> I feel like this respect for being nice to each other so we can all get along is on the wane.
In my mind, part of that is that the rules are getting stricter, so people respect those rules less. Over time, the needle has moved further towards the idea that anyone can be offended by anything anyone else says. Even if it's clear (to the average person) that the speaker meant no harm (or even intended a totally different meaning for the words), the fact that someone is offended means that the speaker is wrong. Professors get sanctioned for using a racist word in a discussion about racism (and sometimes that word in particular).
At some point, people start seeing those rules as ridiculous and no longer respect them (though they may still feel compelled to follow them, for fear of repercussions).
> Over time, the needle has moved further towards the idea that anyone can be offended by anything anyone else says.
What do you mean by this? Are you talking about some contrived example where one person had their parents murdered by a maniac while shouting "bicycle" over and over which causes that word to be triggering ptsd for that individual. In that case that idea is correct since that, hypothetically, can happen for _any_ word yes. But how is that relevant to any of this?
1. A professor fired for using the N-word in a discussion about racial discrimination
2. A professor placed on leave for using a Chinese expression that sounded like the N-word
3. People that express the opinion that someone who has undergone a gender change operation is different from someone that was born that gender. Expressing an opinion that they're different in some ways; not mocking or insulting them.
4. A man saying "I'd fork that" about a software project and everything went sideways because someone else decided it was sexual and was offended by it.
On and on and on. It has gotten to the point that if someone THINKS you crossed an imaginary line, a line that keeps moving, then you can face severe personal and professional repercussions. I do not believe that this is good for us as a society. People are supposed to have differing opinions and then discuss those differences. People are supposed to be able to discuss things in general. People are supposed to be able to have a little fun.
Accidentally offending someone has turned into a horrible offense, and it's bad for our growth as a society.
3. The words you use for this are trans and cis. No one is going to get upset at someone for using them. If you are trying to use "creative" language to say the same thing you shouldn't be surprised when people take offense, considering that non-offensive terms already exist.
The word the most rabid "PC warriors" use for this are "man" and "woman". If you dare say "Trans women are different from other women in that...", you can bet there's some looney who will jump down your throat along the lines of "How dare you call this woman anything else but just 'a woman', you horrible bigot!"
If you didn't understand that this was what the GP meant you must have led an exceedingly sheltered online life until now. (Which, frankly, feels so unlikely that it feels nearer to hand that your comment was made in bad faith or, at best, unthinkingly.)
This hypothetical situation with the looney you made up is not very fleshed out. The looney seem to be referring to an individual woman that is somehow out of frame in the story and judging by the looneys remarks, the person who now is talking about trans women in general seem to have made previous remarks about the individual that was insensitive to that individuals desires to be referred to as a woman and not a trans woman. Which is kind of a dick move...
But cool story bro. Fight for your right to be a dick I guess.
>>>> [@RHSeeger:] 3. People that express the opinion that someone who has undergone a gender change operation is different from someone that was born that gender. Expressing an opinion that they're different in some ways; not mocking or insulting them.
>>> [@dehugger:] 3. The words you use for this are trans and cis. No one is going to get upset at someone for using them.
>> [Me:] The word the most rabid "PC warriors" use for this are "man" and "woman". If you dare say "Trans women are different from other women in that...", you can bet there's some looney who will jump down your throat [...]
> This hypothetical situation with the looney you made up is not very fleshed out.
Fleshed out enough for anyone reasonably intelligent to get the gist, I would have thought. What, exactly, did you not understand?
> The looney seem to be referring to an individual woman that is somehow out of frame in the story
What "story" -- my hypothetical? Since "the looney" is prominently mentioned in it, how can they be "out of frame"?!?
> and judging by the looneys remarks, the person who now is talking about trans women in general seem to have made previous remarks about the individual
No, absolutely not. Where on Earth did you get that from? My hypothetical was talking about trans women in general, period. There's no need to make up any complicated backstory, because what I said was all I wanted and needed to say: If you dare say, in a general discussion on the Internet, e.g, "Trans women are different from other women in that...", you can bet there's some looney who will jump down your throat BECAUSE you used the term "trans women"; to some people that, too, is anathema because it "singles out" trans women from other women. Some people are so blinded by PC that to them, acknowledging any difference is a sin.
> that was insensitive to that individuals desires to be referred to as a woman and not a trans woman. Which is kind of a dick move...
Yeah, in your weird made-up story that has nothing to do with anything. You are of course perfectly free to make up little fairy tales and publish them on the Internet, but not to impute them as back-stories to anything I (or anyone else) has said. Don't put your shit in my mouth.
> But cool story bro. Fight for your right to be a dick I guess.
If anyone is "being a dick" here, AFAICS it's you.
I used the words that seemed the most obvious way to express myself. I would have had to look up the term cis to make sure I was using it the right way, and there wasn't a good reason to. The fact that someone could possibly be offended by the use of the words I chose shows part of the problem. That's like saying you think "Italian-American" is ok, but "An American citizen with Italian ancestors" is offensive. It's a clear, well understood description of the trait being discussed that expresses no judgement. It _cannot_ be offensive under any normal circumstances.
I think that's a slightly different problem - there is a purity spiral going on in academia (and Twitter) around the definition of "offensive" language.
Purity spirals never end well. The most famous one ended up with people being burnt alive as witches.
But it is a purity spiral - if you don't intend to be considered "pure" then it doesn't matter and you can effectively ignore it. Though whether your employer agrees or not is a different matter.
In my mind, part of that is that the rules are getting stricter, so people respect those rules less. Over time, the needle has moved further towards the idea that anyone can be offended by anything anyone else says. Even if it's clear (to the average person) that the speaker meant no harm (or even intended a totally different meaning for the words), the fact that someone is offended means that the speaker is wrong. Professors get sanctioned for using a racist word in a discussion about racism (and sometimes that word in particular).
At some point, people start seeing those rules as ridiculous and no longer respect them (though they may still feel compelled to follow them, for fear of repercussions).