Quote:
Originally Posted by BoLevi
Analogies are often a poor way to make a point. Yours is a good example of that.
At any rate, I was talking about people in this thread calling other posters names. It indicates that one has a weak position if they can't make a compelling point and resort to name calling. Nobody online ever admits to losing a debate - the closest someone comes is resorting to the racist/bigot/homophobe name calling.
On the Reimer issue, we have Reimer on the record making a very clear statement that he welcomes everyone. That's hardly the words of a homophobe. Instead, people come to that conclusion by inferring an insidious and malicious motivation because of...not wearing a sweater? Let's take a moment to absorb how silly that sounds. (Putting on the sweater can't be both "no big deal" and also a "massive statement".)
The proper interpretation of Reimer's position is that he feels he cannot endorse how LGBTQ+ live, genetics or not. However, he can still welcome LGBTQ+ people as equals in society. THAT is the most useful and generous interpretation of his position and statements.
Instead people start calling him names, and making preposterous claims that being "welcoming" also requires endorsement. The sweater idea appears to be a very bad one because it seems to be inherently regarding what it represents. If it's a statement about being welcoming, then Reimer did that, and did it without ambiguity. It is illiberal and frankly disingenuous to try to interpret his other actions as being contrary to his explicit statements.
|
This is hilarious. Doubling down on complaining about language only further proves my point.
My point is that whining about words being name calling is a total distraction, and has nothing to do with the topic. Especially when the words are directly relevant to the topic, and being used for their actual meaning. Trying switch the subject to be about the words and how mean people are being is a sign of a weak argument. If the argument was strong it could stand on its own, instead of trying to hide behind technicalities.
Reimer's words are meaningless compared to his actions, actions are how I judge people. But, lets be charitable and go by what you call the "proper" interpretation of his words (or more accurately your summarisation of his words): "The proper interpretation of Reimer's position is that he feels he cannot endorse how LGBTQ+ live, genetics or not".
To start with, that is ridiculously stereotyping a group of people who have nothing in common except they were born LGBTQ+. There is no one way we live, we are just people trying to live our lives without being discriminated against. To even try an say that a diverse group of people live in a way you cannot endorse, is discriminating against them. This is exactly the problem discriminated against people are complaining about.
It is also completely contradictory to say you welcome LGBTQ+ people as equals in society, while at the same time segregating them into a group based on their genetics, making assumptions about how everyone in that group "lives", and then condemning them for that stereotype. Especially using vague meaningless statements like "how LGBTQ+ live", what does that even mean? What exactly does every single LGBTQ+ person do that cannot be endorsed?