@ai@MercurialBlack@gav This reminds me of an article I read. A critique of leftist academia where policing language is seen as something that can change the world; rather than language being a descriptor of how we already view the world. This entire debate is reminiscent of that, where I believe that transphobia and transmisia and anti-transgender are all describing the same phenomena, and as such an artificial attempt to change thinking by interchanging these words is fruitless. Meanwhile you and Mercurial are arguing that these words form the basis of the phenomena itself, and that by changing the word we change the view of the world.
I can't find the article unfortunately. You'd like it a lot I think
I think at some point they figured out that you don’t have to control language and definitions. Trannies and niggers are the best examples, except trannies enforce censorship by being terminally online losers that spend every waking hour trying to find out stuff about where you work, and n words just chimp out physically attack you.
@hidden@MercurialBlack@gav We can't escape the medical connotations of these roots. It doesn't mean the same thing if I say "your posts are on fire" versus "you have post-itis."
As far as I can tell, the medical profession uses three criteria to determine whether something is a problem: 1. It is abnormal (in a statistical sense). 2. It prevents you from meeting a "baseline" standard of living. 3. It differs from what you consciously want for yourself, in a way that causes discomfort. So someone might be diagnosed with arachnophobia if (1) they fear spiders a lot more than people on average (the DSM makes sure to mention the "sociocultural context"), (2) their fear prevents them from engaging on normal life (the DSM calls it "social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning), and (3) they say to their doctor, "I really wish I didn't fear spiders as much."
We can't escape these three meanings when we use "homophobic" or "transphobic" in a non-medical context. Moreover, the rhetorical *purpose* of these words is to characterize anti-homosexual or anti-transgender attitudes as abnormal, that is, "pathological." The users of these words *want* to draw on the medical connotation. "You're homophobic, so there's something wrong with you."
However, we are now in a cultural mood which says that people should never be blamed for their pathologies. Thus, casting anti-homosexuality as a "phobia" absolves the homophobic person of responsibility. With this in mind, the rhetorical purpose of using "misia" is obvious. "They hate us, they want us dead, and they have no good reason - such as overwhelming fear - for being that way." When I think of a "misogynist," I don't think of someone who is afraid of women, or who has any one particular reason for abusing women.
But there are also medical disorders which use the "misia" root. I consider myself to have mild misophonia. Some annoying sounds fill me with rage, (1) much more than for most people, (2) in a way that often keeps me from getting work done or enjoying life, and (3) I wish I could be less sensitive to sound. Based on introspection, however, I think that the worldview of a homophobic / transphobic / xenophobic / etc person is closer to a "phobic" disorder than a "misic" one.
My personal opinion is that most linguistic inventions which are driven by politics or rhetoric are bad. A new made-up word becomes another shibboleth for purity tests. The "misia" suffix is intended to demonize the opposing viewpoint even more, essentially to shift the frame from fear out-of-proportion - a potential "rational irrationality" as you guys put it - to something entirely irrational - violence for its own sake. I think this site is good evidence for this interpretation: https://diversitypride.org/misiapledge.html
I think a cleaner use of language would just be the "anti-" prefix, such as in anti-Semitism and (more recently) anti-Blackness and anti-racism.
As a sidenote, note that criterion (3) is inherently transhumanist. For this reason, I believe the medical establishment has always had a certain predisposition (susceptibility?) to promoting gender transition, well before the topic became as prominent in culture as it is today.
If you get Pavlov-ed, so whenever you hear a bell your mouth waters, that's irrational. If you live in a house where you get electrocuted whenever you move through a door, but now you live in a different house without that, then being scared of doors would be irrational.
@MercurialBlack@ai@hidden if ever time the bell rings, for many weeks, food is delivered, for how many days is it rational to believe it is more efficient to preemptively salvivate despite meals ceasing to come?
@MercurialBlack@ai Rationality is using the information you have to make a judgment call about something. It is impossible to objectively say “Well every doorway I walk through hurts me but maybe some don’t…” That’s an extremely dangerous way for a human to act and means you’re incapable of extrapolating an outcome from the data you have.
No that would be irrational. If in the future you have doorways you know are safe but you freeze because of past experiences, that's irrational. You're not evaluating the situation objectively.
If we're just looking at the words themselves then yeah sure they're fine
@MercurialBlack@ai If you were to grow up in a house where every time you walk through a doorway you get electrocuted, a fear of doorways would develop. And it would be a rational response because the amount of dangerous doorways in your life would be so high. That’s the same with social phobias. If you get a poor result 90% of the time it is completely rational to grow afraid of that situation.
I agree many people view phobia as irrational, which is silly. But transphobia or homophobia is a completely different word and does not have the same connotation unless you post-hoc add the connotation like you are doing now.
@MercurialBlack@ai I think you and me have a different definition of rational. In my eyes if a situation or object is dangerous in many many contexts then it’s rational to be afraid of it in my eyes. It also ignores how non inbuilt phobias are born which is through personal experience. For example a social phobia is a rational response to social rejection.
I don’t think people interpret it that way at all. Although in terms of communication there is no difference either way between calling someone transphobic and transmisic except the latter is more obscure.
I don't agree that a social phobia is rational. A fear of heights is rational, as if you fall, you'll die. A fear of social situations is irrational, unless you live in an environment where failure to adhere to their standards will end with you physically beaten. In most situations, people will forget about your gaffs after a short period of time.
And nah, I still disagree. I think people use phobia to mean irrational, so I don't want to use it unless I'm attempting to convey that meaning.
@MercurialBlack@ai You only say that cuz you don’t live in one of the 1 billion places with deadly spiders you fool! Anyway that doesn’t address you projecting irrationality onto a Greek word
????????? It may be rational for someone in Australia to be scared of spiders, but it's irrational for someone in Canada to be.
I don't have an issue with the definition of the Greek root not including irrationality, my issue is with it nowadays being interpreted as implying irrationality. As such, using it fails to convey what I want, and as such I don't want to use it.
What no arachnaphobia is irrational. It's like an ingrained fear 'cuz our ancestors were killed by spiders but nowadays it's vestigial, most spiders aren't gonna kill you.
@MercurialBlack@ai First of all you have it backwards, and second of all most phobias aren’t irrational and I think only a cruel idiot would classify them that way. Arachnophobia is probably the most common and is completely rational, albeit inconvenient.
@hidden > claims to be an “urbanist” and proud of it > wants the city to be accessible in minutes > doesn’t even enjoy urban materials inside their own cranium > mfw
Although trannies really do like controlling it (because they’re disgusting and autistic). That’s why it’s gone from vaginoplasty to SRS, to GRS, to GCS and so on.
Dumb opinion. I’ve used twitter and fediverse dot com and the extent of tranny depth (regardless of dilation) is muh linux, which particular procedure they’ll choose to mutilate their genitals, trains, rust, and trying to groom and rape children.
I mean sure, but dogs and cats have unique personalities too. I would definitely 100% say animal personalities are much more diverse than tranny personalities.
It doesn’t matter if some appear reasonable or “kind” to you. For example, I used to get along with anemone and then one day he started posting loli cp while he was having a meltdown (many such tranny pedo cases). Child predators are also often kind to their victims before they rape them.
I reject and refuse to acknowledge the delusions of the mentally ill. You need to consider the real pain and suffering caused by these “people”, most of which are literal sex predators, as if the victims were your own family.
I will not deny the ideological / social / political trends at play here, which you are pointing out, but I've had plenty of positive interactions with trans people on here. I might choose my pastures based on demographic trends, but in the end people deserve to be judged on their individual merit.
It's a destructive mental illness that is enabled to the detriment of everyone. Your empathy would be better spent on understanding and compassion towards schizophrenics than them.
@bot@gav@hidden@MercurialBlack This is interesting data. Combined with Section 1 ("The Swedish Study") in the same document, which states that MtF trans are just as likely to be convicted of a crime (or violent crime) as a man, I agree this implies that the rate of sex offenders among transwomen must be like 3.5 times higher than the rate among men.
Tbh I'm not convinced that this justifies treating all trans people as sex offenders. (Nor do I treat all black people as violent thugs, despite 13 51.) But your other point is well-taken: just because someone seems nice, doesn't mean that they're not a predator. I could believe that it's a lot easier to tell, at a glance, that someone isn't a violent thug, than to tell that they aren't a sexual predator.
There's also a social affiliation aspect. You could say something like: "If you choose to be trans *despite* knowing this statistic, then that says something about you. Who would seek the company of pedophiles but a pedophile or an enabler?" I'm not sure, though. I can easily imagine someone wanting to be trans but resenting the affiliation with "the trans movement."
Not trying to start a debate, just wanted to give my honest reaction. I certainly agree that sexual violence and pedophilia are morally despicable and should be taken extremely seriously.