Why would you write out that entire wall of text about half a sentence that has zero relevance to the actual substance of the article and then not even tell us the tiniest bit with how she's supposedly wrong about Skinner when you're in the middle of reading one of his works?
btw Julia Serrano's pronouns are she / her, would've taken you like 10 seconds of googling. That's besides the point here, but consistently misgendering her over and over again on top of all this weird beating around the bush that you do, all this complaining about "most disenfranchised folks" and our "pseudoscientific dismissal" of ancient and methodically dubious pre-replication crisis psychology, that realy rubs me the wrong way when you can't even be bothered to get your actual point across. If you're such a fucking brain genius, you should be able to come up with a more substantive criticism than "her arguments are flat out awful", at least she even has an argument to begin with, which i can't say about anything of the vagueposting word salad you've written.
I'm really sorry, you're completely right about finding her pronouns. I doubt you'd believe it as I've already soured myself with the mistakes I made. I was nervous and afraid and thought I would mess up anyways. I don't believe you would understand unless you were willing to empathize with me, which is a big ask after what I did wrong. I'll do my best to properly gender folks.
I think the tone you used is completely appropriate. Stating it is awful without, to your perception, giving an argument or substance is indeed inappropriate and disrespectful of Julia's work.
I very much don't appreciate the terms you used. I don't think it's my place to ask you to take it back or apologize. I do want to make it known so hopefully other people reading it can be more sensitive to me. I really hate having to identify myself with a laundry list of conditions to be taken seriously or spoken to with respect. I use vague language because I am questioning. This paragraph was only written because I don't know how else you might care about the content of what I write; you can see I post in POC and I have mentioned being in the area of neurodiverse (I am questioning there to). Do not make me elaborate further please.
I don't like that you used "word salad". I don't know why you used it, if it's because I wrote a lot and there was no substance or the negative highly outweighed the positive, I accept it and I still do not appreciate that. I don't think it's a word salad at all. My entire life I've been told I speak or write too much. Maybe everyone except my wife and therapist and psychologist and psychiatrist is right? No, I no longer accept that, I can validate myself and insist that there was good content there and you were unable to understand it. I must not have communicated it well or in a way amenable to you and others who have commented. I already made a severe mistake in misgendering (I wanted to say; I was not referring to Julia with the subjects I used in my sentences; another example of myself not communicating clearly and you misunderstanding as a result, again I apologize, I won't invalidate your experience and say that what you felt was wrong or incorrect, I can be dialectical and accept both) the author of the piece as you and I think one other commenter pointed out.
I don't appreciate the label "f****** brain genius" and reject it. If you want to engage further I request you do not use that term or similar terms with me and give me a modicum of respect now that I have had a chance to explain myself. Not vindicate, or 'let-myself-off-the-hook', I accept your criticisms and I will not do that thing HR does "we hear your concerns and accept them " and proceed to do nothing of the sort. I will now be better with properly gendering people and searching for a person's appropriate pronouns and when I don't know or use the wrong ones, to refrain from misgendering so many times. As well to make it clear when I changed the subject from an individual to a broader and more abstract (and still valid) subject.
I want to engage with the content of what you said that doesn't have to do with my mistakes and grievances. I do not know if it is worth your time. I have to sleep soon as it's past midnight. If you won't treat me with respect and won't refrain from hurtful language then I would kindly ask you to disengage, or I can if you like, since I made the initial transgression. I'm pretty sure I've poisoned the well for any further discussion of my initial points & thesis. Or, you can report me to a mod; as my behaviour here was inappropriate and I am unwelcome. Or in the case you continue and do not disengage, I can report you to prevent more hurtful language.
You have every right to feel the way you do. I do not have to have a continued (i.e. further discussion with several responses and a long thread) hurtful and harmful labelling after I have indicated explicitly I do not like it and I request you do not use the aforementioned labels.
Look, i get what you're trying to say and i'm sorry for being standoffish. Just to put this in perspective and understand why i'm coming off like that recently, most of the last weeks have been rough for me, i had to deal with a covid infection that ruined a lot of plans i had, i felt super isolated and depressed because i could not meet up with my gal pal and my support network due to being ill, i've had trouble with my employment situation and my landlord, so all in all i was just in a really foul mood and honestly i've been kind of mean online because of that. That's not to say this makes it ok to engage in a discussion in the way i often do atm, but i hope this takes some of the weight out of my post and makes it seem less like me coming after you personally. Honestly, that goes for a lot of what i've been posting recently.
Anyway, my main point is this: You shouldn't have to worry about saying inappropriate things just by engaging with Serrano's text. If you think she's making mistakes in regards to Skinner's work, you're free to point them out and give your own perspective on how he viewed human socialization, that may add something to the discussion. I don't think she has a problem with Skinner per se, i don't think she was trying to say that he was being transphobic in his work or whatever, i think she just used a household name like his as a jumping off point to say that we've largely moved away from earlier "blank slate" models of socialization. And if you think that it misrepresents Skinners work to frame it like that, it would give some perspective if you elaborate on that if you feel like it.
If not, i don't mind if we just agree that we met each other on a wrong foot and disengage here, that's really up to you.
Oh I also wanted to add that it was really validating when you said you got what I was trying to say. I appreciate it and your apology (which I don't find necessary and will accept as I concede you have a better idea of what you are apologizing for) and want to say it made my good day which became bad near the end decent. Yeah, not good, still better than before.
Thanks for the response. I'm sorry you had a rough week, I'd think it would make having to engage with someone who was ignorant and made the errors I made even more unpleasant. I don't care if I didn't know or couldn't know.
If I couldn't know I still think I can act in a way that doesn't misgender or otherwise be vague and antagonistic. And if I can't do that I'd really rather just not say anything if I can. I don't think what I said has any value anymore.
I mean I learned from it and I don't know what it meant to other people. Other people did let me know how what I did was wrong and can be easily avoided. From what others said though, which is what I use because I genuinely don't know how they feel or think, what I wrote wasn't helpful and the comment did not need to be made which I, like right now not before, also think was inappropriate and unnecessary.
Thanks again for your response, sharing a bit about yourself, and being willing to try again. I don't have anything else to say besides thanks. Honestly I'm now afraid of saying anything or like giving details of what I alluded to in my initial and rightly removed comment.
I'm so afraid that I'll say something to hurt people who are among the last I'd like to hurt. I'm obviously a bit afraid of something hurtful being said to me, I can't say I can take it, only that I've suffered enough to feel comfortable that's something I am able to experience. What is more suffering really? If I welcome it, nothing changes. If I do my best to get rid of it, it gets worse. It doesn't make sense to me and I can't figure it out. Or at least I haven't been able to for at least more than some 18 odd years.
I did not know who Julia was, I read several popular pieces by her. Didn't engage with her books, but skimmed her PhD thesis at University of Kansas (which deadnames her). It was the kind of work that wouldn't be appreciated I think by those outside the field (biology is my subject of choice and background) and is not glamorous, but it is of the kind of work that enables others to get the flashy stuff done. It's the in-between 'plumbing' that people might look down on, but use all the same. There's good respect there, it's the equivalent of public service for 'omic work in the model organism which was her target.
I did my homework, I'm still trying to learn, it's only; I don't want to keep hurting people while I'm doing it.
Sorry for the essay. I do hope I can engage positively with you in the future. You seem to be considerate and thoughtful.
Hi, I was writing an email to The New Inquiry to ask a question about submitting a piece. I read this piece (linked somewhere on hexbear...) and really liked it and sorta skimmed through other stuff.
I'm trying to say that, while I was writing the email I misgendered the author while mentioning what I liked about his piece. I only thought to double check because I remembered what you (and other commenters) said with your comments. It's a real bad habit, and a hurtful one. I think I may have it under control, if not now, then soon.
If you wanted an 'explanation', I'll put it below in spoilers. I am not writing it to not accept responsibility and be liable for what I did, just, to like correct others like me maybe.
why i keep using 'they' by default
I don't actually interact with people. I have a partner, and pets. I am usually talking in my head about groups of people or abstract representations of people, not actual people. That still doesn't make misgendering appropriate obviously.
I also did my best to use it because I wanted it to sound natural which I think I could do only if I used it and it became like other pronouns and words I use that I don't think about.
I had a teacher in high school who was pretty cool. One time when reading a handout, she said, every time there was a 'he' (the thing we read was really unnecessarily gendered) she would say 'he or she'.
I thought it was kinda clunky and it sounded off. I thought, "I've seen people say 'he/she', why does she need to say 'or'? She already said it a few times, I feel like she could use 'he/she' and it would still get the message across and it's like less sounds so it's more efficient! (remember, I was in high school and I am a cishet man; I thought saying things as quickly as possible was better) Or why doesn't she use 'she'? That would be better too. Oh, why not just use they?"
Eventually I started using they, I didn't want to have to deal with using the wrong pronouns and figured I would get corrected (I didn't think I could ask the person for their pronouns or name, and refer in a way which doesn't use pronouns to be sure I don't use the wrong one) by the person. I just didn't want trouble, I don't mean like not for me, I didn't want to bother anyone for something I could change I think pretty easily (over like some period of time). Of course that was self-centered, and you can kinda notice I really just write my thoughts and don't always think before.
Eventually I started to use other words to be comfortable with changing the word I use in reference to a person or persons: 'one', 'person', 'folk', 'persons', 'people', 'peoples', 'individual' (<- my fav probably), 'individuals', 'group', 'party', 'agent', 'actor', 'such-and-such', 'human', 'humanity', 'humans' (don't like peoplekind cuz a politician used it, obv I'd use it if others wished or asked), 'ones', and I think that's nearly all of them. I feel like there is one or two more but I can't really remember.
You might say these aren't pronouns and not what people want, and that's completely true. And I think that's why I keep messing up. I basically did something without someone (<- this was one I forgot!!) or some people asking, 'for them' when really I could only be sure that it was for me.
Thanks for coming to my ted-talk.
Now I'm working on being much better with asking and not misgendering.
Why would you write out that entire wall of text about half a sentence that has zero relevance to the actual substance of the article and then not even tell us the tiniest bit with how she's supposedly wrong about Skinner when you're in the middle of reading one of his works?
btw Julia Serrano's pronouns are she / her, would've taken you like 10 seconds of googling. That's besides the point here, but consistently misgendering her over and over again on top of all this weird beating around the bush that you do, all this complaining about "most disenfranchised folks" and our "pseudoscientific dismissal" of ancient and methodically dubious pre-replication crisis psychology, that realy rubs me the wrong way when you can't even be bothered to get your actual point across. If you're such a fucking brain genius, you should be able to come up with a more substantive criticism than "her arguments are flat out awful", at least she even has an argument to begin with, which i can't say about anything of the vagueposting word salad you've written.
I'm really sorry, you're completely right about finding her pronouns. I doubt you'd believe it as I've already soured myself with the mistakes I made. I was nervous and afraid and thought I would mess up anyways. I don't believe you would understand unless you were willing to empathize with me, which is a big ask after what I did wrong. I'll do my best to properly gender folks.
I think the tone you used is completely appropriate. Stating it is awful without, to your perception, giving an argument or substance is indeed inappropriate and disrespectful of Julia's work.
I very much don't appreciate the terms you used. I don't think it's my place to ask you to take it back or apologize. I do want to make it known so hopefully other people reading it can be more sensitive to me. I really hate having to identify myself with a laundry list of conditions to be taken seriously or spoken to with respect. I use vague language because I am questioning. This paragraph was only written because I don't know how else you might care about the content of what I write; you can see I post in POC and I have mentioned being in the area of neurodiverse (I am questioning there to). Do not make me elaborate further please.
I don't like that you used "word salad". I don't know why you used it, if it's because I wrote a lot and there was no substance or the negative highly outweighed the positive, I accept it and I still do not appreciate that. I don't think it's a word salad at all. My entire life I've been told I speak or write too much. Maybe everyone except my wife and therapist and psychologist and psychiatrist is right? No, I no longer accept that, I can validate myself and insist that there was good content there and you were unable to understand it. I must not have communicated it well or in a way amenable to you and others who have commented. I already made a severe mistake in misgendering (I wanted to say; I was not referring to Julia with the subjects I used in my sentences; another example of myself not communicating clearly and you misunderstanding as a result, again I apologize, I won't invalidate your experience and say that what you felt was wrong or incorrect, I can be dialectical and accept both) the author of the piece as you and I think one other commenter pointed out.
I don't appreciate the label "f****** brain genius" and reject it. If you want to engage further I request you do not use that term or similar terms with me and give me a modicum of respect now that I have had a chance to explain myself. Not vindicate, or 'let-myself-off-the-hook', I accept your criticisms and I will not do that thing HR does "we hear your concerns and accept them " and proceed to do nothing of the sort. I will now be better with properly gendering people and searching for a person's appropriate pronouns and when I don't know or use the wrong ones, to refrain from misgendering so many times. As well to make it clear when I changed the subject from an individual to a broader and more abstract (and still valid) subject.
I want to engage with the content of what you said that doesn't have to do with my mistakes and grievances. I do not know if it is worth your time. I have to sleep soon as it's past midnight. If you won't treat me with respect and won't refrain from hurtful language then I would kindly ask you to disengage, or I can if you like, since I made the initial transgression. I'm pretty sure I've poisoned the well for any further discussion of my initial points & thesis. Or, you can report me to a mod; as my behaviour here was inappropriate and I am unwelcome. Or in the case you continue and do not disengage, I can report you to prevent more hurtful language.
You have every right to feel the way you do. I do not have to have a continued (i.e. further discussion with several responses and a long thread) hurtful and harmful labelling after I have indicated explicitly I do not like it and I request you do not use the aforementioned labels.
Look, i get what you're trying to say and i'm sorry for being standoffish. Just to put this in perspective and understand why i'm coming off like that recently, most of the last weeks have been rough for me, i had to deal with a covid infection that ruined a lot of plans i had, i felt super isolated and depressed because i could not meet up with my gal pal and my support network due to being ill, i've had trouble with my employment situation and my landlord, so all in all i was just in a really foul mood and honestly i've been kind of mean online because of that. That's not to say this makes it ok to engage in a discussion in the way i often do atm, but i hope this takes some of the weight out of my post and makes it seem less like me coming after you personally. Honestly, that goes for a lot of what i've been posting recently.
Anyway, my main point is this: You shouldn't have to worry about saying inappropriate things just by engaging with Serrano's text. If you think she's making mistakes in regards to Skinner's work, you're free to point them out and give your own perspective on how he viewed human socialization, that may add something to the discussion. I don't think she has a problem with Skinner per se, i don't think she was trying to say that he was being transphobic in his work or whatever, i think she just used a household name like his as a jumping off point to say that we've largely moved away from earlier "blank slate" models of socialization. And if you think that it misrepresents Skinners work to frame it like that, it would give some perspective if you elaborate on that if you feel like it.
If not, i don't mind if we just agree that we met each other on a wrong foot and disengage here, that's really up to you.
Oh I also wanted to add that it was really validating when you said you got what I was trying to say. I appreciate it and your apology (which I don't find necessary and will accept as I concede you have a better idea of what you are apologizing for) and want to say it made my good day which became bad near the end decent. Yeah, not good, still better than before.
Thanks for the response. I'm sorry you had a rough week, I'd think it would make having to engage with someone who was ignorant and made the errors I made even more unpleasant. I don't care if I didn't know or couldn't know.
If I couldn't know I still think I can act in a way that doesn't misgender or otherwise be vague and antagonistic. And if I can't do that I'd really rather just not say anything if I can. I don't think what I said has any value anymore.
I mean I learned from it and I don't know what it meant to other people. Other people did let me know how what I did was wrong and can be easily avoided. From what others said though, which is what I use because I genuinely don't know how they feel or think, what I wrote wasn't helpful and the comment did not need to be made which I, like right now not before, also think was inappropriate and unnecessary.
Thanks again for your response, sharing a bit about yourself, and being willing to try again. I don't have anything else to say besides thanks. Honestly I'm now afraid of saying anything or like giving details of what I alluded to in my initial and rightly removed comment.
I'm so afraid that I'll say something to hurt people who are among the last I'd like to hurt. I'm obviously a bit afraid of something hurtful being said to me, I can't say I can take it, only that I've suffered enough to feel comfortable that's something I am able to experience. What is more suffering really? If I welcome it, nothing changes. If I do my best to get rid of it, it gets worse. It doesn't make sense to me and I can't figure it out. Or at least I haven't been able to for at least more than some 18 odd years.
I did not know who Julia was, I read several popular pieces by her. Didn't engage with her books, but skimmed her PhD thesis at University of Kansas (which deadnames her). It was the kind of work that wouldn't be appreciated I think by those outside the field (biology is my subject of choice and background) and is not glamorous, but it is of the kind of work that enables others to get the flashy stuff done. It's the in-between 'plumbing' that people might look down on, but use all the same. There's good respect there, it's the equivalent of public service for 'omic work in the model organism which was her target.
I did my homework, I'm still trying to learn, it's only; I don't want to keep hurting people while I'm doing it.
Sorry for the essay. I do hope I can engage positively with you in the future. You seem to be considerate and thoughtful.
Hi, I was writing an email to The New Inquiry to ask a question about submitting a piece. I read this piece (linked somewhere on hexbear...) and really liked it and sorta skimmed through other stuff.
I'm trying to say that, while I was writing the email I misgendered the author while mentioning what I liked about his piece. I only thought to double check because I remembered what you (and other commenters) said with your comments. It's a real bad habit, and a hurtful one. I think I may have it under control, if not now, then soon.
If you wanted an 'explanation', I'll put it below in spoilers. I am not writing it to not accept responsibility and be liable for what I did, just, to like correct others like me maybe.
why i keep using 'they' by default
I don't actually interact with people. I have a partner, and pets. I am usually talking in my head about groups of people or abstract representations of people, not actual people. That still doesn't make misgendering appropriate obviously.
I also did my best to use it because I wanted it to sound natural which I think I could do only if I used it and it became like other pronouns and words I use that I don't think about.
I had a teacher in high school who was pretty cool. One time when reading a handout, she said, every time there was a 'he' (the thing we read was really unnecessarily gendered) she would say 'he or she'.
I thought it was kinda clunky and it sounded off. I thought, "I've seen people say 'he/she', why does she need to say 'or'? She already said it a few times, I feel like she could use 'he/she' and it would still get the message across and it's like less sounds so it's more efficient! (remember, I was in high school and I am a cishet man; I thought saying things as quickly as possible was better) Or why doesn't she use 'she'? That would be better too. Oh, why not just use they?"
Eventually I started using they, I didn't want to have to deal with using the wrong pronouns and figured I would get corrected (I didn't think I could ask the person for their pronouns or name, and refer in a way which doesn't use pronouns to be sure I don't use the wrong one) by the person. I just didn't want trouble, I don't mean like not for me, I didn't want to bother anyone for something I could change I think pretty easily (over like some period of time). Of course that was self-centered, and you can kinda notice I really just write my thoughts and don't always think before.
Eventually I started to use other words to be comfortable with changing the word I use in reference to a person or persons: 'one', 'person', 'folk', 'persons', 'people', 'peoples', 'individual' (<- my fav probably), 'individuals', 'group', 'party', 'agent', 'actor', 'such-and-such', 'human', 'humanity', 'humans' (don't like peoplekind cuz a politician used it, obv I'd use it if others wished or asked), 'ones', and I think that's nearly all of them. I feel like there is one or two more but I can't really remember.
You might say these aren't pronouns and not what people want, and that's completely true. And I think that's why I keep messing up. I basically did something without someone (<- this was one I forgot!!) or some people asking, 'for them' when really I could only be sure that it was for me.
Thanks for coming to my ted-talk.
Now I'm working on being much better with asking and not misgendering.