[Warrior]

	Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You throw like a X You drive like a X You talk like a X You walk like a X You suck at math like all X and on and on and on

I can't think of any pronouns that would make sense in those sentences.

	Hey, you guys! <- male pronoun, can speak to a group of all/some females

"guys" is a noun.

-------------

Ultimately, I'll refer to someone by whatever pronoun they like. If they don't like the one I use, they can tell me to use a different one. If I don't know what to use for whatever reason, I'll use a masculine pronoun. I think that is pretty standard (American) English.

[thod]

If the plural of boot is boots and that of root is roots then the plural of foot must be foots? It may be logical, but it is still wrong. There are those that argue for what 'is' and those that argue for what 'ought' to be. No one person has the power to change English. You see this with ESL students all the time, they try to correct English. It does not work. There is no 'better' English only erroneous English.

If someone uses she when refering to a male, they are wrong. It is not debatable. This is because English speakers use she when referring to a female.

[Valiyn]

	Originally Posted by INTroJect To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Because you dont personally know this third person and what they want to be called.

If they're living and presenting as female, then yes I do.

	Especially since, after a closer inspection of your pronoun usage, you called him an it.

Maybe because I wasn't referring directly to AL, I was using it as a dummy pronoun. It's not correct grammar as it shouldn't be able to stand in for he or she like you're implying at all as a true dummy pronoun, but I'm not the grammar police. I didn't even know what a dummy pronoun is before looking it up to see what it was called. I'm not the grammar police, not even a grammar expert, if it wasn't for spell check I would be screwed. What I'm talking about and the point I'm trying to get across is referring to a trans woman as a male is offensive, insulting, bigoted, and should be stopped. It's usually this cissexism is what gets us fucking killed in such large numbers. And that in regard to AL's post, it wasn't an accident he referred to her as male repeatedly. Ah, crap, there's another dummy pronoun used the same way I did before, maybe this time it gets the meaning across. If you have to reread something to pick apart minute things like that, you're probably getting a different meaning then the author (unless their a professional writer) intended. With ALs post, multiple people picked up he was misgendering the person on the first read. No one but you is harping or picked up on this use of the pronoun it. That's usually a good sign you're trying to read too much into it.

	By saying that the people who have to suffer misorientation by society isnt close to those in the transgender community. There is no alphabet hierarchy in difficulty.

I never said it was more difficult, all I said your comparing apples to oranges. Being gay is not like being trans.

[firebee]

	Originally Posted by Latro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Entirely serious question here, albeit not entirely on-topic: Suppose X is a woman named Alice. Suppose X was a man named Bob prior to 2005. Suppose I am telling a story about X prior to 2005. What pronoun should I be using to refer to X, and what names should I be using to refer to X? How does this work if the story jumps around in time between 2004 and 2006?

Best general practice is to refer to Alice as "Alice", "she", "her", consistently -- regardless of what time period is being addressed. This is, IIRC, generally the standard in journalism nowadays. One might think of it as if Alice changed her name for some other reason -- marriage, or a variation in nicknames, or whatever. If Alice married in 2005 and is now Alice Jones, whereas when she was in second grade she was generally known as "Boo-Boo" and her last name was Kuntz, it's not necessary to refer to her as Boo-Boo Kuntz just because one is telling the amusing tale of the time she started a food fight in the grade school cafeteria and that's what she was called at the time the event happened. It's not even really all that relevant to bring up her former name at all, usually, although people seem to find that trivia point satisfying for some reason.

That Alice was perceived as male before 2005 can be conveyed by describing events rather than by using pronouns, and while such usage can produce surface oddities -- "he gave birth to his son", say -- it's more likely to reflect the preferences of the individual involved and less likely to produce confusion regarding how many people are being discussed or which person is meant by a given pronoun.

[Latro]

	Originally Posted by Valiyn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I never said it was more difficult, all I said your comparing apples to oranges. Being gay is not like being trans.

This kind of phrasing:

	Originally Posted by Valiyn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Not close to the experience of being transgender. The gay community really doesn't understand the trans community outside of having the same people hate on us. If you think being misgendered is something that can be brushed aside, you don't know shit on transgender issues.

	Originally Posted by Valiyn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You don't have a fucking clue what it's like and you're going to lecture me about how it's no big deal? Oh this is going to be good piece of cissexism.

very, very strongly suggests otherwise. That is, every time I've heard "you don't have a clue what it's like to be x", the point of the statement was to say that it is very hard to be x, and in particular that it is harder to be x than to be whatever the listener is. So yes, that is what you said, whether or not it was what you meant.

	Originally Posted by firebee To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's not even really all that relevant to bring up her former name at all, usually, although people seem to find that trivia point satisfying for some reason.

The case that I'm thinking of is a *little* bit interesting in this regard. He is FTM and was named Christine at birth. By the time I met him (following your suggestion here, if only experimentally) he went by Chris, and was a rather distinctly masculine woman. I was very young when I met him (he's my sister's friend) and thought he was actually male for a couple years before finding out that wasn't the case. When he became male he changed his first name, not to Christopher as I would've expected, but to Connor.

...OK that paragraph wasn't meant to poke holes in your suggestion, but man it sounds weird. "He...was a rather distinctly masculine woman" stands out in particular.

[nowt]

Unless X itself acts as a gender-specific pronoun, which reminds me--

	Originally Posted by Latro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Looks to me that it was "X is female...oh wow, X wasn't always female." In other words it looks like "was/is" was more of a mistake than a declaration of trans-hate.

	Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Cis? Zir? Zeir? It? Them?

I've kinda always wanted to designate gendered pronouns with X and Y--

Yi and Xu, Yim and Xum, Yims and Xums, Yimself and Xumself--

Ze.

[Valiyn]

	Originally Posted by Latro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This kind of phrasing....very, very strongly suggests otherwise.

The implication shouldn't be there. It isn't wrong. It simply shouldn't be there. But we can touch on it since it's been brought up a few times in the thread. As someone who is living in both worlds I do strongly believe it is more difficult to be trans then to be homosexual. The suicide rate alone (41% of all trans people will commit suicide, with ~%80 making their first suicide attempt by their 20th birthday) more then demonstrates that compared to LGB rates (7-20% of gays and lesbians will commit suicide (this stat from 2002, rest are current numbers), with 30-40% attempting suicide by gay, lesbian, and bisexual community over the course of their entire life). That's a pretty big fucking difference in suicide rates and attempts. I was careful not to step there because neither is fun nor easy to deal with. Homosexuals have it rough and I'm not trying to dismiss the experience like Introject did with trans. But when every transgender goes through homosexual bigotry as well, regardless of their orientation (atleast with me, bigotry towards lesbians are correctly applied bigotry), it's becomes very difficult to suggest they're on the same level of hardship. I face more trans related bigotry then I do atheist and homosexual related bigotry combined and doubled. And the bigotry is two entirely different creatures. For being homosexual, alot of it is religious based and dealing with third parties who are trying to control who you can and cannot love. For trans, it's cultural based bigotry and deals with third parties invalidating a hard won identity on a massive scale every single day with serious secondary consequences as well (e.g expensive medical hoops to jump through and gatekeepers). They are not the same creature. If it's ever going to stop, bigotry needs to be called out -
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

[Philanthropist]

Every single tiny little minority wants recognition these days. And by recognition, I don't mean respect. I mean they expect everyone to have a working knowledge of the inner most details of their private lives and personal preferences.

I just ignore it. I have better things to think about than how I can tread ever more softly on eggshells around every human being.

But I do tend to find once people pick up on the fact that you don't care one iota what they think, they tend to back off. Try this - " I haven't taken the time to acquaint myself with your community. I really don't find it that interesting. Go away."

[Latro]

	Originally Posted by Valiyn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The implication shouldn't be there. It isn't wrong. It simply shouldn't be there.

Then you're not speaking idiomatic English, because that's how such statements are interpreted, especially when the tone of the sentence is angry and hostile as your sentences were.

Milder phrasings than "you don't have a clue", such as "you don't understand", especially something like "you don't fully understand the trans experience" rather than "you don't understand what it's like to be trans" are more likely to be interpreted literally.

[INTroJect]

	Originally Posted by Valiyn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If they're living and presenting as female, then yes I do.

Perhaps you can relate, thats understandable, but to claim to know them? Presumptious.

Maybe because I wasn't referring directly to AL, I was using it as a dummy pronoun. It's not correct grammar as it shouldn't be able to stand in for he or she like you're implying at all as a true dummy pronoun, but I'm not the grammar police. I didn't even know what a dummy pronoun is before looking it up to see what it was called. I'm not the grammar police, not even a grammar expert, if it wasn't for spell check I would be screwed. What I'm talking about and the point I'm trying to get across is referring to a trans woman as a male is offensive, insulting, bigoted, and should be stopped. It's usually this cissexism is what gets us fucking killed in such large numbers. And that in regard to AL's post, it wasn't an accident he referred to her as male repeatedly. Ah, crap, there's another dummy pronoun used the same way I did before, maybe this time it gets the meaning across. If you have to reread something to pick apart minute things like that, you're probably getting a different meaning then the author (unless their a professional writer) intended. With ALs post, multiple people picked up he was misgendering the person on the first read. No one but you is harping or picked up on this use of the pronoun it. That's usually a good sign you're trying to read too much into it.

I looked it up too:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Situation stands. You (perhaps inadvertently) called Autumnleaf an it. Its understandable, errors happen, and I would expect it to be more likely to happen when stretching the boundry of everyday English language, like when discussing transgender issues.

The reason there was an outrage for his situation, and not for yours, would be the very contingent of ubersmug pronoun police, assuming malice should anyone not use the currently preffered set of pronouns. This is disruptive to the normal flow of an open dialog. Whats the goal here?

A) That people address mtf/ftm in accordance with current standards in pronoun usage? Can be accomplished. Or,

B) to have a truely informative and progressive dialog about the issues? Also can be accomplished.

However, I do not think its conducive to accomplishing B with this overemphasis on A, especially when it smacks of a double standard, as has been revealed. Simple cordiality in these matters, and an assumption of innocense, I would expect to accomplish more of both. PC tyranny has never been productive.

[Valiyn]

	Originally Posted by Latro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Then you're not speaking idiomatic English, because that's how such statements are interpreted, especially when the tone of the sentence is angry and hostile as your sentences were.

It's text on the internet - there really is no such thing as tone. And trying to apply it is what sparks most arguments online.

	Milder phrasings than "you don't have a clue", such as "you don't understand", especially something like "you don't understand the trans experience" rather than "you don't understand what it's like to be trans" are more likely to be interpreted literally.

What I said was "Not close to the experience of being transgender." This is very much a comparing apples to oranges statement. "The gay community really doesn't understand the trans community outside of having the same people hate on us." This again, is an apples to oranges statement. Transphobia comes from cissexism, not homophobia. Most homosexuals are cisgender. They have cis-privalege. It should come as no surprise then they would have trouble understanding that blind spot. "If you think being misgendered is something that can be brushed aside, you don't know shit on transgender issues." Being misgendered as a way to invalidate identity is very common transphobic bigotry. Misconceptions that trans women are really males is what gets us killed, disowned, fired, seen as freaks, and so forth. And if he thinks that the behavior of invalidating someone's identity is something that can be brushed aside casually, he's demonstrating a clear lack of understanding about what trans face in the world. So how is any of what I said, or rather the way I said it, degrading what homosexuals experience in any way?

	Originally Posted by INTroJect To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Perhaps you can relate, thats understandable, but to claim to know them? Presumptious.

*facepalm*

If I did refer to AL as "it" then my bad. I didn't even know I would be referring to him if I used a pronoun when I first wrote the post but thanks for educating me about it nonetheless. Cause that's how problems are fucking solved, by bringing it to people's attention. Now that I'm aware it can be construed in a way I never intended by others, I'll try to be more careful.

And there are no pronoun police. Why do you have such a problem with people who say "no, this intentional misgendering of a trans woman isn't acceptable behavior and you shouldn't do it" that you think there is some kind of politically correct tyranny out to get you? We're trying to educate that this isn't good behavior, and you're referring to calling out unacceptable bigotry like it's the policy of a police state? Why? What's so bad about educating people so they don't throw insults around so casually?

[vampyroteuthis]

	Originally Posted by Latro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	every time I've heard "you don't have a clue what it's like to be x", the point of the statement was to say that it is very hard to be x, and in particular that it is harder to be x than to be whatever the listener is. So yes, that is what you said, whether or not it was what you meant.

If you choose to read it that way, though, the implicit "whatever the listener is" would be cisgender. Valid, I think.

[Latro]

	Originally Posted by vampyroteuthis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you choose to read it that way, though, the implicit "whatever the listener is" would be cisgender. Valid, I think.

It's a valid point. I was addressing Valiyn claiming she didn't actually say that, not the point itself.

[INTroJect]

I took it to mean that way, Latro gives a good explanation as to how it could have been taken in that context. Valiyn says she didnt mean it that way, so be it. Its a fine case in point as to how easily a context can be misread, and why was unproductive to get on some nonalphabetter's case for not phrasing a discussion according to unjustifiably-strict PC standards. It looks to me like the standards of expectation are set way too high, and the assumptions being made and treatment of those who transgress it far too harsh.

There is a difference between doing something maliciously and doing it on accident. When discussing the trans-gender subject, it seems a bit farfetched to expect mainstream to automatically know the proper etiquette in how to discuss it. In fact, now that I am saying this, I would say this is more specifically a matter of etiquette for a fringe community, and less of an issue of correct or incorrect grammer.

I have travelled to a lot of countries, they all have their own different standards for etiquette, and it is very common and understandable for some outsider to unknowingly transgress these. The cultures who corrected me on these matters gracefully won my respect and appreciation, those who did so harshly may have prevented me from making the same mistake again, but they did not get anything more than that.

---------- Post added 03-23-2012 at 01:30 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Valiyn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

*facepalm* If I did refer to AL as "it" then my bad. I didn't even know I would be referring to him if I used a pronoun when I first wrote the post but thanks for educating me about it nonetheless. Cause that's how problems are fucking solved, by bringing it to people's attention. Now that I'm aware it can be construed in a way I never intended by others, I'll try to be more careful. And there are no pronoun police. Why do you have such a problem with people who say "no, this intentional misgendering of a trans woman isn't acceptable behavior and you shouldn't do it" that you think there is some kind of politically correct tyranny out to get you? We're trying to educate that this isn't good behavior, and you're referring to calling out unacceptable bigotry like it's the policy of a police state? Why? What's so bad about educating people so they don't through insults around so casually?

Because its lacking the assumption of innocence. Normally I wouldnt care but for this subject it strikes me as more harmful than beneficial to assume a misgendering to be malicious. Its not like this is mainstream English language. Its understandable for you to feel insulted when someone addresses a transgender person in a way that breaks with expected norms but, to treat it as an insult, probably does more harm than good.

[plotthickens]

	Originally Posted by INTroJect To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There is a difference between doing something maliciously and doing it on accident. When discussing the trans-gender subject, it seems a bit farfetched to expect mainstream to automatically know the proper etiquette in how to discuss it.

This is a strawman argument.

1. Someone writes a thread on transgendered people, is ignorant if not insulting all over it. Education ensues.
2. Walking up to some "mainstream" person. Starting trans-grammar education conversation out of the blue.

Your above position applies just fine to #2. It does not to #1. Since #1 is what actually happened, your reaction is out of proportion, if not actually out of line.

[Latro]

	Originally Posted by Valiyn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's text on the internet - there really is no such thing as tone. And trying to apply it is what sparks most arguments online.

Blatantly false. Why do you think literary theorists talk about tone in *books*? Word choice, sentence structure, etc. very strongly convey emotion, intention, etc. of the author, or in some literary contexts the speaker. Tone is more powerful and less ambiguous in speech, but it is still quite important in text.

Failure to recognize this constitutes failure to take responsibility for your own use of language. That is, you do not get to declare after the fact that what you said actually means what you meant, in the sense that doing so doesn't significantly change the consequences of having said it. Your language, bound in the context in which it was used, has meaning independent of your intention, and that meaning is your responsibility. In this case given the usual, idiomatic way in which "you don't have a fucking clue what it's like to be x" is used as well as the hostility implied by the use of the word "fucking", you must take responsibility for having implicitly asserted that your situation is more difficult than that of your listener. Precisely speaking you must take responsibility for the consequences of your statement being interpreted as if that's what you meant, whether it actually is what you meant or not. In this case I think most of us actually agree with this premise, and so I don't know why you're claiming that that's not what you said.

What I said was "Not close to the experience of being transgender." This is very much a comparing apples to oranges statement. "The gay community really doesn't understand the trans community outside of having the same people hate on us." This again, is an apples to oranges statement. Transphobia comes from cissexism, not homophobia. Most homosexuals are cisgender. They have cis-privalege. It should come as no surprise then they would have trouble understanding that blind spot. "If you think being misgendered is something that can be brushed aside, you don't know shit on transgender issues." Being misgendered as a way to invalidate identity is very common transphobic bigotry. Misconceptions that trans women are really males is what gets us killed, disowned, fired, seen as freaks, and so forth. And if he thinks that the behavior of invalidating someone's identity is something that can be brushed aside casually, he's demonstrating a clear lack of understanding about what trans face in the world. So how is any of what I said, or rather the way I said it, degrading what homosexuals experience in any way?

I was primarily commenting on the *second* remark, which you've completely ignored here and which is the more hostile remark. Regardless, go back and look at the first remark in context:

	Originally Posted by INTroJect To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Im gay and served in the military, and have had the pleasure of being addressed by the wrong orientation, over and over again, with very serious reprecutions should I have bothered to correct anyone on this matter. Its not a big deal, certainly not worth the smug attention that people give it.

	Originally Posted by Valiyn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Not close to the experience of being transgender. The gay community really doesn't understand the trans community outside of having the same people hate on us. If you think being misgendered is something that can be brushed aside, you don't know shit on transgender issues.

You're saying here that the troubles that INTroJect and gay people in general have faced are not close to the troubles that transgender people face; this gets interpreted in the usual way as the latter surpassing, rather than merely being different from, the former. Notice again that this interpretation can readily fade if the tone is not hostile but rather matter-of-fact; your tone was quite hostile, which magnifies the listener's confidence that your intended meaning was hostile.

[INTroJect]

Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is a strawman argument. Someone writes a thread on transgendered people, is ignorant if not insulting all over it. Education ensues. Walking up to some "mainstream" person. Starting trans-grammar education conversation out of the blue. Your above position applies just fine to #2. It does not to #1. Since #1 is what actually happened, your reaction is out of proportion, if not actually out of line.

The out of porportion and out of line would be your ubersmug nature about it. Sorry. There is no afterlife. Glbtq empathy points for having a fit because someone used the wrong pronoun arent going to be of any use.

[Valiyn]

The whole tone thing is my opinion and off-topic. Not getting into it.

	Originally Posted by Latro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You're saying here that the troubles that INTroJect and gay people in general have faced are not close to the troubles that transgender people face; this gets interpreted in the usual way as the latter surpassing, rather than merely being different from, the former.

And there is nothing in my text that supports that interpretation.

	Notice again that this interpretation can readily fade if the tone is not hostile but rather matter-of-fact; your tone was quite hostile, which magnifies the listener's confidence that your intended meaning was hostile.

He was suggesting that we shouldn't educate people because cissexism is mainstream. Yes, I'm hostile to that idea. There is no connection between being hostile to letting bigotry pass because it's mainstream and throwing away the experience of homosexuals as something less. Where is the connection there?!

	Originally Posted by INTroJect To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The out of porportion and out of line would be your ubersmug nature about it. Sorry. There is no afterlife. Glbtq empathy points for having a fit because someone used the wrong pronoun arent going to be of any use.

Cis privilege at it's finest. Are you telling me you never got mad whenever someone said homosexuals were delusional, deviant, freaks, etc?

[plotthickens]

	Originally Posted by INTroJect To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The out of porportion and out of line would be your ubersmug nature about it.

When it is pointed out "your argument is a strawman (proof) (proof)", "well you're smug so I'm right" is not a cogent rebuttal.

	Originally Posted by INTroJect To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Sorry. There is no afterlife.

WTFBBQ? Useless.

	Originally Posted by INTroJect To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Glbtq empathy points for having a fit because someone used the wrong pronoun arent going to be of any use.

You're assuming I'm not GLBTQ. This is not an Argument from Authority, so what I am or am not doesn't matter. Please note that trying to discount my argument by what I am or am not is itself a fallacious argument.

[Latro]

	Originally Posted by Valiyn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The whole tone thing is my opinion and off-topic. Not getting into it.

It's impossible to have a discussion when you ignore the central point that someone is making by arbitrarily deciding that it's off topic. At any rate, tone is not purely a matter of opinion, that's my whole point. You can influence tone with your linguistic choices in such a way that everyone's interpretation changes. You are responsible for doing this in such a way that your intended meaning is conveyed, or else are responsible for failing to be interpreted properly, assuming that the listener is paying attention to everything you are saying.

	And there is nothing in my text that supports that interpretation. He was suggesting that we shouldn't educate people because cissexism is mainstream. Yes, I'm hostile to that idea. There is no connection between being hostile to letting bigotry pass because it's mainstream and throwing away the experience of homosexuals as something less. Where is the connection there?!

The words you said, combined with a tone of hostility, combined with a context in which INTroJect was talking about his own experiences lead to that interpretation rather naturally. Notice that INTroJect made the same interpretation himself.


Here's a modification of your first statement that is less likely to be interpreted as hostile, written based on your subsequent statements about what you meant:

The experience of being transgender is rather different from the experience of being gay. The gay community encounters different issues than the trans community encounters, although they are generally hated by the same people.

The second statement is in my opinion somewhat harder to fix while preserving the denotation; but here's an attempt:
Despite not understanding what it feels like when someone describes you as being of a gender different from your gender, you are lecturing me about how that isn't a big deal. This is cissexist.

[Cooper]

What is so damned hard about calling a she a she and a he a he?

[Latro]

	Originally Posted by Cooper To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What is so damned hard about calling a she a she and a he a he?

Past tense screws it up a bit, but in the present tense I agree with you.

[plotthickens]

	Originally Posted by Latro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The words you said, combined with a tone of hostility, combined with a context in which INTroJect was talking about his own experiences lead to that interpretation rather naturally. Notice that INTroJect made the same interpretation himself.

It didn't for me. "Naturally" for you is not "naturally" for another. Sometimes i have to go away, to another thread or another task, and think about what I read. Sometimes the first read is not what was meant.

While it is on the speaker to communicate clearly, it is on the listener to try to hear what is being said; if there is a miscommunication, then ask for clarification. And to listen to the clarification. You can beat someone over the head with "But you said it the wrong way in the beginning arrrghhhh" but discussion is a two-way street.

---------- Post added 03-23-2012 at 02:52 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Cooper To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What is so damned hard about calling a she a she and a he a he?

Some people get all freaked out by things outside the bimodal norm, especially if it invovles genitalia.

[INTroJect]

Originally Posted by Latro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's impossible to have a discussion when you ignore the central point that someone is making by arbitrarily deciding that it's off topic. At any rate, tone is not purely a matter of opinion, that's my whole point. You can influence tone with your linguistic choices in such a way that everyone's interpretation changes. You are responsible for doing this in such a way that your intended meaning is conveyed, or else are responsible for failing to be interpreted properly, assuming that the listener is paying attention to everything you are saying. The words you said, combined with a tone of hostility, combined with a context in which INTroJect was talking about his own experiences lead to that interpretation rather naturally. Notice that INTroJect made the same interpretation himself.

^Yes valiyn, and funny how you say the contingent of ubersmugs misinterpret Autumnleaf, thus making it valid, but then go on to defend your innocence when you are misinterpreted. Double standard.

[Latro]

Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It didn't for me. "Naturally" for you is not "naturally" for another. Sometimes i have to go away, to another thread or another task, and think about what I read. Sometimes the first read is not what was meant. While it is on the speaker to communicate clearly, it is on the listener to try to hear what is being said; if there is a miscommunication, then ask for clarification. And to listen to the clarification. You can beat someone over the head with "But you said it the wrong way in the beginning arrrghhhh" but discussion is a two-way street.

My argument is about "that's not what I said". Feel free to say "that's not what I meant"; that probably won't fix any damage that your statements caused, but it at least tells the listener that your actual intent wasn't the same. Saying "that's not what I said" on the other hand is just lying, and more importantly constitutes a failure to take responsibility for how your statement was interpreted. If someone is hurt by something you said that isn't actually what you meant, when their interpretation is not patently absurd, you shouldn't get defensive, because you actually did make a mistake. Instead you should say "I'm sorry. I communicated that poorly, and did not intend to convey anything hurtful. What I actually meant was ..." Again, this doesn't actually fix any damage that your statements caused, but it both conveys that your intent was different and also removes the defensive tone, replacing it with a productive, conciliatory one.