Vampires, werewolves, and Otherkin, oh my!

[Cranium Squirrel]

celticfireguardian

Not every part of all religions has scripture and such to back it up.

Like how? Most people that I've known will generally draw from scripture or mythology a rationalization for why it is that they do things. It may not be obvious in scripture or story to an outsider, and there may be personal interpretations going on, but practices and beliefs in most religions with a codified scripture will draw on the scripture to back up their belief.

Quote:

It's what just feels right.

Not always. Sometimes religion, due to scripture and understanding thereof, is antithetical to what feels right to people - yet they do it anyway. A prime example is meditation in Buddhism. It doesn't always feel good - and in some cases, can feel the opposite, both physically and mentally - but it gets done anyway, because the practice is considered essential to development of understanding.

Quote:

I mean the Bible has scriptures but that doesn't mean that they are right or that they can be backed up or used in a debate.

They can if that debate is about the contents or meaning of the scripture. It can also be used to back up why a Christian church may do certain things - for example, using the story of the Last Supper to back up the Communion Rite. 3nodding  

[Kuroiban]

celticfireguardian

I don't have time to explain every thing so here is another article for you all. From http://www.otherkin.net/articles/what.html

I'm not going to lie, I had problems with this article fairly early on.

celticfireguardian

On the face of it, it is a remarkably difficult conclusion to reach, not only is the evidence scant at best, but to define yourself as not human requires defining what human means - an exercise which philosophers for millennia have failed to complete.

So the author is already saying, in his/her opening, that in order to define yourself as something other then human, you need to define what human is...and that centuries worth of philosophers have failed to do such.

So I'm to believe 25 year old people claiming to be dragons have out-thought the masters - people like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, The Buddha, Sir Francis Bacon, etc - and figured out the definition of the human condition. Not only have they done that, they've also figured out they're something BEYOND said condition. I don't believe that.

celticfireguardian

2 - Appeal to spirit

This hinges, entirely, on "Because I say so".

celticfireguardian

3 - Appeal to psychology

I can accept this to some degree....but I don't think most of this argument rests on weather or not a Unicorn can be a spirit animal

celticfireguardian

4 - Escapism and mental aberration

This is certainly the explanation that I favor.

celticfireguardian

5 - All of the above
Whilst the above explanations are presented as distinct categories, people do not necessarily fall into only one of them. There are those who claim physical differences, and past lives. There are those who are both in therapy for mental health problems and otherkin (and which is cause and which effect is debatable).

In the end, without further evidence, it comes down to a matter of personal belief. As personal beliefs go, it's relatively harmless.

I'm sorry, this article really didn't give much. It provided plenty of ideas, but nothing in the way of substance.

celticfireguardian

Not every part of all religions has scripture and such to back it up. It's what just feels right. I mean the Bible has scriptures but that doesn't mean that they are right or that they can be backed up or used in a debate.

eek

Look, you are right about one part; not all parts of a religion are scripture and the like. However scripture, thought, and reason are the foundation upon which most religions are based.

The bolded part is amazingly, and I mean AMAZINGLY, ignorant. It really showcases you don't know how religion works. Hell, Solo Scritura is still practiced in some denominations of Christanity!

The "do what feels right" philosophy has it's place (a very LIMITED place at best, but a place none the less), but it is most certainly NOT in deciding what is or is a core belief of a given faith.

Regardless of all that, you've completely ignored my question.
Is this faith or is this fact?  

[Underworld Priestess]

Byaggha

celticfireguardian

Not every part of all religions has scripture and such to back it up.

Like how? Most people that I've known will generally draw from scripture or mythology a rationalization for why it is that they do things. It may not be obvious in scripture or story to an outsider, and there may be personal interpretations going on, but practices and beliefs in most religions with a codified scripture will draw on the scripture to back up their belief.

Quote:

It's what just feels right.

Not always. Sometimes religion, due to scripture and understanding thereof, is antithetical to what feels right to people - yet they do it anyway. A prime example is meditation in Buddhism. It doesn't always feel good - and in some cases, can feel the opposite, both physically and mentally - but it gets done anyway, because the practice is considered essential to development of understanding.

Quote:

I mean the Bible has scriptures but that doesn't mean that they are right or that they can be backed up or used in a debate.

They can if that debate is about the contents or meaning of the scripture. It can also be used to back up why a Christian church may do certain things - for example, using the story of the Last Supper to back up the Communion Rite. 3nodding

Mythology is not the best way to back something up fact. I'm a solitary eccletic pagan, I do not have anything that I feel is useful to back my argument up. Just because it is written doesn't make it right.  

[Underworld Priestess]

Forget it, I may no longer wasting my time trying to debate something that is just my opinion. If you want evidence do your own research!  

[Cranium Squirrel]

celticfireguardian

Mythology is not the best way to back something up fact.

It can be, if the arguement is about the facts of how or why a ritual is performed, as I said. 3nodding

Quote:

I'm a solitary eccletic pagan, I do not have anything that I feel is useful to back my argument up.

Then you don't. But some of us do, and you shouldn't discount us because you can't find something workable. 3nodding

Quote:

Just because it is written doesn't make it right.

Oh, agreed, that's not the end of it. Prodding needs to be done, and some questioning.

But what about those of us who take our scripture and test it against our observable reality until satisfied the writings are correct? I, for instance, am not supposed to take something at face value because it is in a holy book - not even that line. Are our scriptures invalid too, even though we find them correct?  

[Kuroiban]

celticfireguardian

Forget it, I may no longer wasting my time trying to debate something that is just my opinion. If you want evidence do your own research!

burning_eyes

People like you really disturb me.

Some minor points

1) It's not my job to do research to prove you right. It's not my fault you picked crap reference material.
2) I didn't ask for research; I asked you to answer a simple question. Which you refused to answer.

Everyone has an opinion kid. An opinion, by itself, is meaningless. Absolutely, completely, 100% meaningless. It's what's behind the opinion that makes it have weight and substance. If you want to be taken seriously, just because you have an opinion...well...it's going to be a rough ride for you.  

[Recursive Paradox]

Byaggha

Celeblin Galadeneryn

She's right about blood having a flavour and scent though. Kind of like clean pennies. Not altogether unpleasant.

Oh, agreed. Coppery flavour and a smell to match. It is rather nifty, though in high volume, probably one of the worst smells ever. But I think that's just nursing training kicking in. 3nodding

I like the flavor of copper, I often lick pennies (which is actually really gross). I just can't handle the texture of blood. It's a thick, nasty fluid.

Celeblin Galadeneryn

It's also possible he's just read a lot of fiction, because he's only displaying fictional aspects of lycanthropy. The silver thing? Yeah that's not so much in folk lore, the first time it appears is in an 18th century French tale. You want to see if he fits the non-fictional description? Try rubbing rye or mistletoe on him and see what happens.

Or this. XD

Quote:

The moon thing seems to be related to werewolves, but I haven't seen anything about emotionality with the changing of the tides.

Hormonal cycles (like Kuroiban said) and gravity sensitivity can mess with people. We used to think that menstruation was linked to the moon.

@Kuroiban: Please don't use the word crazy to describe erratic, irrational or emotional. It's ableist.  

[Kuroiban]

Recursive Paradox

@Kuroiban: Please don't use the word crazy to describe erratic, irrational or emotional. It's ableist.

I think you're thinking of Collo...I can't find where I used it.  

[Collowrath]

Kuroiban

Recursive Paradox

@Kuroiban: Please don't use the word crazy to describe erratic, irrational or emotional. It's ableist.

I think you're thinking of Collo...I can't find where I used it.

I couldn't either - I'm pretty sure she means me.

That said, crazy means erratic, irrational, or eccentric, unsound, impaired (key words pulled from Oxford English) - it's use here was perfectly in keeping with the use of the word since oh say, 1576 (essentially, no reference to medical condition, the ability of a person, etc, but simply that they or an institution or thing is acting in an erratic or irrational way that is out of their norm).

I made reference to a social construction that sometimes makes people act irrationally or erratically, contrary to their norm. Please demonstrate how that is albeist in a way that a word like "strange" or "sick" is not. confused  

[Recursive Paradox]

Collowrath

Kuroiban

Recursive Paradox

@Kuroiban: Please don't use the word crazy to describe erratic, irrational or emotional. It's ableist.

I think you're thinking of Collo...I can't find where I used it.

I couldn't either - I'm pretty sure she means me.

Yeah, oops on the name. I've been scattered lately.

Quote:

That said, crazy means erratic, irrational, or eccentric, unsound, impaired (key words pulled from Oxford English) - it's use here was perfectly in keeping with the use of the word since oh say, 1576 (essentially, no reference to medical condition, the ability of a person, etc, but simply that they or an institution or thing is acting in an erratic or irrational way that is out of their norm).

Crazy is currently used (and has in the past) as a slur for individuals with mental illness (which is classed under ableism but could also be referred to as psychophobia). Because of its active use to describe individuals with mental illness (and also individuals with mental disabilities at times) slur wise, the word is problematic and creates an ableist effect in any area where its regularly used, unless all individuals impacted by the word in the area its being used in have given their approval and don't find it's impact to be harmful.

Much like the slur tranny. Which commonly used to mean transmission (like in a car). However, it's current usage wounds and attacks trans women in slur format. Therefore it is problematic despite its history.

Quote:

I made reference to a social construction that sometimes makes people act irrationally or erratically, contrary to their norm. Please demonstrate how that is albeist in a way that a word like "strange" or "sick" is not. confused

The arguments on sick being ableist are ones I'm less familiar with, however I have heard arguments that using the word sick to describe irrational behavior is conflating mental illness with erratic or irrational actions (when they don't necessarily mesh). Strange on the other hand has not really been constructed into a slur for the mentally ill. I've yet to find any linkages to psychophobic ableism.

This call out is not on anyone's behalf, the word crazy has been used as a slur against me for my gender identity disorder, my depression, even my ADD. It is of personal impact when people use it. I find the impact on me to be harmful, therefore it has a problematic impact here.  

[Recursive Paradox]

Celeblin Galadeneryn

The only problem with crazy is that when you're using it to describe someone who's anything other than erratic, irrational, or emotional, you're using it wrong. Because it doesn't describe someone as anything other than erratic, irrational, or emotional. Using it to describe someone with a mental illness is wrong. You're asking him not to use the correct definition of the word because an incorrect definition is being applied to people with mental illness.

I'm actually asking him to avoid it because it causes personal harm to me and quite possibly to other people with disabilities.

Much like the word tranny and how it actually means transmission. Still hurts trans women a lot. Still ought to be avoided in those contexts.  

[Collowrath]

Recursive Paradox

Quote:

That said, crazy means erratic, irrational, or eccentric, unsound, impaired (key words pulled from Oxford English) - it's use here was perfectly in keeping with the use of the word since oh say, 1576 (essentially, no reference to medical condition, the ability of a person, etc, but simply that they or an institution or thing is acting in an erratic or irrational way that is out of their norm).

Crazy is currently used (and has in the past) as a slur for individuals with mental illness (which is classed under ableism but could also be referred to as psychophobia). Because of its active use to describe individuals with mental illness (and also individuals with mental disabilities at times) slur wise, the word is problematic and creates an ableist effect in any area where its regularly used, unless all individuals impacted by the word in the area its being used in have given their approval and don't find it's impact to be harmful.

Except, in the past, it simply referred to something that was not functioning properly. The usage of crazy toward the mentally disabled is relatively recent.

As Celeblin said, yes, it's used in a shitty way sometimes, but you're asking me to use the word incorrectly to combat... people using it incorrectly? :/

Quote:

Much like the slur tranny. Which commonly used to mean transmission (like in a car). However, it's current usage wounds and attacks trans women in slur format. Therefore it is problematic despite its history.

It's only problematic when it's being used wrong. Even so, this is non-standard in most places. Hell, I've never seen crazy used as a slur anything like tranny or retard are - I have, however, seen it used toward people who have a genuine problem that makes them appear strange or eccentric, but that's just what the word means. Fixing that problem doesn't mean removing a useful word from vocabulary, it means telling someone "no, she's not crazy, she has such-and-such disorder."

Quote:

The arguments on sick being ableist are ones I'm less familiar with, however I have heard arguments that using the word sick to describe irrational behavior is conflating mental illness with erratic or irrational actions (when they don't necessarily mesh). Strange on the other hand has not really been constructed into a slur for the mentally ill. I've yet to find any linkages to psychophobic ableism.

Strange is a marker of something as "other," I'm sure it has an -ism. xp

My intention by introducing sick and strange here, was that those words are on the same level as crazy is - it marks something as an other because of a perceived difference (illness, differentness, irrationality, respectively), but since sick and strange aren't usually used to refer to the disabled (in the same way that crazy doesn't), you haven't tagged them for censorship on the charge of ableism.

Quote:

This call out is not on anyone's behalf, the word crazy has been used as a slur against me for my gender identity disorder, my depression, even my ADD. It is of personal impact when people use it. I find the impact on me to be harmful, therefore it has a problematic impact here.

That's unfortunate. Since the word bothers you, I will be more careful about finding alternatives in the future.  

[Recursive Paradox]

Collowrath

Except, in the past, it simply referred to something that was not functioning properly. The usage of crazy toward the mentally disabled is relatively recent.

It being recent really changes absolutely nothing.

Quote:

As Celeblin said, yes, it's used in a shitty way sometimes, but you're asking me to use the word incorrectly to combat... people using it incorrectly? :/

I'm asking you to access the ethics of using it. I'd prefer you not use it except in contexts wherein anyone who is impacted by the word is either not present or is perfectly okay with it being used correctly. Not once have I asked you to use it incorrectly nor do I want you to.

Quote:

It's only problematic when it's being used wrong.

The usage and intent behind a word has absolutely no bearing on whether it causes harm from a marginalized person hearing it with their psychological association between it and violence and marginalization. The word tranny can still be intensely damaging when used to describe a transmission, if you're near a trans person who's been beaten while being called that word.

Psychological associations are built in minds between words and events. It's the reason why words can wound people emotionally. Also, concepts attached to the words can attack psychological and emotional points in a person when those concepts are in and of themselves attacks on a person's very existence. This is a large part of how psychological abuse and internalized marginalization works.

This is unbelievably common with many slurs, largely because slurs are slang words in many contexts. So the words have a proper usage and the slur usage. "f*****t" for instance, is a cigarette in Europe and small pieces of wood here. This does not change the fact that using "f*****t" around gay folk can be supremely harmful even if you're using it to describe wood or grabbing some smokes.

Some folk can function just fine when context pushes the word to a different concept. A friend of mine has no issue with the word f*****t when it's used to describe cigarettes or small pieces of firewood. This does not hold true for all people, and when harm is done, the word is problematic, no expections.

Quote:

Even so, this is non-standard in most places. Hell, I've never seen crazy used as a slur anything like tranny or retard are - I have, however, seen it used toward people who have a genuine problem that makes them appear strange or eccentric, but that's just what the word means.

So what you're saying is, slur usage isn't even always improper usage. Sort of kills your whole point from the beginning.

There's another operative problem here. Difference and eccentricity (even when not from mental illness) are not necessarily problems, yet crazy is used to construct them as so by many people. This, in and of itself is othering and by virtue of that, ableist.

Also, crazy being applied to people with mental illness often uses the same logic you used here. To those people, mental illness is the problem, the effects of it on behavior is the strangeness and eccentricity. Can you not see how this becomes problematic? Crazy's usage as a slur actually fits its proper use when a mentally ill person appears "eccentric" and then it not only is used as a base slur, it's meaning is used to other the person with the disability, which is a major component of marginalization.

Besides, do you have mental illness? Is one's experience of slurs for mental illness really of all that much worth when it's unlikely they'd be exposed to much of it without one? If a cis person said, "well I don't hear tranny used all that much as a slur, I think you're blowing out of proportion" when I've already told you how much it's used against me, would you really believe the cis person over the trans person?

Quote:

Fixing that problem doesn't mean removing a useful word from vocabulary, it means telling someone "no, she's not crazy, she has such-and-such disorder."

Anyone could easily use your logic to describe the disorder as the problem that causes the eccentricity. So such a counter argument would be completely ineffective. And the word has redundancy with eccentric and strange in a sentence. It isn't like you lose the ability to describe a given concept by dropping the word, but what does disappear is the othering effect of crazy. Not a big loss.

Quote:

Quote:

The arguments on sick being ableist are ones I'm less familiar with, however I have heard arguments that using the word sick to describe irrational behavior is conflating mental illness with erratic or irrational actions (when they don't necessarily mesh). Strange on the other hand has not really been constructed into a slur for the mentally ill. I've yet to find any linkages to psychophobic ableism.

Strange is a marker of something as "other," I'm sure it has an -ism. xp

More likely, strange is used as an attack word for multiple -isms, which tends to make it not function as a slur.

Quote:

My intention by introducing sick and strange here, was that those words are on the same level as crazy is - it marks something as an other because of a perceived difference (illness, differentness, irrationality, respectively), but since sick and strange aren't usually used to refer to the disabled (in the same way that crazy doesn't), you haven't tagged them for censorship on the charge of ableism.

Marking something as an other for perceived difference (illness and irrationality especially) is problematic in and of itself (and often moves towards ableism). But the word sick has not, to my knowledge, been used as a slur. Neither has strange. I have tagged crazy as a problem for the fact that it is used to wound people with disabilities regularly enough in the past and now to become a slur. Which is what makes crazy problematic in and of itself. So you bringing up sick and strange does not establish crazy to be viable as a word because they possess different effects and the effects are what matters.

I mean, unless you don't care about hurting marginalized people. Then it wouldn't matter at all. This is not a shot at you either. This is me pointing out that you are giving the impression of ignoring the well being of an entire group of people in favor of using a word you like to have around. It gives off a bad, fairly bigoted vibe.

This isn't censorship, this is me asking you to be mindful of both your privilege (if you don't have a mental illness) and the damage your words do to marginalized individuals. I would hope being mindful of that would encourage you to replace the word or adjust the contexts you use it in but it may not (many people feel that harm to others is not adequate reason for adjusting word usage) and in such a case, I wouldn't have anything more to say to you on the matter. I'm not telling you not to say the word, I'm questioning the ethics of saying the word in a given context. Questioning your ethics specifically.

As an aside, constructing my questioning of your ethics in terms of harming marginalized people as censorship is a fairly common derailing tactic, which also creates a very bad bad impression of you and your intentions.

Quote:

Quote:

This call out is not on anyone's behalf, the word crazy has been used as a slur against me for my gender identity disorder, my depression, even my ADD. It is of personal impact when people use it. I find the impact on me to be harmful, therefore it has a problematic impact here.

That's unfortunate. Since the word bothers you, I will be more careful about finding alternatives in the future.

...if you were going to stop using the word around me and others it hurts to begin with, why did you attempt to justify using it around me and others it hurts? o_O

I'm very confused.  

[Collowrath]

Recursive Paradox

I'm asking you to access the ethics of using it. I'd prefer you not use it except in contexts wherein anyone who is impacted by the word is either not present or is perfectly okay with it being used correctly. Not once have I asked you to use it incorrectly nor do I want you to.

But you did:

Recursive Paradox

@Kuroiban: Please don't use the word crazy to describe erratic, irrational or emotional. It's ableist.

And it's been defined at least twice now.

From Oxford English: a mad or eccentric person, Full of cracks or flaws; damaged, impaired, unsound; liable to break or fall to pieces; frail, ‘shaky’. (Now usually of ships, buildings, etc.) and US English slang, as Extremely; ‘madly’.

Essentially, yeah, it means erratic, irrational, eccentric, unsound, etc. My use was correct, and you said "don't use it that way."

My problem was with claiming it was ableist.

Quote:

This is unbelievably common with many slurs, largely because slurs are slang words in many contexts. So the words have a proper usage and the slur usage. "f*****t" for instance, is a cigarette in Europe and small pieces of wood here. This does not change the fact that using "f*****t" around gay folk can be supremely harmful even if you're using it to describe wood or grabbing some smokes.

Some folk can function just fine when context pushes the word to a different concept. A friend of mine has no issue with the word f*****t when it's used to describe cigarettes or small pieces of firewood. This does not hold true for all people, and when harm is done, the word is problematic, no expections.

Quote:

Even so, this is non-standard in most places. Hell, I've never seen crazy used as a slur anything like tranny or retard are - I have, however, seen it used toward people who have a genuine problem that makes them appear strange or eccentric, but that's just what the word means.

So what you're saying is, slur usage isn't even always improper usage. Sort of kills your whole point from the beginning.

Not really, I was just establishing that I had not seen crazy used at all in the same regard as tranny.

Also, you still haven't shown that crazy is a slur, aside from you not liking it.

Quote:

There's another operative problem here. Difference and eccentricity (even when not from mental illness) are not necessarily problems, yet crazy is used to construct them as so by many people. This, in and of itself is othering and by virtue of that, ableist.

Why is marking something as different from the mainstream necessarily bad and ableist? Please show that marking something as not like something else, or an established norm, is inherently harmful in every case.

I understand the use of othering as part and parcel of marginalization - but the marginalization isn't a necessary part in all cases. If it were, then Cú is in the wrong for marking us as gallí and Tea for marking us gadže.

Quote:

Also, crazy being applied to people with mental illness often uses the same logic you used here. To those people, mental illness is the problem, the effects of it on behavior is the strangeness and eccentricity. Can you not see how this becomes problematic? Crazy's usage as a slur actually fits its proper use when a mentally ill person appears "eccentric" and then it not only is used as a base slur, it's meaning is used to other the person with the disability, which is a major component of marginalization.

I actually intended to mention this in my last post, but didn't have the time. I apologize.

In cases like this, there needs to be an open dialogue about mental illness. Yes, it would be correct through the base definition to refer to someone with a mental illness. But there are better ways to discuss it. For instance, I have an aunt who is bipolar with schizophrenic tendencies (I think there is a different diagnosis for it now). She appears to do irrational, crazy things sometimes because of this. But there is a better way to discuss what's going on than "she's crazy" - she is bipolar, not just eccentric or irrational.

Quote:

Besides, do you have mental illness?

As much as this might help the discussion, I'm really not comfortable discussing it. :/

Quote:

Is one's experience of slurs for mental illness really of all that much worth when it's unlikely they'd be exposed to much of it without one? If a cis person said, "well I don't hear tranny used all that much as a slur, I think you're blowing out of proportion" when I've already told you how much it's used against me, would you really believe the cis person over the trans person?

You're being a bit presumptuous here.

I simply stated that I hadn't really seen it used as a slur so much in explanation of my reaction to your claims. That is all.

Quote:

Quote:

Fixing that problem doesn't mean removing a useful word from vocabulary, it means telling someone "no, she's not crazy, she has such-and-such disorder."

Anyone could easily use your logic to describe the disorder as the problem that causes the eccentricity. So such a counter argument would be completely ineffective. And the word has redundancy with eccentric and strange in a sentence. It isn't like you lose the ability to describe a given concept by dropping the word, but what does disappear is the othering effect of crazy. Not a big loss.

I'm having trouble digging meaning out of this. sad

Quote:

More likely, strange is used as an attack word for multiple -isms, which tends to make it not function as a slur.

Really? So ****** isn't a slur because it's used in compound words to refer to different groups of people? :/

Quote:

Marking something as an other for perceived difference (illness and irrationality especially) is problematic in and of itself (and often moves towards ableism).

So essentially, a better argument would be that we should be more careful with our use of the word crazy, because it rides the line of ableism and is thus problematic (which I've admitted), but the word itself isn't necessarily ableist in every use.

Quote:

But the word sick has not, to my knowledge, been used as a slur. Neither has strange. I have tagged crazy as a problem for the fact that it is used to wound people with disabilities regularly enough in the past and now to become a slur. Which is what makes crazy problematic in and of itself. So you bringing up sick and strange does not establish crazy to be viable as a word because they possess different effects and the effects are what matters.

I think the problem here is one that you've pegged toward me earlier - you're assuming that your experience with the word crazy trumps mine because of a series of assumptions you've made about me.

Quote:

I mean, unless you don't care about hurting marginalized people.

I know emotive language like this is popular in debate, but please, the assumptions about me are getting to border on the ridiculous.

Quote:

Then it wouldn't matter at all. This is not a shot at you either.

"You're an unethical bigot for not agreeing with me, but I'm not taking a shot at you!"

:/

Quote:

This is me pointing out that you are giving the impression of ignoring the well being of an entire group of people in favor of using a word you like to have around. It gives off a bad, fairly bigoted vibe.

This is more you being presumptuous and throwing nasty words at me because you don't like that I didn't just agree with you. Seriously? If you continue down this line, I'm going to have to just report you and leave it at that. No, I didn't agree and still don't completely agree that crazy is necessarily ableist (though I do see your point and I do see that the word is problematic, thus why I offered to find alternatives) and you're construing me as a bigot, unethical, and for the marginalization of groups of people is uncalled for and smacks of trying to distract me and others from the actual discussion here.

Quote:

As an aside, constructing my questioning of your ethics in terms of harming marginalized people as censorship is a fairly common derailing tactic, which also creates a very bad bad impression of you and your intentions.

You misunderstood my usage of the word - which is thoroughly understandable given that censorship is a pretty shitty buzzword. I simply meant the kind of self-censorship that people use all the time for the sake of not being an a*****e.

For instance, assume for a second that I'm a hobbyist mechanic with a penchant for expensive European cars (not a hard assumption, given the way I've been drooling over this Audi recently...), and thus have used tranny quite often in respect to transmissions - but I've never heard of tranny used as an insult. Someone hears me saying it somewhere and tells me about its other usage. Seeing the harm my naiveté was causing, I tag the word for self-censorship and use transmission in the future.

Quote:

...if you were going to stop using the word around me and others it hurts to begin with, why did you attempt to justify using it around me and others it hurts? o_O

I'm very confused.

You shouldn't be confused. I recognized that you weren't comfortable with the word and offered to find alternatives. I'm still pretty free to disagree with your charge of ableism, especially when your evidence amounted to "I don't like it." You shouldn't read that much into my desire to understand further.