Yesterday, Barack Obama declared that his position on gay marriage has evolved, and where once he thought civil unions were sufficient, he’s decided, rightly, that they are not, and has made possibly the clearest and most supportive statement on the matter that any president has ever made.
Critics have contended that civil unions are another way of saying “separate but equal”, only, you know, without the “equal” part. It is effectively a form of soft bigotry to say that one type of life partner contract is allowed to be called “marriage” while this other type is not, for reasons completely unfathomable to anyone but the theists who draw the line in the sand at their personal definition of marriage — a relationship sanctified by a member of their clergy and thus accepted in the eyes of God. There are, of course, legal ramifications as well, but people seem to care more about their precious words.
And while many individual members of many religious organizations would have no problem with declaring that their God has no problem with gays getting married, others obviously find it some sort abomination, owing to their particular readings of the religious traditions they hold dear. The parallels with the religiously-motivated opposition to interracial marriage are obvious and palpable. With good reason — the situations are practically identical.
Despite this good news, my initial reaction — and I suspect many of your initial reactions as well — were deeply cynical.
I was initially irritated that this statement was made very shortly before Obama’s reelection campaign began. It felt like an opening gambit, a sop to pander to the LGBTQ community who, by and large, has felt abandoned by Obama since he took office. I was mad that it hadn’t happened sooner, that it COULD have happened sooner but for Obama’s own position on the matter. I was worried that, with so much riding on keeping outright slavering bigotry out of the Oval Office, that Obama could have done more good by announcing this a year or more ago, having the conversation in advance, making the political climate toxic to bigoted Republicans for this election, and could have done a significant amount more good in the name of equality than he’s managed so far.
But Obama was instrumental in the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the Clinton-era law that ostensibly opened the door for non-heteronormative folks to join the military with impunity — so long as, you know, they hid the fact that they were anything but heterosexual. With Republicans controlling the House for the past two years, and controlling many states’ legislatures, and therefore most of the United States’ political agenda, gays have seen nothing but one ridiculous law after another in one state after another to abridge their rights.
Of course, they’re not alone, as women have had their reproductive rights under siege for the entire duration, but much as misery loves company, people also generally love having boots removed from their throats. Go figure. So the sitting President is, from his bully pulpit, bullying the bullies who have joyfully maintained their boot-on-neck stance. And the pushback against this anti-bully movement is ridiculously transparent, with the anti-gay rhetoric claiming by and large that the Christians and bigots are themselves being bullied, by having their right-to-bully removed.
Sure, Obama has had three and a half years in office to take this potentially controversial stand, and we’re all disappointed that it could have been sooner. But given that only a slim majority of the electorate supports gay marriage, and given the real goals of the Republicans for the past several decades have been geared toward social conservatism (e.g., every regressive policy you can find a Bible verse to support), rather than any sort of fiscal prudence or any other pretension at good governance, it seems the “obvious political calculus” aimed at shoring up numbers in an otherwise demotivated demographic is not so obvious after all. The Republicans still get an unduly large amount of support from the general electorate despite their obvious bigotry, which they wear on their sleeves. So this is actually a really bad, really risky time for Obama to be making this sort of stand, even if it will motivate that otherwise demotivated demographic.
This motion could backfire, drastically. That makes the motion seem all the more genuine. Either that, or Obama’s signalling that he’s going all in this time around, and he’s betting with the unprecedented upswing in support for gay marriage. He could have punted on this til after the election, but he didn’t. And that’s important.
I do wish that Obama had realized much sooner all the parallels between the anti-gay bigots and the anti-miscegenation bigots of yesteryear. I suspect he’s figuring it out now, and if this enlightenment comes because his political handlers are nudging him in that direction, so be it. Better late than never, given the alternative has openly campaigned on maintaining straight male privilege.
I have decided that for me, this is not the time to be cynical. The stakes are always high in any election for the President of the United States, but in this case, my cynicism right now could actually help to undo this positive momentum for human rights, and given how slow we as a race tend to be in fixing injustice, I’d rather not lose that momentum and have to continue having this sort of conversation in a decade. Now’s the time. We’re at the tipping point. Keep pushing.
I have mostly just tried to read and see if I could learn in this whole debate. I have tried to be a good ally by listening to dissent against my opinion. I have the luxury of not responding till I am more comfortable because this isn’t my blog. That being said I am going to respond now.
I am bi. I currently am in a polyamorous relationship where I enjoy the privileges of a heterosexual marriage. I will probably never hope to marry my same sex love while still being married to my opposite sex love. That is my full disclosure so you can determine what aspects of privilege I speak from.
When I said in comment two I think that Obama’s actions speak more than his words, I was referring in part to all that he has done to advance gay rights without speaking on them. I was also referring on part to this article: http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/05/news-analysis-obamas-marriage-equality-support-is.html forgive the fact theater I didn’t embed the link in text as I am not comfortable enough with html to try and do it on my phone.
With those to pieces in mind, I personally remain hopeful and optimistic that Obama will not treat this like a state issue no matter what his words say. I learned a long time ago that one people tend to pay attention to what politicians/celebrities say rather than what they do and two they really should be paying attention to what they do. Yes, you are right, Obama saying that it is a states rights issue was giving deference to the states that have banned it. Yes you are right that it throws gays under the bus for immediate gain. Yes your cynicism is not wrong to feel. I just remain hopeful that the pandering to the states rights crowd was no more than empty words. I remain hopeful that Obama knows how to win a game when he faces some of the unfairest competition ever and that when he wins that game he will do the right thing.
That doesn’t mean I don’t want those who are cynical to shut up. Obama needs to be told over and over again that this is more than about him telling us he is personally ok with our marriages. Obama needs to be reminded that this is a fundamental rights issue not just once or twice but repeatedly. I still remain hopeful that he feels that way. It may be naive of me to feel that way. We will see.
That being said, I want to say to Jason after reading the initial post a few times to be sure, I get why the reaction happened. While you never expressly say that the cynicism others feel is invalid the implication is there. The implied stance appears to say I was wrong so therefore you are too. I believe you didn’t mean to imply and that you were just trying to vocalize a personal change from cynicism to optimism but I kind of get why people are angry.
I say these things to clarify my understanding based on trying my damnedest to listen past my privilege. I believe based on in the past that Jason is not in anyway trying to condescend or silence voices but rather trying to show why he is optimistic. I may be wrong. I expect others to tell me if I am.
Yes, let us look at his “accomplishment”
Signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which expanded existing United States federal hate crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability — the first positive federal LGBT legislation in the nation’s history.
A law that he did not lobby for and a law that, 2.5 years later, has never been applied even though there have been several federal cases where it could have been applied.
Repealed Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell
He aggressively fought against a judicial repeal of DADT. He abjectly refused to use his authority as Commander-in-Chief to invoke stop-loss against DADT discharges, even though he was using it extensively otherwise. He did nothing to support legislative repeal, and there are reports that he quietly lobbied members of Congress not to pass the repeal. When he was presented with a fait accompli, he had no choice but to sign it into law: after that, he then dragged his heels on implementing for as long as he could.
Signed the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act.
So did George W. Bush, in 2006. Providing funding to stem a fatal pandemic that affects everyone regardless of sexual orientation — globally, AIDS is overwhelmingly a straight disease — is not exactly a risky action.
Reversed US refusal to sign the UN Declaration on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.
After Secretary of State Clinton and UN Ambassador Susan Rice publicly stated in late January 2009, right after their appointments, that the US should sign, thus putting the President into a position where he had no choice but to change national policy. It is significant to note that a 2008 affirmation of the 2006 declaration was ratified unanimously by the Organization of American States… that is to say, the Bush Administration endorsed the Declaration without actually signing it.
Extended benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees in 2009 and, further, in 2010.
In 2009, several of the newly appointed Cabinet members announced that they would be extending benefits to the same-sex partners of employees in their baliwicks. There was no official presidential support for this until 2010, when a federal lawsuit was filed by an employee citing violations of long established anti-discrimination policies in the denial of benefits for legal spouses. The president tried to head off the lawsuit by authorizing benefits throughout the Executive Branch — not all federal employees, mind you, only those under his authority as Chief Executive; congressional aides, federal court clerks and the like were members of other branches of government. Oh, and the president’s tactic did not work: a judge in the Northern California Federal District Court found that the policy was discriminatory on April 3 of this year.
Issued diplomatic passports, and provided other benefits, to the partners of same-sex foreign service employees.
A policy started by Hillary Clinton in her role as Secretary of State and thus head of the nation’s Diplomatic Corps. While the President did not challenge Secretary Clinton’s authority on the matter, he did not actually initiate the policy change.
Committed to ensuring that federal housing programs are open to all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.
A policy started by Shaun Donovan in his role as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. While the President did not challenge Secretary Donovan’s authority on the matter, he did not actually initiate the policy change.
Conceived a National Resource Center for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Elders — the nation’s first ever — funded by a three-year HHS grant to SAG.
A plan proposed by Kathleen Sebelius in her role as Secretary of Health and Human Services, in response to efforts by LGBT organizations who have lobbied for such support since the Clinton Administration. While the President did not challenge Secretary Sebelius’ authority on the matter, he did nothing at all to promote it and most certainly did not “conceive” of it. Funding for the center was originally announced at $250,000 per year “pending availability of funds.” No funding was available in 2010 or 2011, making the Resource Center effectively moribund.
Banned job discrimination based on gender identity throughout the Federal government (the nation’s largest employer)
Another policy established by Cabinet Secretaries and department heads, not by the President.
Eliminated the discriminatory Census Bureau policy that kept our relationships from being counted, encouraging couples who consider themselves married to file that way, even if their state of residence does not yet permit legal marriage.
A rule change proposed by Gary Locke in his then role as Secretary of Commerce, which oversees the Census Bureau. President Obama publicly expressed doubts on this, citing the Federal Denial of Marriage Act, but in the end chose not to overrule Secretary Locke.
Instructed HHS to require any hospital receiving Medicare or Medicaid funds (virtually all hospitals) to allow LGBT visitation rights.
Right after Kathleen Sebelius became Secretary of Health and Human Services, she publicly announced this policy change, without first getting permission. She was reprimanded by the White House and was almost fired because of it. A few days later, the President issued a memo that retroactively authorized Secretary Sebelius to initiate the policy.
I could keep going, but I’m bored. You should be able to see the pattern, though.
From where I stand, a savvy enemy did say them, in a White House press conference on Wednesday.
Jason, pardon me, but I have been watching this, and I would like to bring something up that I think you should consider. On comment 93, you said “…I was not saying anyone else’s reactions are wrong.”
But you did, in your original post. I think that is the point of some of the anger that is being directed towards you personally. “This is not the time to be cynical,” is what you said. Not, “I don’t want to be cynical;” not “I choose not to view this cynically;” not, “I am looking how to use this in a positive way.” “This is not the time to be cynical” is, as a statement, inherently critical of those who are cynical, and says that their feelings are not valid, despite your statement in #4. In fact, I feel I should point out that in this context, your statement in #4 reads something like, “Josh, you can overreact if you want, and I can react calmly and properly, and feelings are subjective, so we’re both right in claiming to feel what we feel.”
I have read your blog, with pleasure, for a while now. I was naturally shocked and confused to see that implication.
I am (for the moment) giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn’t notice what I am (for the moment) interpreting as an error in expression — because your responses right through #98 don’t seem to indicate that you are aware of the other way your phrasing could come together. I believe (or would like to believe) that you were simply imprecise, and that the subsequent heated conversation failed to illuminate that imprecision. I am explicitly drawing attention to it now, in some hope that it will help.
—
Oh, and as loosely related matter, this piqued my interest – in comment #89, you said (quoting RahXephon at #83), “‘Jason is in defensive mode; I doubt he’s even reading this thread.’ You’re right. I wasn’t. Because I was asleep. What a horrible ally!” Funny you should mention that. In your comment #75, I took that to mean, “I am permanently leaving the conversation.” That’s just my read, though. I don’t know how others interpreted it (and I don’t recall any memorable moments of how you have used that phrase in the past).
I said that because you said
I didn’t anticipate the blogowner failing to stick the flounce.
*snaps fingers* Hey! I’m over here! Talk to me and not your pet strawman for a second. Josh and I already said there are gay people who think this is great. I can still think they’re naive for believing so. There’s a manifest difference between “gay people who disagree with me don’t exist” and “gay people who disagree with me exist and I think they’re wrong”.
You “agreed” with us about it but you don’t seem to understand what it actually means. It means Obama does not support us. I think Obama only cares about gay people when we can whip out our checkbooks and donate to his campaign, and you know why? Because “states’ rights” was used as a way for federal politicians to have their cake and eat it, too. They get to claim they’re not personally racist but that their “hands are tied” as far as doing anything about it because whooooooops states’ rights! It’s a fucking legal copout.
In the US, the federal government supersedes the states, and Obama could fix this, nullify those 32 marriage bans, by throwing his resources behind passing a federal marriage bill, or at least repealing DOMA, and he’s not doing that.
Hmm. B @104, you’re right, you’re the first person to bring that to my attention. If I amended that sentence right now to say what I meant, e.g. “now is not the time for ME to be cynical”, would any of this perception of me as a bad ally go away?
Also, of course I’m not going to “stick the flounce” on my own blog, because it wasn’t a flounce. I was done with the conversation about this continuous attack on my ally status and said you can go ahead and hate me all you want. I’m cool with that. I made peace with the fact that some people are going to hate me no matter what I say at this point.
Evidently I have communication problems in initial drafts, especially when all I have time for is hacking out initial thoughts in 45 minutes between major work debacles. If I had bothered to draft that and revise it, send it to someone to edit and vet, and post a more polished version of this, I might have caught that nuance and headed it off.
As it stood, I wasn’t expecting so many people to think that my shift from cynicism to optimism on specific points I itemized in the initial post would be taken as advice that everyone should be just like me and that any points I missed covering are somehow unworthy of being discussed.
@Jason: I understand your point of view. I disagree with it, for reasons I detailed above… that said, I disagree with others here saying you’re a shitty ally for holding the opinion you have. I can understand how someone might see this as a victory.
I just think that we’ve come far enough that just having someone in power say, “Yeah, it’s a problem that people aren’t allowed to marry if their partner has the same gender” isn’t good enough anymore. If he said, “Well, I’ve thought a lot about it, and for me, personally, I think that women, if they’re doing the same job with the same abilities and qualifications, should be paid the same and have the same promotion and wage increase opportunities as men,” would it be a victory?
No, it wouldn’t. Because we’re past the point when saying that was a step forward. Same with gay marriage. We’re past the point where admitting that the lack of equality is a problem is a step forward. I’d go so far as to say that we’re past the point where public figures advocating for gay rights openly is a step forward. We’re at the point where we only make progress if major pushes for legislation happen. Obama could do that (even without infringing on State’s rights). He chose not to call for legislation explicitly and framed the idea that people should be equal as a matter of personal opinion. Thus, I don’t see this one as a victory.
That said, in the interest of full disclosure, I’ll say this: I didn’t realize how much they had managed to get past the Republicans until I followed the link @22. Bravo to the Obama administration for that.
Dude…this is just getting to be bizarre. We don’t “hate” you, or at least I don’t; I didn’t even know you existed until yesterday, and my only point in posting here was that your naive interpretation of Obama’s statement seem to be based on your straight privilege, as is your consistent inability to actually listen to the actual gay people who try to tell you that.
I don’t need an ally who thinks he knows how to defend me better than I do.
I have edited that last paragraph. Hooray for revising history.
Old:
New with emphasized changes:
That’s good. Anyone who actually thinks they do better know how to defend you than you do, probably isn’t an ally at all.
Jason, if it helps you understand how we feel, there’s this:
Someone posted on another thread that politicians have a history of giving some crumb of concession to a movement and the movement accepts that crumb, it lowers their expectations and they lose steam. That’s what I’m afraid is happening here. If I’m supposed to act like the president saying he personally is cool with gay marriage but that he’s also cool with it if every state in the country bans it is OMG THE MOST AMAZING CIVIL RIGHTS ADVANCE EVAH, then that means expectations are exceedingly fucking low. Those kinds of expectations can’t even see the bottom of the barrel, because they shot through that and lodged themselves in the bedrock.
So, that’s why I’m not happy about this. My response to Obama, if I ever met him, would be “that’s great, Mr. President, now actually do something about it. Until you do, your opinion is worth nothing. Your opinion doesn’t change law.” That’s why I’m so uncompromising; nothing will be good enough until full, legal equality is established. That’s where I set my standard of acceptability.
Jason, honestly—though I realize this won’t sound plausible, I actually really like you as a blogger. But you’re being a BIG. Fucking. Baby.
You just got poked pretty hard because your privilege was showing. You really really really really really didn’t like that because you don’t want to think of yourself as “that kind of person.” You’ve got a lot invested in your identity as a humane and caring person. I understand this. I think you are a humane and caring person.
But you’re also a straight white guy who will NEVER know what it’s like to be on the receiving end of this. You could be the most saintly straight dood on the face of the earth and it still wouldn’t wipe away the fact that you can’t fully empathize. That’s OK—I can’t fully empathize with what women go through, for example. It’s human.
But it does obligate you to stop whining and putting a higher premium on displaying public woundedness than you do on seriously considering what the goddamned targets of the civil rights issue are telling you.
Is this truly the first time you’ve been taken down a peg for making a privilege mistake? Get used to it. It happens to all of us.
No, Josh, it does sound very implausible. If you like me as a blogger and as a person, why the hell didn’t you tell me exactly what gave you the impression that I was telling you to change when I asked you to do so? B @104 did. And I changed that paragraph.
Anyone who’s not hard-of-reading could understand my objections, Jason. I’m a lot of things—loudmouthed and profane among them—but one thing I’m not is obscure.
You pointed to my showing Romney’s intentions as supporting Greg’s point. You reiterated that I said you and others were being cynical about points that I hadn’t even addressed in my original post. It took B saying explicitly what he read as giving that impression before I saw it myself. I asked you twice for that. It’s not that you were being obscure, but that you weren’t even trying to reference it.
Look. I know you’re worked up about this. I understand. I empathize with that anger. I can’t fully empathize with your struggle as a whole, of course, because I’m privileged. I recognize that and admit it without hesitation.
I can even get that your being worked up about it is enough to make you think that my honest request for explicitly what caused you to think what you did about my post was “pushback”, if that was because you were worked up about it.
One thing about liking and respecting someone as a person is you give them the benefit of the doubt when you are asked for how they can help you better. You think I want blow-ups like this every time I’m not helping enough? You think I enjoy hurting the people I’m trying to help?
Okay. My second to last paragraph is very tangled in @115. I hope you understand it despite that.
Jason: Because that paragraph you edited (thanks for that, btw) is just one indicator of many that you don’t consider cynicism justifiable in this instance. Another of your phrases I objected to, much later, specifically “this would be less hard to swallow” (#100) gives a similar impression. My impression is that you’re willing to accept cynicism in allies as a well-intended overreaction, but not to empathize sufficiently to understand why cynicism might be a reasonable response to a real threat. This isn’t a matter of hurt pride. Hence, I tried to explain by comparison to abuse. I think you can see that “I understand you’re worked up about this” (#115) is very, very faint comfort.
Pteryxx: define “in this instance”. Because if you mean in the specific points of the timing and the political calculus, yes, I think cynicism is unwarranted in those instances, which is why I had a change of heart on them.
If you mean “in this instance” as in everything else that’s gone down in this comment thread, e.g. as in the points I did not address in my original post, I think you should know by now that I absolutely do not think cynicism about the states rights stuff is unwarranted.
Otherwise, if you feel the need to parse comments I’m making in trying to build a bridge between us in order to continue to find ways to interpret me as being somehow against you, I’m not impressed.
Jason, you also just said this:
I attempted to explain how you’re coming across in this discussion, because I think you’re continuing to be unintentionally insensitive, I think it’s interfering with the conversation, and I think it’s an addressable mistake. “Being somehow against you” is your interpretation.
[meta]
Perhaps it would be clearer to some if they were to replace ‘gay marriage’ with ‘women’s vote’ wherever the former occurs in the above discussion.
Desert: I wanted to acknowledge and accept your apology. To admit a fault and accept responsibility is a rare trait that I greatly respect.
Cheers!
Jason,
Do you feel that you were a good ally to LGB folk after Laden commented on your blog saying (paraphrase) that people who weren’t happy about Obama’s statement needed to shut up with their criticisms or else they were supporting Romney by “sabotaging” Obama? If you think you did, what did you do that makes you think yourself a good ally?
Do you feel you’re being a good ally by focusing on people’s disagreements about your binary political system, especially when these disagreements were not brought up by the person you’re trying to criticize?
Please frame your answer in light of this news: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/05/12/Poll-gauges-Obama-gay-marriage-stand-vote/UPI-22281336832073/#ixzz1ufQrSKzF
You do realize that women’s suffrage “was achieved gradually, at state and local levels during the late 19th century and early 20th century” (Wiki)?
If this were the early 19th century, I would be very happy if the President came out in favor of suffrage for women, even if he said it was a matter of state’s rights.
I would of course not believe it should be a matter of state’s rights, and would continue to fight for a federal amendment. I would be keenly aware of the injustice of the overarching situation and people’s irrational prejudices. However, I hope I would also have a sense of history and at least some political realism.
What I would not do, is attack people on my side simply because they were happy to see some progress had been made.
Stacy:
But it isn’t the early 19th century, is it?
Quite a few of the prominent posters at FTB have no found that playing the “privilege” game can backfire in dramatic circumstances.
But, it does seem that those in the FTB community that love to “call out” people, hate it when they are “called out” themselves.
Slippery slope, et al.
I wonder if you have enough integrity and self awareness in you to say the same whenever you see logical fallacies brought up against ‘prominent’ atheists.
And even if it were it still wouldn’t be a good idea. Just because we could conceivably make it work doesn’t make turning marriage equality into a State’s rights issue a sound strategy. Hell, it sounds like sabotage at this point.
No. But the fight for gay marriage is ongoing, as the fight for women’s suffrage was then, and that was the analogy I was making.
I understand the feeling that “It’s the 21st century ferchrissakes, we should be past this already.” But social progress and widening the circle of rights and of concern for others doesn’t work that way.
And shit, a large proportion of the citizens of this the most powerful country on Earth (still, or as of recently,) still get their “morality” out of a book of Iron Age fairy tales.
This is what I’m not getting. Those were weasel-words, sure; politically-safe talk. But sabotage? Only if you think that those words about “state’s rights” are somehow set in stone.
I think the best strategy is the one that’s being pursued (same one the suffragists used): to push it on all fronts.
Take the Prez’s words as a small symbolic step forward, and keep on keeping on. But don’t despair because political reality keeps a careful pol like BO from conceding everything you (rightly) want just as soon as you want it.
(By the way, in my earlier comment, I meant to say “early 20th century. Damn. And I’m usually so careful about not mixing up my centuries like that.)
[meta]
Stacy,
I have no bone in this fight, other than philosophically (I’m a straight non-American), but I’m glad you grok me.
(OTOH, I don’t expect (I don’t deserve) to be lauded for such dim support-in-principle as I may provide to those for whom it’s a real problem in their lives))
Tim Groc: that sentiment is not welcome here. Discussing someone’s privilege isn’t a “game” to play, it’s a legitimate point saying that someone doesn’t have the standing to make the kinds of judgment calls they’ve made, or that they’re missing some larger and still salient points.
And I certainly missed talking about those points, even if I didn’t miss their implication and definitely agreed with Josh when he brought them up. Sure, it took a while for the rage to simmer down, but it seems to be mostly abated now.
By the way, the folks at the slimepit evidently loved me getting called privileged. Said it must be like being caught on the “wrong side” of Elevatorgate. Strangely, I still support gays, while they have largely decided bitches ain’t shit. So there’s that.
(John Greg hit my wall and CommanderTuvok hit Stephanie’s post about Don’t Feed the Trolls panel at CONvergence, suggesting they were once again slavering — and here I am feeding those trolls.)
Jason: something that jumped out at me from earlier comments about people’s perspectives is when you said something about your feelings and the opinions of queer folks upset with Obama’s statement both being equally valid.
The thing is, that in and of itself is a privileged viewpoint. You, as a straight person, aren’t really hurt by the limited scope of his statement. Queer people are. In that light your opinion really isn’t as valid because it isn’t informed by the same experiences and hopes and fears. Gay folks supporting the President’s statement? Them I give some weight to. Your hetero feelings? Er…
It’d be like me as an American lecturing you on some Canadian statute that causes you issue and doesn’t affect me at all. If I tell you that you’re supposed to be happy over, say, a tiny repeal of some otherwise still pervasive Harper American boot-licking bullcrap that I don’t even have to live under, is my opinion ‘just as valid’? Or would you tell me (rightly) to shove it?
Didn’t we go over that already? Josh and I were talking past one another. We were talking about different things.
On the issue of “state rights” and civil rights, as I see it, Obama actually implied that law-makers and/or voters have a moral obligation to refrain from passing or maintaining legislation that bans same-gender marriage, which involves an obligation to pass legislation allowing same-gender marriage where it’s banned.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-robin-roberts-abc-news-interview-president-obama/story?id=16316043
Obama said:
That’s a moral claim.
He says that same-sex couples should be able to get married (not just in some states, but the claim seems to be about the whole country at least).
So, given that, and while the passive voice used in the moral claim makes it more somewhat more difficult to ascertain who the person who has the moral obligation is, he seems to imply that those with law-making power have a moral obligation to pass legislation abrogating any legislation that prevent same-sex couples from getting married, but he’s wording it in a way that does not sound too hostile.
My impression is that he’s trying to persuade some people in different states to switch sides, instead of alienating them, but that same-sex couples should be able to get married seems to imply, but if one wants to put it in the language of rights, that same-sex couples should be able to get married implies that same-sex couples have a right to get married (a moral right, not necessarily a constitutional right, which is another matter).
He also seems to think that that way same-gender marriage will eventually be recognized nationwide, but he’s not saying that whatever the legislatures or electorates choose is morally acceptable, as far as I can tell.
On that note, he said (emphasis mine):
As I see it, he’s trying not to be too harsh on those opposing same-gender marriage, and he’s trying to persuade some of them, instead of antagonizing them, but he’s still implying that they’re wrong in their position when they ban same-gender marriage, even if he says that their intention to protect families is a good one.
In other words, he’s saying that many of those who want to ban same-gender marriage (or keep it banned, depending on the case) have good intentions (namely, to protect families), but are nevertheless mistaken, since same-gender marriage would not do any harm to families.
It seems to me it’s a reasonable strategy for advancing the cause same-gender marriage, even if it would probably have been more effective if he had come up with the same idea, say, a couple of years ago.
An alternative strategy would be to say that the US Constitution guarantees the right to same-gender marriage, due to the Equal Protection clause. But he may not believe so (if he does, he may have assessed that it wasn’t a good strategy to get same-gender marriage allowed nationwide, or simply that it was too high a price for him to pay, perhaps costing him the election).
Regarding women’s vote, that would seem to be a good comparison.
What if one believes that the constitution does not establish that women have the right to vote, but nevertheless people with law-making power have a moral obligation to pass legislation to allow it?
One might prefer to try to resolve the matter at a state level, trying to persuade law-makers and/or voters that they should allow women to vote, or at a national level, trying to persuade federal lawmakers and state lawmakers in 3/4 of states to pass a constitutional amendment.
Alternatively, one might try to do both, pushing for both a constitutional amendment and (just in case that fails, or to go faster, or whatever) legislation at a state level.
Which strategy is more likely to succeed depends on a number of social variables.
Of course, it can be argued that if Obama believes that the US constitution does not protect same-gender couples’ right to marry, he’s mistaken in his interpretation of the US constitution. That may well be the case, but it’s not the same as morally endorsing whatever legislatures say.
So, in brief, I think the negative reaction might be the result of a misinterpretation of his words, perhaps because because he talked about a “healthy debate” and a “healthy process”, etc., and that may have given a mistaken impression. That would be his mistake (unless, perhaps, he deliberately did that as a means to persuade more people due to a less confrontational approach to the matter, which sometimes works (it depends on the case, so it’s hard to say)), but even if that is so, Obama does not seem to have said or implied that the matter is in the hands of the voters and/or law-makers of the states, from a moral perspective (as I understand his statement, and for the reasons I explained above).
On the other hand, from a legal (“legal” in the broad sense, including constitutional) perspective, in the American system, the matter is always in the hands of some law-makers and/or voters, whether it’s those with the power to make the rules at a state level, or at a national level.
Angra:
Sure — but neither much of one nor especially convincing.
Note:what he said is not the same as “I’ve just concluded it is important to go ahead and affirm that same-sex couples should be able to get married.”His disclaimer is intended to make it clear this is not his political opinion.
(I thought he was elected as a politician, not an example of moral rectitude)
Jason: you did amend your initial post to something more placatory, true. And I didn’t realize how old this topic was, so I apologize for trying to mudrake all over again. Thank you for your calm reply.
Nice. Do you realize I didn’t criticize you, merely asked questions? You are way too defensive. I won’t waste my time here anymore.
@ Angra Mainyu I am considering your point but I wanted to say initially that it is erroneous to equate sex and gender. People of the same gender can get married so long as they are not of the same sex. It is generally considered cissexist/cisnormative (read without considering the existence and importance of transgender people) to consider the two the same.
John Morales:
I’m not sure what you mean.
If by ‘neither much of one’ you mean it’s not a particularly strong condemnation of those who differ, that’s true. As I mentioned, he’s probably aiming at convincing.
Else, what do you mean?
As for ‘nor especially convincing’, are you saying that it does not convince you that he believes so, or that he’s not likely to persuade others, or something else?
In any case, my point was about the interpretation of what he was saying, and the ‘state rights’ issue.
I’m not sure what you mean. Important to whom?
In any case, it does not seem to be a claim that to go ahead and affirm that people with lawmaking power have a moral obligation to allow same-sex marriage is important to some group of people, or morally obligatory if that is what you mean.
However, he’s apparently implying that people with such power (though he’s not entirely clear as to which ones if the claim is not general, due to the passive voice) have a moral obligation to go ahead and allow same-gender marriage.
I do not understand the distinction that you’re trying to make. If he’s making a moral claim, it’s expressing his views. I do not know what ‘political opinion’ (as opposed to his opinion) would be.
As for the issue that he was elected as a politician, sure, but politicians usually make moral claims (like most people), and the debate over same-gender marriage is a moral one (as are many other debates), so I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.
When someone says that Obama should have said something else, that is a moral claim on their part as well.
WilloNyx,
If the term ‘same-gender marriage’ is inaccurate, I can use ‘same-sex marriage’ instead, but I was under the impression that ‘same-gender marriage’ was one of the standard terms in the US for the legislation that is proposed, even if distinctions between sex and gender that are made in other contexts – just as the term ‘same-sex marriage’ appears to also be one of the standard terms in the US for the legislation that is proposed, even though someone might object that gay people can actually get married (just not to someone of the same sex).
I didn’t mean to equating gender and sex in general, but rather using a term that appeared to be among the standard ones for the purposes at hand.
That aside, I’m not sure about your point that equating sex and gender is generally considered cissexist; “generally” seems to indicate a general assessment, but I have not encountered such assessments before. Also, it seems to me that it would be a mistaken consideration in most cases, since it seems ‘cissexist’ entails negative feelings towards transgender people, whereas in most cases equating the terms would be the result of a person’s not being familiar with the different terminology, not of a negative assessment about anyone (even if someone had negative feelings about transgender people, they probably wouldn’t be expressing them by equating sex and gender).
In any case, I’d rather focus on Obama’s statement, not the preferred terminology for the proposed legislation. I’ll say ‘same-sex’ marriage if I find no objections to that one.
@ Angra Mainyu:
As my attempts to politely address your error were ignored, I will no longer be polite.
It is inaccurate and here is why. Gender has nothing to do with marriage. Gender only has a strong correlation with sex (how strong is yet to be determined as we still consider cis to be the null hypothesis). Marriage applications are not remotely concerned with your gender identification. They only are concerned with the genitalia you have. In most states if you have male genitalia you are unable to marry another person with male genitalia. It doesn’t matter if you are a heterosexual transgender woman. If you are pre op, non op, or simply haven’t been able to change the “sex” on your documents yet, you are unable to marry someone of your opposite gender (assuming gender binary in this scenario) because the laws prohibit “same sex marriage.”
While calling it a “gay marriage debate” is a bit of a misnomer because yes it isn’t about whether gays are allowed to marry at all but rather whether they are allowed to marry the people they love, it still doesn’t quite compare to using the term “same gender marriage” because same gender couples are often allowed to marry the person they love so long as that person is not their same “sex.” So no matter how you view this it is erroneous to call it a “same gender marriage” debate. It is undoubtedly a “same sex marriage” debate. Furthermore it does not matter whether it is a standard legal term because it is a wrong term for the matter. It de facto equates gender with sex when the science shows that they are not in fact the same thing.
I will say this next: I never said that you are being cissexist, but I will say it now. Not all sexism is intended to be disparaging and not all cissexism is intended to be disparaging. People engage in cissexism all the time when they “like trans people” just like people engage in homophobia all the time when they “like gay people.” Liking trans people or not intending to disparage them does not excuse that saying the debate is about “same gender marriage” is cisnormative and cissexist in that it erases the trans experience from the debate. It assumes the standard as cis and that equating gender with sex is expected. It is wrong on all levels. Furthermore people all the fucking time express negative attitudes about trans people by equating sex and gender. It is ridiculously common. “You aren’t a real woman cause you have a penis.” or “I am a lesbian so I only sleep with cis women.” You can read more about that by perusing posts on The Cotton Ceiling where if you read the comments on those posts you will see a ton of transphobia in the form of equating sex and gender. Way too common.
Or you can just pay attention to the debated about trans people in restrooms.
First off, and I say this as politely as possible: Fuck you. I never once tried to say that your points were or were not valid. I expressly said I was considering the points in your post. They are pure speculation based on very limited information but I am still considering them. Even if I wasn’t, it doesn’t excuse that you are using the wrong terms. It doesn’t mean I can’t tell you that you are using the wrong terms. What you said here basically says “I stop being cissexist because it offends you only if you listen to what I have to say.” Instead you should stop being cissexist because it is the right thing to do. It isn’t about doing me a favor so I will listen to your points. It is about using accurate terminology so you don’t throw a whole minority group under the bus when trying to make your point. It is about being a decent human being. Human decency is not quid pro quo.
First, I did not ignore your post.
On the other hand, you didn’t even address my arguments. Instead, you changed the subject, and assumed that using what seems to be a standard term on the matter (like ‘same-gender marriage’) implies ignoring any distinctions between sex and gender in any context.
Second, your suggestion that it was generally considered ‘cissexist/cisnormative’ to equate gender and sex, coupled with the claim that I was doing that (whereas I was using a word that seems to be a standard one, even if inaccurate) is probably not true (i.e., it’s not generally so regarded), and if true, usually inaccurate.
Third, attacking me is unwarranted. I did not do anything against you, or against any transgender people. I used a common term to describe proposed pieces of legislation.
Even if the term ‘same-gender marriage’ is not entirely precise if we take each of the words literally, the fact remains that it does the job of clearly stating what piece of proposed legislation one is referring to – since, well, it’s a common term, and it denotes the proposed piece of legislation.
Fourth, even so, I offered to use ‘same-sex marriage’ instead, if I found no objections to that one.
Actually, the term ‘same-sex marriage’ is not entirely accurate, either, since someone might get married first and then change their genitalia – for instance.
Moreover, while I’m not familiar with the legislation in every single jurisdiction in the world, there are jurisdiction like the United Kingdom, in which it’s not the legally recognized sex what matters, but the legally recognized gender.
In fact, applicants do not need to be post-operative, though there seems to be a requirement that they intend to have a sex change as well.
See:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/notes/division/4/3.
Also: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/notes/contents
http://www.grp.gov.uk/
http://www.gires.org.uk/GRA.php
So, two people in the UK with the same legally recognized gender are not allowed to get married in the UK. But two people with the same sex but opposite legally recognized gender may get married.
So, at least in the UK, it appears that the most accurate term, if we take the components of the terms ‘same-gender marriage’ and ‘same-sex marriage’ separately, would be ‘same-gender marriage’, since the proposed legislation would allow people of the same legally recognized gender to get married, which is not possible now.
However, given that the terms ‘same-gender marriage’, ‘same-sex marriage’, and ‘gay marriage’ seem to be standard enough and denotes what pieces of legislation or proposed legislation one is talking about (i.e., they do not generate confusion), and the choice of words does not have negative connotations, it would be unwarranted to object to the usage of ‘same-sex marriage’ or ‘gay marriage’.
In fact, in the UK, the term ‘same-sex marriage’ seems to be common as well. And that’s not a problem, since the term has come to denote a certain type of legislation, regardless of the meanings of the individual words in it, interpreted in a restricted sense.
But that does not change the issue with regard to the accuracy of the term (or rather, its accuracy if one actually removes the individual words instead of considering it a usual term for a type of legislation), which is what your previous arguments are about.
If couples of the same sex are discriminated against more often than same-gender couples when it comes to marriage, I have no objection to that claim.
Meaning is determined by usage, and the meaning of ‘same-gender marriage’ is the same as ‘gay marriage’ and ‘same-sex marriage’; it does not entail any denial of science.
You’re condemning me for something that I’m not guilty of, and for no good reason.
I did not erase anything, did not deny anything, but used one of the standard terms for a certain proposed legislation.
But since I didn’t say or suggest that someone isn’t a real woman because she has a penis, etc., this does not apply to me. Moreover, I did not equate sex and gender, but used one of the standard terms.
Okay, that’s quite polite.
As a proportionate response, and just as politely, I will say: Fuck you as well.
And I never once said you said my points weren’t true. Instead, you changed the subject on an absurd terminological issue.
Actually, part of them are a description of what he said. The implications (i.e., it’s a moral claim) are extremely likely because that seems to be what the words mean, not just based on very limited information. As for what he intends to do, true, that’s more speculative, but it seems rather probable to me; I am willing to discuss it, though I wasn’t trying to convince you do discuss it with me (just not to derail and attack me).
Sorry, but you’re the one making unwarranted moral condemnations. The term seems common enough, and it does not have negative implications. If you say that lawmakers should consider the situation of transgender people, sure, I agree.
If you say that the other term reflects more often what’s at stake because it’s more common for same-sex couples to be discriminated against, and for that reason you prefer the term ‘same-sex marriage’, that would be understandable, but it does not justify condemning someone for saying ‘same-gender marriage’.
No, you misconstrue what I said.
I said I’m not being cissexist, but I was still offering to use ‘same-sex marriage’ if you preferred that one because that change of terminology does not cost me anything.
Moreover, I wasn’t trying to get you to listen to what I have to say at all.
Rather, I was trying to convince you not to divert this into a trial against me over this terminology issue; obviously, it was a long shot.
Actually, you should stop accusing me of being cissexist when I’m not being so because it’s the right thing to do.
And generally, you should stop accusing people on the basis of political correctness because it’s the right thing to do.
I’m not suggesting doing you a favor so you will listen to my points, but just getting you not to derail the thread by unfairly accuse me. Too late.
I did not throw anyone under the bus, but you threw me under the bus for no good reason.
Now you’re implying that I’m not a decent human being, also for no good reason, and further suggesting that those who use the term ‘same-gender marriage’ are not decent human beings, for no good reason but political correctness.
By the way, you probably are a decent human being in general, but it seems that your political correctness ideology leads you to some unwarranted attacks.
Just to reduce the risk of misunderstandings. The reason I mentioned the UK as an example is that even though ‘same-gender marriage’ would be more accurate than ‘same-sex marriage’ (or, for that matter, ‘gay marriage’) in the UK if one takes the words individually, the point is that that would be no good reason to object to someone’s using terms like ‘same-sex marriage’ or ‘gay marriage’, given that they’re understood, they denote the same kind of law, and if more accuracy is required in describing the different cases, then more precise descriptions can be given when needed.
The situation is similar with respect to the use of the terms in this thread. And ‘similar’ does not mean exactly the same, so you can find differences, but the point is that a lack of accuracy if you take the words one by one (which wasn’t intended to) is no good reason to reject the usage of a term, let alone to attack someone who used one in a context in which there was no need for a more precise description, as the kind of legislation that was being denoted was obvious.
FFS Angra Mainyu:
Are you trying to be obtuse?
This was not in anyway an attempt by me to derail. This was an attempt by me to inform you that you were using terms incorrectly that were insensitive and wrong to use. I give absolutely ZERO fucks if those “legal people” use the term all the time. I give ZERO fucks if 99% of the population uses the term. They are using them wrong. THEY are using the cis normatively because by using them in that way when you refer to SAME SEX MARRIAGE you equate gender and marriage. The words imply the default assumption that sex and gender are the same. Your intent/their intent is cissexist because it doesn’t actually care about what the words mean at the expense of erasing trans experience.
Think about it… a vast majority of the population still uses a triggering T word pejorative to refer to transgender people. Some or many of them don’t mean it as a pejorative but as the “common” thing that trans people are called. Does that make it any less a pejorative to use? No. Would I be wrong in calling someone out on their transphobia if I said hey “don’t do that” because the person had ten other points they were making and just happened to say a slur in the process? No.
YOU WERE WRONG.
I called you out on the wrong. The derail happened when you decided it was FAR more important to explain why you weren’t actually wrong (or why you think you weren’t wrong more accurately) than saying just “I didn’t know and wasn’t intending to equate the two and I won’t do it again.” Instead you dedicate the whole reply to explaining why you think it wasn’t wrong and a throwaway line that suggests if it bothers me you will stop using it. You furthermore add it with the caveat (intentional or not) that you not using the term means I not listen to what you have to say (whether I agree ot not).
That completely ignores that I initially attempted to pay deference to points that I did not yet have an opinion on. I went out of my way to make it clear that I wasn’t attempting to ignore those points because you were being cissexist. Instead of addressing that initial respect I paid you by intentionally stating that you did have points and I was paying attention to them (even though I did not have an opinion on them yet) you insisted that I was ignoring them as an attempt to derail. You tried to shut me up from calling out cissexism by saying that I am “just derailing.” Nothing I said would have been a derail had you not doubled down.
You provide me anecdotes about a country that wasn’t even being addressed. This post is dealing with US laws specifically and those laws are about same sex marriage and not same gender marriage. If in the UK the laws apply to same gender marriage as you say, then them using same sex marriage to talk about gender is still an equation of the two and still cisnormative.
I don’t remotely understand why using cisnormative terminology is important to you but you keep insisting on the validity of its use rather that simply saying “I won’t use it.” That is not to say you didn’t agree to not use it but rather that you dedicate an inordinate amount of time saying “no I wasn’t being cissexist” before you finally agree in a throw away line to not use them.
I got initially that you weren’t trying to be cissexist. That is why I didn’t come out and call you a cissexist asshole to begin with. I merely pointed out how equating sex and gender was generally considered cissexxist and how you were equating the two by calling it same gender marriage when we were actually talking about same sex marriage. I have no problem considering you to be willfully cissexist now when you keep implying that the defense of using cissexist terms valid instead of just not using them.
I wouldn’t expect anyone who didn’t know “bitch” was degrading to women to start out by not using the term. I would instead first inform them that it is degrading, let them know why it is degrading, and give them a chance to stop using it. That is what I did for you. You decided to go on a whole long reply and told me why “bitch” was ok to use while giveing one throwaway line dedicated to the fact that you won’t use it. It is NOT ok to use. I showed you why it is NOT ok to use. So it shouldn’t be about you not using it because it makes me happy. It should be about you using it because you care enough about the trans experience you wouldn’t want to use terms that erase that experience. I can only ascertain that you don’t actually care about the trans experience by you replies and that you care more about defending your use than “checking your privilege” so it seems.
I want to give a bit of full disclosure here myself. I am addressing this problem as a cis woman who may have engaged in some “privilege speak” myself. If I have, I expect others to call me out on it. I actually care about transgender issues beyond the the trans people I speak to directly so I don’t want my words to marginalize a whole group.
The last thing I am going to say is that you get to decide where you go from here. I have told you the term equates gender and sex. I have told you equating gender and sex is cissexist. You get to decide whether or not you want to use the terms at the expense of transgender people. You get to decide whether you want your words to be viewed as allies to the T on the end of LGBT. My suggestion if you want that, if you care about the trans experience, is that you stop equating gender and sex with your words even if you don’t with your intent. Otherwise keep on insisting on your right to say cissexist stuff. I haven’t take the right from you. I haven’t taken the intent from you. I have simply pointed out the implication outside your intent.
If Jason here considers my attempt to educate you on your cissexism a derail, I will stop this conversation right here. I won’t let you silence me from doing the right thing though.
@WilloNyx
The terms ‘same-sex marriage’, ‘gay marriage’ and ‘same-gender marriage’ are often used to talk about a number of similar arrangements.
Given the particular details of each jurisdiction, one of the terms may be more precise in some cases, another one in others, if one considers the words ‘gender’ and ‘marriage’ separately.
However, that does not mean that the degree of precision needed for each conversation is such that it requires refraining from using one of the terms in question, or that the usage of any of the terms entails that gender and sex are the same.
Not all contexts require the same amount of precision, and usually, any of the terms is clear enough for the matters at hand. If and when more precision is required, more can be given, though usually that will not take the form of just changing terms, but actually getting into the details of what the arrangements actually are about.
As for the use of the term ‘same-gender marriage’ on my part in this thread, that can’t reasonably be construed as implying any denial of science, or any fear or hatred transgender people, or any negative attitude towards them.
If in the US the word ‘same-sex marriage’ is more precise in the sense above, that does not make ‘same-gender marriage’ too imprecise for the matter at hand – i.e., it would not cause confusion at all -, let alone suggests that my statements indicate hostility, fear, etc., towards transgender people, or that I’m denying any science, or that I’m throwing a whole minority under the bus.
As for the use of the pejorative words, there is an obvious difference: the use of the expression ‘same-gender marriage’ does not say anything about transgender people, negative or otherwise.
It’s not as if people use ‘same-gender marriage’ as a means of insulting transgender people, or as a means of denying that they exist (or generally denying science, for that matter), etc.
In other words, ‘same-gender marriage’ is not a slur or pejorative term. It’s one of the three common terms to denote a type of related and similar arrangement; the choice of words may be more or less precise depending on context, but that’s not a problem as I said above.
Now, you didn’t call me on being wrong; rather, you accused accused me of a variety of things, without good reasons for that. I offered to change the terms because that would not have cost me anything, but you didn’t want to ask me to change terms, but rather raised a number of accusations from which I would defend myself.
The derail happened because you’re unfairly accusing me, and I’m defending myself.
That misrepresents my position. You assume that using ‘cisnormative terminology’ is important to me.
But I disagree with your claims that it’s cisnormative, and your accusations against me.
Moreover, you’re not only getting my position wrong; you’re also getting the psychology wrong. What is important to me now in this context is not ‘same-gender marriage’, but self-defense.
Again, I do not have a preference for any of the terms, and if you had only said you didn’t like that term, I would have had no problem just switching (since, again, it’s not at all important to me).
But the reason I continue is that I’m defending myself from your accusations because I disagree with therm, for the reasons I’ve been explaining, and I’m motivated to defend myself against unfair accusations.
Of course, no agreement between us is going to happen on the contentious issues (I’m familiar enough with on-line debates to ascertain that the odds of that happening are negligible), but given that you accuse me and I disagree, I defend myself and then readers can take a look at the exchange and reach their own conclusions.
But the accusation is false. As I explained, my usage of terms did not involve any denial of science, or any negative implications towards transgendered people.
An obvious difference is that ‘bitch’ is an insult, whereas ‘same-gender marriage’ is not, just as ‘same-sex marriage’ is not in the UK, and just as ‘gay marriage’ is not in any case.
It’s pretty obvious. People use ‘bitch’ to insult someone. They do not use ‘same-gender marriage’ to insult anyone, or to deny the existence of transgender people, etc.
You claimed that it’s not OK, made a number of other negative claims, and gave your arguments. I disagreed, and gave my arguments. People can read, and so they will reach their own conclusions. If you continue to accuse me, I might continue to defend myself until I’m satisfied with the degree of explanation about my position.
Now, as it turns out, I have now a reason not to use ‘same-gender marriage’ after all – namely, someone might object, accuse me of a number of things, etc., and that would require that I take time to defend myself on an issue that is really not at all important to me (defending myself is, but the words themselves I couldn’t care less).
While I hadn’t encountered this kind of attack before, it’s improbable that you’re the only one who would react as you did (fights over terminology nearly always involve groups of people involved in a certain matter, not isolated individuals), which does give me some reason to avoid the use of ‘same-gender marriage’.
If you can only ascertain that, it’s because you’re mistaken. You’re getting your psychological analysis wrong. I do care about is defending myself against unfair accusations.
As for my use of ‘same-gender marriage”, it does not have the connotations you claim it has, but I don’t really care about using it. I just picked one term that was precise enough for the context, though I might not do that in the future, at least if I’m not interested in fending off accusations such as yours.
Yes, you told me what you believe. I disagree. You gave your arguments, and I gave mine. We debated. Of course, you get to decide whether to continue with your accusations, which I reject. The use of ‘same-gender marriage’ on my part was not at the expense of anyone, and can’t be reasonably be construed as a statement that sex and gender are the same, a denial of science, etc.; but I’ve already explained my position, so for now that’s good enough.
That said, you did give me a good motivation not to use ‘same-gender marriage’ anymore: there is a non-negligible chance that I will be the target of a number of unfair accusations over it, and on top of that defending myself from them would take me time that I wouldn’t want to spend on a debate on the usage of a term I couldn’t care less about (a few hours so far, probably a lot more if you decide to continue the debate for a long period).
So, in a roundabout way, you may get part of the result you wanted – not all of the result you wanted, since I’m not going to accept your accusations, because they’re wrong (yes, of course I know you disagree; I disagree with your disagreement, etc., and that’s never going to change), but some of them.
You’re not doing the right thing, but I’m not trying to silence you (and I couldn’t if I tried, anyway). You misconstrued what I was doing when I offered to change the words, and I explained my reasons for offering that (readers can take a look if they feel like it).
Nice cis-splaining, dude.
Okay, so someone else joins in the attack, even if with less than an argument. While your attacks do increase the chances that I won’t challenge your mistaken ideology in the future (I have to prioritize, like everyone else, and this is really annoying), on the other hand, as long as I get attacked, I may further defend myself. So, let’s do that:
Cissexism may be a belief that transgendered people are inferior, or hatred or irrational fear of transgender people, or generally negative feelings towards transgender people. None of the above is indicated by the use of ‘same-gender marriage’.
Also, while the use of ‘same-gender marriage’ and ‘same-sex marriage’ does not entail a claim that there is no difference between the meaning of ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ in all contexts of usage, or that the referent of ‘same-gender’ and ‘same-sex’ is the same in all contexts of usage, that does not change the fact that the two expressions, as well as ‘gay marriage’, in the usual meaning of those expressions, mean the same (i.e., that’s how people use them). .
On that note, I said that “same-gender marriage”, “same-sex marriage” may be more or less precise depending on the jurisdiction, if we take the component words separately.
However, upon further consideration, I’ve come to realize that what I said was only part of the truth, and that I shouldn’t have accepted different degrees of precision in their usual meaning, anyway, since the fact is that ‘same-gender marriage’, ‘same-sex marriage’ and ‘gay marriage’ are usually used to mean the same.
So, I should have also said that picking apart expressions like ‘same-gender marriage’ and ‘same-sex marriage’ and consider them to have different meanings because of the different meanings of ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ in some usages, would actually be a mistaken interpretation of the terms ‘same-gender marriage’ and ‘same-sex marriage’.
But that aside, let’s consider not only ‘same-sex marriage’ and ‘same-gender marriage’, but the use of the words ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ alone as well. An insurmountable problem for your position is simply that meaning is determined by usage in a linguistic community at large, and not just by your usage.
That is not to say that ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ mean the same, if we understand that to mean that all of their meanings are the same. Each of the words has several meanings, and surely not all of them coincide.
However, if you just look it up in a dictionary, you’ll find that one of the meanings of ‘gender’ is in fact ‘sex’, and again that’s not slur, or any term intended to insult, etc., since ‘sex’ is not so.
So, while it would be mistaken to say that all of the usages of ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ mean the same, or that under the used proposed by WilloNyx, the same-gender people are always also same-sex people, it’s also not true that the usage of ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ to mean the same would be cissexist, as long as the terms are used in their usual meaning.
If you accuse someone of cissexism just because they use ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ to mean the same, then you are misconstruing what the other person is saying, and accusing them of saying what they’re not saying. In other words, that would be a false accusation on your part.
So, beyond the issue of the terms ‘same-gender marriage’, and ‘same-sex marriage’, I deny that using the stand-alone words ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ to mean the same entails or suggest cissexism. That’s part of your ideology, not of what the words mean.
Obviously, there are people who deny the existence of transgender people, or have negative feelings towards them, hatred, etc., but that does not justify accusing people who aren’t in that category, and who are using standard English words that aren’t slur.
Whoa, I’m making an observation, not an argument here: you’re the one busy demonstrating what a condescending, patronising git you are, complete with a citation of the dictionary. All because you can’t accept that someone might have brought up a valid point – same-sex is the correct terminology here.
But keep bloviating in an attempt to prove yourself right: you might be in line to win the most epic Not Getting the Point Award for 2012.