So you're not so much looking for a discussion as you are an echo chamber to further reinforce your own opinion without the inconvenience of anyone trying to offer a differing one?Darken12 said:
Sweden Moves Towards Gender Neutrality [Support Thread]
- Thread starter Darken12
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Not only that, but you are openly admitting you think that gender neutrality is inherently "better" and thus by banning traditional words, you are discriminating against those who may think otherwise.ImmortalDrifter said:
These types of issues are such a huge can of worms. It's very easy to say "equality for all!" and then implement that under the guise of "doing the right thing" however it does not take into account the fact that the people who oppose it are being excluded.
Intolerance of intolerance is still intolerance.
This seems like more of a general language fix, not having a gender neutral pronoun seems like an easy way to create confusion in everyday conversation.
My opinion on the gender neutrality issue probably comes across a lot less liberal than others here because I'm all for gender equality but I fail to see why neutrality is the highest goal for gender progressivism. Creating unisex toys and incorporating new words may have an effect on the social aspects of gender but there are still biologic differences between girls and boys that are set in stone.
I don't really see what's wrong with genders having distinct differences in strengths and interests.
My opinion on the gender neutrality issue probably comes across a lot less liberal than others here because I'm all for gender equality but I fail to see why neutrality is the highest goal for gender progressivism. Creating unisex toys and incorporating new words may have an effect on the social aspects of gender but there are still biologic differences between girls and boys that are set in stone.
I don't really see what's wrong with genders having distinct differences in strengths and interests.
I have no problems with stating opinions neutrally. What I want to avoid is a flame war, as they are against the rules of the board and yet they keep happening. Nothing I am advocating is against the rules of the board, I am merely strongly encouraging people to stay neutral or positive as a positive reinforcement to avoid flame wars.themyrmidon said:
One day, I'm going to find a way to address a controversial topic in a way that does not sire a flame war. There must be some way I can phrase it.Loonyyy said:
Personal anecdote time, my primary school actually banned trading cards because they were the source of an incredibly amount of fighting, disputing and a whole array of problems. Rather than consuming manpower and resources dealing with all that individually, the school just banned them. It's possible that's what happened here.Loonyyy said:
Divergent opinion is fine. As it was quoted earlier in the thread, the board rules emphasise HOW you say things, not what. The intent is to avoid flame wars that get threads locked. The request at the end of the post states A) the intention of the thread (support/positive), which you are not required to follow, but would be polite and courteous if you did, B) a deterrent to avoid flame wars, and C) a reminder for people to stay polite.CrossLOPER said:
Clearly I must edit the OP, as it is sending the wrong message. Dissenting opinion is allowed, so long as it does not devolve into a flame war.Sir Thomas Sean Connery said:
Counter-opinions are allowed, so long as they are expressed politely and within the boundaries of the forum rules.V da Mighty Taco said:
Firstly, there is plenty of discussion to be had while maintaining a neutral or positive attitude. Secondly, counter opinions are allowed, so long as they are within board rules.KeyMaster45 said:
For the benefits of free will? Uhm yeah, I would say so. Mutual respect by way of forcing everyone to say and be the same holds no value. Only by accepting we're different from eachother and that that's okay gives it value.LollieVanDam said:
And that pushback did happen, it's called feminism.
But it says in one of the articles they got rid of them because the boys 'gender coded' them and preferred them over the other toys.Darken12 said:
Yes, and this may have caused fighting and trouble as those toys were valued precisely because they are gender-coded as male. There is a strong undercurrent in most of society to overvalue and praise things or qualities that are seen as male (ambition, aggression, strength, fortitude, etc), and to devalue and denigrate what is female (except under highly specific circumstances, such as motherhood and caretaking). It's possible that the toys were overvalued because they were seen as male, and therefore were the source of excessive strife among kids.Genocidicles said:
I'm not saying this is what happened, I'm merely offering a theory. I'd agree that if they were removed simply because they were favoured by boys (and this brought no strife whatsoever) then the decision was somewhat hasty.
Atrocious Joystick said:
I never used the term "retarded" nor would I ever in a situation such as this. "Idiot" is something I use very loosely, and I'm sorry if anyone is offended by my use of that particular word. I guess I'm just so very tired of seeing people criticize something for all the wrong reasons.
It's kind of cute though that you tell me to ease up on the black and white thinking while using the term "you people".
You specifically said "This thread is intended as a positive take on the matter. It is not intended to condemn or derogate these practices, but to show our support. This is a positive thread. If you oppose these practices, please create your own thread for that. Thank you."Darken12 said:
That quote specifically states that any opinions condemning Sweden's decision are not allowed, which counter arguments inherently are meant to do. You also specifically kept repeating that only positive takes and support of the matter were allowed, and anyone who opposes Sweden's practices should just make their own thread. There is no misreading that - you're OP clearly made counter-arguments and disagreeing forbidden. A thread dedicated entirely to supporting only one side of an issue has no discussion value by it's very nature, hence people's issues with your OP.
If you wanted to not have a flamewar, you should have just said to keep things mature and that you don't want this to get locked due to flamewars. Banning opposing viewpoints is only going to make things worse and greatly increase the likely hood of the thread getting locked, which is counterproductive to want you apparently want. I'd definitely suggest editing the OP if your intent was simply not to have a flamewar.
EDIT: Just saw the edit to the OP, which was done while I was typing this post. The OP is now much better and actually has discussion value now. Kudos to Darken for fixing that.
I never said they were not allowed, I was merely hoping to keep the thread as positive, friendly and supportive as possible. After the massive backlash, I decided to clarify what I meant, as apparently politely requesting people to stay positive is some sort of capital offence.V da Mighty Taco said:
A positive thread has plenty of discussion value. Discussion is not wholly limited to whether you are for or against something. People can be for something and still discuss the intricacies of the matter. In this case, we could discuss what other measures could be taken, if this could be applied to the English language, the country's take on children education (as I'm discussing with another poster) and so on.
As a Norwegian (neighbor of Sweden) I can't personally see what's wrong with "dem" ("them", but also "mr" and "mrs" and "ms" interchangeably) which has been used to replace han/hun in Norwegian, Danish and Swedish speech since, well, forever. However, if a need was spotted and they moved on it, obviously it's not my place to say that the need was stupid or the solution redundant. The Scandinavian countries rarely pull political nonsense for no good reason, so someone had to feel this was needed at some point.
Also, I thought Scandinavia was already "perfect" (I know nothing is perfect) when it comes to gender equality, hell Norway was the first country on earth to let women vote and has a demand on companies to try to get 50% women representation in every boardroom.
I think this is more the result of running out of ideas rather than implementing a useful solution to a problem, since "hen" sounds pretty funny and weird if you know Swedish.
Also, I thought Scandinavia was already "perfect" (I know nothing is perfect) when it comes to gender equality, hell Norway was the first country on earth to let women vote and has a demand on companies to try to get 50% women representation in every boardroom.
I think this is more the result of running out of ideas rather than implementing a useful solution to a problem, since "hen" sounds pretty funny and weird if you know Swedish.
Hm. I'm not 100% on all this. Whilst on one hand, gender equality is all nice and good, and yeah, gender roles are restrictive, but I think it's a definite mistake to treat boys and girls in the same way because they're not the same. This isn't sexism, or gender roles, they just are. I'm not saying that our society's gender roles are great and that's what boys and girls naturally aspire to, but pretending they're the same seems equally bad to me.
I did have to study a load of stuff on sexism in language for my A-levels, it's interesting, and yeah, I kinda see that it's unfair, but ultimately I think it's a touch too pedantic to really give a damn about. For a comparison, 'sinister' comes from the Latin for left, but I've never met a lefthanded person give anything other than a chuckle over it.
I also have a sneaking suspicion that from an evolutionary standpoint (forgetting ethics at the door), gender roles are kinda... good.
I did have to study a load of stuff on sexism in language for my A-levels, it's interesting, and yeah, I kinda see that it's unfair, but ultimately I think it's a touch too pedantic to really give a damn about. For a comparison, 'sinister' comes from the Latin for left, but I've never met a lefthanded person give anything other than a chuckle over it.
I also have a sneaking suspicion that from an evolutionary standpoint (forgetting ethics at the door), gender roles are kinda... good.
This is THE feminist issue. The ultimate goal of feminism is to dismantle patriarchal constructs of gender roles and societal norms. The movement is ultimately dedicated to total equality, not simply women's rights.generals3 said:
What's the harm, though? If we raise children neutrally and tell them that they can be whatever they want to be, and that nobody will judge them for their career or lifestyle choices, isn't that fostering more freedom and equality? You will have your stereotypically manly men and your stereotypically womanly women, but you can also have (straight and cis) men who like pink, are ballet dancers and househusbands, and (straight and cis) women who like sports, cars, wearing suits and are pro athletes, soldiers or miners.TheRightToArmBears said:
I fail to see how raising children to be free from the restrictions of gender is a bad thing. Nobody will stop them from being as stereotypical as they want to be, they are just being raised without harmful and oppressive expectations.
Not touching the evopsych with a ten foot pole. I don't want the thread to go down in flames.
This is my main gripe with a lot of these 'modern' issues. The thinking behind it is something I must be allergic or intolerant to, as no matter what dosage of gender politics reading I've exposed myself to, it always tends to make me feel sick.TacticalAssassin1 said:
See, the transformative forces of these 'progressive' thinkers claim to bring love, peace and happiness to mankind in general and societies (and the individuals they are made of) in particular. Thing is, so far, they are mainly divisive forces. They are intent to dismiss and deconstruct everything old, but the new they've made up is silly at best and scary by default. A lot of it follows the basic strategies laid out by Marx, and as such, they are constructed to demean, undermine, cripple and confuse the powers that be. The demonisation of the - political - enemy is not random, it is part of plan. Mao and Marx are still very much alive, and as long as there is something worth being torn down, desecrated or destroyed, some people will always find it very easy to see beauty and purpose in whatever heinous deed needs to be done to maximize the damage.
The transformers of society might oftentimes dress up as your friends or someone who is inclined to understand your very own, personal struggle. In the end, you'll always be their *****, their lackey, their foot soldier in their ongoing war not for you and your soul, but in their ideological struggle for new man, a supposedly better man, a man not bound by culture, religion, nation or creed.
I didn't come here to pee in your thread, Darken12. I respect you as an intelligent and caring human being. I just don't happen to agree on certain topics that are, alas, very important to you.
The outcome of the Swedish human experiment... we'll have to sit and wait and see. Let's talk about it in, say, ten to twenty years time. By then, we'll see how much confusion and damage it was allowed to cause in the weakest of society. If I'm wrong and Darken12's communicated line of thinking is right, children will grow up free and strong, not burdened with having to care about all this nonsensical gender malarkey. If, however, I and mine are right, we'll see quite a disruptive, pathogenic effect on indigenous people and people that are not wealthy enough to prevent their children from taking part in this latest experiment.
I like the idea of a more or less all-inclusive society, but that's an utopia, a dream - not reality. Immigrant communities that are allowed to live their own culture might be able to withstand this egalitarian/feminist attack better than the indigenous population. Which consequently raises the question about the real purpose of stunts like this. Egalitarian practices only really make sense when they are universal and compulsory - for everyone, no exceptions. Since most of us don't live in totalitarian societies that force us to live that one ideal to live happy and be left in peace, people who oppose such notions will be marginalized, ridiculed, pestered and, in the end, oppressed.
Where I come from, where my genes were stored for three generations, do you know what they called people that prayed to God, conducted Christmas or Easter or other religious holidays and rites? Bogana. No, it was not 'Bogan'. It was the 'god people'. It was a slur. A bad word. A word that could get you in trouble in the socialist paradise of Tito's national communism. Yeah, communists claim that this description does not fit. I don't care, we lived in it and we survived it, albeit mostly by luck, refusing to die and eating maggots and rats and wet dirt.
You don't know what demon you're praying to, and you'll only realize it once you've successfully summoned it.
May you live in interesting times.
I edited my post after seeing the OP update, as the post was being typed while you made the edit.Darken12 said:
However, you did in fact forbid counter-arguments. Your exact words were "It is not intended to condemn or derogate these practices, but to show our support. This is a positive thread. If you oppose these practices, please create your own thread for that." Once again, a counter argument by it's very nature condemns the viewpoint in question, and you explicitly forbade condemning Sweden's decision. Nowhere along the lines did you're pre-edit OP merely request counter-arguments to be polite and reasonable, but instead told people to only support Sweden's decision. Your OP is much better now, but there's no denying what it originally said.
As for your point that an all-support thread has discussion value, I strongly disagree. A thread that only allows for agreeing viewpoints (in this case that Sweden's decision was a good thing) and tells people who would condemn said viewpoints to leave doesn't encourage people to discuss the validity of said viewpoint and as well as other viewpoints. Instead, all discussion becomes varying degrees of the same exact thing - that the original point is right. That's not a discussion, that's merely reinforcing one specific viewpoint. What purpose does that serve? The point of a discussion is to provide greater perspective on a subject in the hopes of becoming more knowledgable. Doing nothing more than repeating the same viewpoint over and over does not provide any new perspective in any way, and thus does not serve the basic purpose of a discussion. A discussion's primary point should be to hear counter-opinions and other people's perspectives, not the other way around. Preventing opinions that condemn the original opinion is counter to the point of a discussion, and thus eliminates the value of the discussion. Hence, no discussion value.
I fully respect your viewpoints and I want to thank you for your politeness, but I fear your views are (perhaps justifiably, due to your background) one-sided. Random change happens organically. Focused change needs effort, and meets resistance. My personal intent is not to divide or demonise, but to avoid having social progress drowned in a sea of mindless, fear-driven backlash. I wish I could just post the link and say "discuss!" and know that people will be respectful and polite, and that the thread won't be locked because the discussion is not vicious. But that's not the case. At least here, these issues tend to devolve into a flame war between the fear-driven reactionaries and the "I've had enough" supporters (I count myself amongst the latter).Headdrivehardscrew said:
A truly surprising number of people flat-out do not know how to retain their composure and calm when faced with something that scares or angers them. They lash out, unthinkingly, and the flame war begins. Hence my overbearing requests to keep people polite.
Now, personally, I believe in the deconstruction and systematic destruction of traditions that disempower and oppress, yes, but not at the expense of human dignity. I wouldn't condone the things you're describing. I wouldn't use those views to justify inhuman means.
Then it was my mistake, because I was going by the (unstated) assumption that disagreement was allowed. My requests were to avoid things like "this is the work of fucking morons who should die" and that sort of thing. I should have been more clear.V da Mighty Taco said:
I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. I've had fascinating conversations with fellow feminists on different aspects of feminism, with LGBTQ+ activists on the nature of LGBTQ+ rights, hate crimes and so on, and with fellow scientists on the application of different results. Sometimes pouring new ideas, adding onto someone else's conjectures, offering critical analysis and proposing alternatives is just as enriching as debating a subject with someone who disagrees (or, in my opinion, far more so than simply saying "welp, we'll have to agree to disagree" after you've established that the two of you are never going to go anywhere in the conversation).V da Mighty Taco said:
So "they" CAN be used in singular and still be considered grammatically correct?
-Well and good then; That means I can drop the clunky "he/she" and "(s)he" constructions, that I have persistantly been using, for lack of something better. (EDIT: Would still prefer a proper, dedicated word, though...)
Swedish does not have an equivalent pronoun to specify an individal of unknown/irrelevant gender, so I, for one, welcome the initiative.
It is just unfortunate how the bulk of people, right here on this forum, as well as elsewhere, can apparently not resist second-guessing the whole thing and mistakenly (...or deliberately obfuscatingly...) assume there is more to it than lexical clarity, and then proceed to project their own gender politics agenda onto it...
-Well and good then; That means I can drop the clunky "he/she" and "(s)he" constructions, that I have persistantly been using, for lack of something better. (EDIT: Would still prefer a proper, dedicated word, though...)
Swedish does not have an equivalent pronoun to specify an individal of unknown/irrelevant gender, so I, for one, welcome the initiative.
It is just unfortunate how the bulk of people, right here on this forum, as well as elsewhere, can apparently not resist second-guessing the whole thing and mistakenly (...or deliberately obfuscatingly...) assume there is more to it than lexical clarity, and then proceed to project their own gender politics agenda onto it...