damnedfurry

When you’re talking about gay folk and same sex attraction conceptually, you don’t call it “homosexualism” or “gayology”. You would use the term homosexuality or same sex attraction.

Okay, so if I want a single word, "transgenderality"? That really just sounds bizarre, I have to say. Not to mention I've never seen any person talking about trans issues ever say/write that.

The issue is explicitly the “ism”. The -ism suffix is used to denote political and ideological beliefs

That's only one way that suffix is used, and it's assumption on your part that when you see that suffix, that that's the way it's being used. In other words, I think you should allow for the possibility that it ain't that deep. Was it not obvious from the context of what/how I was writing that I wasn't coming from a transphobic place?

-ism is used for all sorts of nouns that simply describe a state of being (e.g. autism, alcoholism, absenteeism), and that's all I aimed for. And from what you said in your comment, it seems like this is uncharted territory, if there's no actual single word term regularly employed for this particular state of being—all of your examples are multiple words.

P.S. By the way, I'm not at all dissuaded by something that is inherently benign being popular among shitty people—in my opinion, all the more reason to take it away from them, by using it benignly more often than they use it pejoratively. It was successfully done with "queer", I say keep that train running!

part of identity is our relationships to other people.

I wouldn't agree, simply because I consider relationships as existing between people, not within them individually, and more as 'facts of the matter', as opposed to immutable aspects of individuals themselves. But again, this is simply a disagreement on the definition of "identity". I'm not saying your definition is wrong, but it obviously is different.

A familial connection is a fact about someone's lineage, but it is no more a part of someone's identity than to the extent that that individual chooses to make it so. If I was adopted and have never met the woman who birthed me, then yes, she's still my mother even though I never knew her. But that being a fact has no inherent relationship to my identity. The same is true if I was raised by my birth mother but am now estranged, and she has no part of/in my life—she'll always literally be my mother, but in this case, her existence is no part of my identity any longer.

Nonconsensual trauma that alters one's sense of self against one's will is the only thing that muddies this water at all, I think, but even in a case like that, it is only from within that whatever degree (whether zero or nonzero) those events shape one's identity, can change.

You can indeed become a completely different person when afflicted with Alzheimer's, dementia, or a brain tumor. It doesn't retroactively change who you were before, of course...but it can absolutely fundamentally change you.

I never asserted that identity is immutable, nor that only that it is not defined by outside perception of other people.

Also, “transgenderism” is a term popular with transphobes, because it frames trans people as a belief/ideology, rather than acknowledging their identity.

What am I supposed to call it, when talking about this as a concept, outside of referring to a specific person. Transgendericity? Transgenderology?

Throw me a bone here, don't just insinuate I'm a transphobe just because I casually tossed 'ism' onto the end of a word to noun-ify it in a sentence, without even offering a correction.

Every person who knows you has a concept of you in their minds.

Yes, of course.

This is a part of your identity

I don't agree with calling that concept "identity". Others' "concept of you" is just that, their idea of you. That does not define you, in any way.

It’s why people are negatively affected when others misgender them.

Actually, I think this bolsters my point, not yours. The whole reason being misgendered is a negative experience is because that person's "concept of you" is wrong. They see you that way, but that is not the way you are. Your identity comes from you, and you alone.

In the end, it's obvious we have different definitions of "identity" and that's what our disagreement is rooted in. I define identity as the sum of what comprises one's sense of self.

I think you could say part of one’s identity exists outside of the person.

That doesn't really make sense to me. It would imply that some part of who you are is defined by outside perception, and I definitely don't agree with that, especially considering that there are an indefinite number of outside perspectives, and some number of those perspectives could definitely be mutually exclusive with others, making it impossible for them both to be correct.

Simple analogy: if a triangle is viewed 'face-on' by one person and directly 'edge-on' by another, the former will perceive it as a triangle, and the latter, as a line. Something can't be a line and a triangle simultaneously, so how can these outside perspectives both be any part of what defines the identity of that object?

🤓 Being trans has to do with gender identity, not sex. The whole foundation of transgenderism as a concept is that sex and gender identity are independent elements of a person. So as a corollary (I think, haven't used that word in a while lol), no non-sapient creature can ever be trans, because you need consciousness to have a gender identity in the first place.

Suddenly remembered Mitch Hedberg saying on stage, after some of his newer material didn't land as well, "My old shit's better than my new shit~"

Maybe you've just peaked, Ruth, lol.

I don't think "Hate has consequences" is a sentence someone trying to create clickbait to rile up racists would add to the end of this. I really don't get the impression they were deliberately trying to trivialize or minimize the crimes.

Given that the OOP obviously isn't trying to paint them in a sympathetic light or anything (last sentence makes that crystal clear), why on Earth did they leave out the armed threats, the by-far-most-damning aspect of what those two did?

Good job by the community note.

I’m confused, didn’t you answer your own question?

No, there is a difference in motivation between doing whatever you want because you believe it's hopeless re 'consuming ethically', and doing whatever you want because you've never given a single thought to the matter of 'ethical consumption' at all.

My contention is simply that the vast majority of people who 'do whatever' are in the latter category, that's all.

people who interpret “no ethical consumption under capitalism” as a license to do whatever they want, because it’s all unethical.

Have you actually encountered someone who did this? Everyone I've ever known of who was in the 'do whatever they want' mindset, certainly wasn't because of how they interpreted that 'slogan', it was just because they don't give a shit to begin with—they almost certainly had never even heard it before.