks that is the case. And as far as wanting to be a more effective advocate, you might consider looking at your own self-inflated way of discussing an issue instead of insinuating the problem is with the other person. At this point, you've totally lost me as seeing you as an effective advocate.
And, no, you obviously don't know much about me.
See, here's the thing: I'm asking to learn. I have a sense that it is impossible to convince you that you're wrong in certain areas, but I'm happy (ecstatic) to be proven wrong. I'm asking how others have accomplished this seemingly simple feat. Has it ever happened? To phrase that differently, what have others done that made you see them as "an effective advocate?"
And, while this will go nowhere: yes, I said you were being mildly offensive. I said your statement was directly linked to a historical line of prejudice. That's basically what it means to be mildly offensive in my book: you've said something that unintentionally reinforces marginalizing discourse.
And, lastly, the "you . . . don't know much about me" is why it sounds like you think I'm calling you a bad person. I don't have to know you to know that statement's relationship to discourses of prejudice. I'm not passing judgment on you; I'm passing judgment on your words.
Jesus Christ man, calling someone prejudiced in my book is not mildly effective.
The vibe here sucks and I'm turning into a complete asshole as a result. I am fucking done here.
Are you telling me there's literally no way for someone to say to you effectively "hey, man, that thing you just said was kinda offensive?"
I gotta say, I often use Brian as my benchmark around here as he is way easier going than I am and, from what I know, seems like just a really nice guy. Nicer than me. And you having pissed him off to this degree...I think you should really take a look at your method around here. We all have bad days, moments.
I'm repeatedly asking for more information about the "method" that works.
I can't believe I made it through the whole thread...wow. I felt like it was one of those social gatherings where it starts off with a bunch of people ready to engage and interested in the discussion except then there's that 1 person who slowly drives everyone away with their unwavering arrogance of expertise on the subject. I had a philosophy professor like that once. Drove the class frickin' crazy to the point that on review day we all openly discussed how we were going to rate him so no one else ever had to suffer through the shit we did.
It broke down for me right away when I was basically accused by the Professor of being homophobic because he sees my views (actually it was just one statement) as being "linked quite directly to a long historical line of prejudice" and went on to say that "while I do not necessarily think you purposefully engage in that hate,
your speech/views here are linked quite explicitly to the speech/views
of those who do. " WTF? Like that is supposed to somehow be an incentive to get me to sit at the feet of the master and be enlightened. Besides which, the Prof obviously does not know me very well. Somebody get me a bucket!
I’ve never really understood the tendency to respond to “something you just said is mildly offensive” with “you don’t know me! Stop calling me a bad person.”
i like to learn, so I will ask a question to the board that will be a learning opportunity for me:
Describe to me instances when someone has effectively convinced you your behavior/words were inappropriate when you initially thought they were fine? I’m genuinely curious what methods have worked. Because, believe it or not, I’d like to be a more effective advocate.
First of all, you never said what I said was "mildly offensive", you referred to me as being prejudiced. And I did not ask you to "stop calling me a bad person". You of all people, Professor, should know it is not good debating to misquote yourself or the other person.
As far as your loaded question scenario, I can't help you there bud because I have said nothing that isn't true. I respect your right to have your beliefs, but I don't respect you being so full of yourself. You might consider that, as I'm obviously not the only one here who thinks that is the case. And as far as wanting to be a more effective advocate, you might consider looking at your own self-inflated way of discussing an issue instead of insinuating the problem is with the other person. At this point, you've totally lost me as seeing you as an effective advocate.
And, no, you obviously don't know much about me.
See, here's the thing: I'm asking to learn. I have a sense that it is impossible to convince you that you're wrong in certain areas, but I'm happy (ecstatic) to be proven wrong. I'm asking how others have accomplished this seemingly simple feat. Has it ever happened? To phrase that differently, what have others done that made you see them as "an effective advocate?"
And, while this will go nowhere: yes, I said you were being mildly offensive. I said your statement was directly linked to a historical line of prejudice. That's basically what it means to be mildly offensive in my book: you've said something that unintentionally reinforces marginalizing discourse.
And, lastly, the "you . . . don't know much about me" is why it sounds like you think I'm calling you a bad person. I don't have to know you to know that statement's relationship to discourses of prejudice. I'm not passing judgment on you; I'm passing judgment on your words.
Jesus Christ man, calling someone prejudiced in my book is not mildly effective.
The vibe here sucks and I'm turning into a complete asshole as a result. I am fucking done here.
Are you telling me there's literally no way for someone to say to you effectively "hey, man, that thing you just said was kinda offensive?"
I gotta say, I often use Brian as my benchmark around here as he is way easier going than I am and, from what I know, seems like just a really nice guy. Nicer than me. And you having pissed him off to this degree...I think you should really take a look at your method around here. We all have bad days, moments.
I'm repeatedly asking for more information about the "method" that works.
I can't believe I made it through the whole thread...wow. I felt like it was one of those social gatherings where it starts off with a bunch of people ready to engage and interested in the discussion except then there's that 1 person who slowly drives everyone away with their unwavering arrogance of expertise on the subject. I had a philosophy professor like that once. Drove the class frickin' crazy to the point that on review day we all openly discussed how we were going to rate him so no one else ever had to suffer through the shit we did.
It broke down for me right away when I was basically accused by the Professor of being homophobic because he sees my views (actually it was just one statement) as being "linked quite directly to a long historical line of prejudice" and went on to say that "while I do not necessarily think you purposefully engage in that hate,
your speech/views here are linked quite explicitly to the speech/views
of those who do. " WTF? Like that is supposed to somehow be an incentive to get me to sit at the feet of the master and be enlightened. Besides which, the Prof obviously does not know me very well. Somebody get me a bucket!
I’ve never really understood the tendency to respond to “something you just said is mildly offensive” with “you don’t know me! Stop calling me a bad person.”
i like to learn, so I will ask a question to the board that will be a learning opportunity for me:
Describe to me instances when someone has effectively convinced you your behavior/words were inappropriate when you initially thought they were fine? I’m genuinely curious what methods have worked. Because, believe it or not, I’d like to be a more effective advocate.
First of all, you never said what I said was "mildly offensive", you referred to me as being prejudiced. And I did not ask you to "stop calling me a bad person". You of all people, Professor, should know it is not good debating to misquote yourself or the other person.
As far as your loaded question scenario, I can't help you there bud because I have said nothing that isn't true. I respect your right to have your beliefs, but I don't respect you being so full of yourself. You might consider that, as I'm obviously not the only one here who thinks that is the case. And as far as wanting to be a more effective advocate, you might consider looking at your own self-inflated way of discussing an issue instead of insinuating the problem is with the other person. At this point, you've totally lost me as seeing you as an effective advocate.
And, no, you obviously don't know much about me.
See, here's the thing: I'm asking to learn. I have a sense that it is impossible to convince you that you're wrong in certain areas, but I'm happy (ecstatic) to be proven wrong. I'm asking how others have accomplished this seemingly simple feat. Has it ever happened? To phrase that differently, what have others done that made you see them as "an effective advocate?"
And, while this will go nowhere: yes, I said you were being mildly offensive. I said your statement was directly linked to a historical line of prejudice. That's basically what it means to be mildly offensive in my book: you've said something that unintentionally reinforces marginalizing discourse.
And, lastly, the "you . . . don't know much about me" is why it sounds like you think I'm calling you a bad person. I don't have to know you to know that statement's relationship to discourses of prejudice. I'm not passing judgment on you; I'm passing judgment on your words.
Jesus Christ man, calling someone prejudiced in my book is not mildly effective.
The vibe here sucks and I'm turning into a complete asshole as a result. I am fucking done here.
Are you telling me there's literally no way for someone to say to you effectively "hey, man, that thing you just said was kinda offensive?"
pehaps instead of a declarative statement you might phrase it as hey man , I think that was etc.... or it seemed to me..... or I find that...heres why.
you are new to this subforum. we dont "know" you. we do however have a decent sense of who/how the rest of us are here.
Language IS my area of expertise. I don't say "I think" or "it seemed," because I don't treat this as something subjective (using the common understanding of the word "subjective"). The statement IS linked to a history of prejudiced discourse. That's not an opinion.
I can't believe I made it through the whole thread...wow. I felt like it was one of those social gatherings where it starts off with a bunch of people ready to engage and interested in the discussion except then there's that 1 person who slowly drives everyone away with their unwavering arrogance of expertise on the subject. I had a philosophy professor like that once. Drove the class frickin' crazy to the point that on review day we all openly discussed how we were going to rate him so no one else ever had to suffer through the shit we did.
It broke down for me right away when I was basically accused by the Professor of being homophobic because he sees my views (actually it was just one statement) as being "linked quite directly to a long historical line of prejudice" and went on to say that "while I do not necessarily think you purposefully engage in that hate,
your speech/views here are linked quite explicitly to the speech/views
of those who do. " WTF? Like that is supposed to somehow be an incentive to get me to sit at the feet of the master and be enlightened. Besides which, the Prof obviously does not know me very well. Somebody get me a bucket!
I’ve never really understood the tendency to respond to “something you just said is mildly offensive” with “you don’t know me! Stop calling me a bad person.”
i like to learn, so I will ask a question to the board that will be a learning opportunity for me:
Describe to me instances when someone has effectively convinced you your behavior/words were inappropriate when you initially thought they were fine? I’m genuinely curious what methods have worked. Because, believe it or not, I’d like to be a more effective advocate.
First of all, you never said what I said was "mildly offensive", you referred to me as being prejudiced. And I did not ask you to "stop calling me a bad person". You of all people, Professor, should know it is not good debating to misquote yourself or the other person.
As far as your loaded question scenario, I can't help you there bud because I have said nothing that isn't true. I respect your right to have your beliefs, but I don't respect you being so full of yourself. You might consider that, as I'm obviously not the only one here who thinks that is the case. And as far as wanting to be a more effective advocate, you might consider looking at your own self-inflated way of discussing an issue instead of insinuating the problem is with the other person. At this point, you've totally lost me as seeing you as an effective advocate.
And, no, you obviously don't know much about me.
See, here's the thing: I'm asking to learn. I have a sense that it is impossible to convince you that you're wrong in certain areas, but I'm happy (ecstatic) to be proven wrong. I'm asking how others have accomplished this seemingly simple feat. Has it ever happened? To phrase that differently, what have others done that made you see them as "an effective advocate?"
And, while this will go nowhere: yes, I said you were being mildly offensive. I said your statement was directly linked to a historical line of prejudice. That's basically what it means to be mildly offensive in my book: you've said something that unintentionally reinforces marginalizing discourse.
And, lastly, the "you . . . don't know much about me" is why it sounds like you think I'm calling you a bad person. I don't have to know you to know that statement's relationship to discourses of prejudice. I'm not passing judgment on you; I'm passing judgment on your words.
You keep saying you want to learn...but I haven't seen evidence of that at all. The first half of your next sentence shows your motives better, and I don;t believe the second half at all.
To be honest I am interested in the topic and understanding more. I have many questions.
So.... Theyby. Why use that instead of baby? Baby doesn't denote any specific gender. What is the purpose of changing that? To me, it honestly seems like it's more for the parents, which seems to go against the whole, let the child decide for themselves. And I guess, a child doesn't really decide for itself at the 3-4 year age where I've read gender becomes apparent to them. It's just their nature coming out. Wouldn't this come out anyhow? Couldn't you still use whatever customary pronouns exist and then just support your child as you see it?
have more questions but don't know how to type them at this point.
I've known a lot of people who give their yet unborn children little pet names. Sometimes it's because they don't want others to know the name they've chosen yet (that was part of our motivation); sometimes it's just a sort of cutesy thing (some good friends of mine called their child Biscuit until she was born). So, we went with "Theyby" as our cutesy name. Not really much more to it than that. Put differently, calling P theyby before they were born wasn't necessarily a part of raising them gender neutral, even if that decision influenced the pet name we chose.
My answer to the question I bolded is....maybe? I feel like by now I've expressed WHY we do it--our hopes for what it will accomplish--but I'm not trying to imply that ours is the only way to do it. There likely will never be a moment when we know if it "worked" or not--just like other parents, we're trying to do what we think is right/best. That's all.
As for your first paragraph, all I can say is I'm being sincere. I am absolutely an asshole the vast majority of the time, but--though I know people here have no reason to take my word for it--I work everyday to avoid being inflexible. I.e., I really do want to learn.
You keep saying "P". What is your child's legal name? I"m curious if you gave P a name that is androgynous or truly neutral.
@ecdanc will try to frame this respectfully. I am curious. when I asked earlier today age grouping you replied. also giving your spouses age. in that response might be the answer to what I am about to ask.
now my question is, given your stated way of raising your child, I wonder are you and your spouse modeling the same for your child? Meaning are both you and your spouse living gender neutral lives? I understand the child is only 9 months old, but surely is absorbing language and environment for clues to social cues and the like.
Excellent question. This is something we’ve talked a lot about, down to how we refer to our male cat.
Ultimately, we’re seeking a really tricky balance. On one hand, we want P to know that the world still uses gender basically at all times. In that sense, it’s inescapable. On the other hand, we want them to feel they can shape their own gender identity—deciding if they are a boy, a girl, or neither.
So, to return more concretely to your question: I am a man; my wife is a woman—those are our gender identities. By not hiding those, yet trying (the key word with all of this is “trying”) to provide P with a space where a) people have genders; b) those genders aren’t made a huge deal; and c) it’s ok to embrace either or neither of those genders—that’s how we try to strike that balance. As P gets older we will, of course, also talk directly with them about all of this.
All that is to say, while I may dream of a world where gender—as we currently understand it—doesn’t exist, our child doesn’t live in that world just yet.
thank you.
can I ask the reasoning behind including the cat?
Just a suggestion of how pervasive gender is and any efforts to do things differently. Our cat now gets referred to as "they" a lot, just because we've trained ourselves to use that pronoun with P.
is it? was unaware of identity issues in the animal kingdom. so thats a thing? I thought they just were as they are..... and acted as such generally speaking.
I'm not saying inherent gender traits in cats; I'm saying in how we treat and talk to cats. In other words, I don't think cats have gender, but we sometimes treat them as if they do. Does that make sense?
sort of. would counter with they are one sex or the other are they not? male cats have certain behaviors that are exclusive to the testosterone dominated and female the same but on the estrogen dominated side....
those two hormones seem to dictate much , according to how much of either is produced and how a given sex utilizes that dominate hormone.
the pronouns apply to both sex (biological/physiological)and gender(identity/psychological) fairly equally do they not?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I can't believe I made it through the whole thread...wow. I felt like it was one of those social gatherings where it starts off with a bunch of people ready to engage and interested in the discussion except then there's that 1 person who slowly drives everyone away with their unwavering arrogance of expertise on the subject. I had a philosophy professor like that once. Drove the class frickin' crazy to the point that on review day we all openly discussed how we were going to rate him so no one else ever had to suffer through the shit we did.
It broke down for me right away when I was basically accused by the Professor of being homophobic because he sees my views (actually it was just one statement) as being "linked quite directly to a long historical line of prejudice" and went on to say that "while I do not necessarily think you purposefully engage in that hate,
your speech/views here are linked quite explicitly to the speech/views
of those who do. " WTF? Like that is supposed to somehow be an incentive to get me to sit at the feet of the master and be enlightened. Besides which, the Prof obviously does not know me very well. Somebody get me a bucket!
I’ve never really understood the tendency to respond to “something you just said is mildly offensive” with “you don’t know me! Stop calling me a bad person.”
i like to learn, so I will ask a question to the board that will be a learning opportunity for me:
Describe to me instances when someone has effectively convinced you your behavior/words were inappropriate when you initially thought they were fine? I’m genuinely curious what methods have worked. Because, believe it or not, I’d like to be a more effective advocate.
First of all, you never said what I said was "mildly offensive", you referred to me as being prejudiced. And I did not ask you to "stop calling me a bad person". You of all people, Professor, should know it is not good debating to misquote yourself or the other person.
As far as your loaded question scenario, I can't help you there bud because I have said nothing that isn't true. I respect your right to have your beliefs, but I don't respect you being so full of yourself. You might consider that, as I'm obviously not the only one here who thinks that is the case. And as far as wanting to be a more effective advocate, you might consider looking at your own self-inflated way of discussing an issue instead of insinuating the problem is with the other person. At this point, you've totally lost me as seeing you as an effective advocate.
And, no, you obviously don't know much about me.
See, here's the thing: I'm asking to learn. I have a sense that it is impossible to convince you that you're wrong in certain areas, but I'm happy (ecstatic) to be proven wrong. I'm asking how others have accomplished this seemingly simple feat. Has it ever happened? To phrase that differently, what have others done that made you see them as "an effective advocate?"
And, while this will go nowhere: yes, I said you were being mildly offensive. I said your statement was directly linked to a historical line of prejudice. That's basically what it means to be mildly offensive in my book: you've said something that unintentionally reinforces marginalizing discourse.
And, lastly, the "you . . . don't know much about me" is why it sounds like you think I'm calling you a bad person. I don't have to know you to know that statement's relationship to discourses of prejudice. I'm not passing judgment on you; I'm passing judgment on your words.
You keep saying you want to learn...but I haven't seen evidence of that at all. The first half of your next sentence shows your motives better, and I don;t believe the second half at all.
To be honest I am interested in the topic and understanding more. I have many questions.
So.... Theyby. Why use that instead of baby? Baby doesn't denote any specific gender. What is the purpose of changing that? To me, it honestly seems like it's more for the parents, which seems to go against the whole, let the child decide for themselves. And I guess, a child doesn't really decide for itself at the 3-4 year age where I've read gender becomes apparent to them. It's just their nature coming out. Wouldn't this come out anyhow? Couldn't you still use whatever customary pronouns exist and then just support your child as you see it?
have more questions but don't know how to type them at this point.
I've known a lot of people who give their yet unborn children little pet names. Sometimes it's because they don't want others to know the name they've chosen yet (that was part of our motivation); sometimes it's just a sort of cutesy thing (some good friends of mine called their child Biscuit until she was born). So, we went with "Theyby" as our cutesy name. Not really much more to it than that. Put differently, calling P theyby before they were born wasn't necessarily a part of raising them gender neutral, even if that decision influenced the pet name we chose.
My answer to the question I bolded is....maybe? I feel like by now I've expressed WHY we do it--our hopes for what it will accomplish--but I'm not trying to imply that ours is the only way to do it. There likely will never be a moment when we know if it "worked" or not--just like other parents, we're trying to do what we think is right/best. That's all.
As for your first paragraph, all I can say is I'm being sincere. I am absolutely an asshole the vast majority of the time, but--though I know people here have no reason to take my word for it--I work everyday to avoid being inflexible. I.e., I really do want to learn.
You keep saying "P". What is your child's legal name? I"m curious if you gave P a name that is androgynous or truly neutral.
No offense, but that's not something I feel comfortable sharing here. The name is intended to be gender neutral.
sorry, I was busy waxing science with my philosophy friends over a non-fat-extra-hot-lemon-sprinkled-pretention-filled-professor-recommended-scholar-influenced-trans-latte. (it was a cis coffee, now it's a latte).
@ecdanc will try to frame this respectfully. I am curious. when I asked earlier today age grouping you replied. also giving your spouses age. in that response might be the answer to what I am about to ask.
now my question is, given your stated way of raising your child, I wonder are you and your spouse modeling the same for your child? Meaning are both you and your spouse living gender neutral lives? I understand the child is only 9 months old, but surely is absorbing language and environment for clues to social cues and the like.
Excellent question. This is something we’ve talked a lot about, down to how we refer to our male cat.
Ultimately, we’re seeking a really tricky balance. On one hand, we want P to know that the world still uses gender basically at all times. In that sense, it’s inescapable. On the other hand, we want them to feel they can shape their own gender identity—deciding if they are a boy, a girl, or neither.
So, to return more concretely to your question: I am a man; my wife is a woman—those are our gender identities. By not hiding those, yet trying (the key word with all of this is “trying”) to provide P with a space where a) people have genders; b) those genders aren’t made a huge deal; and c) it’s ok to embrace either or neither of those genders—that’s how we try to strike that balance. As P gets older we will, of course, also talk directly with them about all of this.
All that is to say, while I may dream of a world where gender—as we currently understand it—doesn’t exist, our child doesn’t live in that world just yet.
thank you.
can I ask the reasoning behind including the cat?
Just a suggestion of how pervasive gender is and any efforts to do things differently. Our cat now gets referred to as "they" a lot, just because we've trained ourselves to use that pronoun with P.
is it? was unaware of identity issues in the animal kingdom. so thats a thing? I thought they just were as they are..... and acted as such generally speaking.
I'm not saying inherent gender traits in cats; I'm saying in how we treat and talk to cats. In other words, I don't think cats have gender, but we sometimes treat them as if they do. Does that make sense?
sort of. would counter with thay are ine sex or the other are they not? male cats have certain behaviors that are exclusive to the testosterone dominated and femake the same but on the estrogen dominated side....
those two hormonesaseem to dictate much according to how much of either is produced and how a given sex utilizes that dominate hormone.
the pronouns apply to both sex (biological/physiological)and gender(identity/psychological) fairly equally do they not?
I have already said I don't wish to get too deep into a discussion of sex. I feel far more comfortable talking about gender (an area about which I understand a fair amount) than sex (an area rapped up with science in a way that elucidates my own limited understanding). I'll say the same things about animals: WAY outside my bailiwick. For now, I guess suffice it to say that--in humans--society collapses gender and sex into one another in a way that makes definitive statements about the "real" biological nature of sex exceedingly problematic.
sorry, I was busy waxing science with my philosophy friends over a non-fat-extra-hot-lemon-sprinkled-pretention-filled-professor-recommended-scholar-influenced-trans-latte. (it was a cis coffee, now it's a latte).
Welcome back. Next time you step out could you bring me a plain black coffee and your dog whistle?
sorry, I was busy waxing science with my philosophy friends over a non-fat-extra-hot-lemon-sprinkled-pretention-filled-professor-recommended-scholar-influenced-trans-latte. (it was a cis coffee, now it's a latte).
Ha! I only drink cis coffee. I also refuse to say Starbucks words. But I'm kind of dickish for no reason like that.
I can't believe I made it through the whole thread...wow. I felt like it was one of those social gatherings where it starts off with a bunch of people ready to engage and interested in the discussion except then there's that 1 person who slowly drives everyone away with their unwavering arrogance of expertise on the subject. I had a philosophy professor like that once. Drove the class frickin' crazy to the point that on review day we all openly discussed how we were going to rate him so no one else ever had to suffer through the shit we did.
It broke down for me right away when I was basically accused by the Professor of being homophobic because he sees my views (actually it was just one statement) as being "linked quite directly to a long historical line of prejudice" and went on to say that "while I do not necessarily think you purposefully engage in that hate,
your speech/views here are linked quite explicitly to the speech/views
of those who do. " WTF? Like that is supposed to somehow be an incentive to get me to sit at the feet of the master and be enlightened. Besides which, the Prof obviously does not know me very well. Somebody get me a bucket!
I’ve never really understood the tendency to respond to “something you just said is mildly offensive” with “you don’t know me! Stop calling me a bad person.”
i like to learn, so I will ask a question to the board that will be a learning opportunity for me:
First of all, you never said what I said was "mildly offensive", you referred to me as being prejudiced. And I did not ask you to "stop calling me a bad person". You of all people, Professor, should know it is not good debating to misquote yourself or the other person.
As far as your loaded question scenario, I can't help you there bud because I have said nothing that isn't true. I respect your right to have your beliefs, but I don't respect you being so full of yourself. You might consider that, as I'm obviously not the only one here who thinks that is the case. And as far as wanting to be a more effective advocate, you might consider looking at your own self-inflated way of discussing an issue instead of insinuating the problem is with the other person. At this point, you've totally lost me as seeing you as an effective advocate.
And, no, you obviously don't know much about me.
See, here's the thing: I'm asking to learn. I have a sense that it is impossible to convince you that you're wrong in certain areas, but I'm happy (ecstatic) to be proven wrong. I'm asking how others have accomplished this seemingly simple feat. Has it ever happened? To phrase that differently, what have others done that made you see them as "an effective advocate?"
And, while this will go nowhere: yes, I said you were being mildly offensive. I said your statement was directly linked to a historical line of prejudice. That's basically what it means to be mildly offensive in my book: you've said something that unintentionally reinforces marginalizing discourse.
And, lastly, the "you . . . don't know much about me" is why it sounds like you think I'm calling you a bad person. I don't have to know you to know that statement's relationship to discourses of prejudice. I'm not passing judgment on you; I'm passing judgment on your words.
You keep saying you want to learn...but I haven't seen evidence of that at all. The first half of your next sentence shows your motives better, and I don;t believe the second half at all.
To be honest I am interested in the topic and understanding more. I have many questions.
So.... Theyby. Why use that instead of baby? Baby doesn't denote any specific gender. What is the purpose of changing that? To me, it honestly seems like it's more for the parents, which seems to go against the whole, let the child decide for themselves. And I guess, a child doesn't really decide for itself at the 3-4 year age where I've read gender becomes apparent to them. It's just their nature coming out. Wouldn't this come out anyhow? Couldn't you still use whatever customary pronouns exist and then just support your child as you see it?
have more questions but don't know how to type them at this point.
I've known a lot of people who give their yet unborn children little pet names. Sometimes it's because they don't want others to know the name they've chosen yet (that was part of our motivation); sometimes it's just a sort of cutesy thing (some good friends of mine called their child Biscuit until she was born). So, we went with "Theyby" as our cutesy name. Not really much more to it than that. Put differently, calling P theyby before they were born wasn't necessarily a part of raising them gender neutral, even if that decision influenced the pet name we chose.
My answer to the question I bolded is....maybe? I feel like by now I've expressed WHY we do it--our hopes for what it will accomplish--but I'm not trying to imply that ours is the only way to do it. There likely will never be a moment when we know if it "worked" or not--just like other parents, we're trying to do what we think is right/best. That's all.
As for your first paragraph, all I can say is I'm being sincere. I am absolutely an asshole the vast majority of the time, but--though I know people here have no reason to take my word for it--I work everyday to avoid being inflexible. I.e., I really do want to learn.
You keep saying "P". What is your child's legal name? I"m curious if you gave P a name that is androgynous or truly neutral.
No offense, but that's not something I feel comfortable sharing here. The name is intended to be gender neutral.
I can't believe I made it through the whole thread...wow. I felt like it was one of those social gatherings where it starts off with a bunch of people ready to engage and interested in the discussion except then there's that 1 person who slowly drives everyone away with their unwavering arrogance of expertise on the subject. I had a philosophy professor like that once. Drove the class frickin' crazy to the point that on review day we all openly discussed how we were going to rate him so no one else ever had to suffer through the shit we did.
It broke down for me right away when I was basically accused by the Professor of being homophobic because he sees my views (actually it was just one statement) as being "linked quite directly to a long historical line of prejudice" and went on to say that "while I do not necessarily think you purposefully engage in that hate,
your speech/views here are linked quite explicitly to the speech/views
of those who do. " WTF? Like that is supposed to somehow be an incentive to get me to sit at the feet of the master and be enlightened. Besides which, the Prof obviously does not know me very well. Somebody get me a bucket!
I’ve never really understood the tendency to respond to “something you just said is mildly offensive” with “you don’t know me! Stop calling me a bad person.”
i like to learn, so I will ask a question to the board that will be a learning opportunity for me:
First of all, you never said what I said was "mildly offensive", you referred to me as being prejudiced. And I did not ask you to "stop calling me a bad person". You of all people, Professor, should know it is not good debating to misquote yourself or the other person.
As far as your loaded question scenario, I can't help you there bud because I have said nothing that isn't true. I respect your right to have your beliefs, but I don't respect you being so full of yourself. You might consider that, as I'm obviously not the only one here who thinks that is the case. And as far as wanting to be a more effective advocate, you might consider looking at your own self-inflated way of discussing an issue instead of insinuating the problem is with the other person. At this point, you've totally lost me as seeing you as an effective advocate.
And, no, you obviously don't know much about me.
See, here's the thing: I'm asking to learn. I have a sense that it is impossible to convince you that you're wrong in certain areas, but I'm happy (ecstatic) to be proven wrong. I'm asking how others have accomplished this seemingly simple feat. Has it ever happened? To phrase that differently, what have others done that made you see them as "an effective advocate?"
And, while this will go nowhere: yes, I said you were being mildly offensive. I said your statement was directly linked to a historical line of prejudice. That's basically what it means to be mildly offensive in my book: you've said something that unintentionally reinforces marginalizing discourse.
And, lastly, the "you . . . don't know much about me" is why it sounds like you think I'm calling you a bad person. I don't have to know you to know that statement's relationship to discourses of prejudice. I'm not passing judgment on you; I'm passing judgment on your words.
You keep saying you want to learn...but I haven't seen evidence of that at all. The first half of your next sentence shows your motives better, and I don;t believe the second half at all.
To be honest I am interested in the topic and understanding more. I have many questions.
So.... Theyby. Why use that instead of baby? Baby doesn't denote any specific gender. What is the purpose of changing that? To me, it honestly seems like it's more for the parents, which seems to go against the whole, let the child decide for themselves. And I guess, a child doesn't really decide for itself at the 3-4 year age where I've read gender becomes apparent to them. It's just their nature coming out. Wouldn't this come out anyhow? Couldn't you still use whatever customary pronouns exist and then just support your child as you see it?
have more questions but don't know how to type them at this point.
I've known a lot of people who give their yet unborn children little pet names. Sometimes it's because they don't want others to know the name they've chosen yet (that was part of our motivation); sometimes it's just a sort of cutesy thing (some good friends of mine called their child Biscuit until she was born). So, we went with "Theyby" as our cutesy name. Not really much more to it than that. Put differently, calling P theyby before they were born wasn't necessarily a part of raising them gender neutral, even if that decision influenced the pet name we chose.
My answer to the question I bolded is....maybe? I feel like by now I've expressed WHY we do it--our hopes for what it will accomplish--but I'm not trying to imply that ours is the only way to do it. There likely will never be a moment when we know if it "worked" or not--just like other parents, we're trying to do what we think is right/best. That's all.
As for your first paragraph, all I can say is I'm being sincere. I am absolutely an asshole the vast majority of the time, but--though I know people here have no reason to take my word for it--I work everyday to avoid being inflexible. I.e., I really do want to learn.
You keep saying "P". What is your child's legal name? I"m curious if you gave P a name that is androgynous or truly neutral.
No offense, but that's not something I feel comfortable sharing here. The name is intended to be gender neutral.
I can't believe I made it through the whole thread...wow. I felt like it was one of those social gatherings where it starts off with a bunch of people ready to engage and interested in the discussion except then there's that 1 person who slowly drives everyone away with their unwavering arrogance of expertise on the subject. I had a philosophy professor like that once. Drove the class frickin' crazy to the point that on review day we all openly discussed how we were going to rate him so no one else ever had to suffer through the shit we did.
It broke down for me right away when I was basically accused by the Professor of being homophobic because he sees my views (actually it was just one statement) as being "linked quite directly to a long historical line of prejudice" and went on to say that "while I do not necessarily think you purposefully engage in that hate,
your speech/views here are linked quite explicitly to the speech/views
of those who do. " WTF? Like that is supposed to somehow be an incentive to get me to sit at the feet of the master and be enlightened. Besides which, the Prof obviously does not know me very well. Somebody get me a bucket!
I’ve never really understood the tendency to respond to “something you just said is mildly offensive” with “you don’t know me! Stop calling me a bad person.”
i like to learn, so I will ask a question to the board that will be a learning opportunity for me:
First of all, you never said what I said was "mildly offensive", you referred to me as being prejudiced. And I did not ask you to "stop calling me a bad person". You of all people, Professor, should know it is not good debating to misquote yourself or the other person.
As far as your loaded question scenario, I can't help you there bud because I have said nothing that isn't true. I respect your right to have your beliefs, but I don't respect you being so full of yourself. You might consider that, as I'm obviously not the only one here who thinks that is the case. And as far as wanting to be a more effective advocate, you might consider looking at your own self-inflated way of discussing an issue instead of insinuating the problem is with the other person. At this point, you've totally lost me as seeing you as an effective advocate.
And, no, you obviously don't know much about me.
See, here's the thing: I'm asking to learn. I have a sense that it is impossible to convince you that you're wrong in certain areas, but I'm happy (ecstatic) to be proven wrong. I'm asking how others have accomplished this seemingly simple feat. Has it ever happened? To phrase that differently, what have others done that made you see them as "an effective advocate?"
And, while this will go nowhere: yes, I said you were being mildly offensive. I said your statement was directly linked to a historical line of prejudice. That's basically what it means to be mildly offensive in my book: you've said something that unintentionally reinforces marginalizing discourse.
And, lastly, the "you . . . don't know much about me" is why it sounds like you think I'm calling you a bad person. I don't have to know you to know that statement's relationship to discourses of prejudice. I'm not passing judgment on you; I'm passing judgment on your words.
You keep saying you want to learn...but I haven't seen evidence of that at all. The first half of your next sentence shows your motives better, and I don;t believe the second half at all.
To be honest I am interested in the topic and understanding more. I have many questions.
So.... Theyby. Why use that instead of baby? Baby doesn't denote any specific gender. What is the purpose of changing that? To me, it honestly seems like it's more for the parents, which seems to go against the whole, let the child decide for themselves. And I guess, a child doesn't really decide for itself at the 3-4 year age where I've read gender becomes apparent to them. It's just their nature coming out. Wouldn't this come out anyhow? Couldn't you still use whatever customary pronouns exist and then just support your child as you see it?
have more questions but don't know how to type them at this point.
I've known a lot of people who give their yet unborn children little pet names. Sometimes it's because they don't want others to know the name they've chosen yet (that was part of our motivation); sometimes it's just a sort of cutesy thing (some good friends of mine called their child Biscuit until she was born). So, we went with "Theyby" as our cutesy name. Not really much more to it than that. Put differently, calling P theyby before they were born wasn't necessarily a part of raising them gender neutral, even if that decision influenced the pet name we chose.
My answer to the question I bolded is....maybe? I feel like by now I've expressed WHY we do it--our hopes for what it will accomplish--but I'm not trying to imply that ours is the only way to do it. There likely will never be a moment when we know if it "worked" or not--just like other parents, we're trying to do what we think is right/best. That's all.
As for your first paragraph, all I can say is I'm being sincere. I am absolutely an asshole the vast majority of the time, but--though I know people here have no reason to take my word for it--I work everyday to avoid being inflexible. I.e., I really do want to learn.
You keep saying "P". What is your child's legal name? I"m curious if you gave P a name that is androgynous or truly neutral.
No offense, but that's not something I feel comfortable sharing here. The name is intended to be gender neutral.
Takes a bit man to poke fun at a 9-month-old.
yeah, I'm making fun of a baby. get a grip dude. you said "P", and gender neutral., made me think of that old SNL skit (and horrendous movie).
I can't believe I made it through the whole thread...wow. I felt like it was one of those social gatherings where it starts off with a bunch of people ready to engage and interested in the discussion except then there's that 1 person who slowly drives everyone away with their unwavering arrogance of expertise on the subject. I had a philosophy professor like that once. Drove the class frickin' crazy to the point that on review day we all openly discussed how we were going to rate him so no one else ever had to suffer through the shit we did.
It broke down for me right away when I was basically accused by the Professor of being homophobic because he sees my views (actually it was just one statement) as being "linked quite directly to a long historical line of prejudice" and went on to say that "while I do not necessarily think you purposefully engage in that hate,
your speech/views here are linked quite explicitly to the speech/views
of those who do. " WTF? Like that is supposed to somehow be an incentive to get me to sit at the feet of the master and be enlightened. Besides which, the Prof obviously does not know me very well. Somebody get me a bucket!
I’ve never really understood the tendency to respond to “something you just said is mildly offensive” with “you don’t know me! Stop calling me a bad person.”
i like to learn, so I will ask a question to the board that will be a learning opportunity for me:
First of all, you never said what I said was "mildly offensive", you referred to me as being prejudiced. And I did not ask you to "stop calling me a bad person". You of all people, Professor, should know it is not good debating to misquote yourself or the other person.
As far as your loaded question scenario, I can't help you there bud because I have said nothing that isn't true. I respect your right to have your beliefs, but I don't respect you being so full of yourself. You might consider that, as I'm obviously not the only one here who thinks that is the case. And as far as wanting to be a more effective advocate, you might consider looking at your own self-inflated way of discussing an issue instead of insinuating the problem is with the other person. At this point, you've totally lost me as seeing you as an effective advocate.
And, no, you obviously don't know much about me.
See, here's the thing: I'm asking to learn. I have a sense that it is impossible to convince you that you're wrong in certain areas, but I'm happy (ecstatic) to be proven wrong. I'm asking how others have accomplished this seemingly simple feat. Has it ever happened? To phrase that differently, what have others done that made you see them as "an effective advocate?"
And, while this will go nowhere: yes, I said you were being mildly offensive. I said your statement was directly linked to a historical line of prejudice. That's basically what it means to be mildly offensive in my book: you've said something that unintentionally reinforces marginalizing discourse.
And, lastly, the "you . . . don't know much about me" is why it sounds like you think I'm calling you a bad person. I don't have to know you to know that statement's relationship to discourses of prejudice. I'm not passing judgment on you; I'm passing judgment on your words.
You keep saying you want to learn...but I haven't seen evidence of that at all. The first half of your next sentence shows your motives better, and I don;t believe the second half at all.
To be honest I am interested in the topic and understanding more. I have many questions.
So.... Theyby. Why use that instead of baby? Baby doesn't denote any specific gender. What is the purpose of changing that? To me, it honestly seems like it's more for the parents, which seems to go against the whole, let the child decide for themselves. And I guess, a child doesn't really decide for itself at the 3-4 year age where I've read gender becomes apparent to them. It's just their nature coming out. Wouldn't this come out anyhow? Couldn't you still use whatever customary pronouns exist and then just support your child as you see it?
have more questions but don't know how to type them at this point.
I've known a lot of people who give their yet unborn children little pet names. Sometimes it's because they don't want others to know the name they've chosen yet (that was part of our motivation); sometimes it's just a sort of cutesy thing (some good friends of mine called their child Biscuit until she was born). So, we went with "Theyby" as our cutesy name. Not really much more to it than that. Put differently, calling P theyby before they were born wasn't necessarily a part of raising them gender neutral, even if that decision influenced the pet name we chose.
My answer to the question I bolded is....maybe? I feel like by now I've expressed WHY we do it--our hopes for what it will accomplish--but I'm not trying to imply that ours is the only way to do it. There likely will never be a moment when we know if it "worked" or not--just like other parents, we're trying to do what we think is right/best. That's all.
As for your first paragraph, all I can say is I'm being sincere. I am absolutely an asshole the vast majority of the time, but--though I know people here have no reason to take my word for it--I work everyday to avoid being inflexible. I.e., I really do want to learn.
You keep saying "P". What is your child's legal name? I"m curious if you gave P a name that is androgynous or truly neutral.
No offense, but that's not something I feel comfortable sharing here. The name is intended to be gender neutral.
Takes a bit man to poke fun at a 9-month-old.
yeah, I'm making fun of a baby. get a grip dude. you said "P", and gender neutral., made me think of that old SNL skit (and horrendous movie).
You responded to a post about my child's name with a reference to an offensively dated mockery.
I can't believe I made it through the whole thread...wow. I felt like it was one of those social gatherings where it starts off with a bunch of people ready to engage and interested in the discussion except then there's that 1 person who slowly drives everyone away with their unwavering arrogance of expertise on the subject. I had a philosophy professor like that once. Drove the class frickin' crazy to the point that on review day we all openly discussed how we were going to rate him so no one else ever had to suffer through the shit we did.
It broke down for me right away when I was basically accused by the Professor of being homophobic because he sees my views (actually it was just one statement) as being "linked quite directly to a long historical line of prejudice" and went on to say that "while I do not necessarily think you purposefully engage in that hate,
your speech/views here are linked quite explicitly to the speech/views
of those who do. " WTF? Like that is supposed to somehow be an incentive to get me to sit at the feet of the master and be enlightened. Besides which, the Prof obviously does not know me very well. Somebody get me a bucket!
I’ve never really understood the tendency to respond to “something you just said is mildly offensive” with “you don’t know me! Stop calling me a bad person.”
i like to learn, so I will ask a question to the board that will be a learning opportunity for me:
First of all, you never said what I said was "mildly offensive", you referred to me as being prejudiced. And I did not ask you to "stop calling me a bad person". You of all people, Professor, should know it is not good debating to misquote yourself or the other person.
As far as your loaded question scenario, I can't help you there bud because I have said nothing that isn't true. I respect your right to have your beliefs, but I don't respect you being so full of yourself. You might consider that, as I'm obviously not the only one here who thinks that is the case. And as far as wanting to be a more effective advocate, you might consider looking at your own self-inflated way of discussing an issue instead of insinuating the problem is with the other person. At this point, you've totally lost me as seeing you as an effective advocate.
And, no, you obviously don't know much about me.
See, here's the thing: I'm asking to learn. I have a sense that it is impossible to convince you that you're wrong in certain areas, but I'm happy (ecstatic) to be proven wrong. I'm asking how others have accomplished this seemingly simple feat. Has it ever happened? To phrase that differently, what have others done that made you see them as "an effective advocate?"
And, while this will go nowhere: yes, I said you were being mildly offensive. I said your statement was directly linked to a historical line of prejudice. That's basically what it means to be mildly offensive in my book: you've said something that unintentionally reinforces marginalizing discourse.
And, lastly, the "you . . . don't know much about me" is why it sounds like you think I'm calling you a bad person. I don't have to know you to know that statement's relationship to discourses of prejudice. I'm not passing judgment on you; I'm passing judgment on your words.
You keep saying you want to learn...but I haven't seen evidence of that at all. The first half of your next sentence shows your motives better, and I don;t believe the second half at all.
To be honest I am interested in the topic and understanding more. I have many questions.
So.... Theyby. Why use that instead of baby? Baby doesn't denote any specific gender. What is the purpose of changing that? To me, it honestly seems like it's more for the parents, which seems to go against the whole, let the child decide for themselves. And I guess, a child doesn't really decide for itself at the 3-4 year age where I've read gender becomes apparent to them. It's just their nature coming out. Wouldn't this come out anyhow? Couldn't you still use whatever customary pronouns exist and then just support your child as you see it?
have more questions but don't know how to type them at this point.
I've known a lot of people who give their yet unborn children little pet names. Sometimes it's because they don't want others to know the name they've chosen yet (that was part of our motivation); sometimes it's just a sort of cutesy thing (some good friends of mine called their child Biscuit until she was born). So, we went with "Theyby" as our cutesy name. Not really much more to it than that. Put differently, calling P theyby before they were born wasn't necessarily a part of raising them gender neutral, even if that decision influenced the pet name we chose.
My answer to the question I bolded is....maybe? I feel like by now I've expressed WHY we do it--our hopes for what it will accomplish--but I'm not trying to imply that ours is the only way to do it. There likely will never be a moment when we know if it "worked" or not--just like other parents, we're trying to do what we think is right/best. That's all.
As for your first paragraph, all I can say is I'm being sincere. I am absolutely an asshole the vast majority of the time, but--though I know people here have no reason to take my word for it--I work everyday to avoid being inflexible. I.e., I really do want to learn.
You keep saying "P". What is your child's legal name? I"m curious if you gave P a name that is androgynous or truly neutral.
No offense, but that's not something I feel comfortable sharing here. The name is intended to be gender neutral.
Takes a bit man to poke fun at a 9-month-old.
yeah, I'm making fun of a baby. get a grip dude. you said "P", and gender neutral., made me think of that old SNL skit (and horrendous movie).
Since you like coffee, maybe we could meet up for some at one of the upcoming shows. My treat.
Rule of thumb on the AMT.. if you piss off @brianlux, it's probably you. It's pretty simple. Brian is the nicest, least argumentative person that's a regular here.
Didn’t see you post it before I said basically the same thing again. Right on
sorry, I was busy waxing science with my philosophy friends over a non-fat-extra-hot-lemon-sprinkled-pretention-filled-professor-recommended-scholar-influenced-trans-latte. (it was a cis coffee, now it's a latte).
Ha! I only drink cis coffee. I also refuse to say Starbucks words. But I'm kind of dickish for no reason like that.
honestly I like starbucks coffee, but all that nonsense about all the specifications is kind of intimidating. LOL
if you are truly offended by that, then fine, my apologies and I will edit my post.
It hit a nerve because a very old professor brought up this SNL skit at a social event while asking about my child. It took everything in my power not to floor the old codger right there.
Rule of thumb on the AMT.. if you piss off @brianlux, it's probably you. It's pretty simple. Brian is the nicest, least argumentative person that's a regular here.
Didn’t see you post it before I said basically the same thing again. Right on
Rule of thumb on the AMT.. if you piss off @brianlux, it's probably you. It's pretty simple. Brian is the nicest, least argumentative person that's a regular here.
Didn’t see you post it before I said basically the same thing again. Right on
with a few minor exceptions over the years, it's actually true. he's very difficult to piss off. he is very fair, balanced, and level headed most of the time. and when he once went over the line, he BANNED HIMSELF FOR 3 MONTHS. seriously.
if you are truly offended by that, then fine, my apologies and I will edit my post.
It hit a nerve because a very old professor brought up this SNL skit at a social event while asking about my child. It took everything in my power not to floor the old codger right there.
that skit was more commentary about society at large than mockery of an obviously gender neutral person who seemed quite comfortable being just Pat. Perhaps it was more meant as a learning experience for the ignorant on the topic and way ahead of its time. WE were the fools not Pat. Pat won out every single time as just Pat. Where is the mockery in that.
have you ever considered that take?
if I may suggest something I hope is helpful to you, not everyone or most think as you and your spouse. Prepare yourself for more of the same from uncouth in the moment unthinking people. What will come isnt about your personally or your child per se but more about the out in the public sphere newness of this new(to most of us) reality. Keep it in check or wind up in jail or worse......
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
if you are truly offended by that, then fine, my apologies and I will edit my post.
It hit a nerve because a very old professor brought up this SNL skit at a social event while asking about my child. It took everything in my power not to floor the old codger right there.
fair enough. I wouldn't do such a thing. I wasn't thinking that it was insulting your child, not at all, so my apologies. it was never my intent. I have kids who have been brought up in discussions here so I get it. My bad.
Rule of thumb on the AMT.. if you piss off @brianlux, it's probably you. It's pretty simple. Brian is the nicest, least argumentative person that's a regular here.
Didn’t see you post it before I said basically the same thing again. Right on
I thought you liked to learn? Apparently not. You just like to lash out with pictures like some others around these parts.
Rule of thumb on the AMT.. if you piss off @brianlux, it's probably you. It's pretty simple. Brian is the nicest, least argumentative person that's a regular here.
Didn’t see you post it before I said basically the same thing again. Right on
with a few minor exceptions over the years, it's actually true. he's very difficult to piss off. he is very fair, balanced, and level headed most of the time. and when he once went over the line, he BANNED HIMSELF FOR 3 MONTHS. seriously.
I can only go on what I've seen; I understand others going on what they've seen. FWIW, I don't find it at all hard to believe that Brianlux is a good dude. I have tried to avoid passing any judgement on his character.
if you are truly offended by that, then fine, my apologies and I will edit my post.
It hit a nerve because a very old professor brought up this SNL skit at a social event while asking about my child. It took everything in my power not to floor the old codger right there.
that skit was more commentary about society at large than mockery of an obviously gender neutral person who seemed quite comfortable being just Pat. Perhaps it was more meant as a learning experience for the ignorant on the topic and way ahead of its time. WE were the fools not Pat. Pat won out every single time as just Pat. Where is the mockery in that.
have you ever considered that take?
if I may suggest something I hope is helpful to you, not everyone or most think as you and your spouse. Prepare yourself for more of the same from uncouth in the moment unthinking people. What will come isnt about your personally or your child per se but more about the out in the public sphere newness of this new(to most of us) reality. Keep it in check or wind up in jail or worse......
Many satires belittle their subjects even as they try to elucidate injustice. I thank you for raising the point, but I don't fully buy your reading of the skit.
Comments
EDIT: An ironic double post it appears.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
sorry, I was busy waxing science with my philosophy friends over a non-fat-extra-hot-lemon-sprinkled-pretention-filled-professor-recommended-scholar-influenced-trans-latte. (it was a cis coffee, now it's a latte).
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com