Ok, it's time to update the rules

submitted by grixitperson[M] from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

It’s not meant to cause offense. You placing meaning that’s not there on the word causes the offense, not my using it. I’m using it strictly as it is defined. I don’t think someone genuinely being delusional is an insult, you don’t want to be forced to apply our understanding of words to yourself- don’t force us to interpret words as you do. “Delusional” means what it means, you added the insult to it for yourself.

You “feel” that the word is not a neutral term- that doesn’t mean it’s not. It means you personally don’t think it is.

As I said, if the mods say we can’t use the word at all, I won’t, but I’d still be basically saying something I think is delusional is delusional, even without the word. So it seems pointless to make people type around the word when we all agree on what the actual word means, regardless of whether we think the concept or person the word is applied to is delusional.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

I mean if you can honestly say that your use of the word “delusional” is neutral and not emotionally charged, then I believe you, I’m just saying I doubt it is for most people. When I was using TGC, I was genuinely seeking a (from my perspective) neutral term to differentiate strains of GC that are against QT from those that weren’t, and specifically chose an acronym that is nearly impossible to pronounce to prevent it from being turned into an insult (which I generally believe have to be pronounceable to see wide scale use), but apparently that didn’t matter to the majority who still saw it as offensive. So I’m saying if the majority of non-medical people intend to cause so level of derision with the use of the word “delusional” or that it is perceived as such by the majority of people to whom it is applied, that the same rule should apply.

Maybe I’m wrong though and “delusional” is neither intended nor received by a majority of people as being derisive, that just hasn’t been my personal experience.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I honestly never use it to be mean, I use it for the meaning of it.

I think it largely depends on context. There’a a huge difference between “identifying as something you’ve never experienced living as is delusional” and someone saying “if you think you look good in that dress, you’re delusional”. If you get what I mean. So I agree it can be used as an insult- but that’s only possible if they twist the meaning of the word and apply it to something that it doesn’t fit.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

I mean that just seems like GC insisting their definition of a term is the only allowable one, something that seems odd when we look at the history of how all languages change and evolve over time. Should “men” only refer to all humans in line with it’s archaic Germanic meaning, or “girl” to all young children as it did centuries ago?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

How is gc using the word “delusional” differently?

What to you think the word means?

Man and girl meaning different things to gc and qt I get, but I have never heard anyone, gc qt or neither, claim that “delusional” has some other meaning.

What are you saying the meaning of “delusional” has shifted to?

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

I’m not, that was in regards to the meaning of gender/sex terminology. How can you say a group is delusional for using a different definition of those terms then GC does?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I’m not saying the definitions are delusional at all, just that I disagree with them.

If someone said “a woman is any one who identifies as a woman”- that’s not delusional, though I think it’s incorrect. I would point out flaws I see in the definition, but I wouldn’t consider it delusional.

I’m not saying and have never said that qt is delusional for having different definitions, I’m saying that to me, some concepts within trans ideology could be argued to be delusional.

If someone says “I’m a woman because I’m perceived as one and treated like one” I would disagree, but I can understand the logic behind it and acknowledge that, while sexist, I can understand how someone comes to that conclusion. I’d still debate and point out flaws, but I can understand how someone believes that if they are a male, even if I think females can understand why that doesn’t quite work.

But if someone says “I’m a woman because I identified as a woman and understood what it is to be a woman before transitioning (ive had people explain gender identity that way)”- the idea that you can identify and understand something that is literally the opposite of how you are seen and treated and what you are physically- that’s delusional to me, even taken out of the context of gender identity.

I’m not saying I’d be correct to claim it is, but it would take discussion about why I think it is and why someone else thinks it isn’t to change my mind or prove me wrong, if that makes sense? In that example, we aren’t even debating definitions, we’d be debating whether or not someone can identify as something they have never physically presented as (I’m talking about someone “identifying” as a woman pre transition)

That’s why I’m saying context matters, we shouldn’t just jump to call any and every thing we disagree with delusional, but there can be instances where we think a specific statement, belief, or argument is delusional. It just depends.