![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"But I'm so over defending my own humanity. I'm so over providing a power-point presentation about the fact that I exist. And I'm completely done with engaging with anyone who has a clever theory explaining why they actually understand my soul better than I do.
"To be blunt: if your crazy-ass theory of the world doesn't ease the suffering of people whom you do not understand, maybe what you actually need is a new theory."
-- Jennifer Boylan, 2017-02-18, "I'm all done explaining my humanity"
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
The rights not afforded usually start with "not given the benefit of the doubt about their own internal experience", which is almost certainly what the original quote is bout. ("Oh, you're not really X, because I don't believe X is a real thing.")
(no subject)
I believe you, Dglenn, myself, and quite probably Jennifer Boylan are all in full agreement on the fundamental point, that people should be allowed to define themselves, and once they have communicated that definitions to others those others should make effort to treat them according to that definition.
I think Boylan is letting their fury affect their phrasing, making it a bit difficult for me to follow. Helping me understand is not a responsibility of Boylan's, but if Boylan does wish to be understood, my own experience suggests careful attention to phrasing is helpful.
(no subject)
Yes. It does.
I don't know what that might be, and was asking for clarification.
You got it.
I believe you, Dglenn, myself, and quite probably Jennifer Boylan are all in full agreement on the fundamental point
That is not the impression I am getting of you from your questions here.
You are coming across as belligerantly pedantic and demanding justification, not earnestly information seeking. Between this and your original question you make clear you think you are entitled to condemn Boylan for how she expresses herself, because you assume it is she who has made a mistake of expression and not you who has made the mistake of assuming your ignorance was another's error.
I am in the moment happy to answer your question – whether I still will be if/when you respond to it, I have no idea – but I don't answer rude questions, I don't answer questions in obvious bad faith, and I don't answer questions that misgender trans people.
Jennifer is a woman. As such and absent declarations to the contrary, her pronouns are she/her/hers.
Accidental belligerence
I have an ongoing problem with coming across in text as hostile when I do not intend to and do not know what in my behavior is being so interpreted. Thanks for bearing with me.
Pedantic I understand, I agree I have a problem with that, and I'm working on it. If you could point to what it is I'm doing that turns 'pedantic' into 'belligerent', I'd appreciate it.
You write that Metahacker's response to my question of what a sentient non-person was answered it. In my response to him (I *think* "him", not really sure) I point out the pronoun issue -- Metahacker's response talks about "the person who needs convincing" believing in them. It seems to me that the "they" in his response refers to the "person who needs convincing", not the sentient non-person. Both sentience and personhood are undefined in this conversation.
If I understand *your* response correctly, the problem is that the convincee believes in sentient non-people, but sentient non-people do not in fact exist. Is that what you mean to convey?
If it is, any further quibbles I have I will fully agree are pedantic and not worthy of pursuit, unless I can find a sentient non-person with whom to discuss the topic.
I have no idea if I am "entitled" to condemn Boylan; I did not have any intention of doing so and if I did it's not clear to me how I did so. If you think I did, could you please point out how?
Since I don't know Boylan, and the subject of discussion is trans acceptance, I was deliberately using the gender-neutral 'they' pronouns because I didn't know. If you are more informed than I and know her to be a woman, I'm happy to take your word for it.
best,
Joel
(no subject)